I disagree. I think this is great.

This year there would typically be 20 racers in the 3's and 80 in the combined 4's. This will address that disparity, and it will make the 4's more welcoming to newbies by helping flush out the experienced roadies and other sandbagger.

Lowering the bar into the 3's makes total sense. A rider such as myself could get top 10's in the entire ChiCrossCup and still not have the points to upgrade. Now I can upgrade, and I'm happy for it. Yes, obviously there are plenty of riders who have raced 5 times who are not ready for an 3's, but presumably they will recognize that and stay in the 4's until they get decent results.

I don't think this will add to any disparity in the 3's. The guys who got top 5 in the 4's this year could have also gotten top 5 in the 3's (witness Aspen Gorey's performance in Indiana, where he won the state championshp in the 3's after getting top 5 in all the 4's races in Chicago). Furthermore, so what if it did? What difference does 20 extra overmatched racers make to the top 3's riders? More people they have to lap? Better to have a 3's field of 40 disparate riders than a 4's field of 80. (It's no fun for anyone to start a CX race behind 79 others.)

I will be intersted to see how it plays out next year. I am all for the Cat. 3 race getting bigger. Racing against 15 guys isn't much fun. As luke pointed out the Top 10-15 guys in the 4's last year in the Chi series would be competititive in the 3's. I also happy to see the automatic upgrade rule. This will hopefully alleviate the sandbagging problem that is prevalent across the country.

This has been on my mind for a bit now. I don't know how I feel about it at this point. At first I didn't like it at all. Now I'm not so sure. It's a little different where I am (in MN), as we don't really work on a cat system for our races. A, B, C. B's is 3/4. C's is 4. It seems like that is what they're trying to do. 5 races in the 4's is enough for the B race. As it should be. I think that will be good. There are a lot of people racing the beginner category that have absolutely no business there. I did what I had to do and got out. I strongly suggest other people do the same.

My issue with this system is that it's going to be hard for someone like myself. Who ended last season as a cat 3 with 5 points toward a cat 2 upgrade. Now, I only need 10 points, but the 5 I had are now vaporized. What happened there? Did I not work hard enough to keep them? Didnt I deserve them? Regardless. I now basically HAVE to WIN races to upgrade. No more squeaking by on 5-7th place finishes. That's fine with me. I'm in it to win it. As Ben said, how am I supposed to get any points when I get to a 2 and am racing 1's? that's silly...

Two wins and your out. I just hope they enforce it. That would be the best. Rather than going and changing all of this, all they really had to do was enforce the upgrade procedures. Get the winners out of the C's and into the B's and so on. That would limit the field sizes, and keep the people that are actually racing moving up into harder races.

So yes, It's good for the honesty of the races, but it's making it harder on everyone. Racing should be hard. I used to care, now I don't so much. I'm excited to see how this plays out.

one more thing. Here in MN we have an A2 race. Some cat 3's opt to race for an hour against the crazy fast guys. Usually between 5-12 of them. That means that they'll have to get in the top 3 or 4 just to get one point from that category. For better or worse. See why I can't decide whether this is good or bad? Upgrades will certainly be earned in the faster races.

this doesn't solve the two big problems in my mind. one, the problem of too many riders on the line, a problem that was unique to the 4's field. Now, we're pushing the fast ones into 3's, sending part of the problem to 3, but it's still compacting the field in 4 cats. Why not recognize the growing popularity of the sport and create a 5?
Second, though, one of the problems with the 4 field is nobody was forcing upgrades. This is still going to be an issue- people who want the little trophy and to list themselves as chimps on their website are still going to hang back till forced. Now there are going to be even more people required to upgrade- who's going to keep track and force it?
then again, maybe if i skip being yer mechanic ben and instead work as an official in CX season that could be me... ;)

A. I expect promoters will still have the discretion to offer 4A and 4B races. Do other parts of the country have this problem windfall of so many 4's racers? Seems like Chicago might be unique and USAC probably didn't want to impose a 5th category on smaller associations. Wisconsin is crazy about cross but how big were its 4's fields? 40? 50? 30? And let's be optimistic and say that the 3's field doubles to 50 -- that will be a problem how?

B. I don't think was the big problem Julie makes it out to be. Some of us may have rolled their eyes, but I know of only one person to openly complain about sandbaggers in the 4's -- and she wasn't in any of the affected races. :) The rest of us just shrugged and tried to pedal faster. I still say that should they choose to do so, it's perfectly reasonable for a beginner to enjoy a full season in the 4's, no matter their ability.

The bottom line for me is that cross is too much fun to care about results. Isn't that why we do it? We have the entire road season to get all hung up on numbers.

"My issue with this system is that it's going to be hard for someone like myself. Who ended last season as a cat 3 with 5 points toward a cat 2 upgrade. Now, I only need 10 points, but the 5 I had are now vaporized."

Jason, Not all, but most regional reps are willing to work with you to allow the upgrades if you give them a strong enough argument.

For next year, I would like to do two Cat. 4 fields. A regular (Elite 4) and a masters 30 or 35+ Cat 4 field. This would allow everyone to be eligible for upgrade points compared to the Cat 4a and Cat 4b. Does this sound like a reasonable idea?

This is so dumb.

The cat 5 group was more needed than anything else...or increase the 5 races to 10races to keep parity along the group.

Luke, I thought there was a big problem with sandbaggers in the Women's 4 races. The same girls were in the top 3 or 4 every single race. The girl that won was in the top five for the series the year before. I think it discourages newcomers. I think the addition of a Women's Cat. 3 would be great. Wisconsin has a Women's Cat. 3 and the Women's 1/2/3 race.
Gina (new Cat. 3)

That's a good point. I confess to processing this mostly as it pertains the men's races. Sort of self-absorbed that way.

Women's racing is an entirely different beast. It's a Catch-22: Promoters won't expand the categories until there are enough women racing to justify it, but there won't be enough women until there are enough categories to make them feel welcome. Cat 3 women are in the same tough spot on the road: If they stay in the 4's, they're sandbagging. If they upgrade to 3, they're overmatched by the likes of Kenda and America's Dairyland, or even pros.

Huge Cat4 fields are hardly a problem limited to Chicago. Try the east coast where 4's fields routinely top 100. Wisconsin definatly has just as many 4's toe the line as well. I did have a post about sandbagging as did many others, and it does not have to be limited to a blog to be an open complaint. And Greg, in my experience, the reps are not willing to work with you on upgrading. For each of my upgrades i have had to meet the requirement of points, and struggled with the field size issue.

I think a 5th category would help a ton. It's apples to apples with the other roadie cats and would inspire people to move up.

I am for the change. I think the move may help to add some of the 4s into the 3s and I am of the opinion that riding with a faster group will help people step up their game. Some of these 4s will get faster as a result and thats the point right? I don't think its such an issue of placing at the 4 level, just experience. Isn't the point to be fast overall, not a "fast 4". It should just be a stepping stone and less intimidating race which they've accomplished by easing some 4s into 3. If you say you're just out there for fun you shouldn't be so hung up on results, riding in a park with friends is "fun", you race because you want to go fast and get to the next level don't you? (and have a lot of fun doing so)

Also, I like having just points at the top, makes you have to fight for a win to upgrade. I think this is overlooked and really good, its putting a focus on riding to win at your level and moving up. Riding for a win is much harder than riding for a top 9 and will make you stronger. At the same point if someone camps out at the top of the 3 and doesn't upgrade, and this holds up my upgrade I will certainly talk to them, or an official, or throw a stick in their spokes.

Now that part I'm a bit lost on is Mountain Biking. How the hell do I try to push from Expert to Semi Pro when the category I am in is stacked with existing Pros and Semi-Pros in my age group? That podium is going to be seriously hard to find. Does WORS separate the Elite into Pro/Semi-Pro/Expert for points?

nobody wants to comment on our awesome BO-2, the bestest tool ever. Look what you've done.

Ben, you are correct, not all reps are easy to work with, especially our own. In Jason’s situation I feel that he has a good case that he should be grandfathered under the old system until his points expire. It is not fair for someone who has been working towards a goal, only to be told the rules have changed halfway through.

The Chicago Cat. 4 fields are nothing out of the ordinary compared to the east and west coast series. Our reasoning for splitting the 4’s into A and B was to allow everyone to have their name show up on the results sheet. Our officials were only willing to give us the top 30 places, and we decided it is just not right for someone who pays $20 to not know their placing. Our solution was to split the field. The other option would have been to hire more officials and keep the big field. Other series seem to be able to keep track of 100+ rider fields and give places to everyone. So I don't know if it was just the officials being lazy, or other regions have a better system for tracking riders.

The bottle opener is awesome!! It is right up there with the Campagnalo Cork Screw.

Cross is stupid.

Park Tool signed by Calvin FOR THE WIN! The only win that matters!

Okay, kidding aside. Maybe because I raced Cat 4B this year (to gain experience and not to much up the craziness of Cat 4A with my newbie performances) but I think the new system sounds fine to some degree (it kinda reminds me of my time this past year doing the 10 race/clinic upgrades for track).

If sandbagging is an issue and this whole honor system for where you should be racing in is one as well, then this change might help things along. I do think though that a Cat 5 should have been added as well. So you get people moving into the 3's and people who are racing for the first time in the 5's.

The fact of the matter is that these things are viewed with your own personal skew: "How does this affect me?" or "How might it affect me?".

We talk about riding with faster people all the time as a manner of getting better -- so why not try this system out. I think the categories will shake out themselves -- if the ability levels are that spread out and if we supposedly don't care about the numbers and are just having fun (you kinda contradict almost everything you said before your last sentence), the groups will self-balance. Maybe you get to race with new people instead of the same 80 people.

It's complicated but I'd like to think that officials are looking at a very wide spectrum and not just our own limited regional view. It affects us yes, but like anything we speculate on, we don't have the full arguments or reasoning behind the actions.

am i a dick for only caring about how long my race is?

I am very confused by all of this. I think a beer opened by a signed Park Tool bottle opener is the only real solution

you all laugh, but it's because you don't realize the power of the BO-2. it's because you're using outdated and inferior tools for the job. it has such perfect grabbing power and such extreme leverage, it's amazing. really. don't dis.

Oh I'm not dissing. I am seriously impressed. I've been using a faux-swiss army knife from when I was cub scout.

I haven't been following this whole comment stream so sorry if someone has already said this, but, with regards to the Cat 2 to Cat 1 upgrade, I'd just like to say that it is purposely very difficult to go from a Cat 2 to a Cat 1. I think this is the one instance in which it is fair to have racers have to beat ones who are already a cat ahead to achieve that one, since the only big advantages to having a Cat 1 license are getting into NRC Pro/1-only races (e.g. Joe Martin, Nature Valley, Tour de 'Toona) and elite nationals. If you can't beat your local Cat 1s already, there's no reason for you to get a Cat 1 license and try going against the best in the whole country at elite nationals or pro-level events.

I know I'm citing road examples there, since I know them best, but I'm sure it's similar for cross as well, with UCI events on the west coast mainly Pro/Cat 1-only and then a combined 2/3 field (or even separate ones in big California races). In both cases, a Cat 1 license is only used to go against the best Cat 1s in the country and the pros. So, if you can't get your 2 to 1 upgrade beating whatever local 1s and 2s you're going against, you don't deserve to go against the best in the country, elite and pro, anyway.