sounds pretty annoying. Didn't they have an elite or open wave?
one thing they had at a few tris in australia this year for the guys who dont want to race pro but are borderline pro/top age grouper was an open age group category which was a combined wave of fast age groupers generally between 18-35 who wanted a good race against the other fast guys, they also let them off just after the elites so that they had a clear course under similiar conditions to the elites.

I agree - part of the fun of racing is racing against people, including the use of those people to bring out the best in you. It isn't as much fun (for me, at least) to race ghosts (those in other waves). As a 40+, I am usually relegated to the later waves and frankly don't enjoy it as much.

Bottom line - I favor a mass start, regardless of event size. The masses will separate...I contend it is probably safer, since the masses get gradually strung out, rather than have waves where the "faster" are continually overtaking the wave in front, and the "slower" are continually dropping through the subsequent waves.

Seriously, what is your suggestion for fixing this problem?

Should safety be jeopardized for the glory of the race winner?

Who would have known that a 44 year old would kick everyone's butt?

I feel a mass start would have cut the field in half, is that worth it?

jaretj

After twenty years of racing my opinion is that the first 100 finishers from the previous years race regardless of age or sex wowuld have the option of the first wave start. It would reward not only excellance but encourage people to return the following year. Chances are most age group winners would emerge from this wave and it would be easier to weed out the wheel suckers.

In my feeble mind, I always thought the use of some seeding method using the past year's age group rankings would make things a little more even instead of age group waves.

This would have two effects in my mind - the USTA could hope to gain more members, to be included in an early/fast wave you would have to have a ranking. Secondly, some of the MOP/BOP in each age group would be more fairly split, which might be better of for all waves. Of course, there will be exceptions, when a racer from a later wave might win the race overall. But, the chances would be smaller than they are now.

Go ahead, rip this theory. I'd like to hear what flaws I'm not seeing.

thanks
Barry

---

Great things never come from comfort zones.

It seems pretty simple, every race should have an open wave which you are eligible for by:

USAT Ranking (for the sake of argument, anyone over .85) or petitioning the race director if you don't have the ranking but feel you 'got the goods'. It shouldn't be a choice, if you are going to be racing for the overall, you should have to race against the others that are racing for the overall.

---

"The more you sweat today, the less you bleed tomorrow"

I think that's a great idea

jaretj

Another good idea but as I remember USAT distinguishes open waves separate from age groups and rankings are compromised because of the chance of differing conditions.

In my opinion a race that small, less than 400 entries, should only have about 20 minutes between the first wave and the last so everyone is still competing in the same conditions

jaretj

[reply]Who would have known that a 44 year old would kick everyone's butt?[/reply]

anyone who's raced in Indiana the last 5 years

It's not about racing in the same conditions, it's about racing head-to-head. It really sucks to finish first in your wave only to be edged out by others racing in different waves. I know what you are going to say, go faster. Whatever. Do you think the Marathon World Record and 10,000 Meter World Record would be where they are today if it wasn't for head-to-head racing? It makes too much sense so I guess it will never happen....

---

"The more you sweat today, the less you bleed tomorrow"

Why complicate the issue. Seed on time. First wave, fastest times. Last wave slowest times. First Race? Seed at a realistic goal time (if you have no idea you haven't been training very seriously so seed at the back).

Many benefits to this system - first across the line wins, the awards ceremony could be held promptly after the finish of the race instead of two hours later, no need to figure out overall results from wave results, easier to prevent drafting, etc...

Seeding would have to be on the honor system. Lie about your times and look like an @ss hanging out the back of your wave.

I agree with you on the head to head competition issue and I like your ranking suggestion.

We had a discussion here a while ago why the open wave athletes weren't scored as age-groupers and as I remember the issue was because USAT felt that the different start times gave open athletes an advantage over the standard age group athletes. So anyone starting in an open wave was scored as such.

Personally I would like to see less time between waves with a smaller number of people in them. Honestly 1 minute is all that is needed to separate groups. The swimmers would be in a straighter line and easier for the faster swimmers in the following waves to pass. You could get 400 swimmers going in 7 minutes by putting 50 people in each wave.

Without going to a mass start I don't see a way of solving the problem. Should we go that way to satisfy the top 20 althletes? Or should we keep the waves and satisfy a few hundred?

jaretj

If you can have a mass start w/ 2000 athletes, you damn sure can do the same for 200....

---

RunFAR Racing Services
http://www.Run-far.com
Team Cambridge
Hilltop Bicycle Repair

Sorry guys but I keep coming back to Categories for triathlons and duathlons. Your description of starts based on finish times is basically the same principal.

Why not do what big running races do? Seed yourself, but if you want to be in the earlier waves you have to have proof of a past time to be in that wave (ie the Bolder Boulder 10k with thousands of runners)

To seat youself in the early waves you have to have proof you have ran that fast in previous years BB's or other races. No proof = you race in the waves that you think you will run in, but it wont be in the 'qualifying' waves up front. This keeps similar speeds together, etc.

Less chaos.

I think it is silly to go off in waves split up by age and gender. As has been pointed out this is unfair to the faster older people and it is also generally unfair to women. If there is a woman or older guy who is as fast as me then I want them in my wave, I am there to race and I want to race the people who are closest in speed to me regardless of age or sex. And if I get beat by a 50 year old (I am 34) man or women and then good job to them and for me back to training and working hard, because I sure as hell don't like loosing (to anyone).

I see no reason why we shouldn't be seeded, just like in swimming. That brings out the best in everyone, it creates competition and makes everyone faster and offers a more race like atmosphere. This will also resolve some of the issue surrounding group swimming starts with slower/weaker swimmers being intimidated by and swum over by stronger faster swimmers. This could be done any number of ways including, but not limited to the following.

1. USAT ranking as previously mentioned

2. Results from previous years race - The top X # people from the previous year leave in the first heat, X-Y leave in the following wave and so on.

3. Results from similar distance races done prior to the event in question.

The USAT could help the RD's in determining how to weight the value of a race in terms of toughness. Hell they already do it when they award the points for ranking. In order for this to work all of the seeded entries would need to be in a few weeks prior to the race so the seeding could be done, but this also would help RD's get a better fix on the number of people they will have at the race. All race day entries would be in the last heat(s). Ultimately the RD would be responsible for determine how the seeding would go, strictly USAT rank, previous results, other races ect. I could see a combo set up something like for a 50 person wave the top 30 from the previous year then 20 slots for the folks who are at the race for the first time or not in the previous year. The 20 slots could be given away based only on USAT rank or by other race results, RD’s choice. The beauty of this will be that it will allow for both overall winner racing but also age group racing as well because a persons from the same age group who are similar speeds should be in the same wave.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
I'm just a 10 cent rider on a $2,500.00 Bike

In N.C. and the vicinity Set-Up Inc used to have prize money at many of their events, but you had to race in their Elite Wave to win any. You could race with your age group and win an age group award, but the first guy across the line won $500 or whatever it was a the time. Since they went away from prize money there has been less motivation because people care about the silly rankings, but all the races I attended the Elite winner did win overall. You still had to race in the Elite wave to be considered for the overall awards.

Anybody could sign up for the Elite Wave and race. The self-policing occurs because you don’t want to look like a dork. One year I raced White Lake and was second to last in the Elite Wave, but would have been third in my age group.

If USAT can’t even put on one National Championship event per year, how can we expect them to solve this complicated a problem?

Chad

I've been in many other races which Tuxedo Brothers managed and they had let Mike Smith go in the 18-39 wave because he was competing for the win. I've also seen them let other contenders (Boggs) do the same thing. Perhaps USAT would not allow this in a championship race?

Drafting??

---

adrialin

(BOMK, racing drug and supplement free since 1985)

All of you are taking something that is simple and making into something extremely complicated to solve a problem that matters to a very small segment of the population of triathletes and spectators at AG events.

First, at almost every race, you need to have wave starts to spread the field out enough so that the bike is relatively safe and does not mess up traffic too much. Otherwise, you have almost everyone getting on the bike within a 10 minute windown and that would create a lot of problems.

Second, setting waves by AG and gender is a really simple way to do things. Race directors have enough trouble getting a race organized and off as is. Trying to make sure that everyone is in the right wave based upon their USAT ranking or place at last year's race or some other mathematical formula would create incredible headaches. The RDs, after all, need to have their waves more or less set a couple days before the race so that they can move onto other problems.

Third, I don't think that having an elite wave that starts as the first wave of the day would be a bad way of doing things. But, I bet you would have just as many complaints as with the current system. For example, if getting into the elite wave is voluntary, don't you think that almost half of the Men between 30 and 44 would try to get into it. If half your AG is in the elite wave, then what's the point of AG rankings? For this MOPer, moving up a little in my AG is a nice little reward for training hard. If it's based on another system, that's going to be at least somewhat arbitrary too.

Fourth, everyone loves stories like the one about Sheila Taormina just showing up at a local tri, crushing all the women and beating all but a few men like she is supposed to have done at the Waterloo Tri in the late 1990s. But, it's still a great story, and Americans love an underdog.

I was thinking about a problem with drafting or bunching on the course. But, jut because people expect a similar finish time doesn't mean that they expect a similar time for each part of a race.
I race a couple minutes faster than a friend in the swim and a couple minutes more on the bike but he always gets me in the last mile of the run. We finish within 30s of each but never see each other on the course until the end. And by then drafting is negligible.

---

Great things never come from comfort zones.

CTL - I agree with you, except:

I've seen races with Elite waves and they are generally VERY small. Only a hand full of people sign up to win the race overall. So why bother racing Elite when you loose by :30 seconds to Overall but win your age group by 3 minutes. People want the AG win!

I'd rather see 1 of 2 things happen:

1. Leave well enough alone. The system works 99% of the time. OR

2. Go to the USCF system of earning points in races and moving UP categories. You will then be racing against athletes of your own speed and experience.

---

.
.
Paul

I posted this a few weeks ago but what the hell I'll post it again...

I suggest that we use an "index system" similar to golf. It would solve two problems with the current system. First, it would allow athletes of different abilities to compete against each other. Second, by starting the waves lowest index to highest index we would be grouping competitors by speed and removing most of the dangerous passing that is occurring on the bike course. So here is how I see it working:

1. Courses are given a "standard time" similar to par for golf and then a "difficulty rating" similar to the "slope rating" for a golf course.

2. Athletes post their times and after 5 races the athlete receives his/her "index".

3. You cross reference your "index" to the "difficulty rating" of the course and that tells you how much time you deduct or add to your finishing time. FYI this is how a "handicap" is determined in golf. At a golf course there is a large poster that has two columns on it. One column has the index number and next to that is what your handicap is for that course. You then adjust your score card accordingly.

4. Awards would be given to the fastest unadjusted times and to the fastest adjusted times for both male and female competitors.

5. This system would allow slower athletes to compete with faster athletes on a handicap biases but still recognize the fast competitors.

6. Starts waves would be by "index" with the lower index (faster) participants starting earlier.

For example:

Say my index is a -15 and I am racing the City of Los Angeles Oly. This race has a difficulty rating of 90 (on a zero to 200 scale) so my "handicap" would be 15x.90 or 13.5. If I finish in 2:10 I could then subtract 13.5 minutes from my time to get my adjusted time of 1:56.5. This could be compared directly to the adjusted times of the other athletes including the pros. Keep in mind that just like in golf some of those pros may have to ADD time to their finishing time to arrive at their adjusted time.

---

----------

Yay common sense! I bring this up every time this comes up and have yet to hear a GOOD reason why it wouldn't work.

1. Sign up for race and have an input field for anticipated finish time.
2. Assign people to waves in order of speed.

So difficult...

ot