Who will race bikes now?

Casey Kerrigan wrote:

In article , chris
wrote:

What's your point here Dave? Really, I think the real problem is the
escalation. Every two-three years license fees go up. Why did my UCI
license go from $125 to $130 if the domestic increased by $10? Sounds
like they shaved a bit off the UCI. Wait a second why **** does the
UCI license cost so much to begin with? Where does that money go?

I think the dual increase will hurt growth. Trust me, after running a
training series for 2 years I know that a $10 fee will turn away
people, but the the $60 annual fee will all but guarantee those one
days won't go to the yearly. IMHO.

CH
The cost of almost everything goes up over time. Look at gas prices,
housing costs, the cost of most food items etc. Why should the cost of
a racing license be any different from everything else that goes up
over time?

I don't know about that. Many things that have "gone up in price" are much
better in quality than their similes 20 years ago. The two are not directly
comparable. And of course, the generality is in question because of industries
like electronics, where we get quite a bit more for the same dollar today as we
did yesterday.

We pay in inflated dollars. There is no reason to simply presume the price
should go up beyond inflation (no change in real dollars). Since no worthwhile
value has been incrementally added, it would be hard to even argue a price
increase matching inflation, since we would hope workers would get more
productive. If the feds would get more productive, but offer the same thing,
then we might happily see a deflation in license pricing (like in the
electronics industry). One wonders what force would drive them to be more
productive. After all, they have very little competition. A situation like
that is ripe for no improvement. What would be the incentive? Their goodwill?
LOL

Many workers (amateur racers) incomes have been stagnant for the past few
years. Maybe the feds should think about that when they consider jacking up
prices.

I actually think that the increase in 1 day license fees might give
some people an incentive to take out an annual license instead of just
racing on 1 day licenses. Next year the break even point ( where you
start saving money getting an annual vs using a 1 day license) is 6
races instyead of the 10 races this year. I have seen lots of first
time racers who don't blink at paying post enter surcharges, high entry
fees, even pay for a full annual license just to do a single race. If
promoters or clubs want to reduce the impact of the higher 1 day
license fee they migh consider reducing or elliminating the post entry
surcharge for people who are using a 1 day license. This would
eliminate the impact of the higher 1 day license fee in most cases
since most 1 day license users also tend to wait till race day to
enter.

The best thing to do would to be for the NCNCA to bust off alone again and offer
the $20 licenses. The price went up because of a lack of competition by
re-aligning with the feds (by one vote). Even if the fed's were "offering more"
with the additional fees, maybe not every racer wants "more." This is the
problem with a single supplier. Some people put cost first, not bells and
whistles.

The annual license fee is quite fractional compared to the total to be spent on
bike racing, but it is the first fee paid. Resistance to this intial high fee
might tend to inhibit people from doing the initial signup, even if they had
more funds available. Thus high fees could cause a lagging of "initialization."

While I'm not ambitious enough to put the effort in myself, I think another
organization promoting amateur road racing in NorCal would be a good thing.
What is a bike race without competition?

In article , gwhite
wrote:

Casey Kerrigan wrote:

In article , chris
wrote:

What's your point here Dave? Really, I think the real problem is the
escalation. Every two-three years license fees go up. Why did my UCI
license go from $125 to $130 if the domestic increased by $10? Sounds
like they shaved a bit off the UCI. Wait a second why **** does the
UCI license cost so much to begin with? Where does that money go?

I think the dual increase will hurt growth. Trust me, after running a
training series for 2 years I know that a $10 fee will turn away
people, but the the $60 annual fee will all but guarantee those one
days won't go to the yearly. IMHO.

CH
The cost of almost everything goes up over time. Look at gas prices,
housing costs, the cost of most food items etc. Why should the cost of
a racing license be any different from everything else that goes up
over time?

I don't know about that. Many things that have "gone up in price" are much
better in quality than their similes 20 years ago. The two are not directly
comparable. And of course, the generality is in question because of
industries
like electronics, where we get quite a bit more for the same dollar today as
we
did yesterday.

We pay in inflated dollars. There is no reason to simply presume the price
should go up beyond inflation (no change in real dollars). Since no
worthwhile
value has been incrementally added, it would be hard to even argue a price
increase matching inflation, since we would hope workers would get more
productive. If the feds would get more productive, but offer the same thing,
then we might happily see a deflation in license pricing (like in the
electronics industry). One wonders what force would drive them to be more
productive. After all, they have very little competition. A situation like
that is ripe for no improvement. What would be the incentive? Their
goodwill?
LOL

This increase in license fees isn't due to a lack of productivity on
the part of the Federation. This increase is being driven by the
increased insurance costs the Federation is having to pay due to all
the people making insurance claims because they are participating in a
dangerous sport without any medical insurance of their own. Over the
last couple of years the cost of medical insurance and medical care
have gone up much more than the rate of inflation. From what I've seen
the USAC staff is very productive and have been getting more productive
over time.

Many workers (amateur racers) incomes have been stagnant for the past few
years. Maybe the feds should think about that when they consider jacking up
prices.

I actually think that the increase in 1 day license fees might give
some people an incentive to take out an annual license instead of just
racing on 1 day licenses. Next year the break even point ( where you
start saving money getting an annual vs using a 1 day license) is 6
races instyead of the 10 races this year. I have seen lots of first
time racers who don't blink at paying post enter surcharges, high entry
fees, even pay for a full annual license just to do a single race. If
promoters or clubs want to reduce the impact of the higher 1 day
license fee they migh consider reducing or elliminating the post entry
surcharge for people who are using a 1 day license. This would
eliminate the impact of the higher 1 day license fee in most cases
since most 1 day license users also tend to wait till race day to
enter.

The best thing to do would to be for the NCNCA to bust off alone again and
offer
the $20 licenses. The price went up because of a lack of competition by
re-aligning with the feds (by one vote). Even if the fed's were "offering
more"
with the additional fees, maybe not every racer wants "more." This is the
problem with a single supplier. Some people put cost first, not bells and
whistles.

The annual license fee is quite fractional compared to the total to be spent
on
bike racing, but it is the first fee paid. Resistance to this intial high fee
might tend to inhibit people from doing the initial signup, even if they had
more funds available. Thus high fees could cause a lagging of
"initialization."

While I'm not ambitious enough to put the effort in myself, I think another
organization promoting amateur road racing in NorCal would be a good thing.
What is a bike race without competition?

Well mostly due to the whole insurance issue if NCNCA were to break
away from USAC again then I'd be done with NCNCA. Back under the old
NCNCA program we had one case of the insurance company caliming they
weren't liable for coverage for a claim. For a while it looked like
ther was going to be a big court battle but luckily the whole situation
seems to have just faded away. I'm more than happy to have paid
staffers at USAC who have the job of deailing with claims, insurance
agents and companies and all those other headaches. I don't want to be
in the position of having to deal with that stuff again myself.

In article , gwhite
wrote:

Casey Kerrigan wrote:

In article , chris
wrote:

What's your point here Dave? Really, I think the real problem is the
escalation. Every two-three years license fees go up. Why did my UCI
license go from $125 to $130 if the domestic increased by $10? Sounds
like they shaved a bit off the UCI. Wait a second why **** does the
UCI license cost so much to begin with? Where does that money go?

I think the dual increase will hurt growth. Trust me, after running a
training series for 2 years I know that a $10 fee will turn away
people, but the the $60 annual fee will all but guarantee those one
days won't go to the yearly. IMHO.

CH
The cost of almost everything goes up over time. Look at gas prices,
housing costs, the cost of most food items etc. Why should the cost of
a racing license be any different from everything else that goes up
over time?

I don't know about that. Many things that have "gone up in price" are much
better in quality than their similes 20 years ago. The two are not directly
comparable. And of course, the generality is in question because of
industries
like electronics, where we get quite a bit more for the same dollar today as
we
did yesterday.

We pay in inflated dollars. There is no reason to simply presume the price
should go up beyond inflation (no change in real dollars). Since no
worthwhile
value has been incrementally added, it would be hard to even argue a price
increase matching inflation, since we would hope workers would get more
productive. If the feds would get more productive, but offer the same thing,
then we might happily see a deflation in license pricing (like in the
electronics industry). One wonders what force would drive them to be more
productive. After all, they have very little competition. A situation like
that is ripe for no improvement. What would be the incentive? Their
goodwill?
LOL

This increase in license fees isn't due to a lack of productivity on
the part of the Federation. This increase is being driven by the
increased insurance costs the Federation is having to pay due to all
the people making insurance claims because they are participating in a
dangerous sport without any medical insurance of their own. Over the
last couple of years the cost of medical insurance and medical care
have gone up much more than the rate of inflation. From what I've seen
the USAC staff is very productive and have been getting more productive
over time.

Many workers (amateur racers) incomes have been stagnant for the past few
years. Maybe the feds should think about that when they consider jacking up
prices.

I actually think that the increase in 1 day license fees might give
some people an incentive to take out an annual license instead of just
racing on 1 day licenses. Next year the break even point ( where you
start saving money getting an annual vs using a 1 day license) is 6
races instyead of the 10 races this year. I have seen lots of first
time racers who don't blink at paying post enter surcharges, high entry
fees, even pay for a full annual license just to do a single race. If
promoters or clubs want to reduce the impact of the higher 1 day
license fee they migh consider reducing or elliminating the post entry
surcharge for people who are using a 1 day license. This would
eliminate the impact of the higher 1 day license fee in most cases
since most 1 day license users also tend to wait till race day to
enter.

The best thing to do would to be for the NCNCA to bust off alone again and
offer
the $20 licenses. The price went up because of a lack of competition by
re-aligning with the feds (by one vote). Even if the fed's were "offering
more"
with the additional fees, maybe not every racer wants "more." This is the
problem with a single supplier. Some people put cost first, not bells and
whistles.

The annual license fee is quite fractional compared to the total to be spent
on
bike racing, but it is the first fee paid. Resistance to this intial high fee
might tend to inhibit people from doing the initial signup, even if they had
more funds available. Thus high fees could cause a lagging of
"initialization."

While I'm not ambitious enough to put the effort in myself, I think another
organization promoting amateur road racing in NorCal would be a good thing.
What is a bike race without competition?

Well mostly due to the whole insurance issue if NCNCA were to break
away from USAC again then I'd be done with NCNCA. Back under the old
NCNCA program we had one case of the insurance company caliming they
weren't liable for coverage for a claim. For a while it looked like
ther was going to be a big court battle but luckily the whole situation
seems to have just faded away. I'm more than happy to have paid
staffers at USAC who have the job of deailing with claims, insurance
agents and companies and all those other headaches. I don't want to be
in the position of having to deal with that stuff again myself.

In article , Casey Kerrigan
wrote:



This increase in license fees isn't due to a lack of productivity on
the part of the Federation. This increase is being driven by the
increased insurance costs the Federation is having to pay due to all
the people making insurance claims because they are participating in a
dangerous sport without any medical insurance of their own. Over the
last couple of years the cost of medical insurance and medical care
have gone up much more than the rate of inflation. From what I've seen
the USAC staff is very productive and have been getting more productive
over time.

I've heard that the bill for insurance for USAC is going up about
$500,000 next year. There are about 30,000 USCF members and about
13,000 NORBA members. At $10 per license this would add up to $430,000
extra towards the $500,000 increase. This still leaves a gap of $70,000
to deal with. In Nor Cal this year one day licenses only brought in
about $7,800 ( and NCNCA is the largest "state" in the USCF system in
terms of licensed riders and maybe races) so the 1 day licenses isn't a
huge source of revenue. I have heard that it looks like some Depts at
USAC will face budget cuts next year since the license fee increases
will not cover the full increase in insurance.

In article , Casey Kerrigan
wrote:



This increase in license fees isn't due to a lack of productivity on
the part of the Federation. This increase is being driven by the
increased insurance costs the Federation is having to pay due to all
the people making insurance claims because they are participating in a
dangerous sport without any medical insurance of their own. Over the
last couple of years the cost of medical insurance and medical care
have gone up much more than the rate of inflation. From what I've seen
the USAC staff is very productive and have been getting more productive
over time.

I've heard that the bill for insurance for USAC is going up about
$500,000 next year. There are about 30,000 USCF members and about
13,000 NORBA members. At $10 per license this would add up to $430,000
extra towards the $500,000 increase. This still leaves a gap of $70,000
to deal with. In Nor Cal this year one day licenses only brought in
about $7,800 ( and NCNCA is the largest "state" in the USCF system in
terms of licensed riders and maybe races) so the 1 day licenses isn't a
huge source of revenue. I have heard that it looks like some Depts at
USAC will face budget cuts next year since the license fee increases
will not cover the full increase in insurance.

Casey Kerrigan wrote:

In article , Casey Kerrigan
wrote:


This increase in license fees isn't due to a lack of productivity on
the part of the Federation. This increase is being driven by the
increased insurance costs the Federation is having to pay due to all
the people making insurance claims because they are participating in a
dangerous sport without any medical insurance of their own. Over the
last couple of years the cost of medical insurance and medical care
have gone up much more than the rate of inflation. From what I've seen
the USAC staff is very productive and have been getting more productive
over time.

I've heard that the bill for insurance for USAC is going up about
$500,000 next year. There are about 30,000 USCF members and about
13,000 NORBA members. At $10 per license this would add up to $430,000
extra towards the $500,000 increase. This still leaves a gap of $70,000
to deal with. In Nor Cal this year one day licenses only brought in
about $7,800 ( and NCNCA is the largest "state" in the USCF system in
terms of licensed riders and maybe races) so the 1 day licenses isn't a
huge source of revenue. I have heard that it looks like some Depts at
USAC will face budget cuts next year since the license fee increases
will not cover the full increase in insurance.


Maybe bike racing is too risky of an endeavor for the amateur.

Casey Kerrigan wrote:

In article , Casey Kerrigan
wrote:


This increase in license fees isn't due to a lack of productivity on
the part of the Federation. This increase is being driven by the
increased insurance costs the Federation is having to pay due to all
the people making insurance claims because they are participating in a
dangerous sport without any medical insurance of their own. Over the
last couple of years the cost of medical insurance and medical care
have gone up much more than the rate of inflation. From what I've seen
the USAC staff is very productive and have been getting more productive
over time.

I've heard that the bill for insurance for USAC is going up about
$500,000 next year. There are about 30,000 USCF members and about
13,000 NORBA members. At $10 per license this would add up to $430,000
extra towards the $500,000 increase. This still leaves a gap of $70,000
to deal with. In Nor Cal this year one day licenses only brought in
about $7,800 ( and NCNCA is the largest "state" in the USCF system in
terms of licensed riders and maybe races) so the 1 day licenses isn't a
huge source of revenue. I have heard that it looks like some Depts at
USAC will face budget cuts next year since the license fee increases
will not cover the full increase in insurance.


Maybe bike racing is too risky of an endeavor for the amateur.

On 30 Oct 2004 18:45:17 -0700, "packmagician"
wrote:

IMHO, a $60 annual license fee is a barrier to that.

$ 60 doesn't buy you a decent dinner for two in most places anymore
(well, since the wife said no more stops at McDs). It may be an
irritant, but I can't see it being a barrier when you drop more than
that on tires on a bad day on the road.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On 30 Oct 2004 18:45:17 -0700, "packmagician"
wrote:

IMHO, a $60 annual license fee is a barrier to that.

$ 60 doesn't buy you a decent dinner for two in most places anymore
(well, since the wife said no more stops at McDs). It may be an
irritant, but I can't see it being a barrier when you drop more than
that on tires on a bad day on the road.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

In article ,
says...

I've heard that the bill for insurance for USAC is going up about
$500,000 next year. There are about 30,000 USCF members and about
13,000 NORBA members. At $10 per license this would add up to $430,000
extra towards the $500,000 increase. This still leaves a gap of $70,000
to deal with. In Nor Cal this year one day licenses only brought in
about $7,800 ( and NCNCA is the largest "state" in the USCF system in
terms of licensed riders and maybe races) so the 1 day licenses isn't a
huge source of revenue. I have heard that it looks like some Depts at
USAC will face budget cuts next year since the license fee increases
will not cover the full increase in insurance.

I thought a portion of the entry fee of every single USAC sanctioned race
went back to USAC as an insurance fee?
----------------
Alex