unlimited, ungeared and 100km
This discussion has an associated proposal but it has not been approved yet.Comments about this discussion:
Started
The rule book does not separate unlimited in to geared and ungeared. I assume that this is going to become a standard separation as it has been used at the last 2 UNICON for the Marathon. Is this right?
We also do not have a road race category for the 100km. I assume that this does need adding.
I am going to suggest tidying up the numbering a little bit in the road race section. Is it possible to use another sub section of numbers?
4.2.1 10km Distance
This is the fastest ride over a 10km race distance.
4.2.1.1 10km distance, on an standard unicycle.
4.2.1.2 10km distance, on a Unlimited, ungeared unicycle.
4.2.1.3 10km distance, on a Unlimited, geared unicycle.
4.2.2 42.195km (Marathon) Distance
This is a fastest ride over a 42.195km (marathon) race distance.
4.2.2.1 42.195km (Marathon) Distance, on an standard unicycle.
4.2.2.2 42.195km (Marathon) Distance, on a Unlimited, ungeared unicycle.
4.2.2.3 42.195km (Marathon) Distance, on a Unlimited, geared unicycle.
4.2.3 100km Distance
This is a fastest ride over a 100km race distance.
4.2.3.1 100km Distance, on an standard unicycle.
4.2.3.2 100km Distance, on a Unlimited, ungeared unicycle.
4.2.3.3 100km Distance, on a Unlimited, geared unicycle.
Comment
A question for road race records. How to we mitigate for races that have combined categories/genders to make them eligible for road race records? This is a hard call because we often do not have enough numbers to totally separate out these long races. It is potentially possible to have a faster unicycle acting as a derny leading a peloton group and increasing the overall speed. Am I over thinking this?
Comment
I agree that 100km must be added to the road racing records. This was already discussed by some of the committee members right after the race in Korea.
However, I personally don’t think that it is necessary to have a separation between unlimited ungeared and unlimited geared. In my opinion unlimited should stay unlimited and weather you use a geared or an ungeard unicycle is in the end the decision of every single rider. Having the separation would be more records for the same distance and in the end you could also make a separation between 29, 32 and 36, then start playing with different crank length, and so on.
Comment
Responding from top to bottom:
I don't think we need separate categories in world records for Unlimited geared versus Unlimited ungeared. In races, these are usually a single category, also at Unicons. The only thing is that there is sometimes an additional set medals for ungeared riders only (only overall, not agegroup).
Unlimited versus standard, on the other hand, is a full-fledged distinction. They start in separate waves, and each have a full range of awards including agegroups.
I do agree that we need to recognise a road race record for 100 km. Both in unlimited and in standard.
I am neutral on giving each recognised record category its own hierarchical number. What Roger suggests is at least possible.
A road race is different from a time trial in several aspects, including that drafting may occur. In the organisational rules for races, we have specifically allowed that men and women race together, so that there are more opportunities to pick suitable riders to stay with and draft from. To me that is fair.
It would become unfair if drafting would occur behind anything else but participating unicycles (say, bikes or cars). But would we need to spell this out?
Comment
I think there is enough separation between them. They require different skills. The 32" can go as fast as a 36" ungeared... but not as fast as geared version of either.
Unlimited ungeared and unlimited were categories within the 10km, Marathon and 100km at UNICON, they were split before the event, not just presented after the event. This year they were also separated by age group as well as just geared and ungeared expert. They have been separated in all the big events I have entered since 2012 at Dusseldorf.
My suggest for giving distinct hierarchical numbers is so they can be referenced to by people who are applying for records. It helps to give clarity.
I do think some guidance should be given to event organisers to be aware that separation of categories should be considered in waves to keep cross category drafting to a minimum, it would help to make things fair. The motorbike and car drafting is an issue with professional bike events (their rules are complicated) and was a hot topic in our world record attempt on the penny farthings. The rules did not exclude them. We discussed and came that the conclusion that it would not be within the spirit of the record we were breaking.
Comment
As for the 100km, I agree that a category should be created for that, of course in unlimited and in standard.
I think the hierarchical numbering of each recognised record category can give clarity and it can be well referred to - but I'm not shure if this is realy nessasary. In my oppinion also a list of the recognised record categories would be fine (e.g. for Track:" For World Records the following categories for both sexes shall be recognised: - 100 m, 400 m, 800 m, 50 m Onefoot , [...]). I think the description of each discipline can be found in the rulebook and does not have to be found in the world record guidelines.
Comment
Whether the records are listes hierarchical or not does not make a big difference. Only thing to consider: they must be found easily and it must be overviewable.
About drafting: in all my races I attended I have never seen a car or a bike being used as a help, I don‘t think it will happen. If you want to mention it I‘m ok with it but I think it‘s not needed.
Comment
In my opinion there should be World Records for all disciplines described in the Rulebook. If the Rulebook is not recognizing a specific wheel size or crank length as a separate category, then there can not be a WR for it.
For example: riding 10K on a 29" unicycle.
Remark that 29" is standard uni for marathon and 100K, so there are real 29" specialists, let call them "fast spinners".
Now it is impossible for these fast spinners to beat a 10K WR because standard uni for 10K is 24", and it is impossible to beat 36" geared or even 36" ungeared unicycles. As long as there is no 29" category for 10K it is useless to ride it with 29" (in terms of beating a WR or having any chance to win a medal).
If Rulebook recognizes the 29" as a category for 10K I'm sure a lot of 24" 10K top riders will switch to 29", because 24" is unnatural for distance riding to be honest. But this is rather a Rulebook discussion than a WRC discussion.
Comment
I think we should not rely on the IUF Rulebook to determine which World Records we allow. Rather, we need to decide on a case-by-case basis which disciplines we allow as World Records.
There are many disciplines mentioned in the IUF Rulebook that I would not allow World Records for. Examples within Track Racing are races of any length and type on 700C wheels, or Medley with rules to be set by the host. Also, Artistic Freestyle, Muni and team sports don't lend themselves to World Records, in my view. I believe no-one ever asked for these to be added.
On the other hand, 200m track race is not mentioned in the Rulebook. Should it not be in the WR list?
Comment
Basically I agree with Erik's opinion - I think that if unicycling should develop further, especially in the direction of a professional sport, there should be a very clear connection between competition disciplines, recognized WR disciplines and the rulebook.
Of course, there are disciplines that do not become WR disciplines due to their nature (team sport, MUni, etc.).
But in my opinion, at the moment there are also many disciplines mentioned in the rulebook which have nothing to do with competitive unicycling and which should therefore be deleted from the rulebook. And others - like 200 m - should be added.
So, I think at the moment we really need to decide on a case-by-case basis which disciplines we allow as World Records. But hopefully in the future this canges and there can be World Records for all the appropriate disciplines described in the Rulebook.
Comment
I think that all possible unicycling disciplines can be grouped in four categories:
1. In the IUF Rulebook, and a World Record. Example: 100 m on 24" standard wheel.
2. In the IUF Rulebook, but not a World Record. Example: team sports.
3. Not in the IUF Rulebook, but still a World Record. Example: 24 hour record.
4. Not in the IUF Rulebook, not a World Record. Example: 300m on a 24" standard wheel.
We need to delineate those categories. Or at least concerning World Records, because we don't have a direct say about the Rulebook. Those of us who get in the Rulebook committee can try to establish this link.
I agree (now) that for category 1, there should ideally be a one-to-one correspondence. In other words: each Rulebook discipline should have an associated WR, and each WR should have an associated Rulebook entry.
Comment
This is a rulebook discussion but I bring it up here to explain why I DO NOT want to see a 100km road race record. I am happy for a 100km time-trial record, but if we had a 100km road race, it would add yet another measured race for organisers and achieve very little in return.
In the IUF rulebook we have a 10km and a 42.195km marathon event. These are meant to be measured courses so that they can be comparable between events. In order to be comparable (or if you want to set records), they must be completely flat. That is why all major IAAF marathon and 10km events are essentially flat- so people can go as fast as possible. I recognise that organisers have discretion not to make it flat (as we decided not to at Unicon 15), but this makes the distance measurement pointless.
The 100km was added as an event at Unicon 16 (I don't know why exactly), and then repeated at Unicon 19 (because they wanted one), in addition to the 42.195km and 10km events. That is three events which are measured and supposedly flat. It will give essentially the same or very similar results, and as a road racer and race director, I was extremely disappointed to do the same thing three times.
If there are three measured events at Unicon, that leaves no time for something which is simply a 'road race'. I would like to see just the 10km and 42.195km measured events, AND a road race which can be anywhere from 60-100km in length, where the exact distance is irrelevant but the organisers have a combination of hills/flat/rolling terrain etc.
Having a 100km race record incentivises race organisers to run three flat events, which leaves no room for a more interesting road race. Imagine racing the Tour de France and every stage was flat and measured to an exact distance.
Comment
Sorry, to address Roger's first point regarding separation of geared/ungeared, again this is evolving with IUF rulebook discussions.
Back in 2008 when I first brought it up, there was no appetite for change as it was seen to be part of the development of the sport of unlimited racing. I argued that there is a fundamental difference between geared and ungeared, just as there is between standard and unlimited.
Over the last few rulebooks and Unicons we are starting to see a separation, but the initial response was tepid- they didn't, and still don't, give the unlimited ungeared category the same status. If you read the wording in the current rulebook, it insinuates a sub-category. I gave up in protest and joined the 29'' standard category instead.
We may be getting close to a point where we could separate them out, but that is a rulebook discussion. The disincentive for organisers is that they end up with too many categories/awards.
Comment
After reading Ken's comment I have to say that I can understand his point of view very well. I'm not a long-distance rider and I didn't look at it from this point of view.
But now I would rather tend to include the 100km as a road race in the WRG only/first if they should be included in the rulebook.
Comment
I get your point, Ken. However, including 100km as a road race world record does not mean that we HAVE to do it essentially at every Unicon. 200m is also in the additional records (probably included soon) but it was never done at a Unicon before.
When you say that 10km, 42km and 100km will produce similar results I only agree up to a certain point. Maybe one person who is really good in endurance doesn't like 10km because it is "too short" but would probably love to do 100km. I'm not saying that completely different people will be at the top but for sure not exactly the same. Futhermore I am thinking about track races. 100m and 200m seem to produce very similar results as well, probably also 400m. In addition 400m and 800m also have more or less the same riders at the top.
So for me it seems a bit strange that we cannot include 3 road race records (let's call them "similar road race records") when on the other hand we include 4 track disciplines which also produce very similar results. What about slow forward and backward? Same three riders (at least for female) in the front for at least 4 years now (forward and backward). Nobody complains.
Comment
Thanks Mirjam.
When I said that 10km, 42km, 100km produce similar results- I didn't mean exactly the same, but if you look at the lead peloton- it is usually the same riders. Flat races produce similar results- that holds true in bicycle and unicycle races.
In track racing- the distances are based on running races. 100m and 200m on a unicycle are both sprint events, and even a 400m is close to a sprint. The physiology doesn't change- similar body types will win all these events in unicycling, whereas in running- the physique of a 100m sprinter is quite different to an 800m runner.
If there is a 100km road race record- the incentive is there for organisers to include it as event- I'm not in favour of that. Prior to Unicon 13 the 'marathon' event was the 10km, and that was the only distance event. Imagine the uproar now if we didn't have a 42km marathon event at Unicon. Every 'official' distance becomes difficult to leave out once it is included in the rulebook or world record guideline.
In terms of organising...in the track racing, adding a 200m race is fairly straightforward. The officials, timing equipment and riders are already there, the venue doesn't change. To organise a new road race, you need a new venue, course measurement, bus/transport, marshals, traffic management plan, etc. My concern is that if you have three road race events, there is no room for any more. The organiser has the freedom to choose an interesting course (irrespective of the distance), as they do in bicycling.
Comment
100 km does already have some status in the IUF Rulebook. The first paragraph of the Road Racing chapter, section 4A.1 Definition, includes the sentence
"These rules specifically apply to 100k, Marathon, and 10k races, but may also be applied to other road races, such as a Time Trial or a Criterium."
Comment
That is going to be one of my submissions for discussion when the Rulebook committee gets going. It went into 4A.1 despite, at the time, only one 100km race ever being held at Unicon.
Section 4D.15.2 states that the traditional distances are 10km and 42.195km, and uses the 100km distance as an example of a non-traditional distance.
Comment
About recognition of 100km records:
We have (in another discussion) strongly argued that there should be a connection between IUF Rulebook and WR Guidelines.
As it stands, 100km is recognised by the IUF Rulebook (even though Ken wants to remove it).
I think this implies that 100km records should be allowed.
Comment
Ken wrote "Imagine racing the Tour de France and every stage was flat and measured to an exact distance."
I think it is difficult to compare our competitions to the Tour de France. Competitions that follow the IUF Rules are quite standardised. The Tour de France is not, or at least not in the same way.
"Ride the Lobster", the unicycle relay race held in 2008, resembled the Tour de France much closer, as many people have observed. But this event was totally disconnected from the IUF Rulebook.
Comment
Hi Klaas,
The rulebook contradicts itself. Section 4D.15.2 quite clearly uses the 100km as a non-traditional distance.
My comparison is not specific to the Tour de France. It is a comparison with bicycling. Unicycle races continue to be run like running races, when most of what we do as long distance unicyclists is more similar to bicycling. There are no 'traditional' distances (eg 42.195km) in bicycle road racing.
Comment
In my comment, you may replace "the Tour de France" by "bicycle racing", and it still conveys what I mean.
Millions of people run for fun, or maybe for health benefits. Only a fraction of them runs in races. The fun runners don't do a specific distance. Yet, running races are almost always a "round" distance.
Replace "running" by "unicycling" in the above, and it holds true for our community. (Although "millions" might be an overstatement. :-) )
I would agree that long-distance unicycling is more like bicycling than like running. But the community of competitive unicyclists seems to like our fixed distance races. I would not be against an experiment at a large convention like Unicon, to replace a "fixed distance" race like 42.195 or 100 km by a race of "arbitrary" length and find out how it is perceived. Or, as an alternative, try to find out how people would react to this, without it actually being organised like that.
My (untested!) hunch is that most riders like the fixed distances. And of course we must remember that we are doing everything for the rider community.
Comment
I agree with Ken that unicycle races on flat surface generally produce similar results, regardless the distance.
In male as well as in female category the same riders are performing well both in standard road races and in multiple track disciplines. The top geared riders you don't see usually in the track results.
In my opinion the difference between geared riders and ungeared riders is bigger than the difference between ungeared road racers and standard track racers.
In that point of view I find an unlimited ungeared WR for marathon has the right to exist, which not means that organizers have to offer all categories.
In the same philosophy I think a 100K WR should be recognized, without forcing organizers to offer a 100K race at their event, neither to design it for speed.
The disciplines that are mandatory to be offered on big events should not be driven by WGR but rather by IUF Rulebook.
Personally I like the idea of a race of arbitrary length, but this not in the scope of WRG.
Comment
I was going to say that we also need a marathon standard (29 Class) record. But then I saw that this was already covered in Roger's first post in this discussion although not in the title.
Comment
I agree with incorporating the standard 29 Marathon record. I'm on the fence with the unlimited ungeared category. It is still reading like a subcategory in the rulebook, but I think it deserves to be recognised as separate.
The 100km...it would be interesting to see if anyone else has an opinion on this. Martin or Roger perhaps?
I disagree with Klaas on the assertion that 'most riders like fixed distances'. My take is that it is mainly the 10km riders who do (many of them specialise in track, which have uniform conditions). The longer distance riders are not so fussed.
In reply to Erik- yes, having a record or 'official IUF rulebook distance' doesn't mean the category needs to be offered at Unicon, but it is a strong incentive for organisers. At Unicon 16 and Unicon 19, we had 10km/42km/100km distances. There isn't room for anything else.
Comment
I think I can guess Martin's opinion on including the 100km road race record. :-)
Comment
That's why I asked!
I've given enough of my opinion, but hopefully I made a reasonable argument :)
Comment
Hi guys, sorry for answering late.
According to me, the question behind 100k WR does not concern only 100k, but all road races:
Must all road races be “Prone-To-Beat-Record” (PTBR)? Not necessarily I think.
When there is no way of making a PTBR race - because of geography or authorities - then better making a fun race using some local particularity like hills, turns, windy sections (eg. NZ 42k) than making a flat race not good enough to beat record.
Indeed, a PTBR track must not only be flat. Smoothness, turns, wind, traffic are also very influent. Unicon 19 10k and 42k were pretty flat but had sections with poor ground, turns, bridges, pedestrians … and were not good for records (Furthermore 10k was 10.6k!)
PTBR tracks at Unicons are very rare. I’m only thinking of 42k in Montreal right now. I wouldn’t necessarily put Montreal 10k in the list even if the record was beaten.
That’s why I think that Korea 100k was THE RACE that should have been measured more than any previous X uni races! Several riders (in several categories, gender …) exploded existing records. This is very rare, and that is what we want to do and see anytime it’s possible to make it happen.
The possibility of having non-measured road-races at Unicons is compatible with all that. I think a lot of riders will like it.
But this cool idea of a road race must not be set as an opposition with having a 100k road record. If it happen that a location can provide a "Prone-To-Beat-Record" 100k track, but not a very good 42k (eg. Korea), then why not transforming the 42k in a non-measured road race and have a measured 100k.
I finally wanted to mention that for everybody - unicyclist, non-unicyclist, medias … - 100k is more impressive than 42k. Having a 100k makes unicycle performances look closer to bikes than to runners. 42k is hard for a runner but a lot easier for a uni-rider. 100k unicycling looks to be the physical equivalent to a 42k by running.
Comment
I’m less concerned with the unlimited ungeared discussion (so I might miss the point! ^^).
I’ve always thought standard category as a way of equally competing with each other without having to buy expensive material. Does standard and unlimited categories already existed before geared unicycles appeared?
Then I don’t see why there must be 2 standard categories (29” and 36”), and why we call one of them “unlimited ungeared”, because not having a gear makes a uni “limited”.
About hierarchical numbers for records: Everything will work according to me as long as it stays organized in the list :)
Comment
Thanks Martin
I don't want to take this too far off topic, but just a couple of points regarding Unicon 19, which explains my resistance to having multiple measured races at Unicon.
As a race director- I arrived a week early, but I was reliant on the local organisers to large extent- they have to get consents for the course to be used, the venue needs to meet certain conditions (eg wide area for a start/marshalling/timing), and then it has to be measured. The 10km was changed at the last minute because the council closed off part of the course which would have made the distance easier to calibrate (it was the long road at the end that you could use to extend/reduce the distance)
The locals organisers measured the 10km and Marathon course with GPS, but our rulebook states it had to be one with a cyclecomputer. I went out to measure the 10km and 42.2km with cyclecomputer, and I spent quite some time calibrating the computer. Despite that, I could not get the GPS measurement and the cyclecomputer measurement to align for the 10km course- I suspect where was something interfering with the cyclecomputer part way along the course (it was wireless), which meant I kept measuring 400-600m short. For next time, I will make sure it is not a wireless cyclecomputer.
The 100km course changed because the military took over part of our course. I needed to be driven out there which limited my ability to ride the entire course with a cyclecomputer, so it was GPS measured. The rulebook Rule 4D.15.2 states we don't need to measure courses which are not 10km and 42.2km with the same degree of accuracy, and because it was not an official world record distance, we didn't do the cycle computer to measure.
If we had unlimited resources, then yes, I think it's fine to multiple courses measured to IUF standard- but it isn't always straightforward.
I think the 10km and 42km are more important to measure and keep world records, because the general public know what these are- it is used in athletics so non-unicyclists can relate to the times and distances. The 100km is a round number, which makes it great for a time-trial record, but as a road race- it is not one that has any historical basis in running or bicycling.
Comment
When Roger started this discussion, he recognised that in total there currently are three road racing categories recognised for world records, i.e. 10km unlimited, 10km standard, and 42.195 km unlimited.
Roger suggested to increase this to nine recognised categories, by increasing the 'scope' for Road Race records in two ways. That is:
(1) adding 100km thus having three distances rather than two, and
(2) having standard, unlimited-ungeared, and fully unlimited for each distance.
I think we must first consider whether we want to add 100km as a recognised fixed distance for Road Race world records.
Secondly, we must consider adding unlimited-ungeared as a separate category, in addition to standard and (fully) unlimited.
We have extensively discussed these questions, but we don't seem to come to an agreement.
I therefore suggest that we make two proposals (one for (1) and one for (2) above), and vote for them.
I would be willing to write these proposals.
Any objections?
Comment
No objection, thanks Klaas!
Comment
No objections from me either.
Comment
I have created two proposals:
1) adding 100 km or not
(2) adding Marathon standard category
Once we have clarity on (1), I will continue creating
(3) adding unlimited-ungeared to each Road Race distance
Finally, I will create
(4) a text proposal for 4.2 ROAD RACING RECORD CATEGORIES
Comment
(1) and (2) are done: the proposals have passed.
(3) is being discussed.
I won't create (4).
I had overlooked the fact that included in (1), (2) and (3) are precise text proposals. In a way, (4) is taken care of.
This discussion is obsolete - I may close it soon.
Comment
I don't know why, but I cannot technically close the discussion. But since the discussion is not meaningful anymore, I declare it closed. :-)