Geared vs. Ungeared

This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.

Comments about this discussion:

Started

At NAUCC we have a category were the top ungeared rider is recognized in each event, only the top rider, not the top 3. 

I've been in charge of UNICON awards for 2 events now, and I know how complicated it can be to recognize a single person. But I would like to hear what others think of this.

A "traditional" unicycle is ungeared and I would still like to recognize those who placed without a geared unicycle. Our unicycling community has a long standing history of recognizing every participant and encouraging each rider to continue riding. I believe that just because you don't have a geared unicycle you should be overlooked for performing well in a race. 

Is it worth it to recognize the ungeared winner of road racing events?

Could this be placed in the rulebook as a suggestion for hosts? Or is it already and I'm just not aware?

Comment

I am generally against any distinctions or restriction regarding geared hub, especially in Muni where it really doesn't mean much difference, but this is different and interesting as it is true that some un-geared riders are quite amazing and do very well in road racing races.

How would this rider be rewarded? Would it be one "winner" per age groups?

Comment

The NAUCC rule was introduced that way due to Schlumpf riders being able to edge the Ungeared riders out of the top 5.  Only the #1 Ungeared was recognized and it was left at host's discretion to go deeper should they want.

Geared in Road Racing is almost always an advantage.

Comment

 My first thought was just to recognize the top rider, similar, if not exactly as we do at NAUCC. But as this is for international competition, perhaps the top three would be interesting?

I find it remarkably fun to see who's kicking butt "old school" style.

Comment

Existing rules allow hosts to add awards and events of their choosing. If we were to add this, as an optional thing, the reason for doing it would be to provide the "proper" way to determine those winners. Not sure if it's necessary, beyond collecting geared vs. ungeared data from riders before they start, so you know which is which. I'm not against the idea of providing information for optional stuff.

Comment

I like the idea of recognizing the top ungeared riders. This definitely shouldn't be for age group awards. I think top three is nice.

I would suggest adding this rule as required for Unicon and suggested for other events.

Comment

I agree with the distinction between geared and ungeared. To me, it is a fundamental difference.

However, to recognise the top three geared riders, and only recognising the top single ungeared rider, means that ungeared unicyclists play second fiddle to the geared category.

If there are as many ungeared riders as there are geared riders, then you risk creating an underclass.  Most top riders would not be happy to compete in what is seen (rightly or wrongly) as an 'inferior' category.

 I oppose it on those grounds.

We have a reasonable compromise with the standard class, which is already ungeared, and has large numbers of competitors.  

Unless  we have the recources to make extra categories worthwhile, I think we should be promoting the unlimited class (whether geared/ungeared) vs the standard class.

Standard class also tends to have smaller wheels, which is very important to people competing at international events, due to ease of travel.  That increases competitor numbers. 

Comment

I see the problem of geared/ungeared as well, but still: we have a standard class for those who want to have the same resources as the other competitors. They go and start in the standard class. The unlimited (as the name says it) is unlimited, weather geared or not.

If there are enough of both you could still discuss if you want to make two unlimited categories but at the moment I think there are not enough riders to separate it.

Comment

I'm with Scott on this.  The top 3 Ungeared overall at Unicon level- NO to the age groups.

The root of this rule for NAUCC was to ensure that Ungeared would be recognized.  There typically is no Standard 29" class and 24" wheels are typically unsuited for the Marathon due to time limits.  It was written so it is the top, but hosts can add to that number should they choose.  If this goes for Unicon, then the pool of riders is larger, so adding more makes sense.

I do see Ken's point about the Standard Class already, but Ungeared 36 is a Standard unicycle by definition as well.  The ease of travel is an important point too.

Before I owned a Schlumpf I would always choose my Ungeared 36 over a smaller wheel for any kind of distance.  I find spinning smaller wheels on roads annoying.  The speed on an standard 36 is much higher for MOST riders than a standard 29.  This being said, I don't think we have enough standard 36 to pull a full category split yet.  I also see a problem with not doing something in that realm as Schlumpf hubs are expensive and not always readily available if a person has the means to get one.

There are some really fast Ungeared 36" riders and we should recognize that.  They're faster than the Ungeared 29 riders.  True, they could be pushed to the 29 Standard, but do we really want speeds to decrease in racing?

I still don't think we have enough to warrant a split of Unlimited and Standard 36.  I don't think we should put the Ungeared 36 at such a disadvantage either.  I'm in favor of a subgroup.  Top 3 works for me.

Comment

Hosts may add awards and categories if they wish. I am assuming this thread is about whether to provide an "official" method for how to do this, *if* the host chooses to have these awards.

One of the compelling arguments about recognizing ungeared riders is because of the huge price gap between (most) geared and ungeared Road unicycles. While you can build your own, there is still a big financial gap for people who don't have those skills either. And you can't use the cost of attending Unicon as a counter-argument; that cost has to be borne by everybody who attends, and doesn't count the additional expense of a Schlumpf or custom uni.

I like the idea of (optionally) recognizing the top three. Even if we choose to require that, hosts would still be free to do it by age group if they want. If Schlumpf hubs were cheap, there would be less of a compelling argument to "split up" the Unlimited category.

Comment

I would agree with the top 3 ungeared awards overall (not age group). 

Comment

Folks, why no age groups? We do virtually all awards, especially all racing award, per age group. If you do no age groups, in effect you're only awarding riders in the "top ages" like 19-29 or so.

Comment

I would MUCH rather see a standardization of age groups at the adult level- 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, etc. than adding age group awards for Geared/Ungeared.  Coming from a biking background I find the shifting age groups throughout the events frustrating.  In relating this to the Geared/Ungeared discussion, the cost of awards may or may not be a factor at Unicon.  With other unicycling organizations looking to use this rulebook, I'm not comfortable making this requirement for age group Geared/Ungeared due to possible expense.  If the hosts would opt to add age groups, that's fine.

Currently the system favors the top ages.  I'm not against that when we're looking to determine World Champions.  However, it would be nice to know as one of the non prime age riders where I stand against riders of my same age, not the wide ranging shifting age groups we currently have.  I'd rather have a standard that is more solid than the combining sometimes system we have now.

Comment

All age group discussions should (when possible) go in the age group committee which will be starting soon.

Klaas, if we award all age groups then we are effective creating a new category (so standard, ungeared, and unlimited). This seems to be something that we don't want to do in general. (I for one don't support this.) However, I think the fastest ungeared riders do deserve some sort of recognition, and awarding the top three overall is a good compromise here.

Comment

When I brought up this topic it was not in even my range of thinking to make an award for age groups of ungeared. That would be be creating a whole new subgroup. No, no, no. The community may want that in the future, but it doesn't make sense to do it now. 

I only brought up the idea of the top 3 to get recognition. 

And again, only as a suggestion in the rulebook for future hosts to consider in their line up. 

Comment

Kirsten, please create a proposal here if you're still interested. There should be some text in the USA rulebook that should help.

Comment

It's a bit late, but I thought I should respond to this comment by Dave:

"The speed on an standard 36 is much higher for MOST riders than a standard 29.  This being said, I don't think we have enough standard 36 to pull a full category split yet."

--Not by much.  The last time an ungeared 36" won the Marathon event (2006), the time was 1hr43min.  The winning 700c time at the last Unicon Marathon Std was 1hr44min. Faster course, maybe, but not by much.  On the same course I expect no more than 5-10min difference between 36" and 700c.  That was the case at early Unicons, when it was 36" vs 700c.  At Unicon 12, 700c beat all the 36'ers.  

The 36" Unguni WAS the unlimited unicycle of choice up till 2006.  The only reason that was the case is because there was no production unicycle larger than 36" with a pneumatic tyre.   Although I feel somewhat nostalgic about the  36", it does limit riders who have to travel from to Unicon, and it limits equipment because there are only a couple of different 36" tyres/rims available.  The 29" class has choice of both 700c and 29" tyres (if we are using rim size standard), which means hundreds of different tyre/rim combinations from the mountainbike and road bike industry.

 

Comment

Ken, the purpose of my comment was to support a recognition of the top 3 Ungeared, not to push for a new Standard in the Standard class.

At Unicon 17, there was a 36 Ungeared rider who was sub 1:32.  A 12 minute difference is significant.  I do agree that at this time the Standard Class should remain a 29 due to the idea of traveling with a unicycle.  I do not think we need a full Ungeared class that spans the age groups.  I think that the fastest Ungeared riders deserve recognition.  The 1:32 time put this rider at 13th overall.  He deserves some recognition.

Comment

 Hi Dave,

Realistically, an ungeared road category is a 36" Unguni category, although you would get a few 29'ers/700c in amongst them. 

A 12min difference is only 13% for that event, which, in my mind, is not a lot from an organiser or rider perspective.  It would take riders away from both the Unlimited (geared) category; as well as from the 29'er standard category. 

We end up with smaller classes overall.  My feeling is that those considering ungeared racing to either step down a gear into 29, or step up a gear into geared. That way we don't thin down the ranks too much.  At least until the sport grows to sufficient size to have the extra category. 

 

 

Comment

Dave, is it correct that you propose to maintain two classes, i.e. unlimited and 29", and in addition want to give some kind of recognition to the top ungeared riders (who are probably riding > 29" and hence in unlimited)?

Ken seems to understand that you want to create three classes (geared unlimited, ungeared but otherwise unlimited, and 29").

Just trying to pinpoint and hopefully help resolve a misunderstanding.

Comment

Yes Klaas, maintain two classes is the intent.

The idea is just to recognize only the 3 fastest Ungeared riders in the world.

Ken, I'm sorry if there's a misunderstanding.  I think that the fastest ungeared 36 rider is still significantly faster than the fastest ungeared 29 rider.  Since we are considering world titles I think they deserve some bragging rights among their peers and to their coworkers upon returning home.

Here's the text from the USA rulebook:

 

 3.2.1 Ungeared Champion

If there are 5 or more geared riders in an Unlimited event, the fastest ungeared rider

will be awarded North American Ungeared Champion for that event. This is only for

the overall classification, not for Age Groups.

 

Since Unicon is a much bigger pool of participants, I think supporting a top 3 is a good idea.  I don't like the idea of forcing riders down to a 29 to stand a chance at an award.  Saying they should get a Schlumpf is not fair either.  Not only are they quite expensive when compared to the rest of a unicycle, they are not always in adequate supply.

Comment

So by recognising the fastest 3 Ungeared riders, you are not making it a class in itself?  Is a full classification one that has age groups?

It brings us back to the point I made earlier. If you recognise them but don't think they are good enough to have be a classification in their own right, you have created an inferior category.  Some riders would not be happy to win it at all. 

Comment

"So by recognising the fastest 3 Ungeared riders, you are not making it a class in itself?"

If I understand correctly, the answer is No. There are still TWO classes. Any rider, including the fastest ungeared riders, are either in the 29" class or (more likely) in the unlimited class. They might win a medal in the class they're in. IN ADDITION, they might get awarded for being one of the three fastest ungeared riders.

Comment

My thoughts:

- Definitely only keep the two current categories

- It should be a overall ranking, not per age-group as it would be like creating an other category.

- If we recognize the top 3 ungeared riders, it should be mandatory for host to do so for reference purpose over the years and Unicons.

- If we recognize them with awards and official titles, we should setup a system to confirm what setup each riders is using before and after the race (also, what about a rider changing a broken unicycle? I know we are talking about it in an other post, but I haven't finish reading everybody's comments).

- If we recognize them with unofficial title or just a printed list of all times/name for ungear riders, have a volunteer take a note each time a rider finish the race and add the info to the startlist.

B.

Comment

Correct. There are still only two classes, and that is exactly the point. We shouldn't be adding another class to road racing. However, I do think the top ungeared riders should be recognized for their performances.

Comment

Once again the experienced convention host comes up with a logical, functional approach. I would definitely vote for Benoit's version immediately above.

  • No separate category (hosts are still free to add one if they want)
  • No award requirement
  • But data collection and documentation of the results, as the required minimum

To make the above work, the unicycles being used must be listed as geared or not. And as long as we're recording that, it would be nice to capture the basic vital statistics of each unicycle: Wheel size, crank length, gearing type if other than Schlumpf, etc.

What if a rider changes equipment during the race? Whatever it is has to still be ungeared. If any part of the race is done on a geared uni, they are ineligible for Ungeared titles. Equipment changes should also be reported at the finish line, to add to the data collection of what people rode in the race.

Comment

It must be made very clear that it is for reference purposes only, and not an extra category.  

Even then I can see issues.  If someone is the fastest ungeared rider, and they are outside the top 3 (unlimited category), and they don't qualify for the 29" standard category because they rode 36"; then by recognising them, but not giving them an award, is going to create potential conflict.  

It still gives the impression of an inferior category slotted in between unlimited and standard 29".

 

Comment

In essence, it is an inferior category. In most cases it will recognize people who were in the Unlimited category but didn't win. If they did also win in that category, they are not inferior at all.  :-)

Comment

It seems no matter which direction we go, we have a problem with Standard and Unlimited Classes.

At this point if there are 2 events which have become the tradition in Road Racing of being the 10k and Marathon we have 2 different Standards- the 24" and the 29".  That requires a person who wants to be Standard to have at least 2 wheels to be competitive.  Whether or not it makes sense that the 24" fits with the Track definition and a lot of riders have that so let's keep it is the case, there are still 2 Standard definitions.

If we argue the 29" Ungeared Standard for the sake of travel, which it is very convenient, that's fine.  But a 29" Schlumpf also travels as well.  That though fits the definition of Unlimited as it has the gearing system.  Fine.  

There are riders who choose to travel with the largest Ungeared unicycle they can- a 36.  This is the largest Standard unicycle (by the direct drive definition).  The fastest riders on these have been faster than the fastest riders on a 29" Ungeared.  The time differential for the fastest rider in each was 12 minutes at the last Unicon (in the Marathon).  Whether or not we want to argue how many percent it was, the fact remains that the top on each Ungeared size wheel have a 12 minute differential.  The rider on the 29" Ungeared wheel gets World Champion.  The rider on a 36" Ungeared wheel- nothing, since they finished 13th.

At Unicon 17 data was gathered for a competitor's unicycle before each Road Racing event including wheel size and crank arm length and whether or not there was a Schlumpf involved.  It was published with the 10k data, but not with the Unlimited.  In the 10k Standard class realm comparing the number of competitors to those in the Unlimited realm we get 124 males for Standard and 74 in the Unlimited.  Of the 74 Unlimited riders, 36 were listed as Geared.  Top time for Standard was 27:54.  Top time for Ungeared 36 was 20:59.  But a comparison of class size here is not all accurate as the 10k has many more riders than the Marathon in general.  Also, the 10k Standard uni is the 24, same as a Track uni.  

In the Marathon there were 27 males in Standard, and 68 in Unlimited.  The data for the Unlimited unicycles are not published on the site as to how many are Schlumpf and how many are not in this case.

Sure, assumptions can be dangerous, but even if we assume that all the Geared 10k riders raced the Marathon on Geared unis, we still end up with 32 Ungeared riders in Unlimited.  That's more than the entire field of Standard 29" competitors.  And the fastest Ungeared rider still gets nothing.

At this point, the top placing Ungeared 36 rider realistically doesn't have an advantage over an equal caliber Schlumpf rider on most road courses.  Schlumpfs for the most part, have proven to be an advantage in most Road Racing situations.  In a tight 10k course an exceptional Ungeared rider may be able to beat a geared, but once it opens up to a Marathon distance it's very unlikely the course will favor the Ungeared rider.

With the current definition of Standard unicycle for Road Racing excluding a Standard 36 we already have an inferior class- if the argument wants to be made for the Standard being the fastest rider on an Ungeared unicycle.  In the case of this last Unicon, it's likely that the number of (male) Ungeared 36" competitors outnumbered the number of (male) Ungeared 29 competitors in the Marathon as well.

If Standard Class is set at a 29" unicycle for Unicon in the Marathon for the sake of ease of travel, that's definitely an argument.  I have a hard time seeing how making an Ungeared award for the top 3 overall riders gives the impression of an inferior class when the pool of Ungeared riders on an Standard (36") is at least as big in Unlimited as it is in the Standard Class.  Riders are making it to events with their Ungeared 36" unicycles.  Some are incredibly fast.

The Ungeared Champion was added to the USA rulebook because data supports Unlimited essentially means "Schlumpf equipped".  I still see a great value in a rider racing an Ungeared unicycle and maintaining classes for those.  Much like on the biking side of things (at least with mountain biking), many races have singlespeed classes.  That's what we're maintaining with the definition of a Standard unicycle being Ungeared at its roots.

We do have a problem with the definition of Standard and Unlimited.  Being that the pool of Standard 36" riders was around the same size at the last Unicon as the pool of Standard 29" riders it seems unfair to give awards to the 29" and not 36" when these unicycles are similar in everything but wheel size.

 

Again, in no way do I think we need to change the definition of Standard for Road Racing from a 29 to a 36 (let's leave the 24 out of it for now please).  I do think we need to award a select few for their efforts in riding a direct drive unicycle nearly as fast as those with a mechanical advantage.  In speaking with many Ungeared 36" riders over the years, they do feel that the Schlumpf is an unfair advantage.  The ones I have spoke to take pride in their placings compared to geared riders.  I believe the top 3 deserve recognition for being the fastest top 3 Ungeared riders in the world.  This is supported at least at the last Unicon because at least the top 3 Ungeared 36" riders were faster than the fastest Standard 29" rider.

 

Note: Throughout this post the data used is for the males.  Not that the females are not important, but it seems that the ratio of geared hubs in Unlimited is skewed much more toward the male than female side.

Comment

Wow dave, you wrote more than I usually do, and that's saying a lot! What I didn't get a clear idea of, though, was what you want.

But what I did get was a better picture of how the term "Standard" is putting ideas in peoples' heads different from what was originally intended. The use of "Standard" for Track unicycles goes way back, but even back then, it was specified that we were talking about the *Track version* of a Standard unicycle. In other words, it fits the Section 1 definition of Standard unicycle, but also has limits on wheel size and crank length. That was confusing enough. In Section 3.2, we seem to define Standard as "any size wheel and cranks", which is even more confusing. In 3.4 we refer to "a Standard 24" wheelsize cagegory..." (note: my spell-checker doesn't recognize "wheelsize" as a word). 3.4 is the formal listing of the unicycle types.

I think we need to stop using that word for this. What we really mean, in the Road Racing section, is ungeared unicycles. We should just call it that. This will reduce confusion since many of the unicycles in the Unlimited category are also Standard (ungeared) unicycles. It probably needs me (or someone) to make a new proposal to cover this. At the present time, we should be safe referring to the categories as:

  • 24" Track
  • 29" Ungeared
  • Unlimited

I'm also not sure if we need to call them classes. This actually comes from a competition event we had back before Freestyle was called Freestyle. We had Standard Class (artistic riding) and Open Class. This was before the introduction of Standard Skill at Unicon IV. Standard Class was like Freestyle, minus the performing aspect. Tricks only; no music, costume or theme judging. The name persists.

So, aside from making a new proposal about labeling, I'd like to point out that the Standard label is a misnomer. The 24" category is based on Track--not based on a logical setup for 24" Road racing. The 29" category is aimed at Road racing, where crank length is subjective. Don't think of them as two different sizes of the same thing. They aren't.

Now I need to take some more time and turn the above part into a new discussion/proposal...

Comment

> What we really mean, in the Road Racing section, is ungeared unicycles.
John, are you now proposing to do Road Racing in two classes i.e. ungeared and geared? That is the big deviation from the prevailing idea, i.e. 29" ungeared versus unlimited.

> At the present time, we should be safe referring to the categories as 24" Track [...]
While we're at it, that is not a very good name even though many people still call it that. Since the size limit has been expanded to 618 mm which is about 24.33 inch, it really isn't 24" anymore. But perhaps we should postpone to discuss this while we discuss elsewhere whether the definition of unicycle wheel size should be based on rim size rather than tyre diameter.

Comment

@John Foss:

"In essence, it is an inferior category. In most cases it will recognize people who were in the Unlimited category but didn't win. If they did also win in that category, they are not inferior at all. "

Not inferior, just different.

Unicycles are not inferior to bikes just because bicycles are generally faster, and bicycles are not inferior to motorcycles even if they will almost always lose against one in a race.

@Dave:

"At this point if there are 2 events which have become the tradition in Road Racing of being the 10k and Marathon we have 2 different Standards- the 24" and the 29".  That requires a person who wants to be Standard to have at least 2 wheels to be competitive"

No, the person is racing in two different events, and are bringing a unicycle that is standardised for wheel/crank for one; and standardised for wheelsize for the other

"There are riders who choose to travel with the largest Ungeared unicycle they can- a 36.  This is the largest Standard unicycle (by the direct drive definition).  The fastest riders on these have been faster than the fastest riders on a 29" Ungeared."

When you race unlimited, you are not just selecting crank size, you are selecting whole unicycles.  That's the thing that makes traveling the most difficult.  Do you bring both a geared 36" and geared 29"?  Do you rebuild your wheel during Unicon?

Unicon 12 (10km but called the 'marathon): 1st, 3rd, 5th 700c ungeared; 2nd, 4th 36" ungeared

Unicon 13, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th were ALL on ungeared 36". The fastest geared 29"/700c came in about 5th place & 6th place respectively.  

Unicon 14, geared 29" 2nd, geared 36" was 1st and 3rd

Unicon 15 geared 29" 2nd, geared 36" was 1st and 3rd

Unicon 16 geared 29" again 2nd, geared 36" filled most of the top 10 places. 

The only hilly Unicon we've had (which didn't even have sustained climbing), was Unicon 15.  Unicon 17, which is the one you refer to, was the flattest and fastest Unicon Marathon and 10km ever- you expect the Geared 36" to have advantage, which is why there were so many of them.

The point I'm making is that until we have enough riders to split three ways, we should not thin out both the 29" Standard and the Unlimited class by having an ungeared class.  Unlimited is about selecting the best unicycle for the course, which in the past has even been won on 700c ungeared unicycles (eg Unicon 12) 

"The rider on the 29" Ungeared wheel gets World Champion.  The rider on a 36" Ungeared wheel- nothing, since they finished 13th"

I'm don't think they deserve nothing, I'm saying it should be all or nothing.  

It was what I raced before geared hubs appeared on scene.   As the last person to win a Marathon World Championship on an ungeared 36", I would refuse to race it ever again and only have partial recognition.  

You either have a full ungeared category, or else these people should be encouraged to either step into unlimited (if they felt that gears are faster for that race course, they should use them), or the 29" standard category, until such time as there are enough riders to support a full ungeared category.  

If you were around the unicyclist.com forums back in 2008, you'll find quite impassioned arguments from me, that geared and ungeared should be two separate categories.  I still believe they should.  

For now, the 29" wheelsize standard does everything we want for an ungeared category, and has the advantage of making it easier to travel, and obtain good equipment.  It is not possible to buy decent 36" parts, and remains unlikely for the foreseeable future.

"Sure, assumptions can be dangerous, but even if we assume that all the Geared 10k riders raced the Marathon on Geared unis, we still end up with 32 Ungeared riders in Unlimited."

It is indeed a speculative extrapolation. I don't recall that many 36" Ungunis on the Marathon course, but I think Scott might know- he took note of all the crank sizes and hub types.

The way I see it, and I hope this makes sense:

1. Unlimited class is about selecting the best unicycle for the course.  It may be 36" geared, 29"/700c geared, 36" ungeared or even 29"/700c ungeared, or a giraffe (at Uincon 12, one of the top female racers rode one)

2. A wheelsize standard (29"/700c ie 622BSD), is about selecting the best crank length for the course.  Everyone is on the same wheelsize.  For ease of travel, obtaining quality equipment, and making it accessible to the masses, 622BSD is the best wheelsize, not 36"

3. A wheelsize+cranksize standard (24"/125), is about having the most uniform gear ratio possible, and allows direct comparisons between riders for that particular gear ratio, and allows some comparison across different events (provided they are of equal length)

4.  Geared and Ungeared unicycles are fundamentally different, and should be separated in future.  However, it will thin out both the unlimited and the 29" standard categories in the process. 

 

 

Comment

Klaas wrote:
"John, are you now proposing to do Road Racing in two classes i.e. ungeared and geared?" -- I propose a classless society.  :-)  I think some are proposing this. I would not be opposed to having an *optional* category for this. But then again, we don't really need to create a rule for it then, unless we want to make sure it's written without loopholes.

"While we're at it, that is not a very good name even though many people still call it that. Since the size limit has been expanded to 618 mm which is about 24.33 inch, it really isn't 24" anymore." -- You may be right about the name, but it's perfectly functional at the moment. But it is indeed a 24" category. It is about racing on 24" unicycles. But 24" wheels are not all equal. Some are bigger and some are smaller. Back in a simpler time, the two most common tires in racing were Schwinn and Miyata. The Schwinn tires were very close to 24" exactly. The Miyata tires were closer to 23.3". But some tires were also larger. As you know, we have a lot of technical-minded people contributing to these rules, and they insisted we needed to have a limit on tire size. Rather than create an arbitrary size that might rule out people with perfectly ordinary-looking tires, we chose a size that was well above 24". At the time it was intended to cover any reasonable tire you might use for racing. So we settled on 24.33, and later rounded that to 618mm because metric is the world standard. Not long after that, people started showing up with tires that were larger than 618mm, which was hard for them, but in most cases these were casual racers with offroad unicycles.

Maybe we should switch it to a rim size standard. That might take away some of the hassles of trying to measure tires, or trying to make sure your tire isn't too big. But it also might make it much harder, because measuring the rim on a built-up unicycle is not easy. Anyway, that would be another proposal.

Back to this proposal, we've talked out a lot, and I see a few possibilities of what a proposal might be from all of this:

  • Add a mandatory category for ungeared unicycles. It could be called Ungeared Open, or just Ungeared. I wouldn't want to call it Ungeared Unlimited, which might be confusing. If we do add such a category, we then have to decide when it's required, and when not. I would assume only at larger races.
  • Add an optional category for ungeared unicycles. Host gets to decide if it will be used, which also includes how to break it down by age (or not), etc.
  • Add mandatory awards for the top ungeared racers. Top three (male & female) or whatever. And again, when it must be required, and when not.
  • Add optional rewards for the top ungeared racers. Host decides.
  • Require recordkeeping and publishing of results for ungeared racers.

What are the other possibilities?

 

Comment

Is your last option referring to recording and publishing wheelsize, crank length and gearing system/ratio, along with race times? I see several sub-possibilities in this.

Your list of five possibilities from strong to weak could be extended on the weak side:

  • (6) Suggest/recommend recordkeeping and publishing results of ungeared riders.
  • (7) Maintain two categories (unlimited and 29" standard) and do nothing else.

Comment

Sounds good. #7 is the equivalent of doing nothing; doesn't require a proposal. So which ones do people think there should be proposals for? I'm for #2, an optional category. Actually my favorite would be a combination of #2 and #6.

Comment

I'd vote for #3 and #7. 

Comment

quote from John:

"Maybe we should switch it to a rim size standard. That might take away some of the hassles of trying to measure tires, or trying to make sure your tire isn't too big. But it also might make it much harder, because measuring the rim on a built-up unicycle is not easy. Anyway, that would be another proposal."

As John points out, the reasons for the 24"/125mm standard is historical.  

A rim size standard is ideal for the 700c/29" class, because it has not been tested by riders using rims bigger than BSD 622 and going right up to the limit of what is allowed in terms of diameter.  Having a rim size standard is important as it makes off-the-shelf parts available, and you are not in the situation where one or two riders with custom-made wheels have advantage over the entire field.

However, we've already lost that in the 24" class. The current crop of racing unicycles that fit under 618mm max wheel diameter all use rims that are ETRTO 559mm.  This is the exactly the same rim size as used on 26" mountainbikes (except with skinny rims and tyres).  Are we going to the mountainbike rim size, which are readily available, but will mean massively increasing the allowing 618mm diameter for track racing unicycles? Or do we go back down to the original 24" rims (ETRTO 547mm), which hardly any one manufactures because it is not a common bicycle wheel size?

Here is a quick guide on rim sizing: http://sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html

@Klaas

I favour option 7 for the time being, but it would be good if riders could see the reasoning behind it:

ie

1. unlimited category= choosing best unicycle for the course

2. standard wheelsize (700c/29"/BSD622mm)= choosing the best crank length for the course

3. standard crank+wheelsize (24/125mm)= having the most uniform gear ratio for a standardised distance course (eg 10km)

 

Comment

 As for wheel size settings (trying to avoid the word "standard"), if we use rim size for one wheel, we should use it for all. Or vice-versa. Unless there are specific technical reasons why that won't work well.

The current 24" size spec was a compromise, that allows 26" rims with skinny tires. I'm okay with that, since we're going by diameter and they fit the diameter, but it's messy. And some wheels are still borderline, which is always a problem for the riders that bring them.

If we go by rim size, it would be whatever tire fits that rim size, right? Tires that are unnaturally large would generally disqualify themselves from racing by being too heavy.

If we switch 24" to rim size, a bunch of skinny 26" rim riders will be very unhappy. I don't know a way around that. I'm not sure how many of those unicycles are out there, but I see quite a few at Unicons. So if we want to change to a rim-based standard, I think we should give people a few years to prepare for it.

Or not. I'm fine with those skinny 26" rim racers, and think they're appropriate for Track racing. Also I think 24" as the maximum size for the track is silly, but again, that's another proposal. We tried 29" (700c) starting at Unicon 12, but it didn't catch on. So maybe we *should* get the ball rolling on rim-based sizing on the 29" wheels. Then maybe in a few years we can do that with the 24's and 20's.

Comment

I'm with John and would prefer a combination of #2 and #6.

However, as I indicated earlier, there are several subpossibilities in #6: what should be kept records of, and what should be published. It's a recommendation or suggestion anyway and not a requirement, but is it about ...

  1. Cranklength?
  2. Wheelsize?
  3. Tyre nominal size?
  4. Only for ungeared riders, or for everyone?
  5. Gearing ratio?
  6. Publish all of the above (that we think should be recorded)?
  7. Publish separately for ungeared and geared so that we have a clear list to recognise ungeared riders?
  8. Should ungeared riders for 29" and unlimited be on a single list as an makeshift and unofficial ungeared category?
  9. Do we include the standard 24" riders in the 10k in the recordkeeping? They are ungeared riders too.

Just some options that pop into my mind. If we would agree to #5 or #6, we must also agree on the above.

Comment

I am for #3 and #6.

Comment

Just checking:

This is #3:  

  • Add mandatory awards for the top ungeared racers. Top three (male & female) or whatever. And again, when it must be required, and when not.

This is #6: 

  • (6) Suggest/recommend recordkeeping and publishing results of ungeared riders.

 

If that is the case , I am for these too.  We're talking a maximum of 6 awards - 3 male, 3 female.  Those beyond that get to have bragging rights since the results are published.

Making the awards mandatory isn't a huge burden on the budget and it establishes consistency that the award will be given at each Unicon.  (That is until we visit it again because we have a large enough field to consider a full category split.)  If a host would want to go deeper with the awards, they could consider moving towards that option, but it would be just that- an option, not a requirement.

 

Comment

If we're serious about this, then perhaps we should not suggest/recommend (which is #6), but require (which is #5) record keeping and publishing.

I'm reiterating that in either case we need to agree on what to record an publish, see also my list of three days ago.

I would say that we should record
(1) crank length,
(2) nominal tyre diameter,
(3) nominal tyre width,
(4) gearing ratio (only highest gear if shiftable).
And publish all of these.

I'm unsure if the publication should be a single list of everyone on the race distance, or separate lists.
I'm leaning towards three separate lists, i.e. 29 standard, unlimited ungeared, and geared. On a single list it is not as easy to see in what ranking spot on the ungeared list one has ended up.

I think that we can exclude 24" 125 mm riders for record-taking and publication, as they are quite standardised in their own category (on the 10k) already.

Comment

I think this has become more complicated than I intended. 

This is what the USA rulebook states for NAUCC's:

 

3.2.1 Ungeared Champion

If there are 5 or more geared riders in an Unlimited event, the fastest ungeared rider will be awarded North American Ungeared Champion for that event. This is only for the overall classification, not for Age Groups.

 

I suggest for use in the IUF Rulebook something like this:

If there are 5 or more geared riders in an Unlimited event, the fastest 3 ungeared riders will be awarded with an ungeared title for that event. This is only for the overall classification, not for Age Groups.

Comment

So the proposal up for review is only intended for NAUCC? I'm in favor of the proposal, but am wondering where it goes if it passes. How does it relate to the IUF Rulebook we are working on? Does the USA need to approve it if it passes (I guess so; the IUF Board must pass whatever this committee comes up with as well)? And I am not against the idea of discussing lower-level competition rules in this forum.

Comment

John- at this point the Ungeared Champion is already in the USA rulebook.  Extending to the top 3 places are not.

The intention with getting the Ungeared Champion in the USA rulebook was to make it a rule so it wasn't left to host's discretion to recognize Ungeared at all.  Adding additional places beyond #1 was done at NAUCC 2014 at the host's discretion for some awards.

Since the number of riders at Unicon should be significantly greater than the number of riders at NAUCC (or another national/bi-national/large geographic regional gathering that looks to utilize the IUF rulebook), awarding to the top 3 makes sense since the pool is much larger.

As far as what's to be done at the NAUCC level once this passes is up to USA Rulebook.  Certain sections of the IUF Rulebook are not entirely applicable (size of the Hockey court/rink) at a smaller level.  The top 3 may be one of them.

Comment

I believe the actual proposal that is under review needs to be updated and all the USA and North American words taken out so that this rule applies to all comps. 

Comment

I've updated the rule text to what I think Kirsten really meant to write. In any case, it's clear now that the USA text should not be part of the IUF rulebook.


Copyright © IUF 2014