Standard 29 Unicycle Crank arm limit (Closed for comments)
Comments about this discussion:
Started
I think in the Standard 29 Class there should also be a crank arm limit. Otherwise it is not a standard class, because in my opinion standard means that everyone has the same. Otherwise it should be unlimited.
I have also seen at the unicon that before the marathon everyone with a standard 29 unicycle was walking around checking out the other to see if the even have a chance with their crank arm size. A lot of people got upset because they realized that other chose even smaller crank arm size. I dont think this is a point of a standard class. Also at the marathon in düsseldorf there was always a crank arm limit for the standard 29 class.
I also saw that in Track and Field there is also no limit in the crank arms for the Standard 29 class. If we approve to change it in Road Races it should also be changed in Track and Field so that it is equal everywhere.
Comment
I think the biggest problem with creating a crank arm limit is deciding on what size to use. Different countries have different standards as to what is a "normal" cranks size for a 29". In Germany, 110/114mm has often been the standard, whereas in Japan, much shorter cranks are normal.
Personally, I find a 29 to be much more fun to ride with shorter cranks like 100mm or 89mm and I often use this size riding around in the city. On a flat course, longer cranks just feel silly to me and ruin the smooth/gliding ride that makes riding such a light unicycle fun. I'm not in favor of making the Standard class "less fun" in order to put everyone on the exact same equipment.
Comment
I agree that there should be a minimum crank length. This does not necessarily mean that everyone is on the exact same equipment. For the 24" standard class this is also not the case: tyre diameters vary somewhat, some riders used 125 mm and others 127 mm cranks, but 150 mm would also be allowed.
The minimum crank length for 29" standard class should be long enough so that it is a realistic minimum. If it were 40 mm, then in practice crank length is free and that is indeed not the idea of a standard class. I would say 100 mm is a good minimum. Some riders might then chose 102, 110 or 114 mm, and that's fine. Most would use 100 mm (if the course is flattish) and that's fine too. Some would want to use 89 but have to go for 100: that's Standard Class regulation in action.
Good point to have the same minimum for Road and Track&Field.
Comment
I think that if we have a limited crank size, then 100mm makes the most sense to me.
One thing to remember is how this rule will affect the organizers. It is a lot of work to check everyone's crank size before a race and it adds time. I'm not sure if it's worth it.
Comment
I'm trying to think of a reason why we need a minimum crank length for 29". I'm not succeeding. Because it is a Road race, it may or may not be flat. Riders must choose their crank length to fit the course, and hope they get it right. In Track racing, you know the exact conditions of the race, other than wind and track surface quality. It's always flat. I don't consider 29" to be a "standard" class of racing. We added this category so people with 29" wheels would be able to compete against each other, in part because they are much easier to travel with (especially by air).
Also, if we were to have 100mm as the minimum for 29", just think what the 24" riders would have to say about it! :-)
Comment
A lot of work to check everyone's crank size: true, but it's done before every track race too, as well (has been done) every year in the Düsseldorf marathon.
If John's argument is right, we should allow geared 29" unis too, in the 29" category. (Which I think we shouldn't.)
Comment
I 100% agree with John Foss. If people want to race standard where everyone is equal they can use a 24". Not sure why people were upset at unicons after seeing people had shorter cranks than them as they could have had the exact same length if they wanted.
Comment
Klaas, we do allow geared 29ers, but not in the Unlimited category. Gearing is not the same as crank length. However it brings up the question of adjustable crank length. There aren't many of those out there, but are we allowing it? I would say yes, for now, as it's not an issue. If it becomes an issue we can make a rule (a Referee might make a one-time one already). But the 29" category is not intended as a "fixed" category. It's something between Unlimited and what we should be calling "Track" category.
Comment
I think in your first sentence you might want to change "not" to "only"?
With that, I agree to your last post.
However, I would still be in favour of a realistic minimum crank length for 29 inch "standard" unicycles. 100 mm looks like a good and meaningful value to me.
Comment
Yes, should have said "only in the Unlimited category". :-P
I would be fine with a 100mm minimum, except for how silly it would look next to the 125mm minimum for the smaller wheels.
Comment
I disagree about there being a minimum crank length.
The 24"/125mm already gives us a double standard- both wheel size and crank length. I love racing it for this reason...it is is comparable over time and distance, especially as it is used in both track racing and the 10km.
The 29" standard is single standard, which is also exciting because it adds an element of strategy into play. Some people suit longer cranks, others shorter cranks. There is an optimal crank length to cadence and power ratio specific to each rider and to a particular course. Shorter isn't necessarily faster....otherwise we'd all use 20mm cranks.
I envisage the Standard 29" being used for 'road racing', which is not necessarily a standard distance like 42.2km. The only reason for standardised distances is so you can compare times, but it would be pointless comparing the 42.2km marathon at a hilly/windy race like Unicon 15, with a flat circuit like Unicon 17. I would hate to see unicycle racing reduced to flat courses just so you can compare times.
If we are to have proper road racing- different courses, different lengths, different terrain/conditions, then one needs the ability to adapt to them. If we are forced to use a crank length that doesn't suit the terrain or rider, it becomes not very much fun at all.
Lastly, why two double-standard races? You end up with exactly the same race with a bigger unicycle on a longer course. The results will be the same. Keep the 24"/125mm standared, but throw in some hills or wind in the 29" standard road race, and let people choose their cranks and strategy to gain maximum advantage. Much more interesting.
Comment
And why did people pick 100mm? On a flat course, it is not what top 700c riders would use at all.
Before geared unis came along, the unlimited class was all about 36" vs 700c, most of them on 65mm cranks. The top riders at the last unicon used 700c/65/89mm cranks, except those with heavy 29" wheels, where the 100mm length may be ok.
Making 100mm standard means it is road race designed for mountain bike wheels. The 700c is competitive against larger diameter 29" tyres because you can use shorter cranks as it is a lighter wheel, you don't need such long cranks. 100mm will make 700c obsolete for standard road racing.
I feel a pained at the thought of road racing being done on mountain bike wheels, but maybe that's just me.
Comment
I don't like the minimum crank length restriction in this case. I think the spirit of this Standard class is to allow riders to travel to Unicon (and other events) with unicycles that fit normal travel requirements. As said before, unlike a track where there are no hills, road courses may include hills forcing a rider to choose what length they think would be optimal.
I realize we're not really supposed to cross-pollinate this discussion with that of the wheel size definition, but (sorry Scott) I think this in conjunction with the BSD rather than tire diameter discussion fit well together. They allow riders to travel and race on a playing field which allows some choices, yet does not lose a tremendous advantage to a geared hub. If these go, a competitor could show up with not only a road based 29, but a muni based 29 and still be able to compete on a level playing field.
I really like the idea of a set of an easy to follow definition for Standard Class in road racing. I think we shouldn't necessarily focus on what the Track definition is.
Comment
I 100% agree with Ken on his last two posts. Keep the 29" class "open", it's a very enjoyable wheel size to race with all the different component available for the riders to customize their uni. (probably no other wheel size has that much choice of tires...). We should allow riders to pick what they want depending of the course and their style of riding, which like Ken pointed out, will allow for strategies and potentialy more developement of the sport than if everything is standarized like in Track.
Like Ken pointed out, we already have a double standart with 24" Standart in Track and 10K, the rest should be "open".
I honestly think Ken said it all!
B.
Comment
I agree to no crank limits. I don't think it is fair or reasonable to compare this to track racing.
Comment
Ken wrote: "The only reason for standardised distances is so you can compare times, but it would be pointless comparing the 42.2km marathon at a hilly/windy race like Unicon 15, with a flat circuit like Unicon 17. I would hate to see unicycle racing reduced to flat courses just so you can compare times." -- Even flat courses won't compare well, due to variations in road surface, temperature and weather (such as Wellington's sideways air).
Also I'm glad the discussion seems to be moving to no crank limits. So can we talk about 24" crank length? Really, 125mm? Time to shake things up and allow shorter ones. :-)
Comment
I like Eileen's opinion! I think, those People, who like to play with the crank arm size, should go to the unlimited class! If you want to compete in the Standard class, there should be one size for cranks, otherwise it should not called "STANDARD"
At the Düsseldorf Marathon they checked the crank size in a few minutes. It is not much effort.
I competed a few times at the "Standard Class" and I spoke with the other girls at Unicon and nobody liked the open crank size. It s not comparably.
Besides it's not easy to practice one time with a longer crank arm size and the next day with a shorter cranks... there has to be a constancy at the training.
I prefer the 114 mm cranks. It's great for hilly roads and you can speed at the road, too!
Comment
Hi Christina,
Could you address my point that if you had two double-standard classes (wheel+crank), you are making two races which are very similar.
A 29"/114mm standard race is just a repeat of the 24"/125mm standard race, with bigger unicycles and a longer course. The results will be the same. It's a lot of organising for one race, let alone two, at unicon.
There is talk about having a Ungeared category vs Geared category. A 29" single-standard (rim size only) with optional crank length bridges that gap somewhat. Taking out this option means these riders have to ride unlimited, which is not an option for many.
Also, why settle on 114mm? The Japanese riders use 65mm cranks on 700c, and have done so for as long as I've been going to Unicon. I'm not sure we have any Japanese represented on this discussion, but I think they would be disappointed to see a 114mm standard.
Ken
Comment
Hey Ken,
no, I can't understand it, because track races are short distance races...and Marathon is a long distance race. I can't find a similarity. If you look to the athletics, I don't know a 100m runner, who is also doing a Marathon...? There so much difference, how you have to practice. I guess there are not the same results.
All Japanese riders, which competed at the Marathon at Unicon16 are mainly Freestyler, so they are all used to short crank arms. But most of the Marathon riders are doing it, because they love endurance sports and concentrate on long distance, so I thinke we have to keep a eye on those people! Therefore I settle on 114mm cranks, because you can use them on every route and it's more confortable to ride, especially for beginners!
Sorry, but I keep my opinon: Limit to Crank size! otherwise you can't call it "Standard class"
Comment
Hi Christine
I was referring to the 10km standard class. There is really not much point in having both 10km and 42.2km standard both with fixed crank+wheel.
The Japanese also race track and 10km and Marathon, it's not a case of freestylers having a go at road racing. I did a 160km race on a 700c/89mm and with over 1600m of climbing last year....it was perfect, and I'm the last person you would think of as a freestyler. Long cranks would make it very uncomfortable after 60-70km.
Some riders see standard as both crank + wheelsize, which is fine, but there are also riders who see standard as wheelsize only.
If we keep the 24/125mm standard for the 10km race, it allows flexibility to have a slightly different race with only a 29" (wheelsize) standard. That satisfies both groups.
Comment
sorry, I meant Christina. Apologies
Comment
Ken was comparing the 10k 24" standard race to the 29" 42.2 km marathon, saying that these are equal. I don't think they're equal, but they are indeed more similar than 100m versus 42.2 km.
Also, at Unicon we don't expect beginners, so if our rules are primarily for unicons, your "more comfortable, especially for beginners" is not really applicable.
Having said all that, I also maintain the desire to set a significant (not 65 or even 89 mm) minimum crank length for 700c road racing, to make it really a standard class. The unlimited class is designed to be unlimited, so riders can set up their unicycle to what they think fits the course. Therefore, we don't need a semi-unlimited 700c class, in my opinion.
Comment
Klaas,
I think the standard class serves two purposes:
- make it easy to obtain equipment (700c rims/tyres are more readily available than either 36" or 24", and it is easy to travel with).
- give equal opportunity in competition.
___________
For that you must have either:
1. a standardised gear ratio (24"/125mm)
The 24"/125mm standard gives you accurate comparisons with other riders and events of the same length, but it favours the rider whom that ratio is specific to.
For example, a rider with long legs might beat a rider with short legs over the 10km course using 24"/125mm unicycle. But on a 24"/65mm unicycle, the rider with short legs might win, on exactly the same course! A standard gear ratio does not necessarily create equal opportunity.
2. or a standardised wheel size (BSD 622)
This means that there is flexibility for different rider types/leg lengths. It serves a different purpose to a standardised gear ratio only.
I think we should have both- the standardised gear ratio (24/125), and standardised wheel size (BSD 622).
Comment
To me, standard means that all riders use in principle the same equipment. If they deviate from the standard (e.g. use a 20" wheel in 24" standard class), it should be slower, and so all serious riders would ride the same type of unicycle. Differences between results are then due to the riders themselves, not to their equipment.
24" and 36" inch unicycles are not difficult to obtain. I subscribe to the travel argument though.
There is something to be said for your viewpoint, but I think that unlimited is the class to be for someone who wants to use a 'special' cranklength, wheelsize etc.. The short-legged rider can ride a 36" with short cranks, and standard can be really standard.
Just my opinion. Maybe it should come down to a vote.
Comment
Ken i don't See the Point why you are comparing 24" to 29" class. In the 10km Race that might be an Option to choose the 24" class to be in a Standard class but i don't think it is in Option for the Marathon. At least i wouldnt switch to at 24" now because of beeing in a Standard class. And the 29" class didn't Even excist on the las Union for the 10 km Race. I rode a 29" in that competiton and had to compete against other unlimited riders. To say we have the Standard in the 24 " class and therefor we don't Need it in the 29" class is for me Not an plausible Argument.
Comment
I object to the label of "Standard" for various different classes of unicycle. We also use "Standard" as the definition of a "normal" unicycle without gearing. Our definition of Standard Unicycle (page 18 in English Rulebook) is long and messy also, as it says it is one thing, but can also be another. I prefer referring to the different sizes for Road unicycles as as Track for 24"/20", 29" (or maybe 622) for 29" wheels, and Unlimited.
Also. Am I missing something, or is there no definition of Unlimited unicycles in the Road section? The definition is found in Section 1 (also page 18), but reading the Road section it says "Only standard unicycles may be used." This must have been copied from the Track rules of old, but is not accurate. Unlimiteds can have chains and many sorts of non-standard things, and they should be listed in 3.6, which they currently aren't. Anybody want to do a proposal for that?
Back to 29" wheels. If you look in the Track section, please note the currently existing rule for cranks on 29" Track unicycles. No limitation on crank length. Good idea. Not that anyone is doing 29" Track races these days. I wish they would. It's faster! 24" no longer needs to be the traditional size for Track. It was in the past because that's how unicycles were made. But now we have more choices.
If you like using 114mm, I recommend that you use it. But don't make me use it. I rode the Unicon XIV Marathon on a 36" with 102mm cranks, and it was probably the fastest Marathon I'll ever do.
Comment
Why did we create a 29" category for Road racing? Because they can't compete with geared 36ers. For various reasons (such as limits on what you can fly with), some people can bring 29" wheels but not 36". And most of them can't afford geared hubs. It's a size that's we consider viable for 42k races, but can't compete well against the bigger wheels or other forms of Unlimited unicycles. We have a 29" category so people can race 29" wheels.
For Road racing, a standardized crank size would generally be hated by most, since it would probably be longer than many people would want to use. Again, I refer back to 24" Track unicycles, with their long minimum of 125mm. The reason for this size is because it was commonly available at the time this rule was created. The only other commonly available sizes were longer. The earlier rule was 140mm (actually 5.5", as found on Schwinns). Many did not want to allow the shorter 125mm cranks (because they didn't want to buy new ones). If we are to be consistent in our "standardization", the minimum crank length for 29" wheels should be at least 137mm, to make it longer than the 125 on the 24" wheels. Or let the 24" wheels use shorter cranks.
But we aren't proposing to do that. For the moment, the idea of using a 24" wheel in a Road race is that it's your Track unicycle, and that you may be racing it because you can't bring a bigger wheel. Or because your bigger wheel is your Muni. Along with your Trials and your Freestyle wheels, your luggage is full.
I would vote no on a minimum crank size for 29", especially if it's shorter than the size for the smaller wheels.
Comment
I think the references to the Track 24" are not in the best interest here. The 24" 125mm crankarm length is somewhat a standard, but at the same time not. The 24" is the issue not adhered to well. Many of the unis being used are not actually a 24" wheel, but a 25" wheel with a 1" tire to fit the diameter standard, but much lighter than a 24" wheel with appropriate tire. I've actually known of a rider having a classic 24" uni with the tire that the rule was written around that is now an illegal unicycle due to the fact the rubber in the tire has stretched over time.
I think the idea of allowing a rider to compete in the long events with a unicycle that is easy to travel with as standard airline luggage is a fantastic idea. I really "got-it" when seeing Ken use the same uni frame with different wheels at Unicon 17. Forcing a rider looking to travel and do long distances onto a crank size that they may not be comfortable with is not a good idea. It's pretty much saying "buy a Schlumpf" if you want to compete.
I think with the Track "Standard" allowing 25 x 1" wheels we already have a problem. It does give an unfair advantage to those riders who build a specialty unicycle for that purpose. The 25 x 1" tire would be rather useless on the pock marked roads around here as a bulk of the time would be spent avoiding or fixing punctures. A true 24" uni can be used outside of smooth surface racing- it can make a good muni with a tire swap.
I think we aren't causing a problem by defining a Standard 29" that does not specify a minimum crank length. The Standard is an ungeared wheel.
Comment
I also vote no minimum size for cranks on 29" but if people want it (so we can call it standard) then it should be 1mm. ;)
Comment
@EileenS
The comparison I make between the 24"/125mm standard vs 29" standard is because there is already a double-standard class in a long distance event (10km). If you have two standardised distance events 10km and 42.2km, both with standardised wheel/crank sizes, then you are making two events which are very similar.
I do not see the need for two separate fixed distance events. Either 10km or 42.2km should be fixed distance. As mentioned earlier, a fixed distance event is only good because it makes times comparable between events. And the only reason to compare time between events is because the course is very similar- ie very flat. Can you imagine a road bicycle race like the Tour De France with a fixed distances (eg 100km and 200km stages) just so people can compare times between each stage? It would not work, nor would it be very interesting.
Comment
If you look at athletics events like their 10km or 42.2km marathon- they are universally flat, for the reason I mention above.
Comment
I like Klaas Bill arguments!
I agree for the same equipment in Standard class! I ride standard in Germany because I like it, when everybody has the same conditions and it's not a challange who has the best equipment! (our crank arm Minimum size is 114mm)
Those People, who like to play with crank arm and wheel size, can start at unlimited. and those people who like to have the same conditions should start in Standard class ( with a wheel and crank arm limit)
I just can repeat, that heaps of girls (starting in Standard class during Unicon) were upset about the IUF rules, that there is no limit for crank size!
Comment
If you want the exact same setup as everyone than just enter with a 24. That is the main purpose why we have the class. As others have said, a mininum crank gives advantages and disadvantages to short vs tall people. So we should stick with just having one standard class.
Comment
We don't have a 24' class for Marathon at Unicon.
Comment
Jamie, that's not an argument. The current rulebook says "24” and smaller wheels are not allowed for races longer than 20km without express permission of the racing director."
Moreover, even if you would do the marathon on a 24", you would certainly not have the exact same setup as everyone.
I am wondering: are the people who oppose a crank length limit for the 29" class, going to ride in that class themselves? It seems to me that most of them ride unlimited anyway, and it might well be that the majority of 29" marathon riders are in favour of a crank length limit.
Comment
@Christina,
You still do have the same conditions, but we are just setting which parameters to standardise. In the 24/125mm standard, we standardise both crank + wheel size. In the 29" standard, we standardise the wheel size.
This gives two types of competition, otherwise the 24"/125mm 10km, and the 29" standard marathon are pretty much the same thing, and you will only ever have flat race courses.
Quote:
"I ride standard in Germany because I like it, when everybody has the same conditions and it's not a challange who has the best equipment!"
Cranks are both easy to bring to competition and relatively cheap, so has nothing to do with who has the 'best equipment'. It's not the same as a geared hub, or a 36" wheel which is difficult to travel with.
Take it one step further....how far should we go in terms of standardising equipment? Should every rider ride exactly the same make and model of unicycle, with standardised seat/seat/wheel/spokes/hub/pedals/frame?
Comment
@Klaas
"I am wondering: are the people who oppose a crank length limit for the 29" class, going to ride in that class themselves? It seems to me that most of them ride unlimited anyway, and it might well be that the majority of 29" marathon riders are in favour of a crank length limit."
- my arguments are entirely from the point of view as someone who races both standard 10km and standard 29".
- I race standard is because I hate the idea that unlimited class has come down to an equipment arms race. Geared hubs, disc brakes, clipless pedals etc etc. Travelling to unicon was getting both expensive and not enjoyable. I got into unicycling because it is simple and elegant, which is standard class; not one where you have to check the torque of your bolts and rotor clearance before each ride so the geared hub doesn't kill you.
- I race 24/125mm standard in order to test myself with exactly the same gear ratio as everyone else. The 29" standard is a different challenge altogether, because you have to figure out what crank length to will for the terrain, distance, and your own riding style. All competitors have equal opportunity to experiment with crank sizes prior to the race.
- There are no Japanese 29"/700c riders in this rulebook subcommittee, which is unfortunate, because I don't think their views are represented. The ones I've raced with over the years all experiment with crank lengths when racing the unlimited marathon using 700c. Going back to Unicon 12 (Yuta Ando won with 700/65mm), through to Unicon 13 (most Japanese 700c riders in the unlimited used 65-89mm cranks), to the latest Unicon, where riders used everything from 50mm to 100mm. I used 65mm after spending quite some time practicing the course with different crank lengths.
Comment
It is a pity indeed that we have no Japanese representation here. It is difficult to estimate what the majority of the 29" marathon riders would want. Is there a good way to find this out, and should we "step out" from the committee in this way? Otherwise, maybe we should revert to what we (as rulemakers) think is reasonable, in stead of what the riders would want.
Your arguments sound plausible, but you could also satisfy your need to figure out the right cranklength (and more) in the unlimited category. The only remaining argument is then about travel? Yes it is more cumbersome to travel with a 36" than it is with a 29", but a big crowd of riders take their 36" on a plane. And I guess most of them would continue to do so (e.g. to Unicons) regardless of the crank size limit in 29".
I still think that unlimited and standard should be really separate classes. Unlimited is where you can set up your unicycle as you want, in standard you're bound by limits on the two factors that matter most to speed, i.e. wheelsize and crank length (oh yeah, and 1:1 gear). I'm not arguing that everyone should agree with me, this is just how I feel it should be. I would be happy to vote on this aspect, and accept either outcome.
Comment
Sorry, thought there was a 24 standard for marathon but guess that's just for the 10k. Maybe we could add it? Guessing the reason it's not a class is that it would take too long for the organizers. Anyways, I'm ok to have a limit on crank size for 29 but it should be the shortest/fastest setup. Sounds like some prefer 100's and some 65 and some 114. So do the lowest 65. That way everyone can go that short if they want or choose 100 or even 114 if that's what they prefer. (My point being that if it's set at 65 then we should just not have a limit).
Comment
> Anyways, I'm ok to have a limit on crank size for 29 but it should be the shortest/fastest setup.
The idea of a meaningful limit is that (almost) everyone rides the same setup. If you set the minimum crank length at 65 mm (or 1 mm as Ken suggested) it is not meaningful, and it doesn't lead to a standard unicycle.
Comment
I will likely vote no on any non-short standardization for 29" cranks. IMHO, you people who want to all ride the same size cranks need to get over yourselves. Crank length is a much smaller factor in unicycle speed than wheel size, it doesn't matter as much. It's like the people in favor of a fully standardized unicycle don't want to have to think.
I will also definitely vote no for any crank length that is shorter than 125mm. To propose such, to me, suggests we should first pursue a shorter crank minimum for Track unicycles.
The purpose of open crank size (as well as Unlimited; and the rules we use for Muni) is to encourage innovation, freedom of choice, and an evolutionary process to find what works best for a fast, efficient unicycle. I like that experiment. It has gone in some surprising directions since we first started allowing Unlimited equipment.
Comment
The arguments mentionned above convinced me even more that we should keep the 29'' class should be kept open, without crank limit. Scott is right that Road racing in this case cannot be compared to Track and I agree with Ken that we should let riders in Road Racing develop riding strategies depending of the course.
I will also vote no for limiting crank lenght.
B.
Comment
quote from Klaas:
"Your arguments sound plausible, but you could also satisfy your need to figure out the right cranklength (and more) in the unlimited category."
The difference is that unlimited is now a class that usually requires a geared unicycle, disc brakes, handlebars, clipless pedals etc in order to be competitive. It has none of the simplicity appeal that I love about unicycling.
"The only remaining argument is then about travel? Yes it is more cumbersome to travel with a 36" than it is with a 29", but a big crowd of riders take their 36" on a plane"
A lot of preparation before an event comes down to guessing what unicycle will suit the terrain based on maps and photos, but you can never be sure until you get there. It is not as simple as simply bringing a geared 36".
If you look at Wellington Marathon course- could you tell beforehand whether a geared 36", a geared 29", or an ungeared 36" were the best suited unicycles? The second fastest rider rode a geared 29". Do you to bring both a geared 36" and a geared 29" to New Zealand?
What about the Wgtn 10km race? It was won on an ungeared 36" because of all the corners and acceleration/deceleration. I live in Wellington and I couldn't figure out whether to my geared 29", geared 36", or ungeared 36" would work best. A rider from overseas does not have the option to bring all three easily.
Unlimited throws in all multiple unicycle possibilities/combinations, standard 29" means one only has to select which crank to use. Easy to bring a selection of cranks, not so easy to bring a selection of geared unicycles.
Also, most road riders also ride other events like XC Muni or cyclocross, or perhaps standard 10km. That's 3-4 unicycles already.
quote from Jamey:
"Sorry, thought there was a 24 standard for marathon but guess that's just for the 10k."V
We considered having a standard 24/125mm class for the Wellington marathon, but our race director wouldn't let us- it would have taken too long logistically. As the same racing officials worked in subsequent unicons, it probably remains the case.
Later on I thought how pointless it was that we measured a 42.2km course which will never be useful for anyone- you cannot compare it to any other 42.2km distance unless it is flat, which Unicon XV most certainly wasn't. The danger with having two standardised fixed distance races is that it ends up like athletics...always flat and uniform. That is a different argument altogether though.
quote from Klaas:
"If you set the minimum crank length at 65 mm (or 1 mm as Ken suggested) it is not meaningful, and it doesn't lead to a standard unicycle."
What makes 65mm non-meaningful? It is what most 700c riders who raced unlimited class in the Unicon 12/13/14 were using. I thought it was ridiculously short, until I tried it myself. It's a beautiful sensation- gliding along at 25km/hr with very little leg movement. I wouldn't ride anything else on my 700c unless it's hilly.
@Christina and EileenS
I understand where you are coming from...I used to wonder why 29" standard did not have a standardised crank length. However, I changed my mind after racing at Unicon 17, for all the reasons I mention. I encourage you to try some different cranks before you make up your mind.
Now that I have raced both 24/125mm (crank+wheel) standard and 29" (wheelsize only) standard, I think it is necessary to have both options, otherwise you have almost identical racing.
Comment
I'm Japanese.
I'm sorry, I wasn't a native, so it took time to read argument, and a comment was delayed.
I agree about a crank size limit with Ken.
My daughter and the friends put a short crank (55,60,65,etc.) on the 700C in UNICON. That's the strategy after the course condition was predicted, and is one of the pleasure of the marathon.
But we're racing by a rule of 24/125mm in Japan. That's because the same flat course is used every year. And to suppress the speed by a reason on the safety.
If a limit is necessary to the crank size, I think it's proper to do the tire size in 24. When but don't many marathon riders wish for that?
P.S.
Much of a Japanese marathon runner is freestyler, but they're also working on a marathon seriously, are continuing and are practicing.
Comment
Sorry I didn't reply earlier, this got buried in my inbox.
Ken wrote "Later on I thought how pointless it was that we measured a 42.2km course"
I don't think the Wellington marathon was 42.195 km. From memory it was closer to 44 km.
Ken (again) wrote "What makes 65mm non-meaningful? It is what most 700c riders who raced unlimited class in the Unicon 12/13/14 were using."
That is the point. I didn't say 65 is non-meaningful as a racing crank size on 700c, it's non-meaningful as a minimum because most riders use it (and the majority who are not on 65 mm use longer cranks).
Comment
Quote from Klaas: "I don't think the Wellington marathon was 42.195 km. From memory it was closer to 44 km."
-exactly! And the Unicon 13 Marathon was 43km. There is no reason for a fixed distance road race if you can't compare race courses. The only way to make race courses comparable is to measure it with a high degree of accuracy, and to have very similar conditions- ie completely flat.
Quote from Klaas: I didn't say 65 is non-meaningful as a racing crank size on 700c, it's non-meaningful as a minimum because most riders use it (and the majority who are not on 65 mm use longer cranks)
Surely if most riders use 65mm, it is the most efficient crank length for the flat? Why would a meaningful crank length be one that no 700c would use? Why not 170s?
Comment
It's not my observation that most riders use 65 mm, I was just quoting you. Personally I'm not sure that 65 mm is the most efficient crank length. It would depend on a lot of things. And you must agree to that since you talked about the tactical issue to pick the right crank length for the course. Moreover, I wasn't talking about a meaningful crank length, but about a meaningful minimum.
I meant that if we are going to set a minimum crank length for 700c (or 29") road races, 65 mm (or 1 mm as you suggested) is not a meaningful minimum since it doesn't do much to standardise the unicycles used.
By the way, I still like the marathon distance to be 42.195 km since even non-sports-people understand the meaning of that distance.
Comment
From my observations, top riders use between 50-89mm cranks on the flat, depending on their riding style and setup (ie longer cranks with bigger tyres). You are right- the whole tactical aspect of crank choice depends on terrain. For a hilly course, many would choose 100's or 114s.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 65mm being 'non-meaningful minimum' because most riders use it? Do you mean that, for a meaningful minimum, it must be longer than what most riders would choose to use?
Comment
> Do you mean that, for a meaningful minimum, it must be longer than what most riders would choose to use?
Yes, longer than they would choose to use if there was no crank limit size.
To understand my point, compare with track racing. The crank size limit is 125 mm. I'm sure that most people would use shorter cranks if there was no crank size limit (and the wheel size limit was still 618 mm). If the crank minimum was 10 mm, it is in effect the same as imposing no limit at all, because no-one would want to go lower anyway. Therefore, I consider 10 mm to be a non-meaningful minimum (it doesn't mean anything as a limit), and 125 mm a meaningful minimum (it really means something).
I think the way I use the word meaningful, you will agree with 65 being not a meaningful minimum in 700c road racing.
We still differ on "useful", let alone "desirable".