Make minimum wheel size for slow races optional instead of forbiddenThis discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.
Comments about this discussion:
It should read "make the decision" instead of "take the decisioin".
After a little googling, I found that "make" and "take" are both acceptable. "Take" is used more in British English, "make" is used more in US English.
Regardless, what Ana should not copy is your spelling of "decisioin". :-)
Well played, my good man! How embarrassing.
Somehow, I missed this discussion and proposal until Kenny responded to it.
Contrary to what the proposal's background states, there IS time for discussion (until 25th of January) now that a new proposal has been created.
But frankly I don't see the need. We have discussed it at length, and then voted about a proposal to have a minimum wheel size.
The proposal failed. Why propose it again, and start the discussion again??
Remark: the link in the proposal's references doesn't work for me.
I wondered about that. If we have already voted then there is no need.
As I explained in the background, before voting we had a different situation than now:
before voting we had an extended discussion about possible options in the future about the application of a technical system which should be able to detect errors independent of the wheel size.
It seems obvious, that many members voted against a minimum wheel size, because it is expected this technical system.
Meanwhile, after voting the proposal 29 passed, that already allows to apply a technical system, to detect errors independent of the wheel size.
But the reality is, that such a system doesn´t still exist !!
So the current rule refers to a fiktive situation, but we need now an alternatively rule for the real situation.
Because at the moment the host has no possibility to apply technical system, because it´s not available now. Until the availability of a a technical system a host should get the freedom to offer a most fair competition by setting a minimum wheel size.
At the moment the development of the expected system didn´t start yet!
Sounds reasonable to me.
I still don't see the need for this new proposal.
We had this proposal and it failed.
If you read the discussion for that proposal, you will see that we have very much discussed the status of a technical system.
When we voted about the original proposal, all of us were very much aware that a technical system is not yet available.
So what is different now?
And then again, there is a good reason to have no minimum wheel size. This was argued in the previous discussion but I'll repeat it here.
I think most people will agree that using a reliable technical system is better than using human judges for many reasons, including:
- human judges are inherently more subjective, which is less fair;
- good human judges are hard to find, and it is not a pleasant job to do;
- to maximise 'fairness' with human judges, all slow racers should be judged by a single human judges team, but this is not practical (too many riders); but with a good technical system fairness is much easier to achieve, also for large numbers of competitors;
- human judges have difficulties with small wheels, while many riders want to use small wheels.
In view of the above, I believe that the "slow race community" should commit to help develop a good technical system. If they disagree I would wonder why.
With a dedicated effort, a good technical system might become available in a few years. That would negate the only reason for a minimum wheelsize. I think it would therefore be better to keep the free wheelsize choice that many riders want, in stead of setting a wheel size minimum for only one Rulebook edition. Such a discontinuity in rules is disadvantageous. AFAIK, we never had a minimum wheelsize in Slow Race.
But this is a repeat (and summary) of the previous discussion. We have already voted against a minimum wheelsize.
Klaas, I understand your comments here and I tend to agree with you. However, in the interest of fairness, I'm going to put this to a vote. If it fails, as the previous proposal might indicate, then it fails. However some members of this committee disagree and I feel like they should have the opportunity to vote.