Gravel surface
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
Section 4D.1 does not cover what surface is required for road race.
Is the gravel road acceptable and in what extent?
Comment
Thanks for bringing this up, Maksym. This was actually a problem that arose at NAUCC 2016 for both the marathon and 10k. I think that gravel is completely unacceptable for a ROAD race. In this situation riders were unprepared for the gravel surface and it led to dangerous racing conditions. A situation could also arise where a race course might be on cobblestone, which would also be very dangerous.
A rule could be made that says that all road races must be on PAVED surfaces. This way it doesn't leave room for loopholes.
Comment
I dont se the problem of having a piece of gravel road as a part of a road race, gravel road is also road. as long as the course are public and it is possible to ride prior to the event, its up to the rider to prepare themselves for what's coming.
a paved road i also never completely smooth, as at Unicon where there was multiple big and almost invisible holes in the asphalt just before a sharp turn. or at the danish nationals where there was 3 cracks and bumps on the road. -then i would prefer riding a bit on gravel than hitting a hole in the asphalt.
Comment
For me having part of gravel road is OK, unless it does not bring disadvantage of use sleek (road) tires, and it will not happen if gravel is in small part (for example 5% of total distance).
It might be very helpful for organizers to have certain amount of gravel (5%) in option during selection of track.
Comment
I don't see why gravel is not acceptable at all. I agree that the major part of a road race should be on paved roads. However, thinking about the race at Unicon 18, I personally found this race quite dangerous with all these holes and bumps. For me smooth and even gravel in not a problem, as long as riders are prepared that they will ride a section that is not paved.
Comment
For me road racing often blurs the lines between racing on an actual paved surface and essentially a "flat muni" event. This requires the rider to have detailed knowledge of the entire riding surface to adequately choose the proper, safe equipment for that specific race. Most riders will not be familiar with the entire race surface so have to guess, hence the race results and safety rely on a random choice versus unicycling speed and racing skill. IMHO having strict requirements for the racing surface will level the playing field (no pun intended ). Having said that I'm concerned strict requirements will make it more difficult for event organizers to find an appropriate venue.
Comment
Personally, I think the standard for the surface should be higher in general. Instead of comparing gravel to roads with bumps and cracks I think we can all agree that the best surface for racing would be smooth pavement. This was one of the best things about the marathon in Montreal. Even though it was flat and perhaps boring, it allowed for the safest and best racing I have seen at a Unicon.
Comment
How about this: What's acceptable for the Tour de France is acceptable for our Road races.
- Cobblestone is pavement
- Gravel is a road (most roads, in rural areas)
- Roads can have big bumps, gaps, cracks, potholes, etc.
- Construction, detours, debris and more
- Racing courses may have to be changed at the last minute (this seems to happen a lot for us)
Tour de France riders use skinny tires, but they are prepared for the various surfaces of their long rides. Okay, maybe they have a car following with lots of extra wheels on it, but then again our races are a lot shorter. :-) My point is that road should be road.
So to me, the question is more about how much questionable surface should be allowed in a course? That would be a number we would presumably strive to agree on before drafting a proposal. I'm thinking 25% as the absolute maximum, but would be happier with 15-20. Remember, every time we add restrictions like these, it makes it harder to find courses that will fit in with all the other restrictions already present when trying to close off roads. For that reason, we should strive to keep things as unrestrictive as possible.
How much gravel did we ride in Ride The Lobster? Quite a bit, but probably a small percentage overall. All existing 36" tires are fine with gravel, but I understand it's a hardship for skinny tires. My response to that is that not all roads are smooth pavement.
At the USA Nationals in 1993 (I think; Chariton, Iowa) we did a 9-mile race on a rail-to-trail conversion, what they called the "Cinder Path". No pavement, except in a couple of covered bridges. I did okay on my skinny-tire 24" (1 3/8"), tying for first place with Andy Cotter and Dustim Kelm. :-)
Comment
Okay, let me go through John's comments here.
In the Tour de France, they would never race on gravel, the course is swept of debris by their huge crew, and there would never be last minute construction on the course of a million dollar (euro) event. More importantly, while it is sometimes useful to look at what the (bi)cycling community does, I want you to go race on cobblestones on a road bike and a unicycle and tell me which is harder/more dangerous.
Ride The Lobster was a long-distance race of 200km a day. While riders may have been going fast at times, slowing down for a gravel corner or two was not a big deal. On the other hand, for the Road Races at Unicon, many of the results come down to seconds at the finish and riders are pushing their top speeds for much or all of the race.
I'll ignore the fact that 1993 was ages ago in the development of unicycling, but the speeds you guys were racing at is not quite the same as what the top unlimited races are doing today. The main factor in whether one slides out on a slippery surface is not tire width, but speed.
Clearly we need to be considerate with the rules in order to make events feasible, but a large national or international championship must still have some basic course requirements. We need to consider the safety of the riders when choosing courses, and in my opinion the Unicon 18 road surfaces were on the edge of that safety margin. When you combine that with the pedestrian problems, it was very dangerous.
Comment
As a competitor, I prefer gravel over the bumps and pedestrians that we encountered in Spain and in Italy during the 100k.
As an organizer, I would not want to see any restrictions. It is often so difficult and expensive to find suitable locations for the longer races.
Going back to Maksym's original question, I would say that gravel is acceptable, but the organizers must follow 4D.3 "Communication" with special attention to "riding surfaces". And therefore, we should not put in any special rules.
Comment
Organisers should do everything within their power to make sure that the racing surface is smooth and free of obstacles (including pedestrians). Not only is this crucial for safety, but it's also conducive to fair racing conditions.
Comment
I am reminded that we are indeed not the Tour de France, nor will we ever have their budget. :-)
On the topic of the OP I think the consensus is that gravel is acceptable, but preferably in a straight line; not with sharp turns.
In reality, our Road courses are basically guaranteed to have random surface imperfections, debris, wet leaves and other dangers on them, no matter what we do (within our limited means). In this rule we should stress the importance of riding surface where it combines with turns, transitions, expansion joints, or other places where things can get rough. That's probably more important than setting a percentage of how much gravel (or similar) is acceptable. For example, gravel and right-angle turns should be either very discouraged, or a non-starter (avoid non-starters).
Meanwhile, I don't know if we should start a separate discussion for this, but since it's already been mentioned by several of us, to discuss what we learned from our Road courses at Unicon 18. I think we learned a lot. A few takeaways that I noticed:
- Racing in a busy city is really cool if you can make it work
- Said course on a weekend morning with great beach weather, and 10,000 people trying to cross said course to get to the beach, is an impossible situation
- SAME course, on a rainy weekday morning, is a lot more manageable
- But since we can't control the weather, we must always assume the scenarios where it will work against us
- Even with hundreds of volunteers, you can't stop 10,000 pedestrians who want to get to the beach
- Urban courses are likely to have multiple right-angle turns; complex urban courses may have a lot!
- We have done urban courses in the past and they worked, mostly due to the two factors of people not needing to get across, and much less traffic trying to drive on the course
People can add more to that. From there, I'm sure we can come up with some guidelines to help ensure safer Road courses for future competitions.
Comment
I agree with Connie and Klass: "As a competitor, I prefer gravel over the bumps and pedestrians that we encountered in Spain and in Italy during the 100k. As an organizer, I would not want to see any restrictions. It is often so difficult and expensive to find suitable locations for the longer races. Going back to Maksym's original question, I would say that gravel is acceptable, but the organizers must follow 4D.3 "Communication" with special attention to "riding surfaces". And therefore, we should not put in any special rules." & "Organizers should do everything within their power to make sure that the racing surface is smooth and free of obstacles (including pedestrians). Not only is this crucial for safety, but it's also conducive to fair racing conditions."
Comment
Say we did add a "no gravel" section to road races. What happens if the organizers had some gravel sections in the course? Like what is the consequences for them? Curious about this for other disciplines as well that they may violate. Do they really get in trouble or is it just a shame on you?
Comment
Sorry for the multiple posts (tried to go and re-edit my others but couldn't figure out how to do it).
Riding roads are always variable with lots of obstacles (bumps, potholes, dirt, debris, people, cars, etc.) and I believe that is just part of road races. Yes we want them to be as safe as possible but they are roads after all. If people really want the safest and smoothest surface than we should just have them all on the track (yes that would suck but it would be the easiest and safest way about it). I would be totally against that by the way.
Comment
Jamey, as to violation of rules by organisers: I think it happens quite often. Perhaps there is shame on them, but maybe not even that. I think in most cases it just goes by.
Effectively, that means that our much esteemed Rulebook is actually a Recommendations book. Should we worry about that? Perhaps. Should we rename the Rule book? No, that would open the gates to hell :-p.
Comment
Hi, and sorry to come late. Here is my point concerning gravel surface.
It impacts performance and security. If a part of the race is on a gavel surface, the organizers must not expect that a WR will be beaten on their race (the same as a bumpy race or a race with a lot of turns). They should also expect more falls, and more unhappy riders.
However I would say that if there is no choice and/or it simplifies a lot the organizing of the race, a small ratio (10-20%) of the race might be gravel.
- having turns on gravel, even smooth ones -> same point as John and Scott, it will be too dangerous for fast (and even not so fast) riders
Comment
I agree with you Martin.
Comment
Martin I like your ideas. Just to clear them up a bit more, how do we want to define a turn? Is it the same thing as a corner?
Comment
The firmer you phrase a rule, the more it should be justified. In general, I am against too (many) firm rules because they may make things impossible for the organisers.
So while I like Martin's ideas too, I think that "strictly forbidden" is too strict. What, as an example, if a marathon course would include a 100 m gravel section that is one smooth turn, versus an alternative course that is 100.0% on nice pavement but that is so far away that bus transport is needed?
I would say "In any case, these two situations are to be avoided:" Then it is not so important to exactly define a turn.
My phrase "to be avoided" expresses a desire, that can be balanced against other desires, and perhaps relinquished to find a compromise.
Comment
Indeed I might have been strict. I was (And I'm certainly still :) ) thinking more of performance than security, but both come together for all riders who try to go fast. Even ungeared ones. And I think a lot of riders try to make good performances.
I hadn't any accurate definition of a turn in mind ... This could be something like anything that makes a rider change direction on a short distance and with more than 45 degres.
But you're probably right Klaas when you say that adding such kind of rule might just complicate things. If something like "to be avoided" is mentioned, that might already be an improvement.
Comment
@Martin: "...a small ratio (10-20%) of the race might be gravel."
10% of 10 km is 1km, I do not think it is small. For me 5% is acceptable.
If we have to define turn, I suggest to do it by radius instead angle.
Comment
I like allowing 5% but I would add that the 5% should be any non-pavement (gravel, cobblestones, etc.).
What would you suggest for defining turn, Maksym?
I think these two stipulations are not too limiting but will help make the race much safer.
Comment
I am not big fan for limiting turns on gravel roads. Riders should adjust the speed according to conditions. I am not experienced with racing on gravel on road tire, but if this will significantly improve safety than I am for that.
I have realized that calculating the radius of turn is not an easy thing, but after half an hour I managed to derive some formulas.
I concluded that for example: course change of 90 degrees on 10m wide road gives the same radius of turn (34.1m) as 60 degrees change on 4.57 m wide road.
Instead of putting formulas in the rulebook I would suggest puting small table with permitted maximum angles of turn vs road width.
If you (Martin) are interested to limit the angle of turn give an examples (road width vs max course change), so we can derive minimum permitted radius of turn and than construct some neat table.
Comment
I am against too precise rules on this, for a variety of reasons:
- It complicates matters for organisers to measure turn radii, or deviation angle and road width, and find a route within all constraints. It may even be impossible to find such a route, given all the other parameters one has to satisfy.
- There is no hard distinction between safe and unsafe turns (whatever number would be chosen). A little bit sharper turn is not very unsafe, nor is a little bit less sharp totally safe.
- In sharp turns, especially on gravel, riders will slow down anyway, so if a fall occurs it is likely to have less severe consequences. A more gradual turn may see the riders go full speed, and then a fall is actually more dangerous.
I would go no further than to recommend (or express the desire) that road race routes avoid gravel roads, or keep the distance on gravel to a minimum. A sensible organiser can weigh this against all other issues he has to consider such as traffic regulations, permits etc.
And hey, it's a road race, not track racing or salt plains riding (explanation: utterly flat terrain). Riders have to deal with road conditions, I consider it to be part of the race.
Comment
Totally agree with you Klaas.
Comment
I agree with klaas.
Comment
I'm on with Klaas as well. What we rule should somehow prioritize what are the more important things to provide for a Road race, and which are less of a problem. "Good" gravel might be much better to race on than a rundown city street full of potholes and cracks. Wet leaves can be as big a problem as gravel. And a "paved" road can have a lot of dirt or debris in a corner that would make it nearly equal to turning on gravel.
The emphasis should be on safety first, followed by convenience, logistics and other factors, such as scenery, viewability, etc. In the end, it is better to have the race on an imperfect course than to have none at all.
Comment
Me too!
Comment
I had also spent a few time thinking of how to quantify a turn Maksym. I would consider the same radius as you, but also the total angle of the turn, which has a role in the time it make loose in a race.
I can't disagree with Klaas though. Adding such rule must be heavy to interpret and apply, and could be left as a "wish of having nice profiles" for now.
However, if "bad turns" or "bad surfaces" are present in the next races I am pretty sure this subject will come up again, because riders will complain that they cannot beat records.
Comment
Martin, I noticed that you wish that race course is fast, allowing riders to beat previous records. It is not a bad wish but as long as the race is not held on F1 track it would be very hard. On the other side, flat, straight and wide courses are boring. Is it that much important to beat records?
Why not held a road race on mountain roads? I understand that this kind of profile would be more dangerous and subject for proper gearing (cranks and wheel sizes), but it might bring new feelings to road racing.
Klaas,
I am also against to precise the rules too much. Organizers should understand risks associated with racing. It is much better to have an experienced race director and consultations during selection of racing course.
Anyway there should be some limits set to differentiate Road racing from XC racing.
One said that forestry road is still road, but if it is better to use knobbed tires instead slick tires I would not consider it as proper road for road racing.
Suggested max 5% of gravel is 500m on 10 km or 2km in Marathon, it might feel long during the race but should not impact slick tires too much. Organizers will get an option to get this 5% of gravel if tarmac is problematic and if this 5% is not sufficient than they should think of changing race location.
Comment
I also agree with Klaas.
I think road races are already very hard to organize - I especially think about 10k races at smaller competitions (but also the national championships here in Germany). Adding a percentage limit of gravel for road races to the rules would make it still harder to get a 10k race organized at smaller competitions. We should always keep in mind that the rulebook is not only for Unicons.
Comment
I personally think the proposal is worded too strictly. Situations may arise where these requirements cannot be met. What if an organiser cannot avoid a smoothish turn on gravel?
The proposal would be more acceptable to me if both restrictions (max 5% non-pavement, and no turns other than on smooth pavement) are preceded by "Preferably, ". Also, I would change "turns" into "tight turns", or perhaps "turns, especially tight turns".
Comment
Right now the way that the proposal is written, the part about turns uses the word "should" which makes it a recommendation, not a hard rule. So a turn on gravel is allowed with this rule but not recommended.
Comment
That is correct, but I'm afraid that many non-native English speakers/readers may not appreciate the difference between 'must' and 'should', and think that this rule with 'should' is a hard rule.
Comment
I agree with Klaas, having too many specific rules impacts on the choice of courses. One of my favourite race courses was Unicon 13 in Switzerland- which had some gravel road. As long as it is communicated to riders beforehand, they can select suitable equipment/setup (in terms of tyres and seat height).
I also agree with Connie regarding pedestrians- the scariest road race I've done was Unicon 18, with so many people walking out in front of you; whereas a course on quiet roads (with small amount of gravel) like Unicon 13 felt safe, even though the roads were not closed to vehicle traffic.
Regarding Martins comment about world records:
"if a part of the race is on a gravel surface, the organizers must not expect that a WR will be beaten on their race (the same as a bumpy race or a race with a lot of turns). They should also expect more falls, and more unhappy riders."
---my personal view is that we are turning unicycling in running races. The only reason to have measured distances like 10km and 42.2km is so that people can compare times between events, and go for distance records. The only way to do that would be to make these courses comparable- which means that every race has to be FLAT and on a SMOOTH surface.
Imagine if the Tour de France and all the grand cycle tours were run like this. It would make for very monotonous viewing and racing.
Comment
To address Martins comment:
"- having gravel portions in a race when riders can be lapped -> Lapping riders is already dangerous. On gravel it would be even worth. I think Ken Loï had a very bad experience about that in Denmark."
Yes, I had a bad experience- was coming second in Denmark in the 10km unlimited when a standard rider fell off and ran in front of me (to get out of the way), and I ended hitting him at over 25km/hr.
The problem was the race start, not the surface- having slower riders starting first and then unlimited riders coming through much faster they were. If the race had been on smooth road instead of gravel, the same would have happened, except I would have lost more skin and hit the other rider at greater speed.
Comment
@Klaas: thanks for the input, helpful to have a non-native opinion. Is there a way you suggest rewording it? I think we agree with the intent of the rule.
Comment
Patricia, what about this:
These are races held on roadways or bike paths. Preferably, a maximum of 5% of the race may be held on surfaces other than pavement (eg. gravel, cobblestones, etc.). To create the safest race possible, there should preferably be smooth pavement where riders must make tight turns.
(I hope the combination of 'should' and 'preferably' is not a pleonasm - not sure as a non-native speaker. In Dutch it would be OK to use it this way.)
Comment
Patricia, I would prefer (sic) if the rule about 5% non-pavement is also preceded by "preferably". Did you miss that or don't you agree to make that edit? I suggested this about a month ago in this thread, and it was approved by many.
Comment
I intentionally left that word out. I think that if the whole rule is a recommendation and not a rule then it is sort of silly to have it in the rulebook. I think that 5% is a reasonable allowance that still makes it possible for the host to find a fitting course. I thought that the idea of having 5% was a compromise instead of not allowing gravel completely
Comment
I wrote about a month ago:
I am against too precise rules on this, for a variety of reasons:
(snip)
I would go no further than to recommend (or express the desire) that road race routes avoid gravel roads, or keep the distance on gravel to a minimum. A sensible organiser can weigh this against all other issues he has to consider such as traffic regulations, permits etc.
And hey, it's a road race, not track racing or salt plains riding (explanation: utterly flat terrain). Riders have to deal with road conditions, I consider it to be part of the race.
The next seven posts in a row, by Jamey Mossengren, Atsushi Atata Suzuki, John Foss, Mirjam Lips, Martin Charrier, Maksym Siegienczuk (the Original Poster), Jan V all agreed with me.
It's all in the thread above.
So, many of us don't seem to think it is silly to have this as a recommendation in the rulebook. I'm trying to think from the standpoint of an organiser. A recommendation is still valuable, to me it is not something that is easily discarded, but I believe that sometimes a not-too-hard rule may result in a better race route.