Maximum Wheel Size Clarification
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
While discussing the following rule in the Hockey Committee:
'14B.2 Unicycles
Only standard unicycles may be used. The maximum wheel size is 618 mm (24”).'
The problem raised by the rule being it states that the maximum wheel size to be used for hockey is 618mm. However, it also says 24" after. To our belief, most 24" muni's exceed the wheel size of 618mm. However, a 24" unicycle with a flat tyre is usually 618mm or under.
From this, I suggested we could word the rule better so there is no confusion to which is the maximum size.
Steven Hughes then commented:
'Perhaps we should take out the 24" in brackets out. 24" inch in millimetres is 609.6mm so it just looks stupid to have it there as it looks like we cant do conversions properly.
Also a 26inch rim with a tiny tyre is under 618mm is it not? meaning that you could use that in hockey if you wanted to.
There is no benefit to having a 24" in the measurement, all it does is confuse matters and result in players not measuring their tyre as they assume because it is a 24" unicycle that it must be under 618mm.'
Rolf Sander then commented:
'I'd be happy to get rid of this inconsistent mixture of 24" inch and 618mm in the hockey rules. Unfortunately, this mix also appears at many other places in the IUF rulebook. If we change it only for hockey, the resulting rulebook will be even more inconsistent. I think the best solution would be to move the discussion to the Main Committee. Hopefully we can find a solution for all unicycle sports.'
Could we possibly discuss all other places it is in the rulebook and if we think it should be changed throughout the rulebook for clarification?
Comment
Remove (24")
Comment
Since 24" is different from 618 mm, I suggest to either remove the (24")
or change it to (about 24").
Comment
The terms 16", 20", 24" and 29" (perhaps more), appear throughout the Rulebook. And for a good reason: this is terminology that the whole world uses as a rough indication to wheel size. It would be pointless to ban inches from our Rulebook.
I think the confusion arises because the indication 24" (let's take 24" as an example) can be understood in at least two ways:
(a) as an exact (maximum) size, being 24 * 25.4 mm = 609.6 mm, or
(b) as (a name of) a unicycle category.
(Another way to understand 24" is as a size indication that is printed/moulded on the unicycle's tyre, usually combined with a width measurement. That meaning is not important in this discussion.)
I propose that we continue to use 24" (and also 20" etcetera) in the Rulebook and elsewhere as names of unicycle categories, but explicitly not as an exact size. All exact sizes (or size limits, really) are expressed only in mm.
To implement this, under 1D.1, Standard Unicycle, we could add a sentence (here in bold):
For some events, such as track racing, standard unicycles have restrictions on wheel size and/or crank arm length. Other events may specify other restrictions. When not noted otherwise, there are no size limitations. Wheel sizes given in " (inches) such as 24", serve as the names of unicycle size categories, and are not to be understood as exact sizes. Exact wheel diameter limits are expressed in mm only.
Comment
But a 26inch rim with racing tyre is under 618mm and a legal tyre for these "standard wheels" is it not?
If so why does it say 24" at all as 26" is also possible.
Comment
The inch numbers for wheel sizes have two outstanding properties:
1) They are easy to remember and known by all cyclists.
2) They are completely useless.
For example, 27" is larger than 28". There are 24" wheels which are
larger than a 26" wheel, just check 24x2.125 and 26x1.25 in this table:
http://www.cateye.com/data/resources/Tire_size_chart_ENG.pdf
If we still want to use wheel size in inch in the rulebook, we should
emphasize that it is only meant as an approximate number (or "size
category", as Klaas calls it).
Comment
Steven, this refers to the third way of understanding an inch size, as I wrote above. Also known as a "nominal" size.
Indeed a unicycle with a 26 x 1" tyre (usually! not always!) fits within 618 mm. That means it is legal in races of the 24" category. Remember that (if my proposal is followed) 24" is a name. It is not a size measurement, nor has it a formal relationship with what's printed on the tyre. I think it is very convenient to maintain 24" as a name, instead of having to quote the full specs of legal unicycles in a particular race.
Comment
Rolf, I disagree that inch numbers are useless for wheel sizes. On the contrary, they are very useful, as long as everyone understands that they are not used as exact sizes of 2.54 mm.
Comment
So you propose that we use 24" as a name even though it is not equal to 618mm and also wheels that are not named 24" (i.e. 26") can also be used.
Why would we use it at all then? It is just confusing for people.
You may as well just call "Wheel Size B" or "standard wheel" as a name. These names are just as useful as 24". Everyone will learn that the name "standard wheel" means it is 618mm.
Rolf is correct they are useless when they serve to confuse people rather than enlighten them.
Comment
Yes I propose to use 24" as a name for a unicycle category.
I agree it is confusing. But I think the confusion mainly arises just because we have not defined what we mean by 24". We use the term in a loose sense. My proposal addresses exactly that looseness. If used only as a name, 24" will be convenient. The whole world uses it!
If you call it "Wheel Size B", people will have difficulty remembering if that means 24" (in the loose sense) or perhaps 20". I'm sure they will translate it back to the familiar terms. What have you gained then?
"Standard wheel" is not a good replacement name for 24". It gets too easily confused with "Standard Unicycle". And what would you call the 20" category then?
Comment
I'm for either deleting all the inch references (really wish the USA would switch to metric) or converting them all to the actual sizes so for 618mm it becomes 24.331". This way the actual size is there and people can just round down and say 24" when talking about it.
Comment
Agree with Jamey, either put the exact size "24.331" or delete altogether. Preference with deleting altogether as it's a confusing "name" and it is much simpler to use a name that does not require teaching the reader about how to interpret it.
Comment
Firstly, 24.331" is not exact. It is an approximation of 618 mm. Not far off admittedly and virtually impossible to measure the difference, but strictly speaking if you have both limits, it's conflicting.
Secondly, if you use 618 mm as a reference you should add the word "maximum". Because the wheel doesn't need to be the full 618 mm in diameter to still be legal.
Comment
It appears that each instance where 24" is mentioned it already states a maximum of 618mm.
Rule
14B.2
"The maximum wheel size is 618mm (24")
4B.2
Maximum wheel size
Standard 24" tire no larger than 618mm
3B.6.11
Maximum wheel size is 618mm (24")
3B.2
Maximum wheel size
Standard 24" tire no larger than 618mm
2B.2
Maximum wheel size
Standard 24" tire no larger than 618mm
Comment
No. Granted, where 618 mm is mentioned, it is mentioned as as maximum.
But a lot of 24" occurrences are without a maximum of 618 mm. Some examples: 2B.5 (four occurrences), 3B.5 (ditto), 4B.2 second paragraph, 4B.5.7, 4D.4, 4D.7, 4D.15.1.2.
Comment
Why not just rename the classes to the maximal mm? 618 class
Comment
It is a possibility, but I think that 24" is such a familiar name (or size/notion/class, whatever) that people will continue using it.
Also, there's more to the specs than just wheel diameter.
Comment
@Steven Hughes: "But a 26inch rim with racing tyre is under 618mm and a legal tyre for these "standard wheels" is it not?
If so why does it say 24" at all as 26" is also possible."
The wheel size spec has to be based on diameter. Our current 618mm was chosen as a size to basically allow 24" tires that were not fat/were not significantly over 24" diameter. The vast majority of Track racers (and probably even more in the case of hockey) are using tires that are marked 24" on the sides, which is the main reason we still call it 24". But the numbers marked on the sides of tires are very rough in terms of the actual diameter, so we must go beyond that. Diameter is the important measure, which allows skinny 26" tires to be used. By the same token, it would also allow super-fat tires on 20" rims; tires that could not be used in the 20" age groups. So we call it 24" (or 20" or 16") for convenience. If we want to be ultra-precise, we should just call it 618mm, but then the reader would be confused. We could call it 24"/max. 618mm or similar. Or just keep calling it 24" and pointing out in the rules that we have a more specific dimension that will be enforced.
It could also be called 24" Class, or Nominal 24", but people will probably tend to shorten that to 24", like we do now.
For hockey specifically, the 24"/618mm rule is a choice. Some riders use 20" and do very well. One can argue that to use bigger wheels will reduce a rider's maneuverability, so most riders probably wouldn't go any larger than 618mm but allow those for whom it works. Like Muni, this would let the "market" choose what size is best. It's something to think about...
Comment
John I agree with you except on the last paragraph. In hockey, the 24"/618mm rule is not more a choice than it is in track or road racing (10k standard). If you suggest that in hockey, wheel size is purely a choice of the rider: that is incorrect, see 14B.2 in the Rulebook. It is not allowed to go larger than 618 mm. I don't see a rule on crank size for hockey though, so the requirements are still different from track racing.
Comment
Maybe we could implement a 'Class' rule, then specify 'but no larger overall wheel size than 618mm'
Or
We could say for example 'Maximum wheel size is 24", where no tyre contributes to an wheel size greater than 618mm'
Thoughts?
Comment
What exactly do you mean by a Class rule?
And your second option is confusing. It seems to rule out 26 x 1" even if that size is within 618 mm.
Comment
I think using the number 24 for convenience but using 618 mm for the
exact definition is a good compromise. Whenever necessary or helpful,
the expression
(size category 24)
could be added in brackets after the 618 mm. Note that I use the number
24 without the Symbol " so no one can claim that we are actually talking
about inches here :-)
Also, I would like to add a point that has been neglected so far. When
we talk about diameter, we always refer to the OUTER diameter of a tire.
This is important to remember because a number like 47-507 printed on a
24" tire refers to an INNER diameter of 507 mm!
Comment
@Klaas: "In hockey, the 24"/618mm rule is not more a choice than it is in track or road racing (10k standard)."
That was bad phrasing on my part. I was just offering that Rolf and the hockey leaders don't have to stop at the same 618mm we use for Track, and could decide on a different size, or no limit at all. I think they prefer a limit, as large wheels can probably get in the way, just as they would in Basketball. If wanting to stick to something similar to what used to be the "common 4" tire) it is probably best to keep it equal to Track and stick with 618mm.
Everyone should remember that 618 is a fairly random size, created based on the previous rule of 24.333" diameter. This was not based on any specific tire; instead it was thought of as a reasonable number to allow a majority of non-fat 24" tires and intended to include most non-knobby 24" tires. If we wanted to eliminate all those skinny 26" tires we could lower it by a few mm and still fit the vast majority of 24 x 1.75" tires.
Comment
I think Rolf is onto something by dropping the inch symbol. I like it. In informal speech, inch is often dropped already. A unicycle may be colloquially referred to as a 24, for example. I was going to put a 24 in quotation marks, but that looked confusingly like an inch symbol. :-)
@Rolf: the outer diameter character of the maximum wheel size is explicitly mentioned in 2B.2 and 3B.2, immediately below the table. It would not hurt, though, to include it in the column heading of that table (second column).
Comment
I still prefer to just get rid of 24 and start calling it what it is: 618mm class. But if I had to compromise and people still want it then taking the inch symbol off might be the best option.
Comment
Good to see this discussion, it target a common problem. I totaly agree to Klass that 20", 24" ... are common names used since many years in the sport but they are in no way related to a physical sized as so many different tires exist and the 24" say nothing about width / hight ... So we go for the mm outer diamter definition which makes things very easy for everyone to measure. From my opinion the Categories should stay as they are by name and clearly defined in chapter 1. Then it would be very clear and a discipline which doesnt follow this size rule has to state it in its chapter. All other can still name it 20", 24", 29" and refer to 1.x.x simply
The 700C size is already a confusing mess with 622mm rim diameter which has to be changed also to max outside diamter to got a clear list in chapter 1 like
16" Category - max outside diameter: 418mm - max Crank length: 89mm - transmission system: ungeared
20" Category - max outside diameter: 518mm - max Crank length: 100mm - transmission system: ungeared
24" Category - max outside diameter: 618mm - max Crank length: 125mm - transmission system: ungeared
29" Category - max outside diameter: XYZmm - max Crank length: no limit - transmission system: ungeared
Unlimited Category - max outside diameter: no limit - max Crank length: no limit - transmission system: no limit
So 700C confusion would be gone, all categorys follow the same system of classification and unicyclists keep the names they are used to had. It makes the system independent from any crazy wheel development like 27,5 ... Five categorys, all clear defined, all simmilar in any discipline as long as their is no clear rule in the disciplines that define other size rules. In Hockey for example you can open it to 29" if you will allow any 24" named tire or clearly state that any tire with have 24" written on it is allowed. But this end in the same trouble as some 26" tires are smaller then some 24" tires.
Comment
I like what you said o.schl and agree.
Comment
I agree with Olaf too, but it shall state min Crank length.
Comment
Maksym is right: the numbers are minimum crank lengths. But that was just a typo.
A more essential issue in Olaf's post is the definition of 29" wheelsize. Now, 29" is a relatively new addition to the family of standard sizes. It was introduced (in 2013?) as max diameter of 768 mm if I remember correctly. That has (in 2015?) changed to a rim size definition while allowing any tyre that would fit on it. What was the reason behind that change, and why is it not valid anymore?
Then again, if we are to change to max size again, I plead for a high enough limit so that basically all current 29" tyres are legal.
Otherwise I agree with Olaf too.
Comment
I agree with Olaf by why not take the " off like Jamey suggested. It would take the stupidness out of it where it is written (having 24" category that can be competed with 26") but still have the number remain as the "name" of the class.
24 class 29 class etc.
All riders who have been riding for years can continue to call it 24 INCH to each other but new riders will learn the term only as a name as it has no "inches" written after it.
16 Category - max outside diameter: 418mm - max Crank length: 89mm - transmission system: ungeared
20 Category - max outside diameter: 518mm - max Crank length: 100mm - transmission system: ungeared
24 Category - max outside diameter: 618mm - max Crank length: 125mm - transmission system: ungeared
29 Category - max outside diameter: XYZmm - max Crank length: no limit - transmission system: ungeared
Comment
Again, crank dimensions are minimums, not maximums.
I'm in favor of taking the " away from the inch numbers and calling it Class or Category. I prefer Class. Everybody knows those numbers represent the common (or formerly common) tire sizes but this naming suggests there is more to it.
I also agree with keeping it consistent on the 29 Class, to cut down on confusion.
So perhaps, since we're all nerding out on the long-known fact that most of our tires are still manufactured with highly inaccurate whole-inch numbers printed on the sides, we might want to reconsider the actual diameters we want to permit. You know those first three were "rounded" to make the numbers easier to remember, right? And when we did the 29" tires, we allowed a little more leeway, again to keep the numbers consistent (and perhaps also to amuse the online unicycle nerds' fascination with a certain number in the 700s).
With Google as my calculator, this was the calculation we used to come up with our nominal millimeter limits for tire sizes.
16.333" = 414.858mm
20.333" = 516.458mm
24.333" = 618.058mm
29.333" = 745.058mm
The 24.333" specification was the core, and the others were tweaked to be consistent with the 618. We could just as easily have gone with 620, which would also make the tightly-squeezed 26" tire people happy, or 615mm, which would rule most of those skinny tires out. Just remember that much discussion went into establishing those existing numbers, and unless people have specific problems with those sizes, we should leave it alone.
Comment
So far, everyone who commented on it, agreed that it is a good idea to
remove the inch symbol (") and use terms like 20-class, 24-class and so
on to describe wheel size limits. I would like to turn this into a
proposal now.
In addition, we have started several other discussions here:
- Class or Category? (my opinion: Both are fine for me)
- Definition of the 29 class? (my opinion: Max outside diameter: 745 mm)
- Keep current size limits or adjust them? (my opinion: Keep current values)
- Associate crank length directly with a size class? (my opinion: No
because hockey has a maximum wheel size but no minimum crank length)
All these can (and should) still be discussed, either here or in a new
discussion. However, I think these new issues should not delay the
solution for our original problem, the inconsistencies between inch and
mm values.
Comment
No, not everyone agrees on removing the inch (") symbol. Olaf leaves them in in his latest post, and Jamey, Maksym and myself agree with Olaf on this. My proposal would be to keep the inch symbol, but add either Class or Category (either one is fine with me too). That way, the whole phrase 24" Class or 24" Category acts as a name, not as a size in inches or equivalent mm.
If we define a maximum size in mm for the 29" Class, let it be so much that basically all current 28/29" tyres are legal. The former limit was 768 mm and even that is smaller than some tyres now on the market. I would suggest 818 mm to make it easy to remember with the other values, but I'm not sure if that would include so-called 32" tyres. Does anyone know the 'lower limit' diameter of actual 32" tyres?
In my opinion it makes sense to tackle both these issues in a single proposal. And also the current size limits, but is there anyone who wants to change them?
As to the last - above: in my opinion crank length should be associated with size classes, these are meant for racing. Hockey would not use a size class, but just a maximum wheel diameter of 618 mm, and probably an explicit statement that crank size is unlimited.
Comment
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted anything. In particular, you are right
that Olaf left them in his latest post. However, you are not correct
about your own opinion :-) Here are the quotes I was referring to:
Klaas Bil: "I think Rolf is onto something by dropping the inch symbol.
I like it."
Jamey Mossengren: "... then taking the inch symbol off might be the best
option."
Steven Hughes: "... why not take the " off like Jamey suggested. It
would take the stupidness out of it..."
John Foss: "I'm in favor of taking the " away from the inch numbers"
Comment
OK, I confess I looked only at the latest post of each of those people inclusing myself :-)
I'm actually 'on the fence' as to dropping the inch symbol or not.
Comment
Good to read that all mostly agree here to make it as simple as possible. I personaly like the " symbol but I can also exist without it. At least "24" class" or "24 class" act as a name then and not as a size anymore.
About 29" I agree that the mm size should be big enough to keep the existing rule that any 28/29" tire fits, I just realize that 700C with Rim diameter is very confusing for most riders as it is inconsistent and difficult to measure with a mounted tire. I like the 818mm idea, maybe some of those with the realy fat tires can measure if this diameter is a good choice!?
About Class or Category, this should be defined by a native speaker, not by Europeans ;)
About min/max size, sorry, my mistake, for sure its min size ;)
About Hockes / other disciplines without Crancsize limit. This will be part of each single chapter then. The definitions in Chapter 1 count for any discipline in general. Other rules has to be written inside of the disciplines chapter with a standard reference to chapter 1.x.y like "In opposite to chapter 1.x.y no Cranksize limit exist for Hockey"
So we would havde then:
16" Class - max outside diameter: 418mm - min Crank length: 89mm - transmission system: ungeared
20" Class - max outside diameter: 518mm - min Crank length: 100mm - transmission system: ungeared
24" Class - max outside diameter: 618mm - min Crank length: 125mm - transmission system: ungeared
29" Class - max outside diameter: 818mm - min Crank length: no limit - transmission system: ungeared
Unlimited Class - max outside diameter: no limit - min Crank length: no limit - transmission system: no limit
Comment
While thinking about the " symbol it is maybe more clear to non riders what the classes are about within the " symbol then without. Just the numbers can also be meant for ages or meter or whatever.
Comment
I support that last argument. And to those who think that using an inch symbol is confusing: consider that there are equivalent systems. For instance Citizens band radio uses the so-called 27 MHz band. There are many channels in that band, and none of them uses a transmitting frequency of exactly 27 MHz. (It's also called the 11 meter band, but then again none of the channels is exactly 11 meters.)
Comment
Hello Olaf,
> While thinking about the " symbol it is maybe more clear to non riders
> what the classes are about within the " symbol then without. Just the
> numbers can also be meant for ages or meter or whatever.
Of course, 24-class could also refer to unicycles that are at least 24
years old :-)
Well, our reason for keeping the inch numbers was that so many people
are used to them. I don't think we need to worry about the few people
who really have no idea what 24 could mean. Those people will happily
use the mm values from the definition.
Regarding the cranks: If we decide that the definition of the 24-class
includes a minimum crank length, I think it will be okay to mention in
the hockey section that no crank size limit exists for hockey.
Comment
One of the goals of the reorganization of the rules was to improve consistency between disciplines. Sometimes, that meant we moved things into Chapter 1, and sometimes we moved things out if there were too many cases of exceptions.
For this discussion of wheel size, I disagree that putting in size definitions in Chapter 1 is the best way to go. First, any exceptions cause confusion. For riders and officials this is stressful. Second, it seems like it is forcing you to find a size that can fit all disciplines. For example, Someone pointed out that hockey does not have a crank length limit, so that would be an exception. The definition of Standard (Class) described in Cyclocross is put at larger than 622 Bead Seat Diameter. We have a wide variety of disciplines, so defining sizes for each discipline is makes sense. It allows each discipline to define specifics that work best for that discipline without compromising to meet a broad definition.
How do the rules stay consistent and understandable? Take a look at the charts in Chapter 2B (Track) and Chapter 4B (Road Races). How about using these charts *consistently* in every Chapter that needs them, which may be all? The idea of "Classes" has been mentioned. How about having a Standard Class and an Unlimited Class definition for each discipline? Having the specifics spelled out for each discipline, rather than having a general rule with exceptions, seems to me much easier for everyone - riders, parents, volunteers, officials, organizers - to understand. Safety equipment is already handled in this manner. The safety information is included in each "Competitor Rules" chapter for each discipline, with definitions being referred to in the terminology. For events that need them (track, road racing, etc.) a Child (16") and Youth (20") could be added. The required age range could also be included right in the chart.
I understand the desire to put size definitions in Chapter 1. But this discussion seems to indicate that it is difficult to make size categories that all disciplines can live with......and comply with and monitor. Describing the specifics of unicycle requirements for each discipline would also allow future flexibility.
Along with the chart idea, the definitions of "Standard Unicycle" and "Unlimited Unicycle" would need updating. There has been confusion with "Standard" being used to describe the unicycle as the thing (as opposed to a bicycle) and also being used to describe a competition Class. How about removing the word "Standard" from the definition, leaving just "Unicycle", include gearing and brakes, and delete "Unlimited" as a separate definition? This would result in an accurate definition of what is considered a Unicycle. Specific requirements (size, gearing, brakes) are left to each discipline to regulate as they need. Any specialty unicycles (ultimate wheel, chain-driven?, multi-wheel) could be gathered under one definition "Specialty Unicycles".
On a related issue, there has been a lot of discussion about wheel rim, tire diameter, etc. I am speaking from a volunteer/coordinator perspective here. If there are restrictions on some measurement, it is critical that there is an easy way to know at competition check-in whether that unicycle is allowed. What exactly is being measured? Tire diameter? Tire width? Bead seat diameter (how does a check-in person even know what that is?) While it is true that some riders know their unicycles, you might be surprised at the problems this one question causes at certain event check-ins.
Comment
The main target is to simplfy things and for sure belong to this change each chapter hast to get a subchapter about tire/cranks/gears which can simply mention the default rules or define special rules for that chapter. I think chapter one is the right place as a host needs to get aware of the definitions to be prepared what he has to measure. The 622mm rim diameter in CycleCross for example will disapear then and the new 29" class will be used instead as the rim diameter rule was pain in the ass. We have several disciplines that usung those default classes, some use no limit at all and some use the defaults with less limits (like Hockey). We already have the part "Unicycles" in each chapter and there we can refert to defaults or mention differences very easy. 1D should be the right place to define those default sizes.
About checking the right sizes, Outside diameter is the most easy way to measure, any other size definition leads to discussion and complicated tools, outside diameter measurement tools can be made by wood / metal / plastic... very easy and cheap and fast and also any rider can easy check it before at home. Thats why it makes sense to define all limits as outside diameter.
However, for sure this proposal affect the complete rulebook in the end but the first step is to define the default sizes we use mostly. It would be also possible to include the definitions for any disciplines in this proposal while I think this should happen in a second step. The best would be to start a discussion in any sub committee once the new default is defined and tell them to discripe what they use / allow in their discipline. Ince this is done we can add the definition to 1.D and update any x.2 Unicycles Chapter with the result of any sub committee. then it is consistent from my opinion.
There already run a seperate discussion about the definition of "geared" and maybe standard unicycle can be also new defined, we will see if that is needed.
Comment
I can live with or without the "
I much prefer Class over Category, and I'm a native American-speaker. :-) Class as in Classification, I guess
For 29", I think 745 is too small. The current number of 768 hasn't raised any issues that I'm aware of, but I haven't been running or officiating races recently. Some tires are definitely larger than that, but the reason we have a 29" category is mostly to provide something between 24" and 36". In other words, I don't think we want 29" to include 32" tires.
745mm = 29.330"
768mm = 30.236"
818mm = 32.204"
I'm not sure, but I think 745mm is too small for some popular tires like the Schwalbe Big Apple. 768mm allows some wider tires, but would not include 32". 818mm is above 32", and if we use such a number we should not be calling it 29". So I recommend sticking with 768.
Associate crank length directly with a size class? Yes. Otherwise it's just a size, not a class. These size limitations are mostly used for racing (Track, Road and Muni), where wheel diameter is critical. Hockey is "borrowing" the wheel size definition to communicate the maximum size for that game, so they can reference it without having to create a separate rule.
Where to put these definitions? I think they are (or should be) common to all forms of racing, not just Track or either of the others. It might make sense to have a common section for Racing (something like what was there before) to contain rules that are common to all forms of racing. It should be able to work to have something like an introductory section under a "Racing" heading to put that information. Then where there are exceptions within the separate disciplines, we should examine if any of them are necessary or they should be consistent for all forms of "racing". Otherwise, in the introductory section there can be a reference to the subsections, such as "This detail is handled differently for Muni; refer to section x.x.x"
In the list of sizes, we should not need to repeat that each is ungeared. In general, only the Unlimited Class allows gearing but if there are exceptions they can still be handled separately. For the wheel size/crank length list, it will mention that the wheels are ungeared, and additional wording may apply to denote what's a "standard" or "regular" unicycle. Unlimited Class, IMHO, should always be completely unlimited in terms of sizes and gearing, and only restricted by whatever our definition of "unicycle" is. Coasting unicycles would not fit the "regular" classes. "Geared" is perhaps not the most accurate word for what we're talking about, but that will be discussed elsewhere.
As Mary Koehler brought up, it is important that how to implement these restrictions is clear and simple. Yes, we're talking about tire diameter, and for cranks the measurement is from the centers of the holes. The best tool I've seen for tire measurement is a wooden box with various slots for the different maximum sizes. If the tire fits, it's legal. Just check to see that they didn't let the air out before handing it to you. :-)
For crank measuring, I imagine a stick with pins sticking out of it. One would be the "zero" pin, with others at 89, 100 and 125mm.
Mary made several other great points, which I will address in an upcoming post.
Comment
I drop my suggestion of 818 mm, and support John's proposal of re-introducing (he calls it "sticking with") 768 mm.
In fact, I support John's complete latest post (not his Last Post though), only adding one remark:
The wooden box that he mentions does not measure wheel diameter, it only checks whether wheel diameter is within the limit. There is one issue with such a rectangular box: if the wheel is inserted at an angle, i.e. not parallel to the sides, it may seem to fit but could still be larger than the long side. For our Dutch Nationals, I created a variation in which the short sides are not straight edges, but circle arcs. If their radius is half the maximum wheel diameter, "unparallelling" the wheel will not create more room (if you see what I mean). By the way, my box has marked lines at 89, 100 and 125 mm, obviating the need for a separate tool and speeding up the checking procedure. You need to position the wheel in the centre though.
Comment
The 818 was just a placeholder, It would be great if people can measure their 29er wheel to see if 768 cover all common tires. Can you upload a picture of your box Klaas and link it (just as it sounds great). In general I agree to John that many tools exist and outside diamter is the most easy to measure. Lowering air is often seen in track racing as there are several Asian race tires which have 1mm oversize and this sucks for the riders. I would love to ad this mm to 24" size but this would have a deep impact to all records and as there exist enough exact right measured tires, it should stay as it is. I just thought abou that when I read your comment about lowering the preasure before measuring :)
Comment
My own 29'er tyre (nominal width 2.5") fits within 768 mm, with room to spare.
Our wheel/crank checking device is not really a box but rather a sort of frame that must be clamped on a table. It has a hinged section which should be turned to the back to check a max wheel size of 618 mm and 125 mm cranks, and turned to the front to check a max wheel size of 518 mm and 100 mm cranks. I don't have very clear pictures of its construction, but you can get an impression from this document. This document is the instruction set for the volunteer at our event operating the device. See the pictures on page 2 (and the Dutch captions if you can read it).
I agree to NOT add an extra mm to the max size.
Comment
Thanks for the document, very smart and super easy solution to measure both in one step! Also thanks for measuring your tire.
Comment
I post a request to measure tires in the road and distance group on FB and got already a first usefull input.
Dave Krack state: The Surly Knard is one of the largest volume 622mm BSD tires in production and has a 775mm outside diameter on a 50mm rim. It's doubtful many will use this tire as it's a 3.0, but using this measurement would avoid most controversy easily.
Comment
If that tyre is measured as 775 mm (and indeed no production tyres are significantly larger), we need to set the maximum a little larger to account for variation. What about 780 mm outside diameter as the maximum size?
Comment
So should we use the 780mm or use 778mm to keep the 8 as last digit ;) So far I got no other input about bigger 29" tires. If we decided about that a proposal could be done finaly.
Comment
Either number (778 or 780) is fine with me.
Comment
How about 779?! On a serious note 778, 779 or 780 is fine with me.
Comment
778 or 780 is fine with me.
Comment
So a proposal should be done which define the following as general:
16" Class: max outside diameter: 418mm - min Crank length: 89mm - transmission system: ungeared
20" Class: max outside diameter: 518mm - min Crank length: 100mm - transmission system: ungeared
24" Class: max outside diameter: 618mm - min Crank length: 125mm - transmission system: ungeared
29" Class: max outside diameter: 778mm - min Crank length: no limit - transmission system: ungeared
Unlimited Class: max outside diameter: no limit - min Crank length: no limit - transmission system: no limit
It has to be placed then in the rulebook everywhere where it is needed and for sure under definitions in Chapter 1
Gareth, will you do that proposal or should I place it? At least its your thread
Comment
You're welcome to make the proposal, Olaf!
Glad we got there in the end..
Comment
The sizes listed in Olaf's proposal are fine with me. I'm glad we have
found a solution now. With respect to the naming (the original topic of
this discussion), I was hoping that we can agree on the compromise that
I had suggested earlier:
Some of us don't want the inch numbers at all.
Some of us want to keep the traditional sizes.
My suggested compromise was to keep the number but remove the inch
symbol ("). The names would then be:
16 Class
20 Class
24 Class
29 Class
or, alternatively:
Class 16
Class 20
Class 24
Class 29
Either calling this a Class or a Category is fine with me.
Comment
This issue (dropping the inch symbol or not) has been discussed at length in this thread. Several people including myself have been inconsistent about what they prefer.
I have now a slight preference to include the the double quotation mark (") and pronounce it as 'inch class'. Together with the word 'class' it should be understood as not an exact measure. But as a name, 'twenty-four inch class' sounds better than 'twenty-four class'.
Comment
I still prefer no " and just have it be 24 class, 29 class, etc. I guess if we all don't agree we may have to put it up to a vote?
Comment
If were are gonna vote for " or no ", let it be a separate vote from the main proposal. It would be a shame if the whole proposal fails because of a tiny puny ".
Comment
No inch sign (") should be used. It serves no useful purpose and only "sounds better" because traditionally it has been used in that way. Referring to something as the 24 inch class is confusing specifically when you can use wheels with different sized rims dependent on tyre. Changing to no inch ensures for the next generation of rider it starts to become more clear.
Comment
I agree with no "
Comment
For reference, 778mm is 30.63 inches, or about 30 5/8" if you don't like the decimal system. As wheels get larger, they also get wider variations of actual diameter vs. stated diameter so I don't think that number is excessive, and since it doesn't overlap with another available rim/tire size, shouldn't be a problem. Somebody will make a larger tire next week, so people will have to be prepared to measure.
Our sizes were developed with Track and Road racing in mind, so they weren't concerned with fatter tires since they are generally bad for those sorts of races. But in the future they may also be needed for Muni racing tire sizes. For that reason, I think going wide is a better idea than having two sets of numbers, which would be much harder to track, and more confusing for all.
I don't care that much about the ". I will only add that if our purpose is to communicate that we are talking about sizes that aren't defined by those inch numbers, it's better to leave off the ".
Comment
Sorry to come late to the discussion, but I DO NOT agree with the idea of a "maximal outside diameter" for the 29"/700c category.
The 622mm BSD is a fixed industry standard, whereas tyre outer diameter is not. It changes with tread wear and what products tyre companies produce.
Comment
Theoretically, also in the max diameter system, everyone has access to the same choices. Everyone can try and find a slightly larger rim and a skinny tyre.
At the same time, also in the BSD system, choices are limited in practice. I have now a 28 x 2.50" tyre for this class. For years, some people had such a tyre but I could not get one in Europe.
I don't see the big advantage of the BSD system. It is open to optimalisation too.
For consistency with how the other classes are defined (*), I would like to be this class to be based on max diameter too.
(*) Except slow racing where it is proposed to limit tyres to a minimum of 19" as printed on the tyre.
Comment
BSD has been defined to make sure your tire fits onto the rim.
We, however, want to limit the distance a rider achieves with one
revolution of the wheel, therefore the "maximal outside diameter" makes
more sense to me for our racing rules.
Ken, you say you want to prevent ultra-customization. I fully agree, I
also want to prevent this. However, I think that your BSD definition
will motivate, not prevent such customization. Riders who can afford it
will buy or even develop the largest possible tire for the standardized
rim in order to increase the outside diameter as much as possible.
Comment
Thanks Klaas and Rolf, Happy New Year!
To address your points,
"Theoretically, also in the max diameter system, everyone has access to the same choices. Everyone can try and find a slightly larger rim and a skinny tyre."
Yes, that is true, but BSD is a manufacturing standard. All tyre companies must build to the BSD, otherwise their tyres won't go on or it will blow off.
It is much harder to (and increases the barriers to access) if someone customised a wheel/tyre size, as opposed to simply searching the internet for what is available.
The BSD 622mm is a standard in the bicycle industry, so not only gives people the same choices, but gives them lots of choices. Customisation doesn't.
If you took the example of 32" tyres and rims, which are customised for unicycling...you have a choice of one or two production rims and one or two production tyres. For the sake of this discussion, if the 32" rim fits under 778mm, we would all be racing 32" instead of 29"/700c. It becomes a 32" standard instead of a 29", and puts limits on available (good quality) equipment.
We all have access to customisation...the argument is what type of (and how much) customisation is desirable. Choosing a tyre is not in the same league as making a custom rim size.
Standard class is designed to keep everyone on similar equipment...not turn it into a technological arms race.
"Ken, you say you want to prevent ultra-customization. I fully agree, I also want to prevent this. However, I think that your BSD definition will motivate, not prevent such customization. Riders who can afford it will buy or even develop the largest possible tire for the standardized rim in order to increase the outside diameter as much as possible."
Customisation is limited to what people can find. With the internet, we all have access to the same production tyres, because we simply search for BSD 622mm tyres.
In terms of size preference, you are limited by the laws of physics, and choices will come down to personal preference. I cannot see someone customising a tyre so large that it gives a significant advantage over people riding production tyres, because the bigger it is, the heavier it is. You don't necessarily go faster.
For instance, at Unicon 17, I rode 700x35c in the Marathon, because it was lightweight and very smooth. At Unicon 18, I chose a fatter, heavier and larger 29x2.35" diameter tyre, because it was a bumpier course. I went about the same speed (in fact did better at Unicon 17 than 18).
Both tyres fit on BSD 622mm, and everyone had access to the same tyres (I ordered mine online from Wiggle UK).
Comment
Curious why you think that only the 29" category should go by BSD and not the others? I think it should be all or none.
Comment
I think BSD makes sense for all; but in the case of 24", the horse has already bolted.
If you look at the track racing- about half the riders use 24" (BSD 540mm) rims; and half the riders use 26" (BSD 559mm) with skinny tyres. I would love to see this standardised to either of the two BSD's, but there will be much upset over this.
Although the 618mm maximal wheel diameter standard was originally intended to define 24" unicycles, and some people have been clever enough to find 26" rim/tyre combinations that fit under 618mm, the scenario is not the equivalent of 700c/29"/BSD 622 wheels.
This is because there is no commonly (ie bicycle industry) manufactured rim size up from this.
Comment
Long ago I had an English Dawes bicycle that needed a new tire. When I placed a 28" tire, it wouldn't fit. My rims were meant for 27"
...meaning the tire AND rim that both said 27" were bigger than the 28" (622) I was trying to mount!
So, at the previous mutation of this section I mentioned ETRTO. By then deemed "too complicated", but now BSD isn't.
Ken Looi wrote:
> the horse has already bolted
>
Exactly, IMHO the best would be a max distance per revolution as the standard.
Then whatever a tire or rim says (in whatever sizing system or standard) is irrelevant, and the rule would be fair to anyone. Not?
Comment
Leo wrote:
> Exactly, IMHO the best would be a max distance per revolution as the standard.
> Then whatever a tire or rim says (in whatever sizing system or standard) is irrelevant,
> and the rule would be fair to anyone. Not?
Let's then stick to outer diameter, not max distance per rev. Diameter is easier to define and easier to measure.
Comment
Alternatively we can make both "BSD" and "Maximal Outer Diameter" requirements for the standard class.
That way we are standardising the rim type to an industry standard, while still limiting the maximal outer diameter....the best of both worlds. It stops rim customisation which is the intention of introducing the BSD standard.
It also means we account for the existing 24" class, which includes 26" rims.
eg:
The requirement for standard racing unicycles in the following classes are:
24" class: Rim specification must be no greater than BSD 559mm; AND maximal outer wheel diameter must be no greater than 618mm
29/700c class: Rim specification must be no greater than BSD 622mm; AND maximal outer wheel diameter must be no greater than 778mm
Comment
Klaas wrote:
> Let's then stick to outer diameter, not max distance per rev. Diameter is easier to define and easier to measure.
>
I agree on that, but condition it's outer diameter of the tire, and not any dimension or portion of the rim (which are anything but easy to truly verify).
max distance per rev. is what the UCI members use for their age-group/gearing-ratio limits (and works well at their sporadic tests).
Comment
Outside Diamter define exactly the max distance per revolution. So if we would use max distance per revolution it would leed to recalculate what it means in diameter to measure it more easy at competition. In short words, it is 100% similar definition.
@Ken: a main reason to delete BSD is that nobody can measure it, not the rider himself and not the host at competitions. We used BSD rule while Unicon and many riders ask before what that means for them and Scott told me that any availiable tire for 29er would fit into that BSD rule. In reality there was no exact control at all as we had no outside diameter rule anymore and it is not possible to check BSD with a mounted tire. So BSD is nice in theory but simply pain in the ass in reality.
Beside this the size of 778 based on a research about the bigest availiable tire for 700C rims which seems to be 775mm. 778 provide a bit room for high preasure or similar tires form other manufacturers. Those tires would have been used legal also right now with BSD rule.
About 618mm, the official wheelchair championships use also 618mm outside diameter as defined max size and race tires are produced for that diameter. In general a small tire with less profile should be faster in races (track and road) then a fat and wide tire which is also more heavy. 100% of the serious track racer use 26" 618mm small tires. I bet that the same rider is faster on a smaller 29" tire which is made for race and high preasure then on a max fat tire even it provide a bigger diameter.
About " nor no", I vote YES to keep it while it wont prevent me from doing the proposal without if more people want to delete it ;)
Comment
Leo wrote:
I agree on that, but condition it's outer diameter of the tire, and not any dimension or portion of the rim (which are anything but easy to truly verify).
Yes, I mean outer diameter as currently used in track racing. So: outer diameter of the tyre, mounted on the rim it will be ridden with, at the air pressure it will be ridden.
o.schl... wrote:
Outside Diamter define exactly the max distance per revolution. So if we would use max distance per revolution it would leed to recalculate what it means in diameter to measure it more easy at competition. In short words, it is 100% similar definition.
Not true. What is true is: from outside diameter you can simply calculate the circumference by multiplying by pi (3.14159...). But the distance traveled per revolution is less than this circumference for several reasons including:
- If the tyre is loaded by the weight of the rider (and much of the unicycle), the tyre will deform vertically.
- Every rider will wobble, and so the tyre contact point does not track a straight line.
- In order to keep riding, a rider will need to provide a forward force that acts through the interface between tyre and riding surface (road), deforming the tyre.
So let's continue to define the wheel specification as a maximum tyre diameter, and not talk about distance per revolution.
Comment
I like everything you said o.schl expect I still think we should get rid of ".
Comment
In responst to Olaf:
"@Ken: a main reason to delete BSD is that nobody can measure it, not the rider himself and not the host at competitions. We used BSD rule while Unicon and many riders ask before what that means for them and Scott told me that any availiable tire for 29er would fit into that BSD rule. In reality there was no exact control at all as we had no outside diameter rule anymore and it is not possible to check BSD with a mounted tire. So BSD is nice in theory but simply pain in the ass in reality."
It is not difficult. BSD conforms to a industry standard. If someone is using a manufactured rim and 29/700c tyre, it will be BSD 622. It will be printed on the tyre.
The only time we need to scrutinise would be if they had customised both their rims and their tyre. An easy way to do this is simply to see if their rim will fit an existing BSD 622mm tyre. It would not need to be checked very often, if at all.
Comment
Seems a lot harder to measure than outer diameter. I do not see the benefits as the issue still seems to me to just get a massive tyre on the same size rim.
I also still think we should remove the " symbol
Comment
@Steven
There should be no need to measure, provided that one is using a standard rim and tyre combination. If BSD is a specified requirement, no one is going to try and build their own rim and tyre combination because it is a very expensive exercise and they risk disqualification.
The benefit is not about getting a massive tyre on the same size rim.
The benefit is to stop people making a non-industry standard rim and tyre.
Comment
I am not sure if I misunderstand your comment of "building your own rim and tyre" Do you mean having a one off rim/tyre made.
Making your own rim and tyre is not easy as you already said it is a very expensive exercise. Getting a large volume tyre on a normal rim is much easier.
USING BSD Liklihood of people using building own rim and tyre combo occuring LOW
USING BSD Liklihood of someone using a regular rim with a fatter making their wheel into a much larger size HIGH.
USING OUTER RIM DIAMETER Liklihood of people building own rim and tyre combo LOW
USING OUTER RIM DIAMETER Liklihood of someone using a regular rim with a fatter tyre making their wheel into a a much larger size ZERO.
Surely if BSD was used someone could get a custom tyre made with a huge volume that fits on the BSD and have a much larger wheel?
Comment
"Surely if BSD was used someone could get a custom tyre made with a huge volume that fits on the BSD and have a much larger wheel?"
Yes, but you are limited by physics. You can't build ever larger wheels and still have a fast unicycle- it becomes too heavy.
However, I take your point, so my last suggestion (8 posts above) I thought we could use BOTH BSD and Maximal Outer Diameter.
That achieve dual standardisation.
Comment
@ Klaas: thanks for going deeper in the difference between mathematics and real distance per rev but I bet even the UCI use the mathematics and not the individual distance per rev ;) However, I also want to keep outside Diameter anyway.
@ Ken: For sure many tires are marked the right way but also many other are marked with wrong information and we learn that using the information written on the tire is not a good idea and also its pain in the ass to control 50 or 100 unicycles based on the information you find on each tire. BSD is a size you can't measure without complicated tools and an unmounted tire and therefore its 100% not useful for this rule. Also to use both, BSD size of 622 and Outside Diameter wont help as still the real BSD size can't be controlled and also a smaller rim wouldn't be allowed then.
If a 778mm Tire is available for a BSD 622 rim while tires on 32" rims are all wider in diameter, I don't see an advantage to make things more complicated then it should be. The target is to make it easy for the rider and for the host to approve a tire. We have BSD rule actually for Road Race and we see in real live that riders are not able anymore to verify their wheel and that the host is not able to control the 29 class before the racer. He just take a look at the tires and speculate.
To use Outside Diameter is by far the most clear and simple system as long as the used Diameter is well selected. Thats why we think about the perfect Number for 29" and so far 778 seems to be a useful number to cover all tires which are legal right now with the BSD rule also.
I would love to go for ISO standard rim sizes for any Class if this would be helpful but in real life it will just provide a mountain of problems. Outside Diamter can't be faked, its always a physical fact. Rim and Tire markings can be faked and can be confusing and also wrong. If I appear with a 32" wheel which show 700C / BSD 622 on the rim and tire, I would be allowed to use it then following Kens logic. Even the control Person would be sceptic, he has no option to proofe it.
About the " , it seems that a majority want to get rid of it even it will be used in real live for sure for ever (like the word expert for finals ;) ) So I will do the Proposal without the " I also think that beside Ken everybody prefer Outside Diameter instead of BSD !? So lets try to come to an end for this thing.
Comment
@Olaf-
You don't have to check the BSD. Don't even ask unless there is dispute or protest.
If someone uses a stock 700c or 29" tyre, it WILL be BSD 622mm. It only ever needs checking if there is a protest or serious doubt (eg someone using a customised rim), and all you have to do is see if a standard 700c tyre fits on the rim.
We don't, for instance, measure crank length at most UNICON races- we rely on the printed number on the crank arm (is this even checked?). The only time it may crop up would be if there was a protest.
Quote:
''Also to use both, BSD size of 622 and Outside Diameter wont help as still the real BSD size can't be controlled and also a smaller rim wouldn't be allowed then."
What do you mean by the real BSD size can't be controlled? A rim has to be manufactured to the exact BSD otherwise a tyre will blow off the rim or will not fit.
If you look at my wording, it allows smaller rims. This takes into account the 24" class, which uses both BSD 559mm and BSD 540mm rims:
The requirement for standard racing unicycles in the following classes are:
24" class: Rim specification must be no greater than BSD 559mm; AND maximal outer wheel diameter must be no greater than 618mm
29/700c class: Rim specification must be no greater than BSD 622mm; AND maximal outer wheel diameter must be no greater than 778mm
Comment
> You don't have to check the BSD. Don't even ask unless there is dispute or protest.
In my opinion it is strange to require something and not check it.
> If someone uses a stock 700c or 29" tyre, it WILL be BSD 622mm. It only ever needs
> checking if there is a protest or serious doubt (eg someone using a customised rim),
How would you know that someone is using a customised rim?
> and all you have to do is see if a standard 700c tyre fits on the rim.
"All you have to do"? That is a lot of hassle!
> We don't, for instance, measure crank length at most UNICON races- we rely on the
> printed number on the crank arm (is this even checked?).
Oh yes, before every track race the crank length is checked with a specialised tool. In road races it is not done indeed, but that is because crank length has no minimum. In the German marathon (now discontinued), there was a minimum crank length of 114 mm, and that was also thoroughly checked before the race.
> The only time it may crop up would be if there was a protest.
I don't think so.
> What do you mean by the real BSD size can't be controlled? A rim has to be
> manufactured to the exact BSD otherwise a tyre will blow off the rim or will not fit.
You cannot measure BSD with the tyre fitted. A custom rim + tyre combo might have a BSD of larger than 622, and not blow off.
>
> If you look at my wording, it allows smaller rims. This takes into account the 24"
> class, which uses both BSD 559mm and BSD 540mm rims:
>
> The requirement for standard racing unicycles in the following classes are:
>
> 24" class: Rim specification must be no greater than BSD 559mm; AND maximal outer
> wheel diameter must be no greater than 618mm
>
> 29/700c class: Rim specification must be no greater than BSD 622mm; AND maximal
> outer wheel diameter must be no greater than 778mm.
This would be right if we follow your line, but it comes with the same BSD problems that Olaf pointed at.
I note, by the way, that you include the inch symbol in the class. This is oh so natural to do. In another discussion the majority of the participants want to get rid of the " symbol so that we would write 24 class. This rule change seems on its way to be accepted.
Comment
There is nothing to add Klaas, I agree 100%
Beside this we don't trust the numbers on the Cranks, they are measured in track racing as Klaas already state and we also have official IUF Crank size sticker which are non removable. Only Cranks with this sticker are not measured again as they are already controled and marked. To make Cranks with fake Numbers is super easy ;)
Comment
I create the Proposal now as it seems that beside Ken nobody like the idea to use BSD again. While I wrote it I realize how stange the rule sound without " when you speak it. But I delete the " as most want it that way. If you change your mind while trying to speak the rules, just post it here and we can bring it back easy ;)
@Ken: sorry but even I can follow your idea I learn from last Unicon that the BSD system is just pain in the as for the riders and for the host.
Comment
I like this proposal.
Just two remarks:
- The title of 2B.5 (both in OLD RULE and NEW RULE) is Wheel Size Categories. Since in the discussion we have 'decided' to use Class and not Category, I think in NEW RULE this should be changed to Wheel Size Classes. (And we need to make sure that the Rulebook is consistent in this respect, so not only in Chapter 2.)
- Both in OLD RULE and NEW RULE, under the title mentioned above, it says "All riders in age groups with a maximum age of 10 or younger will race a 10m Wheel Walk, and 10m Ultimate Wheel, if used (instead of 30m)". I guess this is useful information, but is has virtually nothing to do with wheel size and should be placed elsewhere. Maybe this needs a separate proposal?
Comment
> I realize how stange the rule sound without " when you speak it.
If 24 class sounds strange, we could alternatively call it class 24.
Whatever the native speakers prefer...
Comment
Id prefer 24 class as opposed to putting the " back in. If someone has a better suggestion that doesn't involve using inches I am happy to consider it.
Comment
Ok, thanks for doing the proposal.
Regarding the " symbol, I agree it is a historical measurement (people use two different rim sizes in the 24 class), so I agree we simply call it the 24 class. Sorry I slipped the " symbol in out of habit.
The same way the British Pound Sterling is no longer linked to a 'pound of sterling silver'. It is a historical measure, being a fiat currency.
Comment
As a native speaker I agree that 24 class sounds better than class 24.
Comment
I was/am one of the advocates of leaving the " symbol in. But I can perfectly live with no " symbol, it's what the majority of ppl in this committee wants and of course I understand why. Ken is probably not the only one to slip in an " in the future, out of habit. :-)
Even to a non-native speaker (me), 24 class sounds better than class 24.
Comment
@ Klaas: I will change the first issue, I forget to change that. The second point you came up with is simple how it is written in the original rule and I think another Proposal is needed to find a better place for that. THe track race chapter is not that well structurized right now.
@ all. I agree that 24 Class sounds better then Class 24 and I also agree that people will slip into 24" Class in the future but who cares, in the written rules it is clear thenn that " is not meant.
Comment
I created a separate proposal to address the out-of-place race distance rules under Wheel Size Categories.