wheel size for slow races

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

Comments about this discussion:



In order to have a more fair competition, and in consideration of the feedback of the judges, I suggest to replace point  2.20.4

........" there are no crank arm length or wheel size restrictions" ............ with the following:

..........."The minimum wheel size is 20". The outside diameter of the tire may not be smaller than 518 mm. There are no crank arm length restrictions."..........



There must be also the smaller wheelsize for young children at 10 and younger, who can't ride 20".
As sizes are calculated in mm for other disciplines this should be done here as well.


Even if the minimum size is set to 16", most riders would still probably use their 20" wheels, don't you think? But in any case, we can't use the track diameters, because those are maximum sizes. Nobody's Track wheels would be legal if we used the same numbers as the minimum size.

At the risk of creating a flame war of "detail-minded" people, we could start simple by saying you can only use tires marked 16" (or larger) for the younger riders, and tires marked 19" (or larger) for everybody else. 19" is a very common tire size so I recommend not splitting hairs.

I don't know if I like the idea of having a minimum wheel size, but if it allows a possibly-useful smartphone app to make for better judging, we should try it.


I think Ana's reason to make her suggestion has nothing to do with Gyro Judge. Rather it is that small wheels render the pedals lower, which then obstructs the judges' view of the bottom of the tyre. If the Gyro Judge thingy catches on, we may need no minimum size restriction at all.

Perhaps we would even need a maximum wheel size, as a big wheel rotates less (in degrees) for a given 'twitch' distance. But that depends on how (well) Gyro Judge works. Ideally it would respons to rotation only, but we can set the sensitivity (threshold) such that it respons to a backwards ridden distance in mm irrespective of wheel size.


Why concentrate on the bottom of the wheel? I usually looked at foot movement, or movement of spokes behind the fork. Yes, frame movements can occur independently of wheel stoppage, but it's easy to tell the difference when concentrating on wheel movement.

However, if people bring tiny wheels, I think it goes away from the idea we are trying to accomplish with a Slow Race, which is to go as slow as you can, on a unicycle you would normally ride for other purposes. Save the tiny wheels for the High Jump or Static Side Hop!  :-)


I am not a competitor in slow, and have rarely been a judge. But I think the most 'pure' way of judging whether someone is riding forward, is to look at the progression of the tyre contact point. Continuous foot movement, or movement of spokes relative to the frame, can be hard to see when the rider makes jerking twists.

John, based on what do you include "on a unicycle you would normally ride for other purposes" in the idea for Slow Race? Some riders like to use 12" wheels, which I consider perfectly valid, even though I think they don't bring much of an advantage.



The idea of having a minimum wheel size was brought up above, where I pointed out it wouldn't be as simple as using our Racing wheel numbers, because those are maximums. I prefer that this race not have a wheel size limit, but that could lead to some riders using tiny little wheels. I'm inclined to say that's the judges' problem, but if we do decide to use a "device" to measure wheel movement, that device probably won't be compatible with really small wheels and people might want to set a minimum size. If we do, we could say it's so you can attach the measuring device, or we could make up some philosophy, such as what I said above.

Back in the day, we did all the racing (and pretty much all of everything else) on 20" or 24" wheels. That made it easy for people to compare someone else's results to what they were able to do, and the playing field was pretty level. Also riding fast on 24" wheels made sense under those circumstances, but that's another topic.  :-)

Sometimes, when trying to decide how to do things in these events, it helps to step back and think about why we do it in the first place, or the type of results we hope to get. Track racing was all about taking "your" unicycle and seeing who could ride the fastest. They were all either 20" or 24" wheels, so it made sense to standardize on those sizes. For going slow, wheel size is less important but doing it on a tiny wheel you might otherwise never ride, to me, is less meaningful than doing it on a wheel size that you use for other things.

Sorry, that should have been easier to express. It's like why we decide we want racers to ride across the finish line, and effectively race 101 meters instead of 100. Not just because it looks better, but it goes along with the philosophy of those short races, which is, if you fall off, you're out. We choose such a rule because we choose to do it the hard way. After all, we are all riding unicycles, are we not?  :-)


Every rider is allowed to pick what they think is the best unicycle for each event, within the rules that apply for that event.

So even if a 24" is usually allowed in an unlimited race, most riders would choose a 36". Even if they might otherwise usually ride a 24".

Similarly, while 24" is (by the current rules) allowed in a slow race, a rider might pick a 20" or even smaller wheel. Again, it doesn't have to be the wheel size that they "otherwise" ride. Best choice for the event at hand, that's my point.

Re your last paragraph: I gathered from your latest post in http://iuf-rulebook-2016.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/64 that you agreed to an effective race of 100m, not 101m. Yes, if you fall off during your race, you're out. But not if you fall after the finish!


I would like to explain you, the reason why a minimum wheel size of 19" is required to judge objectively:


The Feedbag of the judges was, that it´s not possible to see the micro errors if the wheel size is smaller than 20", especially 12", because shoe/foot and leg are covering the wheel.


Therefore, on the one hand, some judges don`t give any penalty to riders of 12" unicycles because they don´t see anything.


On the other hand, there are judges who give an estimated number of penalties without seeing anything. That´s the reason why riders of 12" unicycles often have a different number of penalties, depending on the judges. 

In contrast to riders of 12" unicycles, riders of 20" unicycles get most a similar number of penalties.


@Mirjam: You write about your experience, that judges have´t any idea.............

The feedback shows that the judges don´t see anything. So, some judges give an estimated number of penalties, and different judges estimate in a different way.


@John: The problem can not be attributed to the judges, if they don´t have the chance to see anything. Maybe it can become clear, if we have a look at standard skill: If a rider performs a trick and the judges can not perceive it well, because of the position of the rider at this moment, the judges deduct 100%.

What I want to say: If a rider doesn´t bring a unicycling, to perform his run in a judgeable way, the rider will run the risk to be disqualified. In this case, the performance can not be judged.




Well Ana, I do not claim that judges haven't got any idea, but it's just not possible to judge if you stand 3m away from the board, which unfortunately already happend at some competitions.

I remember one competition in Germany, I think Crailsheim German championships about 3 years ago, where judges kneeled down in order to see better. I've even got a video of that competition and judges absolutely agreed with eachother. And in my opinion it has absolutely nothing to do with the wheel size because the feet are never at the same point on both sides, which means if judges look carefully from both sides, they are able to see weather a rider stands still or not.



@Mirjam: of course we have one judge on each side of the board, but as you observed correctly, in case of small wheel size, every judge can see only about 50 % of the performance because the shoes cover the wheel.

The consequence and the reality are, that the judge has to estimate the number of (micro) errors during the other 50 % of the performance. The feedback has been, as I pointed out 3 days ago, that one judge estimate a number of errors , and the other judge another number. 

So we have to consider two kinds of problems in terms of small wheel size:

although we have two judges doing their job, the result is that 50 %  of each judge will be judged and the other 50 % will be estimated.

So judging a big wheel size ( for example 20 ") we have 2 judges x 100 % = 200 %

The second problem is, that it cannot be defined at what moment exactely one judge starts and ends estimating, respectively at what moment exactely the judge on the other side of the board starts and ends seeing and judging.

It would be better and a more fair competition to have only one judge doing his job perceiving the complete run, than two judges judging only parts of the run, without defining at what moment his part stars and ends. 

The best way is to have two judges (according to the rulebook 2015) who can perceive the complete run, therefore, we need a bigger wheel size.





@ Klaas: maybe my answer to your comment fits better in this discussion, because we are talking about 12 " wheels:

Perhaps if judges lay down on the floor o crawle next to the board they will perceive the performance better. I am sorry, but this show cannot be realized: Nobody can expect the judging team to do that for about 4 hours. ( we need the same judging team for judging the finals, and the experience showed, that for male and female, we need about 4 hours.) Already in Montreal, this job brought Ingrid to her limits, and the feedback of other judges is, that they don´t like to do this job any more. The consequence is that its becomes more difficult to impossible to find competent judges.

I cannot understand why you disregard the judges feedback and the real judge situation we have, because of the small wheel sizes. 

Who of you would be ready to perform this judging show for 4 hours?

@ Klaas: the foto should give you an idea, what about we are talking, but a picture is different of reality, because of the movement of the wheel.



 I don't want to disregard any feedback but I didn't have all of the feedback yet, I think. Until now I wasn't aware that judges don't like to do this job anymore. Is this because riders use small wheels? Is this a problem for all of the four hours that the judges are on duty? Then apparently the tiny wheels are preferred by a vast majority of riders, and it will be a big change for them if they must switch to 20" wheels (or perhaps 16" if they are below whatever age). If this is correct, then perhaps we should try and find an alternative way of judging rather than imposing a wheel size limit that most riders don't want. Perhaps a technical means like a rotation sensor in the wheel a la Gyro Judge, or simply something with a mirror on a stick to avoid that the judges have to crawl over the floor.


@Mirjam: I would like to remember that at the championship in Crailsheim you mentioned, the kneeled down judging has been applied only for 2 persons. It cannot not be applied for every rider and therefore we don´t have a fair competition.

As I pointed out a few days ago, it´s the job of the rider to perform the run in a judgeable way, including to bring a unicycle which permits a judgeable performance.

It´s not the job of the judges to find a way how to judge the riders performance. Imagine a standardskill or a freestyle competition with the judges running around the riding area to go sure, that every skill can be perceived at every moment and from every position.

Similary ridiculous seems to me, when slow race judges are obligated lying on the floor and searching for the performance behind or under the shoes .

To conclude I would like to point out : 

  1. We need a most fair competition for all riders
  2. a reasonable competition for the judges

Therefor we need 19" wheelsize/ tire as John mentioned 10 days ago.


For Crailsheim I understand that only two riders had such small wheels that the judges had to kneel down? If the others had larger wheels and the judges could do their job in those cases without kneeling down, I would think that after all they could judge every rider equally well and that the competition was fair. That would meet requirement 1. And if the kneeling down applied for only two riders, to me that seems 'reasonable' for the judges (requirement 2). And like I said, perhaps we can find an alternative way to judge, e.g. a mirror on a stick. (I'm not saying this is the solution, it's just an example of the sort of alternatives I can imagine.)

Just to clarify: I hate it to be annoying, and I hope it is not seen that way. As far as I know, riders have 'always' had the freedom to choose the wheelsize they are most comfortable with for the slow races, and I'm just trying to defend that freedom if there is no compelling reason to give it up.


yes, it´s difficult to find judges because it´s very difficult to judge small wheel sizes as I described. 

All riders in a final , independed of the wheel sizes have to be judged in the same way, so your conclusion is not correct. It´s not the vast majority of riders, who prefer a tiny wheel.

The problem I see is, that riders of the tiny wheels could run the risk to bee disqualified, if the performance can not be perceived. 

We yet decides, that we will not take decisions yet about technical ways that never have been tested. ( All world records, male and female, forward and backward has been setted up on a 20" tire.)


I would say that all riders in a final have to be judged in a fair way (and by "one team of judges in order to have a fair competition" as the current rulebook states).
But I don't know why it should have to be the same way for all.

If we would agree that we would like to leave the riders' freedom of wheel size but we need a different way of judging, why don't we bear with the current rule for two more years while we test alternatives? That seems better to me than now requiring a minimum of 19", and perhaps lifting that restriction two years from now if we have found something that also works for small wheels. Because then we have 'always' had no wheelsize restriction except for one 2-year period.

Granted, this requires the searching and testing of alternatives. This may be a lot of work. But I see a possible clear advantage: a technical device such as the Gyro Judge can potentially take the subjectivity out of the slow race. The absolute value of a world record (and hence: breaking it) will have more meaning if it doesn't depend anymore on subjective judges.


A fair judging is not guaranteed, if riders are judged from different perspectives in a final.

In my opinion having the IUF rulebook discussion every 2 years, offers the the chance to adjust the rules to the current situation; if you want to say that it´s not worth to design rules  for only 2 years, why we don´t have IUF discussion every 4 years? Postponing decisions to the next IUF discussion might lead to unfair competitions.


Quite apart from the judging situation, I would like to explain you the following in terms of riders freedom to choose their wheel sizes:

the athletic performance of these disciplines is "to ride as slow as possible". Well, everybody knows that physically riders on a 12" unicycle don´t have to be able to ride so slowly as a rider on a 20" unicycle.

Therefore, the athletic performance is not comparable: In the past some riders took a smaller and a more smaller wheel, up to a size for 4 or 5 years old children, and so improving their results by using smaller wheels instead of training to ride more slowly.

So, the results are not really comparable if riders of different wheel sizes reach the same time.

Should´t we consider this aspect, independent of technical alternatives?




Fair judging is not guaranteed anyway, if it depends on the human eye. I think the subjectivity of the judges is a bigger contribution to unfairness than the varying perspective on the rider's wheel. That's why I would support to move away from human judges, and use a technical solution instead. In that way, we could probably have objective judging, and riders can continue to use the wheel size they prefer.

Adjust to the current situation? What has changed over the last two years? I do think it is worthwhile to look at the rules every two years. But if we can use a technical means of judging in the rather near future, it seems unneccessary to me to change the wheelsize to minimum 19" now, and change it back to 'no limits' in two years. I'd rather see no such yo-yo-ing in the rules.

Not being a 'slow' rider myself, I cannot really comment on your last argument. But if you are right that riding slow is easier on very small wheels, and the rules have permitted that so far, then why have so few riders chosen to use them? (For example, only two in Crailsheim as you mentioned.)

BTW, I hope some more members will join this discussion - there are 22 members in this committee.


"But if you are right that riding slow is easier on very small wheels, and the rules have permitted that so far, then why have so few riders chosen to use them? (For example, only two in Crailsheim as you mentioned.)"

As you are not a slow rider, let me explain more exactly:

Riding on very small wheels is indeed easier for casual riders: for example if these riders reach 25 sec. with a 20" wheel, they will reach 35 to 40 sec. if they use a children's wheel of 12 ".

Now a expert rider who performes a result of 2 min. with a 20" wheel, will not perform 3 min. chancing to a smaller wheel, because a children's mini wheel is not enough stable to perform a top result.

By the way only one of the 2 riders in Crailsheim used a 12" and the other a 20 " wheel. Both riders were expected to perform good results and the judging team, in order to judge in a fair way, choosed the same perspective; this is indeed important.

Performed results will become more comparable if the wheel size will bee the same. Therefore im my opinion the wheel size restriction has nothing to do with a technical alternative.

We have a judging system which has been evaluated very well by riders and judges, but we could improve it by introducing a minimum wheel size. Subjective judging will be found mainly in freestyle disciplines.



@Klaas: the current situation is, that it is very difficult to find really good judges, and in my opinion it would be better for all, to record a minimum wheel size in the rulebook, than if a host creats special rules. Please have a look at the photos again. A technical alternative at the moment ist not the reality. Let´s take realistic decisions for now.


For starters, where are the other members of this committee? Please chime in!

I think a good technical means of judging is better than having human judges because:

  • it can be more objective (more comparable between riders)
  • it can be more comparable between events
  • no "really good" judges are needed - they don't want to do the job, and it's very difficult to find them
  • the micro-error system is not needed as there are no cases of doubt, so the rules are clearer
  • every rider can use their favourite wheel size. For casual riders a small wheel is better, for top riders a bigger wheel is better... let everyone pick their own choice.

In track racing, we use false start detection and finish timing with light beams: more objective than the human eye. Slow race should follow suit and adopt technology to turn subjective judging into objective measuring.

Now introducing a minimum wheelsize of 19" and continuing to rely on human judges is not going to get us there.


I don't think it will be easier to find judges if we have a minimum wheel size.

I absolutely agree with your points, Klaas and I really like your idea about the technical system. Why "rely" on judges, who are hard to find anyway, if there is a technical system that might be more accurate? What can go wrong if the judge only has to sit at a table and watch the rider on a screen?

When I think about finals at San Sebastian I may claim that the majority of riders used a wheel smaller than 20''. So why should all these riders now adapt to a new rule if we could test a more fair system?

If not everybody is convinced we don't have to take it up in the Rulebook 2017, we can also do a testing phase where the system can be tested by expert riders and then we can start the discussion again for the next rulebook.



I'm indeed not advocating that we prescribe a technical system in our rulebook now. I acknowledge that we don't have a tested system yet.

What I do advocate is to not change the rule to minimum 19" for only one rulebook edition, if we can have a better (more fair/objective/easier) system thereafter that doesn't require a minimum wheelsize. I understand that it will take a significant effort to test the Gyro Judge or another (similar) technical device, but I think it is worth it.


@ Klaas : Do you really think that the results of a track race would be comparable between riders, if one rider uses 16" and the other 29", only because of using a false start detection and light beams.

@Mirjam and Klaas: please understand that wheel size is independent of technical systems.



For now please stay realistic , at the moment we don't have a technical system. As I tried to explain you several times, by using tiny wheels it´s not really possible to perceive the performance because the shoes are covering the wheel; please have a look at the photos again.


@Klaas: we don´t need rules for casual riders, because we only have an expert competition and no age groups or fun competitions.


In my opinion it´s not a special performance to reach a time about 50 sec. with a 12 " little children´s wheel. I would even go as far as to say that we don´t need a competition where (adult) riders show their attempt to ride slowly on a unicycle´s size for 4 to 5 years old children.

For an Expert competition/final it should be expected that riders use an appropriate unicycle of 19 ".

 Unlimited competitions where everyone could pick his own choice could be organized as fun competitions.

@ Klaas I am sure, that you will understand wherein the real performance of slow races consists, if you watch a slow race final at Unicon.



As today is the last day to submit proposals, I created a proposal and I invite all members of this committee to take part in the proposal discussion.


> @ Klaas : Do you really think that the results of a track race would be comparable between riders,
> if one rider uses 16" and the other 29", only because of using a false start detection and light beams.
Of course not. If there was a free wheelsize choice in track racing, riders would tend to use bigger wheels as they offer a speed advantage.
For slow race this is not the case. As you explained, for some riders a (really) small wheel leads to better performance, for other riders a bigger wheel.
My point is that using a technical means for determining if the rules are obeyed (be it false start in track racing, or stillstanding/backrolling in slow forward), is generally more objective and better than human eye judgment.

> @Mirjam and Klaas: please understand that wheel size is independent of technical systems.
Not really true I think, because "technical systems" make it easier to use small wheels, as it is not a problem if the view of the wheel is obscured by a foot.

> For now please stay realistic , at the moment we don't have a technical system. As I tried to
> explain you several times, by using tiny wheels it´s not really possible to perceive the performance
> because the shoes are covering the wheel; please have a look at the photos again.
I agree that we do not have such a technical system now, but I do think we should strive for it!
And I have looked at the photos and argued that in all of them, the bottom of the wheel should be visible to the human eye.

> @Klaas: we don´t need rules for casual riders, because we only have an expert competition and no
> age groups or fun competitions.
I have two remarks:
(1) If there is only an expert competition, and if small wheels are only beneficial to casual riders as you have stated, while expert riders benefit more from bigger wheels (such as 20 inch), there should be no problem in the first place. Surely, no expert rider would pick a 12 inch wheel if that is to their disadvantage?
(2) More importantly: why is it that in slow races there is only an expert competition and no age groups? I think it is not nice at all to exclude all but the top riders. If all disciplines would be run without age groups and focus only on top expert riders, Unicon would become elitist, and hardly be fun anymore.
Perhaps the reason to have only an expert competition, is because a smaller group of top riders can be judged by a single team of judges? But that is exactly where a technical means can help!

> In my opinion it´s not a special performance to reach a time about 50 sec. with a 12 " little
> children´s wheel. I would even go as far as to say that we don´t need a competition where (adult)
> riders show their attempt to ride slowly on a unicycle´s size for 4 to 5 years old children.
> For an Expert competition/final it should be expected that riders use an appropriate unicycle of 19 ".
Well, 50 seconds is not a special performance for you, but for a lot of riders it is a respectable result. In Unicon 2016, only 15 riders had a result better than 50 seconds in slow forward. The results list doesn't show how many riders have competed, but in 2012 and 2014 (before the expert-only system) there were about 260 and about 175 competitors, respectively. It seems to me that less than 10% of the riders who want to compete at world championships, can reach a time better than 50 seconds.

By the way, you write about adults riding a "little children's wheel" and "size for 4 to 5 year old children". Do you think it is morally or ethically inappropriate for adults to ride 12 inch wheels?

> @ Klaas I am sure, that you will understand wherein the real performance of slow races consists,
> if you watch a slow race final at Unicon.
I have watched slow races at Unicon, and I think that the performance of really good slow racers is amazing.
For me, whether it is done on a 12" or a 20" wheel does not make a difference in my admiration for the technical skills.

By the way, talking about real performance:
I just compared slow forward results for the Unicons of 2012, 2014 and 2016, based on the results lists downloaded from the respective Unicon websites.
What a coincidence that your result in 2016 was exactly the same as in 2014, namely 2:30.750. Congratulations on your remarkable consistency!


As written, this proposal requires a 19+ inch wheel regardless of the age of the rider. Is this the intent?

I'm concerned this will rule out younger riders who have difficulty on a 19 inch wheel.


I absolutely agree with your points, Klaas.

19" wheel vs. 12" wheel in slow races is not the same as 24" wheel vs. 16" wheel in track races. And in track races your are allowed to use a 20" wheel! If you personally can reach a better time on a 20" wheel than on a 24" wheel you can chose the 20" wheel.

Ana you wrote: "please understand that wheel size is independent of technical systems." And in the proposal you wrote: "3. It´s not really possible to perceive the performance/(micro) errors of riders who use small wheel sizes, because the shoes are covering the wheel. […]" So wheel size isn't independent of the possibility to judge the performance and judging the performance isn't independent of a technical system… Because if we would have a technical system objective judging would be possible for all wheel sizes, inclusive 12". So of course wheel size is dependent of technical systems.

Yeah indeed we don't have such a technical system right now, but I agree to Klaas that we should strive for it. Only a technical system would make slow races to be jugged objectively.

One more time: That we have only an expert competition is also because there is no way to judge all riders the same way and get objective results. If we would have a technical solution for objective judging I see no reason why there should be no age group competition.

If there are only eight to ten riders in the world, who reach a time of more than 50 seconds in my opinion this is a special performance. Regardless of whether a 12" wheel was used or a 20" wheel. Why should be a performance of 50 seconds with a 20" wheel more honorable than a performance with a 12" wheel?

All in all in my opinion we shouldn't introduce a minimum wheel size, instead we should develop, test and introduce a technical system as fast as possible.



I have to agree with Kenny on the wheel size for riders 0-10. The rule should be expanded to cover the normal 16" wheel size those riders may be using, but just for the age groups that are allowed to race on 16".


Sorry, didn't notice there was already a proposal posted. Here's my suggested change. I moved wheel size to the front, as they are usually listed by wheel size followed by crank length:

Existing proposal:
New rule: 2.20.4 .................."there are no crank arm length restrictions, the minimum wheel size is 19"...........

Updated proposal:
...."The minimum wheel size (as indicated on the side of the tire) is 19". If there is a "16 Class" {Use new name if there's a change} racing category, riders in that category may use tires marked 16" or larger. No crank arm length restrictions."

I hope it doesn't cause an uproar that we are using inches, and the numbers printed on the tires. If we start getting into millimeters and coming up with new numbers to use as minimums that would be a mess. Just use the number on the side of the tire.


What does '16 Class racing category' mean? '16 Class' refers to unicycle specifications, there is no category of riders by that name. Nor, AFAIK, is there a category of riders associated with '16 Class'.


16 Class is one of the names being discussed for Track racing in this thread:


There is probably a better way to word it. The intent is, 19" minimum wheel size, unless you are offering 16" races, in which case those riders are allowed to use wheel sizes at a minimum 16". So insert the name of that racing class, if that proposal passes in any form.

But we aren't using the millimeter dimensions, since they are maximums. Because of that, our reference point should be the dimension that is printed/molded onto the tire. If no such numbers are found on the tire, or if someone has a tire of questionable dimensions, final say goes to the Referee or Chief Judge of that event.

Or, perhaps better yet, we ignore the possibility of 16" racers since I don't think we've used them at Unicon in a long time...


I know what '16 Class' is. It is a (proposed) category of unicycles, not a category of riders. Any rider is allowed to use a 16" wheel (more precisely: a wheel with a diameter smaller than 418 mm) in any track racing discipline. This happens probably at every Unicon, mostly for very young riders. Technically, some of them may fit on a 20" wheel, but they may not have one, and/or they may not feel comfortable on one. So exactly which riders would you want to allow to use a 16" wheel in Slow Race?



I think, we should allow 16" unicycles for riders of 0 - 10 years at regional championships. 


I'm fine with allowing 16" for 0-10 riders, but normally it's 20" maximum wheel for Track. Hosts don't usually add age groups for 16" that I'm aware of. So some people might complain. I'd say let them complain. I'm with Ana.


Ana's recent comment clears up the question about who may use 16" size wheel (in her opinion). But while the proposed rule seems clear, I still see issues. What if a 12-year-old, or a 50-year-old for that matter, happens to be very small, similar to a regular 10-year-old? Besides, I don't agree with the minimum wheel size in the first place, for reasons I have explained. But I'm happy to vote about it.

Copyright © IUF 2016