separate gearing in XC
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
Hello, I read a lot of the discussions and it is not always easy to understand it as a german. There are a lot of good ideas to make the rulebook clear.
In my opinion it is usefull and necessary to change the following points:
5A.2 Muni racing events have no wheel size, crank length or gearing requirements.
5B.2 There are no restrictions on wheel size, crank arm length, brakes, or gearing.
There are different classes for limited and unlimited unicycles in all road races. This applies not only to wheel size, but also to gearing. Furthermore the fastest ungeared riders get a special award in an unlimited event (4D.6) Why isn´t it the same in XC?
The XC is a race that challenges a rider´s fitness and ability to ride fast on rough terrain (5B.5.3). For this it is not necessary to have a geared unicycle. The geared have an advantage over approximately half of the routes. This is not sporty.
So I suggest to make a unlimited class for geared unicycles in all XC events. (just like the 10km)
Even with almost every downhill there are passages on which one with a geared unicycle has an advantage. So the easiest way is to change the 5A.2 and 5B.2 as follows:
5A.2 Muni racing events have no wheel size or crank length requirements. Gearing is not allowed. The host can offer a unlimited competition class for geared unicycles.
5B.2 There are no restrictions on wheel size, crank arm length or brakes. Gearing is not allowed. For geared unicycles the host can offer a separate class.
A further suggestion is to write down that at the Muni events, especially the Uphill, shoes must not be fixed to the pedals in any way ( no click-in pedals, toe clips, tape, magnets or similar). (just like the track races)
Comment
In Road Races, it is always an advantage to have a geared unicycle. That is why there is a separate class.
In Muni, so much depends on the course. It can be often be a disadvantage to have a geared unicycle. It's heavier and not as smooth to ride. I am completely against separating geared and ungeared in muni.
Comment
@ Gabrielle: The XC is a race that challenges a rider´s fitness and ability to ride fast on rough terrain (5B.5.3).
Riding fast on high gear in rough terrain is not an easy thing to master.
Unlike road riding the Muni is a challenge to negotiate terrain. During the race, either it is XC, DH or Uphill, the main thing is to challenge oneself to ride it as fast as possible. It shall not matter what gear setup was used by rider but the final result who get the fastest. There are many factors that make the things easier or more difficult during ride. Including but not limited to: wheel size, tire (fat or not), pressure, crank size, seat height, available gears, clip-less pedals, camel bag, energy gel. Selection of proper unicycle set up and equipment is an art that could lead to success or failure.
The number of categories we create will bring the same number of champions. But who is the Muni champion? Is it the fastest man who can challenge the terrain in the fastest manner. Or group of people who did that in different ways? For me, the champion is only one! And it shall be in his free choice to use fat tires, gears, or clip-less pedals.
I fully agree with Patricia.
It can be an advantage to use geared unicycle on easier trails or sections, but also it could be an disadvantage on harder trails. Similarly, the fat tires are an advantage on snowy or sandy conditions while disadvantage on paved surfaces. Short cranks are fast on DH but hard on long and steep uphills etc.
If we talk about Unicon, the race director should ensure that trail is in shape to not favor specified group of riders. This is a subject in different thread.
Comment
I find there are only two useful solutions. The best option in my opinion is two make the course very technically, that a geared unicycle is senseless. Otherwise I would make two categories, geared and ungeared, like at the CX.
I understand that riding with the gear is not easy, but I think that everyone who takes a geared unicycle on the race is able to ride nearly perfectly with the gear, otherwise it makes no sense to take it. And exactly these riders have an advantage against the others. I know also that a geared unicycle is havier and not as smooth to ride, but if it is possible to use the gear during the race then it is advantageous, in spite of this disadvantage.
In my opinion all riders should be on the same level in terms of the material. Because this is the only way to see who is the best and I think the fastest man/girl who can challenge the course in the fastest manner should be the champion. It's clear that not everyone for example on a XC use the same crank size, wheel size, or what else but in this case the difference isn't as great as with the gear.
I've already experienced some races where I lost positions to riders just because they are driven with the gear. I have great respect for these riders, because I know that's not easy to ride with the gear in rough terrain, but as soon as the geared riders can use the gear, they have a geat advantage and that's not fair.
Comment
I would totally agree with having two classes if they were always an advantage but for muni it's not always an advantage. I don't have the data but if I remember correctly a single speed muni has won XC at every single Unicon except for the one in Spain. If someone has more info please correct me if I'm wrong. Of course it all depends on how easy/difficult the XC course is and it's critical that organizers make sure to pick a course that hopefully doesn't advantage one or the other. If in the future the top 5 places are always geared then I could see re-examining this and adding another class but for now I think we are OK.
Comment
I would also prefer to keep it like it is, without different categories or banning gears and/or clips. It really depends on the course as others have said. Disagree with sterab (name?) that you are automatically at an advantage as soon as you can use the high gear - it needs to be a significant portion of the track where you can ride significantly faster than in first gear.
Another thing is that Schlumpf hubs are now available again - this could have been an issue in the past but not anymore.
Comment
@Ben it needs to be a significant portion of the track where you can ride significantly faster than in first gear.
I disagree completely. It is enough, if a small part of the track leads on asphalt or gravelled route. In this sections you always loose places against geared unicycles (as in spain at the asphalt way up to the finish).
The advantage you have with the geared one is on the easy parts of the track. And there you can make time. So not the riders fitness and ability to ride on rough terrain is the only decision criterion. It depends on how many easy parts are in the track. And there are always easy parts.
@ Maksym There are many factors that make the things easier or more difficult during ride. Including but not limited to: wheel size, tire (fat or not), pressure, crank size, seat height, available gears, clip-less pedals, camel bag, energy gel. Selection of proper unicycle set up and equipment is an art that could lead to success or failure.
I agree that there a lot of factors that determine who is the fastest. And it depends on the right choose of the material. And exactly here is the problem. Who should win? The one with the best material or the one who can drive best?
It should be possible to ride the Muni events with one unicycle. You can adjust your unicycle to the track: change the crank length or the tire....But if you use a geared one you have another transmission. That is another way to ride basically. The advantage is much bigger than to have another crank length.
Another is the cost. The "Schlumpf" is expensive and it doesn´t make sense to make it necessary to invest so much money.
I´m not sure but I think Ben won in Spain with a geared one, also Martin in Montreal (correct me if I am wrong). So if you want to be the best you have to ride a geared one.
In the discussion "XC course specification" you want to make the XC longer, not only a little bit, it is nearly the double length. To have the same points (MUNI difficulty scale) you want to reduce the average difficulty scale, because the total score increases with distance. That would prefer the geared even more.
Comment
@Gabrielle: It is enough, if a small part of the track leads on asphalt or gravelled route.
Looks like you count only that geared unicycle gives an advantage on easier sections. In the same time it gives disadvantage on harder sections and uphills. This is why Ben is right with his state: "it needs to be a significant portion of the track where you can ride significantly faster than in first gear."
@G:Who should win? The one with the best material or the one who can drive best?
There will be always differences in material as long as there is not complete standard set. Standardizing unicycles would lead to kill development of Muni as sport. My answer is: the winner should be the one who complete the trail in the shorter time.
@G: Another is the cost. The "Schlumpf" is expensive and it doesn´t make sense to make it necessary to invest so much money.
Believe me, try it once and you will change your mind ;)
Martin did not use Schlumpf at Unicon 17, similar to most of riders in the top 10, who own Schlumpf but decided to not take it for this trail.
@G:"In the discussion "XC course specification" you want to make the XC longer, not only a little bit, it is nearly the double length. To have the same points (MUNI difficulty scale) you want to reduce the average difficulty scale, because the total score increases with distance. That would prefer the geared even more."
Yes it is the double length, but it is what we expect from XC racing. If one is against, feedback is welcome.
We do not want to have same points. Reduce of the average difficulty scale is to reduce walking sections. Either increasing the distance or reducing walking sections would not favor geared unicycles.
Comment
I agree with Gabriele and Stevie. We (Villanders) are actually the most active Muni-Club. Four Team members have schlumpf since 2012. we ride a lot of muni and a lot of competitions. Not together with MTB but only real Muni Competitions. The Italian Muni Championship since 2013 consists of 4 stages split over the year. Moreover we compete at Austian Champianship and naturally Eurocycle and UNICON. So nobody should say that we don't know what we're talking of. Except two XC-tracks (the XC of Mont Tremblant and the XC of Spain) all Tracks where clearly favoring Schlumpf. Also this one in Mondovi at UNIOEC. So you are right when you say the last two UNICON's XC weren't favoring Schlumpf. but in the same time you say that the tracks were too technical and should be like the track at UNIOEC?? so that's a NO GO. As long as Schlumpf is not separated, tracks must be as technical as possible to not favor Schlumpf. Maybe you're right when you say that different cranks and wheel sizes and so one can give an advantage in some sections. We made a lot of test the last years and saw that these differences are really really little and available for everyone at every race for less money: a short crank cots the same as a long crank, a 29 wheel costs the same as the 26 or 27, and so on... but schlumpf (without rim and spokes) costs 1.500 €. two times more than a real good muni with brake and all ready to go. so not everybody can have this setup. And we claim that Schlumpf is the setup that mostly gives the advantage (naturally except the real technical XC's!). To say "...make the track curly..'" are just empty words. How would you make the track of UNIOEC curly? I would prefer to separate as they do in Austrian Championship, in my eyes the best solution for everyone:
Limited: Muni up to 29 ungeared. Distance ca. 10-15 km
Unlimited: 36 and geared. Distance ca. 15-30 km
This is fair and those one who love real long and not so technical XCs can do it. Even we facilitate the work of the organizers to find the perfect track for everyone.
If you don't want to separate so the tracks MUST be as technical as possible.
Comment
@Paul: "...we compete at Austian Champianship and naturally Eurocycle and UNICON. So nobody should say that we don't know what we're talking of. Except two XC-tracks (the XC of Mont Tremblant and the XC of Spain) all Tracks where clearly favoring Schlumpf. Also this one in Mondovi at UNIOEC."
Austrian Championships - Do you mean Salzkammergut Trophy? This is typical MTB Marathon that created category for muni, but the trail is almost all the time paved road and gravel. I would not consider it as typical muni event.
Eurocycle (in Langenthal) - that was defeat of organizing muni, either DH and XC. Do I remember good that XC was only 800 m long with more of the distance on paved road? I would not want to go there for Championship title again if I knew.
UNIOEC - This is good example, but it could be different when run in opposite direction, as the downhills were mostly on roads and start line was higher than finish line.
@Paul: "you say that the tracks were too technical and should be like the track at UNIOEC??"
Nobody have said that, but "too difficult on uphills" was said few times.
It is important to distinguish strength and technical difficulties. As unicycles, even geared do not have lower gears it is extremely difficult to ride some uphills which leads to walking. Walking race - That is NO GO!
@Paul: "To say "...make the track curly..'" are just empty words. How would you make the track of UNIOEC curly?"
At UNIOEC it could be hardly as the trail was in vast amount on paved road, but good example of making the track curly is DH Qualifications in San Sebastian. There was some man made obstacles to prevent high gearing.
Paul, why do you consider 36 inch together with geared? In most races I could actually consider it as disadvantage rather than advantage.
What would happen if there were limited and unlimited categories at UNICON17. The limited would go faster than unlimited. So the extra medals and world champion titles would go to slower riders from unlimited cathegory...
In the present rules, there is nothing said that there cannot be categorization on geared and ungeared. So it is free for the host.
In case of Unicon and Continental Championships the special recommendations for trails should apply in such way to prevent favoring one or another. While there is clear advantage of using geared unicycle on road the situation in Muni depends greatly on trail. In muni racing history it brought advantage more often than not. On the other hand the racing history is far from being perfect.
Comment
Well said Maksym.
Comment
@Maksym
I know it is fun to ride fast with the Schlumpf. We have one since years and all of our club love to ride it. We use the Schlumpf for practizing. The weakest of the group gets him to the muni training, so the group can drive fast.
The gearing makes it easier to be faster. Not the rider is getting stronger or faster, it is the technic that gives him a better transmission in case of Schlumpf. The same with the fixing of the shoes to the pedals. With fixed shoes you get more time to give power to the unicycle, because you can also pull the pedals. All this means that the Muni sports specializes even more, for one track you need the schlumpf, for the next another one,.... If the development continous, the Muni race ends in a technical battle for the once who can afford it. (Maybe the next is a climbing gear for the uphill or there is a three-speed-clutch available soon...)
The community of unicyclists should continue to be generous and open. This has always been a pleasure. I do not want to hinder any further development. The Schlumpf is wonderful.
However the basis of competitions should be as equal and easy to reach as many as possible. This includes finally the separation of the Muni competitions in standard and unlimited.
Standard: up to 29, no gearing, no fixed pedals.
Unlimited: Everything on one wheel is allowed.
Comment
Gabriele I'm not sure I understand your logic. Why wouldn't it be geared and ungeared instead of standard and unlimited? Fixed pedals are pretty cheap and a 36 is also comparable to the price of a 29. Thought you were mainly concerned about the price and advantage it gives. But at past unicons I'm pretty sure that no one has won the xc race on a schlumpf except for one person so clearly it hasn't been an advantage at past unicons.
Comment
@Ben: "Another thing is that Schlumpf hubs are now available again - this could have been an issue in the past but not anymore."
@Paul: "Four Team members have schlumpf since 2012."
@Gabriele: "We have one..." (Schlumpf)
Is it really a problem with access of geared unicycle for top riders?
@Paul: "Florians sister and brother compete as Profi in UCI. I don't think that any Muni-Rider trains so much, not even the half."
Indeed, it takes a lot of effort for everybody to be in elite muni racing. It entails a lot of expenses. Everyday trainings, gear exploitation, travels for racing are all costly.
Is it that much of problem with the price for Schlumpf along other expenses?
Comment
question: why does someone spend 1.500 € when there's no advantage?
maksym: Is it really a problem with access of geared unicycle for top riders?
yes, it is. we have several young riders, young but elite. without support of the clubs most of them would never have the possibility to go to a UNICON. let alone to bye Schlumpf. this is reality. fine that for you it is not a problem. i see different situations: personal riders like Maksym, ben, martin, jamey.... they have to take care only for themselfes. in my opinion you are thinking only on your interests. you should not forget the clubs (like Villanders, Naturns, Gleißenberg...) that take care of the youth, the future of this sport. Our opinion is clear: we wish separate categories for geared and ungeared. we wish fair conditions for the young riders. as long as tracks are very difficult it would be no problem. but who can assure that? i know, it's boring, but I have to repeat: "We (Villanders) are actually the most active muni club. except two tracks (Mont Tremblant and Spain) ALL other tracks where we competed were clearly favoring Schlumpf!!" so that's the reason why I'm excited.
Regarding the distances, did you think about young elite riders and female? We (Villanders; male and female) prefer technical XC with length between 10 and 15 km. And my opinion is, that allover there are much more than the half of all riders that think so. in this view spitting the categories would be even good: those who like shorter XC (in my opinion almost all ungeared riders) can compete in limited and those who like long distance (in my opinion the geared riders) can compete in unlimited with long distance.
Comment
I think the majority of schlumpf's are in road unicycles. All the people that have them in muni is due to the fact it does give you a big advantage on smooth fire trails and easy tracks. Plus instead of having to own several different single speed unicycles (smaller wheel for technical muni and bigger wheel for easy xc and middle size wheel for harder xc) you can just own one that does them all prett good.
This is important when traveling especially to a unicon. If I were to bring specific single speeds to unicon I would need three or four different unicycles if they are single speed. I can reduce this to only two, a 20" and 26" schlumpf cause I can do all the muni and road races with it.
I totally support different classes if the xc course is easy but I would much rather have a course that is hard enough that it doesn't give a schlumpf an advantage which is what we should be focusing on.
Also this is a world champion xc race and needs to be much longer than the courses have been in the past. If people want shorter courses than they should enter as a beginner until they are ready for the big league.
Comment
@ Jamey All the people that have them in muni is due to the fact it does give you a big advantage on smooth fire trails and easy tracks.
Yes and that´s not sporty.This advantage is not based on the skill of the rider.
@ Jamey Plus instead of having to own several different single speed unicycles (smaller wheel for technical muni and bigger wheel for easy xc and middle size wheel for harder xc) you can just own one that does them all prett good.
You don´t need these different Munis. All members of our club drive the MUni events in Spain with one Unicycle. Benno Lang is in the moment the best german rider. He does all events with a 27 inch KH. Maybe he changed the cranks for the uphill, but nothing more.
@ Jamey Also this is a world champion xc race and needs to be much longer than the courses have been in the past.
The length of the XC Course was 5 km in 2012, 2014 it changed to 10km (Rulebook). Now you want to double the length again. Then it is a completely different competition. You want a XC Marathon, after that everyone who does the sport seriously needs at least a week of recreation before entering the next competition. No one of our club wants this.
We want a separate class for the Schlumpf! And again: The best solution in my opinion is to make this two kinds of XC:
10km for ungeared, 30 km for geared
Why don´t you like this idea of two different courses? Are you afraid of competing with just 15 riders in a "XC marathon"? Do you fear that the topdriver prefer the 10 km XC with a high technical level?
@ Jamey If people want shorter courses than they should enter as a beginner until they are ready for the big league.
I can´t believe, that you say that the one who want shorter courses should enter as a beginner. Paul said they prefer a XC with 10-15km. Look to the results male and female and count how much are from South Tirol. That looks like you want to kick out the rivals.
And what is the big league? We are talking about a niche sport. The Unicon lives by the top riders and by the enthusiastic visitors and participants from all over the world. And most important is it to participate the youth and create good, healthy and fair conditions.
Comment
Ladies and Gentlemans, CALM DOWN!
We discuss here some important problems but looks like you loose control. Please read carefully because I see that you do not understand what is written.
Either me and Jamey are not against separate categories. This would be necessary if races are easier. There are races with separate categories like Salzkammergut which is considered to be Austrian Championship. Rulebook also do not forbide this. (Correct me if I am wrong).
The other story is Unicon and Continental Championships. We do not want separation because we want such difficult races that there is no advantage from gearing. This was said few times already, but looks like your mind is locked. We want difficult races and no separation, also to have pleasure to race with Best Villanders. I am not scare of them. They are young, have better skills, steep lerning curve, they are just better. Good for them.
@Gabriele: "...Now you want to double the length again(20km). Then it is a completely different competition. You want a XC Marathon, after that everyone who does the sport seriously needs at least a week of recreation before entering the next competition."
The distance of 20km was taken from the desired time of competition 1h30min. I personally think that 10 km is sprint distance of XC, 20 km is normal, and Marathon is 40km+. Nowadays it is normal that some muni riders ride distances 50km+, some can do it few days in a row, some do 100km+. This is how the sport developed since 2012 when competitions were only 5km.
We talk on distance 20km, and whish to compete on the trails that Schlumpf is not needed.
@Gabriele: "Why don´t you like this idea of two different courses?"
Because the best rider is only one! And there will not be time to allow competing in two different courses for the same rider.
@Gabriele: "The Unicon lives by the top riders and by the enthusiastic visitors and participants from all over the world. And most important is it to participate the youth and create good, healthy and fair conditions"
We talk about World Championships! Enthusiastic visitors are welcome to cheer, observe top riders from the side of track, learn and join workshops. I would be very happy to reduce amount by selection of national representatives in age groups, instead of having crowd and organizational problems. But this is different thread...
@Paul: "question: why does someone spend 1.500 € when there's no advantage?"
Because racing is not everything, we do rides at home place. Some people leaves in flat areas, some in hilly, some in mountains. Schlumpf is ideal for riding on flat areas, good in hilly and good on long approaches in the mountains.
@Paul: "...take care of the youth, the future of this sport."
Care of the youth was already taken in Wellington ;) And seriously, the youth will grow up quickly and they will find the 10 km race is too short, as we do it now.
@Gabriele: "what is the big league?"
I like this term in Jamey's post. I think we can consider it as a group of "mature" riders, who gained technical skills, strength and endurance. I understand why Paul and Gabriele worry. It is because young riders are not mature enough to build endurance. Taken from last XC World Championships UCI the average age of first ten male is 29 years old. Simply, the younger riders cannot build endurance, but they can build higher technical skills (which is already done) and speed. Podium is still their range.
With proposed 20+-5km distance we wants to bring XC race out from "kindergarten" to big ligue. The youth will find new challenge and sooner or later will grow up and enjoy this distance. Keeping it on 10km level stops development of the sport.
Comment
Forgot to add. The 20 km is not long distance it is MEDIUM distance, is is just 1h30min effort. Proper trained rider do not need a week of recreation before entering the next competition.
Of course, he would not be able to beat his records at next day in high jump or other... but World Champion must specialize in his discipline.
Comment
@Maksym: "...we wants to bring XC race out from "kindergarten" to big ligue."
This is a good approach. I think we need to reach a certain level in this discipline(actually in all muni disciplines). Regarding the distance, I would rather look at the time than on the lenght. I watch the races of MTB World Cup and these races last between 1h and 1 1/2h and at these races are only top athletes. So if we make XC races between 20km and 30km we would reach a time over 2h and that is too much in my opinion. So if we make the races longer, I would go towards that duration(between 1h and 1 1/4h). For example at the Salzkammergut Trophy I need 1:15h for 22,1km and the course there is quite easy to ride, a typical marathon course, not a XC course. In my opinion it depends always on the course. If the course is easy and not very technical, then it's no problem if there are more kilometers to complete. But if the course is exhausting and technically, I would choose a shorter distance.
The idea of two different courses: If nothing continues to change and the riders with the gear have also in the future an advantage over the others, than the idea with the two categories will be the only option. But in this respect I think we should find another solution. Because we have the same system at the Cyclocross and the problem is that some of the top riders are in the unlimeted category and other top riders are in the limeted category and I think that all riders should be in the same race, because only with that we can see who is the best of all. So as I have already said, the best solution is to make the courses more demanding and technically. So the riders with gear can't use the gear for to their advantage and moreover we see who is the best rider regarding endurance and driving skills.
Comment
Thanks Stefan for constructive opinion.
The distance of the race is in the different discussion. XC Course Specification
I copy & paste first paragrapg there, look there...
Comment
Regarding my proposal to split the categories like in Austria:
- Limited: up to 29 inch (ungeared): Short Distance 10-15 km
- Unlimited: more than 29 inch and geared: Long Distance 15-30 km (if you don't agree that 36 is in this categorie, it could be also in the other. I simply copied the categories from Austria. But I think Owners of 36 love long distance!)
Please take time to think about this.
There are two kinds of riders: those who prefer shorter and those who prefer longer. In my opinion the owner of Schlumpf mostly prefer long. While mostly of ungeared and 36 prefer short. So splitting the categorie makes sense. comparing with MTB this would be like XC and Marathon. Please do not request the same duration, because the level in MTB and MUNI are worlds apart.
In the actually situation (one categorie and increasing the distance) I see no logic. the proposal "Course specification" says: "Course should not be profitable for using geared unicycles." I already said that since 2013 we competed in ca. 20 XC-Races but only 2 were not profitable for Schlumpf. But exactly these had too much walking sections. In my opinion the reason why these had too much walking sections is that the organizers had to assure no favoring Schlumpf. So I see that it will nearly bee impossible to find the perfect course. We live in the mountains and have really perfect terrain for all Muni-Disciplines. Every year (since 2012) we organize a Unicycle-Competition with 9 disciplines, including DH, XC and UH (this year more than 100 competitors). Although we have perfect terrain for Muni, not even our XC-Track is perfect: it's favoring Schlumpf! And please do not think we didn't made enough effort for searching the perfect one! there are many things to consider: how can competitors come to the start (bus, car..), is there enough parking place, how do we manage lunch, can ambulance recover fast in case of injured,... This shows how difficult it is to find the perfect track. As you can see, we have also much experience in organizing and in my opinion it's impossible to find the perfect track with the actually rule. It's easy to write the perfect rule, but this is not reality. The words in the rulebook do not make mountains where there aren't (Netherlands...).
Splitting the category makes sense: It's much easier to find a track. Applying the different distances (10-15km for limited and 15-30 km for unlimited) would satisfy both kinds of riders: long endurance and short endurance. I do not understand why we should force everybody in long distance when mostly do not want.
Reguarding again the sentence in the proposal "Course should not be profitable for using geared unicycles.": this requirement stops development of this sport. Why should some Muni-Rider bye Schlumpf when he can't use it? and the other question is: Why should the owner of Schlumpf not use the Schlumpf for what it is made? It's made for speed, so let the owner use it and have fun! So soon will bee more and more Schlumpf-Riders in the Muni-World, competing in the proper course: long and speedy.
I do not say to you that you must compete in short distance, so you should even not force all elite to compete in long distance!
My vision of development is the follow:
- Riders start in beginner
- come to Standard
- then Elite Limited ungeared(short distance 10-15 km) (as long as they prefer, mostly until they are 25-30 years old)
- or Elite Unlimited geared (long distance 15-30 km) (young endurance talents can enter immediately, if they have the money for Schlumpf)
Also in MTB is like this: Short distance is XC and long distance is marathon.
So splitting the category will reduce many discussions!
Please take time to think about this!!
now I must start for work far from home. so I cannot follow the discussion. I will come back at Christmas. Please do not start to vote about "Course specification". Both discussions belong together. So please wait with voting until 27 of dec.
Comment
sorry, there's a mistake:
"There are two kinds of riders: those who prefer shorter and those who prefer longer. In my opinion the owner of Schlumpf and 36 mostly prefer long. While mostly of ungeared and 36 prefer short.
Comment
When we first started doing races on dirt (Unicon IV, 1988) I don't think we had any new rules about equipment, since Munis basically didn't exist. Everybody raced on their Track unicycles. But as Muni developed into its own thing, we decided not to put restrictions on the equipment. All Muni racing at that time was unlimited. We did this in part because we didn't know what the best possible dirt racing unicycle would be, and to encourage innovation and experimentation.
Also this was before Schlumpf. We started to have Schlumpf hubs in 2005, but those early ones were not intended for rough terrain so they weren't a factor. It took a while after the KH/Schlumpf came out before there were multiple people entering races on Schlumpf.
As soon as fast riders started entering on Schlumpf, there were complaints about the advantage of the gearing. It's not that it was an "unlimited category", but that there weren't any other categories. Everybody is *NOT* free to buy their own Schlumpf, not only due to cost but other reasons as well (limited availability).
So far with Muni racing, I don't think we have used different equipment categories. But the sport continues to develop, and people get better and better riding rough terrain in high gear. Deciding whether a race course brings advantage to geared riders is a subjective thing, for which we do not have a definitive way to determine one way or the other. In other words, unless a course is completely flat, or completely uphill, some will always argue that geared riders have an advantage.
So I suggest we develop guidelines for additional equipment categories in Muni racing. These categories would not be required. If they are popular they may develop into "always" rules but first they should be an option. The "default" category will always be Unlimited. The definition of Unlimited is "without limits", which means everything is allowed (within the definitions for unicycle). All other categories would be limited, in one way or another. I believe the logical way to start this is to separate geared from ungeared. This means the additional category would be for ungeared unicycles. Race against the schlumpf in the Unlimited category, or be in the Ungeared category.
The problem with the above is deciding which to enter. Traditionally, regardless of rulebook suggestions or requirements, Muni courses have often been a mystery until people arrive in the area, possibly with the wrong unicycles to fit the terrain. The reason for this might be that organizers were too busy to worry about sending out course details, or that the venue didn't get finalized until the last minute. We won't necessarily know which category will be the faster. I don't have a good solution for that.
In our rules we can (strongly) recommend that courses be chosen to not favor geared over ungeared, but like you've read in this discussion, we will rarely have the perfect course. Usually hosts will be able to offer only a limited amount of trail to work with, and will have to make their Muni events fit to that as best they can. They cannot guarantee to make courses that are "schlumpf neutral". Any course with a lot of flat or flowing sections will be good for Schlumpf riders.
I will remind everyone (though I'm sure you already know) that geared unicycles don't magically produce more speed. They require more effort, get harder to balance in high gear, and weigh more; all of which are disadvantages. It takes a good deal of skill, as well as fitness, to ride them fast in high gear. But they still do have that mechanical advantage.
What to do? Hosts should carefully consider the courses they will have, and create their categories accordingly. I don't recommend dividing riders up by wheel size; it's possible to do very well on a range of sizes, and all the top riders probably want to race against each other. Except maybe if some are geared and some aren't.
Multiple courses? Great to have, but will add time, and possibly add people, equipment and other requirements. We should not make it a requirement. If trails permit, you could run two courses from a common starting point, where riders would just have to make the correct turn at the place where the courses split. If two finish lines can be run concurrently, this could work without adding much time, and with a need for less than double the equipment and people. I like the idea of riders having a choice of courses. Or, if that can't be made to work, possibly offering a place where people can ride non-competitively while the race is going on (or before or after).
To sum up:
- The default category for Muni racing has always been "Unlimited", which means without limits
- If we are to add a category, the next one should probably be "Ungeared"
- We should not call any Muni category "Standard" as that already has traditional definitions for Track racing and Standard Skill competition
- If we broke out by wheel size, I might start with a 20" max. category, to allow people to compete on Trials and Street unicycles they might have with them. I would not try to separate 24, 26, 29 from each other, but maybe 36 on flatish courses.
- XC courses cannot be forced into perfect shapes, and will almost never be optimum, because venues for racing are very hard to get. Any guidelines for courses must be flexible enough to work in the real world (Netherlands, for instance).
Comment
I agree with Foss that if we were to add a category that it should be geared and ungeared (any size wheel). If the races are different in length for each category than it should be called Beginners, Intermediate (ungeared) and Elite (geared plus those ungeared that want to compete against the top riders).
I do like the idea of adding an additional muni marathon race (see my comments about that in the other topic). I also still believe that no matter what we add or decide the xc race should be longer for elites. I looked up the latest MTB xc world championships and the 1st place guy finished in 1 hour 40 minutes. Last unicon the 1st place guy finished in 40 minutes.
Don't understand why we shouldn't compare MTB xc with muni xc. I would say a MTB is harder than a muni as it's faster and you have little time to think as you come around corners and up to obstacles. Plus you have two wheels to worry about and tons of gears to shift and decide what is the most optimal.
Comment
"Plus you have two wheels to worry about and tons of gears to shift and decide what is the most optimal."
I don't know, I think that training wheel negates a lot of that perceived difficulty. But it's true they go pretty fast, especially downhill, when they cheat by not pedaling!
So maybe this discussion can lead to a wish list, of sorts, for the types of races we would like to do, in a hierarchy of most to least desirable. Then hosts could try to fulfill the list, based on their available terrain (and time) to do as much as they can.
Past versions of this rulebook, and the USA rulebooks that came before it, included ideas for optional events, some of which were untried, to provide inspiration for future hosts.
Comment
Maybe my mind is locked, but I'm not able to break out. I read many times your opinions and thought much about it. But I always finished in thinking about the XC-courses we had till now: or too many walking sections or favoring Schlumpf. So I really do not understand why hold on something that till now was not possible. And I don't think that organizers of Canada, Spain and UNIOEC didn't make enough effort to find the perfect one. I think it will go on like it was, and as John said: "As soon as fast riders started entering on Schlumpf, there were complaints about the advantage of the gearing. It's not that it was an "unlimited category", but that there weren't any other categories. Everybody is *NOT* free to buy their own Schlumpf, not only due to cost but other reasons as well (limited availability)." So it will continue with discussions or about "the perfect course" or about "favoring Schlumpf". I think we can prevent this discussions splitting the categories as I suggested. Moreover it is much easier to find suitable courses, because in this case it does not matter if consisting of some flowing sections.
In my opinion it's easier (for organizers) to split the categories instead of have two separate Races (regarding "Course specifications" XC and Marathon). The two categories start at the same day in the same course. Example: a course of 7 km length: 2 laps for Limited (ungeared) and 4 laps for Unlimited (geared). So that would mean no extra time for additional race and moreover satisfying the preferences of short endurance and long endurance riders. Sure, some would like to compete in both categories, but having two separate races is more difficult for the organizers and does not resolve the problem with the discussion of "Geared-Ungeared".
There was claimed that Schlumpf gives disadvantage on harder sections and that it needs to be a significant portion of the track where you can ride significantly faster than in first gear. I don't think so. Please have a look at this video: https://youtu.be/EsNP33lZ_hs In my opinion a good example: it shows first Lukas Huber 29x2,4 X-King 125mm-cranks ungeared and second Florian Rabensteiner 29x2,35 Schwalbe 125mm-cranks geared, in the most difficult section of the Spanish XC. I cannot see a speed difference. The skill-level of both riders is nearly the same (Lukas already won two DHs against Florian). I do not say, that there's no difference, but it is marginal. On the other side everybody knows the speed difference of geared and ungeared in flowing sections. So the portion of the track does not have to be very long to give an advantage to the geared rider.
I saw no comments on this:
- "Course should not be profitable for using geared unicycles.": this requirement stops development of this sport. Why should some Muni-Rider bye Schlumpf when he can't use it? and the other question is: Why should the owner of Schlumpf not use the Schlumpf for what it is made? It's made for speed, so let the owner use it and have fun! So soon will be more and more Schlumpf-Riders in the Muni-World, competing in the proper course: long and speedy.
Can some of the owners of Schlumpf give a comment on this please? What do you think about this? In my opinion splitting the categories pushes on the development of Muni, especially regarding Schlumpf.
Thank you for waiting with voting about "Course specifications". Is it possible to vote first about splitting categories and after that about course specifications? Even if it seems like that the majority of the Muni-Committee do not want to split, I would like to vote on this first. If it's not possible or you don't want so, can you please add in the proposal of "Course Specifications": If the course is favoring geared unicycles there should be made two categories: Geared and Ungeared .
Comment
If somebody writes a proposal about separate categories at XC we can of course vote on it. Since Gabriele started the thread, I think it would be best if she does it. I would indeed encourage a proposal because I think it's the only way how to proceed about this issue - the discussion is pretty much stuck. Let the votes decide.
I don't think Maksym's proposal about having longer XC tracks needs to wait on the outcome, though. If there would be 2 different categories, I think it would still be best if both compete on the same track. From what we've heard from previous organizers, it is unlikely to have different tracks (10 km short technical, 30+ km long & smooth) due to logistic reasons. If it is possible to have really different tracks, then I think we can agree that it would be best to run separate events (XC & Marathon).
So let's assume both categories compete on the same track. On any track that fulfills the requirements of 15-25 km, 24 points on the difficulty scale, I think the difference of the fastest times will never be larger than 15 min between geared and ungeared. Some tracks might slightly favor ungeared, some geared unis. If you have a shorter loop you can always do it like this, for example: one category rides 5 loops, the other 4 loops, but both still in 15-25 km range. I would be against Paul's example of 2 laps (ungeared) - 4 laps (geared), i.e. very different lengths between the categories. I'm sure that also some ungeared riders would prefer to race longer distances. On the other hand, if the 20 km are too long for somebody, he/she can always decide to ride in the beginner/advanced category on shorter tracks.
Therefore: Maksym, please put your proposal up for a vote; Gabriele, please write a proposal about separating XC categories.
Comment
Paul, regarding your other points:
Disadvantage of Schlumpf on technical DHs. It is maybe small but certainly there. If there would be no disadvantage, why does nobody of the fastest riders use Schlumpfs in the DH competitions? Your example is such a short section - you cannot expect to see a huge difference. It adds up though! And then there are of course uphills and flat sections, where the disadvantage is much larger because of the extra weight of the hub.
"Course should not be profitable for using geared unicycles." ...
I don't see this stopping development. People like riding geared unis also for their pleasure. When you always ride XC on a geared unis, you will also pick it in a competition even if both geared and ungeared are equally favored because you are more comfortable with it. For me, it's more exciting to ride some sections faster even though I have to work harder on the uphills.
"In my opinion splitting the categories pushes on the development of Muni, especially regarding Schlumpf."
By splitting geared/ungeared, you end up competing against less people, maybe not even the fastest riders because they are in a different category. I don't see this pushing the sport, rather the opposite will happen.
Comment
Hope the Schlumpf will be cheaper someday, thus we will not have such a big problem like this.
I do not see solution that would satisfy all. Below I listed 3 options that I think are worth to discuss. None is perfect, we have to choose what disadvantages we accept.
OPTION 1. Three categories in Muni: Beginners, Elite Limited (ungeared) and Elite unlimited, each for about 1h30min. The weakness is that it divides elite riders in two categories and brings two champions. The advantage is that this model works on easy and difficult terrain.
OPTION 2. Three categories: Beginners, Advance (with categories: ungeared and geared, 10km), and Elite (unlimited, 1h30min, (20+-5km)). No limits in Elite distance, The champion is simply the fastest combination of rider and equipment. Good for sport development and more spectacular, but more expensive for Elite riders.
OPTION 3. No separation for geared/ungeared. Two categories: Beginners, Elite (1h30min, 20+-5km), with strong recommendation for the course "Course should not be profitable for using geared unicycles" The disadvantage is that organizer have a difficult job to find proper course.
(Times and distances are just example and require discussion and acceptance)
Ben, I think we have to wait for outcome in this discussion before voting on XC specification proposal. The phrase: "Course should not be profitable for using geared unicycles" might not be needed anymore.
Comment
Maksym: thank you very much for thinking about my concern. And thank you for waiting with the voting! Yes, you are right: we have this 3 options. everyone has advantages and disadvantages. My favored would be a mix of 1 and 2:
Three categories:
- Beginners: ca. 5 - 10 km (no gear allowed; no restrictions about wheel sizes, cranks, pedals, tires)
- Elite Ungeared: 15 km (+/- 3) no restrictions about wheel sizes, cranks, pedals, tires
- Elite Unlimited: 25 km (+/-5) No restrictions at all.
(distances are only examples)
I would prefer a difference in length between Elite Ungeared and Unlimited because:
- courses should consist not only of tecnical but also of many flowing sections, so that Schlumpf can be used for what it is made: for Speed. Spectators should see the speed difference! Therefor the geared riders would finish faster the same distance, so distance has to be longer.
- to facilitate the job of the organizers it should be possible to have the same course for both categories. Example: a course of 12 km length: 1 lap for Ungeared and 2 laps for Unlimited. Or: a course of 8 km: 2 laps for Ungeared and 3 (or 4?) laps for Unlimited.
- the target of every endurance talent should be to come some day (when he has the money) in the Elite Unlimited - the Top Category with the most advanced (geared) Unicycles. But as long as he has not the possibility to bye Schlumpf (for whatever reason: financial or No availability) he should have the opportunity to become World Champion in XC ungeared.
Option 3 is similar to the situation that we had in Canada and Spain: Organizers have to assure no favoring Schlumpf. In the same time courses should be rideable 100 %. So please let me repeat: We (Villanders) have optimal territory for Muni: The Alps. Not even our XC-Course is appropriate to this rule-recommendation. In my eyes it's nearly impossible. In my opinion problems and discussions are preprogrammed with this Rule-recommendation. And what when UNICON is in the Netherlands? To say: "... next year's European championships will be in the rather flat Netherlands and it's clear that the courses won't satisfy our standards." is not really fair to the organizers.
I think most problems we had in Muni were organisational reasons (No markings, no training possibilities, no GPS-Map in the homepage, not appropriate course, no volunteers, ...). Therefor for every Rule-Change we will make, we should also consider to facilitate (if possible) the job of the organizers.
Gabriele is elaborating a proposal. please feel free to give inputs.
Comment
Paul, I like your 3 categories! However, I think the Elite Ungeared should be called Advanced Ungeared because of the significantly shorter course. You said it yourself: Unlimited is the top category.
If we want to have Elite Ungeared, then I think it should be about the same duration as the Elite Unlimited (Option 1 from Maksym's post).
Even on the easiest muni tracks, the Schlumpf is only about 10% faster than ungeared unicycles. Look for example at the Riegersburg XC race, which is one of the easiest tracks with lots of paved roads and gravel roads, and compare the times of Florian (geared) and Stevie (ungeared). The difference is about 12%, but Florian is usually faster by a few percent even without gears. So assuming the same fitness, I think we can agree that Schlumpf is only faster by about 10% even on very easy tracks. When I myself tested geared vs. ungeared on XC tracks close to Berlin, which are pretty easy as well, I got similar results. And 10% percent assumes very easy tracks. The tracks at world championships should be technically more challenging - which brings the difference much closer to zero!
Now, why should the unlimited race be 67% longer than the ungeared race (25 km vs. 15 km), when the geared riders are only 10 or less percent faster? I think it makes much more sense if 15 km (ungeared) is Advanced and 25 km (unlimited) is Elite. In terms of length, I would propose Beginner 5-10 km, Advanced 10-15 km, and Elite 15-25 km to stay closer to Maksym's suggestion in the other proposal.
I think this would be my favorite solution because you don't have the problem of splitting the Elite riders and still have a category only for the ungeared.
Comment
I prefer option 3 and then 2 (or what Ben said above).
Comment
I prefer option 3 and then 2 (or what Ben said above).
+1
Comment
I agree with John and Jamey regarding separation. If we did separate the XC categories- it should be geared and ungeared.
Until there are sufficient riders in each category (we might be there already), I think the current rule should remain.
This is to prevent dilution of talent.
The riders who do well in geared and ungeared MUni are the same; whereas in Road races, the standard class riders are often quite different to the riders who do well in the unlimited.
If we separate categories, then I think we need to avoid creating an "Underclass".
In particular this quote from Paul:
"the target of every endurance talent should be to come some day (when he has the money) in the Elite Unlimited - the Top Category with the most advanced (geared) Unicycles. But as long as he has not the possibility to bye Schlumpf (for whatever reason: financial or No availability) he should have the opportunity to become World Champion in XC ungeared"
-- you are suggesting that the ungeared XC World Champion is not as worthy as the geared/unlimited XC World Champion. It would be enough to turn any serious rider off racing ungeared.
-- in road races, we have enough competition (and for the 10km, far greater competitors) in the standard class. So the standard world champion is an equal title to the unlimited world champion. Otherwise no one would race it.
___________________
Regarding race courses, I am in favour of keeping things simple.
The addition of separate distances for geared and ungeared makes things complex for organisers. I would only be in favour if there is true separation of Ungeared and Unlimited categories for MUni. The Ungeared/standard course could be more technical, the Unlimited course could be faster (to favour geared and ungeared 36" unicycles)
Another note- the 'beginner' category was added for the benefit of recreational riders at Unicon. There should be no restrictions on equipment- it is not an awarded/competition category.
One could argue we don't actually need this category, except no one seems to be doing MUni riding workshops/rides at Unicon for beginners anymore.
Comment
@ Ken
The riders who do well in geared and ungeared MUni are the same; whereas in Road races, the standard class riders are often quite different to the riders who do well in the unlimited.
I do not agree with this. I think in road race we don't have the comparison, because the standard riders aren't owners of Schlumpf. Therefore they always compete in Standard. And the owners of Schlumpf never compete in Standard. While in XC geared and ungeared must compete always in the same category and sometimes owners of Schlumpf don't use it because of the too technical track. Therefore we have the comparison in XC. I'm quite sure that if some top Standard rider of Roadracing would bye Schlumpf and start to compete in Unlimited he would soon be a Top rider even in Unlimited. And vice versa.
If we separate categories, then I think we need to avoid creating an "Underclass".
In particular this quote from Paul:
"the target of every endurance talent should be to come some day (when he has the money) in the Elite Unlimited - the Top Category with the most advanced (geared) Unicycles. But as long as he has not the possibility to bye Schlumpf (for whatever reason: financial or No availability) he should have the opportunity to become World Champion in XC ungeared"
-- you are suggesting that the ungeared XC World Champion is not as worthy as the geared/unlimited XC World Champion. It would be enough to turn any serious rider off racing ungeared.
-- in road races, we have enough competition (and for the 10km, far greater competitors) in the standard class. So the standard world champion is an equal title to the unlimited world champion. Otherwise no one would race it.
Sorry, this was really not my intention and not what I meant. I try to explain better with an example of our club: Austrian Muni-Championship: Florian and Michael Rabensteiner until last year competed in the short distance (22 km ungeared) and reached top positions in the rankings. As they were growing and are owners of Schlumpf this year they started to compete in long distance (38 km unlimited). So they are looking for new challenge. At the salzkammerguttrophy the rankings of short and long distance are equal titles although the distances are different. Therefore I said: "as long as he has not the possibility to bye Schlumpf (for whatever reason: financial or No availability) he should have the opportunity to become World Champion in XC ungeared." And therefore I would name the two categories both ELITE (Elite ungeared and Elite Unlimited) Both with equal World Champion Title.
Regarding race courses, I am in favour of keeping things simple.
The addition of separate distances for geared and ungeared makes things complex for organisers. I would only be in favour if there is true separation of Ungeared and Unlimited categories for MUni. The Ungeared/standard course could be more technical, the Unlimited course could be faster (to favour geared and ungeared 36" unicycles)
Yes, you are right. We should keep things simple! I only thought that it would be easier for the organizer to manage all races on one course. Naturally it is better to have more technical course for ungeared and more flowing and faster course for Unlimited.
Another note- the 'beginner' category was added for the benefit of recreational riders at Unicon. There should be no restrictions on equipment- it is not an awarded/competition category.
One could argue we don't actually need this category, except no one seems to be doing MUni riding workshops/rides at Unicon for beginners anymore.
I didn't know this. My opinion is that UNICON doesn't have the task to offer recreational category together with the races. this should be managed by workshops. I intended the Beginner category as an awarded competition.
@Ben
Now, why should the unlimited race be 67% longer than the ungeared race (25 km vs. 15 km), when the geared riders are only 10 or less percent faster?
I would like to have a great difference of distance because of two reasons:
- to satisfy the two kinds of endurance racers: short endurance (most of young/ungeared riders) long endurance (most of mature/geared riders).
- to give the growing riders new challenges: Also in MTB I can see that short endurance riders (XC) are younger than long endurance riders (Marathon).
So in my opinion at the moment there's no need to have two different races: XC and Marathon for Muni. We should simply start to separate geared from ungeared with a significant difference in distance. So we will satisfy nearly everyone. I really like the categories at Salzkammerguttrophy: Everyone is satisfied (extra long distance for mature riders/Unlimited and much shorter distance for younger rider/ungeared. And the most important thing there: NO DISCUSSIONS! Everybody is happy!
Comment
"Everybody is happy!" - well except for that the track is super boring so I think it's not a very good example ;)
Regarding the other points, I think I would need to repeat what I have already written.
However, I think we are getting lost in some details. And we also have to accept that we have different opinions.
Maybe we could have a non-binding vote just to see how other voting members feel about the situation.
I just created a poll whether we should have separate categories for geared/ungeared at all.
Every voting member please vote!! Let's give the poll 3 days.
If less than 67% (that is how much votes we need to change current rules) vote Yes, we don't need to continue discussing or thinking about a proposal. If more than 67% vote Yes, we can then vote for the different options how to realize it.
Comment
There was a lot of discussion and i think it is not the right way to do a voting before the voting. Of course we try to find a solution that satisfies as many as possible of requirements. And therefore ist is necessary to discuss.
I write a proposal.
Comment
I think Ben's point is that there's no need to spend the time trying to figure out the exact right way to separate the categories if no one will support the separation at all. I voted on Ben's informal poll. I think it's a good way to gather information and not waste time.
Comment
Alright, Gabriele already invested the time to write the proposal so let's see what's gonna happen. As I mentioned, I personally don't support splitting of the Elite category.
Since Maksym's proposal depends on the outcome of this one and still needs to be submitted before Jan 15, I'm giving this proposal 5 days for review and 5 days for voting - hope that's fine. I can add a few extra days if really needed.
Comment
I also don't agree with splitting of the elite category and it looks like the majority of the people also agree but we shall find out when we officially vote.
Comment
I do not agree with splitting elite too and feel o-right to create geared/ungeared categories in age groups, or advanced level.
I think it is not time to think on courses before we agree on categories, but it helps to see direction of desired course shapes.
UXC scale points we can study later.
Comment
@Gabriele: I took the time of 45 min for ungeared. 60% of competitors need more than 1 h at the XC in Spain. 75% of competitors female need more than 1 h.
I would suggest that if we talk about Elite, than we consider first 30 riders, instead 150.
Comment
There are a lot of details going on in this discussion, so I'm not going to address them all. But here are a few things from me:
1. Having different courses for geared/ungeared is a logistical nightmare for organizers. The course-lap idea has potential, but then we start having lots of riders and not a lot of space. So, I don't think we should have separate courses for geared/ungeared.
2. Why do we separate geared from ungeared in other events? Because, theoretically, a geared uni gives an unfair advantage in flat terrain and not everyone can afford one. In a perfect world, XC would be technical enough that a geared uni has little to no advantage over ungeared. BUT. We know from experience this is not true. Unicons can be held in places where the muni is not ideal, maybe XC is a lot of dirt road. There, a geared uni would be a huge advantage. So, I think there should be separate awards for geared/ungeared in Elite XC. This shouldn't negatively impact anyone if the terrain is good, and it will prevent unfair advantages if the terrain is bad.
Comment
I agree with Maksym to treat the distances after voting about categories. Regarding separation only in the age groups I think it would be more work for the organizers and not solve the problem in Elite in case of easy courses. However, thanks for thinking about compromise.
I like Jennis input: What do you think about a similar rule like I proposed for CX: Separating categories depends on the course?
Comment
It shall be proposal for categories, not the course specification!
I completely disagree with proposed 5D.1.3
B
You propose race duration of 45minutes in Elite category (ungeared), while a lot of us agree that race should be of 1h30minutes.
The endurance is not sold together with Schlumpf, so why Paul and Gabrielle wants longer (in time) distances for geared riders and shorter for ungeared?
Comment
Maksym, I agree with you to treat the distances separately, after the categories. So I hope that Gabriele will delete the part 5D.1.3! This part should be treat in the appropriate discussion.
You answer why I prefer different distances:
- to satisfy the two kinds of endurance racers: short endurance (most of young/ungeared riders) long endurance (most of mature/geared riders).
- to give the growing riders new challenges: Also in MTB I can see that short endurance riders (XC) are younger than long endurance riders (Marathon).
This is only my opinion, and about this I'm very flexible.
But about geared and ungeared my opinion is clear: If course is favoring Schlumpf, there must be separate categories!
Comment
Present regulations does not prohibit from separating categories on geared/ungeared or giraffed... ;) , so it is up to the host.
Proposed regulation should not require host of any small race to do such separations, thus, if any it should be directed to Unicons and Continental Championships.
Host of Unicon or CC may create categories or not depending on available trails.
Yet, we didn't consider possibility for locking Schlumpf. It is possible in easy way to lock the Schlumpf, preventing shifing between gears, making it singlespeed. It might be way to reduce its advantage, though it is against sport development but prevent unfair advantages.
It could work like this:
OPTION 1: Trail in Mt.Tremblant, trail disfavor Schlumpf users. One category, as it was.
OPTION 2: Trail in San Sebastian, trail favor Schlumpf users in small degree, host decide to lock the Schlumpfs, everybody goes singlespeed. Geared riders should not feel significantly limited.
OPTION 3: Trail in Salzkammergut, super fast trail, host decide to separate categories on ungeared and geared. Two separate trails are provided to guarantee satisfaction of two groups. Geared riders do their best, while ungeared face brutality of the life and do their chicken run.
Another thing is that we should focus on Elite as a small group. I would love to race with 30-40 racers, while other 120 is cheering. DH Racing in San Sebastian was awesome feeling. There is a huge difference between average and top riders. To satisfy top riders and bring the sport to certain level we should not think on average riders while talking on World Championships. If the race take 1h30 minutes for elite, the limit of completion of 2h15minutes could be set, preventing long lasting race.
Getting into elite might be by selection of few national representatives. The average riders should enter advance category (Unicon17).
My personal opinion is that: Option 2 [ Three categories: Beginners, Advance (with categories: ungeared and geared, 10km), and Elite (unlimited, 1h30min, (20+-5km)). No limits in Elite distance, The champion is simply the fastest combination of rider and equipment. ] is the best for sport development and most spectacular. It is expensive, but life is brutal. Doing sports is also to learn to face adversity. Sport clubs and national federations should support their top riders (only few).
Comment
Maksym! Giraffed in Muni?? That's a NO GO!! :-)
Joking aside.
Locking Schlumpf we did already at Salzkammerguttrophy DH. In my opinion this is not a different option but only making a singlespeed unicycle of a geared.
Elite as a small group: sounds real good for me! But selecting by national representatives? I'm in doubt. Qualification: together with advanced. Finale a few days later. too complicated??
Comment
Sport clubs and national federations should support their top riders (only few). Simple to say!
Our club supports the riders: financially only a bit, most in organisation. We are well organized and train a lot. Therefore good results. Federation: Italy has no federation for unicycling, as most of other countries. I think most of the Muni-committee members are single riders. their perceptions are unlike the perceptions of Gabriele and me: we have some young endurance talents in our groups. Some of them have no money for schlumpf. that's reality. I remember 2013: 4 of our group used schlumpf in the Italian Muni Championship. Discussions and dispute were the result. I always tried to calm down. In autumn some ungeared said, that they would not compete in the Championship anymore. So the geared riders decided to not use Schlumpf for Italian Championship anymore. I did not force them to that decision. So high respect on this riders!
As you see, Schlumpf is a delicate subject for me. If Schumpf would cost 200 €, nearly everybody by now would be owner of Schlumpf. But it costs two times more than a real good Muni. that's the problem.
By the way: Nice worded: "... while ungeared face brutality of the life and do their chicken run." :-)
Comment
@Maksym: My personal opinion is that: Option 2 [ Three categories: Beginners, Advance (with categories: ungeared and geared, 10km), and Elite (unlimited, 1h30min, (20+-5km)). No limits in Elite distance, The champion is simply the fastest combination of rider and equipment. ] is the best for sport development and most spectacular. It is expensive, but life is brutal. Doing sports is also to learn to face adversity. Sport clubs and national federations should support their top riders (only few).
The classification Beginner, Advance and Elite sounds good for me. But if you say "No limits in Elite distance, the champion is simply the fastest combination of rider and equipment" thus nothing changes. So we have the same as before. Because every rider who wants to fight for the title starts in the elite category. And so that everyone has the chance to fight for the title should be equal conditions. In every well-known kind of sport(MTB, skiing, motorsport, ecc.) there is a regulation regarding material, so why not in our sport???
"The champion is simply the fastest combination of rider and equipment." This can be said in skiing, if a skier wins with a well-prepared ski, but not in our sport, where the difference is so great.
Comment
Due to the discussion I changed the proposal. Now it treats only different categories.
Comment
it is really simple:
if it it possible for riders to participate geared and ungeared races with a suitable time gap between races,
i guess there will be no problem to discuss separation.
so i would prefer two races at different days!
Comment
The proposal is a good way to handle this difficult subject. My comments on its current form:
- For Downhill there are only Beginner and Elite? I am neither, and yet I feel I represent most riders. Not a beginner and yet (very) not elite! Rather than ask for an additional category I think the Beginner one just needs a better name. Especially if the end result is similar to the course at Beasain. NOT BEGINNER! :-) In the past, such a category was called "Normal", which is boring but at least descriptive. Please don't call me a beginner.
- With the above situation, consider that this proposal does not mention that the organizer (I would hope) is free to add other categories if they wish. I don't think that needs to be included in the proposal as I think it's covered elsewhere.
- From the proposal: "If the course is not favouring any type of unicycle, no separate categories should be made." I think that part will get us into trouble. Everybody has an opinion about whether a course is, or is not, "profitable" for a geared wheel. Also there is no definitive way to prove one is or isn't. While that may emerge in the future, I recommend phrasing that part differently. Something like If the course does not overtly favour geared vs. ungeared wheels, separate categories should not be made.
- Generally, I consider the idea of separate categories for geared and ungeared to be avoided when possible, because otherwise we are separating riders based on what they can afford. You cannot "earn" a Schlumpf by being a world-class athlete, you only can if you can afford it, or if someone is supporting you. The vast majority of unicyclists at present get no financial support, other than from their family. So we should always work to avoid the separation.
- Elite riders without geared hubs also need recognition. Even on a course that favors geared hubs an exceptional ungeared rider might be the fastest. So when possible, these riders should be able to compete head to head.
- Convention hosts, especially hosts of multi-discipline competitions (such as Unicon) will always have limited choices of terrain for their races. Unlike a dedicated Mountain competition, they have to find the full range of competition facilities, and hopefully not need lots of buses, time, etc. to mountian courses. Sometimes there might be no mountains at all. The point being, sometimes the terrain will be lousy. I guess this doesn't have much to do with this proposal, but all must keep it in mind when thinking of course requirements. We can't require; we can only make suggestions and give advice.
- Lastly, as long as the other events are done in age groups, I hope to continue some of that in Muni. Small kids can't match big kids, and elderly people like myself can't keep up with the youngsters like we used to. :-) Please let's continue to allow for that, with at least a couple of age divisions beyond the basic event categories.
Downhill:
Beginner: No gear allowed.
Elite: No restrictions at all.
Cross Country:
Beginner: No gear allowed.
Elite: Separating categories depends on the course. If the course is not favouring any type of unicycle, no separate categories should be made. If the course is favouring geared unicycles, the recommended categories are:
- Ungeared: Ungeared unicycles. No restrictions on wheel size, cranks and pedals.
- Unlimited: No restrictions on wheel size, cranks, pedals and gearing.
Comment
Oops, please ignore my "notes" at the bottom of my bullet list above. I forgot to delete them!
Comment
Thanks John for your inputs.
Beginners: I agree with you. Let's name it "Normal". Or maybe someone else has another suitable name.
Age groups: I agree with you to add some age group. I will open a new discussion.
Comment
I agree with Stefan. As the level of a sport rises, more and more regulations about material are coming. This is in every sport. The reason is that it should not bee a battle of material, but a battle of fair competing athletes.
Comment
Good input, Jogi. Thanks. I think this could be added as suggestion in "Course specification".
Comment
Today I compared the XC-races of Canada and Spain. In Canada were offered three categories: Beginner - Advanced - Elite, with different lengths. In Elite Female there were only 12 participants, with real great time differences in the results (50 % between first place and place 10!!). In Advanced Female were 55 competitors, including Jana Tenambergen (current strongest female endurance rider), Katrin Jensen, Miriam Lips... So, real good endurance riders competed in Advanced. Therefore I think it would be better to offer only to categories (distances):
- Normal (instead of Beginners, as John suggested) and
- Elite
So Maksyms Option 2 in my opinion does not work well for female.
Comment
I don't think you can compare the younger and newer female muni riders from those two unicons as a lot can happen in 2 years as not only do the mature and build more muscles and endurance but also their muni skills can greatly approve in 2 years. They were probably all correct in entering advanced in Montreal but have grown and improved enough to enter Elite in Spain.
If we decide not to go with option 2 (beginner, advanced and elite) then for option 3 I would name it advanced and elite (not beginner or normal).
Comment
I actually think that all of the people Paul mentioned chose the wrong category in Montreal. I did the elite course in Montreal and although it was hard, I didn't have a problem completing it. Both Katrine and Jana are for sure stronger than me at muni. I remember being surprised that they weren't in elite. In my opinion it would be best to have advanced and elite as the categories and if there's a beginner then it would be very very basic. An option for young siblings or new riders and it would be up to the host to offer it.
Comment
You could be right Patricia as I don't know how good they were back then. But they entered the catorgy that they wanted or thought they had a chance of getting a medal. If they would rather get 1st place in advance than risk not placing in elite, that is their choice but they won't be the Elite World Champion. Just like you or I could enter advanced (or even beginner) next unicon if all we cared about is getting a medal. Currently there are no rules against it.
Comment
Regarding the names: I would prefer "Normal" instead of "Advanced". Sure, "Advanced" sounds more professional, but I suspect that if we name it so, we will have a similar situation as in Montreal: many top-female will sign up in advanced. and this is what we should try to avoid. Especially if we are going to double the distance this will happen!
Comment
I don't know but "Normal" sounds pretty uninspiring. I recently came across a local MTB series with categories Expert - Sport - Beginner. Sport sounds a bit more casual than Advanced but also more interesting than Normal. Naming is not a huge deal, though, and should not delay the vote on this proposal too much.
Comment
Perfect, Ben! I agree with Sport. Yes, the name could be changed even after the voting