10k unlimited - Individual Time Trial
Comments about this discussion:
Started
I'm relatively new to unicycling (12 years already!), but I know that the 10k was one of the first events created and that it was originally called a marathon.
For me, the standard (historical) 10k is a long athletics race and the unlimited 10k is a short road race. They are already 2 separate races.
I propose that the unlimited 10k becomes an Individual Time Trial (TT).
In the rulebook, an individual TT is mentioned in chapter 3D.10.
I don't know what the author had in mind. I think it's a format that's suited to short races and a limited number of participants.
I would like to see this TT format also offered in the standard 29" category. In fact, I know that many standard marathon riders race the 10k in 24" by default, because they can't win in unlimited... the world champion of the standard 10k told me that he didn't like riding in 24"... that makes me wonder.
In fact, I don't really see the point of adding a TT to the 10k race as it currently exists, but it's a format that seems very interesting to me. That's why I'm making this proposal.
From a practical point of view :
- start with the standard 24" race first, then the slowest unlimited, and the fastest unlimited at the end.
- allow at least 30 minutes between the start of the slowest and the start of the fastest (to avoid traffic jams at the finish line).
- I'm afraid we're going to have to limit the number of participants... with starts every 20 seconds for 1 hour, we can get 180 participants to start... beyond that it doesn't seem reasonable to me.
I have listed the PRO and CON below.
PRO:
- a different race format that consists of managing an individual effort without worrying whether you have someone in your wheel.
- the pleasure of catching up with a rider who started 20 sec earlier.
- no need to build up waves. I think that the constitution of waves is often problematic (podium expert/age group not in the same wave, drafting, questions about gender mix...).
- safety: the unlimited 10km is the fastest road race (and consequently the most dangerous) and it often takes place on day 1 => it's very stressful, I can't imagine a mass crash at 35 km/h (falls are part of unicycling, but I think we should try to limit the risks).
CON:
- potentially limited number of participants
- I don't know what difference it makes from a technical timing point of view.
- supporting change: I don't think it lengthens the race, but it clearly changes the organization.
Overall, I'm in favour of more different race formats, not just flat road races that differ in length: time trial, fixed-distance race, free-distance race. More variety and perhaps tomorrow a combined ranking might make sense.
Comment
I too think that more variety in race formats is welcome. If the 10k Unlimited would be done as an Individual Time Trial, then I think there should also be a road event that is run as a race, that is with drafting and race tactics associated with a regular race format. According to 3D.15.1 in the current rulebook, this would not be mandated but I think that at least one unlimited road race (not being a time trial) should be held.
My other comment: why start with the slowest and build up to the fastest? While this may be exciting (to ride and to watch), it leads to a lot of passing manoeuvres, and indeed a potential pile-up near the finish (say hello to your mass crash fears again). Passing, or more generally, interfering with other riders, should be avoided in a Time Trial. So I would suggest to start with the fastest riders (disregarding male or female).
Final question: would/should such a 10k Time Trial be suitable for IUF World Records? 10 TT is actually a recognised record, which however to date is vacant for both male and female.
Comment
You're right, then we'd have to change 3D.15.1 to add that at least one road race with a mass start or wave start must be organized.
>Why start with the slowest and build up to the fastest?
For me, the main argument is feasibility.
If we want to set up a TT event, it doesn't have to require a lot of extra resources and energy.
If we start with the fastest and end with the slowest, the total duration of the event will be longer (equal to the time of the slowest participant + the time between the start of the first and the last participant). It's a bit like wave starts, but it's going to get longer.
If we start the slowest first, I suppose we could start them before the standard race is completely finished, which could also reduce the total time. If we make the fastest start first, we have to wait longer to make sure they don't catch up with an slow standard rider. The slower ones will be even more alone in the wilderness, if they start long after the faster ones.
For example, taking the results of the last UNICON unlimited 10k, 82% of times are between 18 and 38 minutes (men and women mixed). Of course, if we take the same participants and set up 20 minutes delay between the slowest and the fastest, there will be problems.
By exporting participants' times and simulating data sets, we can find an optimal delay (the minimum delay that limits the number of overtakes). This can also be determined by intuition... In my opinion, the minimum delay shouldn't be less than 30 or 40 minutes, whatever the number of participants. For example, with a delay of 40 minutes, one hour after the start of the 1st participant, there's a good chance that all participants will have crossed the finish line.
>Would/should such a 10k Time Trial be suitable for IUF World Records? 10 TT is actually a recognised record, which however to date is vacant for both male and female.
Showing 2 unlimited 10km IUF WR seems too much to me. If this format tends to replace the current one, the WRs will have to be replaced.
Comment
IIRC, I remember a 10k race at some Unicon, where the standard and unlimited were run at the same time, on the same course. Standard started first. The result was a lot of overtaking on a partially quite narrow course. Neither the standard nor the unlimited riders were happy about this.
I maintain that in a TT format, you want to limit interference between riders. Starting with the slowest goes against this.
>Showing 2 unlimited 10km IUF WR seems too much to me. If this format tends to replace the current one, the WRs will have to be replaced.
We currently have two 10k world records, one for the race format, and one for the TT format. My question is not about whether to keep both (I assume we would keep them), but about whether such a "mass time trial" is suitable for the time trial record. Normally I think of the time trial record as an individual achievement, done "in isolation".
Comment
It may not be easy to understand and visualize what I'm proposing. I've been thinking about TT 10km unlimited this for years, but it's not the most urgent thing. Here are my answers, but I'll make some other suggestions that we can discuss more easily.
I don't think the standard 10k race format should be changed, for several reasons:
- there are a lot of participants, it would be very difficult to organize a TT event
- the speed is lower: falls are less dangerous and there's less drafting
- it's the historical format of the 10k, and it seems to me that it's the race with the most participants at UNICON.
I mention this because it's important to think about the organization of a race in its context (in a UNICON for example).
In the case of a TT unlimited 10k. The standard 10k race could take place BEFORE or AFTER, but not at the same time.
I agree that having the fastest unlimited start first is the best way to limit the risk of accidents involving several riders.
But I think it would only be seen as a further constraint on the organization by lengthening the overall time of the event with delayed starts.
In the configuration with slowest unlimited first, catching up with slower riders one by one seems much less risky than a direct confrontation between top riders. All we'd have to do is include a priority for the rider coming from behind in the rules, and why not space out the starts of the faster riders a little more.
I meant that if the 10k standard race is BEFORE a TT unlimited 10k, if certain conditions are met, it would seem possible to make the first unlimited starts before the last standard rider has finished. For me, there are at least 2 conditions:
- the 10k must not be a multilap circuit
- the first unlimited riders to start are the slowest
If the 10k standard race is AFTER a TT unlimited 10k, if certain conditions are met, it would seem possible to make the standard race starts before the last unlimited rider has finished. For me, there are at least 2 conditions:
- the 10k must not be a multilap circuit
- the first unlimited riders to start are the slowest
>About TT 10k IUFWR
If the TT 10k unlimited is organized correctly, I have no reservations that he may be eligible for a TT 10k WR.
But at the moment, I don't think the TT 10k WR makes sense.
Both the men's and women's 10k in race WR were set in conditions close to those of a TT 10k (to my knowledge, there has been no drafting).
No one has organized an individual TT 10k event, even though the WR has been around for at least 12 years (I don't know if it was before 2011).
I think the easiest thing to do is to delete the TT 10k from the IUF WR list. I'll make a proposal to the WR committee.
Comment
>All we'd have to do is include a priority for the rider coming from behind in the rules
That is problematic, in my view. Many riders would have to interrupt their race to give way to someone else. Moreover, with the rider coming from behind (where no-one has their eyes), how would they know someone's approaching, let alone the right moment to give priority?
>- the 10k must not be a multilap circuit
But it sometimes is. I've been on several Unicons with multilap 10k courses
>- the first unlimited riders to start are the slowest
I still think this is a problem (1) for the riders, and (2) for the "no drafting" rule to be followed.
>But at the moment, I don't think the TT 10k WR makes sense. (...) I think the easiest thing to do is to delete the TT 10k from the IUF WR list. I'll make a proposal to the WR committee.
I saw the discussion you opened. As I wrote there, I don't understand why you advocate creating a 10k TT competition, and at the same time get rid of the corresponding WR.
Comment
1/ I think you're overestimating the number of overtakes. If participants fill in their target time correctly (hence my other suggestion haha), there should be few overtakes.
During the marathon at the last UNICON, I took a lap from the majority of participants. Only once was I slowed down in a roundabout. But I had the advantage of having the cyclist leading the way. We'll have to see how Timo, Martin and Markus felt.
2/ A multi-lap 10k course is problematic whether it's a wave race or a time trial... It's certainly a more suitable course for a criterium, but that's another topic (which I don't plan to create).
3/ Can you be more specific? The faster rider has no interest in staying behind the slower one he's just caught up with, and the slower one isn't allowed to take the draft of the one who's just overtaken him.
4/ I don't want to mix the 2 subjects. If I make this proposal, it's because I think this TT format is more interesting and appropriate for a short road race like a 10k, and not because there's a vacant record.
Besides, my first thought was that we could do a short race for unlimited class (which doesn't have to be 10k), but if we're organizing a 10k for standard class, it might be more interesting to use the same route for unlimited (or not!).
And if standard and unlimited races diverge into 2 formats (race and time trial respectively), I think there's a case for having a 29 class in the time trial format.
Comment
1. Maybe there are fewer problematic overtakes than I think, although on the other hand your thoughts might be biased because of your special position with a leading cyclist in the last Unicon. Multi-lap courses aside, there must be a lot of overtakes if the slowest riders start first. To what degree this is problematic depends largely on the course. If there is enough room (width) it might be OK. Any narrow passages, and any corner, will be a potential problem zone.
2. True. One of the multi-lap 10k races at Unicon that I remember was in New Zealand. This was actually structured as a criterium race. The Rulebook has a (short) section about them: 3B.6.
3 >The faster rider has no interest in staying behind the slower one he's just caught up with,
I'm not sure about that. The speed difference might be quite small. This implies that the rear rider (in principle the faster one) rides in the wake of the front rider for some appreciable duration. And that happens many times, because there's a whole field of riders spread out over the course.
>and the slower one isn't allowed to take the draft of the one who's just overtaken him.
I see that as a problem for the "slower" rider (who was overtaken). If he maintains the same effort level, he might speed up a bit because he rides in the wake now. So he has to consciously slow down, in order to get out of the slipstream. That doesn't seem fair. And there comes another rider, overtaking him. And so on.
The best way I see to minimise such issues, is to start fastest first (and not have multiple laps, although maybe two laps would be OK because lapping would then happen at a considerable speed difference).
These issues also imply to me that such a TT format, if we decide to organise the 10k Unlimited that way, is not suitable for World Records. For TT WRs, in my view the rider has to be truly independent and on their own.
That said, it might still be an interesting race format.
4. In view of what I wrote above under 3, I take back my previous comment about advocating a 10k TT competition and scrapping the 10TT WR. The crux lies in my word "corresponding WR", because I now think that the 10TT WR does not correspond to your proposed TT format.
Comment
Klaas, I agree that making the fastest start 1st reduces the number of overtakes, so it's the best way to avoid drafting and to improve safety (on a non-multilap course).
You may be right, but I don't really like this solution because it's bound to lengthen the race. If the participants are too widely dispersed, I think there's a greater risk that volunteer marshals will no longer be at their posts, or will lack the vigilance to ensure the safety of the course throughout the event. Volunteer marshals will be surprised by the fastest riders, and the slowest ones will find themselves even more alone in the wilderness.
1/ I'm used to using my voice to warn. It goes well and I pass to the left. But depending on the configuration of the road, it is not always necessary to warn. In a straight line, there is no reason to change line/trajectory.
In any case, whether it's a wave race or a time trial, we need to have a road width wide enough to go at least 2 abreast for most of the course.
3/ For the majority of participants, the effort lasts less than 30 minutes, IMO those who want to perform cannot afford to rest behind someone who is slower, even a few seconds. I guess those who would need to rest are not the fastest and the drafting effect is less important.
When overtaking, the 2 riders are not on the same line (to simplify, the slowest is on the right and the fastest is on the left). The drafting effect is not enough to justify that the slowest accelerates and follows the one who has just overtaken him, especially since if he really wants to take advantage of it he must most often move to the left behind him. Drafting is also a matter of intention.
>The speed difference might be quite small
It depends on where the overtaking takes place. The closer the overtaking is to the start, the greater the difference in speed and the harder it is for the overtaker to keep up. And the higher the riders' speed, the greater the speed difference.
Riders at the same speed are the ones most likely to benefit from the drafting effect, but in theory they're not supposed to catch up and ride together, or very close to the finish, which limits the drafting effect. And if it's in the rules, it shouldn't happen.
I'd like to respond to this sentence with some numerical examples :
- Rider A is riding at 30 km/h, rider B starts 20 sec later. Rider B is riding at 31km/h, and will catch up with rider A at km 5 (halfway point). If we set a 40-second delay at the start, they won't catch up until the finish.
- Rider A is riding at 25 km/h, rider B starts 20 sec later. To catch up with rider A at the halfway point, rider B will have to ride at 25.7 km/h
For me, a difference of 1 km/h on a unicycle is already a significant difference. If you're pushing hard, it's not by seeing someone overtake you that you'll find the energy to go 1km/h faster to the end of the course. And you can't take the risk of starting out slowly in the hope of being overtaken and following whoever passes you. Knowing that this is forbidden by the rules.
As the drafting effect and risk of overtaking mainly concerns the fastest riders, we can imagine increasing the start delays between the fastest participants.
> although maybe two laps would be OK because lapping would then happen at a considerable speed difference
I don't think it's OK at all. There's no drafting problem, but overtaking with big speed differences is the most dangerous. With considerable speed differences, there's no time to warn and trajectories can be different. If 2 slower racers are overtaking each other just as a faster racer arrives, it can really "disrupt" the race.
Comment
Maybe we should conclude that a 10k Time Trial is not a very good format when there are many participants (such as at Unicon).
Comment
Sorry to be late in discussion, but a few of my thoughts.
"I would like to see this TT format also offered in the standard 29" category. In fact, I know that many standard marathon riders race the 10k in 24" by default, because they can't win in unlimited... the world champion of the standard 10k told me that he didn't like riding in 24"... that makes me wonder."
---seems rather presumptuous. Perhaps you could try your luck in the standard class next year. They are testing different skillsets- the ability to pedal at high cadence, vs simply pushing a bigger gear. The idea behind standard is to have a category where everyone is on the same equipment.
I propose that the unlimited 10k becomes an Individual Time Trial (TT).
The 10km was the original long distance race at Unicon, and is very important for standard class riders. Turning it into a time trial means that there will be no racing format for their biggest Unicon event.
Why start with the slowest and build up to the fastest?
This came about after Unicon 2008. They started standard riders before unlimited. It was extremely dangerous with unlimited class dodging standard riders on a bicycle path. It also impacted on the results, as I was a comfortable 2nd place until a standard rider crossed in front of me and I ended up down a bank.
Having a time trial format would not change this. This is unicycling- we typically take what we get- narrow bike paths instead of wide roads. A 20s gap is not a lot to prevent bottlenecks. Bicycle time trials usually 1-2 min gaps. In an event like the 10km, it would take all day.
1/ I'm used to using my voice to warn. It goes well and I pass to the left. But depending on the configuration of the road, it is not always necessary to warn. In a straight line, there is no reason to change line/trajectory.
That doesn't work if the competitor in front of you doesn't speak your language, or if they did, it doesn't mean it will be understood. Going back to the Unicon 14 10km- I actually yelled to the rider in front, who immediately decided the best direction to go was to cross in front of me. People get confused when someone is coming up fast behind them. It's best to minimise passing events.
Comment
I shouldn't have started with this discussion. Unfortunately, I feel this subject is still too premature, although it seems important to me as an unlimited rider.
I think it's more important to open up a 29" class on the 10k and have target time for all participants to prepare for the event. I'll continue the discussion anyway.
> The 10km was the original long distance race at Unicon, and is very important for standard class riders. Turning it into a time trial means that there will be no racing format for their biggest Unicon event.
My proposal is to turn the 10k unlimited race into a time trial. This would have no impact on the 10k standard race.
____
As for the rest, the organization I'm proposing wouldn't allow standard and unlimited to compete at the same time, as overtaking is too dangerous when there's a big speed differential. This TT could take place before or after standard 10k race. As for the starting order of the participants, having the fastest start last seems to me to be the best solution for sporting interest and for everyone's safety on open roads. On open roads, it's easier to secure a course where there's a continuous flow of participants. Unwanted pedestrians, cyclists or cars on the course are more dangerous than a unicyclist to overtake.
And I don't see why we're talking about overtaking now, when there's bound to be less of it than in a race with wave starts, if riders are properly ordered according to their target time.
When I talk about using my voice, it's not to speak a language, it's to make noise. Others use a bicycle bell.
Comment
The 10km race can certainly be run as a time trial. It was more or less a time trial event at Unicon 16 (from memory 3-4 riders at minute intervals). At Brixen, Italy, the narrow cycle track could not accommodate hundreds of 10km riders in a racing format.
I don't think it will be popular with the standard riders. For unlimited riders...it has been a while since I raced, but I can see the merits. When we were on ungeared 36, winning times were 22-23min. Nowadays it's well under 20min with lighter wheelsets and geared hubs, so more a sprint race. From a safety perspective, particularly on narrow courses, it might be useful. From a personal perspective, I'd much prefer to race a 50km time trial than a 10km one!
Comment
"When I talk about using my voice, it's not to speak a language, it's to make noise. Others use a bicycle bell."
--that doesn't help if the rider in front panics, and then moves into your line. These days, I generally keep quiet but allow plenty of space for passing. They know there are riders coming up behind.
Comment
> The 10km race can certainly be run as a time trial. It was more or less a time trial event at Unicon 16 (from memory 3-4 riders at minute intervals)
For a real time trial, riders would have to start individually. That would take 3-4 times as much time. Not very practical, in my opinion.
Comment
Indeed. My point is that it wasn't a race with all your main competitors- it was a race against the clock and 3 or 4 other riders. It is already at the discretion of the host as to whether they run a mass start race vs a time trial, so unless Simon proposes that it be compulsory, it doesn't need a rulebook proposal.
We may need more opinions that the handful of us on road committee.
Comment
In fact, we have to bear in mind that the wave start format is certainly the best format for organisers, and the worst from a sporting point of view.
The wave start format is both a race and a time trial.
In a race, time isn't important; you want to finish with the best ranking.
In a time trial, it's only the time that counts.
In a race, you can put strategies in place both to save energy and to secure your ranking.
In a time trial, the aim is to make a maximum effort that you can sustain over the whole course.
Mixing the 2 formats means that you can't really race strategically, it's the time that counts.
For me, whether there are 3 or 10 riders per wave, it's still more or less a time trial.
It's difficult, if not impossible, to create waves in which the rankings by gender, age and scratch race are in direct confrontation.
There will always be participants who feel they've been disadvantaged by the way the waves have been set up.
For example, it seems to me that Jana wasn't happy to be in a wave with the other females, and at the same time if she's the only female with males, I think the other females might not be happy.
> It is already at the discretion of the host as to whether they run a mass start race vs a time trial.
Yes, it's already in the rulebook to be able to organise a time trial. In fact, there's an algorithm for choosing between individual start / wave start / mass start, depending on the number of participants and the width of the road (section 3D.10). I think section 3D.10 is very good, it even mentions 'seed time'. When I read this section, I get the feeling that it was written to highlight the alternatives to wave starts: mass start and individual start. These 2 formats are more interesting from a sporting point of view.
That said, I don't think the simple mention of 'use individual start' is enough. Even just mentioning 'use mass start' might not be enough. In a mass start, you could define the starting position of the participants according to the target time (or seed time). But I think you could also have a mass start and let everyone position themselves at the start.
For a time trial, there are several parameters to take into account (starting order, time between each participant). It is difficult to improvise a time trial.
Whether you're organising a mass start, an individual start or a wave start, the target times will help to organise the starts. This is already a first step.
Comment
> In a race, time isn't important; you want to finish with the best ranking.
The best ranking might be the primary concern for most riders, but time is also important in a race. Maybe to set a record, break your PB, or create a good seed time for a future race.
> For me, whether there are 3 or 10 riders per wave, it's still more or less a time trial.
In my view, a simultaneous start of multiple riders is not "more or less" a time trial, it's just simply "not" a time trial. Time trial is only possible with strictly individual starts.
> Jana wasn't happy to be in a wave with the other females
This comes simply from following the rules in 3D.9. Males and females start separately.
> I think section 3D.10 is very good
I was the main author of the algorithm
> When I read this section, I get the feeling that it was written to highlight the alternatives to wave starts: mass start and individual start.
Indeed mass start and individual start are sort-of the default start configuration, while heat starts are only to be used in specific circumstances. But those specific circumstances are often present at Unicons and other large competitions.
> These 2 formats [mass start and individual start] are more interesting from a sporting point of view.
I agree to that.
Comment
"In fact, we have to bear in mind that the wave start format is certainly the best format for organisers, and the worst from a sporting point of view."
"I get the feeling that it was written to highlight the alternatives to wave starts: mass start and individual start. These 2 formats are more interesting from a sporting point of view."
No one favours a wave start over a mass start. It is more complex from an organisational perspective, as well as less fun for riders/spectators.
The last mass start road race I recall was the Unicon 15 marathon, when it was a fully on-road course (not cycle path).
In a short race with a huge number of competitors like 10km, being in front row vs back row in mass start can make a big difference to the result. For instance, at Unicon 14 there was a mass start for cross country MUni- it must have taken a minute for the people in the back row just to get across the start line. That XC track was wider than many of the cycle paths we've run road races on.
"Indeed mass start and individual start are sort-of the default start configuration, while heat starts are only to be used in specific circumstances. But those specific circumstances are often present at Unicons and other large competitions."
Exactly
Comment
> In a short race with a huge number of competitors like 10km, being in front row vs back row in mass start can make a big difference to the result.
One solution is to have a chip detector strip at the start, and use so-called "net times" for the ranking, this was e.g. used in the Düsseldorf marathon. For records, only "gross times" (counting from the start signal) are valid, because a record must be set from a standing start. So riders who can possibly set a record should start in front. This means that the time for ranking can be different from the record time. In addition, the idea of a mass start is that you can race all your competitors: being in front of them should mean winning. But if net times are used, this is not necessarily true anymore. All in all, mass starts are often far from ideal, especially with a large number of competitors.
Comment
We agree, but I preferred to write it as it could give the impression that with current practices, wave start have become the norm.
> The best ranking might be the primary concern for most riders, but time is also important in a race. Maybe to set a record, break your PB, or create a good seed time for a future race.
In races where the effect of drafting is significant, the race time is less important. The effect of drafting increases exponentially with speed.
I think that in standard 24" races, drafting is very low, whereas it is more important in 29" and unlimited races.
> In my view, a simultaneous start of multiple riders is not "more or less" a time trial, it's just simply "not" a time trial. Time trial is only possible with strictly individual starts.
I'm not saying that a heat start with 10 riders per heat is a time trial.
I'm saying that when you know that not all your rivals are in your wave, you race as if you were racing against the clock.
For me, one problem with mass starts and waves with too many riders is that there are often participants who fall at the start, which penalises the riders behind them.
I wonder whether in some cases (with a wide road at the start) a rolling start might not be better.
With a standing start, those in the front row can accelerate quickly but it's more complicated for those in the 2nd row. Those in the 1st row can immediately create an advantage.
Comment
> I wonder whether in some cases (with a wide road at the start) a rolling start might not be better.
That would invalidate the results for records, which have to be measured from a standing start.
> With a standing start, those in the front row can accelerate quickly but it's more complicated for those in the 2nd row. Those in the 1st row can immediately create an advantage.
True, and the problem gets even worse for rows 3, 4, 5...
That's why we usually suggest that the best competitors (eligible for winning the race, and/or setting a record) start in the front row. But indeed they have an advantage over riders behind them.
Race format is an attractive competition format, also for road, and therefore I would keep the race format. But is sure has its issues, mainly due to the number of participants and the long time they spend on the course. In comparison, in track racing the time spent on the course is short, so the races can conveniently be done with only 6 - 8 riders at the same time. This eliminates the crowdedness at the start, but your competitor might be in another heat.