3D.6 Ungeared Awards
Comments about this discussion:
Started
At the last UNICON, there were ungeared awards at the hill climb, but the ungeared unlimited riders finished before the geared unlimited riders. It's not serious, but it doesn't make sense. It would have been better to reward geared riders, they were handicapped by the weight of the gear hub.
I would have liked to propose that these rewards be awarded according to race results, with a proposal such as :
"If the first 3 unlimiteds have a geared hub, then the first 3 unlimiteds ungeared are rewarded".
If it's not possible to make a rule based on race results, then I propose to modify the text so as to limit ungeared awards to fixed-distance races (10k, marathon and 100k).
Comment
This pertains to 3D.6. Indeed in the Unicon 20 hillclimb race, awarding the first three non-geared riders as such didn't make sense, as they were the same riders as the first three overall finishers.
So I agree we should change the rule. I'm not sure if choosing the award categories based on the race results is "possible" or "sensible", but regardless I like the second option better.
Besides, I was under the impression that rewarding the first three ungeared riders was optional, at the discretion of the organisers. I don't remember the exact discussion at the time, but it was mainly Roger Davies who insisted on including ungeared awards. It seems that after all he "managed" to get this in the rules without it being optional.
-->> Roger, are you part of the committee this time?
Comment
I think the idea of rewarding the 3 best ungeared unlimited is a good one.
If the membership list is up to date, Roger is not. We're 8 on this committee.
Comment
I think the idea of rewarding the 3 best ungeared unlimited is a good one.
I'm not against it. I would be OK if it were optional (at the discretion of the organiser), that would probably take care of your issue with the Unicon 20 hillclimb. I agree with your first post that it is a bit silly to reward ungeared riders because they are the fastest overall, and award them again because they are ungeared. The ungeared awards should serve to award riders that are at a disadvantage because of their ungeared unicycles.
The membership list is automatically maintained, so I guess it's up to date. If Roger is not in, he cannot comment (at least not as a member), and we must be careful not to "destroy his heritage". But we can still make it better.
Comment
The idea was that this was a 'free distance race'. The local hosts decided it was a free distance, entirely uphill, race!
The categories would have made perfect sense if wasn't all in one direction (up!)
We awarded the ungeared, unlimited for consistency. It cannot automatically be assumed that a geared unicycle will be the fastest unicycle in free distance race. It could easily have been a standard 29.
Comment
>We awarded the ungeared, unlimited for consistency.
True, but the idea for these awards is that ungeared is inherently slower right. We could stick to that because of consistency, but in this case it was quite meaningless. Then again, you may only see that from the results of the actual race. Before this mountain climb race, there was quite a bit of debate/discussion on the optimal setup (wheel/crank, gear to a lesser extent). No one knew beforehand.
Comment
"True, but the idea for these awards is that ungeared is inherently slower right."
--that's one interpretation. The alternate one is that they are different classes.
In motorsport, a Formula 1 car vs a Nascar or Touring car would perform differently in their respective circuits. In yacht racing, the AC75 is the 'fastest' thing in existence, but no good for long distances or rough seas.
"Before this mountain climb race, there was quite a bit of debate/discussion on the optimal setup (wheel/crank, gear to a lesser extent). No one knew beforehand."
--There are many variables- the type of rider, the terrain, strategy, wind/weather etc. One works for one person may not work for another. That's the beauty of free distance racing. Of course there will be overlap between riders who have unlimited choice of equipment, and those with standardised equipment.
Comment
>that's one interpretation. The alternate one is that they are different classes.
If Ungeared Unlimited is a different class from (totally) Unlimited, they should not be awarded together as unlimited.
As it is, we have a single award calculation for all unlimited riders, geared and ungeared. (To be clear, I'm fine with that.)
That implies that they are not different classes. That, in turn, suggests that the additional set of awards for ungeared unlimited are a "consolation prize" for those riders because they are assumed to be at a disadvantage to the geared riders.
Which brings us back to the point: if ungeared riders are not at a disadvantage (which seemingly was the case in the Unicon 20 mountainclimb), does it make sense to give them an additional award?
Comment
As I said, we did it for consistency. The categories should be by the rulebook. We don't know the outcome of a race prior to running it. We can guess, but we can't always predict advantage/disadvantage.
For instance, geared riders were disadvantaged on the Unicon 20 mountain climb because of the technology available today. On the other hand, an ungeared bicycle would be at a disadvantage to a geared bicycle on that course, because they have more gear ratios to choose from. The whole point of the unlimited class is to push technological limits. If someone had turned up with 10 speed unicycle, they would have had mechanical advantage on the climb.
As for the ungeared unlimited being a subcategory of the limited- that is the perception, rightly or wrongly. It is a form of standardising the equipment, so could be considered a standard category. When we first proposed it, it was because we wanted a category where people are more or less on the same equipment without turning unicycling into a technological arms race. It has probably been superseded by the standard 29 class, in terms of popularity.