29 class in 10k race
Comments about this discussion:
Started
The 29 class has grown considerably in recent years.
It's a very competitive class in the marathon.
These riders specialized in 29 class, often choose to ride the 10k in the 24 class by default. I know this is the case for the current world champion and many French riders.
I'm not in favor of multiplying categories and awards.
I'm not directly involved, but I think this would be a welcome option for many 29 class riders.
I think that creating a 29 class in 10k race would be a good thing for road unicycling.
Comment
I'm hesitant. I wouldn't drop the 24 Class, which would mean we have three wheelsize classes on a single distance. That's maybe too much.
Comment
As I just mentioned in the TT 10k discussion, my original idea was to propose separating the standard 10k race, which I see as a long track and field race, from the unlimited 10k race, which I see as a short road race.
I even thought we could do a TT for the unlimiteds over a distance other than 10k. But that would mean finding 2 courses... as well as abandoning a fixed-distance race (and therefore a WR). It wouldn't simplify the organization.
I had come to the conclusion that we could find a 10k course to organize :
- the standard 10k race (24 class)
- a 10k time trial (for 29 class and unlimited class)
But I think that even if, for the moment, we're sticking to wave races, opening up a 29 class might be relevant and would have several advantages:
- riding the 10k with your favorite wheel
- the results of the 29 class 10k could help with the 29 class marathon starting waves
- possibility of creating a combined ranking: class 29 and unlimited over 2 or 3 races. This could be the start of stage races.
This would certainly lead to the creation of a 29 class 10k WR, which would create even more hype among 29 class riders.
Comment
Looking through the Unicon20 10k unlimited results which also lists wheel size (and crank length and geared/fixed), I noticed quite a few 29 class riders, even though they are at a disadvantage because of their weel being smaller than the 36 inch used my many other riders. I hadn't realised that before (I raced the 10k in 24 class myself). It indeed indicated that there is significant interest in riding a 10k race with 29 class wheels. If there is a separate race for 29 class, there would probably even more 29 class riders. Therefore, I support adding a 29 class. And indeed, we must then have a corresponding WR.
>I even thought we could do a TT for the unlimiteds over a distance other than 10k. But that would mean finding 2 courses... as well as abandoning a fixed-distance race (and therefore a WR).
I'm pretty sure that your intention is that the TT would also be for WRs and not just for the specific event itself. Obviously, it would have to be the same distance from year to year. 10k makes sense because the course will be measured anyway.
But I don't understand the latter part of your remark. A TT event cannot lead to a 10k race WR anyway, because TT format and race format result in separate WRs.
Comment
I may have used a few shortcuts in my sentence.
I think a 10k in 24" and a 10k in G36" are very different. For me, they're not just 2 categories, they're already 2 different events in the same place at the same time.
So much so, in fact, that it begs the questions:
- why not hold 2 events on different routes and dates?
- Is it possible to take part in both?
I think there are plenty of good reasons for it: a single event, so a single administrative authorization, a single course to measure and secure.
And even if a 10k is not mandatory according to the rulebook, it's hard to imagine a UNICON without 10k race.
All this to say that you can see 10k with 3 categories (24/29/unlimited) in this proposal, but you can also see 2 events (10k standard race & 10k road race or TT with 2 categories (29/unlimited).
In the part of my sentence that you didn't understand, I was imagining some of the disadvantages of organizing a separate event (race or TT) that wouldn't be exactly 10k and that would be reserved for 29 class and unlimited class.
It was a way of reminding us that the existence of WR encourages the organization of fixed-distance races. The advantage is that it gives a direction to follow. The disadvantage is that it's difficult to break out of this pattern.
Comment
Klaas, I didn't comment on the first part of your message. We agree. But I did take a closer look at the 10k unlimited results.
In 29", there were 26 men and 13 women.
There were even 2 participants riding 36" in the 10k and 29" in the marathon.
Comment
Sorry for monopolizing the exchanges.
I've just had a look at the discussions in the track committee.
I think the discussion on the words "event", "competition", "discipline", "race"... is interesting and even more for road races.
In the track committee, someone (Klaas?) wrote:
In Road Racing, it becomes tricky if e.g. Standard and Unlimited marathon riders share the same course at the same time. To me, they are not in the same race. Come to think of it, I'm not even sure if Standard and Unlimited marathon should be considered as separate disciplines or competitions, or the same.
For me, in the 10k race event, the standard and unlimited classes are different competitions corresponding to the disciplines, there's no doubt about it.
It's more tricky for classes 29 and unlimited (there are more similarities: effort, speed...) but I think it's clearer to see them as 2 different disciplines.
Anyway, I consider the 10k, the marathon, and the other distances each as an event. I think that's the most appropriate word.
Each road event has its own organization, and there are constraints in terms of organization, safety, timing... and the fact of being able to organize several competitions (standard, unlimited) corresponding to the disciplines (standard, unlimited) in the same event is a good way of rationalizing resources.
Comment
>I think there are plenty of good reasons for it: a single event, so a single administrative authorization, a single course to measure and secure.
Do you mean: plenty of good reasons to organise 10k 24" and 10k Unlimited at the same time? That would follow from your list of characteristics such as "a single event". But from your questions "Why not hold 2 events on different routes and dates" and "Is it possible to take part in both" it rather seems that you advocate to completely separate 10k 24" and 10k Unlimited.
>And even if a 10k is not mandatory according to the rulebook, it's hard to imagine a UNICON without 10k race.
In the previous rulebook revision round, it was Ken Looi who made a plea for free-distance races, and got his proposal accepted. One of the effects is that it is no longer required to offer both 10k and marathon at Unicon. I personally think that races over both these distances are exptected by the participants.
>I've just had a look at the discussions in the track committee.
>I think the discussion on the words "event", "competition", "discipline", "race"... is interesting and even more for road races.
This discussion happens to have started in the Track Committee, but we feel there that it needs to be applied to the whole IUF Rulebook in order to be effective.
With your use of "event", "competition" and "discipline" you still need a word for the whole of e.g. Unicon.
Comment
I feel like I've rephrased myself several times to make sure I'm understood, and it saddens me not to be understood.
I think there are plenty of good reasons to organize one road event for several disciplines. For me, the 10k race is an event with 2 (or 3 if we add the 29 class) different competitions, where there is the particularity of having to choose just one competition. I don't necessarily see this as a problem to be solved, but it's something to bear in mind.
>I personally think that races over both these distances are expected by the participants.
I agree with you, and I also agree with Ken.
It's not necessary to specify in the rulebook that these competitions are mandatory, although expected...
I don't know what he's planning for the next UNICON, but I do know that some people are expecting 10k, marathon and 100k because they were "disappointed" not to have a 100k in Grenoble.
Back to the WR question. The existence of WR is great (I love it! and even more so to hold one!), but it's an incentive to continue organizing fixed-distance races. It's a vicious "circle" with only 2 parameters: the existence of WRs and the organization of fixed-distance races. They reinforce each other, no need to incite with the rulebook.
The problem is that organizing 3 fixed-distance races also requires a lot of resources to homologate the courses. And if that's not possible, we'd be better off not organizing them at all, and doing free distance races instead. I wonder if section 3D.15.1 should be amended to specify that among the fixed-distance races, only the 10k is mandatory. It seems to me the easiest to organize... I don't quite see why and how organizers could choose to organize just the marathon or just the 100k... OK, I'll make a proposal to discuss modifying section 3D.15.1 (it is off-topic).
In the medium and long term, we need to be able to organize recurrent fixed-distance races in places that are suitable for a WR, apart from UNICON.
>With your use of "event", "competition" and "discipline" you still need a word for the whole of e.g. Unicon.
From what I've read in the track committee, the term"event" could often be replaced by "competition". In track races, I think we can almost always use the term "competition", as there is only one category/discipline. On the few occasions when the term "event" refers to UNICON, this is specified (or should be).
Comment
Maybe we should discuss the definitions of event, competition etc, only in the discussion that is dedicated to this subject, although this discussion is in the Track committee right now and not here in Road. Fragmenting the arguments across multiple discussions takes away the overview, and leads to duplications.
Sorry that you feel misunderstood. Let me try to summarise what you advocate, while stripping those debated words from your argument (and correct me if I'm wrong):
At Unicon or similar competitive gatherings, it makes sense to use a single measured course (such as 10km) for races in several wheel classes, such as 24Class, 29Class and unlimited.
Well, this is largely how things are going already, and works well. The exception is that 29Class would be a new addition. I have already stated that this would be a good idea.
All in all, I think we agree.
>I wonder if section 3D.15.1 should be amended to specify that among the fixed-distance races, only the 10k is mandatory. It seems to me the easiest to organize... I don't quite see why and how organizers could choose to organize just the marathon or just the 100k...
Is it needed to regulate that 10k is mandatory? What problem would that solve? 10k has been organised on every Unicon that I know of. And most likely 10k will continue to be there, because it's the easiest to organise, and it attracts the most participants (at least among the road races). Any organisation team of Unicon (or similar gatherings) will know this.
Comment
>Maybe we should discuss the definitions of event, competition etc, [...] is in the Track committee
I can only read the exchanges in this committee. Otherwise I'd have to request non-voting access.
> At Unicon or similar competitive gatherings, it makes sense to use a single measured course (such as 10km) for races in several wheel classes, such as 24Class, 29Class and unlimited.
Well, this is largely how things are going already, and works well. The exception is that 29Class would be a new addition. I have already stated that this would be a good idea.
We agree.
In fact, I was talking about how I thought about the 10k event and these competitions because I think that today what unites the different categories/disciplines in the 10k is more the rationalization of resources than sporting interest.
I mention this because I think that if you go back a bit in time, I suppose most people thought there was only one discipline.
>I'll start a new discussion about section 3D.15.1
Comment
>I can only read the exchanges in this committee.
I was afraid so.
>Otherwise I'd have to request non-voting access.
I think it's a good idea.
Comment
Whilst I'm cautious about adding more event categories, I think this idea has merit.
If we were creating a 10km category today, we would not be using a wheel size with such limited mainstream options. There are very few tyre and rim choices, and many opt to use narrow 26" wheels with track tyres.
It's very hard not to have 24"/125 standard class in the 10km, because it has been around for so long. Someone who races in this class today can compare their results with a rider a generation ago. Look at the 10km standard class from Unicon 12 vs Unicon 20- the top riders in 2004 could hold their own against riders from 2022. It's important for sport to have historical comparisons.
However, the 10km is a big enough event that it conceivably could have an extra standard category (29" class) without diluting the competition. It may take another 20yrs before it's adopted as the default, unless it's forced upon us by the bicycle industry.
Comment
>unless it's forced upon us by the bicycle industry.
Do you mean that the (bicycle) industry would discontinue offering wheels that are used in a 10k 24 Class race?
I don't see that happening. If only because there will always be a need for smaller bicycles for children, and hence 24" wheels.
But if such a discontinuing would indeed occur, it would greatly overturn the sport of unicycling. Not only 10 Standard, but also Track, Hockey and what not.
Comment
They will make it, but will it be of raceable standard?
If you look at 26" tyres- you have a very limited range of performance tyres compared to the 1990s/early 2000s. The skinny 26" track tyres/rims used for 24" racing are a niche product. Would our track riders go back to racing 24" toy wheels from kids bikes?
Comment
I'd suggest to shelve this part of the discussion until the problem (of quality 24 inch wheels being unavailable) actually arises. I for one don't see it happening any time soon.
Comment
My point was more that it is reasonable to open up the 29 class in the 10km, and see if it becomes the favoured standard category over time.
If it was an option at the next Unicon, I think I would probably still ride 24 class, because I can compare my times with previous races/personal bests, and with riders from 2004/2006/2008/2010 (when I raced unlimited). However, the idea of a one unicycle (29 class) for all the road and Muni/XC races appeals to me as someone who has to travel from far away to attend.
Comment
I support to make it possible to add 29 Class to the 10k, as long as 24 Class continues to be offered as well. I would not require a 29 Class though.
If 29 Class 10k has been done a few times, and if it then would turn out that 24 Class would be hardly used anymore, we could scrap that category, and just have 29 Class and unlimited for all road races. My guess is however that 24 Class will for a long time continue to be the favourite size for many riders in 10k.
Comment
I think all 3 of us agree in this discussion. Except that I don't see why we should leave it up to the organizers to decide whether or not to open the category. I don't think it's a choice to be left to the organizers.
It remains to be seen how this can appear in the rulebook. That would mean a lot of changes.
I'd like to hear from the other members of the committee before we move on to a voting phase.
In parallel, I'm talking to some standard class riders to get their opinion.
Comment
I agree, there should be a 29 class in 10k race. (Due to lack of this category, and not having proper unicycle I was not participating in 10k at the last Unicon)
What I don't like is to have 3 different races (24 class, 29 class, unlimited) at the same time, not allowing top riders to participate in each if they want to, but that is inevitable problem at most Unicons.
Comment
> What I don't like is to have 3 different races (24 class, 29 class, unlimited) at the same time, not allowing top riders to participate in each if they want to, but that is inevitable problem at most Unicons.
Yes, it can be a problem for some and as already mentioned, these are different disciplines.
If we want to keep maximum appeal on the 10k in 24" one solution would be to organize 2 events :
1/ 24 class race
2/ 29 class & unlimited races
But this makes organization more complex, and it seems to me that the majority of participants see no problem in choosing just one of these categories.
Comment
I maintain that I would not require a 29 Class in 10k. I see no problem if we leave it to the organisers. Oh well, the problem might be that it is never organised. Maybe we should then conclude that it's too complicated. :-/
I see no problem in having 3 classes in 10k, regardless of whether they are run at the same time or not. I do acknowledge that all three are quite different from each other. I remember from my first few Unicons that I was disappointed that I could not do both 24 and unlimited in 10k, but by now I am used to that idea. Similarly with marathon with its 29 Class and unlimited categories. I find it "natural" now that you have to choose one category per distance. I would also find it "natural" if a rider has to choose one out of three classes for 10k.
Comment
> I maintain that I would not require a 29 Class in 10k. I see no problem if we leave it to the organisers. Oh well, the problem might be that it is never organised. Maybe we should then conclude that it's too complicated. :-/
I'm not sure I understand. Do you really think it's too complicated to create a 3rd category? If create a 3rd category in 10k race is complicated, everything else is impossible.
The reason why I don't think we should leave the decision to the organisers is that I can't see any objective elements that would allow to make a decision (with the exception of a larger number of medals...). I think the organisers have enough decisions to make.
Comment
A 29 Class in 10k is a new addition. I don't feel the need to enforce the organisers to include this new addition. You make it sound as if you do the organisers a favour by requiring it, so that they don't have to take a decision. I feel the organisers would rather like to have some freedom to decide for themselves; I can't oversee what could make them decide against it. That said, I'm happy if we recommend including 29 Class.
Comment
I don't understand what you're getting at.
Connie and Kirsten are members of the road racing committee.
And it seems to me that this decision comes under the rulebook.
I've also contacted 10 standard top racers (Gert-Jan, Pierre and Samuel Caignan, Luis Albers, Baptiste Demule, Souryan Dubois, Antoine Bienaimé, Nicolas Chopiné, Arthur Touya, Sylvain Gobron) to ask their opinion on the subject.
Everyone agrees that the 10k in 24" is a very difficult event, which hurts, it's "hell" to quote some. But when it comes to the addition of a new 29" category, not everyone agrees. Some want to continue suffering in 24" and think it's a discipline halfway between track and road.
But most of them are in favour of adding a new 29" category in the 10k, because it's more fun and makes a single unicycle for road racing event.
The 29" is a wheel size that can give the taste and pleasure of road racing/riding. Some of them feel that way and think that it could be a real boost for road racing/riding.
Comment
> Connie and Kirsten are members of the road racing committee.
Do you mean of this committee, the Road racing rulebook committee? Well then I hope they chime in in this discussion! Notably on the aspect of "requiring" versus "recommending" a 29 Class in 10k.
Comment
Yes!
If you click on "members" in the top banner, you can see the composition of all the committees. For the road racing committee, we are 8 voting members and 1 non-voting member.
Before moving on to the voting phase, I think it's preferable for all the members to have their say.
Also, 3 weeks ago I sent an e-mail to unicycling@dunlopweb.com asking to be a non-voting member of the track committee to take part in a discussion, but I've had no reply.
Comment
> Before moving on to the voting phase, I think it's preferable for all the members to have their say.
Indeed, and especially now that we can't seem to agree on whether to require 29 Class or not.
> I sent an e-mail to unicycling@dunlopweb.com
I have robin@dunlopweb.com for him, and used it with success in the past. It might not help much though, one might just be an alias of the other.
Comment
"I see no problem in having 3 classes in 10k, regardless of whether they are run at the same time or not. I do acknowledge that all three are quite different from each other. I remember from my first few Unicons that I was disappointed that I could not do both 24 and unlimited in 10k, but by now I am used to that idea. Similarly with marathon with its 29 Class and unlimited categories. I find it "natural" now that you have to choose one category per distance. I would also find it "natural" if a rider has to choose one out of three classes for 10k."
This has more to do with time constraints. I recall my first Unicon (Tokyo 2004)- at least one rider (Roger Davies) did both the unlimited and the standard 10km.
With Unicon adding more and more competitions, road races are usually scheduled to complete by 12-1pm so that timing data crew/marshals/volunteers/riders are available for other events. Given enough resources, there is no reason why we can't compete in both standard and unlimited categories.
I would probably keep 24/29 standard as a race within a race, and the unlimited class as a separate race. Regarding whether 29 should be a 'compulsory' category in the rulebook, I don't feel strongly about this. However, looking at the makeup of the road committee, I'm not sure we have enough representative voices. It only seems like 3-4 of us commenting on here.
Comment
I don't think the issue is whether or not to make class 29 compulsory.
Indeed, proposing such a change and making it optional is likely to have no effect.
I thought it was the role of the road racing committee to make proposals to develop road racing in the interests of sport.
Are we representative of all riders? Certainly not if there are 3 or 4 of us, but maybe more if there are 8 or 10 of us, and even more if we talk to other riders.
With any change, there are always those who are unhappy.
For such a change, perhaps we should try opening up the 29" category to the 10 km before writing it into the rulebook. It could be a vicious circle if the organisers wait until it's in the rulebook before doing so.
Comment
> For such a change, perhaps we should try opening up the 29" category to the 10 km before writing it into the rulebook. It could be a vicious circle if the organisers wait until it's in the rulebook before doing so.
I don't know what you mean by opening up the 29 category without writing it in the rulebook.
Anyway, avoiding the vicious circle is exactly why I think that including 29 Class in the Rulebook as an option (not compulsory) is a good way to go. It gives organisers a basis to offer 29 Class in 10k, in addition to the two usual classes. Keep in mind that organisers also work in the best interest of the sport, they are not focusing on minimising their efforts or they would not be organising an event at all.
Comment
Sorry, I just meant that I think it would be interesting to experiment with the addition of the 29" class in the 10km.
In my opinion, once this has been tried out, a new decision will certainly have to be made depending on how it happened.
I was thinking there might be a way of testing this addition at the French championships (in 2 months) but it's probably already too late...
You're probably right that it can be written as an option. It's just that I'm a little worried that it'll never be experimented with because it's only an option.
Comment
> I was thinking there might be a way of testing this addition at the French championships (in 2 months) but it's probably already too late...
Might be too late indeed, but testing at some national event is a good idea.
> It's just that I'm a little worried that it'll never be experimented with because it's only an option.
My answer to that is written in the last sentence of my previous post.