Wind measurement
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
This discussion came up at the very end of the last rulebook update, so there was no time to discuss it and draft a suitable rule. The whole thing should happen in the next rulebook update, which is now the case...
In the disciplines Gliding and Coasting (Track), the results are extremely dependent on the wind. But also in the other racing disciplines up to 200m tailwind can have a noticeable influence on the performance (in athletics a wind measurement is not be mandatory for no reason).
Therefore I think it would make sense to measure the wind in these disciplines - especially since the world record committee intends to require wind measurement for world records.
I think that the rulebook for sure, should not prescribe wind measurement for all competitions in general. The IUF rulebook will also be applied to competitions that do not claim to be at a level where for example World Records are achieved. But I think we could make a certain distinction in the rules between rules that are valid for all competitions and those that only have to be followed in competitions with a certain level. I think that there can be different requirements for a World Championship or a European Championship than for other competitions. The wind measurement would be a rule for competitions that claim to be on a level where World Records are set up.
In the end a rule about wind measurement is not only a maximum wind speed that has to be determined, but also how exactly (i.e. with which equippment, at which position and for which time) the measurement has to be carried out and how the data has to be saved. The World record committee has already developed a very good proposal for this, which was also used to measure the wind in the track races at the last Unicon, for example.
The rule draft:
X.X Wind Measurement
In track competitions it is recommended to measure the wind speed for every competition in which the track is not ridden a whole number of times, for UNICONS it is mandatory. This includes 100m, 200m, 50m onefoot, 30m wheelwalk, track coasting, track gliding and longjump on track. For World Records to be valid, there may not be a tailwind averaging more than 2 m/s during the period specified below. The following rules apply to wind measurement:
1. All wind gauge equipment shall be IUF approved and manufactured and calibrated according to international standards. The accuracy of the measuring eqipment used in the competition shall have been verified by an appropriate organisation accredited by the national measurement authority.
Note: All WordAthletics certified devices are approved.
2. Non-mechanical wind gauges shall be used at UNICON.
Note: Non-mechanical wind gauges are mandatory if a performance is to be recognized as a world record and therfore for Unicon.
3. The wind gauge should preferably be started and stopped automatically and remotely, and the information conveyed directly to the competition computer. A manual start and stop should only be performed if there is no other possibility. In any case, the responsible juge needs a separate instruction for the correct operation of the wind gauge.
4. The wind gauge shall be read in meters per second, rounded to the next higher tenths of a meter per second, unless the second decimal is zero, in the positive direction. Gauges that produce digital readings expressed in tenths of meters per second shall be constructed so as to comply with this rule.
Explanation: This means that a reading of +2.03 m/s shall be recorded as +2.1 m/s; a reading of -2.03 m/s sahll be recorded as -2.0 m/s.
5. The wind gauge is placed beside the straight, adjacent to lane 1 and 50 m from the finish line (200m and 100m) respectively 25m from the finish line (onefoot and wheel walk). During the coasting the wind gauge is placed beside the straight, adjacent to lane 1 and 50 m from the starting line. During the long jump the wind gauged is positioned adjacent to the speed-up lane 10 m in front of the jump marker. In all cases the measuring plane shall be positioned at 1.22 m ± 0.05 m height and not more than 2 m away from the track respectively the speed-up lane.
6. The period for which the wind velocity shall be measured from the start signal
are as follows:
100m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 seconds,
50m onefoot. . . . . . . . . . . . 8 seconds,
wheel walk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 seconds.
For a 200m race, the wind velocity shall normally be measured for a period of 12 seconds commencing when the first athlete enters the straight. The measuring can also be startet automatically after 12 seconds from the start signal.
For coasting the wind velocity shall be measured for a period of 15 seconds from the time when the athlete passes the start line.
For long jump, the wind velocity shall be measured for a period of 4 seconds from the time when the athlete passes the attached mark. This mark is 20 m from the jump marker. If the speed-up of the competitor is shorter than 20 m, the time begins with the start of the speed-up.
Comment
I agree with this "partial" requirement for measuring wind speed, particularly since it will make world records fairer. Note that competition results remain valid even if the wind speed exceeds 2 m/s.
This proposal conforms to what has been discussed in the World Record Committee. I can imagine that it appears overwhelming or complicated to the uninitiated. Jan, as the track director for the last Unicon, and other competitions in Germany, you have experience with implementing wind speed measurements. Can you write something about how practical this is?
Comment
Yes, I will be happy to write a few words about how the whole process can be implemented on a Unicon, for example. And I agree that at first glance it may seem a bit complicated or overwhelming.
Usually we work together with a timekeeper from athletics for unicycling competitions - this makes sense because the timekeeping prescribed for Unicons corresponds to what is prescribed in athletics. Since it is absolutely common in athletics to measure the wind, in my experience the timekeepers always have the necessary equipment available. This was also the case at the last Unicon in France. But also at the last "small" competition (GlückAuf Wettkampf in Bottrop) that I helped to organize here in Germany, the timekeeper provided us with the wind measurement and said that it makes virtually no difference to him whether he sets it up or not.
Regarding the proposal for the new wind measurement rule, most of the specifications come from athletics. As for the type of wind measuring device, the setting, starting, stopping and recording, the athletics timekeepers know these rules and know exactly how to use them. I think the rules are still well placed in our rulebook, since everyone has the possibility to find the necessary specifications easily without having to search in other rulebooks and we also give other timekeepers, who do not primarily come from athletics, everything they need to make an appropriate wind measurement.
The time for the wind measurement at the individual disciplines is of course adapted to unicycling. Here, however, the software of the timekeepers is so flexible that the whole thing can be set without any problems or can be automatically communicated to the timekeeper directly with the data for the run and lane assignment.
Comment
I agree with the details above, that at large competitions, in any race where it is thought new records may be set, wind measurement should be used if available at that event.
Comment
I disagree with the qualification "if available at that event". For large events such as Unicon or European Championships, I think it should be required.
Comment
I bring this topic up again, because I would then also create an official proposal before the time for this expires on 15.08.
I think it is important to make clear that for world records a wind measurement is absolutely useful (and from my point of view also necessary) - that means that if we do not make the wind measurement obligatory in the rules for the Unicon, it might not be possible to set up world records, which would not make sense. As I said, athletics timekeepers can provide a wind measurement in any case, because it is mandatory in athletics for all competitions! So I think we can make wind measurement mandatory at Unicon with a good conscience.
Only with the time durations for which the wind is to be measured, I am not yet quite sure whether I have suggested meaningful values here. In my last conversation with our athletics timer, he pointed out that times in athletics are not based on world records, but generally on the time an athlete is on the finish straight. If you transfer this to unicycling, then the 12 s or 8 s are ways to short.
Comment
> I bring this topic up again, because I would then also create an official proposal before the time for this expires on 15.08.
Until today, I wasn't aware that there was a deadline at all. Could I have read it somewhere?
> he pointed out that times in athletics are not based on world records, but generally on the time an athlete is on the finish straight
Does that mean that the time during which the wind is averaged, is different each time, depending on how fast the athletes go. And if they are not equally fast (which would generally be the case) does each athlete get an individually tailored wind speed? Seems complicated.
Comment
> Until today, I wasn't aware that there was a deadline at all. Could I have read it somewhere?
The schedule with the deadlines can be seen on the Rulebook Committes start page (https://iuf-rulebook-2022.committees.unicycling-software.com/) - maybe there will be an update and an extension of the deadlines, but for now I would assume that the dates mentioned there are up to date.
In any case, I would generate "dummy proposals" for the remaining discussions today so that we can still use the review time to finish things up if necessary.
> Does that mean that the time during which the wind is averaged, is different each time, depending on how fast the athletes go.
No, the time in which the wind is measured in athletics is fixed for each discipline and the same for all athletes. It just means that when setting these times, not only the world records were taken into account, but rather a general look at how much time the athletes spend on the finish line. However, I see a bit of a problem with unicycling here, that we have an extreme performance range - even at a World Championships and therefore the times, if you take into account e.g. all riders of a World Championships, would be much longer than the WR times, which in my opinion is not particularly meaningful.
Comment
I think we could best keep the times you proposed, based on World Record speeds. This will also be quite meaningful for slower riders, because (1) in all cases except the slowest riders still a significant part of their finish straight is covered by the wind measurement, and (2) although wind can be quite variable, it usually doesn't change excessively in the course of, say, 10 or 20 seconds. And then again, for a time of 12.5 or 13 seconds on 100m, a "valid" time (with < 2m/s wind speed) is more important than for a time of 18 or 20 seconds. I think the slower riders don't care that much.
Comment
I can definitely live with that and it was also my first thought when I suggested the times in the World Record Committee. I would also find it strange if the times were e.g. twice as long as the WR time and then possibly a WR would not be recognized because the wind in this significantly longer time would be slightly above 2.0 m/s (and for the time of the actual ride would have been slightly below).
Nevertheless, I think we would have to adjust the times for the 100m and 200m, because I would also go for times a bit longer than the current WR and therefore suggest a time of 14s (the women's WR for the 100m is currently 13.26s and for the 200m 27.87s). Both would be covered by 14s and the time for the wind measurement would be a bit longer than the current WR, just like for the One Foot and Wheel Walk.
Comment
Are there any further comments on this? Otherwise, I would create an official proposal.
Comment
Only now I wonder if Long Jump On Track is within the competence of the Track committee. It is in another chapter i.e. "Jumps".
I just found a couple of typos:
(3) juge > judge
(4, Explanation) sahll > shall
(6) startet > started
Under (6), what do you mean by "the attached mark"? I'm not so familiar with Long Jump On Track. Maybe there is an indication of the default run-up distance of 20 meters? But riders are free to make longer or shorter run-ups right? Regardless, this may be irrelevant in view of my first comment.
Comment
> Only now I wonder if Long Jump On Track is within the competence of the Track committee.
You are of course right that it is technically not our competence - but to be honest, I am still of the opinion that the classic high jump and long jump disciplines are actually typical technical disciplines from the Track section and that they would therefore be much better in the Track section than in the Urban section. I would like to start a discussion in the Main Committee, whether the division in the current form really makes sense - and even if the disciplines remain in the Jumps chapter with the Urban disciplines, include a reference in the Track part that these two technical disciplines also still exist. Then, of course, the rule with the wind measurement and other conditions for world records would have to be integrated somehow in the Jumps chapter.
> I just found a couple of typos:
Thanks, I will correct them :)
Comment
I have a different opinion. To me it makes sense that Longjump on track, and Highjump over bar, are grouped with the two types of Jumps on platform, and thus are in the Urban chapters. But indeed for Longjump on Track we would want to have wind measurement in the Rulebook.
Did you see my question about "the attached mark"?
Comment
> Under (6), what do you mean by "the attached mark"?
As written, this mark means a mark that is 20 m from the jump marker. The minimum speed-up distance for a competition ist 25m, riders are free to make longer or shorter run-ups.
> To me it makes sense that Longjump on track, and Highjump over bar, are grouped with the two types of Jumps on platform, and thus are in the Urban chapters.
But why?
Long jump on track (and high jump over bar) have been Track disciplines for years - in long jump on track the track is even in the name. Both disciplines are almost exclusively organized at track events, here in Germany they are organized at almost every track event, with the exception of some one-day events where there is not enough time for them. Both disciplines come from the track sector and are rather unsuitable for typical urban competitions ( floor, space conditions, etc.) - I don't really see any good reasons to assign the disciplines to the urban sector.
Comment
> this mark means a mark that is 20 m from the jump marker
I know that mark is there, but why is it called "attached mark"?
> But why?
I think most riders interested in jump competitions on platform, are also interested in the other two jumps. But most track riders are not interested in track jumps. This may be different in Germany, I don't know. But it seems logical to me that all jump competitions are together.
Comment
>> this mark means a mark that is 20 m from the jump marker
I know that mark is there, but why is it called "attached mark"?
If you have a better suggestion, I'm open to it. I think I just took the name from athletics. And I think it's actually logical, because there has to be an additional marker attached at 20m for the wind measurement, so why not just call this one "attached marker". After all, it only serves to clarify when the wind is measured.
> But most track riders are not interested in track jumps.
This is definitely not the case, at our track competitions a lot of riders take part in the jump disciplines. And even if many riders are interested in both the "Urban Jumps" and the "Track Jumps", it makes no sense to me to sort the disciplines according to the interest of the riders. I think the sorting should be done according to the area where the competitions are held - and the "Urban Jumps" are held on "Urban events" and the "Track Jumps" on "Track events".
Comment
On the question of where the Long Jump and High Jump should be in the Rulebook:
It's an interesting question. Of course these events evolved from adding some "field" events so we would have Track & Field. I think we first tried these at a USA Nationals in Ohio, 1995? It dates back to before I was shooting digital, which makes it harder for me to look up the pictures. These were naturally done at the track, and mostly Track unicycles were used for these events, because that's what we had. But it wasn't long before people started using Trials or similar unis for their better "landing" ability and smaller size. So while their origin was on the track, the equipment is now mostly from the Urban realm. In recent memory of events I've been at, the jumps have been held together, usually along with other Urban events. It makes sense to hold them in the same place because they generally use the same unicycles. And neither of them requires an athletics track.
However I see from Jan's comments that this is not the case and he has a different approach to this. I don't know how "Track" got added to the names of these events; it seems redundant if they're held at the track, and otherwise inappropriate if they are held elsewhere. I don't know that the High and Long Jumps need to take place on a tartan (or other) athletics track surface; any hard, flat surface with some texture should work.
A little more background may be in order here. We added High Jump and Long Jump to get some of the "Field" events of Track & Field. Unicycle Trials didn't exist yet, but followed within a few years, along with Trials unicycles. It wasn't long before the Trials crowd pointed out that those were cool events, but jumping over a bar isn't a "real life" thing; but jumping up onto things was a very common one. Same for jumping gaps. Can you make it from one railroad track to the next? Or the next post. So those events were developed.
All four of those events have lousy names, IMHO.
- Long Jump is Long Jump; it applies unicycles to the Athletics event, with the usual requirement of riding away. It should be called Long Jump
- High Jump follows the same logic; it should be simply called High Jump. People know what those names mean, they don't need an explanation
- Long Jump on Platform should be called Gap Jump. That's the word Trials riders (used to?) use to describe trying to get from one elevated place to another; the farther away the more interesting. The object is to jump a gap. It even has a limited space for run-up (and landing) to keep it challenging.
- High Jump Onto Platform is the most awkward name. Yes it's accurate, but boring and lifeless. It should be called Platform Jump, Ledge Jump or something simpler and easier to remember.
Okay, had to get that out of my system. The place to rename those would be in the Urban Committee, not here. Oh, what? Looks like Klaas and I are ON the Jumps Committee?? I don't remember signing up for that. Perhaps I should put up a proposal for that? It looks like we have until Oct. 15. What do you think?
Wherever the Jumps appear in the Rulebook, I believe they should all be together, because they use the same equipment and will most likely be held in the same location if an athletics track riding surface isn't required. I think we are better off without that requirement. None of us participates in these events; we need to get feedback from jumpers to find out what makes sense to them.
Apologies, I just noticed the topic here is Wind Measurement, which I have no comment on as I have no background with it and would defer to people with experience. I think I'll propose the name thing in the Jumps Committee (if I'm actually on it; I think I am as I can see author names on the comments).
Comment
> So while their origin was on the track, the equipment is now mostly from the Urban realm.
This may still be true for the high jump, but definitely not for the long jump on the track. Here, large unicycles are still used, usually a mixture of Muni and racing unicycle, which are not used in the urban area.
> In recent memory of events I've been at, the jumps have been held together, usually along with other Urban events.
Which events were these? With the exception of Unicon, I don't know of any event where the "Track Jumps" were ever held together with the other "Urban Jumps" - and even there, the "Track Jumps" were usually held on the track.
In Germany the "Track Jumps" are exclusively offered at Track Events. At Urban Events (EUC, Summer EUC, etc.) almost exclusively the two "Urban Jumps" are offered, but not the "Track Jumps". I see a very clear separation of these two jump categories.
> It wasn't long before the Trials crowd pointed out that those were cool events, but jumping over a bar isn't a "real life" thing; but jumping up onto things was a very common one.
I can understand that completely and that's why the new "Urban Jumps" were included in the rulebook. However, many track riders still like the old "track jumps" and I don't really understand why it is necessary to have two different jumps in the urban area and drop the traditional "track jumps". It would be only logical, if the new jumps, developed by the Urban riders, are located there and the old ones, continue as Technical Disciplines at the Track Races. This would also give a sensible reason why there are two different high jump and long jump disciplines - because they come from different areas.
> The place to rename those would be in the Urban Committee, not here.
I would be very disappointed if the track would disappear from the official name and I would definitely vote against it in a vote. From a German point of view, this would be a fatal step, as the disciplines would then move even further away from practice than they have already done with the new classification at the Urban Events. Unfortunately I am not in the Jumps Committee, even if I would like to be.
I think if Jong Jump on Track should really be renamed, we would introduce a third jump category in Germany, the "Track Jumps".
> None of us participates in these events
I do, but only if the Long jump is done on an athletics track riding surface - and I know other riders from Germany to whom this also applies. For them, long jump, if it is not done on an athletics track, is just another, different jump discipline, but not the jump discipline that is offered in Germany and which is long jump on track from their point of view.
Comment
> The place to rename those would be in the Urban Committee, not here. Oh, what? Looks like Klaas and I are ON the Jumps Committee?? I don't remember signing up for that. Perhaps I should put up a proposal for that? It looks like we have until Oct. 15. What do you think?
Fine if you make a proposal there, John. I'm not sure I would agree to all of your suggested names, but we definitely need the jumpers's view on it.
> long jump on the track. Here, large unicycles are still used, usually a mixture of Muni and racing unicycle
Does any serious rider use a racing unicycle for Track Longjump? I would think that racing unis are too fragile for landing.
> Unfortunately I am not in the Jumps Committee, even if I would like to be.
You wouldn't be able to vote, but you can read there right? I'm willing to relay any comments you may have. Is there anyone from Germany in the Jumps committee?
Comment
> If you have a better suggestion, I'm open to it. I think I just took the name from athletics. And I think it's actually logical, because there has to be an additional marker attached at 20m
Maybe I have a wrong understanding of "attached", but in this context it sounds strange to me. Perhaps our resident native speaker (John) can comment on this? Pending that, I could suggest:
"For Long Jump on Track, the wind velocity shall be measured for a period of 4 seconds from the time when the rider is 20 m before the jump marker".
This text ignores the idea that there is a marker at that position, but that doesn't matter to me.
Comment
> Does any serious rider use a racing unicycle for Track Longjump?
Not the classic racing unicycles (okay, the junior riders often do it on their normal 20 unicycles, with which they also race), but also not on classic Munis and certainly not on the trial or flat unicycles on which the urban riders do the urban jumps - it's rather particularly light Munis, with usually somewhat smaler tires than on normal Munis. Therefore, for me its a mixture of Muni and racing unicycle, but it is very special for the discipline of long jump on track.
> You wouldn't be able to vote, but you can read there right? I'm willing to relay any comments you may have. Is there anyone from Germany in the Jumps committee?
Yes, I can read. But of course it would be easier to be able to react directly to messages as well. The only German member of the jumps committee is Ian Dylewski and he is only familiar with urban disciplines, so he has probably never been to a track competition in Germany and therefore does not know how often the "track jumps" are offered and how great the popularity is among track riders for these disciplines in Germany.
Comment
To make it clearer, I suggest to change the first sentence to:
For Unicons, wind speed must be measured for every competition in which the track is not ridden a whole number of times. For other events than Unicons, this is recommended.
Note that I have also deleted "In track competitions". Since this rule is in the Track chapter, this is implied already.
Noticed another typo:
Note: All WordAthletics certified devices are approved.
Word > World
Comment
> But of course it would be easier to be able to react directly to messages as well
Maybe you can request to be added to the Jumps committee as yet. Technically, this is very well possible.
Comment
Thank you for sharing your experience, Jan, which is different from mine. Mine has been limited to the USA NAUCC, which I haven't attended every year, and Unicon, with the occasional competition outside of both of those, usually at a Muni event. Your experience with these events is probably more mainstream in that it likely fits the experience of a greater number of riders. So I will change my proposed proposal. I don't know that having the original two jumps events at the track should be a requirement, but can understand if it's become traditional at some large competitions so not sure if any change should be made to existing text about location or riding surface.
Looks like there is no requirement for the Track Jumps to be run on an athletic track surface, which keeps things flexible for organizers. This allows those events to be held together or separate as needed.
I noticed an odd word in the exiting section: In 13C.1.1 Jump Director, 2nd sentence includes the word "premis". I think it is meant to be "permission" but I'm not sure. Perhaps you can incorporate that into your proposal as well?
I still like the idea of the name changes however, so hope you won't be offended if I still post one. I do not intend to create difficulty by saying where these events can be held, the idea here is to just make them sound more like "the real thing" for the Track jump events, and have clearer names for the "Trialsy" events, to match the goals they represent.
Another possible name for High Jump to Platform could be "High Jump to Rubber" but I don't know if that's a better or worse name for translation. Jumping "to rubber" is Trials jargon for not using pedal or crank grabs, and is generally the ultimate goal in getting onto a surface. If one first does it to a grab, riders will often keep going at it until they can make the same jump to rubber. Now I'll have to copy this into that proposal (later; I can't access the Rulebook Committee website from work due to our Web filtering system (it's like they know me)...
Comment
First of all, let's talk about the rule that is actually at issue here:
> "For Long Jump on Track, the wind velocity shall be measured for a period of 4 seconds from the time when the rider is 20 m before the jump marker".
This text ignores the idea that there is a marker at that position, but that doesn't matter to me.
I think there should be some form of marking, otherwise it will be extremely difficult or impossible for the judges to start the wind measurement according to the rule. In the end, we want to create comparable conditions. Therefore, I would be willing to formulate the rule in such a way that it can be always executed uniformly.
> To make it clearer, I suggest to change the first sentence to:
For Unicons, wind speed must be measured for every competition in which the track is not ridden a whole number of times. For other events than Unicons, this is recommended.
I would prefer the other order, as I think it emphasizes the recommendation to use a wind measurement, as it does not put the Unicon in the focus.
> Note that I have also deleted "In track competitions". Since this rule is in the Track chapter, this is implied already.
That's fine for me.
> Noticed another typo:
Thanks for the hint.
Now to Johns Comment:
> I noticed an odd word in the exiting section: In 13C.1.1 Jump Director, 2nd sentence includes the word "premis". I think it is meant to be "permission" but I'm not sure. Perhaps you can incorporate that into your proposal as well?
What do you mean by that? In which proposal should this be incorporated?
> I do not intend to create difficulty by saying where these events can be held, the idea here is to just make them sound more like "the real thing" for the Track jump events, and have clearer names for the "Trialsy" events, to match the goals they represent.
I think the problem with a renaming would be that the "Track Jumps" would be even more out of focus for some organizers of track competitions. The current problem is that some people are not aware that there are relevant things for a track competition in an Urban chapter. When the change was made some yeas ago, some people wondered why the jumps were dropped, because they simply didn't look for them in an urban chapter. Maybe it would be enough to call the chapter "Urban/Track: Jumps" to make clear that it is not a pure Urban discipline that is described there.
For the organizers of track competitions, the division still makes it difficult, because the structure is very much oriented on the Unicon, where there is a "Jump Director" who only takes care of the jumps. But of course there is no such thing at any other competition. In any other track championship, the track director and the referee are also responsible for the jumps.
Comment
> I think there should be some form of marking, otherwise it will be extremely difficult or impossible for the judges to start the wind measurement according to the rule.
Of course, I'm not against a marker at 20 m, and I'm also not against making this required. But the current discussion is about when to start the wind measurement. If we think we need to prescribe a marker at that point, in this rule, I won't object. The only thing is that "attached marker" doesn't make sense to me at all. To what is it attached? Maybe we need the help of our resident native speaker again :-)
> I would prefer the other order
What about this 'compromise':
It is recommended to measure the wind speed for every competition in which the track is not ridden a whole number of times. For Unicons such wind speed measurement is required.
Maybe we still need to edit something, because for Slalom we have no wind measurement requirement, right?
the word "premis". I think it is meant to be "permission" but I'm not sure. Perhaps you can incorporate that into your proposal as well?
> What do you mean by that? In which proposal should this be incorporated?
(Answering for John). This being in the Jumps chapter in the Rulebook, it should be a discussion/proposal in the Jumps committee. A fine job for John himself to initiate :-)
> Maybe it would be enough to call the chapter "Urban/Track: Jumps"
That would be OK for me. John or myself could try and get this through in the Jumps committee.
> In any other track championship [than Unicon], the track director and the referee are also responsible for the jumps.
That is quite a sweeping statement and I doubt it's true.
Comment
> If we think we need to prescribe a marker at that point, in this rule, I won't object. The only thing is that "attached marker" doesn't make sense to me at all. To what is it attached? Maybe we need the help of our resident native speaker again :-)
Okay, so then it's just a matter of the wording and the type of marking. We basically agree that it would make sense to have a marking so that the judges can see when to start the wind measurement - namely when the rider reaches the appropriate mark.
In athletics, as far as I know, this is a marking that is attached to the ground next to the run-up track. It is not a continuous line as far as I know, but only a small marker.
> Maybe we still need to edit something, because for Slalom we have no wind measurement requirement, right?
You are absolutely right, of course it refers only to the disciplines mentioned in the following sentence. The first sentence serves more as an explanation why the wind is not measured at 400m, 800m and the relay - because here the track is run completely at least once anyway.
But of course one could write it also that way:
"It is recommended to measure the wind speed for 100m, 200m, 50m onefoot, 30m wheelwalk, track coasting, track gliding and long jump on track since tailwind can have a sicnificant influence when the track is not ridden at least once complete. For Unicons such wind speed measurement is required."
> That is quite a sweeping statement and I doubt it's true.
Yes, I admit that the statement is perhaps a bit exaggerated - of course I don't know all the competitions that are held around the world.
But for Germany, it is definitely true that the "Track Jumps" are held exclusively at Track events and it is of course an additional task for the organizers to have to consider the structures for the Jumps separately in the existing structures for the Track competition. The old structure, where the jumps were in the track chapter, was easier for the organizers.
Comment
> Okay, so then it's just a matter of the wording and the type of marking.
What about replacing that sentence by:
For Long Jump on Track, the wind velocity shall be measured for a period of 4 seconds from the time when the rider passes a mark that is 20 m before the jump marker.
Note that I changed "20 m from" to "20 m before".
And again, I personally would not require a marker in that spot (in the Rulebook), although I agree that it is very sensible to put something (i.e. a marker) there.
> But of course one could write it also that way: (...)
That would be OK for me.
> for Germany, it is definitely true (...)
German unicycling has some specific characteristics here and there, that are not common around the world.
Comment
> What about replacing that sentence by:
For Long Jump on Track, the wind velocity shall be measured for a period of 4 seconds from the time when the rider passes a mark that is 20 m before the jump marker.
That would also be fine for me.
> And again, I personally would not require a marker in that spot (in the Rulebook), although I agree that it is very sensible to put something (i.e. a marker) there.
But how do we make sure that the wind measurement is really done according to the rules if the spot does not need to be marked? I mean quickly placing a small mark on the ground, e.g. with tape, is not a challenge that makes it more difficult to comply with the rule. But at the same time, this marking has a significant impact on ensuring the consistency of the rule implementation. Therefore, in the "cost-benefit" balance, I see no reason to forego the requirement for a marker.
> German unicycling has some specific characteristics here and there, that are not common around the world.
I sometimes have the feeling that Germany is the only country where the IUF rules are applied in virtually all competitions. I also have the feeling that there are few other countries where unicycling exists as a "competitive sport" with the corresponding competitions.
Comment
> But how do we make sure that the wind measurement is really done according to the rules if the spot does not need to be marked?
As I tried to argue, a marker at that spot certainly makes sense from an organisational point of view. However, the presence or absence of a marker does not impact the rider, and has no consequences for the results (provided the wind measurement is carried out correctly). Therefore, for me, we don't have to require it. I'd rather leave it to the organiser to ensure that the wind speed is measured at the correct times, in a way they see fit - maybe they place a person there who signals the passing of the rider. This argument would not hold for markers that the rider has to deal with, such as relay takeover zones, or going inwards in an 800m race after the first bend.
Having said all that, it doesn't really hurt (me) if the rules would require a marker at 20m, also given the fact that it makes so much sense that it will most likely be there anyway.
While we don't seem to agree 100%, I think there is a clear way forward for this aspect of the rules :-)
Comment
I have incorporated the proposed changes regarding the sentences discussed above into the official proposal.
In the end, of course, there is still the question of how to deal with the long jump - in the end, this discipline is not within the scope of this subcommittee and even if I consider the introduction of a wind measurement in the long jump (at least from the point of view of world records) to be absolutely necessary, it really must be a decision of the Jumps Subcommittee to include it in the Rulebook. Otherwise, the World Record Committee has to include it in the WRG, even if this is not a desirable way.
If the chapter "Urban: Jumps" should become "Urban/Track: Jumps", I think a reference to the chapter on wind measurement in the track part would be OK. The alternative would be to copy the information relevant for the long jump into a corresponding rule in the Jumps chapter. In the end, however, both have to be voted on by the Jumps subcommittee.
Comment
The discussion (in the Jumps committee) about renaming the Jumps chapter to something with Track included in the title has been started by John.
I myself have started a discussion about wind speed measurement.
Comment
I've put an appropriate editorial note in the proposal that the part concerning the long jump will only be inserted at this point if the Jumps Committee decides to do so, and it will be dropped out otherwise.
Is this fine for everyone? Any other comments on the rule?
Comment
I'm not sure. Are you relying on the Jumps Committee to decide on a text in the Track chapter?
Comment
I would see it as an offer to the Jumps Committee - they can include a rule on wind measurement in the Jumps chapter, they can refer to the rules in the Track part, or they can reject a rule on wind measurement completely (which would result in it having to be integrated into the World Record Guidelines). In any case, what is not approved by the Jumps Committee would not be included in the Track Chapter.
Comment
I will bring it up again in Discussion 93 (in the Jumps committee). So fr there are no responses.
Comment
So fr -> So far.
I noticed a typo in the first sentence of the proposal: sicnificant -> significant.
Comment
> I noticed a typo in the first sentence of the proposal: sicnificant -> significant.
I corrected the error
> I will bring it up again in Discussion 93 (in the Jumps committee). So fr there are no responses.
Perfect
Do you think we need to wait for some feedback in the Jumps committe or should we just go ahead with the voting on this proposal here, as far as the review time is over?
Comment
Sorry, I was on holiday for two weeks.
I have just made a final request for comments in Discussion 93. If it remains silent, I plan to create a proposal in Jumps that relies on the details for wind measurement to be specified here in Track. Maybe we should wait and see if that gets agreed on, so that we know what to have in this proposal?
Comment
I mean, in the end, the vote in the Jumps committee will probably have no effect on the part of the rule that only concerns the disciplines of this committee - either what is bracketed in the proposal will be taken over by the Jumps committee, changed or omitted completely.
For me it is only important that we do not miss the deadline here in the committee and bring the proposal to the vote in time, but we can also wait until there is some feedback from the Jumps committee. If there are no other comments or objections to the rule from this committee, we can quickly bring it to a vote if there is feedback from the Jumps committee.
Comment
Do you think it would work well if we include all the (italicised and underlined) text in Proposal 28, and include in the Jumps chapter:
"It is recommended to measure the wind speed for Long Jump on Track since tailwind can have a significant influence on the results. For Unicons such wind speed measurement is required. For World Records to be valid, there may not be a tailwind averaging more than 2 m/s. Details about wind measurement equipment, timing and allowable tailwind are specified in section 2D.11 in the Track chapter."
That's the way I was planning to phrase my proposal in Jumps.
Or would it be better to include the location and timing of the wind measurement in the Jumps chapter itself , and only refer to the Track chapter for the equipment? In that case, the last two sentences of Proposal 28 would be deleted there, and included in the Jumps proposed text.
Comment
For me, both options would be Okay, it's probably a matter of taste in the end whether you prefer one or the other.
Comment
I actually think the second option is better (although I was planning to use the first option).
This way, the essential rule about Jumps is contained in the chapter about Jumps, and not in Track. The Jumps rule would still refer to Track for equipment details.
Comment
That's fine for me.
Comment
Any news from the Jumps Committee regarding the rule and and how we can proceed here?
Comment
I just noticed that my proposal in Jumps (that I wrote more than three weeks ago) has the status "Submitted". That implies that the Jumps Committee director must still approve it before the other members can even see it. It had escaped my attention that this had not been done yet.
To date, there has been zero response in the discussion in Jumps that I created. I hope I can get things moving.
Comment
I have sent various e-mails directly to members of the Jumps committee. So far, only Mark Fabian responded but he doesn't have the authority to approve proposals. He wrote that he knows that Connie does, but she remains silent to date. The message I sent today I consider as a last reminder. If I don't have a response by late Sunday, I think we should not mention Jumps at all in the Wind measurement proposal for Track. If there is eventually going to be a Jumps rule for Wind measurement, it can refer to the Track rule for details on equipment etc, without us "preparing" the Track rule for that purpose.
Comment
Okay, thats fine for me.
Then I will update the proposal on monday mornig, if there is no further feedback from you, that we should stay with the current version.
Comment
There is no further information/feedback from the Jumps committee. So in my opinion, the Wind measurement proposal in Track needs nothing about the Long Jump on Track.
Comment
I have revised the proposal and deleted the parts concerning Long Jump on track. I also added a recommendation to integrate the rule regarding the wind measurement for Long Jump on track directly in the Jumps chapter.
If there are no further comments on the proposal, I would put it to a vote as soon as the review time is over.