3D.15.1 Fixed Distance and Free Distance Races
Comments about this discussion:
Started
I feel that the 3D.15.1 section is insufficient and that the last sentence should be modified:
"It is expected that Unicon will have at least two road events, of which at least one is a recognized distance event."
Here's the start of an exchange on the subject we had with Klaas in another thread:
> Me: 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...
> Klaas: 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.
Klaas, let me rephrase: if the 10k is systematically organized when at least one fixed-distance race must be organized, then why not explicitly say that the 10k must be organized?
In fact, I think we need to modify sections 3D.15.1 and 3D.15.2 so as to include the objective of organizing a fixed-distance race (comparison, personal & word records) and what this implies (measurement, topography...).
I'd like to propose an algorithm to help choose between organizing a fixed-distance race or a free-distance race, with the following decision-making elements:
- location topography (start, finish, distance, elevation gain, etc.)
- organization of another fixed-distance race during the event
- course measurement using a method validated for WR homologation (which should correspond to the method cited in section 3D.15.2)
Comment
I have the impression that you are more focused on World Records, and maybe also improving personal bests, than most riders. I think that for my riders, a race is mostly about achieving a good result, in terms of placement in the Expert or agegroup listing. Speaking for myself: when I was still at an age to improve my personal best times, I accepted that I could not do that on a difficult course. Still, it was not like a "wasted" race for me. And also, it was nice to still be able to compare my time against other races of the same distance, and against the times of notorious competitors in my "league".
There is not really something against explicitly requiring a 10k to be organised at Unicons. I don't think I would vote against it. But on the other hand, I don't see the problem that this addition is supposed to solve.
Comment
Yes, I attach importance to WR, but not in the sense of organizing more fixed-distance races. But rather to be careful not to organize lots of fixed-distance races that aren't comparable and don't allow records to be compared and homologated.
I think that organizing free distance races is better for racing and rewarding an expert ranking.
What should be most important in a race is the expert ranking, not the WR. Especially as race WR can "kill" the race, you don't ride the same if there's a WR at the end or not.
The way free distance races are presented in the rulebook doesn't allow for change, in the sense that today few people (Ken?) see any point in it.
In fact, today, if I'd had to vote on the 100k race WR, I'd probably have voted against it.
My suggestion to clarify "10k" rather than "at least one is a recognized distance event" was a way of asking whether we shouldn't simply remove the last part of the sentence. Is it mandatory to organize at least one fixed-distance race? If so, which one? And how?
Comment
My point is that a fixed-distance race on a course that isn't fast, and isn't favourable to breaking records, is still valuable in its own right, and not a wasted effort (on the part of the organisers, nor the riders).
Responding to your last paragraph.
If you remove the last part of the sentence "It is expected that Unicon will have at least two road events, of which at least one is a recognized fixed distance event", you could theoretically end up with no fixed distance race at all. To me, that goes too much against tradition. But it also goes against your other argument so maybe you meant something else. If that sentence would become "It is expected that Unicon will have at least two road events, of which at least one is a 10k event", I would not be against it. On the other hand, I don't think it would make a difference with the current sentence.
Comment
> My point is that a fixed-distance race on a course that isn't fast, and isn't favourable to breaking records, is still valuable in its own right, and not a wasted effort
The organization of a fixed-distance race is much more complicated than that of a free-distance race:
- constraints on start and finish positions
- course measurement
> you could theoretically end up with no fixed distance race at all
My proposal to explain "10k" was both an example and an answer to the questions I raised.
If I have to choose one among the 10k, 42k and 100k, for me it's the 10k because it's the :
- the oldest (tradition argument)
- with the most participants
- the "easiest" to organize (start, finish, measurement, safety...)
Here is a text I suggest to add to section 3D.15.1:
"Fixed distance races (10k, marathon and 100k) are the races traditionally organized at UNICON. These races offer the advantage of being able to compare performances from one race to the next and, where applicable, to homologate WR. To make them more comparable, the courses of the fixed distance races have a relatively flat profile.
While there are many advantages to organizing a fixed distance race, there are also constraints: on the position of the start and finish, on the measurement of the course (see section 3D.15.2). The longer the course (or the loop), the more complicated the measurement.
These constraints do not apply to the organization of a free distance race (see section 3D.15.3).
To decide whether to organize a fixed or free distance race, here are the elements to consider:
- Is there at least one fixed distance race organized during the UNICON?
- Is the topography flat or hilly/mountainous?
- Do I want to organize a course in the hope of setting records, or do I just want to organize a race?
- Is it worth paying a measurer or spending half a day measuring the course for a record?
For example: if a fixed-distance race is already planned (the 10k?), if the topography of the area is rather hilly or mountainous and the course measurement doesn't seem to be too much of a constraint, then it might be better to organize a free-distance race."
I also feel that the content of section "3D.1 Venue" is redundant with section 3D.15.
I think that the contents of section 3D.1, with the exception of the first sentence, should go into section 3D.15.1 or 3D.15.2 instead.
Comment
I don't think we need to mandate the 10km fixed distance race- every Unicon is different. Every host has different goals. As Unicon evolves, it may be that the 10km will become less relevant (as it has for 10km unlimited riders, which is now a very short race)
The wording was to allow hosts some flexibility. Do I see hosts offering the 42.2km marathon race without offering the 10km in the future? Not for some time...
Comment
I'm not happy about every element in the suggested addition to 3D.15.1, e.g. "To make them more comparable, the courses of the fixed distance races have a relatively flat profile." As a statement this is probably true, but interpreted as a recommendation or requirement is too limiting.
As a rider, even on a somewhat hilly course, I would prefer to ride a 42.195 km race over a 39 km or 45 km race. I wouldn't beat my personal best on a hilly (or otherwise not fast) course, but I could still compare the result to other 42.195 km races I've done. Also, if you tell some family member/colleague/friend about your experience, the marathon distance of 42.195 km is something most people can relate to.
Comment
The point of the discussion is not to make 10k mandatory or not.
I don't think we should be content with a loose line of text that can survive future decades. I find section 3D.15.1 sorely lacking.
Can we really be satisfied with 2 road races?
No, if there aren't at least 3 road races, there will be a lot of unsatisfied riders.
Can we really be satisfied with 1 fixed-road races?
No, there are high expectations for the 10k and marathon.
I think we all want to continue organizing fixed-distance races, but it's a choice that sometimes has to be questioned.
Every riders want to ride on a course that's the real fixed-distance, not just the top riders who dream of WR.
I think that if you can't measure the course properly, you need to either :
1/ warn participants that the course is measured approximately and that no record will be validated
2/ innovate by organising a free distance race
I know that there are many riders of all levels who would be disappointed to learn that the distance is approximate, but that doesn't seem to me to be a good enough reason to hide the information. They'll find out on race day, which is even more disappointing.
And if it comes down to a choice between 1/ and 2/, I know that many would choose 2/.
If there's one place to put the strengths and weaknesses of fixed and free distance races, it's in section 3D.15.1.
Comment
I get your frustration with the course distance measurement, but the intention is not to provide an 'approximate' distance. You corresponded with the hosts as I did, and it was to be world record standard, measured by an IAAF official.
Of the two Unicon's I've been involved in as race director- there have been last minute course changes (roadworks), language and logistical issues, which you have little control over.
I think the expectation is now for 3 road races- 10km, Marathon and free distance. That has only been the case since Unicon 16, prior to that there were only 2 road races. I hope the free distance allows more innovation- for instance, it would be amazing to have an 12 or 24hr multi-lap road race (for instance around a certain Lake Bemidji)!