Restructuring of Section 2B.6 Racing Disciplines
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
Now that we have restructured section 2B.7 and especially improved the rules on lane use, passing and remounting after a dismount, I think we should make it even clearer in section 2B.6 which of the rules apply to each discipline by using an identical wording.
I would therefore suggest explicitly stating for each discipline the extent to which it is a lane-bound or a non-lane bound race, and whether remounting is allowed after a dismount.
In the structure I tried to mention in paragraph 1 of each discipline the distance of the race, whether it is a lane-bound or a non-lane-bound race, how the start is done and whether a remount after a dismount is allowed - so practically a short description of the discipline. I have tried to keep the wording consistent for all disciplines as far as possible.
From paragraph 2 on, I have added more discipline-specific information.
The section for the relay races I would like to revise fundamentally and not only restructure, because a lot of information is missing here (e.g. how a 4x400m relay race is run at all) - but for that I would start a new discussion, because this discussion should be only about the restructuring.
My suggestion would be the following:
2B.6 Racing Disciplines
2B.6.1 100m Race
1. Lane-bound race over 100m, where riders are started in separate lanes but from a common start line. No remounting after a dismount is allowed.
2B.6.2 200m Race
1. Lane-bound race over 200m with a stagger start, where riders are started in separate lanes, at separate locations. No remounting after a dismount is allowed.
2B.6.2 400m Race
1. Lane-bound race over 400m with a stagger start, where riders are started in separate lanes, at separate locations. No remounting after a dismount is allowed.
2B.6.3 800m Race
1. There are two different ways to run the race over 800m, remounting after a dismount is allowed in both ways:
1.1 800m Race with Stagger Start:
Riders are started in separate lanes, at separate locations. The race shall be run as lane-bound race as far as the nearer edge of the breakline where riders may leave their respective lanes. After the breakline, the race shall be run as non-lane-bound-race. The breakline shall be an arced line marked after the first bend across all lanes other than lane 1. To assist riders identify the breakline, halved tennis balls can be placed on the lane lines immediately before the intersection of the lines and the breakline. After the breakline, the race shall be run as non-lane-bound-race.
1.2 800m with Waterfall Start:
Riders are started at a common but curved starting line that places all riders an equal distance from the first turn. The race shall be run as non-lane-bound-race from the start.
2B.6.4 One Foot Race
1. Lane-bound race over 50m, where riders may pedal with both feet for the first 5 meters, but must be pedaling with only one foot after crossing the 5m line. All riders start in separate lanes but from a common start line. No remounting after a dismount is allowed.
2. The non-pedaling foot must have left the pedal when the tire contact point crosses the 5m line on the track. The non-pedaling foot may or may not be braced against the unicycle fork.
2B.6.5 Wheel Walk Race
1. Lane-bound race, where riders propel the unicycle only by pushing the tire with one or both feet. Riders in age groups with a maximum age of 10 or younger will race a 10m Wheel Walk. All other riders will race a 30m Wheel Walk. Riders start in separate lanes but from a common start line, mounted, with one or both feet on the tire. No remounting after a dismount is allowed.
2. No contact with pedals or crank arms is allowed during the race.
3. No crank arm restrictions apply.
2B.6.6 Relay
1. The relay distances shall be 4 x 100m or 4 x 400m like in athletics. Remounting after a dismount is allowed in all relays.
2. In the 4 x 100m relay each takeover zone shall be 30m long, in the 4 x 400m relay each takeover zone shall be 20m. The takeover zones must be marked on the track. (The zones shall start and finish at the edges of the zone lines nearest the start line in the direction of riding.) In the 4 x 100m relay, riders are not permitted to line up outside their takeover zones, and shall start within the zone. In the 4 x 400m relay, there is no defined preparation area for the next riders as long as they stay within their lanes.
3. The handover of the baton must be within the takeover zone. This means that before the baton crosses the start mark of the takeover zone only the incoming rider is in touch with the baton and at the end of the takeover zone only the outgoing rider is in touch with the baton. Riders may not throw the baton to make a pass and may not touch the ground with any part of their body while making a pass. If the baton is not handed over within the marked takeover zone, the team will be disqualified. Leaving of the lane within the takeover zone or when remounting does not result in disqualification as long as the riders do not obstruct, impede or interfere with another rider's progress.
4. If the baton is dropped, riders must pick it up.
5. Mixed male/female teams may be used, and reasonable age groups may be used depending on the number of expected competitors of the event. Each relay team may have any mix of ages, the age of the oldest rider determines the age group.
2B.6.7 Other Wheel Size Races
1. The host can choose to other additional track events based upon other wheel size requirements. Two examples include 700c racing and Unlimited. Exclusive of unicycle requirements, all other track racing rules apply.
1.1 In the 700c wheel category, unicycle wheels must be greater than 618mm in diameter, have a maximum bead seat diameter (BSD) of 622 mm, and there are no restrictions on crank length.
1.2 An unlimited race is one in which there are no unicycle size restrictions. Any size wheels, any length crank arms, giraffes or any types of unicycles (see de nition in chapter 1D.1) are allowed.
Comment
Good suggestion; leaves things more concrete, without the reader needing to be familiar with Athletics rules, etc.
Comment
Yes, that's clear.
Last line "denition" => "definition"
Native speaker, please comment on "unicycle wheels must be greater than 618mm". I feel that "larger" is better than "greater" in this sentence.
Comment
> Native speaker, please comment on "unicycle wheels must be greater than 618mm". I feel that "larger" is better than "greater" in this sentence.
Feedback on this would be really good.
Since we otherwise seem to agree that the restructuring makes sense, I would prepare an official proposal.
Comment
Native speaker says "...unicycle wheels must be larger than 618mm".
Not sure how necessary that rule is. The intent of that line was to keep 24-class wheels out of the 700c category; they have their own set of races. I hope 700c will someday attract more interest; 24" is a kid-sized wheel. 700c works just fine on an Athletics track, but 36" is very different on the turns, so I never recommended it.
Comment
> Not sure how necessary that rule is.
Do you mean the entire rule "2B.6.7 Other Wheel Size Races" or specifically the statement that in a 700c race the wheel diameter must be larger than 618mm?
I mean, in the end every organizer can announce and organize more disciplines anyway - but I can't remember ever being at an event where there was a 700c track race.
Comment
That's meant to apply only in a 700c (or 29-class) category, when there is also a 24-class category for the same race.
Never seen a 700c race? Sad. 24" is slow. I kind of lost interest in the longer Track races when 29" and 36" wheels became common in the unicycle world; going around and around the track with your feet spinning wildly? Not very efficient, or fast.
24" is safer, as the speed is generally limited to dismounts you can usually run out of. But the limiting factor seems to be how fast you can pedal. Maybe that's part of the attraction, but faster wheels are more interesting to watch. We first introduced it at Unicon 11 in Tokyo, with a 100m and a longer race, either 400m or 1600 (there was no 800m at the time). Then we did it again at the Switzerland Unicon, which was 2006, Unicon 12. People seemed to be happy with their 24" wheels and there was no push for "more". Maybe some time in the future, as 29"/700c becomes more common.
Comment
I'm happy with the proposal as is (but with "larger", not "greater").
We don't have to go into track racing on 24 versus 29 class, at least not here. (Although I do have an opinion.)
Comment
I think this is not about the question 24 versus 29 class, but about the rule 2B.6.7 Other Wheel Size Races. I understand that the rule is a bit strange because it describes primarily other wheel size categories and actually no other races. Therefore the question can arise, if the rule should rally be placed under "Racing Rules" and if it is really needed here.
I am absolutely in favor of every organizer being allowed to add other disciplines to the official IUF disciplines (which is not so clear at the moment with this rule) and to offer different wheel size categories (which would be more of a general rule)...
But I don't have any problem if the rule remains in the rulebook as it was until now.
Comment
You have a good point; the heading is about adding other events, but then only speaks of wheel sizes. Other types of races have been used/tested over the years. An interesting one was 100m Medley. You had to ride four different ways; something like Regular, One Foot, Seat Out and Wheel Walk. Something like that. I think this was at the 2004 NAUCC in Salt Lake City? It was fun but not strongly regulated; the transition zones would have to be marked out, etc.
Races of other distances could also be held, etc. I'm okay with leaving that section as-is, but it's not well labeled.
Comment
Well, I have two suggestions on how we could handle the section "2B.6.7 Other Wheel Size Races":
1. We leave the rule as proposed above in section "2B.6 Racing Disciplines" for now, even though that might not fit 100%.
2. We move the rule "2B.6.7 Other Wheel Size Races" to the section "2B.5 Whhel Size Categories" and integrate it there, which seems more logical in respect to the things described. To still make it clear that organizers can offer other disciplines at competitions in addition to the official IUF racing disciplines described in the Rulebook, we could add an introductory sentence under "2B.6 Racing Disciplines" that says something like the following:
"These are the official IUF Racing Disciplines. Organizers may hold other races of any length or type, but they may not be announced as official IUF Disciplines."
Of course, this sentence would really only be relevant to organizers, however I don't know where it could be usefully integrated into Section 2D.
Comment
Due to the proposal deadline, I would also create an official proposal for this discussion later. For now I would leave the rule about "2B.6.7 Other Wheel Size Races" as suggested at the very beginning. We can then use the review time to decide whether we stay with it or move the rule to the section "2B.5 Whhel Size Categories" and integrate it there.
Comment
OK
Comment
I would like to use the time until the voting deadline to think about how to deal with rule 2B.6.7 Other Wheel Size Races.
One reason why this rule is listed under Racing Disciplines could be that in races with different wheel sizes (e.g. Standard vs. Unlimited in the Road Races) the participants have to decide if they want to start in one or the other category - but in the Track Races the Unlimited race was in fact held in the past in such a way that participants could take part in both races (e.g. 100m Standard and 100m Unlimited).
Nevertheless, I still consider it not very logical that a rule for additional wheel sizes is listed under the disciplines - because the discipline remains the same regardless of the wheel size. I think it would be more logical to offer a 100m Unlimited race as an additional "ranking" and to leave it up to the organizer whether he allows a start only in one ranking or e.g. in the Standard and the Unlimite ranking.
What do you think?
Comment
> because the discipline remains the same regardless of the wheel size
This apparently hinges on the definition of "discipline". The way I see it, there are "wider" and "narrower" definitions of discipline. It is difficult to exactly define what constitutes a discipline, but if 100m 24Class and 100m unlimited are separated from each other, they would be different disciplines in a narrower sense of the word. And I guess, if both are organised, they will always be separate - I can't really imagine that the two wheel sizes would race in the same heats, and have a single award series, even if a separate ranking of 24 Class only would be added. (If this would happen, it would be analogous to the additional ranking of Ungeared in unlimited road races, because geared and ungeared are mixed in the start waves and share the same space and time on the course.)
Having said all that, I'm happy with the way the proposal is now. Under "Disciplines" the regular track races/disciplines are listed. Under "Other Wheel Size Races", there are races that are not regularly organised, they are "Other..." in that respect. All in all, the current proposal structure seems the easiest to comprehend.
Comment
> This apparently hinges on the definition of "discipline".
What is meant by the 100m discipline is defined in the Rulebook under 2B.6.1 - and there is no wheel size in that definition. I agree with you that the definition could also be made narrower and the discipline could be defined as i.e. 100m standard - but if we want to do it that way, then our rules should reflect that. Currently they do not in my oppinion.
> And I guess, if both are organised, they will always be separate - I can't really imagine that the two wheel sizes would race in the same heats, and have a single award series, even if a separate ranking of 24 Class only would be added.
But having your own category would automatically mean not having the same award series. And regarding all other things, I would say it depends on whether the organizer decides that you can only start in one category (then I could also imagine to let the categories start in common heats) or whether you can start in both categories, then they must of course be separated. But also the male and female heats are separated, although they belong to one discipline.
> Under "Disciplines" the regular track races/disciplines are listed. Under "Other Wheel Size Races", there are races that are not regularly organised, they are "Other..." in that respect.
But if we really want to consider a 100m race with a different wheel size as a separate discipline (which would be basically OK for me), then we should rename the chapter to "Other Wheel Size Disciplines" and adapt the section "2B.5 Wheel Size Categories" so that it is clear that for standard disciplines no further wheel size categories are allowed to be added, but these are to be organized as a separate discipline. Otherwise the whole thing becomes very confusing, if at one competition the Unlimitet class is listed as an additional class of the 100m race, but at the next competition it is listed as a separate discipline. This is not the way to get a uniform definition.
Comment
I have lost track of what has become of the discussion to define discipline (as well as race, event, competition, category, etc).
My point is that I'm not sure that we are free to discuss and agree on the definition of discipline in this (current) discussion, outside of the wider context of the rulebook.
The current Rulebook is not consistent anyway. This is likely because of later additions that were not carefully integrated.
Under 2B.2 it says "Only regular unicycles may be used." Regular unicycles are defined in 1D.1 to have no gears. But 2B.2. goes on with a table for unicycle classes that includes geared unicycles.
2B.5 lists wheel size categories for track racing. Unlimited class is absent.
Comment
> My point is that I'm not sure that we are free to discuss and agree on the definition of discipline in this
I understand your point, but our rules already contain definitions of what a discipline is for track - otherwise section 2B.6 Racing Disciplines would not be what it claims to be. I understand this section to define the individual disciplines and thus what is meant by the term discipline in the area of track racing.
> Under 2B.2 it says "Only regular unicycles may be used." Regular unicycles are defined in 1D.1 to have no gears. But 2B.2. goes on with a table for unicycle classes that includes geared unicycles.
2B.5 lists wheel size categories for track racing. Unlimited class is absent.
Again, I totally agree with you, the whole thing is not consistent and very confusing in my opinion. 2B.2 and 2B.5 should match and be consistent.
But before you can clean it up and make it consistent, I think two questions need to be answered:
1.What wheel size classes do we want to allow in the official IUF Racing Disciplines (listed in sections 2B.6.1 through 2B.6.6)?
2.1 If we want to allow more than the 24 class (and smaller) in the official IUF Racing Disciplines: Does it make sense to list these as separate disciplines or does it make more sense to list these as additional wheel size categories for the disciplines already listed?
2.2 If we want to allow a maximum of the 24 class in the official IUF Racing Disciplines: Why are the larger wheel classes, etc. even mentioned? Wouldn't it make more sense to write a general statement that organizers are free to add other disciplines and wheel size classes to their competitions, but that these are not considered official IUF disciplines and therefore e.g. no WR are recognized?
Comment
Among the various options that you mention, I like the suggestion that 24 Class is the maximum for official IUF Track Racing disciplines. These are also the disciplines/races that we recognise WR for. There is no such thing as, for example, an unlimited 100m WR. So I would agree that adding other distances than the ones that are official, and other wheelsize rules than max 24 Class should be allowed by the Rulebook, at the discretion of the host, but they are not considered official IUF disciplines. This would make the whole structure issue a lot easier.
Comment
Okay, that would be my preferred solution as well. I will try to prepare a corresponding proposal later.
Comment
I tried to write the rules in a common rule to make the whole topic more clear. What do you think?
Regarding the title of the rule, I am unsure if the "Categories" is needed at all, because unlike the categories in other disciplines, the maximum unicycle class allowed in track is determined by the age of a rider anyway, so it's no real categorie.
2B.1.2 Unicycles (and Categories)
1. Only regular unicycles may be used. Riders may use different unicycles for different racingtrack events, as long as all comply with the rules for events in which they are entered.
2. Wheel sizes for track racing are 20 Class, 24 Class and 29 Class. Additional groups for 16 Class or other wheels can be added. When not otherwise specified, 24 Class is the maximum wheel size Unicycle Class above age 10. For age groups with a maximum age of 10 or younger, the maximum wheel size Unicycle Class is 20 Class (or smaller, if smaller sizes are also used). It is allowed to ride in any particular Class with a unicycle that fully conforms to a smaller Class (e.g. a 20 Class unicycle is allowed in a 24 Class race).
Note: The youngest age group for 24 Class wheels should have a minimum age of 0, so riders 10 and younger have the option of racing on 24 Class with those groups (e.g. 0-8 on 20 Class, 9-10 on 20 Class, 0-13 on 24 Class).
3. There is aan allowable tire diameter range and minimum crank arm length for each Unicycle Class:
[Table] – only up to 24 Class!
4. Any unicycles in question must be checked for compliance within their wheel class (wheel diameter, crank length and transmission), with the tire pressure that will be used in the race. Preferably, this check is carried out immediately before the race. Crank arm length is measured from the center of the wheel axle to the center of the pedal axle. Longer sizes may be used.
5. In all track racing events on regular unicycles, shoes must not be fixed to the pedals in any way (no click-in pedals, toe clips, tape, magnets or similar).
6. The host can choose to offer additional events for other Unicycle Classes or wheel sizes, but they are not considered official IUF disciplines. based upon other wheel sizes requirements. Two examples include 700c racing and Unlimited. Exclusive of unicycle requirements, all other track racing rules apply.1.1 In the 700c wheel category, unicycle wheels must be greater than 618mm in diameter, have a maximum bead seat diameter (BSD) of 622 mm, and there are no restrictions on crank length.1.2 An unlimited race is one in which there are no unicycle size restrictions. Any size wheels, any length crank arms, giraffes or any types of unicycles (see definition in chapter 1D.1) are allowed.
Comment
On 5: maybe we should not delete "on regular unicycles". Since fixing shoes to pedals is allowed in Road Racing, I think the host may decide to also allow it in racing the same unicycles in an additional track event, e.g. 100 m unlimited.
On 6: In my opinion, not only other Unicycle Classes should be allowed in additional events, but also other distances, either in combination or not. Examples: 1500 m 24 Class, 1500 m unlimited. I suggest
"The host can choose to offer additional events for other Unicycle Classes or wheel sizes and/or other distances, but" (etc)
Comment
> I think the host may decide to also allow it in racing the same unicycles in an additional track event
But if these additional disciplines are not official IUF disciplines, I don't think we need to include any rules for them in the rulebook - then the organizers can decide for themselves if they want to add rules to these disciplines that go beyond the rulebook and, for example, allow the shoes to be fixed to the pedals.
> In my opinion, not only other Unicycle Classes should be allowed in additional events, but also other distances, either in combination or not.
I totally agree with you here, but additional disciplines (like 1500m) do not fall under the category of "Unicycles" and in my opinion have no place in rule 2B.1.2.
In general, I wonder if we shouldn't move paragraph 6 to section 2D, since it is really only relevant for the organizers. There you could create a rule about "freedom of the organizer" or something like that. To a certain extent, Rules 1C.2 and 1C.5 from Section 1 also contain such general statements. Perhaps another rule is therefore not even necessary?
Comment
> if these additional disciplines are not official IUF disciplines, I don't think we need to include any rules for them in the rulebook
I agree, but we also can't say that in all track racing events, shoes must not be fixed, because that would include e.g. 100m unlimited.
Maybe we can say "In all required and recommended track racing events, shoes must..."
> additional disciplines (like 1500m) do not fall under the category of "Unicycles"
I agree.
> To a certain extent, Rules 1C.2 and 1C.5 from Section 1 also contain such general statements. Perhaps another rule is therefore not even necessary?
Indeed, especially 1C.2 gives enough freedom as it is. But would it be helpful to include a note under (6), referring to 1C.2, such as
"6. As per 1C.2, the host can choose to offer additional track events for other Unicycle Classes or wheel sizes, or other distances. Example: 100m Unlimited."
Comment
> I agree, but we also can't say that in all track racing events, shoes must not be fixed, because that would include e.g. 100m unlimited.
I would disagree here, because the rules of the Rulebook can only refer to the disciplines which are also described in the Rulebook - and 100m unlimited is not a discipline described in the Rulebook (since it' not an official IUF discipline). Therefore, rule 2B.1.2 cannot refer to this (hypothetical) discipline. If an organizer wants to organize disciplines which are not covered by the rulebook, he is free to adopt existing rules or to define different rules. The restrictions for unicycles described in the rules would logically also not apply for 100m unlimited and be overwritten by different rules of the organizer.
> But would it be helpful to include a note under (6), referring to 1C.2, such as "6. As per 1C.2, the host can choose to offer additional track events for other Unicycle Classes or wheel sizes, or other distances. Example: 100m Unlimited."
I think in general a hint would not be bad - but in particular a hint to further events I think is not suitable in a rule about unicycles. Then I would be more in favor of moving the hint completely in section 2D and e.g. add it to the rule about communication. Because if a host offers more disciplines or wheel sizes, he must communicate this and the rules that are applied.
Comment
> the rules of the Rulebook can only refer to the disciplines which are also described in the Rulebook
I agree to that. But since the host is free to organise additional disciplines like 100m unlimited and set the rules for it, we shouldn't limit his options by saying that in ALL track racing events, shoes must not be fixed. After all, a 100m unlimited race, if it's done on track, is a track racing event, just not one of the "official" ones.
What's wrong with my suggestion "In all required and recommended track racing events, shoes must..."
> in particular a hint to further events I think is not suitable in a rule about unicycles
I see the point, but on the other hand, a non-standard distance (say, 1500m on 24 Class) and a non-standard wheelsize (say, unlimited 100m) are approximately on equal footing, at least to me. I'd like to keep such suggestions grouped together.
Comment
> we shouldn't limit his options by saying that in ALL track racing events
But the ALL is not a restriction for disciplines that are not included in the rulebook - because the rule does not apply to them. Disciplines that run under other rules, run under other rules. We cannot write the rulebook in such a way that at every possible place it is mentioned that the rules only apply to what is included in the rulebook, that would be very messy.
> What's wrong with my suggestion "In all required and recommended track racing events, shoes must..."
There are no required or recommended disciplines (with the exception of the Unicon). However, the Ruelbook has to cover all other competitions as well and - fortunately - it does not specify which disciplines are (or should be) offered.
I would be fine with writing "In all IUF track disciplines ..." if this makes it clearer that it is about the disciplines of the rulebook - even if I think it is unnecessary, because also in other places in the rulebook it is not said that the rules refer exclusively to the disciplines of the rulebook. For me, this is logical, because they can not refer to anything that is not described in the rulebook.
> I'd like to keep such suggestions grouped together.
Me too, so I would rather move the whole paragraph 6 to the 2D section, possibly to the communication section or a new section. This way everything stays together, is in a place where it makes sense, because it only concerns the organizer and the participant part is a bit cleaner.
Comment
> I would be fine with writing "In all IUF track disciplines ..."
That's OK for me, it solves my issue.
> [the rules] can not refer to anything that is not described in the rulebook
But the possible races with other wheelsizes or distances are mentioned in the Rulebook. Perhaps not described, but that's a subtle difference.
> I would rather move the whole paragraph 6 to the 2D section
OK
Comment
> > [the rules] can not refer to anything that is not described in the rulebook
But the possible races with other wheelsizes or distances are mentioned in the Rulebook. Perhaps not described, but that's a subtle difference.
Currently they are indeed still mentioned in "2B.6.7 Other Wheel Size Races" and as long as this reference exists, I completely agree with you that we cannot simply write "In all track disciplines ...", because that would include the disciplines of 2B.6.7.
But the proposal is intended to delete this reference from the Rulebook, because we do not consider these disciplines as official IUF track disciplines and therefore they should not be covered by the Rulebook. And if in the future the Rulebook only states that the host can offer other disciplines not covered by the Rulebook, then these are disciplines for which the rules described in the Rulebook do not apply at first, because these disciplines are not covered by the Rulebook.
Otherwise, we would have to mention in countless other places that the corresponding rules do not apply to disciplines that are not covered in the Rulebook. That would be totally confusing.
Comment
I have created a new discussion to separate the topic of revising 2B.(1.)2 Unicycles and moving the aspects from 2B.6.7 Other Wheel Size Races in section 2D from the general restructuring of 2B.6 Racing Disciplines. -> New discussion
I would suggest that we vote here only on the restructuring of 2B.6 Racing Disciplines and leave the current proposal unchanged. All other aspects we have already discussed here are hopefully considered in the new discussion and the proposal for 2B.(1.)2 Unicycles and 2D.3 Communication.
Therefore, provided there are no further comments on the proposal to restructure 2B.6 Racing Disciplines, I would set the proposal to voting.
Comment
I'm ready to vote
Comment
I have put the proposal into pre-voting status again, because Klaas voted against the proposal and I want to give him the opportunity to express his concerns against the proposal, so that we can adjust the proposal accordingly.
But I want to make clear, that this proposal should be only on the restructuring of 2B.6 Racing Disciplines. All other aspects we have already discussed here regarding revising 2B.(1.)2 Unicycles and moving the aspects from 2B.6.7 Other Wheel Size Races in section 2D should be considered in the new discussion 89 and the corresponding proposal for 2B.(1.)2 Unicycles and 2D.3 Communication. Inside this new Proposal I would also propose to delete 2B.6.7 Other Wheel Size Races, if this aspects get covered by 2D.3 Communication!
Comment
Thanks Jan. I voted Disagree because of my concern about
"1. The host can choose to other additional track events based upon other wheel size requirements. Two examples include 700c racing and Unlimited. Exclusive of unicycle requirements, all other track racing rules apply."
My point is that we want to give hosts the freedom to organise additional discipline(s), e.g. an additional 100m unlimited race, and set specific rules such as fixing of shoes to pedals is allowed. The "unlimited" aspect is clearly a unicycle requirement. But is the fixing of shoes to pedals also a unicycle requirement? Seems unclear to me - e.g. in the case of clip-in pedals it does not only involve the unicycle but also the shoes. I have not thought (yet?) about alternative text.
Maybe my concern is a moot point here because of your remark that this proposal is only about the structure, and that we don't need to pay attention to the precise content (my rewording of your bold paragraph). If so, this discussion should maybe still be held, but elsewhere.
Comment
I think this discussion is a bit confusing overall, to which I contributed myself with the question about the handling of rule 2B.6.7 Other Wheel Size Races and thus steered it away from the original topic.
This discussion here was only meant to restructure the existing rules - in the process we noticed that there are some confusion aspects in the rules especially related to 2B.6.7 Other Wheel Size Races. This has taken us very far away from the original topic and has resulted in the fact that I thought it would make more sense to move the entire topic on unicycles, wheel sizes and additional disciplines/wheel size categories to a new discussion.
My goal would be as the following:
1. We only vote here on the restructuring of the rules as stated in the proposal.
2. We continue the discussion about unifying the rules on unicycles, wheel sizes and additional disciplines/wheel size categories in the new separated discussion 89, where we can then vote on substantive changes to the existing rules at the end.
Would this be OK for everyone, or are there any comments/objections to this?
In particular, are there any comments or objections to the proposal on restructuring Chapter 2B.6 Racing Disciplines that we should discuss here before we can vote on it?
@Klaas: Would you bring um your concerns about "1. The host can choose to other additional track events based upon other wheel size requirements. Two examples include 700c racing and Unlimited. Exclusive of unicycle requirements, all other track racing rules apply." in the new discussion 89?
Comment
I think the new text in proposal 21 (that we discuss in this very discussion) needs something like
"Note that section 2B.6.7, Other wheel size races will be deleted if Discussion 89 results in a proposal that will be agreed. (That is, all text about additional track events is placed in 2D.3.)"
That would take away my confusion.
Besides, two textual points, while we're still at it:
"The host can choose to other additional track events" => "The host can choose to add other additional track events" (or maybe "organise" or "offer")
"other additional" sounds like duplication to me. I'd say either "other" or "additional".
Comment
> I think the new text in proposal 21 (that we discuss in this very discussion) needs something like
"Note that section 2B.6.7, Other wheel size races will be deleted if Discussion 89 results in a proposal that will be agreed. (That is, all text about additional track events is placed in 2D.3.)"
But why such a note in the proposal here? This proposal only takes over the existing rules and adapts the structure. The content changes are then made separately with the proposal that follows from discussion 89. As long as it is clear in the changes following from discussion 89 that 2B.6.7, Other wheel size races will be deleted and the information for the organizer will be moved to section 2D, this should be clear?
Or do you see a need to adjust section 2B.6.7, Other wheel size races independently of the changes discussed in discussion 89?
I mean, if we can't agree on a proposal at the end of discussion 89 and the rules stay as they are, then everything in section 2B.6 Racing Disciplines can stay as proposed here, right?
> Besides, two textual points, while we're still at it:
I have corrected the error - "other" should of course be "offer" as in the old rules.
Comment
> But why such a note in the proposal here?
You have included such editorial notes (about dependence on other proposals's outcome) in earlier proposals, so I would see why not here.
If a (future) proposal from Discussion 89 fails, and I would agree to this one as it is, I have agreed to a text I don't like 100%.
> if we can't agree on a proposal at the end of discussion 89 and the rules stay as they are, then everything in section 2B.6 Racing Disciplines can stay as proposed here, right?
Well, that's what I mean. I hope Discussion 89 is successful, but if not, I would like to see if we can find another way of keeping additional wheelsize and distances together in the Rulebook.
> "other" should of course be "offer"
Ha, that takes care of both points. In Dutch we say "hitting two flies with one blow".
Comment
> You have included such editorial notes (about dependence on other proposals's outcome) in earlier proposals, so I would see why not here.
I have always added an editorial note if, for example, I have already used new numbering in the proposal, but it was not yet clear whether the rule change regarding the restructuring and thus the change in numbering would be accepted at all. That is, if the proposal anticipates a change that has not yet been finally voted on and changes to the text or numbering originate from a different proposal than the one that was voted on. But that would not be the case here, because the restructuring refers to no other proposal and also does not anticipate any other proposal from the text and the numbering.
> If a (future) proposal from Discussion 89 fails, and I would agree to this one as it is, I have agreed to a text I don't like 100%.
Okay, I see the point - but that also means that you would not agree to the restructuring if there were no changes to the content in Proposal 89. Because this proposal here is not about the content, but about the structure.
What non-content aspect of the structural change would you want to disagree with?
Should we move the Rule 2B.6.7 Other Wheel Size Races to section 2D as it is? Because I don't want to do deeper changes to the content in this proposal. But moving the existing rule 2B.6.7 to section 2D as it is would be fine for me - that would be for sure only a structure thing.
> Well, that's what I mean. I hope Discussion 89 is successful, but if not, I would like to see if we can find another way of keeping additional wheelsize and distances together in the Rulebook.
But then it is a change that goes beyond restructuring the current rules, because the aspect of additional wheelsize and distances will in any case also bring content adjustments, if we do not leave it in the current form.
Would you be fine with an remark in the Background of the proposal wich states the following:
If proposals concerning deeper changes to individual disciplines or aspects like additional wheelsize and distances are accepted, they will of course overwrite the "old" rules provided herein.
Comment
> the restructuring refers to no other proposal and also does not anticipate any other proposal from the text and the numbering.
The deletion of 2B.6.7 would be a structural change in my view, and whether that deletion happens depends on discussion 89
> What non-content aspect of the structural change would you want to disagree with?
The continued existence of 2B.6.7 is not sure, but this is not expressed in the proposed text (as an editorial note)
> Should we move the Rule 2B.6.7 Other Wheel Size Races to section 2D as it is?
No, I would like to include both other wheel sizes and other distances in 2D. But we should discuss that in Discussion 89.
BTW, you asked me to express my concerns about "The host can choose..." in Discussion 89. This has not escaped me, but I am waiting for this restructuring discussion to pan out.
> Would you be fine with an remark in the Background...
The Background is not the best place I think, because the votes are about the proposed text, not about the Background.
I would be fine with the following text at the bottom of the proposal itself (reworded from my earlier comment)
Editorial note: section 2B.6.7, Other wheel size races will be deleted if Discussion 89 results in an agreed proposal such that all text about additional track events is placed in 2D.3.
Comment
Unfortunately, I still do not get your point.
I would like to detach the (also content-related) question of whether, in which form and in which place we will have rule 2B.6.7 in the rulebook in the future from this proposal and only vote here on the restructuring of the existing rules, that is, above all, that the individual aspects of the rules are divided into individual paragraphs. Further changes to individual rules or the rewriting/reordering of 2B.6.7 in 2D should not be part of this proposal.
Or, to put it another way: if this proposal were to be rejected, then Section 2B.6 would remain unchanged as currently in the rulebook. If changes to individual rules are approved in other proposals, these changes will of course still apply. If we approve this Proposal, then it changes the structure of the existing rules to that of the Proposal. If changes to individual rules are adopted in other proposals, these changes will of course still apply in exactly the same way as if this proposal were rejected. So this proposal only changes the basis on which all other changes are incorporated, if there are other changes.
And with all other Proposals I inserted a editorial note, if the Proposal preempted other proposals, thus already rule changes were contained in the proposal, which were not yet approved. But this is not the case here, because the proposal refers completely to the existing rules and does not contain any changes that have to be confirmed by other votes. So there is nothing here that can be "accidentally" approved even though it was rejected in another vote.
Comment
I give up my resistance, because it doesn't seem to be time well spent, and also because we want to make progress and not be stuck for a long time behind this smallish issue. I am behind the purpose of this proposal and will agree if you put it (again) to a vote.
For now I will assume that Discussion 89 will result in a satisfactory relocation of suggestions/allowances of other track events. If that would not happen, it might as yet be useful to try and bring additional wheelsize and/or distance track events together in another way. (Or maybe not, and just leave it scattered.)
Comment
Okay, then I would open the voting again as soon as the review time is over.
I also hope that in discussion 89 we will find together a suitable alternative to the current rules to regulate the unicycles and wheel sizes issue, as well as the possibility for organizers to add other events.
Comment
This one was just making my eyes into spirals so I stayed away. Ready to vote on proposal!
Comment
I will open the voting again as soon as the review time is over.