Additions to section 2D.1 Venue
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
One last aspect discussed in the World Record Committee regarding track records has not yet found consideration here in the Rulebook Committee, which I would like to change herewith:
The current rule 2D.1 does not make sufficient specifications for the track to be able to ensure sufficient comparability of achieved results with this rule alone and is therefore especially insufficient to describe suitable conditions for records. Since it should be ensured, especially for Unicons, that achieved performances are also recognized as records, the World Record Committee is of the opinion that corresponding specifications for a track should be found in the Rulebook and not only exclusively in the World Record Guidelines. Currently, however, the Rulebook does not contain, for example, any statement about the accuracy of the track length or the surface condition, which is of extreme importance for the recognition of records.
I would therefore suggest that Rule 2D.1 Venue be restructured and amended as follows to make it more specific:
2D.1 Venue
1. All track races, as well as track coasting and track gliding, shall be held on an athletics standard competition track. Exceptions are the 50m one foot and the 30m wheel walk, which can also be held at an indoor athletics venue. The IUF Slalom shall be held on a surface that has the same characteristics as a standard track and therefore complies with paragraph 2.1.
If the requirements cannot be fulfilled, the disciplines cannot be offered as official IUF Track disciplines and this has to be announced accordingly before the competition.
2. Every track and field competition venue approved for athletics is approved for official unicycle competitions.
The essential criteria that such a venue shall comply with are the following:
2.1 Any firm, uniform surface that complies with the specifications for syntetic surfaces for athletic competition venues is permitted.
2.2 The length of a standard competition track shall be 400m. It shall consist of two parallel straights and two bends whose radii shall be equal. The inside of the track shall be bordered by a kerb of suitable material that should be coloured white, with a height of 50mm to 65mm and a width of 50mm to 250mm. The kerb on the two straights may be omitted and a white line 50mm wide substituted.
2.3 The measurement shall be taken 0.30m outward from the kerb or, where no kerb exists on a bend, 0.20m from the line marking the inside of the track.
2.4 The distance of the race shall be measured from the edge of the start line farther from the finish to the edge of the finish line nearer to the start.
2.5 In all races up to and including 400m, each athlete shall have a separate lane, with a width of 1.22m ± 0.01m, including the lane line on the right, marked by white lines 50mm in width. All lanes shall be of the same nominal width. The inner lane shall be measured as stated in pragraph 4., but the remaining lanes shall be measured 0.20m from the outer edges of the lines.
3. The track shall be marked in meters, and should be prepared in advance with start and finish lines for the various racing events that are unique to unicycle racing (such as 50, 30, 10 and 5 meter lines).
4. For races that include at least one turn, the inside lane shall be on the left in the direction of the race. The individual lanes shall be numbered, starting with the left-hand lane as No. 1.
6. A public address system shall be provided to announce upcoming events and race winners. Bullhorns are usually not adequate for the track environment.
Note: If the track is outdoors, plans shall be made to deal with inclement weather. Using an indoor track can eliminate this problem. The track shall be available for enough days to allow for inclement weather.
Comment
That sounds pretty thorough. Is this taken from some existing Athletics track text? All those small track dimensions. Are you sure these are consistent from country to country? In other words, we should avoid disqualifying a percentage of tracks around the world if one of those numbers is a bit too restrictive.
Back in my Track days (unicycle; I never did "foot" Track), basically all of the tracks I practiced on were on hard pavement. Rubberized tracks were generally forbidden for any type of tire. First time I got to ride on one was at the 1981 USA Nationals. This was a 200m indoor track; the University of Michigan's indoor field house. It had a harder, more "tire resistant" textured rubberized surface. We also did the "Obstacle Course" in there, and Floyd Crandall set the all time record for that older version of the course (18.95 sec. I think), which was what everyone used until 1989 when we redesigned it to make it smaller.
My point above is that Athletics tracks may still come in a variety of surfaces, though I haven't seen any hard pavement ones at colleges or other major tracks in a very long time.
Comment
> Is this taken from some existing Athletics track text?
Yes, these are the requirements of the WA for athletics facilities - therefore also the sentence 2 that every competition facility approved for athletics competitions is also suitable for unicycling competitions.
The thing is that for records and the comparability of results, we obviously need conditions that are as uniform as possible. If we don't include these conditions in the rulebook the consequence is that they would be integrated into the Wolrd Record Gudilines and therefore would be much less visible for possible organizers, which in my opinion is not desirable. For world records they would still have to be fulfilled, only that this may not be clear to the organizers.
> In other words, we should avoid disqualifying a percentage of tracks around the world if one of those numbers is a bit too restrictive.
I agree with you that we must always keep in mind when creating the rules that these rules also allow smaller competitions and competitions all over the world. Nevertheless, we must of course also ensure that there is comparability, especially for records - the question quickly arises: Where do you stop specifying and what tolerances do you allow? If we take the values from athletics, this has the advantage for us that every stadium approved for athletics also meets our conditions.
At the same time, paragraph 1 still offers the organizer the possibility to host competitions in venues that do not meet the requirements, provided that this is announced in advance. By not offering the disciplines as official IUF disciplines, it is at the same time transparent that e.g. no records can be achieved here and results may not be comparable with those of other competitions.
> My point above is that Athletics tracks may still come in a variety of surfaces
Of course, we can't rule that out, but I think any surface approved for athletics competitions will be comparable. Because even in athletics, the hardness of the surface has an influence.
Precisely because the surface has an influence, we cannot, especially with regard to records, have no rule at all, but must make some specification as to what kind of surface it must be.
Comment
An alternate approach could be to specify what kinds of surface a track could not be, but that would probably be a complicated mess. And I've ridden on such surfaces in the past; better to aim high and then deal with issues if a host cannot find a suitable Athletics venue.
For paragraph 1, rather than saying certain disciplines cannot be held, perhaps it would be more flexible to have to announce this, and let people know that it will not be possible to set official records that that venue.
Also in paragraph 1, it should be allowed to do the IUF Slalom indoors if the surface is suitable. We have done that in the past. In fact, the best Slalom riding surface I ever experienced was in a gym. This was at the 1992(?) USA Nationals, in Minnesota. I would have to dig to find what the college or facility was, but the floor was rubberized yet smooth (no texture) and very grippy while allowing tight turns without a lot of friction. I think humidity also helped make this the primo riding surface for Slalom. I recorded my best time ever in there, in the low 19s, but it was not in competition and nobody wrote it down. :-(
The rest of that proposal looks good. We have raced on 200m indoor tracks before, but they (obviously) suck for anything over 100m. I remember turning my saddle a little bit to the left; this helped with the body contortion needed to hold the turns. The Unicon I track was indoors; I think the only time that was done for Unicon. Also I don't think I've been to a uni event since then using an indoor track for longer races. I do remember going to a juggling convention somewhere, at a venue with a 400m indoor track. That was a nice facility!
Comment
> An alternate approach could be to specify what kinds of surface a track could not be
But as you say, this is probably very very difficult. Who can meaningfully list everything that is not permissible? You're bound to forget something that you simply haven't thought of. I think the way the rule does it is the much easier way.
> For paragraph 1, rather than saying certain disciplines cannot be held
But paragraph 1 does not say that these disciplines cannot be held - it only says that they cannot be held as 100m according to the IUF rulebook. The organizer can still call it "100m on asphalt" or something like that and everything is fine. However, this obviously creates a transparency that the results are not directly comparable with those of the 100m according to IUF - which is also true.
> Also in paragraph 1, it should be allowed to do the IUF Slalom indoors if the surface is suitable.
Die einzige Aussage, die Absatz 1 über den IUF Slalom macht ist, dass der Untergund den Anforderungen von Absatz 2.1 genügen muss. Es gibt also nichts, was dagegen spricht ihn indoor auszutragen.
> The Unicon I track was indoors; I think the only time that was done for Unicon.
Standard indoor athletics facilities are always 200m tracks, so that the times of 100m races (or longer races) are not comparable with those of 400m tracks due to the different track geometry. Therefore the restriction in the rule that only 50m one foot and wheel walk races may be held indoors.
I haven't seen a 400m indoor track yet and it wouldn't be an indoor track in the sense of athletics - I don't know how athletics deals with such cases (I didn't even know it existed until now).
Comment
I welcome this proposal/discussion.
WA (the former IAAF), in their "Track and Field Facilities Manual" has 23 pages of very detailed requirements for surface texture, hardness, etc. As long as a track is approved by WA, this aspect is automatically taken care of.
>Die einzige Aussage, die Absatz 1 über den IUF Slalom macht ist, dass der Untergund den Anforderungen von Absatz 2.1 genügen muss. Es gibt also nichts, was dagegen spricht ihn indoor auszutragen.
Ehhmmm...
Comment
>Die einzige Aussage, die Absatz 1 über den IUF Slalom macht ist, dass der Untergund den Anforderungen von Absatz 2.1 genügen muss. Es gibt also nichts, was dagegen spricht ihn indoor auszutragen.
I'm sorry now in English: The only statement that paragraph 1 makes about the IUF Slalom is that the ground must meet the requirements of paragraph 2.1. So there is nothing to prevent it from being held indoors.
Comment
Since August 15th is, as far as I know, the last day to submit official proposals, I would create an appropriate proposal for this topic later. I would guess that there is not that much need for further discussion here? If there is still a need for further discussion, please speak up - there are still two weeks left for revisions.
Comment
> an athletics standard competition track
It would sound better to me with "standard" in front, i.e. "a standard athletics competition track".
> Every track and field competition venue approved for athletics is approved for official unicycle competitions.
Approved for athletics by whom? I think we need to define this. E.g. national athletics organisation or higher.
> The length of a standard competition track shall be 400m.
Maybe we need to change to "The nominal length of...". WA prescribed that the track may be no less than 400 m, and no more than, I believe, 400.04 m. We don't need to include this detail, as it is automatically covered when the track is officially approved, but we can't say it shall be 400 m.
> It shall consist of two parallel straights and two bends whose radii shall be equal.
Isn't this required anyway by WA, and thus automatically covered when the track is officially approved? Then we can omit this sentence. There are a couple more requirements that we might omit from our rulebook.
> The track shall be marked in meters
What does this mean? Surely not that every meter has a tick mark and a number?
Comment
> It would sound better to me with "standard" in front, i.e. "a standard athletics competition track".
I'm fine with that.
> Approved for athletics by whom?
Good point - I don't even know if there are other approval levels in athletics than that of WA. But even if there are only the WA ones, "national athletics organization or higher" would cover it.
> Maybe we need to change to "The nominal length of...". WA prescribed that the track may be no less than 400 m, and no more than, I believe, 400.04 m.
Another good point, you are absolutely right that the WA requires a length between 400.00m and 400.04m. I think we should even include these measurements in the rules, as they are the most crucial measurements when a unicycling event takes place on a non-WA approved facility and the individual conditions are checked separately (Which would be possible and in compliance with our rules).
> Isn't this required anyway by WA, and thus automatically covered when the track is officially approved?
Yes, of course, all paragraphs 2.1 to 2.5 are automatically fulfilled if the facility is WA approved. However, the rule was intended in such a way that, theoretically, non-WA approved facilities that fulfill these paragraphs can also be used for unicycling events - even if the case probably never arises that all these things are checked particularly for a unicycling event. However, I would not want to exclude this in principle.
> > The track shall be marked in meters
What does this mean? Surely not that every meter has a tick mark and a number?
To be honest: I don't know - this is a sentence I took from the current IUF rulebook. I don't know with what intention it was put there.
Comment
> Good point - I don't even know if there are other approval levels in athletics than that of WA. But even if there are only the WA ones, "national athletics organization or higher" would cover it.
The Bachelard athletics track used in Unicon 20 was approved by Fédération Française Athlétisme, according to the rules set out by WA. The World Record committee received this information, and proof for it, from the Unicon organisation, in order to verity the world records in track racing set in Unicon 20. So yes, there is at least one other approval level, and indeed it is covered by the suggested wording.
> a length between 400.00m and 400.04m. I think we should even include these measurements in the rules
OK
> the rule was intended in such a way that, theoretically, non-WA approved facilities that fulfill these paragraphs can also be used for unicycling events
OK
Maybe the marking in meters refers to some lines in relation to the finish line, such as the 100 m start line, 400 m start lines, take-over zones etc. But I would think that a track that is 400.02 +- 0.02 meters long is a metric track, and hence these lines will also be metric (such as 100 meters, and not e.g. 110 yards). Anyways, as per the rulebook, we require certain start lines and takeover zones which we have expressed in meters. It doesn't matter if the track is marked like that beforehand or not.
If no one in the committee comes up with an explanation why we would need this addition, maybe we could delete it?
Comment
I have revised the proposal and included all your comments. Since I couldn't think of a reason why "The track shall be marked in meters" should be included in the rules, I deleted this part of paragraph 3.
If there are still comments, we can revise the proposal again.
Comment
Great.
Comment
Definitely lose the "should be marked in meters" passage; that probably dates back to the early days of IUF competition, and even then, I don't know if we (USA conventions from 1980/early IUF) were ever on a track that was still using yards. My first NUM was at a high school in Kokomo, Indiana, and we used the driveways around the building for the "track". The USA was still racing in yards until 1984 I think. After Unicon I, the USA switched to meters in their rulebook, though it's unclear to me if the tracks we raced before that were actually meters or yards. The Obstacle Course (now Slalom) was set up in yards. :-)
Comment
Thank you for the historical context - but then the proposal fits, where the sentence is now removed.
Comment
Since there were no further comments or suggestions for improvement, I assume that all committee members agree with the proposal.
I will open the voting and hope that all voting members of the committee will also participate in the voting.