Add Criterium to rulebook
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
The Criterium is a multi-lap road race that has been offered at NAUCC since 2009. First time it was a unicycling event was at "Ride the Lobster" in 2008 in Canada.
I’d like the event to be added to the rulebook.
OLD: nothing
NEW:
4B.5.1 Criterium
A Criterium race is a short road race with distances of 5k to 10k with many left and right turns and multiple laps around a technical course.
4D.1.1 Criterium
Criterium can be held around city block(s) or within a large parking lot. The lap length should be between .5k and 1k. Total number of laps should be more than three, with a maximum of 10. The starts are a mass start (4D.9.3). Each rider is responsible for counting their laps; organizers are not responsible for disqualified riders who do not complete the required number of laps. If a rider falls due to other riders falling ahead or nearby, this is generally considered part of the race. Intentional interference with other riders is not permitted and may result in disqualification by the Referee.
Comment
I am in favor of adding this to the rulebook. I suggest an edit to the first rule.
A Criterium race is a short road race with distances of 5k to 10k. Courses must have many left and right turns and multiple laps to make it a technical course.
I think this makes it more clear that the turns and laps are the reason that the course is technical. When I first read the rule I thought it implied that there should be other things that make it technical such as cobblestones.
Comment
Maybe the word "technical" is not correct. I want readers of the rulebook to understand that this is an exciting race because of the turns where riders need to decelerate and accelerate.
I am not sure the word "must" in the second sentence is good. What if the best course that hosts find is only a city block. Then the course has only right (or left) turns the whole way? Or should we force organizers to find a course with turns in both directions?
Comment
To clarify: I feel that to be fair to riders, courses should have equal mix of both left and right turns. However this is very often unrealistic.
Comment
If a course has multiple laps and does not cross itself when seen from above, then inevitably adding up all left and right turns (where a 90 degree left turn is cancelled out by a 90 degree right turn), eventually a total of 360 degrees worth of turning remains per lap. So indeed it is kind of impossible to expect equal amounts of left and right turning. But to me that's not a problem.
Comment
If I remember correctly, the RTL Crit was a rectangle. But I agree with the general idea of preferring not all turns be in the same direction, and emphasizing that this event is also good for spectators, and that quality should be a factor in course design.
I would remove "technical" from descriptions as I think a lot of us associate it with challenging terrain. However, we could add that because some Crit courses will be in urban areas, the pavement may include cracks, potholes railroad tracks and other things to look out for. Along with that, I'd add a recommendation to mark any nasty spots, like large cracks or holes, with cones or similar to make sure riders are aware of them.
Can a Criterium course contain any dirt or gravel? While I would hate to have a turn that's on dirt, if there's a section of unpaved area needed to connect things to make a good course, I would be okay with that.
As for what's "required" or a "must", we have to allow enough flexibility to have good, interesting courses. I'd rather give up a little bit for a downtown course with thousands of spectators over a remote parking lot with nobody there but us. Part of Unicon *should* be to introduce our sport to the general population.
Comment
I love this suggestion to add crit in to the rulebook.
I race quite a few crits now (mostly for other cycling disciplines, but not all) and I can only think of one race that has right and left turns. I strongly do not think this restriction should be added. It is added restriction for the organisers that is not necessary. I am definitely sided in my riding, but when racing on a crit I did not feel disadvantaged at any time - Horwich is not my favourite direction.
A crit is technical by it's nature, road position and using the slope of the roads is a real skill (I have seen, but don't have!). They are fast and furious, too many turns in quick succession (to make them technical?) can break the flow of races and would turn it in to more like a CX race. There is also lots of tactics in these races that make them great spectacle, they are fantastic spectator event.
In all the crits I have raced, the counting of the laps has been the responsibility of the organisers. Although in one case it was backed up by mandatory computer. More than often each race is timed by chip and they do know how many laps you have done. I totally understand why it has been put in that it is the responsibility of the rider to count... as someone who can not count laps when he is racing, I am not happy with this suggestion.
Things to consider:
Number of riders, they are normally restricted to make the races safe. Most events have heats and final.
Removing of competitors when lapped "x" number of times
Safety equipment
Time/distance. Most of the crits that I do are "X" time + "y" Laps. This makes them more tactical, have a more definitive end, more interesting to watch and it also helps with the counting thing as it means you only have to count "Y" laps after the bell!
Comment
I like the idea to add this to the rulebook.
in my opinion lap counting should not be done by riders.
number of riders: I guess it depends on the length of the course
removing competitors when overlapped: yes, why not? (Also depends on the course length I think)
safety equipment: kneepads, gloves, helmets?
Comment
On lap counting: While the officials must keep the official count of laps for each rider, it can be the rider's responsibility to know when they are finished. No penalty for riding an extra lap (since your timing already stopped), but stopping before you're finished would be bad.
On safety equipment, add shoes. For best results, safety gear requirements should be the same for all Road Racing events.
Comment
I agree that the riders (or their coaches) are responsible for knowing how many laps they have done, and so whether they have to continue or are done. The officials and their timing system of course "know" this as well, but it may only become clear after processing the data, and therefore not known yet in real time. Moreover, even if it were known, how do you communicate this if a bunch of riders crosses the line mid-race but may be at various lap counts?
Comment
It is normally done with a lap board that tracks the leading rider. As a rider you know when you have been lapped by the lead group, you are their lap -1 etc. Once the bell goes it is X number of laps to go until the race is completed.
Comment
I understand that the Horwich in the UK race is different from what I'm proposing.
The proposal here is for all riders to complete the same distance. No final. Riders are positioned in heats using 4D.8 "Starting Order".
Safety:4B.1 applies as this is a road race.
This is not up for discussion, except possibly to ADD to the minimum requirements for any road race.
Lap Counting: Of course the officials record laps and times. However, if the data is being recorded by chip or by hand, the results are not instant for all riders. At NAUCC, before the race is started, the officials recommend that ALL riders have someone on the side to help count laps.
Comment
In a criterium not everyone finishes having done the same number of laps. It is a race and the winner is the first person to go past the finishing post and then everyone finishes that lap. The time you are given is then "x" seconds for the winner and if you are lapped it is marked on the results. As I have pointed out there are logistical and entertainment reasons why they are organised this way.
Ok on qualification, that is as normal for our races. Although it may be better organising these as you have described with a set distance, so it is actually a group time trial so you get a time for everyone at the same distance.
Horwich is certainly a criterium. It is an urban closed road loop of about 1km; they have made it a fixed 10 lap. The only difference between Horwich and what you have suggested is that riders finish on the same lap as the winner. i.e. not just trundle around until they have completed the 10 laps.
Comment
As Roger has pointed out, the bicycle criteriums races that I have seen are not run to a fixed distance - the event duration is fixed and the number of laps is determined by the speed of the fastest rider. Is this something we want to consider for the crit? We already do this for cyclocross...
Also, unlike the bicycle crit races, when we have held unicycle crits at NAUCC we have not pulled riders for being lapped, but that is because it was a fixed distance race. However, if the consensus is that the race is run to a time limit, all riders should finish on the same lap as the leader - this would be identical to cyclocross and we could then borrow or modify the existing verbiage from the 6D.6 Race Configuration of the cyclocross section of the current rulebook as below:
It is advised that Cyclocross Criterium be run as two separate races, (Unlimited and Standard) as the nature of a multi-lap event on a short course will lead to passing and lapping.
It is suggested that the Unlimited race be close to 45 XX minutes in length and the Standard race be close to 30 XX minutes in length. Using the time from the top rider’s first two laps, the referee will determine how many laps could be completed in the desired time limit (e.g. 45 XX minutes). From this point on, the number of remaining laps (for the leaders) will be displayed and this will be used to determine when finish of the race occurs. A bell will be rung with one lap to go. Lapped riders in the race will all finish on the same lap as the leader and will be placed according to the number of laps they are down and then their position at the finish.
The benefits of running to time (rather than distance) as I see them are that this format accommodates a wide variety of rider speeds (everyone gets to race for about the same length of time regardless of ability) and the fixed duration makes scheduling easier.
Comment
Roger, what you’re describing sounds a lot more like how we run cyclocross.
How we’ve run criteriums at NAUCCs in the past, is that people competing in the same categories can be in different heats (i.e. a “fast” female heat and a “slow” female heat). If we were to run the heats the way you're suggesting, we could have competitors in the same category and age groups completing a different number of laps. Then how would we compare their results? And would it require the riders to compete in finals? If so, the way we currently collect data for this event, it would be nearly impossible to run it within a reasonable time. In my opinion, running a final is out of the question.
I believe Connie’s suggestion of a minimum of 3, maximum of 10 laps is reasonable and allows the organizers to compare riders across heats.
Comment
As there is such a variance in speeds, I agree that a fixed number of laps for heats is sensible. The heat distance could be announced before the start of the race and we would allow everyone to finish the full distance so everyone can get a time to qualify them for the final. The separation of riders in to "slow" and "fast" heats is probably a sensible safety measure and maybe a recommendation to organisers. So heats would be a group time trial.
Finals would be run as a Criterium and Mark's suggestion to use the cyclecross rules as a basis for this seams sensible.
Comment
I think it should be clear that finals are optional, for all events.
Comment
What do you mean by "all events"?
Regardless, I think that for a criterium-type race, a final is typically not needed and probably even undesirable in most cases. We usually don't have a final in Cyclocross either.
Comment
I mean that a final should not be required for large events either (e.g. Unicon, ECU).
Comment
It is not a race, but a time trial if you do not have a final.
Comment
I don't get it. A marathon is another race without a final - but not a time trial.
Comment
It is not a time trial. Riders are racing against each other, and drafting, and getting in the way of each other just like any other race. They are not racing against the clock. It IS a fixed-distance race which differs from traditional bicycle criteriums. Personally as a racer, I'd love to use the bike format, but as an organizer I know it doesn't work for the majority unicycle races. I've organized multiple of these events.
Comment
I do think it is a "group time trial", as each group is working as group and you will get faster and slower groups just by the dynamic of that group and it is a time to do a fixed distance. I do understand the reason to wanting to run the event as a fixed distance race as this allows you to get a consistent timing for every rider, this helps with age groups. I do feel that it looses some of what makes criteriums special among cycling races. I do not mind having a fixed distance race as an option for organisers, but please do not force them to run it this way by putting it in to the rules.
Comment
I think there needs to be a section that describes the two options for length of race (fixed laps or timed). I agree with Roger that we shouldn’t force a fixed distance but I think it should be clear that it’s an option. I can work up a draft later if no one else is keen.
Comment
I am open to adding additional text to this proposal but with the recommendation that the fixed-distance is recommended for larger events.
I'd like the text within the next 24 hours so the edit can be done.
Comment
Here's my proposed text:
4D.1.1 Criterium
Criterium can be held around city block(s) or within a large parking lot. The lap length should be between .5k and 1k. It is recommend that the course has many left and right turns, with consideration given to the safety and number of riders in the race. The race can be run as a fixed-distance race, or based upon time (see below). Different categories (e.g., Unlimited and Standard 24 Class) can have different race lengths.. The starts are a mass start (4D.9.3). If a rider falls due to other riders falling ahead or nearby, this is generally considered part of the race. Intentional interference with other riders is not permitted and may result in disqualification by the Referee.
4D.1.1.1 Fixed-distance Length
If the race is run as a fixed-distance event, the number of laps should be announced clearly to riders before the start of the race. Total number of laps should be more than three, with a maximum of 10. Each rider is responsible for counting their laps; organizers are not responsible for disqualified riders who do not complete the required number of laps.
4D.1.1.2 Time-based Length
The Criterium can also be run as a time-based event. Using the time from the top rider’s first two laps, the referee will determine how many laps could be completed in the desired time limit. From this point on, the number of remaining laps (for the leaders) will be displayed and this will be used to determine when finish of the race occurs. A bell will be rung with one lap to go. Lapped riders in the race will all finish on the same lap as the leader and will be placed according to the number of laps they are down and then their position at the finish.
Comment
Isn't 500 to 1000 meter too strict a range? I'd rather say that the recommended lap length is between 500 and 1000 m. This conveys the same idea but is not overly restricting.
(If you stick to expressing in km, please write 0.5 not .5).
Connie wanted a recommendation for fixed-distance for larger events. Whatever 'larger' is.
Comment
In 4D.1.1.1, change "should be no more than three" to "should be no less than three". Beyond that, Scott's proposal looks very good.
In response to Klaas on the 500 - 1000m distance, I point out the word "should" that comes before it. It could perhaps be worded to more clearly allow additional flexibility.
Comment
I agree that three laps is OK as a minimum.
One of the issues where my non-nativespeakerness shines through is in my understanding of the finer details in the delineation between should, may, shall, must, has to, etc.
If "should" basically works as a recommendation, that's OK with me.
But maybe we should (I think I'm recommending something here :-) ) realise that many users of the Rulebook are non-native English speakers, and phrase the rules as clearly and mono-interpretable as possible.
Comment
Updated draft:
4D.1.1 Criterium
Criterium can be held around city block(s) or within a large parking lot. The recommended lap length is 500 to 1000 meters. It is recommend that the course has many left and right turns, with consideration given to the safety and number of riders in the race. The race can be run as a fixed-distance race, or based upon time. A fixed-distance race is recommended for larger events. Different categories (e.g., Unlimited and Standard 24 Class) can have different race lengths.. The starts are a mass start (4D.9.3). If a rider falls due to other riders falling ahead or nearby, this is generally considered part of the race. Intentional interference with other riders is not permitted and may result in disqualification by the Referee.
4D.1.1.1 Fixed-distance Length
If the race is run as a fixed-distance event, the number of laps should be announced clearly to riders before the start of the race. There should be three to ten laps. Each rider is responsible for counting their laps; organizers are not responsible for disqualified riders who do not complete the required number of laps.
4D.1.1.2 Time-based Length
The Criterium can also be run as a time-based event. Using the time from the top rider’s first two laps, the referee will determine how many laps could be completed in the desired time limit. From this point on, the number of remaining laps (for the leaders) will be displayed and this will be used to determine when finish of the race occurs. A bell will be rung with one lap to go. Lapped riders in the race will all finish on the same lap as the leader and will be placed according to the number of laps they are down and then their position at the finish.
Comment
Scott, that is great. I am uncomfortable with "It is recommend that the course has many left and right turns". If you are un-familiar with criteriums this could create a large obstacle course of turns. Although without it it could become a race around the block. How about: "The course should be made irregular and with a mixture of right and left corners where possible. Course design should consider the safety and number of riders."
Comment
I suggest we don't use the term "fixed-distance". This term is now in use to refer to road races of "traditional" distances such as 10 km, 42.195 km or 100 km.
Perhaps for 4D.1.1.1, we can use something like "fixed number of laps" or "pre-determined number of laps"? Assuming the lap length is known, this works out to a fixed distance without calling it that.
Comment
I agree with Roger's suggestion on turns; for every turn you add that isn't in the "lap" direction, you have to add one more turn in the lap direction, so it shouldn't be too squiggly.
Comment
Thanks for changing fixed-distance.
Fixed-lap is better, but not perfect. I realise that we don't organise events by referring to the name only. But in "fixed-lap", fixed seems to refer to lap. But it doesn't intend to say that the lap (length? course?) is fixed, because I suppose that that is fixed anyway. What the name should express is that the number of laps is fixed, right? What about "fixed-number-of-laps" or "fixed-lap-number"?
Comment
Fixed distance does describe it well... How about "Pre-set distance" or just "set distance"?
Comment
I prefer 'set distance' to distinguish it from the 'fixed distance' road races of 10km/marathon/100km.
Comment
"Set distance" is fine with me.
Comment
I like "set distance".