Using a 20 Class unicycle in 24 Class race
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
This refers to 2B.2 and 2B.5, and also 3B.2 and 3B.5.
I would think that someone who competes in a 24 Class race (think of an 11-year-old in the 100 meter race) would be allowed to use a 20 Class unicycle. Strictly, our rules do not permit that. If you must use a 24 Class unicycle, the crank may not be shorter than 125 mm. So 100 mm is not allowed, even if the wheel is within 518 mm.
While this will not apply to serious competitors, I prefer to state that if a certain Class of unicycle is required, a unicycle conforming to a smaller class is also acceptable.
Comment
I support this.
Comment
It's a little messy. I'd rather put forth that you may use a smaller (class or just "smaller") wheel, but the crank rule still applies. Everyone should understand that the wheel sizes are maximums, and the crank sizes are minimums. You can always go smaller on the wheel, and longer on the cranks, but we shouldn't "mix the classes" like that. Anything else gets a little sketchy, and you're going to have people complaining. Especially if it's an event like Slalom, where the wheel size is less of an advantage.
Comment
@John: Remarkably, many years ago I asked you (via private e-mail) about the interpretation of the wheel size rules, when I was setting up rules for our Dutch Nationals. You agreed that the rule was not clear, but you were in favour of the interpretation I just proposed.
I still stand by it. I understand what you mean by mixing classes, but I don't see it that way. Of course, the unicycle in question has to fulfill all the requirements for the smaller class to be allowed.
Comment
Huh. I believe you, I just am trying to figure out if I have evolved, or devolved.
I don't know. I just know I'm not getting any younger...
The only potential issue I can think of for allowing 20 Class unicycles in 24 Class events is Slalom, where there may be a competitive advantage, or at least parity. I remember one guy in Spain, in the Slalom Finals, who cruised that course beautifully on a 20". How much better might that be with 25mm shorter cranks? There is the potential for many riders to switch to 20" for the Slalom, but I guess the following question is "do we care?" It just seems like a potentially slippery slope.
Comment
The records in Slalom are recent, and with riders who are still active. So laxer rules threatening old records that had to conform to stricter rules is not very much of an issue.
I think (but Mirjam may correct me) that a 24 Class unicycle is better for Slalom than a 20 Class unicycle. If that is correct, it's not an issue to allow what I suggest.
Comment
I also think that a 24 Class unicycle is better for Slalom than a 20 Class.
There should also be a note that any crank length is allowed for the wheel walk race since riders do not use the crank arms. Many 20 inch freestyles have 89 or 75mm cranks, and some riders prefer to use this unicycle for the wheel walk race.
Comment
I was the fastest slalom-er from before Unicon I up to Unicon 11, when Marc Hafliger took the record. The course design was changed in 1989 (same basic course but reshaped into a smaller footprint). I remember testing it on both 24" and 20". I could do similar times on both, but I still preferred 24". The older course favored 24" a little more, because it had longer runs at the beginning.
I am not opposed to allowing 20 Class unicycles in 24 Class events.
Comment
Currently there is still one guy doing the slalom with 20''. It is not an advantage but I assume also not a disadvantage.
I am in favour of allowing 20'' in 24'' classes. About the crank size I think that we should keep to the general rule 2.B.2 where it is written that 20'' may use shorter cranks than 24''. I would not say that if a rider does the slalom on a 20'' with 100mm cranks that he would be faster than one doing it on 24'' with 125mm cranks.
Comment
To be honest: I'm pretty sure that in germany we have always interpreted the rule as Klaas wrote it at the beginning: If a unicycle in question fulfills all the requirements for the smaller class to be allowed, then we have always allowed it in the higher class.
And so I'm pretty sure that in Germany a lot of people who used a 20 Class unicycles for the IUF slalom had 100mm cranks and not 125mm cranks.
I don't see any problem with that either. As long as a unicycle meets all criteria to be approved in a class defined by us and the class of unicycle is basically approved by us for the discipline, the unicycle should be usable.
But I also think that we might be able to improve the definition of the classes a bit by specifying for the outside diameter not only the maximum value, but a range. In the 24 class, for example, this would be an outer diameter greater than 518mm and a maximum of 618mm.
Comment
Quote: "But I also think that we might be able to improve the definition of the classes a bit by specifying for the outside diameter not only the maximum value, but a range. In the 24 class, for example, this would be an outer diameter greater than 518mm and a maximum of 618mm."
Why would we want this? Perhaps to prevent that a particular unicycle would fit in more than one category? If so, is there a problem with that?
Comment
That's the question. Should a 20 inch wheel with 125mm cranks ALSO be considered in the 24 Class? I think not. I like the range. And then we allow 20 Class in 24 Class competitions. That seems cleaner to me.
Comment
OK, that seems good.
Comment
I don't understand why we need to set a minimum wheel size. The basic rules for uni dimensions go waaay back; you can use any size wheel you want, as long as it's not bigger than 24" (things were simpler in those days). And your cranks can be as long as you want, but they can't be shorter than the length specified for your wheel size.
Comment
I would agree that this is not necessary. But I like Scott's approach to ensure that a unicycle fits only in ONE size class. It is cleaner.
And I don't see any negative consequences, do you?
(BTW Every unicycle fits in Unlimited Class, as it is. Soit.)
Comment
John is absolutely right that it would be easier if each class only had a maximum wheel size and a minimum crank length. The problem I see is that a unicycle of the 20 class (and every smaller one) in terms of tire diameter belongs also to the 24 class, but strictly speaking should not be ridden in 24 class races because the cranks would be too short. I think that's very illogical. What is the reason for prohibiting unicycles used by riders in the U11 age group in higher age groups? I think in the past many have interpreted the rules in such a way that even in the higher age groups it is allowed to ride unicycles that comply with the 20 class and I think there is no reason to prohibit this. So if we officially say that it's okay to start with unicycles of the 20 class in competitions for which the 24 class is allowed, then we should resolve the confusion with the crank length. And I think it would be easiest if the unicycle classes were designed so that each unicycle only belongs to one class (and the Unlimited class).
Comment
I have seen that in the new rule two sentences contain "standard unicycle":
"Only standard unicycles may be used." & "In all track racing events on standard unicycles, shoes must not be fixed to the pedals in any way (no click-in pedals, toe clips, tape, magnets or similar)."
I think if the proposal is accepted in the Main Committee regarding the definitions in 1D.1, we should use the new term at this point.
Comment
It would have to be conditional (depending on agreement about the definitions proposal) in this proposal then, which adds complication that is not needed.
I don't know in what sequence the proposals will pass, or even if they will pass at all.
If the proposal about the definitions in 1D.1 will indeed pass, the consequence is that all relevant occurrences of "standard" will have to be changed, including the ones in other (to be) passed proposals. I'm sure Scott will take care of that.
Comment
I will. It should definitely be noted in the other proposal that all relevant instances of standard should be updated.
Comment
Proposal looks good. I still don't see a need for those minimum wheel sizes, except for Road races that set a lower limit on wheel size. But since we do need it there, this might be the most logical place to put it. It makes sense.
Comment
@Scott: I have added such a note to proposal 85.
@John: Several committee members including myself do see the need (or at least the desirability) of minimum wheel sizes. This discussion and the associated proposal is actually for Track, but a similar proposal exists for Road (proposal 79).
Comment
I noticed that the example given in the old rule, which until now was retained in the new rule, wasn't very clear. I hope it is clearer now that I changed the example in 2B.5 for the youngest age group on 24 Class wheels from
(e.g. 0-13 or 14-16)
to
(e.g. 0-8 on 20 Class, 9-10 on 20 Class, 0-13 on 24 Class)