add 100km to section 4D.15.1 Distance Measurement for Traditional distances (Closed for comments)
Comments about this discussion:
Started
As 100km is approved as a road racing world record distance, it is essential that we add it to section 4D.15.1 Distance Measurement for Traditional distances. Currently it is listed in section 4D.15.2 as a non-traditional race distance where the course must be measured with an accuracy of plus or minus 3%. This is not enough accurate.
I therefore suggest that we change section 4D.15.1 Distance Measurement for Traditional distance:
In the case wheer a traditional race distance is used (such as 10k, marathon - 42.195k, or 100k), the course mus be accurately measured along the shortest possible path. The course must be guaranteed to be no shirter than the advertised distance.
Comment
Just to clarify, would you keep the text that follows this with the steps 1-9? Or get rid of them?
Comment
I'd keep it. But I'm open to any suggestions for change.
For me it can also be shorter but then I guess it would be unclear in some points.
Comment
This discussion is only about adding 100km to the list of (possible) traditional road race distances. I support that, but strictly speaking it isn't even necessary because the list is preceded by "such as", which makes it a non-exhaustive list anyway.
I think Patricia's question about steps 1-9 would better be discussed in discussion #57.
Comment
I agree about the possible list of traditional races, however I still prefer to mention it in order to avoid misunderstandings.
Comment
I understand that having 100k among "traditional" races means that organizers have the choice of organizing it or not. And if they do, it must be accurately measured as described in the WR guidelines so that it can count as a WR race.
Then it's ok for me.
Comment
Martin, that is correct. Having 100k in the list of traditional race distances does not mean that an organiser is required to offer a 100k race. But IF they offer a 100k race, it must be accurately 100k while at the same time certainly not shorter than 100k.
Comment
It is not always possible to get the distances to be accurate to a level for records, personally I think it should not prevent an event from taking place... but should exclude it from be acceptable for WR status. There have been several running events that state this on the entry forms.
Slightly off topic... I have just been reading the IAAF regulations on measurement of courses, they have updated theirs and this is something we should possibly bring ourselves in line with. This accuracy of measurement should be possible relatively cheaply using auto celebrating sensors for GPS to the give 0.1% they suggest.
Comment
Auto celebrating sensors :-)
No but seriously, your off-topic comment is interesting, I'll have to read up on this.
Comment
I spot two typing errors in the proposal. Or rather, copying errors.
On the line breaks in the original Rulebook text, a space is missing. That is before "the course must be accurately" and before "must be guaranteed".
Here is a link to the proposal: https://iuf-rulebook-2018.committees.unicycling-software.com/proposals/22
Comment
I tried to fix them but it seems I cannot change anything.. (or I'm just too stupid to find out how...)
Comment
You changed it in the old rule but not in the new rule. The errors were in both.
Comment
oups.. seems to be a (too) long day. off to bed now..
thanks Klaas.
Comment
I made my points during the world record committee discussion- the 100km was approved as a world record distance because there was a vague and contradictory reference to it in the rulebook, but now we are wanting to make it official in the rulebook to justify the world record distance? Seems like reverse logic.
I am against having three 'traditional' distances in the rulebook:
- The organiser ends up organising the same thing three times.
- it is a lot of work for the organiser to have to measure three courses to world record standard.
- the only reason to have a specific 'standardised' distance is to allow races between different events to be comparable. The only way for them to be comparable would be to have completely flat courses.
I think it is fine to have one or two standardised distances (10km and Marathon). However, if we introduce a third road race to an event, it should be simply be called a 'road race'. There is no need to try to fit it to exactly 100km. After all, there may be interesting course available that is, say 87km long. Or the organiser may want to have a hilly course. Or the race is point A-B with a large elevation difference in the start/finish area.
As a rider, I would be disappointed to race three flat races measured to exact distances. We are cyclists, not runners. Imagine if every bicycle race was flat and measured to an exact distance. No one would watch the grand tours.
Comment
I think in the perception of our "customers" (riders, spectators), long-distance unicycle races are different from long-distance bicycle races. In the Tour de France, for instance, it would be unusual to have a stage run in several loops.
I also think the main reason why the WR Committee decided to have a 100km World Record is not that it is "vaguely" referenced in the Rulebook, but that riders find it an attractive record to hold.
That being so, there is no requirement at all for a host to set up a 100km race. And if they do, it doesn't need to be flat. Also, they could refrain from a 100km race and organise a Tour-de-France-like 87 km race instead, if they wanted.
Comment
If you look at the road bicycling world championships or world cup events, it often is a multi-lap race. I'm not sure what your point is- do you mean that a point A-B race in bicycling is not something unicyclists would be interested in?
Quote:
"I think in the perception of our "customers" (riders, spectators), long-distance unicycle races are different from long-distance bicycle races."
I'm not sure you can make a sweeping generalisation like this. It is not my perception as a unicycle rider, and as both a runner and bicyclist. Unicycling is closer to bicycling, and it would be more fun if we ran it like one, but we organise it more like running races.
Regarding the 100km, I have made a separate discussion about fixed distance and non-fixed distance events, so that organisers have guidance on what should be offered at Unicon.
Comment
Personally, I prefer long-distance races to be in laps, it makes the logistics easier (for me as a rider, and quite possibly also for the organiser). For a leasure ride or a tour, I prefer a single lap or an A to B course.
Your view of long-distance unicycle racing is interesting and perfectly valid, as well as understandable from your "other career" as a bicyclist. But it seems to me that most unicyclists think differently about it (trying to avoid a sweeping statement here).
Comment
Whether we race in laps isn't the issue here- as I mentioned, the bicycle road race world champs and olympic courses are usually multi-lap races. It is easier from a logistical perspective and better for spectators.
quote:
"it seems to me that most unicyclists think differently about it (trying to avoid a sweeping statement here)."
But you just did :-)
I'd be interested in more committee member's perspectives, at risk of making my own generalisations.
Comment
I just did? Really I included the qualifications "it seems to me", and "most". A statement like "But unicyclists think differently about it" would be a lot more sweeping.
Agreed that we need more members to chime in.
Comment
Can we sidestep the issue a bit a have the rulebook state:
"Fixed-distance races are recommended to be distances that are recognized by the IUF WR guidelines. At the time of publication, these are: 10k, 42...k, and 100k."
Comment
I agree with Ken that a you have a "long" distance it can be with hills and it would be worth training for and competing in. This I would like to see in future UNICON's as it is considerably easier to organise than an exact 100km event. The fastest person on the day, will be the fastest person on the day... ie world champion. I do not think we should be too hung up with 100km exact distance.
Although... a 100km world record event which needs to be accurately measured and have the start and finish at similar elevation etc. It is a distance and event that is important the community and should not be discarded. It gives the community bragging rights and hence publicity against other sports, if nothing else. It may also be the same as the "long" event, but may not be.
Sorry, this is probably not that helpful. I am in the middle on this one, even though it is my distance.
Comment
Quote:
"Fixed-distance races are recommended to be distances that are recognized by the IUF WR guidelines. At the time of publication, these are: 10k, 42...k, and 100k."
1. I'd like to drop "recommended to be". This leaves the door open for a host to organise a race of 25 km (example) and call it "fixed distance".
2. 100k has been agreed upon by the current World Record Committee, but it's not yet in the official WR Guidelines. Not sure if it will be at the time of publication of the Rulebook - I'd guess not.
Comment
Can we let the hosts decide? It would seem to be not too hard to organize a "fixed" 10k race on local roads. But as the distance gets longer, it gets more complex to be able to create a "fixed" course that meets all the WR requirements. Of the few Unicon/NAUCC Marathon races I have participated in, Only one or two were flat enough to have qualified under the WR guidelines.
Not only is racing on a flat course harder (possibly impossible) for a host to arrange, they may be less interesting to race. I like the "non-fixed" approach, where the course is a one-off and, if we're lucky, showcases some of the local area's terrain and scenery.
How about a goal of making the 10k of WR quality, but the other events being optionally non-fixed?
Comment
Quote: "Of the few Unicon/NAUCC Marathon races I have participated in, Only one or two were flat enough to have qualified under the WR guidelines."
I doubt this. The issue is not being flat or not, it's only about elevation difference between start and finish. E.g. the New Zealand marathon in 2010 (actually 2011) was fine even with the steep hill in the middle, because start and finish had no elevation difference at all.
Quote: "How about a goal of making the 10k of WR quality, but the other events being optionally non-fixed?"
I don't like singling out one of the fixed distances. We run the 'risk' that 42.195k and 100k get less frequently organised.
Comment
Klaas, I think John's point is that even if you certify a hilly course to world record standard, it is going to be a 'slow' course. Therefore it is meaningless as you cannot set a world record on it; or if someone did, it would easily be broken by the same rider on a flat course.
It is a lot of effort to certify a course that will not result in a world record, or result in a record that is obsolete almost as quickly as it is set.
Regarding the 10km- logistically it is the easiest, and it is by far the most popular in terms of unicyclist participation. However, in terms of the general (non-unicycling) public, the 42.2km marathon is the most iconic and well known running event. Everyone knows what a 'marathon' is, and as a unicyclist, you get instant recognition and kudos for being the 'marathon racing world champion', or having competed in the 'unicycle marathon'.
Comment
Forgot to say, I am in between Klaas and John on this one. I think 10km is the most important event for unicyclists as a whole (due to participation rates), but would be reluctant to see it 'singled out' over the other recognised fixed distance events.
Comment
Under the new rules that we seem to get agreement on, the NZ marathon of 2011 would not have had to be certified. That is, I think it was more than 3% longer than 42.195 km. And I agree that with the hill in the middle (not to mention the wind), no records could be broken anyway. But a course that is (slightly) hilly may still yield a record if the other conditions (weather, riding surface, etc) are favourable.
Comment
Not a lot to say because I agree with all your last posts, including that a race having a traditional distance but no chance of beating a record is not worth measuring precisely (which is also what I just posted in "Fixed distance and non-fixed distance road races" committee ^^).
Quick note on 10k & 42k popularities: I think 10k has the most riders only because it is the more accessible but I'm not sure it is the most popular among road riders. 42k is pretty iconic in running because it is an intense effort of several hours ... which is pretty equivalent physically to 100k in unicycle.
Comment
I'm not in favor of requiring Unicon hosts to make any of their Road courses meet WR guidelines, and that this should be optional.
I fear we have grown Unicon to the point where it's extremely hard to arrange a viable convention location, and wonder if it can even ever be held in the United States again (this mostly being a question of money for facilities, insurance, etc.).
Comment
If not even Unicon offers a course where world records can be beaten, why do we have the world records then? I agree that it is hard to find suitable courses but still, riders go for records and if they never get the possibility to beat it, it’s worthless having the world records list.
Comment
I must say, I'm a little bit lost in what is actually getting discussed in this thread. I think everyone's comments are good but perhaps we are digressing a bit, or a new discussion topic may need to be started. Once I know what I should respond to, I'll try to add some thoughfut comments.
Comment
I agree that we digress. The topic of this discussion is defined in the first post. It's adding 100k to the short list of examples of fixed distances in 4D.15.1.
I am in favour of this.
Doing so would have the ONLY consequence that IF a 100k race is organised, it must be accurately measured, and guaranteed to not be shorter than 100k.
The consequence is thus NOT that a 100k race must be organised.
The consequence is also NOT that a free-distance race cannot be organised (nor that it must be organised).
Comment
I guess as the proposal of adding 100k to the rulebook passed, I will close this discussion now.