Fixed distance and non-fixed distance road races
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
We are currently incentivised to provide only fixed distance events, which takes a lot of effort from organisers and does not provide riders with variety.
Fixed distance races are only worth organising if they can be comparable between different events (eg for personal bests). For that to be the case, they have to be flat and fast- there will be no hills, no cobblestones, minimal elevation change in the start/finish area etc. They are a lot of work in terms of measurement, and it limits the organiser's ability to place a start/finish area.
I think we need to give guidance to race organisers about what should be offered at Unicon or major regional championship event, which in my view should include at least one fixed distance race (eg 10km), and one non-fixed distance road race.
I propose that we do this in 4A.1 and 4D.15
Current
4A.1 Definition
Road races are longer distance races held on paved roads or paved bike paths. These rules specifically apply to 100k, Marathon, and 10k races, but may also be applied to other road races, such as a Time Trial or a Criterium
Proposed
4A.1 Definition
Road races are long distance races held on paved roads or paved bicycle paths. It includes both fixed distance and non-fixed distance races, and different formats such as mass start races, time-trials and criterium.
-------------------
Following on from this, we should add definitions under 4D.15:
Proposed:
4D.15
Fixed distance vs non-fixed distance races
The recognised fixed distance races are the 10km and 42.2km (+100km if proposal passes).
A non-fixed distance race can be any race distance longer than 10km.
It is expected that Unicon has at least one fixed distance event and one non-fixed distance event.
------------------
I would replace the word 'traditional' with 'fixed distance race' in 4D.15.1 and 4D.15.2. This stops additional distances being considered 'traditional' once it has been raced a couple of times.
I think it is reasonable to have at least two road races at unicon. One should be a fixed distance event, and one of these a non-fixed distance event. As a race director and a race participant, I was disappointed with having three fixed distance events to organise and race at Unicon 19. It seemed like we were repeating the same thing three times.
Comment
I am not against your idea to see if moving towards non-fixed distance racing is viable, in that it would be welcomed by the road racing community.
The last sentence of your 4D.15 sounds like at least one non-fixed distance event is required. I would not require this before we know that many riders want it. I think we would agree that currently only few (if any) riders would "expect" that a non-fixed distance race is offered at Unicon or a large regional event.
Comment
As a rider, I am very much in favor of moving towards non-fixed distances races but I am not in favor of the last sentence. I prefer:
It is expected that Unicon has at least two road events, of which at least one is a fixed distance event.
I think Ken's general move away from the word "traditional" is an excellent change.
Comment
I like that text better. But I would change "fixed distance event" into "recognised fixed distance event".
This refers back to Ken's proposed phrase "The recognised fixed distance races are (etc)". Otherwise, a race over 25 km could be called a fixed distance event, because hey, 25km is fixed and not flexible.
Comment
Agree, "recognized fixed distance event" is better.
Comment
So the current working draft is (changes from previous version italicized):
Proposed
4A.1 Definition
Road races are long distance races held on paved roads or paved bicycle paths. It includes both recognized fixed distance and non-fixed distance races, and different formats such as mass start races, time-trials and criterium.
-------------------
Proposed:
4D.15
Fixed distance vs non-fixed distance races
The recognized fixed distance races are the 10km and 42.195km (+100km if proposal passes).
A non-fixed distance race can be any race distance longer than 10km that is at least 3% different from a recognized distance.
It is expected that Unicon has at least two read events, of which at least one is a recognized fixed distance event.
I added the 3% difference because a 43k race feels unnecessary and confusing to me. Thoughts on this?
Additionally, the definition and formulation of what the recognized fixed distance events are may change based on a concurrent discussion about the 100k.
Comment
Agree with Scott's proposal.
Good idea about 3%, makes sense.
Comment
Suggestion for another slight change in words: under 4A.1 change
"It includes"
into either
"This definition includes"
or
"It may include".
This change is to prevent the interpretation that a convention must include all of those types.
Fully agree with the 3% idea, but I'm not sure if 3% is enough. Is a non-fixed distance race of 10.3 km OK?
Maybe it should be different by at least 3% PLUS 1 km?
Comment
1km or 3% whichever is greater?
Comment
OK.
Comment
Thanks Scott and Klaas for you input.
Yes, I think there needs to be a degree of difference to mark it out from a fixed distance event, and I think the greater of 1km or 3% works for me.
I am not sure this sentence is strong enough to convey the idea intended:
"It is expected that Unicon has at least two read events, of which at least one is a recognized fixed distance event."
With this wording, if Unicon held three road races, they could all be fixed distance events, 10km, 42.2km and 100km (if current proposal passes), which is what we started with.
If you think the word 'expected' is too strong, I would change it to 'recommended', but it still risks more of the same. How can we know if it will be 'welcomed by the road racing community' if they are not given such a race format?
I think it is not unreasonable that we have a non-fixed distance event if we are running three road races. I am trying to avoid duplicity or triplicity here. It frees the host to find an interesting race course with fewer constraints.
Comment
I like Scott's proposed sentence
"It is expected that Unicon has at least two read events, of which at least one is a recognized fixed distance event."
Except that read should read as Road. :-)
If organising a non-fixed distance race is attractive for a host, then the rulebook does not need stronger wording to present this option. I would think that a host would grab this opportunity.
If so, we will see how this lands with the riders, from the number of riders who register for such a race, and from their responses after the event.
Comment
Fair point Klaas. I think it is an improvement on the current situation even though I favour more definitive guidance. I'll wait on comment from more committee members before I do a draft proposal.
Comment
I like the purpose of moving into "non fixed distance" races. Distances like 10k, 42.195k and 100k should be entitled as recognized fixed distances.
Recognized fixed distance race sounds good to me, but non fixed distance race sounds like for example time based race, for example 1 hour race or 24 hours race. I would rather change the name to non regulated distance race.
I agree with "expected". Word "recommended" is too soft, stating that there might not be any road races at Unicon. I, as a rider expect at least 2 road races at Unicon, of which one is at least 30 km long.
I don't like proposed definition of "non fixed distance": A non-fixed distance race can be any race distance longer than 10km that is at least 3% different from a recognized distance.
Why more than 10km ? Is 8 km too short for local road race event? Also 3% is not necessary. I think hosts should understand that having exact distance of i.g. 10k or 42.195k sounds good for media and it is good for comparing times between other events, but still it doesn't open right for World Records to be beaten (drafting regulations). Still, it is difficult to compare different road races as no one course is the same.
I would like to see courses to be more challenging, safe for road racing but with some ups and downs, not only flat and boring. I agree that hosts should be free to organize "non regulated distance" race, but it is still OK having 11km, 43km or 102 km. Exact distance doesn't matter for me.
Comment
The non-fixed distance race distance of 10km is a number I made up because I needed something to fill in the definition. Feel free to make your own suggestion. I thought anything less than 10km risks people classifying the 800m track race as a road racing event.
I think it needs to be at least 25-30km, or a minimum 1 hour race for the fastest unlimited rider.
Comment
A bit off threed: (but I don't know where to leave it)
I observe that IUF Rulebook tends to be UNICON Rulebook, with so many expectations and recommendations for Unicons. In my opinion we should have worked out separate guidance for Unicons.
The problem is that future hosts does not participate in working on those guidances and they simply do not understand all our intentions. We work here on some perfect wording what we learned after discussion. Host will likely not understand it correctly as we do here at first readings.
Races at Unicons are organized under supervision of race directors who should be normally experts in their field. Here, in amount of 21 persons of road rulebook committee we work on regulations that will be faced with real life by one person - road race director. The shape of the races rely on his own rulebook interpretation / understanding.
It happened many times that rules or "good practice" were not followed by organizers. Races were organized in secret from participants and all the bad things emerged during or after the race. Lessons from past Unicons are not taken.
In my opionion, all of us from the committee should work as advisory board for Unicon competitions. Instead of creating expectations or recommendations for Unicon we should control and provide advice in real time during planning stage of Unicons.
Comment
Ken, In my opinion there is no need of distance limit in definition. But I agree that there should be at least 30 km long race at Unicon.
Track races are the ones made on tracks, road races are made on roads, XC races are often made on roads too. 2 years ago I tried to push definition of "road" to distinguish between road and XC races but it didn't worked out. That time I suggested that road race must be held in 95% (or simmilar) on paved road.
Lol, I came to conclusion that actual 100 km road record should be classified as 100 km track record. :D
Comment
I’m in favor of having, among several road races, at least 1 recognized fixed distance race whose goal is to provide riders an opportunity to beat their record or the WR.
But if we allow organizing only one such race, care must be taken so that records can really be beaten on it.
The definition of a « Beatable record race » must not include only distance, but also flatness (and maybe other things like sharps turns, not paved road, strongly expected presence of wind …).
Just distance and flatness could be a start. The goal is to not have any Unicon where riders have no chance at all to beat a record. Eg: 13k, 42.195k with hills & 121k.
Comment
I'm mostly a muni rider, but I'm in principle also very interested in road racing. However, the current focus of road racing to stick to the WR distances and to make race courses as flat and easy as possible has put me off in the past and not interested in participating seriously. Therefore, I really appreciate this initiative to offer more interesting courses, with distances and elevation changes that are most suitable for the specific location. Thank you very much for this, Ken, I fully support it!
I understand that historically, road unicycling was closer to running, hence the iconic fixed distances, but nowadays, road unicycling is more comparable to road biking, and I think courses should reflect that.
Why is even necessary to provide courses for beatable records at world championships? It can never be guaranteed anyway because of the weather. In August it's usually hot, not great for records. In my opinion, those who would like to break a record should organize a specific event for themselves indepent from road races. On a perfect course, for example on a closed race track like in Canada or on a closed airport, measured accurately to fulfill the requirements and with someone present who can verify the record.
Comment
Ben, the thing you are talking about is a TIME TRIAL RECORD. Please do not mix it up with ROAD RACING RECORDS, where drifting is allowed.
Comment
I see. But are road racing records so important that they dictate how courses need to be set up be at every single Unicon? What about a completely new concept for road racing records: It's not about the finish time, but who has the most road racing wins in history. It would be a record based on road racing, but without restrictions on courses. And there are still the time trial records for those who care about a record based on a single performance.
Comment
That‘s rather a discussion for World Records Committee.
I guess for the moment it‘s not an option but I‘m open for other opinions.
Comment
Quote Maksym:
"Recognized fixed distance race sounds good to me, but non fixed distance race sounds like for example time based race, for example 1 hour race or 24 hours race. I would rather change the name to non regulated distance race. "
--I'm not sure I agree with this statement, as it becomes evident what a non-fixed distance race involves. A 'non-regulated distance race' is too much of a mouthful. However, I had a think about this and I believe it sounds even better to call it: 1. 'fixed-distance road race' and 2. 'free-distance road race'.
Thoughts?
Quote Maksym:
"It happened many times that rules or "good practice" were not followed by organizers. Races were organized in secret from participants and all the bad things emerged during or after the race. Lessons from past Unicons are not taken."
--I'm not sure the organisers are doing anything in 'secret', but a lot of things are out of the organisers control. This is one of the reasons why I feel we need to avoid having too many 'fixed-distance' road races, because we may end up with last minute 'surprises'. eg. Unicon 19- The military closing off part of the original 100km course, and also the local council closing off the turnaround road on the original 10km course. If it was a free distance race, it wouldn't matter.
Comment
I'm OK with "free-distance".
Comment
Ken wrote: "I'm not sure the organisers are doing anything in 'secret', but a lot of things are out of the organisers control."
I know exactly what you mean. I guess it's more correct to say that organizers don't always know the best practices, and often I think things get done because they have to, without necessarily checking to see if everything fits with whatever best practices we have documented. In other words, if the IUF has the mythical "how to put together a uni convention" manual, that we've talked about for over 30 years, I've never seen it.
I guess what that means is, we can hopefully encourage hosts to be open and transparent with their plans, and be willing to get regular "coaching" from experienced people on how to set things up. But it's up to them to ask, or for those experts to gently stay in contact but not become a nuisance. The "right" way to do it is known, but if the host isn't aware of what they don't know, they will repeat the same mistakes that have happened in the past.
I also like the simple term "free-distance".
Comment
I also like the "free-distance" term.
Comment
Thanks all, I have submitted a proposal.
In terms of recommended races, I had a further think and would like to change this:
"It is expected that Unicon has at least one fixed distance event and one non-fixed distance event."
to:
"It is expected that Unicon has at least one fixed-distance event. If there are more than two road races offered at Unicon, it is expected that one is a free-distance event"
This stops us from having three fixed distance events, without at least offering riders a more interesting free-distance road race.
Comment
Strictly, we could still have three fixed-distance races with that second phrase, because it's only about "expected".
On the other hand, the second phrase removes the expectation that at least one race is a free-distance race, in the case that there are two races. I would guess that that is not your intention.
Comment
ok how about:
"Unicon must have at least one fixed-distance event. If there are more than two road races offered at Unicon, it must have a free-distance event"
See also Connie's separate proposal about required events at Unicon. My thoughts are that we should have at least two road races at Unicon- every other discipline has more than one event, but they should be sufficiently different to make it worthwhile.
Comment
This version is OK for me, except that you might want to use either "race" or "event". I'd prefer "race".
I saw your comment on Connie's proposal, it is different in case there are two road races.
Comment
I would also suggest an edit to this sentence:
It includes both fixed-distance and free-distance races
to
They include both fixed-distance and free-distance races
Comment
Patricia, I feel there is a slight difference.
To me, "It includes ..." implies "This definition includes ...".
Whereas "They include ..." might be construed as "In any convention, road races must include both ...".
The latter is not true.
I suggest then: "This definition includes both fixed-distance and free-distance races, (etc)"
Comment
Sorry, one more thing. I'd like to change
The recognised fixed distance races are the 10km, 42.2km and 100km.
to
The recognised fixed distance races are the 10 km, Marathon (42.195 km) and 100 km.
(This edit includes adding the traditional name "Marathon", correcting the Marathon distance which was 5 meters off, and adding a space before each instance of km.)
Comment
The current 4D.15.2 (which is to become 4D.15.3) is out of date, now that 100 km is recognised as a fixed distance.
I think the phrase "(such as any distance other than 10k or 42.195k)" can be completely deleted for several reasons:
* it is redundant;
* it misses 100 km;
* "such as any distance other than" is strange. "Such as" implies that what follows is a limited list, but "any other than" does not leave room for adding more items to the list.
Not sure if this should/can be dealt with in the current proposal, or an additional one.
Comment
I think this should be dealt with in this proposal.
Comment
I just noticed that 4D.15.2 contains the phrase "In the case where a non-traditional race distance is used".
This should become "In the case of free-distance races".
Come to think of it, the terms fixed-distance race and free-distance race might be added to 1D.1, Definitions.
If others agree, can it be added to this proposal, or is a new proposal called for?
Comment
I think that fixed-distance and free-distance should be terms that are defined in the Road chapter, at least at this point. If it becomes more useful for other disciplines in the future, perhaps it should be moved.
I agree that 4D.15.2 should be updated. Thanks for noticing that, Klaas.
Comment
To your first point... I don't know. Ultimate Wheel (to be deleted) and Wheel walking are also in 1D.1 while they are only used in Track races.
To your second point: in the current proposal or a new one?
Comment
Whatever is simpler...
Comment
I now agree that fixed-distance and free-distance should not be added to the definitions under 1D.1. These terms are event-specific, AND they are defined where they occur.
I maintain my comment about 4D.15.2. So in the proposal, the sentence
In the current 4D.15.2 (which is to become 4D.15.3) delete the phrase "(such as any distance other than 10k or 42.195k)"
should become
In the current 4D.15.2 (which is to become 4D.15.3) edit
"In the case where a non-traditional race distance is used (such as any distance other than 10k or 42.195k),"
to become
"In the case of free-distance races,"
[BTW, there is a 3-fold nesting of "(to) become" in the above sentence :-)]
Comment
Thanks for that change Klaas. Ken, can you update?
Comment
I already had this in the proposal:
"All references to 'traditional' distance will be replaced with 'fixed-distance race' in the current 4D.15.1 and 4D.15.2. The references to 'other distances' or 'non-traditional race distances' will be replaced with 'free distance' "
However, I will update the entire text to prevent confusion.
Comment
Sorry I notice this only now:
In my opinion, the example given for a free-distance race is confusing, because 3% of 87 km is not 3 km. So it may be misinterpreted as plus or minus 3 kilometers.
If the advertised distance in the example remains 87 km, the limits given should become 84.39 km and 89.61. If the example distance is changed to 80 or 90 km, there will be one decimal less in the limits, which looks better in my opinion.
Comment
Argh, sorry schoolboy mistake. I will fix