3B.2.5 Climbing road race
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
This is an event that has been organized at UNICON20 in Grenoble (which has already been organized at CFM2015 in Scionzier and is planned for CFM2025 also in Scionzier in place of the traditional marathon).
Of course, such a race can only be envisaged in a country with a particular topography, where there may be a climb of several kilometers. The question arises of defining a minimum distance? We can also plan a long course and a shorter one if the topography allows. In fact, for the CFM2025, a 15km expert course and a 7km espoir course are planned. The course is the same. I wouldn't set a maximum distance (the limits are topographical).
This type of competition should avoid flat, downhill sections as much as possible (especially at the start and finish). The start can be on a moderate gradient (3% min?), but should not be flat or downhill. It's possible to have flat sections on the ascent, but we could require the average gradient to be greater than 6% (this seems to me to be the minimum - in France, most asphalt pass climbs have an average gradient of between 6 and 8%). At the other extreme, all passages must be possible to ride (for the best riders) without having to put your foot down. There may be an unpaved section, but these must be short and rolling, as the majority of the course must be paved.
In the event of a fall, it is possible to walk but not run.
To preserve sporting interest, this event must have only one unicycle category (for section 3B.2 Unicycle).
For the name, we can keep “climbing road race” (term used at UNICON20), but we can also consider other names such as “Uphill road race” or “Hill Climb”.
Comment
I like this proposal, i would like to see a hillclimb race as a possible recognized competition.
A few points I’d like to raise:
The start line being required to be on a grade may be more difficult than expected for organizers. Many suitable hills may have an artificially leveled area that is the most appropriate place to hold a start line. If we limit maximum flat section length it seems to handle issues that that rule seems to target.
A possibility of multiple stages, with additive times could open up many more locations to racing (although i think it might be too difficult to organize in most cases)
Hillclimb is what i expect an english speaking cyclist would most typically call this event style
Comment
See my comments in proposal 50 related to this topic.
This is the place to discuss whether it needs both standard and unlimited class
The issues are:
- it may be rider dependent, and slightly subjective, as to whether a 29" standard is faster than, say a 36".
- The standard class allows wheel sizes smaller than 29", but so does the unlimited class
- if it's so steep that only unicycles smaller than 29" have advantage.
- unlimited class still allows geared hubs an advantage on steep hills. If a hill has, say 3% gradients and 20% gradients, then a 24" geared unicycle could switch between high/low gear whereas the standard class has only one option.
One suggestion is a reverse standard class. This means that you are not allowed to use gearing smaller than the specified standard class. eg for 29" standard, you are not allowed to use 20" or 24" unicycles. This allows the unlimited class, which has no restriction, to ride 16", 20", 24". Unlimited class isn't about bigger gearing, it's about equipment choice. In this case, smaller gearing.
You could also 'lock-in' a specific wheel size for standard class. So although the 29" standard isn't allowed to use anything anything bigger or smaller than a 29" wheel. However, the unlimited class could use a geared 24" (maybe for a flat section on the climb in high-gear).
Comment
First of all, I would like to say that I think it is good that we are discussing a separate competition that can explicitly take into account the special aspects of an uphill race. If such a competition is interesting for the athletes, I think it is perfectly justified to include it as a separate discipline in the rulebook - especially if it has already been tested at various competitions.
Regarding the classes:I can follow most of Kens points and would say that this are valid points.
> This means that you are not allowed to use gearing smaller than the specified standard class. eg for 29" standard, you are not allowed to use 20" or 24" unicycles.
The rules already say "Using 24 Class and smaller wheels is not allowed in races longer than 20km without express permission of the racing director." - but this effects only the Standard Class, since here every Class has a lower limit for the wheel diameter.
Comment
> This means that you are not allowed to use gearing smaller than the specified standard class. eg for 29" standard, you are not allowed to use 20" or 24" unicycles.
Are you suggesting putting the 26" and 27.5" in the unlimited category?
> if it's so steep that only unicycles smaller than 29" have advantage.
For me this is not realistic, unless we set a maximum crank length (125mm ?) for standard class. It could then be argued that standard class riders are not used to using cranks longer than 125mm...
>> Those are two different efforts, skills, unicycles.
>That's right, and that's why I think it's justified for riders to have to decide whether they want to take part in one or the other. Competitions that offer many different disciplines often require riders to decide what they want to take part in.
I took these words from discussion 149. For me, this is not true in the case of a hill climb. In standard flat road races and in track races, the predominant skill is to turn the legs and feet quickly against low resistance. In a hill climb, you cannot maintain such a high cadence because of the high resistance due to gravity. No matter the size of the unicycle, we all feel this resistance. The choice of equipment is important for everyone, everyone is looking for the best compromise that suits them best so as not to be limited by either cadence or strength. This aims to maximize power (product of cadence and force). At UNICON20, the shortest cranks used by a standard competitor in the climbing road race were 110mm. This is nothing compared to the 75mm and 89mm cranks used for fixed-distance races. The ability to turn your legs quickly is not decisive in a hill climb.
Furthermore, using a geared hub is even more of a handicap the lighter the competitor. Because it's a handicap of about 1.5 kg. On a race with 1,000 meters of elevation gain, regardless of the gradient, a top rider will lose more than a minute just from the weight difference (and for a less strong rider, it's more like double that). To compensate for this penalty, you have to be able to save energy on the high gear in the flatter sections, which is far from easy. Just because the gradient is only 3% doesn't mean you're more efficient with the high gear of a schlumpf (who doesn't have 100% efficiency on the high gear, I think it's more like 90%; almost 10% of energy is lost).
I know Harrison is more knowledgeable about these aspects than I am.
My initial idea is not to get into complicated calculations, it is to formalize an inclusive race format that is different from existing formats. For my part, I find it very stimulating to be in confrontation with competitors with whom I am never in confrontation in flat races. If at the finish, the first 3 places are taken by competitors with wheels >29" or with a schlumpf, maybe it is not too late to reward competitors who used a standard unicycle? Provided that the wheel sizes and the presence or absence of a schlumpf at the start have been noted.
Comment
Perhaps Hill Climb is better because it is more widely recognized in other sports.
1*
Standard class vs unlimited
I don't see any advantage of using unicycles in other than 29 class. Maybe someone who uses 36 unicycle, uses it only because it is his primary type of unicycle and he just feels it better. If you feel that there is advantage of using bigger wheels, than we should increase the average incline from 6% to 7%. Personally, with Grenoble's 6.5% I would have disadvantage on 36.
For the use of unicycles in smaller classes: If the course is such steep that the winners choose smaller wheels than likely second half of the participants are walking half of the distance.
As for using geared unicycles: Using big wheel with option to gear up on flats - I agree with disadvantages mentioned by Simon. Using smaller wheel in high gear and option to gear down on steeper sections - No chance it would be more effective than light 29er. Otherwise, some sections are enormously steep and most of the participants walks.
I think that the race director should have some experience and be able to judge when the road is too steep. Otherwise we would have "walking race".
2*
Two categories: Unlimited + Standard, but standard riders included in placements of Unlimited (like they were starting in 2 categories simultaneously)
That is the concept I was proposing at Unicon 20. It doesn't harm either of group.
However, as for reasons mentioned in the 1* I personally do not think that unicycles other than 29 class would be popular and the unlimited class would be underrepresented, with most top riders racing in 29 class category.
Comment
My preference would be to offer it as an “unlimited” race, because course design should likely select heavily for the fastest wheel, which will likely never be a 36”. So why bar any wheelsize by rule, just let the riders run whatever size they prefer. We could choose to limit it to “regular unicycles”, but again i don’t believe gears will ever be an advantage over the correct gain ratio ungeared. It’s simply to write, simple to award. I would not be very happy to see a podium of 3 riders winning in standard being called up again because they also won the unlimited, unless we expected that to be a highly unusual outcome.
Comment
With the development of 4 geared unicycle hub that is now in the testing phase I would prefer to have the regulation ready.
I think that with constant grade of the road incline the geared unicycle has no advantage over 29 class. However, if there is mix of flat and very steep sections than the geared unicycle may have the advantage, especially if it offers undergearing in few gears. May in bold, as we will not know before the product is on the market and tested.
I would be skeptic to make categories: Geared and Ungeared - because the geared would likely be underrepresented. I would therefore ban on geared unicycles.
Currently it is very easy to convert Schlumpf hubs to ungeared hubs. If anyone wants to use the Schlumpf hub on ungeared category, it takes only 2 minutes to block the shifting mechanism. Also, by geared I mean multiple geared unicycles with shifting mechanism. Huni-rex or some giraffas are single geared unicycles.
Comment
In flat road races, reasons for the standard/unlimited include
1) Standard is distinct from “unlimited”: >90% of unlimited riders would be slower if they were to instead ride a standard unicycle. This makes the category and awards meaningful.
2) Accessible: standard unicycles are easy to transport, can be relatively low cost, can be used in other disciplines so is convenient. Equipment to do well in unlimited are the opposite. These are important as they help our goal of promoting more participation in our sport.
3) We want to see how fast a unicycle can go, so unlimited is needed.
In a hill climb, having a single unlimited class seems to satisfy those 3 reasons already.
For the sake of innovation and growth, I don’t think we should completely ban 2-gear or multi-gear unicycles until we have evidence that there is an unfair advantage.
I am hesitant about the specific minimum average 6% gradient rule. I think 10% gradient is almost exactly as “hard” as 5.4% gradient given the proper gear ratio and wheel size is used. If there is no 6% rule, then the organizer can choose to categorize it as a hill climb race with a single class, or a free distance race with two classes, depending on the specific course, expected riders and unicycle equipment, etc.
Comment
> With the development of 4 geared unicycle hub that is now in the testing phase I would prefer to have the regulation ready.
I thought the development of this speed hub was top secret. I can already tell you that it will be 1kg heavier than a Schlumpf hub.
> For the sake of innovation and growth, I don’t think we should completely ban 2-gear or multi-gear unicycles until we have evidence that there is an unfair advantage.
I agree with Harrison on this point and on the reasoning.
> I am hesitant about the specific minimum average 6% gradient rule. I think 10% gradient is almost exactly as “hard” as 5.4% gradient given the proper gear ratio and wheel size is used.
I was wondering whether the minimum gradient shouldn't be a function of the length. I thought of Mt Diablo climb, which is 5.4%. I also thought of crazy climbs that don't exist in France, like the Alto de Letras in Colombia (78km at 4% average gradient, i.e. 3727m of ascent). If you can't call it a hill climb, that's a shame. And on the other hand, I think the shorter the climb, the steeper it should be.
> If there is no 6% rule, then the organizer can choose to categorize it as a hill climb race with a single class, or a free distance race with two classes, depending on the specific course, expected riders and unicycle equipment, etc.
Would you prefer to leave the choice of one or two categories to the organizers? On the Mt Diablo challenge (5.4% average gradient), was the best unicycle time set by Ben with a schlumpf, or was there a better performance?
Comment
"Are you suggesting putting the 26" and 27.5" in the unlimited category?" - Simon
Yes
"For me this is not realistic, unless we set a maximum crank length (125mm ?) for standard class. It could then be argued that standard class riders are not used to using cranks longer than 125mm..."
It doesn't matter- you know what you competitors have to work with (a 29" standard, which is defined as having variable crank choices). It fulfils the ethos of the standard class...they are not going to turn up and compete on a geared 20"
"Furthermore, using a geared hub is even more of a handicap the lighter the competitor. Because it's a handicap of about 1.5 kg. On a race with 1,000 meters of elevation gain, regardless of the gradient, a top rider will lose more than a minute just from the weight difference (and for a less strong rider, it's more like double that). To compensate for this penalty, you have to be able to save energy on the high gear in the flatter sections, which is far from easy. Just because the gradient is only 3% doesn't mean you're more efficient with the high gear of a schlumpf (who doesn't have 100% efficiency on the high gear, I think it's more like 90%; almost 10% of energy is lost)."- Simon
It's a handicap but equipment choice is part of the strategy of unlimited class. Future hubs could be lighter, they may have more than 2 gears, or they may have less efficiency loss in the transmission.
"My preference would be to offer it as an “unlimited” race, because course design should likely select heavily for the fastest wheel, which will likely never be a 36”. So why bar any wheelsize by rule, just let the riders run whatever size they prefer. We could choose to limit it to “regular unicycles”, but again i don’t believe gears will ever be an advantage over the correct gain ratio ungeared. It’s simply to write, simple to award. I would not be very happy to see a podium of 3 riders winning in standard being called up again because they also won the unlimited, unless we expected that to be a highly unusual outcome." --Tim
The Unicon 20 hill climb was won on a 36", and it was a very nice course. I would not be good to be too prescriptive about gradients- every event will have access to different levels of hill/mountain gradients. A long gradual climb can be just as fun (or more) than a super steep short climb. During Unicon, we did a workshop ride up the Alpe d'Huez. While I rode my standard 29" because that's what I had, I would have enjoyed it more with my ultralight 36"/137mm set-up.
I've given up racing MUni hillclimb events because the emphasis seems to be on riding up a hill without falling off, rather than endurance and speed.
Both have their place but I don't think we should prescribe a certain level of steepness to a hillclimb race.
Comment
If we dropped the mention of the minimum slope and made 1 competition with 2 classifications (a global one that includes unlimited and standard and a specific one for standard), would that suit everyone? For me, it's important to do just one competition, because if we do 2 competitions, it means there are 2 starts: standard and unlimited.
As Harrison pointed out, we're keen to know whether an unlimited category unicycle brings an advantage. To answer this question, It's important to mix standard and unlimited at the start. That's why I made this proposal.
I wanted to go further and condition the fact of making 2 classifications according to average slope or results, but I propose to abandon that. We can discuss it later, or not.
Comment
I don’t hate the idea of 1 event with 2 classifications but I think it’s more complicated to award when you consider age group awards.
I think that as a newer event without historical expectation we are better off awarding one unified result, but I’m willing to go along with 2 classifications too.
So the discussion I think we need to have is when you consider the age groups, how are medals given out. If we assume a pretty steep course, you might have total ovetlap between standard and unlimited results. In age groups that likely only goes up. How are those awarded? Call everyone up for standard and then again for unlimited? Do we still do that if we have few (less than 5 maybe) unlimited entries? I think this setup introduces a lot of uncertainty in how medals will be awarded
Comment
If we make 2 rankings (overall and 29“ standard), it's certain that many 29” standard competitors will be rewarded twice (or 4 counting age class rankings). I agree that it's not ideal.
One solution might be to create an overall ranking with all the age class rankings, and to add the 29" standard podiums for the 3 best male and 3 best females. Is this a reasonable compromise?
Comment
I consider this an acceptable compromise. It keeps the medal load reasonable and also stable, both of which organizers will appreciate I expect.
I am keen to see how it works out, and i’m hoping that naucc 2027 will have the topology to hold this race so i can see how American riders like it as a competition
Comment
I do not agree on removing 6% rule. We should have some rule that distinguish Road Climbs from other unicycle races.
1% uphill is still uphill but for the ruse on uphill race it must be significant.
Riding unicycle feels like riding a bicycle on very low gear. I believe that at about 4% riding on unicycle starts feeling like on the flat course on bicycle. With 6% we talk about easy uphill effort.
Of course it can be very long uphill. You gave example of 78km 4%. Yes it is uphill, but I doubt we will ever organize (mass) races on such a distance.
Another example, Mt Diablo 18km 5.4% (max13%) 990m gain, is pretty simmilar to what we got on the Unicon 20 (15km, 6.4%, 955m).
The idea of making the rule of a gradient as a function of length is another approach. Gradient x Length = Elevation Gain. If it's linear function it would require, the minimum elevation gain. I know very good uphills with only 400m gain, but much steeper and therefore equally difficult.
Maybe composition of two factors, for example. "It must be at least 6% gain or at least 850 m elevation gain"
Comment
> Maybe composition of two factors, for example. "It must be at least 6% gain or at least 850 m elevation gain"
I hadn't thought of that, but it adds a bit of flexibility. I find it interesting to say that the average grade must be at least 6% or the elevation gain must be at least 850m.
I don't know how you came up with the figure of 850, but it seems to fit the above examples. It's good enough for me.
Comment
We didn't discuss point 6 about running.
On certain steepnes the most effective and probably the only way to remount unicycle is running mount.
I don't think that ban on running is necessary but I may agree on that if it would be allowed to run for a short distance in order to mount unicycle.
Comment
Point 6 is indeed badly formulated.
We could say that it is possible to run only with the aim of remounting the unicycle.
Let's just say that it should be avoided that a unicyclist: 1/ abandons his unicycle to run the race; 2/ gets off the unicycle to run past another competitor.
Comment
The proposal looks pretty good to me. Besides the aspect of running in paragraph 6, I would only consider one other thing (which does not concern the proposed rule itself) in the proposal:
I would add something regarding rule 3B.2 Unicycles (for the case that the corresponding proposal passes).
--- If the change of 3B.2 Unicycles passes add the following to paragraph 2 (changes in bold) ---
2. For large events such as Unicon or continental championships the two categories Standard and Unlimited are mandatory for all Road Races, for other conventions these two categories are strongly recommended. An exception is the combined organization of a 10 km fixed distance race and a 10 km Time-Trail, where it is permissible to offer just the Standard category for the 10 km fixed distance race and just the Unlimited category for the 10 km Time-Trail and the Hill Climb, where it is permissible to offer just the Unlimited category. The permitted unicycle classes in the categories are:
Comment
Comment
Comment
Looking good, but just with this line:
"2. A Hill Climb must take place in a region with appropriate topography, featuring a continuous ascent over several kilometers. Flat or downhill sections should be avoided, especially at the start and the end of the course. Organizers should not artificially add flat or downhill segments to the beginning of the course. The course must either have an average gradient of at least 6%, or a total elevation gain of at least 850 meters."
This would limit the start if we can't have a flat area- for a mass start you often need to spread riders before hitting the climb. Some mountain roads are very narrow.
The Grenoble hillclimb is a good example of this. We had a loop around the stadium and riders were well spread by the time they hit the climb.
Also get rid of the word 'artificial', because it serves no purpose. What's the difference between a 'natural' and an 'artificial' flat section?
Comment
> The Grenoble hillclimb is a good example of this. We had a loop around the stadium and riders were well spread by the time they hit the climb.
In Grenoble, the start in the stadium seemed to me a good way of organizing the start off the road without disrupting traffic.
Yes, it does spread out the competitors a little, but not in the way that a climb would. It's the competitors who go fast on the flat and in the bends who are in front at the start. For me, it's the climb that disperses the competitors the best. Even if everyone starts directly on the road, after a few hundred metres, everyone is already spread out.
In fact, the organizers of the next CFM asked if it would be wise to add a flat section before tackling the climb. I told them that there could be a flat section to make the start as safe as possible, but that it wasn't necessary for the competitors. It's up to everyone to warm up before the start.
This is the revision I propose:
2. A Hill Climb must take place in a region with appropriate topography, featuring a continuous ascent over several kilometers. Flat or downhill sections should be avoided, especially at the start and the end of the course. A short flat section at the beginning may be tolerated if necessary for a safe and practical race start. The course must either have an average gradient of at least 6%, or a total elevation gain of at least 850 meters.
Comment
It's not about warming up, it's about having a sufficiently wide area to allow a mass start without disadvantaging those in the back rows. If it's a steep start with large numbers of riders, someone falling or stalling will take out a lot of riders behind them.
"A flat section may be used if required for a safe and practical race start". More neutral wording.
Comment
I can also imagine that a mass start on a steep incline could be problematic and that it is not always possible to find a suitable location with a slight incline for the start. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to allow for a flat area at the start. I can live with both wording options, but Ken's sounds indeed a bit more neutral.
Comment
Ken's formulation suits me too.
For a mass start, the first problem is the width of the road. After that, it's clear that the start shouldn't be on the steepest part of the course. In practice, the start has to be close to a parking lot, which is often in an urban area, and cities aren't usually built on the steepest parts.
Comment
Any other comments before we vote? I know it's a holiday period for many, but I hope there will be enough voters.
Comment
For me it's fine.