3D.15.1 Fixed distance events at Unicon
Comments about this discussion:
Started
It is stated that "It is expected that Unicon will have at least two road events, of which at least one is a recognized fixed distance event."
I suggest deleting the part about fixed distance events and leave it completely up to the organizers. Instead, we could replace it with a statement that the two road races should test different skills. For example, that could be distance (short vs. long), terrain (flat vs. hilly) or race configuration (normal road race vs. ITT vs. criterium) - or several of these aspects combined.
I think that would allow for much more interesting and varied courses and puts less pressure on the organizers to adhere to the strict rules for fixed distance courses.
Comment
To be honest, I see this completely different. The fixed distance competitions are the only road racing competitions where results from different events can be compared and in my opinion this is an essential aspect of competitions. I can understand that free distance competitions give the organizers more freedom and that individual circumstances can be dealt with better - but I still think that athletes should be offered at least one race at a Unicon where they can compare their performances with those of other events. In my experience, this is an essential aspect of competitions for many athletes who take up unicycling as a competitive sport and it would be more than a shame if we were to do away with this and end up with no road racing competition at a Unicon where performance can be compared with other events.
Comment
In my opinion, road races from different events cannot be compared to each other as there are too many factors (road conditions/quality, elevation gain, strength of competitors (for drafting), wind, etc. For comparison of previous efforts at Unicons, Track events are much more suitable (and could expand to longer distances such as 10k). For comparison of fixed distance road efforts, there are running marathon competitions where unicyclists are allowed and where the track is always the same. These would be more suitable for comparison of efforts, eliminating quite a few of the factors I mentioned.
Nevertheless, I'm not suggesting to abandon the fixed distance races at Unicon, the organizers may still include them if a suitable course is possible. However, at many locations, you might not be able to provide a fast 10k or 42k course due to hills or other factors. Is it then really beneficial to have a course that will definitely not allow to break any records or personal bests? In such a case, more flexible course choices could make much more sense in my opinion.
Comment
You are of course absolutely right that many more factors play a role than just the distance - nevertheless, the riders want to compare their performances and if the distance is the same, it is at least somehow possible, although of course with certain restrictions. There are not too many unicycling events and it is understandable to me that riders try to compare their performances at the events that do exist. Of course, everyone will be aware that a lot depends on the track conditions and we have different conditions at every event - but this is also the case in other sports and in athletics, for example, there are not different distances offered at every world championship, but there are always fixed distances. The course length is the easiest thing to keep the same and ensures at least a small degree of comparability.
Also with regard to world records, I think it would be a shame if not at least one fixed distance race will be offered at every Unicon.
> Nevertheless, I'm not suggesting to abandon the fixed distance races at Unicon, the organizers may still include them if a suitable course is possible.
But that is what the elimination of this rule promotes. Precise measurement of the courses is time-consuming and may also involve additional costs. If this is no longer required, organizers will consider whether they really want to do this. If it ends up being much less complicated to offer a 13.75 km race because less precise measurements are required, there will be organizers who will do so.
> However, at many locations, you might not be able to provide a fast 10k or 42k course due to hills or other factors. Is it then really beneficial to have a course that will definitely not allow to break any records or personal bests? In such a case, more flexible course choices could make much more sense in my opinion.
Yes, in my opinion it definitely makes more sense here to offer a 10 km race and not a 13.75 km race for examle. Yes, maybe you won't set a new best time on the course due to the conditions, but at least I have a constant in terms of distance and not one more varible.
Comment
For me, fixed distances have several advantages:
- historical UNICON distances
- performance comparison (for the 10k and marathon it's true, but much less for the 100k)
- the title of champion is attached to the distance (10k WC, marathon WC).
However, fixed distance races also have their drawbacks:
- If the course complies with the WRG, the organizer can be criticized for not having taken an accurate measurement (a thought for the UNICON20 marathon). The longer the course, the more difficult it is to measure it accurately.
- Flat courses reward the same competitor profiles: if there are 10k, 42k and 100k at UNICON, the podiums won't be very different.
- Specifically for the 100k race: there were very few 100k, so comparisons are very limited, there are major constraints on the organizers and the length of the event severely limits the number of participants.
As for the aspect of comparing performances from one fixed distance race to another, I don't know if it's more important than comparing competitors during the race. I tend to think that comparison between competitors in the same race takes precedence over comparison of performance between different races. So I'd be more in favor of organizing races that call on as wide a range of skills as possible.
At the last UNICON, there were 3 road races. Firstly, I would find it disappointing if there were fewer than 3 road races at a future UNICON. Secondly, I find it difficult to choose which competition to organize. The criterium requires skills so different from other road races and rewards more technical competitors, it would be a real shame not to organize it.
Concerning free distance: my problem with free distance races is the lack of reference points and reach when it comes to talking about them to people who weren't there. I'm not much in favor of adding constraints on organizers, but being champion of the race that goes around the lake 2 times doesn't sound serious (not to say professional) (It was very good, I don't blame the organizers).
One solution seems to me to be to impose formats on free distance races: time trial, mass start, hill climb... An attribute in addition to the distance covered.
A free distance race allows organisers to find the best starting and finishing points for a mass start. A mass start is a race where race strategy is particularly important. For me, it's a format suited to relatively long distances.
A time trial is a format that can be complicated to organize, and requires more energy from the competitors - it's all about effort management. In my opinion, it's a format that's better suited to relatively short distances.
_____________________________
In short, I tend to agree with Ben on the need to organize competitions with a variety of formats. And if a venue doesn't allow for a relatively flat 10k or marathon, it's questionable whether the times are really comparable with other 10ks and marathons. On the other hand, I think other types of constraints need to be added to avoid ending up with free distance short or long races with heat starts.
Comment
Simon, I think you raise some important points that I think should be discussed here in a very general way before we discuss whether the expectation that one of the road races at a Unicon is a fixed-distance race (which, by the way, has only been included in the rulebook since the 2018 rulebook update) should be deleted again.
The fact that we historically had mainly 10k and marathon races for a long time is certainly due to the fact that road races have developed to a certain extent from track races and were very strongly oriented towards athletics, where these distances are standard and there are practically only fixed-distance races.
I would say that over time there has been a split in the road races into two groups: The group of standard riders, for whom, in my experience, the 10 km race, for example, is still an extremely popular and important race, precisely because of the standardization. On the other hand, there are the unlimited riders, for whom the fixed-distance races are probably rather boring, because the development there is more in the direction of bike races, away from fixed distances.
In my opinion, offering a fixed-distance race at a Unicon is a certain compromise for this development. The riders who value standardization have one race and at the same time the organizer can decide to hold a second race of a completely different format based on the local conditions.
Simon, you mentioned some drawbacks of fixed distance races:
> If the course complies with the WRG, the organizer can be criticized for not having taken an accurate measurement (a thought for the UNICON20 marathon).
In my opinion, this is completely understandable, because if there is already a course that would be suitable for WR, it is more than annoying for the riders if it fails in the end due to the exact measurement. In my opinion, however, the fact that the organizer is criticized for this also shows that there is definitely interest on the riders' side in a fixed-distance race.
> Flat courses reward the same competitor profiles: if there are 10k, 42k and 100k at UNICON, the podiums won't be very different.
I would immediately agree with you and I don't think any organizer should be encouraged to offer all three possible fixed-distance races.
> Specifically for the 100k race: there were very few 100k, so comparisons are very limited, there are major constraints on the organizers and the length of the event severely limits the number of participants.
I would also directly agree with you here. So the question arises for me: If (especially for the unlimited riders) fixed-distance races are rather uninteresting anyway, does it really make sense to have the 100km as an official competition distance in the rulebook? Wouldn't it make more sense to remove this distance completely?
> As for the aspect of comparing performances from one fixed distance race to another, I don't know if it's more important than comparing competitors during the race. I tend to think that comparison between competitors in the same race takes precedence over comparison of performance between different races.
For many standard riders, comparison with previous competitions is crucial. Many riders don't compete for placings, but for their own time.
> One solution seems to me to be to impose formats on free distance races: time trial, mass start, hill climb... An attribute in addition to the distance covered.
I like that idea - it doesn't give the impression that free distance races are simply fixed distance races where you haven't measured exactly or have simply arbitrarily chosen a different length.
Comment
Indeed, I agree with Ben on the substance of the subject, but I don't think removing the sentence about organizing at least one fixed-distance race is the best thing to do.
I'd rather suggest that we expect at least 3 road races instead of 2 at UNICON. I'm joking and at the same time I really mean it. Road specialists would be disappointed to have only 2 races.
A few years ago, I was a big fan of fixed distances. I know that some competitors would like a UNICON with a 10k, a 42k and a 100k. I was one of them. Today, I don't think that's desirable. Indeed, I'm not in favor of holding a 100k, as it's a big organization for a limited number of participants. I think we need to encourage more inclusive competitions in terms of the number of participants, like criterium.
I've created a separate discussion for free-distance races.
Comment
Although I would love to have 3 different road races at Unicon, and I would love the Unicon to last for two weeks, I know that it is not always possible and only puts constraint to organizer and increase his financial risk.
Currently the Rulebook requests Unicon host to organize 2 road races, more is optional to the organizer. It is positive that in both Grenoble and Bemidji the additional races were realized even tough they were not required.
Remember, that every time it is very difficult to find next Unicon host. More constrains may effect in zero Unicons in the future.
As for fixed distances, I haven't built my opinion yet.
Comment
It's absolutely right that road races are always a more difficult for organizers to organize than other competitions, and I would immediately agree with Maksym that we shouldn't push the requirements for organizers so high that no more organizers can be found in the future.
But the criterium race in particular is not comparable to the fixed distance road races, for which many public roads usually have to be closed - for the criterium race a large parking lot is sufficient, which is usually much easier to organize than closing numerous public roads. I think the restructuring of Chapter 3B and the introduction of a new sub-chapter with an overview of all disciplines in the road races offers a good opportunity to make alternative race formats such as the criterium more visible, which is certainly an important first step.
If it turns out in the long run that, for example, the riders in the 24 class are much more interested in a criterium than in a 10 km race, then I think we can think about removing the 10 km race from the program of a Unicon in the future - but I currently see the 10 km race as one of the most popular road races - also because many riders in the 24 class take part in it, for whom it is often the only road race.
We should also bear in mind that the current rule is not formulated as an absolute “must” criteria. The wording with “expected” certainly allows for deviations. That's why I think the current rule is very good - we should at least try to find a suitable route for a fixed distance race (and maybe exlude the 100km here?) and if this is absolutely not possible, then we can fall back on other formats for both races.
As I said, I think the 10km and the marathon are very suitable fixed distance races for various reasons. The question is whether the 100km is also a reasonable distance, or whether it's not more likely to be in the area where another race format without a fixation on length would make more sense. This doesn't necessarily mean that I would completely remove distance from the Rulebook, but the question is whether this should remain a "recommended" distnace for Unicons.
Comment
I have great memories from 100km race in South Korea, I would definitely keep it as a suggested fixed race.
It was run as individual and relay, therefore it is suitable for almost all riders.
I agree that it can be difficult from organizational part, but it was managed in Korea and can be managed in other places too.
Comment
I would agree with you that the 100km in Korea was a great experience - I found the course and the race impressive as a volunteer too. However, I ask myself whether it was really important that it was a fixed distance race? Or the other way around: Wouldn't the race have been just as impressive as a free distance race?
I think the main argument for fixed-distance races is undoubtedly the comparability of the results. On the one hand, in terms of the personal development of each individual athlete, who can always compare their results over time (at least within certain limits), the comparison of different events with each other, but also with regard to the development of the sport over many decades. For the 10 km and the marathon distance, there is also a correspondingly high number of events, so that the comparison aspect is really meaningful.
The longer the distance becomes, the more difficult it will be to guarantee the aspect of comparability - if you then consider that it has already been written here in some places that flat (and therefore comparable) courses are rather boring for unlimited riders, then the question arises as to how useful such a long distance designed for comparability really is.
Comment
I took the liberty of talking about "3 road races" organized at UNICON because, as Jan pointed out, it's a sentence that recommends without setting any obligations.
Still, I think it's a good thing to make recommendations without necessarily imposing a constraint. These recommendations reveal the expectations of the participants and leave the organizers some margin.
Rather than removing these recommendations, we could dare to go further in the recommendations by making concrete proposals that could be useful for future organizers.
In this case, we'd have to agree on the expectations in terms of road races organized at UNICON. I'm more in favor of a short/long distinction for the 2 expected road races.
For example, if there are to be only 2 road races, we could make it clear that it's expected that there will be one short-distance race (10km or a short ITT) and one long-distance race (marathon or longer). I'd tend to leave out the criterium, but it could be considered a short distance.
As for the 100km in Korea, I'm not saying it wasn't good. I just know that there weren't many competitors and I understand that it was a few km longer than the official distance. I think it's a nice idea to make teams so that there are more participants, but the competitive interest seems limited to me insofar as the strongest take part solo. If there were to be a team race, I'd prefer it if there were only teams.
Comment
I agree with most of what's been said so far.
It is very important we have fixed distance races, for all the reasons above. The 10km is our biggest event at Unicon, is a crossover event with track racers (uses same equipment), and allows times to be 'relatively' comparable. The Marathon is a race that is instantly recognisable to the non-unicycling world, and has a historical record which riders can look to see the progression of unicycling.
It is also very important for the development of the sport to offer more than the athletics style fixed distance events, and move into bicycle style racing where the terrain and distance is not fixed. This allows organisers to make best use of what they have available, without the cost and complexity of measuring the course to a certified distance.
I think I was the one to propose a free-distance event in a previous rulebook committee, and so far we've had a hillclimb event and a rolling terrain event (Loop the lake). Although similar riders took honours, in theory it 'should' favour different riders from flat fixed distance races.
The 'expected' minimum of 1 fixed distance race and 1 free distance race at Unicon is to prevent organisers from favouring one over the other. I would also find it disappointing if there are only two road racing events rather than three. The initial idea was not to make it too expensive or challenging for organisers, but I think a 12 day Unicon should have sufficient capacity to host 3 road events. I would be in favour of recommending Unicon have at least 3 road races, of which there must be a minimum of one free-distance race and one fixed-distance race.
Comment
"I would agree with you that the 100km in Korea was a great experience - I found the course and the race impressive as a volunteer too. However, I ask myself whether it was really important that it was a fixed distance race? Or the other way around: Wouldn't the race have been just as impressive as a free distance race?"
I was the race director in Korea, and tried to advocate for a free distance race alongside fixed distance 10km and Marathon. The 100km race has history there, so they weren't keen on going free distance. Given that it was completely flat, it didn't matter anyway. A free distance race that is 105km would have exactly the same result as a 100km fixed distance race.
Comment
> The 100km race has history there, so they weren't keen on going free distance. Given that it was completely flat, it didn't matter anyway. A free distance race that is 105km would have exactly the same result as a 100km fixed distance race.
Well, the 100km is only a fixed-distance for us because it's defined in the rulebook - if we only had the 10km and the marathon in the rulebook as fixed-distance races, then you could hold a 100km race in exactly the same way - it would just fall under the free-distance races.
So the question was more in the direction of how important is it to the unicyclists (presumably especially the unlimited riders) that the 100 km is a fixed-distance race?
All in all, however, I think the discussion is definitely going in the direction that three road races should be recommended for the Unicon and one of them should remain a fixed-distance race.
Comment
> So the question was more in the direction of how important is it to the unicyclists (presumably especially the unlimited riders) that the 100 km is a fixed-distance race?
If the rulebook identified alternative race formats to fixed-distance races, I think there would be fewer expectations from competitors for a 100k race.
For competitors, a free distance race feels like something is missing from the race.
In that sense, if we could leave the term “free distance road races” out of section 3B, I'd think that would be a good thing. It could always appear in the 3D section.
I think it's important for the race to have a universal name that allows people to understand the specific nature of the race.
That's why I opened a discussion on free distance races and a more specific one on “mass start”. In hindsight, I should have titled it “Long distance mass start”, as in the end the discussion would be more about a discipline than a start format.
Comment
I think recommending three road races would be a good solution.
Concerning the naming of free distance events: I personally think that the main free distance road race using the most suitable/interesting course available at the location should be "the" Road competition. The winner would be "Road World Champion". Last Unicon, the loop-the-lake race would have been this main road race. All other events would have some addition, like Road 10k, Road Marathon, Road Time Trial, Road Hillclimb, Road Criterium, etc. (maybe for some of them the term "Road" is not even necessary as it is clear).
Comment
I would definitely agree with recommending three road races as long as the sentence remains that one of them should be a fixed distance race.
I think many other points in this discussion do not really concern rule 3D.15.1, but rather the description of the disciplines in section 3B, is that possible? I don't know if it makes sense to continue discussing these topics here or to open a separate discussion for them?
Comment
I also support the recommendation of 3 road races, with the requirement that one be a fixed distance race.
I would even suggest that the rulebook recommend that Unicons consider the 10k as it's fixed distance race as it is historically the largest event at Unicon; it is popular across age groups, rider types, and a good entry level race for the discipline.
Comment
I agree with Kirsten except we should also recommend one free distance race, as well as one fixed distance race. Otherwise we can end up with 10km, marathon and 100km races, all held on the flat.