3D.10.3 Mass Start
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
In connection with the open discussion on free distance races, I propose to make the definition of mass start 3D.10.3 more flexible. My suggestion:
3D.10.3 Mass Start
A mass start is a grouped start where all participants begin the race together. This type of start is commonly used for long-distance races (marathon or longer free distance road races). The organizer may choose to separate the starts based on class and gender, allowing for up to four separate starts. The starting order on the line may be determined based on target times or other criteria set by the organizer. Possible configurations include:
- Standard and Unlimited start together, all genders combined (1 start).
- Standard and Unlimited start separately, all genders combined (2 starts).
- Standard and Unlimited start separately, with males and females also starting separately (4 starts).
I know that there are many more males than females in road races, and in many cases, separating males than females would not be enough to make the organization possible, but I don't think it should be forbidden. In any case, I'm against making 2 starts: men (standard and unlimited) and women (standard and unlimited). Which would be pointless anyway.
At UNICON20 in Grenoble, for example, there were around 90 standard competitors (60 males + 30 females) and 80 unlimited competitors (60 males + 20 females). I don't think it's completely unrealistic to start 60 competitors at once, provided that the position of each competitor is more or less defined.
Comment
I see two options:
1st option: riders located in the wide field with long bottle neck to the road, start and time counts on the gun - it would be very difficult to organize due to required wide field and bottle neck for the start.
2nd option: riders located along the road in zones by seed time, Everyone starts on the gun,
2a - Timing starts on the gun - unfair for the riders in the back
2b - Timing starts when rider pass the start line - same drawback as heat starts - the results are unknown until the last rider arrives.
Jan- Which of those options you think about?
Comment
In my opinion, the time from the starting gun to crossing the finish line should always be taken as the official time. If there are several start groups (as suggested by Simon), there will of course also be several starting guns.
I wouldn't be so critical of the organization of a mass start - we're not talking about several hundred to a thousand participants here, as is the case with running events (where a mass start also works). Of course, you can't have a mass start with 60 to 100 unicyclists on a narrow bike path. But if the race takes place on a wide road, then I see no problem at all.
At the open Dutch championships, for example, there is a 5km standard race every year with around 75 participants - it starts with a mass start on a comparatively narrow path that is maybe 3-4m wide and doesn't get any wider in many places. Yes, the density of fast riders is certainly lower than at a Unicon, but 3-4m is also rather narrow. So I would definitely see the mass start as a realistic starting option for many races. Particularly in extremely long races, the fact that you can't cross the start line directly at the starting gun is comparatively unimportant.
Comment
I agree with Jan that it's the gun time that should count, i.e. an identical start time for each start.
I think target/seed times should be used to position competitors for the starting order.
If you can organize a road race with a mass start for any distance, I really think it's interesting for long distance races.
A long distance has several advantages:
- fewer competitors at the start
- the longer the distance, the greater the risk of a fast start, so there's more chance of groups forming.
Mass start could be more than just a way to start. The list of disciplines could include “mass start long distance”, specifying that this is a mass start of a length greater than or equal to the marathon (length to be discussed, but I like this reference to the marathon, which is a fixed distance historically used in unicycle road racing). We could also talk about “mass start extra long distance” for a mass that is longer than 2 marathons (84+km)...
Comment
Gun time is always used for placings in mass start events. The riders who are aiming for a placing should have themselves close to the front.
I would still separate standard and unlimited, male and female (option 3). The top riders in each division will want to be placed near the front to minimise the difference between gun and net time. If we went with option 1, top standard class females are likely quite far back if we are mixing all riders together.
Comment
My initial suggestion was to add the possibility of one start per category and per gender (option 3). This was not foreseen in the rules of a mass start.
But I think that organizers should be given the option of a single start for all (option 1), as is common practice in local or national races.
On the other hand, it reminds me of the German marathon championships in 2024, where there was a single start for all, including unicycles and rollerblades. I think there needs to be a rule to ensure that a mass start contains only unicyclists, or at least that a world record can't be ratified if the start is grouped with nonunicyclists (the current marathon record was set at the German marathon championships with rollerbladers).
What's more, I don't see what section 3D.14 adds to the rules. The rules already provide for the possibility of a mass start, of separating or not separating genders and categories, and for records to be made with brutto time.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Comment
> But I think that organizers should be given the option of a single start for all (option 1), as is common practice in local or national races.
Dem würde ich definitiv zustimmen. Grade bei kleinen Veranstaltungen mit sehr wenig Teilnehmern ist das denke ich eine geeignete Option für den Ausrichter. Die Regel könnte ja so formuliert werden, dass diese Option bei Unicons nicht angewendet werden darf.
> I think there needs to be a rule to ensure that a mass start contains only unicyclists, or at least that a world record can't be ratified if the start is grouped with nonunicyclists
I see this very critically, because with such a rule, unicycle marathon events would definitely no longer be possible in Germany. We only have the opportunity to compete in other marathon events (and it is already extremely difficult to find organizers who allow unicyclists) - if we were to demand a separate start, unicyclists would simply no longer get the opportunity to compete. In Germany, unicycle marathon events have always been dependent on other events and races have always only been possible together with other sports such as inline skating.
Comment
I've made a proposal to clarify the wording of the different start options (and the addition of option 3).
Please let me know if you agree, or if you'd like to see it modified.
Concerning a grouped start with non-unicyclists. I propose to discuss this in another discussion. I think it's important for this case to be explicitly mentioned in the rulebook.
Comment
I had forgotten this sentence from section 3D.10:
The various classes may share the race course, but Standard racers should always start separately from Unlimited racers, also in the case of mass starts.
Only option 2 is covered by the existing rules. Option 1 may have its place in local or national races (or special marathon event), and that it is clearer to detail the different options of a mass start in 3D.10.3.
I would therefore propose moving the above sentence to section 3D.10.2 on heat starts (and remove "also on the case of mass starts").
Comment
In terms of content, I think the proposal is good, but I would suggest consistently numbering the paragraphs for all rules that are adapted or newly added and dividing paragraphs that describe separate topics accordingly.
I am unsure whether the paragraph deals with only one topic or whether it could be divided into separate topics and thus paragraphs, e.g. as follows:
3D.10.3 Mass Start
1. A mass start is a grouped start where all participants begin the race together. This type of start is commonly used for long-distance races (marathon or longer free distance road races).
2. The organizer may choose to separate the starts based on class and gender, allowing for up to four separate starts, resulting in three possible configurations:
2.1. Standard and Unlimited start together, all genders combined (1 start).
2.2. Standard and Unlimited start separately, all genders combined (2 starts).
2.3. Standard and Unlimited start separately, with males and females also starting separately (4 starts).
3. In any case the starting order on the line may be determined based on target times or other criteria set by the organizer.
In my opinion, paragraph 1 contains very general information about what a mass start is and where it is used. For me, paragraph 2 goes more in the direction of the concrete realization, but could also be included under paragraph 1. Paragraph 3 then deals with a separate topic of content, namely the order in which the individual participants are lined up, which is why I would regard this as a separate paragraph in any case.
Comment
I think the concept of starting standard and unlimited together just works poorly in practice. Slow unlimited riders would have unnecessary interactions with fast standard riders at the start line when things are by nature more congested. Maybe there is a situation i'm not thinking of, but I would recommend avoiding doing this at all costs
Comment
As I already wrote in the other discussion, I think it is extremely important to have option 2.1, because in Germany this option is the only option for practically all marathon competitions to allow unicyclists to participate at all. Removing it from the rules would mean eliminating numerous events.
Something else would be to make recommendations as to which options should be preferred or to state which options should/must be used at unicons.
Comment
On several occasions, i've taken part in marathons with a single start for all, a start that generally brought together between 40 and 50 competitors on an 8m-wide road. There was no starting order and no problem. I think it's important to mention this type of start in the rules, especially as I think most mass starts are organized this way.
However, I understand Ken and Tim's comments, and I agree with Jan to add that only options 2 and 3 can be organized at Unicon.
I think it's a good thing to include all situations in section 3D.10, to avoid having to add exceptions in other sections.
Concerning section 3D.10, I like the proposed algorithm for choosing the starting configuration, but I wonder if it doesn't favor heat starts too much. Maybe it could be slightly modified to favor mass start organization. I'm thinking about the last points:
• If the course does not allow for ten riders to ride abreast for at least 500 meters before the course narrows, use heats of 12 or more riders.
• If the starting eld consists of more than 50 riders, use heats of 20 or more riders.
• In all other cases, use a mass start
If the road allows 10 riders abreast for at least 500m, I think we could start 80 or 100 competitors at the same time (rather than the 50 stipulated by the rule).
As for the form of the proposal, I don't mind numbering the paragraphs. However, I see that my proposal impacts sections 3D.10 3D.10.2 and 3D.10.3. Is it important to copy all the old rules into the proposal? In any case, I'll rework the proposal when I have access to a computer next week.
Comment
> I think it's a good thing to include all situations in section 3D.10, to avoid having to add exceptions in other sections.
I totally agree, we should avoid having multiple rules on similar topics. Everything that concerns a mass start should also be in the mass start rule.
I would share your feeling that heat starts are currently somewhat preferred, although in some cases a mass start would be possible and (in my opinion) preferable.
> If the road allows 10 riders abreast for at least 500m, I think we could start 80 or 100 competitors at the same time (rather than the 50 stipulated by the rule).
Would be okay for me - as already written above, the 10km and 5km at the Dutch championships, for example, are always organized with a mass start with about 75 participants on a 3-4 m wide course and that always works quite well. With a wider course on which 10 riders can ride side by side, I would have no doubts about allowing up to 100 participants at a mass start.
> Is it important to copy all the old rules into the proposal?
I would always copy the sections of the old rules that are to be changed. Sometimes, however, it is easier to understand if the entire rule is copied.
Comment
I've made a few changes to my proposal to include modifications to sections 3D.10 and 3D.10.2, but I see other elements that can be modified:
- In section 3D.10, there's a sentence about seed time that relates to the previous section 3D.9 (which I don't think is necessary here): Seed time is defined as an estimated finish time, preferably based on past performance in similar event(s). If no seed time is submitted by the rider or their coach, the organization can assign a seed time.
- In section 3D.10.2, 2 situations are distinguished for the start delay between waves 1, 2 and 3 to ensure that top riders suffer less interference. I'm not aware of the first 3 waves being spaced differently from the other waves (and 10 minutes for a marathon without laps seems excessive to me). I don't think it's really useful, today we're not even sure that the top males and females riders are in the first 2 waves. It would be enough for me if it said something like: The time intervals between heats 1, 2 and 3 should be set so that the following heats have the least chance of interfering with the best male and female riders. In any case, a minimum delay of 1 minute must be respected between 2 waves.
Comment
Thank you for revising the proposal. To address the new points you raised:
Sentence about Seed time:
I would agree with you that the sentence in 3D.10 about seed time actually belongs in section 3D.9. I suspect it was inserted at this point solely to explain the sentence before it (“In the sections below, fastest rider means fastest rider by seed time.”). However, I would suggest either referring to section 3D.9 in this first sentence (e.g. “In the sections below, fastest rider means fastest rider by seeding accoring to 3D.9.”) or deleting the first sentence completely and referring to section 3D.9 in the following sections accordingly (e.g. “The first heat should be devoted to the fastest males seeded accoring to 3D.9.”).
Sentence about time difference between waves:
The current rule doesn't seem to make much sense to me and the time intervals are really long. I think in practice we usually start with equal intervals between all waves anyway, so your suggestion is sufficient in my opinion.
While reading the rule, I noticed a few more things concerning rule 3D.10 Starting Configuration and 3D.10.2 Heat Start. However, the question is whether we should not limit this proposal to the mass start and create new discussions and separate proposals for the other points.
Comment
Am I understanding correctly that proposed 3D.10 is precriptive about the type of start to be used? I don't know that I believe we should (or need to) tell organizers what start to use. Some choices are made for us by the nature of the course or competition. I would prefer possible start formats be described so riders may understand the possible start configurations without a specific prescribed format to be used.
As an aside, we should be careful to use "wave" when multiple starts happen during a single continuous race, and "heats" when multiple races are to be held for an event for consistency
Comment
> As an aside, we should be careful to use "wave" when multiple starts happen during a single continuous race, and "heats" when multiple races are to be held for an event for consistency
I have the impression that in the rulebook the terms "wave" and "heat" are used to describe the same thing. English is not my native language, so if for you and other English speakers, the term wave is preferable to heat, then we should change.
> Am I understanding correctly that proposed 3D.10 is precriptive about the type of start to be used? I don't know that I believe we should (or need to) tell organizers what start to use. Some choices are made for us by the nature of the course or competition. I would prefer possible start formats be described so riders may understand the possible start configurations without a specific prescribed format to be used.
Section 3D.10 is designed as an algorithm for choosing the starting mode. Generally speaking, I prefer recommendations to strict rules.
But I don't think we should leave it completely up to the organizers to choose the start mode.
Today, most races are organized with wave starts. The wave start is the easiest for organizers to implement, but it's also the worst from a sporting point of view. The start mode must be taken into account when choosing the course and the start location. I think it's important to highlight the other start modes (mass start and individual start for time trial).
Before the algorithm in section 3D.10, it might be interesting to recommend choosing courses that allow a mass start to be organized, and to specify that wave starts should be considered as a default solution. Wave starts are often the only possible option for fixed-distance races, but for a long free-distance race, a mass start should be considered as the first option.
Comment
> I have the impression that in the rulebook the terms "wave" and "heat" are used to describe the same thing. English is not my native language, so if for you and other English speakers, the term wave is preferable to heat, then we should change.
I'm not a native speaker either, but I've always understood it to mean that heats are finished before the next one starts and waves start before the previous one has finished, so that the different waves can be on the way at the same time. However, I'm not sure how consistently this is used in the rulebook and whether this distinction is actually intended and makes sense.
> Am I understanding correctly that proposed 3D.10 is precriptive about the type of start to be used? I don't know that I believe we should (or need to) tell organizers what start to use. Some choices are made for us by the nature of the course or competition. I would prefer possible start formats be described so riders may understand the possible start configurations without a specific prescribed format to be used.
That was one of the things I meant when I wrote: "While reading the rule, I noticed a few more things concerning rule 3D.10 Starting Configuration and 3D.10.2 Heat Start. However, the question is whether we should not limit this proposal to the mass start and create new discussions and separate proposals for the other points."
In my opinion, however, the discussion tends to lead away from the actual topic of the mass start, which is why we should perhaps discuss this in a separate discussion. If these criteria are not to be understood as a hard rule, but rather as an hint or recommendation, then in my opinion this should also be made clear in the rulebook. Otherwise, the whole criteria, including the numbers given in it, could also be understood as a hard rule.
Comment
> I'm not a native speaker either, but I've always understood it to mean that heats are finished before the next one starts and waves start before the previous one has finished, so that the different waves can be on the way at the same time. However, I'm not sure how consistently this is used in the rulebook and whether this distinction is actually intended and makes sense.
In this case, I think there's an error in section 3D.10.2 and “heat” should be systematically replaced by “wave”.
> In my opinion, however, the discussion tends to lead away from the actual topic of the mass start, which is why we should perhaps discuss this in a separate discussion. If these criteria are not to be understood as a hard rule, but rather as an hint or recommendation, then in my opinion this should also be made clear in the rulebook. Otherwise, the whole criteria, including the numbers given in it, could also be understood as a hard rule.
I've tried to suggest that the mass start be put forward, by integrating it into the existing rules...
But this may not be the best way of doing it. In the case of a race with a mass start, the starting method must be considered when choosing the course. Perhaps the simplest solution would be for a long-distance free race to be organized with a mass start. Section 3D.10 would still be useful for fixed-distance races, like marathon.
Comment
> In this case, I think there's an error in section 3D.10.2 and “heat” should be systematically replaced by “wave”.
In my opinion, this would indeed be more logical.
> I've tried to suggest that the mass start be put forward, by integrating it into the existing rules...
I understand that and it makes a lot of sense in my opinion. What I wanted to say with my comment is that the current discussion (and proposal) also deals with other things that don't directly affect the mass start - e.g. replacing “heat” with “wave” - we can combine all that in one proposal and revise the whole section 3D.10 in one proposal. But perhaps it would be simpler if we separate things and change all the things that directly affect the mass start in one proposal and other aspects of 3D.10 in another?
Comment
> I understand that and it makes a lot of sense in my opinion. What I wanted to say with my comment is that the current discussion (and proposal) also deals with other things that don't directly affect the mass start - e.g. replacing “heat” with “wave” - we can combine all that in one proposal and revise the whole section 3D.10 in one proposal. But perhaps it would be simpler if we separate things and change all the things that directly affect the mass start in one proposal and other aspects of 3D.10 in another?
I understand that by combining the changes into a single proposal, you can agree with one change and not the other...
For the replacement of “heat” by “wave”, if everyone thinks it's wrong in the current version, shouldn't that be a point of debate?
I find it difficult to separate the subjects, as the subsections of 3D.10 are linked.
If anyone thinks that we should keep “heat” instead of “wave” or keep a sub-section for “heat start”, please let us know. If not, I could put the proposal to the vote, and if the majority doesn't agree, I'll just make another proposal to replace “heat” with “wave” without mentioning mass start. What do you think?
Comment
> I find it difficult to separate the subjects, as the subsections of 3D.10 are linked.
I think that's right for most of the things that are currently covered in the proposal - but if 3D.10 was to be revised and there was a separate discussion, I could think of other things that don't really have anything to do with the current proposal - the original changes all affected the mass start in some way. But we can also try to deal with everything in one discussion and one proposal.
> Section 3D.10 is designed as an algorithm for choosing the starting mode. Generally speaking, I prefer recommendations to strict rules.
But I don't think we should leave it completely up to the organizers to choose the start mode.
For me, the question arises: Is the list currently meant as a strict rule or as a recommendation? I don't know whether a strict rule with such specific numbers really makes sense. I would tend to say either we make it a recommendation or at least allow a little more leeway with the numbers if it is to be a strict rule.
And then we have the section on seed time. I would prefer to refer to the relevant rule here instead of repeating things.
Comment
I made a separate dicussion/proposal for changing "heat starts,". It seems to me to be the easiest way to make changes in this section.
Comment
@Simon: Would you update the proposal about the Mass Start? Since we have an own proposal for the Wave Start we can remove it from this proposal.
Comment
I've just updated the proposal by deleting what concerned section 3D.10.2.
Apart from that, I've just written "seed time" instead of "target time" in paragraph 3 of section 3D.10.3
As a reminder, the purpose of this discussion is to clarify the modalities of a mass start and is not to review the algorithm in section 3D.10. If you think the algorithm should be revised, a new discussion should be opened. Are there any comments?
Comment
Looks good to me - for the other aspects related to 3D.10 I will open a separate discussion.