New discipline - Technical Muni
Comments about this discussion:
Started
I would like to start discussion on creating new form of the Muni competition - the Technical Muni.
If we agree, I would like to mention it in the Rulebook as en experimental or new discipline and not require it at Unicon yet.
The idea is that riders are encouraged to ride difficult sections and are penalized for not clearing them (i.e. for walking).
This discipline may be run in form of DH or XC.
The technical sections are clearly marked and measured (rounded up to the closest meter). Rider receive penalty for not clearing the section. The penalty p=l[m]*f[s/m]
p- penalty
l- the length of the section
f - penalty factor (penalty seconds for each meter)
Clearing the section occurs when rider ride entire section from the entry line to exit line without touching the ground with feet.
(Touching with other part of the body than feet would be legal, it generally safer, it may sometimes help, but often it disturb the riding motion and balance. Such prohibition would be difficult to judge, especially in tight forest).
In case of dismount, the rider may be allowed for another attempt (if N>1). Number of allowed attempts is N, (N=1, only one attempt, no repetition allowed).
Final result of the race is the measured time plus sum of the penalty points.
The variables: f- penalty factor and N - number of attempts should be stated before competition.
Due to experimental nature I would suggest that f and N are not defined yet.
This form of the competition was experimented during LAUCC XII in El Salvador last month.
The f was set to 2 s/m, N was 3. (20 second penalty for 10m of section, total 3 attempts allowed)
It was very small event. The riders liked the option to repeat the sections and challenge themselves.
I imagine that on the bigger events the N could be dropped down to 2 or 1.
f could also be adjusted - with f=1 s/m for fast pace races, greater numbers of f generally encourage for repeating the section.
I can imagine difficult sections where riders try to ride more carefully and slower, therefore f=1 s/m doesn't give them much of advantage over the walking competitors because they already ride slow. Therefore I suggest f = 2 s/m
Ideally, the race director would select the course with great variety of difficulty among the sections. Such that there will also be a challenging sections even for the best riders. What I am aware, is that the difficulty of the courses may increase to what we witness nowadays. As riders are encouraged to ride sections on their limits and beyond, we could expect more dangerous dismounts. It is important that riders can judge their ability to attempt the sections safely.
Other rules may be the same as in corresponding disciplines, either from XC or DH. With proper setting of factor f, we could potentially remove the ban on running or fast walking which would make the judging easier.
Regarding start, I think that only individual time trial is an option. The mass starts would be difficult to judge.
Let me know what you think.
Comment
I love the idea, because it goes directly to one of the core elements of Muni, which is to ride through terrain/sections of trail that are challenging to ride through. When learning to ride rough terrain (to use George Peck's terminology), the challenge is to get through it without dismount. Non-racing rides, on challenging terrain, usually have sessions of people taking turns on the more/most difficult parts, which is one of the most enjoyable things about Muni, at least for me.
Before we had Muni races, we often challenged each other to ride through difficult sections, sometimes stopping for as long as necessary to be successful. Sometimes this would end with riding out in the dark. But it was always about encouraging each other to find their way through as much as possible.
Question: does [m] represent Meter, and [s/m] represent seconds per meter? Or is it an algebra equation? :-)
This seems like a very interesting type of event to develop. I hope it can be done in a way that fits a wide range of skill level among riders. It should be accessible to novices as well as experts (and not just because I'm an aging guy who prefers rolling sections to jumping!).
Comment
In principle, I can understand the idea of the proposed discipline, but I wonder whether the idea of riding as much as possible in a timed competition really works/is suitable for it? I can imagine it as an independent discipline, but I honestly can't imagine that the organizers have the time to integrate another discipline into the competitions. I think it's more likely that such a discipline will be offered instead of the existing DH or XC competitions and I can definitely see some disadvantages here:
- I think it will be difficult to find a course that is really suitable for a wide range of riders, as the problem already exists with courses that are not explicitly designed to include such technical challenges
- Basically, I think it's very positive that the current rules don't encourage riders to race for time in sections that are beyond their ability. The proposed rule could encourage more riders to take more risks and possibly attempt more than their ability actually allows. I think it makes a huge difference here whether you try to complete difficult sections within a timed competition or as part of a Muni ride outside of a competition.
- This could lead to “traffic jams”, especially if repetitions of sections are permitted, as many people could try to make the section after all, which would hinder those who would make the section easily by riding. Especially because you might have to walk uphill a bit to get to the start of the section. This can hinder a competition considerably - at the moment you would simply remount directly or walk until you can remount and then continue riding - and yet there are sometimes small traffic jams in more difficult places.
- If you are walking with no time penalty, you are already at a disadvantage compared to those who ride the corresponding sections. I do see the advantage that such a regulation encourages you to ride everything, but I doubt that it will have a significant influence on the result in the end. On the other hand, the logistics of the competition to record the corresponding time penalties and the subsequent evaluation will be much more difficult.
- The rule that you are not allowed to run cannot be removed even with the new idea - the technical sections will only ever be able to cover a fraction of the course. If you were allowed to run on the remaining part, you would have a clear advantage over a rider.
Even if I can understand the idea behind it in principle, I take a very critical view of presenting the discipline as DH or XC “with an extra”. In the long term, this could lead to there only being one or the other. I think it would be much better if the discipline were really so fundamentally different that it really is a new and independent discipline.
Comment
I like the idea, but I kind of agree with Jan that it may be difficult to implement, especially as a timed race. And encouraging riders to attempt very challenging technical sections under timed conditions sounds dangerous.
The idea is close to "Enduro" MTB races: there is predefined course, but only certain (mostly downhill) sections are timed. This makes it like a longer downhill race that also requires a less downhill-specific bike and some fitness for uphill riding (the original idea was that riders still had to pedal all the uphill themselves, although in reality the pros are often shuttled to the top, as they then get better results - I personally thought it was cheating but the sponsors and spectators liked it so it was accepted). So say the course has 1000m vertical uphill and 1600m downhill and there are 8 downhill sections, so the rider's time does not include the uphill or flat sections (2-3 hours), but only the sum of the time in the technical sections. So it is still a timed race. Riders queue up for each section (you are free to take breaks, you just need to complete all sections within the time limit).
The original Enduro races about 20 years ago were scored more like in trials: each rider received (minus) points for each "dap", I think 1 for a hand, 2 for a foot and 5 for crash. And the time was only used as a tiebreaker. In the initial races I did back around 2006, only 1-2 riders usually finished the courses "clean", but soon they changed the courses (and the riders improved) so more like 10-20 riders finished without errors, so it became more of a timed race.
I think a technical competition that combines aspects of XC, DH and trails could be interesting and put more of an emphasis on technical skills than raw speed by including aspects of all muni disciplines as well as trials: like DH in that there are technical sections, some elements of XC/uphill in that riders need to be able to ride uphill and the course is longer, and more like trials in that it is not expected that every rider rides everything and more points are given for "clean" riding than for being fast (only a time limit).
I think it could work to have say 4-10 different technical sections, with increasing difficulty, so maybe 2 beginner sections, 2 intermediate sections, 2 advanced sections and then 2 expert sections.
Then a point scheme would have to be worked out to reward those who clean the most with the fewest dismounts/skipping obstacles.
Possible points:
-1 for each dab with the hand or foot
-2 for each dismount (the rider can remount at or before the spot and try again -- after 5 dismounts, the rider then instead receives the 10 point penalty for skipping an obstacle)
-10 for skipping a single obstacle (drop, jump, or single steep) -- say the rider decides not to attempt an obstacle and walks it
-50 for walking more than 1-5m (i.e. not completing a section -- the maximum penalty for each section)
-- no penalty for intentional dismount, say if another rider if blocking an obstacle
So if there were 8 sections, then the lowest score would be 8*50=400 for extended walking or not completing any section.
A beginner rider might clean the first 2 beginner sections with 1 dismount in the 2nd, then have 5 dismounts each in the intermediate sections, then skip 2 obstacles with 4 dismounts in the advanced sections, and then walk the expert sections:
B1: 0
B2: 1*2=2
I1, I2: 5*2=10
A1, A1: 2*10 + 4*2 = 28
E1, E2: 1*50
= 0+2+10+10+28+28+50+50=178
Thus, like it trials, beginner riders could attempt the easier sections, then try parts of the intermediate and then completely skip the expert sections.
The time could be taken as a tiebreaker.
Another possible concern would be: is it still OK that a top trials rider might hop the entire course with a 20" with almost no dismounts but take 30 minutes for a DH section where the top muni riders only take 8 minutes but have 3-4 dismounts. But if the emphasis is on the technical riding skills, then this should be OK. This could be limited a little by having a time limit for each section. Actually this seems like a good plan as it eases organization -- so if you exceed the section time limit, then the rider receives full (minus) points. But a trials rider could still win, but I think that isn't so bad.
And it would need a name, maybe "technical muni"? or muni trials?
For the organization: The course would need to be marked like XC. Each technical section would need to be marked like DH with tape forcing riders to ride obstacles (or walk/skip them). Then each technical section would need to have an official at the start and finish to note time and scores (like in trials, the rider could carry his own scoresheet). Course marshals would be placed along the course to note minus points for dismounts, crashes and extended walking. So after writing this, I think the biggest challenge would be enough course marshals/judges. A possible solution would be that riders are divided into groups/waves alternating between scoring other riders and riding themselves: e.g. each section is ridden in waves (say 6 waves of 10 riders each), so wave 1 rides while wave 4 scores, then wave 2 rides while wave 5 scores, wave 3 rides while wave 6 scores, wave 4 while wave 1 scores, 5/2, then 6/3 (wave 1 rides first and scores just after the half, wave 6 scores just before the half and rides last). However, this would severely limit the "flow" of the competition. Or scoring mostly on the "honor system"?
Like in DH, individual starts for each section (like DH every 30-60 seconds). As time is secondary, in easier sections a faster rider could audibly inform the slower rider who could then let them pass. If the slower rider is blocking on an obstacle or dismounts in front of the faster rider, then the faster rider could do a controlled stop and dismount without penalty, then wait until the rider clears and resume riding.
Like in trials, the expert sections could be really challenging, where only the top riders even attempt. And the danger/risk is somewhat reduced in that there is little time pressure. And like in trials, by also including easy sections, beginners could also compete and then just decide to quit after a few attempts at the intermediate section. Spectators would probably congregate more in the expert sections.
@Maksym: I think this captures the essence of your idea for "technical riding" where speed is secondary to technical ability. What do you think?
Comment
Oh, I see Maksym already suggested the name "Technical Muni" (which was then also my suggestion).
Comment
@Nathan, your proposition is pretty complicated. In trial the rules are simple, each dab equals to dismount/obstacle not cleared. I don't think it is necessary to distinguish sections in regard to difficulty, which would also be very difficult to define.
In fact I don't see why you think that it would be difficult to implement what I have proposed. Judges need only to observe for dismounts, in sections that normally should be judged anyway in order to observe runners.
@Jan, >I think it will be difficult to find a course that is really suitable for a wide range of riders, as the problem already exists with courses that are not explicitly designed to include such technical challenges
This is proposed discipline and if the organizer don't have suitable course, don't need to do it. Often, when selecting a good trail for the race the difficulty is to find a course without those too difficult sections, to keep the good tempo of the race, and to avoid walking sections. Especially if walking speed is comparable to riding speed. It is actually easier to pick up technical trails when we don't worry about too difficult sections. Therefore I totally disagree with you.
@Jan >- Basically, I think it's very positive that the current rules don't encourage riders to race for time in sections that are beyond their ability. The proposed rule could encourage more riders to take more risks and possibly attempt more than their ability actually allows. I think it makes a huge difference here whether you try to complete difficult sections within a timed competition or as part of a Muni ride outside of a competition.
I think that the rules should encourage the riders to rider more careful and more slow. With such approach we are able to ride more difficult sections. Of course, the riders should be aware of their own limits. It is the same in current competitions. For some riders it is safe to ride fast, in full control and safe, while other riders are not able to ride it in any safe manner. Of course, when focusing on trail difficulty, some of the most difficult obstacles would be more difficult than what we currently experiencing in Muni races. It doesn't necessarily mean that the course have to be more dangerous. Exist sections that are very difficult to ride but safe to dismount.
@Jan >This could lead to “traffic jams”, especially if repetitions of sections are permitted, as many people could try to make the section after all, which would hinder those who would make the section easily by riding. Especially because you might have to walk uphill a bit to get to the start of the section. This can hinder a competition considerably - at the moment you would simply remount directly or walk until you can remount and then continue riding - and yet there are sometimes small traffic jams in more difficult places.
In competitions with greater risk of traffic jams the the number of attempts can be 1, (N=1) which means that after dismount the rider cannot repeat the section. We already have rules of not not disturbing other riders by dismounted riders.
The traffic jams occur due to not correct starting order. It is the same issue with DH and cannot be always avoided. The solution is qualification and final round, and experienced organizers are well aware of that.
@Jan >- If you are walking with no time penalty, you are already at a disadvantage compared to those who ride the corresponding sections. I do see the advantage that such a regulation encourages you to ride everything, but I doubt that it will have a significant influence on the result in the end.
There are riders who don't ride fast but can ride very difficult terrain, and in contrary there are riders who can ride very fast but skip difficult section by walking. The discipline is for the benefit to those riders who are able to ride technical stuff.
@Jan >On the other hand, the logistics of the competition to record the corresponding time penalties and the subsequent evaluation will be much more difficult.
The logistics are to locate the judge to look on dismounts in sections where the judge would normally be needed anyway to look for running or fast walking. It is actually easier to spot dismount than distinguish fast walking from slow walking.
@Jan >- The rule that you are not allowed to run cannot be removed even with the new idea - the technical sections will only ever be able to cover a fraction of the course. If you were allowed to run on the remaining part, you would have a clear advantage over a rider.
Running is not clearly faster than riding a mountain unicycle, especially on easy sections. We can observe it on the Cyclocross, where all riders try to ride and run only through obstacles. Also, the running or fast walking ban is a controversial rule on races where the judges are not spread to see the whole course. The main purpose of creating the ban was due to technical sections, where it is faster to run than ride and risk time costing dismounts.
@Jan > I take a very critical view of presenting the discipline as DH or XC “with an extra”. In the long term, this could lead to there only being one or the other. I think it would be much better if the discipline were really so fundamentally different that it really is a new and independent discipline.
That is why I suggest to call it experimental discipline, with possible improvement over the current disciplines. If people get to like it and prefer it over a traditional (speed) Muni, why no to have this one instead?
Comment
Wow, lots of great ideas, and lots of moving parts! "Data collection and transmission" will be a logistical issue to consider. As explained above, the scoring has to be simple enough for judges to do it "on the fly" and not have time to do multiple calculations before the next rider hits the section. Then, this information will have to be recorded along with rider number in a way that it can be easily fed into an application that calculates the scores and placings. So there is that technical aspect that will also be involved.
To run this event you will need judges that know exactly what they're looking for and how to record it; more training than simple counting of dismounts or judging running vs. walking, so that will also be a factor. Multiple judges might be required for each judged section depending on length/visibility and how many riders will be coming through (especially if closely spaced). "Live" training events will probably be needed, to show the variety of things that can happen, and give judges a chance to practice.
I don't envision it as a replacement for any of our existing events, unless it can be somehow blended into either an XC, Downhill or Uphill event. But I like the simplicity of those as they are; this would probably be most effective, at least until there has been some live experience running some. If done right, it could also be a good spectator event, unlike most long Muni races. :-)
Comment
I really like Nathan's idea as it proposes a completely different concept and really puts the focus on mastering technical sections without being primarily a timed race, as the time is really only proposed as a tiebreaker. As a result, this discipline opens up completely different possibilities and has a completely different focus than the original proposal, which is still a normal timed race.
To address Maksym's comments:
> Often, when selecting a good trail for the race the difficulty is to find a course without those too difficult sections, to keep the good tempo of the race, and to avoid walking sections. Especially if walking speed is comparable to riding speed.
But currently it's not a problem if the course contains sections that will be walked, walking will practically always be slower than riding, so in any case everyone who can ride will ride and those who can't will just walk. I think all courses that would be possible for the proposed discipline would also be possible as a course now - on the other hand, not all courses that are possible now are also suitable for the new discipline, as it should explicitly be about technical Muni and therefore technical sections should be included for all difficulty levels in any case, otherwise it doesn't seem to make much sense to call the whole thing technical Muni.
> I think that the rules should encourage the riders to rider more careful and more slow. With such approach we are able to ride more difficult sections.
But as long as the format of the race is a race for time, the focus of the riders will be on achieving the best possible time and this cannot be combined with the approach to rider more careful and more slow. That's why I like Nathan's idea, which shifts the focus of the proposed discipline away from racing for time and towards actually mastering technical sections. A timed race does not become safer by introducing time penalties for technical sections that are not ridden, it makes a timed race less safe instead.
> The traffic jams occur due to not correct starting order. It is the same issue with DH and cannot be always avoided.
At almost all the competitions I've been to, XC has been started in waves, so the start order plays a subordinate role in the formation of traffic jams if individual sections can/should be repeated. In DH, you might be able to limit the problem with the start order, but even there it won't be possible to prevent it.
And if sections are not allowed to be repeated, then I don't see any benefit at all from the proposed discipline. Then it looks to me more like someone wants to change something because they want to change something.
> There are riders who don't ride fast but can ride very difficult terrain, and in contrary there are riders who can ride very fast but skip difficult section by walking. The discipline is for the benefit to those riders who are able to ride technical stuff.
But a discipline that doesn't rely on speed, like Nathan's idea, would do that much better - and it would actually differ significantly from the existing discipline and not create any rivalry. As I said, I don't see two extremely similar disciplines being offered at competitions in the long term.
> The logistics are to locate the judge to look on dismounts in sections where the judge would normally be needed anyway to look for running or fast walking. It is actually easier to spot dismount than distinguish fast walking from slow walking.
The judges have to calculate the time penalties for each rider based on the penalty factor and the length of the section, they have to keep track of which rider has already done how many repetitions, the time penalties all have to be transferred to the timekeeper and then added to the measured time (which is probably not easily possible with the usual evaluation software) - all this should be easier than just standing on the track and making sure that nobody runs? I think that's a more than bold statement.
> Running is not clearly faster than riding a mountain unicycle, especially on easy sections.
I've taken part in so many XC races where I would have been clearly faster with running than riding on almost all the uphill sections - so if you were allowed to run here I would definitely no longer enjoy the discipline.
> That is why I suggest to call it experimental discipline.
I don't know if the rulebook is really the right place to experiment. I personally think that you can try things out at competitions and if they prove themselves, then you can add them to the rulebook.
I would really love to try out the idea proposed by Nathan at a competition. This discipline sounds super interesting to me and I could imagine that it could achieve exactly what the basic idea behind this discussion was - namely to create a discipline where the focus is on mastering technical sections.
Comment
>But as long as the format of the race is a race for time, the focus of the riders will be on achieving the best possible time and this cannot be combined with the approach to rider more careful and more slow.
If the riders gets 40s penalty for dismount in 20m (f=2) long section, than it is surely encouraging him to ride more carefully to avoid dismounts.
>And if sections are not allowed to be repeated, then I don't see any benefit at all from the proposed discipline. Then it looks to me more like someone wants to change something because they want to change something.
The competition is a test of the skill.. Ability to ride a section on first attempt (N=1) is a skill. Ability to ride a section with two attmpts (N=2) is lower skill. In conventions where time allows the N can be higher. It is worth to notice that lower values of N measure the consistency, therefore high numbers should not be desired, but N=1 is already a good indication of the skill.
The idea proposed by Nathan is very different from mine. In my opinion it is very complicated to judge and not very realistic to run on bigger conventions.
However, as I mentioned earlier, the idea proposed here is in my opinion easier to judge than normal DH race. (because it is easier to observe dismount than distinguish slow walking from fast walking)
> On the other hand, the logistics of the competition to record the corresponding time penalties and the subsequent evaluation will be much more difficult.
The sections are marked and their length is measured before the race. Section judge notes if the passing was clear or with dismount. (In normal DH, the notes would cover penalties for fast walking). After the race the notes are transferred to the computer that calculate penalties. Easy as that.
>I've taken part in so many XC races where I would have been clearly faster with running than riding on almost all the uphill sections - so if you were allowed to run here I would definitely no longer enjoy the discipline.
Those sections where running is faster than riding can be marked and judged as technical sections.
The problematic with anti running regulation is that even though the regulation exist, there are no judges along entire course to look on infractions.
Comment
I think riders and audience like more to do/ watch the best performance, not the fastest rider.
I am with John and in my opinion speed kills the spirit of muni.
Comment
So do something without measuring speed in a difficult section.
Comment
> The competition is a test of the skill.. Ability to ride a section on first attempt (N=1) is a skill. Ability to ride a section with two attmpts (N=2) is lower skill. In conventions where time allows the N can be higher. It is worth to notice that lower values of N measure the consistency, therefore high numbers should not be desired, but N=1 is already a good indication of the skill.
But the discipline as a whole does not focus on skill (as is the case with Nathan's proposal) but is still a race for time. That's exactly what I criticize about the proposal. I can absolutely understand that you want to introduce a Muni discipline that is focused on skill. However, I think there should also be consistent consideration of how to really test the skill in a competition without continuing to focus on the time.
> The sections are marked and their length is measured before the race. Section judge notes if the passing was clear or with dismount. (In normal DH, the notes would cover penalties for fast walking). After the race the notes are transferred to the computer that calculate penalties. Easy as that.
I have never experienced that penalties for fast walking were recorded and then deducted afterwards. The riders were simply instructed to wait a certain amount of time during the race.
But I also thought that it would make a difference how far you get in the relevant section. If it's simply noted whether someone has made it or not, then the focus on skill is even less than I thought. Then it makes no difference at all whether you simply run the entire section, skip individual obstacles or dismount once/several times and then continue. But for me, this difference would be essential if you really want to test the skill. There's no doubt that falling 10cm before the end of a 20m long section and riding the rest of the section is very different to simply running from the start.
> Those sections where running is faster than riding can be marked and judged as technical sections. The problematic with anti running regulation is that even though the regulation exist, there are no judges along entire course to look on infractions.
So marking one kilometer of uphill in an XC race as a technical section? Or as 50 individual 20 m long sections? I doubt that this is really a suitable approach.
And to be honest, it has to be said that the vast majority of riders adhere very well to the rule that running is not allowed, even if a section cannot be seen by a judge. So abolishing the rule would definitely lead to running, because that would be allowed and in a timed race it would bring advantages.
> So do something without measuring speed in a difficult section.
I think that's exactly what Nathan's suggestion is - a discipline that is really about completing technical sections without focusing on time.