3D.6 Ungeared Awards

This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.

Comments about this discussion:

Started

3D.6 Ungeared Awards
At Unicon, if there are five or more geared male riders in an Unlimited event, the fastest three ungeared male riders will be awarded with an ungeared title for that event. Similarly, if there are five or more geared female riders in an Unlimited event at Unicon, the fastest three ungeared female riders will be awarded with an ungeared title for that event. This is only for the overall classication, not for Age Groups. Other events can choose to award the fastest three, one, or none of the ungeared riders as they wish.

 

The subject has been discussed in another discussion, but I think we should talk about it in a specific discussion.

I don't think this rule is a good one:
- It's in 3D section (organizer section), not known to most competitors
- The attribution of these rewards is not linked to the number of ungeared competitor, whereas it is a reward for ungeared competitors, this attribution is linked to the number of geared competitors.
- The fact that many competitors aren't aware of this rule, and those who are, can't know in advance if there are going to be rewards, means that this ranking is neglected by competitors (which is a problem for an “expert” ranking).
- This classification often rewards ungeared 36“ competitors, whereas standard 29” competitors are sometimes faster.
- At UNICON, locals are more represented in the 36“ ungeared than those who come from far away, because a 36” wheel doesn't fit in standard luggage.

That said, I can understand why these awards were introduced in an event like the 10km, since there is no 29” category in the 10km. And yet there are plenty of ungeared competitors with a wheel bigger than a 24”.

But on a marathon, a climbing road race or a criterium, I don't think it's a good thing. I won this classification at UNICON20 for the climbing road race and at UNICON21 for the criterium. It's nice to be on the podium, but these medals don't mean much to me.

I'd prefer this rule to be removed, or leave the organizers free to reward whoever they like... If the majority think that it should be kept, then at the very least, the conditions of attribution should be reviewed.

Comment

I would immediately agree to remove this rule - organizers are free to make additional awards anyway, and in my experience in Germany, organizers have taken this freedom if they feel it is useful and beneficial to their competition to make additional awards.
But as I have already written elsewhere, in my opinion the rule implicitly leads to another standard category alongside the 29er class. And especially if riders in the 29er class are actually better than those in the unlimited ungeard, I don't think that makes any sense at all.

Comment

I was against this rule when it was voted in favor in the preceeding committee, and I am still against.

Comment

This might be a bigger change, but I feel that the "unlimited" class, as far as awards and recognition, can be an "open" class, that includes ALL riders by default (geared, ungeared, standard). 

Ungeared can be subcategory/special categories, just like standard class. For riders who choose to be in that category for specific reasons (Some reasons can be wanting to specialize in spinning, cost of purchasing/maintaining/transporting larger/geared unicycles)

I think the organizers should then be the ones to decide if a special class is needed or not, depending on the participants and the course.

- Normal flat 10k/marathon? Yes, of course have a standard class.

- Many competitors have ungeared 36"/29" because geared hubs are too expensive and uncommon, and those riders would be strong enough to push a geared hub faster? Organizers can choose to have an ungeared class in this case. (how waves and heats might change could be another topic)

- Unicon 20 mountain climbing road race, where basically everyone is on a 29" or smaller, and no good strong reasons to choose 29"+ or geared vs a standard 29"? No ungeared class. No standard class. 

 

Comment

I think we need to differentiate between official unicycle classes, which riders can rely on, as they design their eqippment and train for them, and awards, which organizers can make relatively freely, as they suit their competition best.

As I said, I am not a fan of having too many official classes, as this makes the individual classes in a small sport like ours even smaller. However, I would still give the organizers the freedom to have additional awards within an official class if it is deemed appropriate - but I would not prescribe special awards in the rulebook.

Comment

As I've already said, I think this rule is wrong.

If we simply abolish it today without making any other adjustments, that won't be a problem, with the exception of the 10km. For me, this discussion is closely linked to that of the 29” category in the 10km.

In road races, wheel size and hub use have a direct impact on speed and therefore on performance. In other disciplines, equipment doesn't have as much impact on performance. Mixing 26“ and 29” wheels with G36“ wheels shocks me, especially as the standard 29” size is an existing category with a high density of competitors. I'd even go so far as to say that 29" is a wheel size/category that's more suited to road unicycling than the 24” category.

As far as categories and their number are concerned, if we compare ourselves to ocean racing, we don't have that many categories...

I can't vote to abolish these ungeared awards if there's nothing else to compensate for the 10km.

Comment

As I said, I am not a fan of having too many official classes, as this makes the individual classes in a small sport like ours even smaller. However, I would still give the organizers the freedom to have additional awards within an official class if it is deemed appropriate - but I would not prescribe special awards in the rulebook.

I think the ungeared unlimited class has been superseded by the 29" standard class, but there are a lot of riders who turn up to Unicon with ungeared 36" as their main distance unicycle.   It was meant to give us a distinction between the two main technological differences within unlimited.   We need opinions from people who race this.

While I'm also not in favour of having too many classes, if we leave it to the discretion of organisers then it will be seen as an inferior category (even though many already see it that way because of the way it's tacked on to the unlimited class).

 

 

 

 

Comment

> If we simply abolish it today without making any other adjustments, that won't be a problem, with the exception of the 10km. For me, this discussion is closely linked to that of the 29” category in the 10km.

I don't see any connection here. One time it's about an official wheel class and the other time about an award that any organizer could carry out even without the corresponding rule in the rulebook.

 > I'd even go so far as to say that 29" is a wheel size/category that's more suited to road unicycling than the 24” category.

Then the consequence should be that the 24 class is abolished as an official wheel class, but not that there is a rule for ungeard awards.

Comment

Rather than deleting this section, what do you think about modifying its content to include rankings for disciplines where there is only one unlimited competition (Individual Time Trial, Hill Climb)? It may be redundant with other sections, but maybe it's not that important.

Let me explain:
- For an Individual Time Trial, the start is individual and based on target time or speed, the start does not distinguish according to unicycle category. We could say that for a UNICON, a standard classification must be made, except if it's an ITT 10km which takes place on the same day as a standard 10km (as we could assume that the best standards riders race the 24" standard race and can't participate in the unlimited 10km).
- For a Hill Climb, if we agree to have a start that doesn't separate standards and unlimiteds, we could also add that 2 classifications are expected: overall and 29" standard.

For regional or national races of this type, a 29" standard classification is recommended, but the choice is left to the organizers.

Comment

In the rule proposed in the other discussion, there would be no exception for the Time Trails of the two categories Standard and Unlimited (except for the option to offer a Time Trail for the 10 km for Unlimited and the Standard class as a Fixed Distance Race).

Comment

If you want to create a proposal out of this discussion, please remember that today (20.07.) is the last day to do so!
The wording of the proposal can still be adjusted in the coming days, but the proposal must be created today.

Comment

> In the rule proposed in the other discussion, there would be no exception for the Time Trails of the two categories Standard and Unlimited (except for the option to offer a Time Trail for the 10 km for Unlimited and the Standard class as a Fixed Distance Race).

Why is it considered that there are 1 or 2 competitions? Is the call to compete with the 2 categories enough for you?

For a 10km time trial, you can say in advance that there will be 2 categories, but in practice, it's better to classify everyone according to their target time (by mixing the starts of unlimited and standard 29" riders). In that case, is it clear to you that we're talking about 2 competitions (even though the starting order includes everyone)?

 

I'll make a proposal at least to give us a little more time.

Comment

> Why is it considered that there are 1 or 2 competitions? Is the call to compete with the 2 categories enough for you?

Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. My suggestion in the discussion was the following:

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.

Isn't that the call to compete with the 2 categories?

 

> For a 10km time trial, you can say in advance that there will be 2 categories, but in practice, it's better to classify everyone according to their target time (by mixing the starts of unlimited and standard 29" riders). In that case, is it clear to you that we're talking about 2 competitions (even though the starting order includes everyone)?

I don't think we have a rule that would prohibit setting the starting order for individual starts in the way described, so it would be perfectly OK for me to proceed in this way.

Comment

> I don't think we have a rule that would prohibit setting the starting order for individual starts in the way described, so it would be perfectly OK for me to proceed in this way.

ok! I thought a start like that meant there was only one competition. That's fine with me if you consider that it's 2 competitions.

 

I'm not very happy with my proposal, but I don't think we should keep the rule as it is today. I'm not in favor of abolishing it outright, but I'd prefer to simplify it, move from 36" to 29" and reduce its scope.

If we add the Criterium to the list of races where we can award prizes for 29" standard, we could stop quoting them and just say: ”for all road races where there are no standard 29“ competitions”.

Comment

I would recommend changing the title of the section. If the rule provides for 29" standard overall awards in road competitions without a standard category, "Ungeared Awards" doesn't align with what the rule is. 

I do not support this rule change more generally. I think it's bad for the sport and bad for the development of Unlimited when riders do not have an ungeared overall to pursue. Throughout the discussion we've had, I'm still unsure what problem having the award creates. I think the problem it addresses, a huge performance advantage within Unlimited if you have an exceptionally expensive unicycle, is worth continuing to address.  

Comment

> Throughout the discussion we've had, I'm still unsure what problem having the award creates.

By specifying the Unlimited ungeard category, we create something like a second (or third) standard category (it's rather arbitrary that 29“ is the limit for standard, it could also be 36”, which would de facto correspond to the unlimited ungeard category).
I can understand that not all riders want to ride with expensive gears, but I think it makes sense not to prescribe separate awards for every possible category or to introduce separate classes in this context. I can understand the awarding of the 29“ class a little more, as it corresponds to the existing standard class and thus practically guarantees the 29” riders their normal class in races where there is a 24“ class instead of the 29” class.

Comment

When transferring the proposal to the draft document, two things came to my attention:

1. The rule in the proposal does not currently have the paragraph structure that is otherwise used throughout.
2. The proposal refers to “29” standard unicycle,“ 29” standard class,” and “ungeared 36”,” but the rulebook only recognizes the “29 Class” and “Unlimited Class.” We should therefore only use these terms in the rule.

Suggestion:

3D.6 Ungeared Awards
1. At UNICON, the first 3 males and females riding a unicycle of the 29 Class are rewarded if a 10km race/timetrial or a hill climb are organized without a standard Categorie for 29 Class unicycles.
2. For national or regional competitions, organizers are free to award these prizes or not. For example: on a 10km at NAUCC the 29 Class awards can be replaced by an ungeared award for the Unlimited Class.

Furthermore, I asked myself whether paragraph 1 applies to all age groups or only to final rankings?

Comment

Sorry for the form and "36 class" instead of "unlimited class", I made the proposal at the last minute in a hurry, so that we could discuss it.

> Furthermore, I asked myself whether paragraph 1 applies to all age groups or only to final rankings?

My intention was to propose this classification only for the overall classification, not for Age Groups, but I did not write it as explicitly as in the current rule.

>I think it's bad for the sport and bad for the development of Unlimited when riders do not have an ungeared overall to pursue. Throughout the discussion we've had, I'm still unsure what problem having the award creates.

I think this award might make sense for a local competition, but not for a UNICON. Unlimited ungeared riders are overrepresented among locals, and few competitors fly a 36" wheel. And if a great 40" or 50" rim and tire become available on the market tomorrow, the hardest part of getting a medal will be transporting the wheel to UNICON. At the last UNICON, the first unlimited ungeared male rider in the 10km race was a 29 class rider, and he was 2 minutes faster than the fastest 36" ungeared male rider. In the Loop the Lake race, there were five 29" class male riders faster than the 3rd unlimited ungeared male. Today, the athletic level of 29" class top riders is much higher than that of 36" ungeared top riders.

Comment

It sounds like you are trying to put 29" class back in the hill climb race, even though you tried to take it out :)

I don't feel strongly about the hill climb, but for 10km it has the effect diluting the standard 24 class (as discussed previously).  Also, as you point out, the 29 class and 36 are actually quite evenly matched, so I don't see how it improves on unlimited ungeared awards.

At my first Unicon (Tokyo 2004), the unlimited class was mostly 700c/65mm vs 36ers.  It was won by 700/65c, but 36" wheels were a lot heavier then. 

Comment

> My intention was to propose this classification only for the overall classification, not for Age Groups, but I did not write it as explicitly as in the current rule.

That's what I suspected—but with the current wording, the rule could also be interpreted as applying to age groups, which I don't think makes much sense.

Comment

> Also, as you point out, the 29 class and 36 are actually quite evenly matched

I'm saying that, despite the smaller wheel handicap, the performance of standard 29" top riders is equivalent to or higher than that of ungeared 36" top riders.

> At my first Unicon (Tokyo 2004), the unlimited class was mostly 700c/65mm vs 36ers.  It was won by 700/65c, but 36" wheels were a lot heavier then. 

I don't know what kind of competition it was (distance, elevation, wind, turns...), but I understand that you are describing the same thing as what happened at UNICON21. Didn't the 29" riders already have a better level than the 36" ones? The weight of the unicycle doesn't really matter if the course is flat and there are few accelerations. A 36" wheel is like a 29" with a 1.25x gear ratio with 100% efficiency compared to a 29" standard wheel.

> I don't see how it improves on unlimited ungeared awards.

1/ The requirement of a minimum of 5 unlimited riders with a geared unicycle makes no sense. If this requirement did not exist, perhaps some riders would specialize in “unlimited ungeared” but today you cannot be an “unlimited ungeared” competitor because it is only after the start of the race that we know whether or not the condition for opening the category have been met. Because of this condition, there is no specialized high-level competitor. It is not fair between males and females: at UNICON21 there was no unlimited ungeared females awards because there were fewer than 5 females to compete in the unlimited category with a geared unicycle.

2/ The “unlimited ungeared” class is not an official class according to rule 3B.2. The fact that there is no wheel size limit creates unfairness (does the person with the biggest suitcase win?). Whereas the 29“ class is the standard class for most road races. It would seem fairer to me to reward athletes in the 29” class if a road race event did not offer a standard 29" competition.

3/ I propose changing this rule to reward fastest competitors with a 29" ungeared unicycle without condition rather than proposing to remove this rule.

> That's what I suspected—but with the current wording, the rule could also be interpreted as applying to age groups, which I don't think makes much sense.

I updated the proposal.

Comment

> It is not fair between males and females: at UNICON21 there was no unlimited ungeared females awards because there were fewer than 5 females to compete in the unlimited category with a geared unicycle.

Your rule change does not address this at all though. If a woman signs up for “Unlimited” class and rides a 36” without a geared hub she now cannot be awarded regardless of the number of geared racers she is against. So what you have offered all high-performing women without geared hubs is an opportunity to contest for a category that they did not sign up for (that is in fact not offered in the 10k). Meaning they get to choose between riding a 36 and contesting only age group or riding a 29 and possibly not winning their age group but winning the “Ungeared”/Standard 29” medal. 

We call the category that one signs up for “Unlimited” but now riding too large a wheel penalizes our high performers unless they drop a couple thousand dollars on a geared hub. 

This new rule formulation also eliminates the unlimited ungeared award from longer races, which i understand some people agree with. I get the argument that it’s not guaranteed because it requires 5 geared riders to show up (that isn’t a concern in America because we award this if there are any geared riders per USA rulebook amendments). As someone who has raced unlimited ungeared primarily, i’m unbothered by this because if we don’t have enough geared riders a fast ungeared rider may still contest for the podium overall. It’s simply the conditions of the race that day. 

I will reiterate that the title of the section should not be “Ungeared Awards” if it awards only 29” standard racers

Comment

> Your rule change does not address this at all though.

It's not “my” rule. I initiated a discussion and made a proposal before the deadline for proposals passed (and discussions became pointless). The main question was, “Should ungeared unlimited competitors be rewarded?” I was not on the committee when this rule was voted on. And if I propose to modify or delete this rule, it is not out of disrespect for those who introduced it into the rulebook.
As in every discussion, the majority of members did not express their opinion. But among the members who did express their opinion, most were in favor of removing this rule.
It seems to me that removal is the most radical change. I do not think it is a good idea to make too many radical changes.
That is why I propose discussing a modification of the rule, but if this modification does not convince either those who want it removed or those who want to keep it, it is not too late to discuss and modify the proposal.

> We call the category that one signs up for “Unlimited,” but now riding too large a wheel penalizes our high performers unless they drop a couple thousand dollars on a geared hub.

Money is a sensitive subject. In fact, most participants spend thousands of dollars to attend UNICON. To participate in UNICON, you "just" have to spend money. To go faster on a geared 36“ than on an ungeared 36”, you have to spend thousands of dollars and train for years. Those who benefit from an unlimited ungeared awards are those who come by car or pay hundreds of dollars for oversized luggage on the plane.

Comment

> I will reiterate that the title of the section should not be “Ungeared Awards” if it awards only 29” standard racers

I have taken note of what you wrote twice. If necessary, I am not sure whether the title should be changed. Point 2 deals with national or local competitions. Even if we can say that it is not necessary to include optional awards for competitions outside UNICON in the rulebook. I think that since this rule currently exists, it might make sense to keep the rule under the same name. Perhaps for clarity, a first paragraph should be added to state that there are no longer any “unlimited ungeared awards” at UNICON, and that they have been replaced by “29 ungeared awards in the unlimited category”.

Comment

> It's not “my” rule. I initiated a discussion and made a proposal before the deadline for proposals passed (and discussions became pointless).

I apologize for using language loosely. I did not intend to come across as attacking you for writing it up as a proposal. I should have chosen my words more carefully.

 

On the title, I feel that section titles should reflect the rules the refer to, which in this case is something along the lines of “Awards for 29” Standard in Short Races”, but perhaps others disagree. Point 2, being a suggestion, doesn’t seem like the main thrust of the rule as written at this point 

 

 

Comment

All proposals must be put to the vote as soon as possible. We should find a compromise very quickly that everyone can agree on if we want to change this rule in this round of the Rulebook Committee.

Comment

I'm not sure we can all agree on this topic. Especially since most members haven't expressed their opinion, and those who have are quite divided.

I initiated this discussion and made this proposal because I believe the unlimited ungeared awards are unjustified:
- There is no official ungeared unlimited class; in fact, a proposal to add an ungeared unlimited category for world records was rejected by the WR committee.
- Riders in 29 Class, despite the wheel size handicap, often perform better than those who are rewarded with ungeared unlimited.

Moreover, changes to the rulebook are moving toward promoting the 29 Class as the standard class for road racing (and for records):
- The wheel size limit for the 29 Class ensures a form of fairness that isn't present in the ungeared unlimited category.
- In an unlimited race where there is no 29 Class, rewarding ungeared 29" riders seems to me to bring a certain consistency compared to the official unicycle classes. But if anyone thinks it's better to remove the rule without adding a reward for ungeared 29 riders, please speak up.

If the proposal keeps its current content, following Tim's suggestion, I propose changing the title to "Ungeared 29 Awards".

If anyone has an opinion on the subject, now is the time.

Comment

"I'm saying that, despite the smaller wheel handicap, the performance of standard 29" top riders is equivalent to or higher than that of ungeared 36" top riders."-- Simon

Only because the rise of the 29" Class. Most of the top riders ride in this rather than 36"

"I don't know what kind of competition it was (distance, elevation, wind, turns...), but I understand that you are describing the same thing as what happened at UNICON21. Didn't the 29" riders already have a better level than the 36" ones? The weight of the unicycle doesn't really matter if the course is flat and there are few accelerations. A 36" wheel is like a 29" with a 1.25x gear ratio with 100% efficiency compared to a 29" standard wheel."

No and No.  One was an extremely lightweight wheel with short cranks, the other required a lot more power rather than spin speed.  Try and ride an original Coker 36" with no handlebars and see how it compares to a 700c.

1/ The requirement of a minimum of 5 unlimited riders with a geared unicycle makes no sense. If this requirement did not exist, perhaps some riders would specialize in “unlimited ungeared” but today you cannot be an “unlimited ungeared” competitor because it is only after the start of the race that we know whether or not the condition for opening the category have been met. Because of this condition, there is no specialized high-level competitor. It is not fair between males and females: at UNICON21 there was no unlimited ungeared females awards because there were fewer than 5 females to compete in the unlimited category with a geared unicycle.

Agree.  I was one of the people who supported an ungeared class to split the unlimited when geared hubs first appeared on the scene. However, I feel it has been superseded by the 29" class, which gives a more uniform playing field.  However, there are still riders who strongly favour the unlimited ungeared, many of whom are not on this committee.

Perhaps we can formalise this class.  The unlimited category can be split into two classes- 'unlimited unlimited' and 'unlimited ungeared' in 3B.2

 

 

 

 

 

Comment

"Money is a sensitive subject. In fact, most participants spend thousands of dollars to attend UNICON. To participate in UNICON, you "just" have to spend money. To go faster on a geared 36“ than on an ungeared 36”, you have to spend thousands of dollars and train for years. Those who benefit from an unlimited ungeared awards are those who come by car or pay hundreds of dollars for oversized luggage on the plane."

Money is only part of it.  I have three geared unicycles that have only been ridden a handful of times.  They were acquired specifically for Unicon.  None of them have been ridden in 10yrs. These days I'd rather race people on the same/similar equipment, than turn up to a technological arms race.  The only thing you have to worry about is your ability, not the equipment your rivals are riding.   

I have taken note of what you wrote twice. If necessary, I am not sure whether the title should be changed. Point 2 deals with national or local competitions. Even if we can say that it is not necessary to include optional awards for competitions outside UNICON in the rulebook. I think that since this rule currently exists, it might make sense to keep the rule under the same name. Perhaps for clarity, a first paragraph should be added to state that there are no longer any “unlimited ungeared awards” at UNICON, and that they have been replaced by “29 ungeared awards in the unlimited category”.

I do not agree with the proposal.  You have introduced 29 class to the 10km race when the intention was for standard category to be 24 class.   It could be either left as it is, or formalise unlimited ungeared category in 3B.2 so there are two classes racing in unlimited. 

Comment

> Perhaps we can formalise this class.  The unlimited category can be split into two classes- 'unlimited unlimited' and 'unlimited ungeared' in 3B.2

I'm unsure of the benefits of this. Defining an additional class only makes sense if this class also has separate competitions and riders can rely on these competitions being offered. However, this would not result in another class, but rather another category that would be added to the existing Standard and Unlimited categories. The introduction of another category has far-reaching implications and, in my opinion, goes well beyond the scope of this proposal. In this round of the Rulebook Committee, we definitely don't have enough time to discuss this adequately and come to a conclusion.

Comment

I think it is important to proceed with the vote without prejudging the outcome.

I wonder whether we should vote on the current proposal or simply vote on the deletion of section 3D.6. 

Regardless of the outcome of the vote, this will not prevent us from discussing it again in the next rulebook.

Comment

I would propose we vote to delete the unlimited ungeared award as the first step.  It could go either way. 

In the next rulebook we can talk about an additional 'ungeared unlimited' class.  It's probably too important a discussion to try to rush it through.  A consideration would be something like the 24 Hour record- where almost all the records have been broken on unlimited ungeared. The next record will likely be an unlimited-geared record, but it would be hard to compare with historical results.   It also applies to the Hour record- where we are comparing a 26/125mm unicycle with 36" Schlumpfs.  

Comment

Considering the time and the fact that all proposals should have been put to the vote on the August 3rd, I would suggest that we vote on the proposal as it stands. Anything else will lead to further delays, and we really need to get the vote started, or we will have to set the proposal aside completely and not vote at all.

Comment

"I wonder whether we should vote on the current proposal or simply vote on the deletion of section 3D.6. " Simon

"Considering the time and the fact that all proposals should have been put to the vote on the August 3rd, I would suggest that we vote on the proposal as it stands. Anything else will lead to further delays, and we really need to get the vote started, or we will have to set the proposal aside completely and not vote at all." Jan

I think we are taking two steps which doesn't address the original issue stated in the background:

"It appears in section 3D, which concerns organizers and is therefore largely unknown to most competitors. More importantly, the attribution of these awards depends on the number of geared competitors rather than the number of ungeared participants, which is inconsistent with the intended purpose of rewarding ungeared performances."

The proposal states that having a section 3D is problematic, then proposes that we keep Section3D but simply swap ungeared unlimited for 29" standard.  That just makes it a problem for a different group of riders.  It doesn't address the issue that the section is often an after-thought, and many riders are unaware of it, or that we don't know if the category will be awarded until you have the start list.

We should be voting on whether to delete this section, not voting on whether to make it a problem for 29" riders.

 

 

 

 

Comment

We should have voted on deleting 3D.6 months ago before considering anything else.

I thought it was better to consider an option other than deletion, but if we had voted to delete it months ago, we would have had time to discuss whether or not to replace it with something else.

Jan, is there any way to shorten the review period? I apologize for the delay.

Comment

I have shortened the review period, but I think it will still take 1 to 1.5 days before the proposal can be put to a vote.

Comment

Thanks Jan!

I will put it to a vote as soon as possible.

We can resume discussions in the next rulebook. That won't stop us from having disagreements. From my point of view, there is no valid argument for systematically distinguishing geared and ungeared unlimited for competitions and records. I understand that some purists consider that geared unicycles are not real unicycles. However, geared unicycles are recognized in the rulebook, and I would not understand if this were to be called into question.

There are other technologies besides geared hubs that have improved the performance of unlimited unicycles: lighter tires and rims, clipless pedals, handlebars, brakes, etc. If we wanted to ensure that performance remained comparable over time, we would have to create a category where these technologies are not allowed. Organizers can give out special awards, but I don't think that would justify an expert award.


Copyright ©

IUF 2025