3B.2 Unicycle (Closed for comments)
Comments about this discussion:
Started
Today, the standard and unlimited classes are 2 distinct classes with no overlap.
Sometimes 29” stantard racers are faster than unlimited racers, but they are never rewarded in the unlimited awards.
Maksym talked about this in another discussion, and I agree that standard competitors should be in the unlimited ranking (expert and age group).
To achieve this, the unlimited “class” would have to be removed and an unlimited ranking with all participants (standard or not) would have to be provided for.
What's more, I can't find a definition of what a unicycle is in the rulebook. I think it's necessary to specify the definition in chapter 1 and why not also in this section of chapter 3. For me, the idea is not to introduce new restrictions, but to make it clear that electric assistance for pedaling and balancing is forbidden.
Comment
> To achieve this, the unlimited “class” would have to be removed and an unlimited ranking with all participants (standard or not) would have to be provided for.
I see this somewhat critically, because there is also the phenomenon in other disciplines that riders are separated by different classes/categories. I think it is always a conscious decision by the riders to start in one class or the other. In the end, you always need both classes for the race organization - unless you only want to offer an Unlimited and then “only” have a separate ranking for the Standard riders. But that would soften the Standard Class since it would only be a ranking and no seperate class anymore.
> What's more, I can't find a definition of what a unicycle is in the rulebook. I think it's necessary to specify the definition in chapter 1 and why not also in this section of chapter 3. For me, the idea is not to introduce new restrictions, but to make it clear that electric assistance for pedaling and balancing is forbidden.
Chapter 1 provides a definition:
Unicycle: A Unicycle is a vehicle that has a single rolling contact with the riding surface. It may have multiple wheels, but it must not be possible to ride the unicycle when more than one wheel touches the ground. It is driven by pedals and cranks which rotate to power the wheel. It is powered, balanced and controlled by the rider only, with no additional support devices. Unless noted otherwise, a unicycle may be tted with handlebars and/or brake(s).
Comment
Thanks for the definition; I suspected there must be one.
Regarding unlimited ranking, I'm not saying we should remove classes, but I have the impression that in most situations, it's possible to rank standards in unlimited ranking. Perhaps we should not touch the classes, and add the standard class to the unlimited rankings (except for exceptions to be defined).
Comment
Smaller wheel classes are by definition included in the bigger wheel classes, because the classes are limited from above only. Unlimited class by definition includes all the classes.
What we are missing is that the lower classes should be included in the ranking of higher classes.
Also, there is no necessity for classes in uphill races. Grenoble uphill is 6.5% grade, and is rather low.
Comment
Chapter 1D.1, sections "Unicycle" and "Unicycle, regular" are the unified definitions. Unless we are deviating from those definitions, redefining unicycle only makes the rulebook more confusing.
Comment
> Chapter 1D.1, sections "Unicycle" and "Unicycle, regular" are the unified definitions. Unless we are deviating from those definitions, redefining unicycle only makes the rulebook more confusing.
Sorry, as I wrote it in my previous reply, I hadn't looked hard enough. I made this suggestion in reaction to a message from Ken in the WR committee, where he mentioned certain technological developments that could be excluded from raod competitions: fairing, recumbent position... I looked to see if there were any limits on what equipment was possible for road racing or in general, but I couldn't find that definition. For me, the current definition is sufficient.
> Smaller wheel classes are by definition included in the bigger wheel classes, because the classes are limited from above only. Unlimited class by definition includes all the classes.
I agree with Maksym that, by definition, standard unicycles are included in the definition of unlimited. Over time, I've gotten used to the fact that there's no reward overlap between standard and unlimited, but this isn't explicitly stated in the rules. To me, it would make sense for standard riders to be classified as unlimited in most cases.
> Also, there is no necessity for classes in uphill races. Grenoble uphill is 6.5% grade, and is rather low.
I'm also in favor of a single class for a hill climb like the UNICON20 climbing road race. But in that case, the rulebook would have to specify what a climbing road race is. If there are flat, downhill sections, or if the average gradient is lower (<6%), standard 29" will be at a disadvantage.
Comment
>> Smaller wheel classes are by definition included in the bigger wheel classes, because the classes are limited from above only. Unlimited class by definition includes all the classes.
> I agree with Maksym that, by definition, standard unicycles are included in the definition of unlimited. Over time, I've gotten used to the fact that there's no reward overlap between standard and unlimited, but this isn't explicitly stated in the rules. To me, it would make sense for standard riders to be classified as unlimited in most cases.
I think you can look at this topic from two perspectives:
1. The purely technical perspective: A unicycle from the 29er class naturally also completely fulfills the requirements of a unicycle from the Unlimited class and therefore represents a subset of the Unlimited class from a purely technical point of view.
2. The competition perspective: competitions are the unit in which awards are subsequently presented, and competitions are usually advertised for specific unicycle classes. So far, as an athlete, I can only ever take part in one competition and therefore only win one title, for example. The same principle applies to track races, for example, where there are competitions for the 20 class and those for the 24 class.
I can understand that it seems strange if someone in the Standard class competition is faster than someone in the Unlimited class competition, but in the end I would always see the two competitions as separate competitions and therefore think it makes sense that someone can “only” win their own competition. Our rules also stipulate in many places, for example, that Standard and Unlimited riders do not start together - I think that if this separation of the competitions is desired, it should be consistently adhered to and not suddenly abandoned at the awards and then participants from different competitions are ranked together.
On the other hand, you can of course also abandon this separation more consistently and have a joint competition.
Comment
If we could compete in both standard and unlimited competitions, there would be no point in including the standard competitors in the unlimited ranking (at least to avoid having the same competitor in the rankings multiple times...).
But today, with wave starts, competitors don't know how they are ranked in their category when they cross the finish line. As long as this situation persists, I don't see how we can say there's a standard competition and an unlimited competition; there are just competitors who start in waves, cross a finish line, and then wait for the results to be published. One could argue that it makes sense to have a podium for each wave... If we move away from wave starts, it's less useful. In a mass start, we should be able to know our ranking at any time during the race and at the finish.
If in a race the standard level is very high and on the contrary the unlimited level is low, it raises questions about rewarding unlimited competitors who perform worse than standard competitors.
Comment
> But today, with wave starts, competitors don't know how they are ranked in their category when they cross the finish line. As long as this situation persists, I don't see how we can say there's a standard competition and an unlimited competition
However, this is the case practically everywhere where there is either more than one heat (in all track races) or where there are individual starts anyway. In these cases, the ranking can only be determined after all heats/starts have been finished. Nevertheless, there are often different competitions and the riders have to decide in advance which competition they want to take part in.
The competition I am referring to is purely organizational - as long as there are two competitions announced, there are two competitions. If it is combined into one competition on an organizational level, then it is just one competition.
> If in a race the standard level is very high and on the contrary the unlimited level is low, it raises questions about rewarding unlimited competitors who perform worse than standard competitors.
Yes, of course - that's why I think it's a legitimate question whether you should actually always have competitions for both categories, or whether it wouldn't make more sense to organize just one competition.
In other words: Organizationally, there is, for example, a 10 km competition and it is open to the Unlimited unicycle class. As part of this competition, the organizer could hold age group awards, he could honor the best 3 riders in the 29er class or whatever. And there would be one ranking for the competition which would of course include all starters.
Comment
>However, this is the case practically everywhere where there is either more than one heat (in all track races) or where there are individual starts anyway. In these cases, the ranking can only be determined after all heats/starts have been finished. Nevertheless, there are often different competitions and the riders have to decide in advance which competition they want to take part in.
The competition I am referring to is purely organizational - as long as there are two competitions announced, there are two competitions. If it is combined into one competition on an organizational level, then it is just one competition.
In wave-start road races, there aren't just one or two competitions; there are as many competitions as there are waves. You only know where you're ranked based on your wave. The difference with track races is that there are no finals.
> Yes, of course - that's why I think it's a legitimate question whether you should actually always have competitions for both categories, or whether it wouldn't make more sense to organize just one competition.
I agree that in the case of a time trial, there could be only one unlimited competition, with the possibility for organizers to award unlimited ungeared or standard 29” bikes, provided that each participant's equipment is checked and that competitors enter their target time correctly at registration. This could make it possible to choose to award the category with the most competitors.
For wave start races, I wouldn't find it shocking if “standard” competitors could be upgraded to the unlimited category (rewarded in both standard and unlimited categories), since you can only really compare yourself to competitors in the same wave as you.
On the other hand, with mass starts that clearly separate the standard and unlimited categories, it seems obvious to me that there are 2 competitions.
While I'm not sure we should mention all the specifics of the different disciplines in each section, I think we could break down the categories in section 3B.2 Unicycle:
3B.2.1 10 km
3B.2.2 Criterium
3B.2.3 Time Trial
3B.2.4 Climbing road race
For other races not mentioned above, the rule could be to have 2 categories: 29" standard and unlimited.
Comment
> In wave-start road races, there aren't just one or two competitions; there are as many competitions as there are waves. You only know where you're ranked based on your wave. The difference with track races is that there are no finals.
But also in track races, the vast majority of competitions do not have finals (by competitions I mean here, for example, 100m U17 male) - there are also usually several heats, so that you only know your ranking when all the heats have finished. I don't see any difference to the road races. In both cases, you generally only know your ranking once all the relevant heats have been completed and evaluated.
> For wave start races, I wouldn't find it shocking if “standard” competitors could be upgraded to the unlimited category (rewarded in both standard and unlimited categories), since you can only really compare yourself to competitors in the same wave as you.
But isn't it currently the case that a ranking always takes place across multiple waves? Even with two separate classifications for Unlimited and Standard, isn't it never the case that all Unlimited and all standard riders are in the same wave? I don't really see the difference here to the situation if there would be only one official class but several separate rankings... I think I didn't get your point.
> While I'm not sure we should mention all the specifics of the different disciplines in each section, I think we could break down the categories in section
I would say we should leave the rules for the wheel classes in a common rule and not split them up into the individual disciplines. I would personally find a division into individual disciplines very confusing.
Comment
> But also in track races, the vast majority of competitions do not have finals (by competitions I mean here, for example, 100m U17 male) - there are also usually several heats, so that you only know your ranking when all the heats have finished. I don't see any difference to the road races. In both cases, you generally only know your ranking once all the relevant heats have been completed and evaluated.
For track races, the heats are similar to each other, interactions are limited and if a competitor goes out of his lane and knocks you down, you have to be able to try again.
For road races with waves, the group dynamics (drafting, crash...) significantly impact the result, so the competition conditions are not equivalent between waves. For example, if there are 4 riders who are very close in level, 3 are in the heat and 1 is in heat 2, the one who is alone in the wave 2 has almost no chance of a podium, even if in absolute terms he is a little stronger than the other 3. He could win if the other 3 are caught in a collective fall. Which makes me say that these waves are different races, different competitions.
One might think that this problem could be solved by the starting order. This would already be progress compared to the current situation, but it does not completely solve the problem since the starting order and the final ranking are different and there may be problems with the cut-offs (riders with the same seed time but the need to divide them into two waves).
One might think that this problem could be solved by the starting order. This would already be progress compared to the current situation, but it does not completely solve the problem since the starting order and the final ranking are different and there may be problems with the cut-offs (riders with the same seed time but the need to divide them into two waves).
This exchange started with the distinction between competition and category. I just wanted to say that I agree that there should be only one competition and possibly multiple categories within a competition. In this case, all competitors can be classified as unlimited with the addition of a standard category (so standard riders would be classified as unlimited and standard). This could be the case for a 10km time trial or a climbing road race.
Comment
I agree with Simon that if there are few categories within one competition, than the lower classes should be included in ranking of higher class.
During uphill in Grenoble I used standard class unicycle and I was registered in unlimited. There was a mass start with standard and unlimited together. I (unlimited), Simon (unlimited) and Caignan brothers (standard) were racing together for most of the distance. I had to ask Pierre on which category will he be classified, because I didn't know. He didn't understand my question and replied that he is in unlimited, or something like this. Later, after finish line I get to know that he was in standard. I crossed the finish line as third, after Simon (unlimited) and Pierre (or Samuel) (standard).
This is sick situation. Me and Pierre were on the same race, with the unicycles in the same class, the only difference was the registration category. We raced arm to arm all the way. That day he was better than me, and with no doubt he was the second fastest unicyclist that day. On the unlimited podium, I was rewarded 2nd place. I did not accept the medal and I forwarded it to Pierre, because he desired it more than I.
With unicycles we can very effectively climb 10% grades, with maximum grade above 18%. The Grenoble uphill with 6.5 % grade was very fast, and very easy. There would not be sense to organize uphills on grades lower than that. It would just not feel as uphill anymore. Standard and unlimited unicycles proved to be equally good on that grade. Simon was first on his 36 uni, but he was in much better physical shape that days. The punch line is that on the proper uphill roads, the unlimited unicycle has no advantage over 29 standard unicycle. If there are uphill competitions in the future, there is no sense of having 2 categories. At least now, and until the geared unicycles will receive option of down gears...
Comment
@Simon: I don't quite understand what exactly your suggestion is in the end? On the one hand, you say that different classes should be separated because the results of different wave starts are not comparable enough. On the other hand, you say that there should only be one competition? But if Unlimited and Standard are one competition, then the probability is much higher that the competition spans several waves?
I can see the point that for some races, especially uphill races, a division into Standard and Unlimited makes no sense - but in my opinion we should rather make sure that there is only one category for these (rather special cases). But I think this is mainly a uphill "problem".
Comment
>@Simon: I don't quite understand what exactly your suggestion is in the end? On the one hand, you say that different classes should be separated because the results of different wave starts are not comparable enough. On the other hand, you say that there should only be one competition? But if Unlimited and Standard are one competition, then the probability is much higher that the competition spans several waves?
The purpose of my message was to clear up a certain misunderstanding that I felt had been left hanging.
I understand that we're not going to mix standard and unlimited results in disciplines where it's obvious that we're talking about 2 distinct competitions. For example: a mass start road race with 2 starts (standard and unlimited) or a criterium with standard heats and unlimited heats (as in the latest UNICON).
However, for road races with wave starts, we aggregate the results of unlimited waves on the one hand and standard waves on the other, even though race conditions are not comparable from one wave to the next. I don't see what would prevent the aggregation of all waves for unlimited results (e.g. a marathon with wave starts).
That said, between the start of the discussion and now, there have been proposals (or still under discussion) to move towards individual starts and mass starts.
> I can see the point that for some races, especially uphill races, a division into Standard and Unlimited makes no sense - but in my opinion we should rather make sure that there is only one category for these (rather special cases). But I think this is mainly a uphill "problem".
I'm going to make a proposal to add “climbing road race” as a road race discipline.
On this subject, I think that under certain conditions (not too steep and/or with flat spots) a particularly powerful and light competitor may have an advantage in using an unlimited category unicycle (> 29" or schlumpf), but I think that for the sporting interest of such a competition, only one unlimited start should be provided. There are disciplines like cross country, where the use of a schlumpf will be more important (depending on the course), and yet there is only one competition.
Comment
> I don't see what would prevent the aggregation of all waves for unlimited results (e.g. a marathon with wave starts).
I see your point - but then there would only be one competition (namely Unlimited) with an additional ranking for Standard riders and no longer two separate competitions.
That was something I mentioned somewhere before as a possible option: Only one competition and additional rankings. But in fact, rankings have a different value than official competitions.
> There are disciplines like cross country, where the use of a schlumpf will be more important (depending on the course), and yet there is only one competition.
But here - if there is only one category - gears are usually explicitly prohibited. If gears are allowed, then in fact typically there are two categories: One ungeard and one geard and these categories are always strictly separated - so just like currently in the Raod Races the two categories Standard and Unlimited.
Comment
Jan>If gears are allowed, then in fact typically there are two categories
That is not true.
In Muni we have 1 category in order to not split top riders into 2 different groups. To achieve this, we have a regulation that require that the race course is such designed that does not give advantage to geared unicycles. It requires quite efforts to find proper race course though.
In respect to Road Uphill, I think it would be necessary to list conditions that the road must meet. Average slope >6%, downhill/flat sections not longer then 400m (not well thought/subject to discussion). Also a condition to aim for, for example, expected average slope should be between 8-10%*
Whoever can, check the numbers of the road climbs that you are familiar with and think that it would be great to have a race on similar conditions. I personally think that 6.5% in Grenoble was very easy. (some even managed to bounce the basketball all the way :) )
Comment
> In Muni we have 1 category in order to not split top riders into 2 different groups. To achieve this, we have a regulation that require that the race course is such designed that does not give advantage to geared unicycles. It requires quite efforts to find proper race course though.
Yes, I have in mind the same type of regulation for selecting a course for a hill climb on road.
> In respect to Road Uphill, I think it would be necessary to list conditions that the road must meet. Average slope >6%, downhill/flat sections not longer then 400m (not well thought/subject to discussion). Also a condition to aim for, for example, expected average slope should be between 8-10%*
Whoever can, check the numbers of the road climbs that you are familiar with and think that it would be great to have a race on similar conditions. I personally think that 6.5% in Grenoble was very easy. (some even managed to bounce the basketball all the way :) )
I created a new discussion and an associated proposal. Without any consultation, I had also proposed a minimum average gradient of 6%. Long pass climbs are usually between 6 and 8%. Above 8%, the possibilities are greatly reduced.
Comment
> Jan>If gears are allowed, then in fact typically there are two categories
> That is not true.
You're right, at virtually all Muni competitions I've been to in the last few years, no gears were generally allowed in cross country, so there was always only one non-geard category ;)
But I don't think comparing Muni and Road Races will get us anywhere here either, as these two disciplines differ in too many aspects.
Comment
> at virtually all Muni competitions I've been to in the last few years, no gears were generally allowed in cross country, so there was always only one non-geard category
Since 4.B.2 specifically disallows limitation on gearing in Muni, I'm not sure how we as the rulebook committee could take that in consideration. In the US at least, Muni has in my experience always been judged as very rarely advataged by geared unicycles. If one can tackle large sections of expert course terrain in high gear, they have "earned it" so to speak. Road is very different because the performance advantage is quite clear from the data. This might not be true for a hillclimb event but we have a separate discussion going where I think we can talk about that
Comment
"Since 4.B.2 specifically disallows limitation on gearing in Muni, I'm not sure how we as the rulebook committee could take that in consideration. In the US at least, Muni has in my experience always been judged as very rarely advataged by geared unicycles. If one can tackle large sections of expert course terrain in high gear, they have "earned it" so to speak. Road is very different because the performance advantage is quite clear from the data. This might not be true for a hillclimb event but we have a separate discussion going where I think we can talk about that"-- Tim
That is technology dependent. Having two speeds with a big ratio gap is not that efficient when negotiating technical terrain.
If we have multiple gears, or more closely spaced rations (eg 1:1 and 1:25), that actually gives more advantage in terms of pedaling efficiency on an expert course.
Comment
I think the content of this discussion now partly coincides with discussion 149 and the associated proposal, doesn't it? (https://iuf-rulebook-2025.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/149 and https://iuf-rulebook-2025.committees.unicycling-software.com/proposals/50)
I would therefore assume that we don't need a proposal here and the discussion can be closed, right?