3D.10.2 Heat Start
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
The "heat start" subsection seems to concern wave starts. I therefore propose to systematically replace "heat" with "wave" in this subsection. And to modify a sentence, because it does not seem necessary to me to add a distinction between races with laps and those without laps.
Comment
I agree with substitution of "heat" by "wave".
Simon you would need to elaborate why you don't see a distinction between lap or non lapped races necessary.
For example, on 3km loop race, it takes 6 minutes to ride the loop with 30km/h. In such conditions the interval of 3 minutes would probably fit best, instead of 10 min.
Comment
> Simon you would need to elaborate why you don't see a distinction between lap or non lapped races necessary.
And I'm not aware of any races where there were longer time gap for the first 3 waves.
The actual starting intervals for non-lapped races are unrealistic. I've never raced a race where there was a 5- or 10-minute gap between waves. Generally, it's only a 1-minute gap between each wave (anything less seems too short to me). We could specify here to allow 1 minute between each wave. And for races with laps, the goal is to get all the competitors off the line before the first ones return. There's even more value in reducing the gap between waves, but I think we should still allow 1 minute. And if it is not possible to start all the competitors, we must either 1/ plan not to pass the starting line (starting zone in a lane which joins the loop) or 2/ wait until the end of the race of the first competitors to start the following competitors (this is what sometimes happens on 10km where we first do the unlimited race and then the standard race).
> For example, on 3km loop race, it takes 6 minutes to ride the loop with 30km/h. In such conditions the interval of 3 minutes would probably fit best, instead of 10 min.
In your example, are there only two waves?
If it's a "mass start" with 4 starts (unlimited male, unlimited female, standard male, standard female). It's possible to have 4 starts spaced 1 minute apart on a 3km loop, well it may depend on the number of participants. But I think that if the loop is shorter or if it's a 10km with 300 participants, it's not possible.
Comment
Current regulation states on 5min or 10 min separations between first waves on non lapped races.
On lapped races, the regulation gives flexibility to the organizer.
I only gave example that such flexibility is needed.
We cannot predict all situations, thus allowing some flexibility is way to go. I think its pretty obvious that interval shorter than 1 minute is pretty difficult to make and the organizers would like to go lower than 1 minute anyway. Otherwise it would be better to make mass start.
Comment
In the current proposal, I have left flexibility on the start delay for all races (with or without lap):
"The time intervals between waves 1, 2, and 3 should be set up such that following waves have the least chance of interfering with the top male and female riders."
I think it's appropriate to add in the proposal that the delay between 2 waves may not be less than 1 minute.
We can also add that for races with laps, if it is not possible to start all the waves of competitors of the same class (standard or unlimited), it is necessary to question again the choice of the course and of a wave start.
Comment
I basically like Simon's suggestion and would agree that the distinction between lapped and non-lapped races is not necessary. I see no reason why the times between the individual waves in non-lapped races have to be as large as is currently prescribed in the rules. They should be long enough to allow a safe race, but 5 minutes or 10 minutes seems very long to me - especially if significantly shorter times are used in practice anyway and have proven themselves.
I have a few other comments on the proposal - these are in italics:
3D.10.2 Wave Start
1. A wave start is a start where a smaller group of participants start the race together. This type of start is commonly used when a mass start cannot be used for long-distance races (marathon or longer free distance road races).
> Analogous to the mass start, I would add a first sentence that serves as a short description of the wave start.
2. The various classes may share the race course, but Standard racers should always start separately from Unlimited racers.
3. Waves should consist of at least 12 riders, either male or female (no mixed heatswaves). Waves may vary in size. Waves are sorted by speed with the fastest heatwave going fi rst. The fi rst wave should be devoted to the fastest males. The second wave should be devoted to the fastest females. The top males and the top females must have equivalent racing conditions. The following waves should be sorted by speed. The time intervals between waves 1, 2, and 3 should be set up such that following waves have the least chance of interfering with the top male and female riders.
> 1. Replace remaining "heat(s)" with "wave(s)"
2. The rule says: “no mixed waves” - this applies to all waves, not just the first two. I don't know whether it is really practicable and necessary to separate male and female starters in all waves. Has this really always been done in the past?
Shouldn't organizers also be able to mix male and female starters? We have also provided this option in the new rule proposal for the mass start and I think this proposal makes a lot of sense. If the waves are divided according to seed times, then in my opinion it would also be fairest to offer the option that the waves are really divided purely according to seed times and not separately according to gender.
Comment
> Shouldn't organizers also be able to mix male and female starters?
This is important for the first waves. If you put the best female alone with the best males in wave 1, she will be able to draft the males while the other females won't be able to. It's as if the female race is already a foregone conclusion, I don't think it's desirable. For me, this helps limit the unfairness of the wave starts.
Comment
But the current rules say that no mixing is allowed in any wave - is that really realistic? Has this always been the case in the past?
Comment
At UNICON, almost all waves are single-gender, but it is also common for males and females (often children) to be mixed in the last waves.
I think it should rather be written that the first waves of males and females should be single-gender.
Comment
Maksym> Sorry, I thought the suggestion associated with the discussion was visible during our first exchanges. That must explain why we didn't understand each other about races with or without lap.
And my last message went out too quickly: the first waves of males and females must be single-gender.
I also modified the proposal : Replaced the last 2 "heat" by "wave", numbering, added the first paragraph (Jan I modified the sentence you suggested, I prefer to leave it explicitly that wave start is a format historicaly associated with fixed distance races), a sentence to say that the first waves of males and females must be single-gender and the minimum time interval between two waves is 1 minute.
Comment
I have a perhaps uncommon opinion that mandating the lead groups in male and female start separately actually disadvantages women. If you are a very high performing woman and you do not get an opportunity to race amongst those who are close in speed to you, your pace will suffer. Long term this exerts downward pressure on women’s performance at the top level, because the unicycling community is already small and not being able to challenge, even if informally, riders at your level does no good for the sport. I’m not saying it should be mandatory to do mixed gender starts, but i also don’t think it makes sense for it to be prohibited
Comment
With regard to the division of the first two waves, I can understand both arguments: It would be unfair to all the other women if a single woman were to start in wave one, as the others would have no chance of keeping up with this competitor. On the other hand, the performance of the best woman will of course suffer if she achieves a very high performance and has no one else in her wave with whom she can compete. I think we all agree that a wave start is only a compromise for a road race, which always brings disadvantages somewhere. A mass start with all male and female riders together would definitely avoid this problems and is therefore, in my opinion, preferable wherever possible.
Regarding the rule proposal: As the rules must of course first and foremost ensure fair competition conditions and men and women are rated separately in the classification, I would follow Simon's argument and separate the first two waves by gender like it is proposed now.
Comment
The fact that the male and female rankings are never mixed (similar to the rankings in the standard and unlimited categories) is for me a strong argument for continuing to separate the fastest men and women in the first waves.
A necessary condition for mixed waves would be to review the rankings. I know that in some sports, instead of male and female categories/ranking, there are open and female categories/ranking. I hope the IUF Gender Committee is looking into this.
Another element missing to improve the starting order is seed/target time: A discussion has begun but there are no proposals.
Comment
> A necessary condition for mixed waves would be to review the rankings. I know that in some sports, instead of male and female categories/ranking, there are open and female categories/ranking. I hope the IUF Gender Committee is looking into this.
I'm sure the Gender Committee will take a look at this - but what difference would it make? There would still be two categories/rankings... According to your line of reasoning, the first two waves would still have to be divided into these two categories. Of course, we could formulate the rule in a more “open” way, so that whichever gender categories there are, the first waves would only contain one gender category each. But I don't think that changes the core of the rule, it's just a question of wording.
> Another element missing to improve the starting order is seed/target time
You are right, we should bring this dicussion to an end. But if we agree here, that the waves should de orderd by seed time if will probably be easier to implement a rule for getting this seed time.
Comment
I didn't quite specify what I meant by the ‘open’ category (I'm not saying it's a miracle solution). But an open category is one that includes male, female and non-binary competitor. If there were an open ranking (instead of a male ranking), that would be an argument in favour of mixed-gender waves. Female could argue that being in a separate single-gender wave is a disadvantage for the open ranking.
Comment
At some events in Germany, there were already the two categories “Open” and “Female” - the categories were still two separate categories and it wasn't the case that everyone was scored in the “Open” category and only some of them in the “Female” category. I don't know whether it will actually end up in the long term that “Open” is a category in which all participants in a competition are scored. Theoretically, one person could then become (world) champion in both categories if “Open” were to completely include the “Female” category.
Comment
The emergence of “Open” categories in certain disciplines is fairly recent, and clearly there are different practices. There are pros and cons. It seems to me that the most common case is an inclusive category that includes all participants (male, female and non-binary). If cis-gender women are at a disadvantage in the discipline in question, there's usually a “Female” category. In this case, if a female wins, she could claim both the “Open” and “Female” titles. In any case, this is not the place to create these categories, especially without consulting the IUF gender committee.
Otherwise, regarding the proposal as it stands, do you see any amendments or can we move on to the vote?
Comment
You're right, the discussion about possible gender groups takes us away from the actual topic.
I would agree with the proposal, but I still find it a bit confusing that the first sentence of paragraph 3 says “Waves should consist of at least 12 riders, either male or female.”, but this strict separation obviously only refers to waves 1 and 2. I therefore wonder whether we need the addition “either male or female” in the first sentence at all. In the following, it becomes clear that wave 1 should only consist of men and wave 2 only of women. I think if we leave out the “either male or female” in the first sentence completely, the paragraph will be less misleading. We could furthermore change the 5th sentence to the following: “The following waves should be sorted by speed, regardless of gender.”
3. Waves should consist of at least 12 riders, either male or female. Waves may vary in size. Waves are sorted by speed with the fastest wave going fi rst. The first wave should be devoted to the fastest males, and the second wave to the fastest females. These waves must be single-gender. The top males and the top females must have equivalent racing conditions. The following waves should be sorted by speed, regardless of gender. The time intervals between waves 1, 2, and 3 should be set up such that following waves have the least chance of interfering with the top male and female riders. In all cases, the minimum time interval between two waves is 1 minute.
Comment
What do the others think about my comments on the proposal?
Comment
I totally agree with deleting “either male or female”. I think it's an unnecessary precision here (it was in the current wording of the heat starts section).
For the addition "regardless of gender", do you mean that the organizers must organize the following waves only from seed time?
I'm wondering whether we need to be clearer or more vague... we could leave it up to the organizers to mix or not the following waves, depending on the number of participants and the seed time available... In some cases, unisex waves by age group allow competitors to be more confrontational within their age group (especially young competitors).
Comment
I understand what you mean... maybe it's really better to remain vague and leave out the addition “regardless of gender”. That way, the rule can be interpreted in both directions.
Comment
I removed “either male or female”. Since it's a minor change, I was going to put it straight to the vote, but I didn't realize there was a 3-day deadline after each revision, which makes sense. If there are any other comments, now's the time.
Comment
Looks good to me.