Geared vs Ungeared

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

Comments about this discussion:

Started 14 Jan 21:51

Section 2.2 reads

2.2 Ungeared Champion Replaces IUF Section: 4D.6 Ungeared Awards
At NAUCC, for each gender (male and female) where there are ﬁve or more geared riders in an Unlimited event, the fastest ungeared rider from that gender will be awarded with the North American Ungeared Champion title for that event. The next two ungeared riders from each gender should also be recognized with an award for second and third place, respectively, in that event. This is only for the expert classiﬁcation, not for Age Groups.

I would propose the language 'where there are ﬁve or more geared riders in an Unlimited event" be removed from this section and text be added to state 'an ungeared champion is awarded in the events regardless of the number of geared riders'. For each event if there are geared and ungeared riders then both categories would be awarded a North American champion.

Comment 15 Jan 09:16

In general I agree with Rick. But what if there is only on geared rider, do they win Geared Champion for simply finishing?

Comment 15 Jan 09:54

I think Kenny has a good question. I have a related one: Would we offer a Geared Champion? We don't currently do this, we only have main champion (i.e. 10k Champion) and Ungeared Champion.

Comment 15 Jan 10:00

I am not fully convinced this should be removed. Unlimited is the class. That should include wheel size and transmission or not. The Ungeared Classification was added to not add another class, but to keep an Ungeared rider in the top 5 in spite of the usual advantage of the Schlumpf hub. It still is a host option to add additional awards if they like.

I see removing the 5 requirement almost essentially sets up another class. Unlimited and Ungeared. I do see that either way it does go a bit this way.

Comment 15 Jan 10:05

The IUF made a conscious decision NOT to add an additional class to road racing events, as Dave describes above. A Schlumpf is certainly an advantage on many courses but it is not more of an advantage than a talented rider. The only geared riders that can beat Richard are also talented riders. No one is beating him just because they have a Schlumpf. I think this is important to remember.

Comment 16 Jan 21:17

The change is not aimed at any single rider but for the 'ungeared' population as a whole. In both Dave and Scott's comments they both acknowledge the 'geared' advantage; (i.e. 'Usual advantage' and 'certainly an advantage') and it is that advantage that I'm trying to address by having the separate award.

Scott mentions the 'skill of the rider'; the skill of the rider is not relevant in this case. For example, if the same skilled rider rode the race once on a geared unicycle and once on an ungeared unicycle that person would likely receive a faster time on the geared unicycle. Hence, it is the mechanical advantage that is at the heart of the issue.

Comment 17 Jan 21:06

This is a tough one, I think made more difficult by our small numbers. Currently the Unlimited Class covers a wide variety of wheel size, and crank length, so having gears is just like that in my mind. It is currently the case that most people ride a 36 (I rode a 32 in the marathon a few years ago and other people ride 29s and geared 29s, etc.) Also, sort of hanging over this is the fact that geared hubs are quite a bit more expensive than non-geared hubs, at a percentage of cost that is much greater than the difference between a mediocre 36 and an expensive 36, so an ability to have a geared hub is also an advantage, to be honest.

On a gut level I have always thought it was not correct to put people in the same class that are on a 36 as on a geared 36.

But I think it is getting impractical to have more classes. Classes that have a few riders each.

I wanted to just get my thoughts out, I have no idea how I would vote on this yet. I may be looking for stronger arguments, if there are any in one direction.

Comment 18 Jan 12:19

I've also had a tough time with this topic.

On one hand, I've always agreed that unlimited is unlimited and shouldn't have further restrictions on the class. However, I've always been frustrated that because a geared hub costs so much it becomes not simply a mechanical advantage, but a financial advantage. I've always thought unicycling was an amazingly inclusive sport, yet this financial advantage is off-putting.

I propose one of three ideas:

1: Instead of, "if there are 5 or more geared riders total, ungeared is awarded", change to "if there are 3 or more geared riders, ungeared is awarded".

2: If 3 of the top 5 riders are geared, then ungeared is awarded (for each gender).

3: If a certain percentage of all the riders are geared, then ungeared is awarded (for each gender).

Comment 18 Jan 14:29

I think I am now in agreement with the original proposal: that geared are their own award class. It is too much of a physical advantage. I understand that some riders might be able to beat a geared rider on occasion, but that should not matter. The physical advantage is too great to consider this the same award category. I don't even want to set numbers or percentages, because that seems to be not philosophically saying the same thing.

I think we need to draw the line on competitions and adjust our rules based on changes in the sport. I think unlimited as a class came about when there was more variety of size above 24 and it was a free for all. A 36 is now a standard size, ridden by a lot of competitors. To me, that is the class - 36.

The 24 inch class: people would love to ride a 27 or 29 or a 32, but at some point, probably at the beginning, the rulebook said "this is the class: 24". So people bring own a 24 to race on and they know this is the size. Where else do most people really ride 24s?!?!?

I have talked to several riders in the past, and now, that go into the distance races knowing who it riding a geared uni and understand that they really aren't competing against those riders.

Comment 18 Jan 18:03

Over marathon distance, tires need to rotate this many times:

Ungeared: 14680

Geared: 9470

In my opinion this clearly shows that they are different classes.

Same ratio, of course, for the 10k,

Crit is often about other things, but still, the ratio matters.

Comment 18 Jan 20:45

Well said Mike. I plan to submit a formal proposal.

Comment 19 Jan 10:59

I want to respond to this comment:

"A Schlumpf is certainly an advantage on many courses but it is not more of an advantage than a talented rider. The only geared riders that can beat Richard are also talented riders. No one is beating him just because they have a Schlumpf."

Of course it takes talent to beat Richard or any rider of his skill. But why do other riders get to use "talent" AND a 1.55 gear ratio, then beat that person and be competing for the same award?!?!? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

And it isn't just about Richard, it is about every other rider of a 36 that wants to match their skill against other riders and truly compete in this class. They want to try to win, and if not win, find out how close they can get to the winners in a race based purely on skill. When the race is over they want to look at the results and say "I was only 10 minutes behind the winner, I am going to work harder this year and try to close that gap". Right now some of them are looking at the results and saying "I need to get a job this winter to afford a geared hub AND try to find one for sale, they are not easy to find".

The only way it makes sense to have them be the same award is if the Ungeared class is a complete free for all, wild west, with true match ups of skill not mattering: whoever has the biggest gun/gear wins.

Comment 19 Jan 11:31

My last comment was very, very strong. But of others want to keep it an "open class" then I am willing to hear that. But let's have it in the rulebook and not up to the host's discretion. I do not like things left to the host discretion, I want rules going into the competition that are set out ahead of time.

Comment 19 Jan 11:49

I like Kirsten's idea #2 as a compromise.

I think we need to be really careful here about creating entirely different classes. Regardless of where people stand on this issue, the IUF explicitly decided to not create separate classes and I think that we need to respect that in the same way that we haven't changed other IUF rules. It is one thing to give out more awards and another to create new categories. Also in this case, if we create a new category then would we have Standard, Unlimited, and Geared? Then the geared riders would basically be competing against themselves. This does not seem inline with everyone's goal of having an inclusive competition either.

If we go with Kirsten's 2nd idea then this would ensure that anyone who isn't making the podium because of geared riders would be awarded. I don't like the rule of 3 or more geared riders overall because there have been years where people have geared hubs and they do not even place in the top 10. This seems silly to consider them as affecting the overall standings if they're placing that low.

Bottom line, I think that creating an entirely new class is outside of the realm of this rulebook committee, regardless of the strong feelings surrounding it.

Comment 19 Jan 12:07

Kirsten's #2 is an interesting one to consider.

Comment 19 Jan 12:29

It is also difficult to keep in mind the different events and the options. Something I have maybe been forgetting. I have been thinking largely about the marathon.

I guess that in the 10k riders have the option of riding in the Standard class. And that some riders decide to ride in the standard class already because they don't want to compete against different types of unis in the Unlimited class.

I do believe that gears are less important in the crit, and ungeared riders often beat geared riders.

Cyclocross I think the same thing: gear doesn't matter as much.

Comment 19 Jan 17:08

I think that this rule is only referring to Road Races. Muni and cyclocross are very different in reference to geared hubs and their advantage.

I am in favor of Kirsten's rule #2, I don't think we can create whole new classes in this rulebook committee.

Comment 19 Jan 17:35

I am not in favor of creating another class, which it seems elimination of the IUF clause seems to do.

I like Kirsten's #1 and #2 ideas. In the past we have had NAUCC competitors on geared unis that were nowhere near a podium spot. I'm fine with Kirsten's proposal #1 as well as it just adapts the rule to fit the smaller pool of competitors NAUCC offers.

We do already have a Standard class for the 10k and Crit. The IUF already provides for a Standard class in the marathon like distance race. It is a 29" wheel, the maximum that fits airline standard sized luggage.

I am in favor of adapting the USA rule for the smaller pool of riders. I can see Richard's desire as well. I've been on both sides of gearing throughout my racing career.

Comment 19 Jan 18:01

Kirsten’s number 2 still does not solve the problem and remove the advantage Mike has defined so well. You could have 2 geared riders take 1st and 2nd with a non geared in 3rd. If you are talking about being fair the awarding geared and ungeared is the answer.

Comment 19 Jan 18:09

Lack of geared riders is not an issue for the IUF or I’m sure they would have added a clause. The issue is there are not enough geared riders in the US (and it is highly doubtful that will change anytime soon), the numbers have even been reduced in recent years with riders dropping out. The issue needs to be addressed specific to US competitions.

Comment 20 Jan 06:51

In general, more classes are created when there are more competitors, not fewer. So by your argument, with the IUF having more geared competitors, they have an even stronger case to create a separate class and yet they did not do this. Having fewer geared riders in the US does not merit creating a separate class, on the contrary. Awarding them is the best way to acknowledge the difference between geared and ungeared.

Comment 20 Jan 07:37

So maybe be me using the word "class" I was delving into something people don't want to do - create a class.

So then I think my opinion is then to still award geared and ungeared separately. Even if there is one geared rider, I think awards should be given to geared and ungeared separately.

I also think we don't need to defer to IUF's decisions so rigorously. UNICON and NAUCC are very different competitions in some says. And who is to say that UNICON gets things correct 100% of the time.

Comment 20 Jan 09:31

Regardless of the number of riders within a group, is it really fair to pit up geared and ungeared riders against each other? Ungeared riders immediately start the race with a disadvantage before their foot even hits the pedal. Being able to shift gears to get better torque uphill and more speed in straightaways is a completely different kind of race in my eyes. You are able to adapt to the situation in a way that ungeared riders are unable to.

I've been looking up the results of the 10k and marathon in the past 3 years... I'm not sure I can be convinced that having a geared unicycle isn't a massive advantage over other riders. If at least 1 geared rider appeared in any given age group, a geared rider took 1st place 11/12 times in the past 3 years in the unlimited 10k. In the unlimited marathon, this happened 9/10 times. If it really only takes a more talented ungeared rider to overtake a geared rider, then why is the last time we had an ungeared North American Champion in either the unlimited 10k or unlimited marathon was in 2014 in which there were no geared female competitors? I'm unable to go back any further as 2013 didn't list what type of unicycle riders were using.

Now it very well could mean that we just have some extremely talented riders using geared cycles, which we do, but I don't think that we can fairly say that it doesn't give a large enough advantage not to warrant a set distinction between geared and ungeared. The number of riders doesn't change the advantage it gives and because of that, I feel ungeared needs to be recognized and awarded separately regardless of the number of geared competitors.

Comment 20 Jan 10:04

Thanks for the stats Dale.

The group seems split on this. But in my opinion there are some strong facts supporting separate awards. And to me, changing the award structure based on number of participants in a category is philosophically faulty.

But then you may point out that we modify age groups based on number of participants. I view this differently, and I don't have the energy to type it out.

On the flip side from that, we also have given awards out in age groups that have less than 3 competitors.

I am returning Rick's original comment to the discussion so it can be seen at this point in the chain, and I support this:

Comment 21 Jan 13:56

I do see a split and we are on a schedule.

I don't think the current proposal spells it out clearly enough without revision. Is it for overall, or does this happen in each age group as well?

The original text along with intent was to recognize overall and was clear on limiting it for age groups.

Comment 21 Jan 14:00

We are able to modify a proposal that is in that stage. If oyu have clearer language I can modify it and see what people think about that.

Comment 21 Jan 14:29

If the intent is to remove the 5 rider requirement, but to keep the rule intact for age groups, maybe modify the underlined text below to "if there are geared and ungeared riders in an Unlimited event"?

I'm not saying I'm in favor of or against this proposal, but I do think the way it is currently written changes it a lot. It depends on what the intent of the proposal is.

Comment 21 Jan 14:33

Oh, the intent of the rule that Rick submitted was to eliminate the number of geared rider requirement for the rule overall, I believe.

Comment 21 Jan 14:41

The intent of the proposal is for distance races to award a geared and ungeared champion in both age groups and overall.

Comment 22 Jan 11:39

Please change "distance event" to "road event" as that is the wording used in the rulebook for 10k, marathon, etc.

Comment 22 Jan 12:22

Changed the wording in the proposal.

Comment 24 Jan 08:02

I realize this is late in the discussion, but I have been mulling some of the points made earlier about the Schlumpf being a large advantage and the data affiliated with the winners. I am not going to deny that it can be an advantage, but want to caution against oversimplification.

Regarding faster- a Schlumpf unicycle is only faster than an ungeared when it is in high gear. When in low gear, the longer cranks do not allow as fast of a cadence. In the case of a geared 36" wheel, the loss of speed is much less than a 29 geared vs a 36 ungeared. When extended down to a 24" wheel, the high is about the same as an ungeared 36, but far less efficient due to the transmission. It could be a case where an organizer picks a course that really puts 2 gears at an advantage, but almost all of our courses for the marathon and 10k have been fine with a short crank ungeared 36. I know we had one short hill in 2013 on the marathon that I had to run 110s instead of 100s to climb riding, but I can't recall another where I wouldn't run 100s ungeared.

Regarding finishing data being dominated by Schlumpf riders- I didn't look closely to tabulate the results, but would guess that the same people show up again and again between years. I do know that these folks are typically fast in other events on ungeared unicycles (they typically ride XC muni and CX). This doesn't mean that the Schlumpf isn't an advantage, but thinking that there would be a large change in standings might not really be the case.

Regarding just multiplying by 1.5 for the revolutions- it is a 1.55 overdrive. It's also a transmission with loss of efficiency. I spend a fair amount of my 36" time split between the geared and ungeared uni. The ungeared is definitely easier to ride with less of a UPD risk as the balance point isn't weird. I can climb steeper hills in low gear on the geared as the 1:1 has longer cranks (I run 150s on it and 100s or 110s on the ungeared. The 110s are for hilly PA rides).

Again, I'm NOT saying it isn't a potential advantage. I am saying it is a bit complicated to calculate just how much though.

On the rest of the discussion, I do get concerned that dividing into essentially geared and ungeared may slow racing down if we extend through age groups. For example, if I know I have a tough competitor who rides geared and I'm fast geared or ungeared I could just opt to pack an extra ungeared uni and choose to essentially not compete against them and not fully sandbag, but just use the rule to my advantage. This could be extended to Standard vs Unlimited, but there is a significant difference between a 24 with 125s and a 36 with whatever short cranks one wants. I in no way would support seeing that as a problem.