Rulebook

Proposal 4: Geared vs Ungeared [ Revision 3 ]

Committee: USA 2020
Submitted on 2020-01-20
Status: Passed on January 31, 2020

Background

The below proposal is written to replace the existing rule regarding geared and ungeared riders.

Proposal

Old:

"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."

New:

At NAUCC, for each gender (male and female) there shall be an “ungeared” and “geared” category for each road event in which there are both ungeared and geared riders. For each event, if there are geared and ungeared riders both categories will be awarded a North American champion.

Body

References

Comment by Mike Schatz:

"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."

Comment by Dale Grzych:

"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?"

Comment by Rick Tharrett:

"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 by Mike Schatz:

"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"."

Comment by Kirsten Goldstein:

"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."

Discussion

View Discussion

Change Log:

Revision 3 changed by Mike Schatz (22 Jan 12:21): Changed "distance event" to "road event" as that is the wording used in the rulebook for 10k, marathon, etc.
Revision 2 changed by Rick Tharrett (20 Jan 19:32): corrected spacing
Revision 1 changed by Rick Tharrett (20 Jan 19:31)

Votes on this proposal:

12 out of 13 voting members have voted.

Agree: 8, Disagree: 4, Abstain: 0.