Jump mount to wheel walk: I couldn’t find any specifics on this in IUF other
than “the rider lands in the wheel walk position.”
Not sure the easiest way to get there, but I would think it might be easy to
start by pinching your foot between the top of the wheel and the fork for
stability. Then you would jump up to the seat and start wheel walking with
the other foot. Would this qualify for skills testing?
Also, is a mount directly into one foot riding acceptable for skills testing?
It’s not listed, so I would guess that the answer is no.
> Jump mount to wheel walk: I couldn’t find any specifics on > this in IUF other than “the rider lands in the wheel walk position.” > > Not sure the easiest way to get there, but I would think it > might be easy to > start by pinching your foot between the top of the wheel and > the fork for > stability. Then you would jump up to the seat and start > wheel walking with the other foot.
A jump mount starts with both feet on the floor. You have to jump from the
ground and land in “wheel walk position,” which would probably mean trying
to land on the seat at the same time as one or both feet land on the tire
(to help absorb the shock) and start walking immediately.
> Also, is a mount directly into one foot riding acceptable for > skills testing? It’s not listed, so I would guess that the > answer is no.
Yes, it should be. Only a few mounts are listed in the IUF list. The
important point is that each mount be different enough from the others. Only
one of your mounts may be the same thing repeated with the other foot.
Beyond that, everything must be the equivalent of what a different skill
number would be on the Standard Skill List (even if it’s not on there).
I might consider a mount to idling one foot as something too similar to a
mount to riding one foot. You’d have to do one or the other. What do others
think of this?
I overshot a rolling mount on Monday- the controlling foot shot past the pedal. My body was on auto pilot and stuck it to the wheel and began to ‘control it’. This lasted for the two seconds it took my addled mind to figure out what was happening, and freak out. I tried to do if from normal riding- Lewis was watching, and asked me when I was going to try it. “I am.” couldn’t coax the foot off the pedal, no sir-ie!
Anyway; you might consider the ‘Go for broak’ method.
important point is that each mount be different enough from the
others. Only > one of your mounts may be the same thing repeated with the other foot. > Beyond that, everything must be the equivalent of what a different skill > number would be on the Standard Skill List (even if it’s not on there). > > I might consider a mount to idling one foot as something too similar to a > mount to riding one foot. You’d have to do one or the other. What do others > think of this?
IMHO if you land in the same position, using a very similar action
before landing (IE bumon seat, one foot on pedal, from a standing
jump) then I feel it should be classed as different mount.
Riding one footed and idling one footed would presumably have the same
landing position as described in brackets above.
If you landed with both feet on the tire as in a wheelwalk, and then
dropped a foot down to ride one0footed, i would class that as a
seperate mount for the same trick.
john_foss@asinet.com writes: > >Yes, it should be. Only a few mounts are listed in the IUF list. The >important point is that each mount be different enough from the others. >Only >one of your mounts may be the same thing repeated with the other foot.
I thought that was only for level 2, where you have to mount lefty and
righty. I was under the impression that ambipedalous mounting didn’t count
at all past level 2. Not that I care much for myself – I hate mounting
righty, my nuts have no idea what to do. 22 years of mounting lefty will
do that for a guy…
>Beyond that, everything must be the equivalent of what a different skill >number would be on the Standard Skill List (even if it’s not on there). > >I might consider a mount to idling one foot as something too similar to a >mount to riding one foot. You’d have to do one or the other. What do >others >think of this?
I have to say that it is WAY easier to mount into idling one footed than
to mount into RIDING one footed. So you should not be allowed to do BOTH
in one test, since if you can do the harder one, the idle is a joke. But
they are different.
David
Co-founder, Unatics of NY
1st Sunday / 3rd Saturday
@ Central Park Bandshell
1:30 start time after 11/1/01
>IMHO if you land in the same position, using a very similar action >before landing (IE bumon seat, one foot on pedal, from a standing >jump) then I feel it should be classed as different mount.
>does that make sense?
Not really, to me. Are you sure there’s no typo?
Klaas Bil
“To trigger/fool/saturate/overload Echelon, the following has been picked automagically from a database:”
“public key encryption, SSL, ddos”
>IMHO if you land in the same position, using a very similar action >before landing (IE bumon seat, one foot on pedal, from a standing >jump) then I feel it should be classed as different mount.
>does that make sense?
Not really, to me. Are you sure there’s no typo?
Klaas Bil
“To trigger/fool/saturate/overload Echelon, the following has been picked automagically from a database:”
“public key encryption, SSL, ddos”
> >one of your mounts may be the same thing repeated with the other foot. > I thought that was only for level 2, where you have to mount lefty and > righty. I was under the impression that ambipedalous mounting didn’t count > at all past level 2.
This is correct. I haven’t glanced at the levels, so I’m not sure if it must
be used on the first two levels, or can be saved for later. But “opposite
foot” can only be used once.
> I have to say that it is WAY easier to mount into idling one footed than > to mount into RIDING one footed. So you should not be allowed to do BOTH > in one test, since if you can do the harder one, the idle is a joke. But > they are different.
I think I would allow both. They are very different.
>> >one of your mounts may be the same thing repeated with the other foot. >> I thought that was only for level 2, where you have to mount lefty and >> righty. I was under the impression that ambipedalous mounting didn’t count >> at all past level 2. > >This is correct. I haven’t glanced at the levels, so I’m not sure if it must >be used on the first two levels, or can be saved for later. But "opposite >foot" can only be used once.
Yes and it is at level two. I can do various mounts but with the
same foot which is the only thing stopping me from getting level 2.
>> I have to say that it is WAY easier to mount into idling one footed than >> to mount into RIDING one footed. So you should not be allowed to do BOTH >> in one test, since if you can do the harder one, the idle is a joke. But >> they are different. > >I think I would allow both. They are very different.
The level criteria state that you should use n different mounts. It
doesn’t matter that some are easy compared to others. A standard mount
may well be one of them. So also David must agree that both are
allowed in a test, right?
Klaas Bil
“To trigger/fool/saturate/overload Echelon, the following has been picked automagically from a database:”
“public key encryption, SSL, ddos”
klaasbil_remove_the_spamkiller_@xs4all.nl writes: >>> I have to say that it is WAY easier to mount into idling one footed >than >>> to mount into RIDING one footed. So you should not be allowed to do >BOTH >>> in one test, since if you can do the harder one, the idle is a joke. >But >>> they are different. >> >>I think I would allow both. They are very different. >The level criteria state that you should use n different mounts. It >doesn’t matter that some are easy compared to others. A standard mount >may well be one of them. So also David must agree that both are >allowed in a test, right?
Well, to defend my position, I guess I see it like this:
If standard mount counts as one of your mounts, where you mount and then
ride, should it also count if you do what looks like a standard mount but
then idle instead of ride? That hardly seems a different mount. Now, I
can’t recall the mounts list, but if what I just described IS considered a
sep mount, then I’d allow the same differentiation to be made for
one-footing it. But if mounting into an idle (two-footed) is not
considered a different mount from a standard mount, then how can we
justify such an allowance for one-footed mounts?
My 2 centavos.
David
Co-founder, Unatics of NY
1st Sunday / 3rd Saturday
@ Central Park Bandshell
1:30 start time after 11/1/01
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 22:19:33 -0500, “David Stone” <dstone@packer.edu>
wrote:
>klaasbil_remove_the_spamkiller_@xs4all.nl writes: >>>I think I would allow both. They are very different. >>The level criteria state that you should use n different mounts. It >>doesn’t matter that some are easy compared to others. A standard mount >>may well be one of them. So also David must agree that both are >>allowed in a test, right? >Well, to defend my position, I guess I see it like this: >If standard mount counts as one of your mounts, where you mount and
then >ride, should it also count if you do what looks like a standard mount
but >then idle instead of ride? That hardly seems a different mount. Now, I >can’t recall the mounts list, but if what I just described IS
considered a >sep mount, then I’d allow the same differentiation to be made for >one-footing it. But if mounting into an idle (two-footed) is not >considered a different mount from a standard mount, then how can we >justify such an allowance for one-footed mounts?
I may have quoted too little of the original posts, but I thought you
stated that they were different, but because one mount is so much
easier that one wouldn’t count. That wasn’t a good argument for me. If
you argue that the mounts themselves are hardly different, it seems
logical to not count them separately. (That the sequel into one-foot
riding is difficult doesn’t make the mount different - or even
difficult.)
>My 2 centavos.
My 2 eurocents.
Klaas Bil
“To trigger/fool/saturate/overload Echelon, the following has been
picked automagically from a database:”
“AIMSX, BOSS, tiger”
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 22:19:33 -0500, “David Stone” <dstone@packer.edu>
wrote:
>klaasbil_remove_the_spamkiller_@xs4all.nl writes: >>>I think I would allow both. They are very different. >>The level criteria state that you should use n different mounts. It >>doesn’t matter that some are easy compared to others. A standard mount >>may well be one of them. So also David must agree that both are >>allowed in a test, right? >Well, to defend my position, I guess I see it like this: >If standard mount counts as one of your mounts, where you mount and
then >ride, should it also count if you do what looks like a standard mount
but >then idle instead of ride? That hardly seems a different mount. Now, I >can’t recall the mounts list, but if what I just described IS
considered a >sep mount, then I’d allow the same differentiation to be made for >one-footing it. But if mounting into an idle (two-footed) is not >considered a different mount from a standard mount, then how can we >justify such an allowance for one-footed mounts?
I may have quoted too little of the original posts, but I thought you
stated that they were different, but because one mount is so much
easier that one wouldn’t count. That wasn’t a good argument for me. If
you argue that the mounts themselves are hardly different, it seems
logical to not count them separately. (That the sequel into one-foot
riding is difficult doesn’t make the mount different - or even
difficult.)
>My 2 centavos.
My 2 eurocents.
Klaas Bil
“To trigger/fool/saturate/overload Echelon, the following has been
picked automagically from a database:”
“AIMSX, BOSS, tiger”
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 22:19:33 -0500, “David Stone” <dstone@packer.edu>
wrote:
>klaasbil_remove_the_spamkiller_@xs4all.nl writes: >>>I think I would allow both. They are very different. >>The level criteria state that you should use n different mounts. It >>doesn’t matter that some are easy compared to others. A standard mount >>may well be one of them. So also David must agree that both are >>allowed in a test, right? >Well, to defend my position, I guess I see it like this: >If standard mount counts as one of your mounts, where you mount and
then >ride, should it also count if you do what looks like a standard mount
but >then idle instead of ride? That hardly seems a different mount. Now, I >can’t recall the mounts list, but if what I just described IS
considered a >sep mount, then I’d allow the same differentiation to be made for >one-footing it. But if mounting into an idle (two-footed) is not >considered a different mount from a standard mount, then how can we >justify such an allowance for one-footed mounts?
I may have quoted too little of the original posts, but I thought you
stated that they were different, but because one mount is so much
easier that one wouldn’t count. That wasn’t a good argument for me. If
you argue that the mounts themselves are hardly different, it seems
logical to not count them separately. (That the sequel into one-foot
riding is difficult doesn’t make the mount different - or even
difficult.)
>My 2 centavos.
My 2 eurocents.
Klaas Bil
“To trigger/fool/saturate/overload Echelon, the following has been
picked automagically from a database:”
“AIMSX, BOSS, tiger”
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 22:19:33 -0500, “David Stone” <dstone@packer.edu>
wrote:
>klaasbil_remove_the_spamkiller_@xs4all.nl writes: >>>I think I would allow both. They are very different. >>The level criteria state that you should use n different mounts. It >>doesn’t matter that some are easy compared to others. A standard mount >>may well be one of them. So also David must agree that both are >>allowed in a test, right? >Well, to defend my position, I guess I see it like this: >If standard mount counts as one of your mounts, where you mount and
then >ride, should it also count if you do what looks like a standard mount
but >then idle instead of ride? That hardly seems a different mount. Now, I >can’t recall the mounts list, but if what I just described IS
considered a >sep mount, then I’d allow the same differentiation to be made for >one-footing it. But if mounting into an idle (two-footed) is not >considered a different mount from a standard mount, then how can we >justify such an allowance for one-footed mounts?
I may have quoted too little of the original posts, but I thought you
stated that they were different, but because one mount is so much
easier that one wouldn’t count. That wasn’t a good argument for me. If
you argue that the mounts themselves are hardly different, it seems
logical to not count them separately. (That the sequel into one-foot
riding is difficult doesn’t make the mount different - or even
difficult.)
>My 2 centavos.
My 2 eurocents.
Klaas Bil
“To trigger/fool/saturate/overload Echelon, the following has been
picked automagically from a database:”
“AIMSX, BOSS, tiger”
In the USA rulebook, it states:
“For Level 3 and above, riders may not count their dominant and non-dominant side as different mounts.”
So, you can’t do the same mount twice using a different foot. The IUF rulebook, however, leaves the levels open and doesn’t specify many restrictions or clarifications.
>"For Level 3 and above, riders >may not count their dominant and non-dominant side as different >mounts."
The following comment is what the Dutch would call “lay salt on a
slug” though I don’t know why.
The quoted USA rulebook statement, though understandable, is imprecise
in two ways. Firstly, sides may not be counted as mounts… sides can
never be equated to mounts. Secondly, if a rider would be ambidextrous
and hence have no dominant and non-dominant sides, could he count the
mirrored mount? No! It would be better to rephrase using “left” and
“right”.
Klaas Bil
“To trigger/fool/saturate/overload Echelon, the following has been
picked automagically from a database:”
“FKS, CICAP, sweeping”
You’re right, the rulebook does state it weirdly. It does also state that “Each mount the rider uses for a level must be different” so that other part is meant to clarify that a normal mount with the right foot is the same mount as the normal mount with the left foot.
> The quoted USA rulebook statement, though understandable, is imprecise > in two ways. Firstly, sides may not be counted as mounts… sides can > never be equated to mounts. Secondly, if a rider would be ambidextrous > and hence have no dominant and non-dominant sides, could he count the > mirrored mount? No! It would be better to rephrase using “left” and > “right”.
I’ve yet to meet a unicyclist who doesn’t have a dominant side. They may
have mixed dominance, or a lack of dominance in their everyday life, but
everybody seems to have one foot they learned with, and then the “other”
foot.
But “left” and “right” does sound like an improvement.
