New 2002 IUF Unicycle Trials Rules

Hi,

OK, I’ve written a proposed new version of unicycle trials rules that
follows the recently proposed format. This proposed set of rules also
includes guidelines for setting up a U-rating system for rating unicycle
trials problems.

The rules are located at
<http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/2002%20Trials%20rules.html>.

Other sports, such as climbing, are highly quantified without being
competative, and people define their skill level by difficulty rating
systems, not by whether they have beaten anyone. Personally I like this
approach. However, it’s probably a good idea to have rules in place in
case they are ever needed.

Any input would be appreciated, especially on the U-rating system.

Cheers,

Kris Holm.


Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Kris, Nice job on the competition guidelines.

The U-rating system-- What a concept! A way for unicyclists to talk about
terrain difficulty with some perspective. Just for reference… To me a 4
inch beam for 10 meters is more like U2.

Some things we might add to the descriptions: drops to inclines or small
landing spots; gaps between narrow railing type objects ( or does this
just fit your “off-camber” description?

Obviously with railing riding, the difficulty depends on the distance.
Riding a round railing for five feet is much easier than ten feet or more,
for example.

A couple questions:

 Pedal grab to pole vs. pedal grab to small landing space. How big is
 a "pole"? A little quantification would be helpful. In U3 do you mean
 "or" instead of "and" hopping at least 15 inches... In U6 do you mean
 just pedal grabbing to a square railing? Or a combination move (I
 assume the rubber involved is the rubber in the unicycle's tire...?).

Unicycle Classifications: I am wondering about the validity of having a
“mod” and a “stock” classes. Mod an stock have a lot more meaning in the
bike world, since Mod is ultra small standover height, nearly unbreakable
wheels, single speed, frame mounted bash guard, seat optional. Stock is
rear derailleur required (five speed minimum), 26" front and 24" rear
minimim tire size, and bash guards are only allowed on the drive side
chainring. For unicycles, the only difference might be wheel or tire
size. But is there really a noticeable difference in capability based on
wheel size? The word “stock” brings to my mind a skinny-tired Schwinn
with slick tire and plastic pedals, but who would seriously do trials on
one of those? On the other hand, is anything we ride really deserving of
the term “mod?” (If anybody starts doing the world record high jump on a
12x6 donut tire, now that’s what I call “MOD.”) So perhaps we should
either eliminate categories altogether or stick with something more
meaningful like small and large, Monty and Gazz, pogo and rolo, or
something like that. Comments?

Chris

MKris Holm wrote:

> Hi,
>
> OK, I’ve written a proposed new version of unicycle trials rules that
> follows the recently proposed format. This proposed set of rules also
> includes guidelines for setting up a U-rating system for rating unicycle
> trials problems.
>
> The rules are located at
> <http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/2002%20Trials%20rules.html>.
>
> Other sports, such as climbing, are highly quantified without being
> competative, and people define their skill level by difficulty rating
> systems, not by whether they have beaten anyone. Personally I like this
> approach. However, it’s probably a good idea to have rules in place in
> case they are ever needed.
>
> Any input would be appreciated, especially on the U-rating system.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kris Holm.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
> $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

OK, I’ve written a proposed new version of unicycle trials rules that
follows the recently proposed format. This proposed set of rules also
includes guidelines for setting up a U-rating system for rating unicycle
trials problems.


Kris, Excellent proposal. My 2 cents worth as follows,

I suggest that the U rating should make it possible for relative beginners
to pick up some points in competition.

Your suggested U-0 rating is fine for an experienced rider but someone
just starting trials riding would feel intimidated knowing that they
can’t score any points at all until they can successfully navigate a
picnic table.

I would like to see the rating scheme slightly more accessible to
beginners. This could be done by bumping up every rating by 1 or some
such. I feel that this would mean benefit smaller competitions where there
are unlikely to be many experienced trial riders. The experienced rider
will not be affected since your points system is well thought out but it
would make competiting more attractive to the beginner.

o o Peter Bier o O o Juggler, unicyclist and mathematician.
o/|\o peter_bier@usa.net


Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

Why don’t we make the rules really easy to remember.

  1. the person who dosn’t fall off wins.

That should do it.

Wayne.

Kris, this looks really good. Here are a few comments/suggestions:

  1. Change the html file name to not have spaces in it. For
    interoperability, just use lower case letters, numbers,
    underscore and dot.

  2. The U system: I would recommend having U10 be your U7 (current state of
    the art), and go down from there with expansion at the bottom. And
    eliminate U0 (or change it to hopping up a curb, 0 points). This leaves
    room for future advances in the state of the art (as in bouldering
    where it’s currently approx V14). Maybe something like:

U1: Hopping up a set of stairs
U2: 4" beam for 10 meters
U3: 18-24" drop
U4: <your U1>
U5: <your U2> - another sample: 36-48" drop? etc
U6: <your U7>, the 2001 state of the art

I think you lumped what I have as U1, U2 & U3 into one category because
it’s hard to say which is harder. For some, a 24" drop might be easier
than hopping up a flight of stairs etc. In a real event though, as in real
bouldering, it should be a feel, a subjective difficulty rather than an
objective definition. We’re at the very beginning of this and need to
build up experience rating problems. My suggestion is basically to have a
couple of the bottom categories be easier, and to set the state of the art
today up at U10 rather than U7.

The scoring you propose looks fine.

  1. Like Chris, I don’t really like the “Mod” and “Stock” names. Since the
    only difference is wheel size (which seems good to me), how about Small
    Wheel/Big Wheel? Small is <24", Big is >= 24". If the difference is in
    wheel size, then the names should reflect that.

This will be a LOT of fun in Toronto and I’m really looking forward to
it. The rating thing is going to be sticky. We could have everyone who’s
interested help out before hand trying all the problems and rating them,
but then this group has ridden the whole course which is too much
practice to be allowed to compete. Or we could have just a few volunteers
do that and not compete. Or you could rate them all and not compete. But
I think this new sport would be best served by having everyone try the
problems and then argue long and hard over beers about the ratings. Then
just hold the competition even though people will pretty much already
know what they can
do. In climbing competitions the course setters never compete - wouldn’t
think of it, but in our sport, certainly in the beginning I think it’s
different. We all need to see and try the problems to learn about
rating, but then we all want to compete. Probably I should’ve said
“participate” instead of “compete”.

—Nathan

“Kris Holm” <danger_uni@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20010606015355.89518.qmail@web11602.mail.yahoo.com
> Hi,
>
> OK, I’ve written a proposed new version of unicycle trials rules that
follows the recently
> proposed format. This proposed set of rules also includes guidelines for
setting up a U-rating
> system for rating unicycle trials problems.
>
> The rules are located at
<http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/2002%20Trials%20rules.html>.
>
> Other sports, such as climbing, are highly quantified without being
competative, and people define
> their skill level by difficulty rating systems, not by whether they have
beaten anyone. Personally
> I like this approach. However, it’s probably a good idea to have
> rules in
place in case they are
> ever needed.
>
> Any input would be appreciated, especially on the U-rating system.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kris Holm.

Chris,

Good comments about the U system- definately there need to be more
specifics on grades.

Re whether there should be different uni categories: The reason I think
that it’s a good idea for there to be two trials classes is that I
anticipate that there will be two distinct groups of riders emerging in
this sport: Urban trials specialists, and MUni riders that also like to do
trials. These people will likely have different skills I think. Actually a
third group will also emerge, I think- street riders that do Dan Heaton-
style riding such as grinds, spins etc in a street setting.

Likely there will only be a need for one class most of the time, and the
rules state that a judge can choose to lump all unicycle categories
together. Perhaps the categories should be left in for now and the taken
out later if they seem irrelevant.

-Kris

— Chris Reeder <reed8990@uidaho.edu> wrote:
> Kris, Nice job on the competition guidelines.
>
> The U-rating system-- What a concept! A way for unicyclists to talk
> about terrain difficulty with some perspective. Just for reference… To
> me a 4 inch beam for 10 meters is more like U2.
>
> Some things we might add to the descriptions: drops to inclines or small
> landing spots; gaps between narrow railing type objects ( or does this
> just fit your “off-camber” description?
>
> Obviously with railing riding, the difficulty depends on the distance.
> Riding a round railing for five feet is much easier than ten feet or
> more, for example.
>
> A couple questions:
>
> Pedal grab to pole vs. pedal grab to small landing space. How big
> is a “pole”? A little quantification would be helpful. In U3 do you
> mean “or” instead of “and” hopping at least 15 inches… In U6 do
> you mean just pedal grabbing to a square railing? Or a combination
> move (I assume the rubber involved is the rubber in the unicycle’s
> tire…?).
>
> Unicycle Classifications: I am wondering about the validity of having a
> “mod” and a “stock” classes. Mod an stock have a lot more meaning in the
> bike world, since Mod is ultra small standover height, nearly
> unbreakable wheels, single speed, frame mounted bash guard, seat
> optional. Stock is rear derailleur required (five speed minimum), 26"
> front and 24" rear minimim tire size, and bash guards are only allowed
> on the drive side chainring. For unicycles, the only difference might be
> wheel or tire size. But is there really a noticeable difference in
> capability based on wheel size? The word “stock” brings to my mind a
> skinny-tired Schwinn with slick tire and plastic pedals, but who would
> seriously do trials on one of those? On the other hand, is anything we
> ride really deserving of the term “mod?” (If anybody starts doing the
> world record high jump on a 12x6 donut tire, now that’s what I call
> “MOD.”) So perhaps we should either eliminate categories altogether or
> stick with something more meaningful like small and large, Monty and
> Gazz, pogo and rolo, or something like that. Comments?
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> MKris Holm wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > OK, I’ve written a proposed new version of unicycle trials rules that
> > follows the recently proposed format. This proposed set of rules also
> > includes guidelines for setting up a
> U-rating
> > system for rating unicycle trials problems.
> >
> > The rules are located at
> > <http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/2002%20Trials%20rules.html>.
> >
> > Other sports, such as climbing, are highly quantified without being
> > competative, and people
> define
> > their skill level by difficulty rating systems, not by whether they
> > have beaten anyone.
> Personally
> > I like this approach. However, it’s probably a good idea to have rules
> > in place in case they
> are
> > ever needed.
> >
> > Any input would be appreciated, especially on the U-rating system.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Kris Holm.
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail -
> > only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>


Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

I agree with Peter. Excellent proposal.

Kris, did you really mean to assign no points to U0? I said I wasn’t
competitive, but Jeez, I’m kinda proud of my upstairs hopping. That should
get me a few points at least :slight_smile:

Also, what did you mean by “the backs of seats?”

U2: Basic moves on to narrow objects such as the backs of seats.

Joe

In a message dated 6/5/01 11:48:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
peter_bier@usa.net writes:

> Kris, Excellent proposal. My 2 cents worth as follows,
>
> I suggest that the U rating should make it possible for relative
> beginners to pick up some points in competition.
>
> Your suggested U-0 rating is fine for an experienced rider but someone
> just starting trials riding would feel intimidated knowing that they
> can’t score any points at all until they can successfully navigate a
> picnic table.
>
> I would like to see the rating scheme slightly more accessible to
beginners.
>
> This could be done by bumping up every rating by 1 or some such. I feel
> that this would mean benefit smaller competitions where there are
> unlikely to be many experienced trial riders. The experienced rider
> will not be affected since your points system is well thought out but
> it would make competiting more attractive to the beginner. o o Peter
> Bier o O o Juggler, unicyclist and mathematician.
> o/|\o peter_bier@usa.net

Regarding the U system, in which level would you place hopping/dropping
sequences onto a serie of precise/narrow landings with a small failure
tolerance (such as cascading flat boulders) ?

More generaly, how should we moderate the grading for a given move (say U2
"basic moves on to narrow objects) accordingly to the obstacle
‘dangerosity’ ?

Oli-

opaugamATaptilonDOTcom !

> Your suggested U-0 rating is fine for an experienced rider but someone
> just starting trials riding would feel intimidated knowing that they
> can’t score any points at all until they can successfully navigate a
> picnic table.

> I would like to see the rating scheme slightly more accessible to
> beginners. This could be done by bumping up every rating by 1 or some
> such. I feel that this would mean benefit smaller competitions where
> there are unlikely
to
> be many experienced trial riders. The experienced rider will not be
> affected since your points system is well thought out but it would make
> competiting more attractive to the beginner.
>

the way that I understood it was that at each competiton the orginiser
would assign points to the differen’t obsticals with the easer ones being
worth less and the harder ones worth more. I think that the U ratings are
more of just a way of saying an aproxamite difficulty level. I don’t see a
problem with having a U-0 because I think that they would most likely be
worth points in compition.

one thing about the U system that I noted was that there seemed to be a
rather large spread of tricks per level (which I think is ok), what about
adding a + and - or something to give another way to show aproxamait
difficulty. this migh be something better to add when we start to get a
standerd astablished or it might be something to do now.

peter

— Olivier Paugam <opaugam@aptilon.com> wrote:
> Regarding the U system, in which level would you place hopping/dropping
> sequences onto a serie of precise/narrow landings with a small failure
> tolerance (such as cascading flat boulders) ?

Moves like this are hard to quantify in words- that’s why I didn’t include
any in the description. This is where we need to get together and ride
with the view to creating a system that several people in different areas
understand.

To me this would be an excellent thing to do at NUC. I’d like to build a
bunch of stuff and then everyone can figure out ratings.

> More generaly, how should we moderate the grading for a given move (say
> U2 "basic moves on to narrow objects) accordingly to the obstacle
> ‘dangerosity’ ?

My recommendation is that this system is purely about technical
difficulty and does not consider danger. In climbing, the British rating
system is the only system that gives two ratings, one for “committment”
and the other for technical challenge. I think there is more than enough
to deal with here without adding this level of complexity. In North
America, climbs are given purely technical ratings, sometimes followed by
movie ratings for danger. For example: PG13: could have a potentially
injurious fall
R: Likely a fall would result in injury
S: Falling = certain death.

Cheers,

Kris.


Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the comments.

Yes I did make the lower end of the rating system fairly hard. This is
similar to the V-system in bouldering, where a V-0 boulder problem would
likely not be found on any roped climbing route easier than the 5.10 grade
(a rating of 5.10 is often beyond the reach of a novice climber).

The U-system isn’t meant for competing (that’s what the points are for).
My feeling is that the rating of U0 can be used to lump together
everything together that represents novice trials moves and general
rough terrain.

U1 and up could refer to specific, challenging, trials-specific
objectives.

Any comments on this?

— Peter Bier <peter_bier@usa.net> wrote:
> OK, I’ve written a proposed new version of unicycle trials rules that
> follows the recently proposed format. This proposed set of rules also
> includes guidelines for setting up a U-rating system for rating unicycle
> trials problems.
>
> ***
> Kris, Excellent proposal. My 2 cents worth as follows,
>
> I suggest that the U rating should make it possible for relative
> beginners to pick up some points in competition.
>
> Your suggested U-0 rating is fine for an experienced rider but someone
> just starting trials riding would feel intimidated knowing that they
> can’t score any points at all until they can successfully navigate a
> picnic table.
>
> I would like to see the rating scheme slightly more accessible to
> beginners. This could be done by bumping up every rating by 1 or some
> such. I feel that this would mean benefit smaller competitions where
> there are unlikely to be many experienced trial riders. The experienced
> rider will not be affected since your points system is well thought out
> but it would make competiting more attractive to the beginner.
>
>
> o o Peter Bier o O o Juggler, unicyclist and mathematician.
> o/|\o peter_bier@usa.net
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1


Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

— nyfpet@bethel.edu wrote:
> one thing about the U system that I noted was that there seemed to be a
> rather large spread of tricks per level (which I think is ok), what
> about adding a + and - or something to give another way to show
> aproxamait difficulty. this migh be something better to add when we
> start to get a standerd astablished or it might be something to do now.
>

Yes I think this will happen. The main thing is to get people riding
together to figure out this standard; written examples of specific
obstacles won’t be super-useful until this happens.

-Kris.


Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Hi Nathan,

A couple of comments on your comments.

— Nathan Hoover <nathan@movaris.com> wrote:

> 2) The U system: I would recommend having U10 be your U7 (current state
> of the art), and go down from there with expansion at the bottom…I
> think you lumped what I have
as U1, U2 & U3 into one category because it’s
> hard to say which is harder.

This is true- and is exactly why I started the rating system at a fairly
high level. Think about how people refer to everything easier than 5.7 in
climbing as “mid-5th class”. The rating system only becomes useful after a
certain difficulty point; below that I don’t think it’s necessary.

>In a real event though, as in real bouldering, it should be a feel, a
>subjective difficulty rather than an objective definition.

Absolutely agree.

> 3) Like Chris, I don’t really like the “Mod” and “Stock” names. Since
> the only difference is wheel size (which seems good to me), how about
> Small Wheel/Big Wheel? Small is <24", Big is >= 24". If the
> difference is in wheel size, then the names should reflect that.

OK that’s fine. I just stuck with mod and stock as relics from bike trials
but that could easily be changed.

> The rating thing is going to be sticky. We could have everyone who’s
> interested help out before hand trying all the problems and rating them,
> but then this group has ridden the whole course which is too much
> practice to be allowed to compete. Or we could have just a few
> volunteers do that and not compete. Or you could rate them all and not
> compete.

This brings up the good point that the only people who are experienced
enough to both build and rate the problems are the same people who might
want to compete.

That is partly why I’m suggesting that we don’t make it competative. Let’s
build a bunch of stuff and spend our time figuring out a rating system and
then everyone can take this home and apply it to their own situations. And
then we can go for beers!

Cheers,

Kris.


Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

One of the issues I see with the U system is that it might be very
difficult to control the consistency of problem ratings from competition
to competition.

In rock climbing the rock is static (outdoor climbing anyway), it’s always
there for people to go and climb and it really doesn’t change much. Sure
different routes can be established on the same wall, but the rock rarely
changes. With trials however the type of obstacles (problems) may vary
greatly from competition to competition (drops might be higher, logs might
be bigger, steps might be higher, rails might be wider, etc.).

Unless, some competition obstacle standardization was put in place it
would be very difficult to prejudge the U rating for a particular problem
(even if it were based on the moves required to complete the problem). I
personally wouldn’t like to see any standardization because it can be
restrictive and inflexible on the creativity of problem design.

This could of course be solved (and I think this was already brought up)
by having a panel of riders at each competition pre-ride the problems to
determine their rating. This, however, could bring up a conflict … the
riders on the panel will most likely be participates in the event. Will it
be seen as an unfair advantage if they get to pre-ride the problems in
order to rate them?

How do they do it for indoor climbing competitions?

I like the U rating system I just think it might be tricky for
competitions.

Carl

-----Original Message----- From: Kris Holm [mailto:danger_uni@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 5:53 PM To: Chris Reeder
Cc: unicycling@winternet.com Subject: Re: New 2002 IUF Unicycle
Trials Rules

Chris,

Good comments about the U system- definately there need to be more
specifics on grades.

Re whether there should be different uni categories: The reason I think
that it’s a good idea for there to be two trials classes is that I
anticipate that there will be two distinct groups of riders emerging in
this sport: Urban trials specialists, and MUni riders that also like to do
trials. These people will likely have different skills I think. Actually a
third group will also emerge, I think- street riders that do Dan Heaton-
style riding such as grinds, spins etc in a street setting.

Likely there will only be a need for one class most of the time, and the
rules state that a judge can choose to lump all unicycle categories
together. Perhaps the categories should be left in for now and the taken
out later if they seem irrelevant.

-Kris

— Chris Reeder <reed8990@uidaho.edu> wrote:
> Kris, Nice job on the competition guidelines.
>
> The U-rating system-- What a concept! A way for unicyclists to talk
about terrain difficulty
> with some perspective. Just for reference… To me a 4 inch beam for 10
> meters is more like U2.
>
> Some things we might add to the descriptions: drops to inclines or small
landing spots; gaps
> between narrow railing type objects ( or does this just fit your
“off-camber” description?
>
> Obviously with railing riding, the difficulty depends on the distance.
Riding a round railing
> for five feet is much easier than ten feet or more, for example.
>
> A couple questions:
>
> Pedal grab to pole vs. pedal grab to small landing space. How
> big is
a “pole”? A little
> quantification would be helpful. In U3 do you mean “or” instead of “and”
> hopping at least 15 inches… In U6 do you mean just pedal grabbing to a
> square railing? Or a
combination move (I
> assume the rubber involved is the rubber in the unicycle’s tire…?).
>
> Unicycle Classifications: I am wondering about the validity of having a
> “mod” and a “stock” classes.
Mod an stock have a
> lot more meaning in the bike world, since Mod is ultra small
> standover height,
nearly unbreakable
> wheels, single speed, frame mounted bash guard, seat optional.
> Stock is rear
derailleur required (five
> speed minimum), 26" front and 24" rear minimim tire size, and bash
> guards are
only allowed on the
> drive side chainring. For unicycles, the only difference might be
> wheel or tire
size. But is there
> really a noticeable difference in capability based on wheel size?
> The word
“stock” brings to my mind
> a skinny-tired Schwinn with slick tire and plastic pedals, but who would
seriously do trials on
> one of those? On the other hand, is anything we ride really
> deserving of the
term “mod?” (If anybody
> starts doing the world record high jump on a 12x6 donut tire, now that’s
what I call “MOD.”)
> So perhaps we should either eliminate categories altogether or
> stick with
something more meaningful
> like small and large, Monty and Gazz, pogo and rolo, or something like
that. Comments?
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> MKris Holm wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > OK, I’ve written a proposed new version of unicycle trials rules that
follows the recently
> > proposed format. This proposed set of rules also includes guidelines
for setting up a
> U-rating
> > system for rating unicycle trials problems.
> >
> > The rules are located at
<http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/2002%20Trials%20rules.html>.
> >
> > Other sports, such as climbing, are highly quantified without being
competative, and people
> define
> > their skill level by difficulty rating systems, not by whether
> > they have
beaten anyone.
> Personally
> > I like this approach. However, it’s probably a good idea to have rules
in place in case they
> are
> > ever needed.
> >
> > Any input would be appreciated, especially on the U-rating system.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Kris Holm.
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail -
> > only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>


Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

— Carl Hoyer <choyer@724.com> wrote:
>
> One of the issues I see with the U system is that it might be very
> difficult to control the consistency of problem ratings from competition
> to competition.
>

True. But there are two issues here. One is the U-system, which is an
attempt to rate problem difficulties in general. The other issue is points
awarded for a particular competition.

Since the entire rating is internal for a (hypothetical) competition, it
only matters within that competition what the absolute point values are.
That means that it isn’t imperative that one competition have similar
point values to another.

However, tying the point ratings to the U-system is an attempt to keep the
point values in some sort of reasonable range for different competitions.
Whether this works is anyone’s guess.

> In rock climbing the rock is static (outdoor climbing anyway), it’s
> always there for people to go and climb and it really doesn’t change
> much. Sure different routes can be established on the same wall, but the
> rock rarely changes. With trials however the type of obstacles
> (problems) may vary greatly from competition to competition (drops might
> be higher, logs might be bigger, steps might be higher, rails might be
> wider, etc.).

This is true. However, local trials areas also don’t change much either

  • I have favorite problems that have been around for years and years. It
    is only competitions that change. With the exception of a specific
    effort at this year’s NUC to create an initial set of standards, I think
    that a U-system would be based on local rider’s problems, and then
    applied to a competition situation if necessary. This is how it works in
    indoor climbing.

I think that one person (the Event Director) should be responsible
at a competition for rating problems. Otherwise there might be too
much arguing.

In any case I think there is more value in establishing a rating system
than in immediately going to a competition format.

Cheers,

Kris.


Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Carl Hoyer wrote:

>
> One of the issues I see with the U system is that it might be very
> difficult to control the consistency of problem ratings from competition
> to competition.

This could be addressed by having at least some “standard skills”
obstacles. The plans for each “standard” obstacle could be made publically
available somewhere that would make it easy for anyone to get ahold of.
Then at each event, the “standard” obstacles would all be there, in
addition to whatever new ones someone dreamed up. The standard set could
be expanded over time.

Greg


“Wow, I didn’t know being a super hero could be so painful.”

Greg,

I like the idea of standard obstacles. It would give me a much better idea
of the type of thing that i should be aiming to be able to do in order to
move on to tougher problems. Does anyone have specific plans or ideas of
obstacles that would help me improve my skills?

thanks,

Nick Cegelka

Pyrotechnick13@yahoo.com

NickLikesFire AIM

— Greg House <ghouse@spammenot.southwind.net> wrote:

>
> This could be addressed by having at least some “standard skills”
> obstacles. The plans for each “standard” obstacle could be made
> publically available somewhere that would make it easy for anyone to get
> ahold of. Then at each event, the “standard” obstacles would all be
> there, in addition to whatever new ones someone dreamed up. The standard
> set could be expanded over time.
>
> Greg
>
> –
> “Wow, I didn’t know being a super hero could be so painful.”

> This could be addressed by having at least some “standard skills”
> obstacles. The plans for each “standard” obstacle could be made
> publically available somewhere that would make it easy for anyone to get
> ahold of. Then at each event, the “standard” obstacles would all be
> there, in addition to whatever new ones someone dreamed up. The standard
> set could be expanded over time.

It seems like it would be pretty boring to have to construct an obstacle
to meet such criterion, and a lot more work than just throwing together
what you’ve got. I would rather build a course and then rate it, not the
other way around. That’s the nice thing about trials, is that nothing has
to be the same as anything else. Adaptation is the key.

On the other hand, some skills are pretty similar no matter where they
are, and they don’t require building anything. Like basic pedal grab to
the the top of a picnic table. Grab any picnic table, put it on a hard,
flat surface, and it should be about as difficult as any other picnic
table (some variance in height and ricketyness aside). For a 30" drop to
the ground, just ride off the end of the picnic table. For a railroad
track gap (probably falls into U4, 3+ foot gap with off camber takeoff and
landing(does narrow count?) ), just find a seldom used piece of track and
try to gap from one side to the other. (I assume these are all the same
size in the same locale). for riding square railings, just ride the length
of the rail. Not that I’m saying we should have all trials comps next to
railroad tracks, but these will certainly serve as some of the more
measureable-across-the-Web obstacles.

Chris