A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Unicycling
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ideas for improving the U System for trials



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 13th 04, 12:24 AM
billham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ideas for improving the U System for trials


Let me preface my remarks with the following… I have only been involved
in one trials event, Motorama 2004. That event used the U system. Joe
Merrill, event organizer had Kris Holms (U system creator) there to help
with set up and to offer guidance. I have great respect and admiration
for each of these men for the uni skills and event organizing knowledge
they brought to this event. I have also read the standard trials event
system that is used for bicycle trials events. These are way too
difficult and complex in my book. It might be that my lack of
experience in this event gives me a fresh look at it. OR, maybe I am
missing some critical points due to my inexperience. Thus a post for
your thoughts and ideas!

Someone help me here, I lost the link to Kris' U system description.
Please post the link for those unfamiliar with the U system.

I have been thinking more about the U system for trials. I think one of
the strong points of this system is the simplicity of it. Easier to
judge and to score. At Motorama this past spring it worked very well.
The main point of this post is…If it’s a better system because it is
simpler, why not make it even simpler? I really liked the overall
system and have a few ideas that might make it easier to use. One of my
main concerns with the U system is that it takes a very knowledgable
person to establish the point value for each section. In my opinion,
that makes it harder for event organizers to use it. If it was simpler,
it would be easier for someone to put together a uni trials event, thus
it would be more likely to be done. In keeping with the simpler version
thinking I have the following thoughts for your comments.

OPTION # 1 (the ultimate in simplicity?)
Don’t assign difficulty ratings or points to each section. Just have
numbered identification for each section. Scoring is done by showing a
point for each section completed.

Advantages:
1. Easiest to set up, requires less time for rating and more time is
available for setting up and building the sections.
2. Beginning riders don’t have as great a gap between their scores and
the top rider scores. This may help to encourage the newbies.
3. Quick and easy tallying of scores at the end of an event. Less room
for math errors and easier to verify the total score.

Disadvantages:
1. Top riders don’t get to rack up mega scores. May not look as
impressive.
2. It’s harder for spectators to know which sections are the highest
difficulty.
3. It might be easier for the people setting up the course to overlook
some key skills.


OPTION # 2 (slighty more involved that # 1)
Assign U system difficulty ratings to each section. This rating would
then become the point value of the section. For example, a U4
difficulty section would be worth 4 points, U5 worth 5 points, etc.

Advantages:
1. Would be more useful in showing the difficulty of the sections in an
event, especially if signs were posted that spectators could see.
2. Would also give riders a sense of the difficulty level they can
ride.
3. Closer attention to the U system levels would help create a more
balanced course, all the skills would have a better chance of being
included at each level.

Disadvantages:
1. It would be harder to set up the course for the organizer of the
event. Takes more knowledge of uni trials.
2. This would require a well defined description of each U level.


One last idea.. In case of a tie score for first place I think it
would be a great idea to have a ride off. A strength of the U system is
that the time used for the event can be controlled very precisely. That
allows the organizers to allow time at the end if needed for a ride off
to break a tie. A ride off would be a great event for spectators as the
top riders fight for the top spot! Each of the riders picks two
sections to attempt (strategy and drama here!) Then each rider gets 3
attempts to complete each section. If both riders complete a section,
then the one doing it in least attempts wins that section. I think it
would be a lot of fun to watch a ride off as a spectator and it gives
additional exposure to the top riders. It might even be fun to do this
with the top 3 or 4 riders even if there wasn’t a tie. A rider
challenge just for the fun of it and to give the top riders a victory
lap.

Again, I feel the U system is a good one. But it is young and still
getting established. I hope my $.02 worth of ideas might help make it a
little better.

Bill
[b]


--
billham

Direction is everything, distance is secondary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
billham's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4625
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759

Ads
  #2  
Old April 13th 04, 01:22 AM
vincelemay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ideas for improving the U System for trials


Hey Billham,

There is the link to the Internationnal Unicycle Trials Rules:
www.krisholm.com/trialsrules

*OPTION # 1...

I think you should forget about it, because the point of making
difficult obstacles is to separate the awesome riders from the good
ones. If someone clean a 6' high rail-to-rail transfer and gets the same
score as another rider who hop on a curb and drop off, it's not a trials
competition anymore, but a simple session with other unicyclists.

OPTION # 2...


That one is a possibility. But I think Kris based the scoring system on
the riding experience. In fact, it's almost exponantial, just like the
difficulty. Think of the 10 level for freestyle; it's harder to go from
level 8 to 9, than from level 2 to 3.

In case of a tie...


See Section 14. The tied-riders can choose to both attempt a long
section, and the winner is the one who clean more obstacles.

That's what they did at Toque to separate the winners: Kris Holm and
Ryan Atkins. Ryan won by totally cleaning the sections, while Kris dab
before the end.

Anyways, you should e-mail to Kris your suggestions, there's always room
for improving.

Vincent


--
vincelemay - Quebec unicyclist
------------------------------------------------------------------------
vincelemay's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/5812
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759

  #3  
Old April 13th 04, 01:24 AM
muniracer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ideas for improving the U System for trials


i see your point, but i think the best solution would be for kris to
better detail the scoring. first, i think the disadvantages of your
first option far outweight the advantages. good riders wont try big
stuff if they have to spend all their time on this little stuff. but if
a really hard line is 20 points, they can focus on that without worrying
about the 1 pointer. the problem with the second problem is similar to
the first, the points are out of proportion. my solution is for kris to
better detail the scoring, with both natural and urban trials taken into
consideration. perhaps he could post a couple pictures of lines and
explain how he scored them.


--
muniracer - Hell On Wheel

The Hell on Wheel Unicycle Gang owns you!!

http://www.unicyclist.com/gallery/albuq25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
muniracer's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4339
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759

  #4  
Old April 13th 04, 01:30 AM
vincelemay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ideas for improving the U System for trials


And for the assignation of the scores, see Appendix1 for some examples
of obstacles and their scorings. Of corse, the list could be infinite,
but if you think some obstacles should be in, I don't see why Kris would
not listen to your specifics propositions.


--
vincelemay - Quebec unicyclist
------------------------------------------------------------------------
vincelemay's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/5812
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759

  #5  
Old April 13th 04, 02:03 AM
Checkernuts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ideas for improving the U System for trials


Tie breaks should always be done with a round of rock paper scissors,
this is how it was done at Motorama and it has been by far the most fun
to watch as a spectator.

A ride off is a good idea, I think that was what was done at TOque this
year between Kris and Ryan, and it made for a good demenstration of
skill on a long and difficult line. But it still was missing a certain
charm that RPS has.


--
Checkernuts - Me Fail English? That's Unpossible

No one said it was gonna be easy and I'm not afraid to try, with the
odds stacked up against me I will have to fight, One Life One Wheel got
to do it right. H20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checkernuts's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/801
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759

  #6  
Old April 13th 04, 02:52 AM
billham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ideas for improving the U System for trials


Top riders should be able to complete the lower level sections easily
and quickly. If they needed much time on the easy sections, that would
reveal a weakness in their riding. I heard Kris saying at Motorama that
the course should test a rider for all types of skills. Some riders
couldn't ride skinnies very well but could hop high and gap far. An all
round rider should do both well. So a simple on the ground skinny is
important to revealing weaknesses of even the upper level riders.

One assumption I was using was that the top riders would have time to
complete all the sections and still work on the tough ones for a good
while. If that was the case, all the levels would be needed to get the
top score. At Motorama, the best riders did have time to do all the
sections. If the event was short on time and not all sections could be
completed, then Option 1 would not work. Option 1 needs a long time
frame or fewer obtacles. Lots of time was a critical assumption on my
part for option 1.

See there you go. I put out some ideas and get some great feedback.
Gotta love this forum.

Bill


--
billham

Direction is everything, distance is secondary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
billham's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4625
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759

  #7  
Old April 13th 04, 04:04 AM
muniracer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ideas for improving the U System for trials


for those of you dont understand how incredible RPS is, check out
www.worldrps.com


but a ride off is better, sorry chex. whether or not better riders
should have to do easier lines depends on time and number of
participants.


--
muniracer - Hell On Wheel

The Hell on Wheel Unicycle Gang owns you!!

http://www.unicyclist.com/gallery/albuq25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
muniracer's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4339
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759

  #8  
Old April 13th 04, 04:01 PM
merrill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ideas for improving the U System for trials


These are certainly some intruiging ideas. Option #1 would certainly be
easier on the event organizer.

I think the question is whether or not the point values currently used
in the u-system actually yield a more accurate and fair score than the
"flat" point values Bill suggested. I have a hunch that relative point
values could be somewhat arbitrary and that a flat point system has its
merits.

I agree with Bill that the top riders should be able to complete the
easier sections easily and quickly. The ability for a rider to quickly
nail all the lower level sections, regardless of skill tested is an
important part of the test. The rules stipulate that "The time duration
should be sufficient to allow each rider to attempt each obstacle
multiple times, if necessary." Also a comp should be 2 or 3 hours
depending on the number of sections and riders.

For a rider to spend all of his/her time trying to nail tough sections
and gain high points, to the neglect of a few easy sections is contrary
to the idea that a rider's all around ability is being tested. In
fact, a flat point system would eliminate this possibility and could
more clearly expose rider weaknesses, rewarding the more well rounded
rider who can clean every type of challenge.

I think option #1 would yield more ties among the top three scores. For
example, at Motorama, I think there were 31 sections. Kris and Ryan
would have scored 30, if I remember correctly. Then there might have
been multiple scores of 29, 28, 27, 26 etc. A ride off would settle
this, and I think it would be very exciting to watch.

All in all, I'm thinking that Motorama would have been a lot simpler,
and just as much fun with a flat system.

As for spectators, I don't think they will ever know, be interested in,
or able to follow a relative point system. Even if point values were
posted on huge signs, it would be logistically very difficult to post
them in a visible and meaningful way. I think audiences are simply
interested in watching riders try difficult things, and some things
immediately draw a spectators attention, based on what is being DONE,
not based on a numerical value.

And as for the riders, who cares about the "appearance" of a high
numerical score. We go to comps to have fun and ride, not to collect
trophies.

Just my 2 cents, but I like option one, but I'm sure there's something
I'm missing here, though, that I'm not considering.

Joe


--
merrill

"...more and more of our imports are coming from overseas."
Dubya on On NPR's Morning Edition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
merrill's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/818
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759

  #9  
Old April 13th 04, 05:08 PM
johnfoss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ideas for improving the U System for trials


merrill wrote:
*I think option #1 would yield more ties among the top three scores.*

The option 1 system sounds like it would work best for smaller events.
It would get more troublesome at crowded (high attendance) events or if
there are a lot of lines of similar difficulty.

I've participated in a small handful of Trials events using various
scoring methods. Compared to the earlier ones, the U-system is the
simplest from a rider point of view. System #1 would be even simpler,
but same for the riders. In some of the events where I participated, I
did not have enough time to try all sections. This was partly based on
my relatively low skill level, and possibly on me taking pictures, but
if all lines had equal scores, more time might be needed to make sure
riders had sufficient time to work all of them.

In an event with lots of lines, some will tend to be of near-equal
difficulty. A 1-for-1 scoring system would make it a test of quantity,
and kind of invalidate the difference between all the different lines.

But yes, the current scoring system is hard for organizers, and causes
an automatic addition to the set-up time to figure out what the scores
should be. If a Kris Holm or Joe Merrill aren't available, it might be
hard to put accurate scores on your lines. But as the current set of
rules gets more developed, I'm sure this area will be addressed.


--
johnfoss - Walkin' on the edge

John Foss, the Uni-Cyclone
"jfoss" at "unicycling.com"
www.unicycling.com

"Hey, could I have some of that spinach? I need to get this pork rind
taste out of my mouth." -- Ryan Atkins to Kris Holm, on the way back
from Moab after sampling some of my pork rinds. They grossed out the
whole van!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
johnfoss's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/832
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759

  #10  
Old April 13th 04, 10:16 PM
merrill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ideas for improving the U System for trials


John,

I like your Avatar.

Kris's rules also state:

" The time duration should be sufficient to allow each rider to attempt
each obstacle multiple times, if necessary. "

and

e) Section difficulty should correspond to the range in ability levels
of the participants. The easiest sections should be cleanable by all
participants after one or two attempts, and the harder sections should
require multiple attempts by the best riders.
f) It is highly recommended to include one or two sections that are so
difficult that they may only be cleaned by one rider, or not at all.
This will help prevent ties for first place, and may also help to
increase the technical standards of the sport if a rider succeeds in
doing something that has never been done before.


If these guidelines are followed, everyone should have a fair chance to
try as many sections s they wish within the allotted time. I don't
think a trials comp is likely to be a test of quantity of lines cleaned
because of the limitations in building a well rounded course.

So for example, at a large competition with 50 riders and 30 lines, the
course setter would need to allow some extra time, perhaps 3 to 4 hours.
I think that a competition where you felt rushed just to get through
the lines that you are capable of, would be one where the basic
guidelines were not adhered to. Not that that's a problem, it's just
different. If you have lots of lines and lots of riders, hopefully the
comp duration is set in a realistic way. Having to rush through a
course just to hit everything would seem less than ideal.


Also, if you had lots of lines of similar difficulty, or (even worse) if
there were not enough hard lines of increasing difficulty, you would
wind up with many riders cleaning everything and everyone tying.

At the next competition, I think it would be quite interesting to tally
results both according to "traditional" u-system point assignments, and
flat scores, and see what the differences are. This would be easy to
do.

Joe


--
merrill

"...more and more of our imports are coming from overseas."
Dubya on On NPR's Morning Edition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
merrill's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/818
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
29er Tire Study. Wanted! Active 29er riders and design ideas U-Turn Unicycling 19 March 8th 05 02:54 AM
9 speed chain on 8 speed system bicyclette Techniques 3 February 19th 04 02:35 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.