| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
SeanCostin
USA
32 Posts |
 Posted - 09/19/2012 : 19:43:15
|
The IHPVA has approved the inclusion of a junior class or Classes. Please use this as an open forum for discussion on how this should be structured.
|
Edited by - SeanCostin on 09/19/2012 19:43:45 |
|
|
delcrossv
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2012 : 07:33:40
|
| I'd submit that boys and girls should be split. It appears that was considered as part of the original proposal. Age splitting would be helpful too as a 15 y.o. produces much more power than a 10 y.o. |
 |
|
|
Larry Lem
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2012 : 08:05:24
|
Mike Mowett already started a topic on this a year ago.
http://www.ihpva.org/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=708
We should either transfer that info here, or delete this topic
Larry Lem |
Edited by - Larry Lem on 09/20/2012 11:32:37 |
|
|
|
Larry Lem
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2012 : 12:40:35
|
There are already separate categories for male and female, so that is covered. Now we're just discussing the age cut-off and how that is determined (age on Dec 31?, age at the competition?).
Also mentioned somewhere was that perhaps a minimum age needs to be set so we don't have 4-year olds trying to pilot streamliners at Battle Mountain and then parents arguing that we need a wee-tike category.
Larry Lem |
Edited by - Larry Lem on 09/25/2012 08:07:44 |
|
|
|
n/a
1 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2012 : 05:53:12
|
Sorry to mention again but....
We did this before, but the documentation has been lost. Age was up to 16, with other lower ages. It was only introduced as a class in the year Charlie Ollinger jnr set a speed. Making it retrospective before then may deprive him of his legit record as others such as Mackie and Tanya may have gone faster earlier.
Age was agreed to be age at time of record. Seasons have no meaning in this context.
Insurance may determine minimum age.
...got the T shirt |
Edited by - n/a on 09/27/2012 05:56:18 |
|
|
|
Larry Lem
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2012 : 07:47:32
|
If others had gone faster before Charlie and were of the same age, then it wasn't a legitimate record to start with. There is the truth, and then there is playing with rules.
I agree that the required age should be at the time the record is set. We don't celebrate everyone's birthdays on Dec 31.
Larry Lem |
Edited by - Larry Lem on 09/27/2012 07:53:58 |
|
|
|
Don S
USA
88 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2012 : 18:44:18
|
Web site information often lags behind official results and there is a disclaimer on the IHPVA web site records page. Someone should request and review an official copy of the records list as it relates to this topic.
What I don't find addressed in the official IHPVA rules is disposition or recognition guidelines for rider/vehicle achievements at events prior to the establishment of a new class that would have met the requirements of the newly recognized class had it existed at the time of the event.
"it's important to understand what makes them fast. It's more important to understand what keeps them from going faster." DS |
|
|
|
Don S
USA
88 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2012 : 19:02:36
|
The establishment of new human power classes creates interest, encourages new rider involvement and fosters the development of faster, more advanced vehicles. In my opinion it's short sighted to limit the number of classes and thereby discourage involvement based on the number of slots available on 305.
"it's important to understand what makes them fast. It's more important to understand what keeps them from going faster." DS |
|
|
|
Alan Krause
23 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2012 : 21:52:29
|
Alice here -
My two cents as a mom:
Under 11
12-15
16-18
Kids are developmentally different. One "under 16" class discourages younger competitors. We need to excite new racers. The added competition at Battle Mountain from the University teams has been a real shot of inspiration.
Yes, we might have to limit participation at some events if the organizers choose not to include racing times for younger riders, but that has always been the choice of the the event coordinators not all venues can provide for all types of racing or records. |
|
|
|
Larry Lem
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2012 : 08:22:35
|
It is good of Alice to note that this is about the creation of age groups for all racing. Whether we'd run such groups at an event such as the WHPSC at Battle Mountain is a different issue.
Bring on the wee-tikes!
Larry Lem |
|
|
|
SeanCostin
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2012 : 19:21:34
|
Speaking as a dad of a pretty talented 10 year old junior who has been riding since the age 3 and has 3 seasons of track and some bmx racing under his belt, I don't think I would feel like a responsible parent if I put him in a full streamliner anytime soon. I think 11 would be the youngest I would consider it. Probably 12 would be my suggestion for a lower limit.
|
|
|
|
upright mike
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2012 : 07:05:00
|
(copied and modified from www.recumbents.com posting)
Here are all the Best Junior Marks for each year at Battle Mountain in Chronological Order, and the Historical significance ....
1) 50.860 mph, Tanya Markham, age 15, Gold Rush Le Tour, 2001 Battle Mountain. JUNIOR RECORD - Tanya was the fastest Junior girl or boy.
2) 53.48 mph, Tanya Markham, age 16 & Macky Martin, age 15, Double Gold Rush, Friday October 4, 2002. JUNIOR TANDEM RECORD (Girl/Boy)
3) 52.295 mph, Tanya Markham, age 16, Gold Rush Colorado, 2002 Battle Mountain. Saturday Oct 5, 2002. JUNIOR RECORD - Tanya was the fastest Junior girl or boy.
4) 61.45 mph, Macky Martin, age 16, Virtual Rush, Battle Mountain 2003. JUNIOR RECORD - now male record is faster than female. He also went 64.45 mph witn non-legal wind.
-EDITED THIS ON November 11, 2012
5) 50.76 mph - nonlegal wind, Macky Martin, age 17, Easy Racers TriRush, 2004 Battle Mountain. He also went 51.79 mph with non-legal wind in 2004. The next year 2005 he went a bit slower 46.07 mph but it was with legal wind, but he was probably already age 18 - maybe. Subcategory: JUNIOR MALE MULTITRACK RECORD
6) 57.697 mph, Charlie Ollinger, age 14, M5 Number 8 fairing, 2005 Battle Mountain. This was two years after Macky rode, but Charlie was also two years younger. FASTEST JUNIOR AGE 14 or YOUNGER. He has a solid 2nd place on the Junior list behind Macky. Charlie rode all nights in 2005 to speeds over 50 mph.
7) 46.00 mph, Kara Synder, age 16, ArrowHawk, 2010 Battle Mountain. Subcategory: JUNIOR FEMALE MULTITRACK RECORD. She also went 50.44 mph with non-legal wind.
|
Edited by - upright mike on 11/12/2012 12:35:15 |
|
|
|
n/a
10 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2012 : 16:20:27
|
The UCI defines Juniors as 17 and 18 years old. The ITF (Track and Field) defines it as 19 and under in the calendar year of the competition. Mackey was 17 when he road TriRush. So I think 18 would be the most consistent with these:
"Junior category is defined as the athlete being 18 years of age or younger in the year ending on Dec. 31 of the competition".
-Raymond |
|
|
|
Don S
USA
88 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2012 : 20:06:47
|
I agree on the 18 year old age requirement however the Dec 31st calendar year criteria would give an unfair advantage to an athlete who enters an event at age 18 and celebrates his 19th birthday on January 1st of the following year compared to an athlete who may have been 18 at the same event but celebrates his 19th birthday on December 31st, thereby being disqualified for the same junior record even though he or she may have had a faster time.
I'm in favor of: "Junior category is defined as the athlete being 18 years of age or younger on the date of the competition." I realize this could pose a problem for a junior athlete who turns age 19 during a multiday event like B.M. but at least it's a rule that could be uniformly applied and it gives that athlete an opportunity to compete as a junior that wouldn't exist if the December 31st calendar year definition were applied.
"it's important to understand what makes them fast. It's more important to understand what keeps them from going faster." DS |
|
|
|
Alan Krause
23 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2012 : 10:35:51
|
I am all for more than one junior's class
I like "age at the time of record" rather than a "racing age"
I have already been contacted by a father who is building a streamliner for his 13 year old daughter to race in Battle Mountain next year, so I would like to see those younger age groups included.
I like the:
Under 11
12-15
16-18
but may be willing to give up under 10 y.o. to make the rest happen
thanks
Al
|
|
|
|
n/a
10 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2012 : 14:55:06
|
I agree/prefer the "age at the time of record" approach, as it makes the most sense, as long as it is easily verifiable. I only put in the calendar year verbage to be consistant with other organizations I've seen.
-Raymond |
|
|
|
delcrossv
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2012 : 12:42:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by SeanCostin
Speaking as a dad of a pretty talented 10 year old junior who has been riding since the age 3 and has 3 seasons of track and some bmx racing under his belt, I don't think I would feel like a responsible parent if I put him in a full streamliner anytime soon. I think 11 would be the youngest I would consider it. Probably 12 would be my suggestion for a lower limit.
I think it's very "kid dependent". Sean's familiar with my kids and I'd be comfortable with putting Genna in a streamliner at a younger age than Cecilia, for example.
Alan/Alice's breakdown by ages makes sense to me as a parent. ( Don't think there'll be a lot of under 11 y.o.'s anyway but it'd be nice to leave the possibility open).
Even with my oldest having a birthday of 1/1 (really!) I prefer the "age at the date of event " approach. |
Edited by - delcrossv on 10/19/2012 07:25:25 |
|
|
|
Larry Lem
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2012 : 14:36:16
|
30 days was up 10 days ago.
The folks that feel strongly about changing the rules to add age groups and multitrack vehicles ought to submit final, complete proposals.
Larry Lem |
Edited by - Larry Lem on 10/26/2012 07:31:52 |
|
|
|
Alan Krause
23 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2012 : 11:35:48
|
| the board is almost done, we just need to finish the age groups. both multi-track and juniors were packaged into a single motion and the multi track part is finished. |
|
|
|
delcrossv
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2012 : 19:43:07
|
| Please post the board's decision. |
|
|
|
n/a
2 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2012 : 22:05:44
|
| The IHPVA has approved |
|
|
|
Larry Lem
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2014 : 12:56:04
|
3.2.1.5 Junior riders: The IHPVA shall recognize separate records Juniors for records attempts, with three sub-classes:
A. Age 11 years and under.
B. Ages 12 through 14 years.
C. Ages 15 through 17 years.
Age will be determined by date of birth.The participant age is measured as of the day of the record attempt. If the attempt spans more than one calendar day, age is determined at the time when the participant first crosses the starting line.
The above sub-classes apply to male and female classes.
Records set in Junior classes will occupy higher Junior and/or adult records (excluding Masters ) if they are exceeded.
Masters? Hmmmm, preparing for the future, I suppose.
Larry Lem |
Edited by - Larry Lem on 09/19/2014 12:56:39 |
|
|
|
Don S
USA
88 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2014 : 21:23:35
|
ahhh, YES! Masters (age 50 to 65) and Seniors (age 65 and over). It wouldn't seem logical to recognize these as separate classes but recognizing superior achievements by individuals in subcategories of Masters and Seniors within the existing adult classes would seem consistent with the IHPVA goal of recognizing significant human power achievements, retaining the membership and contributions of an aging population, and building the membership base by expanding the areas of interest and competition.
All individuals entering an event to compete in these subcategories would enter, and have to qualify for the event/competition, under the same rules imposed for the general membership. Specifically, as pertaining to the World Human Powered Speed Challenge, but not exclusively, an individual seeking recognition in one of these subclasses would not only have to meet the minimum speed requirements for the course, but would also have to be within the percentage requirements of the general classification.
Example: A tandem team and vehicle, which passed the rules inspection, met the competition requirements, and qualified for a run on 305 based on the percentage rule for the entire class, and exceeded the minimum speed for the course, could, after competing, apply for recognition in the Masters or Seniors sub-category if their run was a potential new world record for the sub-class. Masters and/or Senior Competitors would not be allowed to use the sub-class as a separate basis of qualification to gain advantage over or "bump" any other competitor but would specifically compete on an equal basis with all entrants in the competition.
The intent would be to encourage participation and would in no case be construed to prevent Masters and Senior competitors from sponsoring or conducting a future event limited to persons meeting the age requirements of these sub-classes.
Don
|
Edited by - Don S on 09/24/2014 22:33:55 |
|
|
|
Larry Lem
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2014 : 13:46:07
|
Unfortunately, Don and I are the only ones who occasionally read this forum. I'll be raising this issue with the board, wondering whether this forum should be dissolved and the more-popular recumbents.com forum expanded.
Larry Lem |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
