G3 slalom rules.

Jeff Bozi · Post by **Jeff Bozi** » Fri May 09, 2003 7:51 am

The secret to beating Vlad........

http://www.boziboards.com/g3/page2/page2-Images/1.jpg

cones more then 5 feet apart bewilder him.....

More Good Fun, G3 pics will be up over weekend from the Light side of G3.

Jeff

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Thu May 08, 2003 5:50 pm

I'd also like to discuss the duals 1.5 second rule. We could have it or not- but if we have it it should make sense.

If you have a DQ on the first run should the 1.5 seconds be added to your competitors time for the same run? Or should it be for the second run?

Some factors could come into play....ie competitor slowing down if he knows you DQ, wind, etc.

Vlad Popov · Post by **Vlad Popov** » Thu May 08, 2003 12:58 am

That's all I have

Leonardo Ojeda · Post by **Leonardo Ojeda** » Thu May 08, 2003 12:53 am

Please post more pics of tg3!!!!

Jeff Boswell · Post by **Jeff Boswell** » Wed May 07, 2003 1:04 pm

Vlad! Marriages last longer then that. Some last a lifetime. Anyway I am going to change my middle name to crash. I should be seeing you all soon. If I ever stop hurting Jeff "crash"Boswell

Vlad Popov · Post by **Vlad Popov** » Wed May 07, 2003 4:37 am

Sure, Tway, she'll shoot you. She'll shoot you good.

5 years?!! Marriages don't last that long in this country!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed May 07, 2003 4:13 am

so is Victoria your "special coach" you refered to up in hybrid? Eitherway she is a great photographer.

Congrats on 5 years, my wife and I celebrated out 5th wedding anniversary on May 02....

William Tway · Post by **William Tway** » Wed May 07, 2003 4:06 am

Well she may not be seeing any hot action form this old man but you can be damn sure I'll give it hell in hopes to be in the eye of her camera.

Thanks for the PlankkR. I look forward to riding it passionately.

Vlad Popov · Post by **Vlad Popov** » Wed May 07, 2003 3:44 am

William Tway · Post by **William Tway** » Wed May 07, 2003 3:31 am

I would like to be the first to welcome Victoria Zeta Popov to this site. For those who have never met her, she is the gorgeous young lady always hangin' in the car reading a book while her man practices 4' parallel for 5 straight hours. She is the most dedicated fan in the sport of slalom. It would be great to see her start riding. You can be sure I wouldn’t miss a single DC event. I look forward to reading her thoughts...good and bad.

Ok now that my mind is in the gutter, Vlad please sign me up for a custom Plankk-R.

Thanks

Vlad Popov · Post by **Vlad Popov** » Wed May 07, 2003 3:26 am

We moved to the Roe room, see you there.

Terry Kirby · Post by **Terry Kirby** » Wed May 07, 2003 2:45 am

Vladi, what would the soft be for and what would the stiff be for? I want a mini bullet 28.5" x 8.25 at the widest point tapering back to around 7" on the tail.

Mabet this can be moved to the Roe forum?

Vlad Popov · Post by **Vlad Popov** » Wed May 07, 2003 2:25 am

Cool. I'd like to have a soft (very soft) Mini-Bullet and a stiff (medium flex) Mini-Bullet. Max 7 1/4 inch wide, with the Bullet nose and tail and (almost) straight middle section. The tail should be NO less then 6 3/4 inch wide and the fattest part should be NO more then 7 and 1/4 inch wide. That would make a good addition to the quiver.

I have Parson's Plankk-R signed by JG himself (!), Dillon's Plankk-R (Fatboy model for Dillon's huge feet), and one or two regular TS Plankk-Rs, the exact replicas of the one that keeps winning and winning.

All of the above models are $20 gripped and signed by Dalv. The Commi plank is more expensive. Trahan’s model is about done.

Vlad.

Sorry for

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue May 06, 2003 10:33 pm

I think the point of need for true TS (I like the term technical slalom) boards was crystal clear. The fact people like myself, john and TK had to push giant GS decks through the TS showed it very clear. I our cases it was the only deck we had at the time. You can be sure things will change.

Gareth and I talked about a few shapes and you will be seeing some TS Roes soon.

Trust me the point was very clear.

As far as planks go I used to laugh but I get it now. How much again for a plank?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue May 06, 2003 10:32 pm

I think the point of need for true TS (I like the term technical slalom) boards was crystal clear. The fact people like myself, john and TK had to push giant GS decks through the TS showed it very clear. I our cases it was the only deck we had at the time. You can be sure things will change.

Gareth and I talked about a few shapes and you will be seeing some TS Roes soon.

Trust me the point was very clear.

As far as planks go I used to laugh but I get it now. How much again for a plank?

Vlad Popov · Post by **Vlad Popov** » Tue May 06, 2003 8:52 pm

John, (and other brave ones who rode/wants to ride tech stuff in the future).

Now, in retrospect, many things become clear and apparent. Live and learn…live and learn.

The course wasn’t that technical. You’re right about the “somewhat” part. If you compare the difficulty of this course with a typical Gilmourian course, it’d be 6-7 on a 10-difficulty scale. If anyone wants to ague or question that, just ride JG course at full throttle. I mean, try to ride JG course at full throttle. I know I’ll be breaking 8.0-second barrier on Cyber well before I feel comfy on the high-speed tech stuff. But. It’d be hell if one of your courses were actually a racecourse! 20 cones DQ? Or 19?

The low-tech aspects of the course were:
1. Rhythmic sections
2. Mellow curve
3. Ability to be centered over practically every cone

There was pushing for the greater number of DQ-cones, but the Florida and Plankk-R voted for 6-DQ rule, as we had an equipment advantage. That was not fair to the rest of the field on GS boards and other wrong set-ups, but it was, on the other hand, a wake up call to the industry representatives and it did work in favor of those skaters who find that kind of racing interesting AND keep some stuff for it handy.

To bargain something, it pays to jack up the price, then to find a compromise. When you and Chaput were arguing for 7-8 cones, Tight S guys with the right tools at hand said 5. We then agreed on 6. The rule I voted for killed me at the end, when I was able to make up 1.5 seconds on McCree in our second run, but DQd again. It must have been physical exhaustion, really, I’m not blaming the course or the rules. In retrospect, 7 or 8 should have been a DQ on that course. Not to benefit anyone in particular, but to make that race better for everyone.

1.5 sec. penalty was proposed to compensate for the low number of DQ cones. A good skater with the right equipment should have had no problem whatsoever making up 1.5 sec on this course in case of the first run DQ. So the 1.5 sec DQ was there to balance the things out, and it immediately found great support in the masses. I really loved that rule, but it didn’t help me.

A word on setting that course. I dropped the cones and they “chocked” them. No modifications were made. If the majority of people were to complain about a certain thing, it would have been changed. Chris didn’t like my tribute to the FCR (the last 3 cones) at first, but he ended up skating them MUCH better then myself in the end. His in-sync run with Gareth was one of the highlights of the G3.

The race favored TS set-ups, and the majority of people who voted for this technical TS course were on TS boards.

John, do you suggest to follow ISSA, modified ISSA or some other rules at comps like that (not Gathering in particular, but Tech Slalom in general)?

It would be great if the ISSA and new USSSR(f) rules are very close.

Can I be a head assistant to a cone marshal under ISSA in USA? Or a janitor for USSSF? Or both? I gotta start somewhere

Vlad.

PS It amazes me John, that you being such a huge fan of TS (technical slalom) come to a competition with a GS set-up. Paul Dunn laughed at me and turned away my offer to skate for Plankk-R. If you want, we can talk.

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Tue May 06, 2003 5:43 pm

This past week we saw the effects of many rule sets being applied to different courses.

One example that comes to mind is the somewhat technical dual course set by Vlad at G3.

The course was set- it appeared technical- I looked at the course setters philosophy. Most interesting at the end were the large tight offsets.

I knew that this would make competition very intense as the brackets drew people who were close in times together. Certainly closely seeded people would be close to the finish and the large offsets would cause people to really push it near the end- likely entering with high speed and hitting some of those last cones.

Penalties were discussed. .1 second was chosen- which is in accordance with ISSA rules and likely correct as it also would allow for some smarter criddling.

BUT the 1.5 second rule was implemented. Not a feature of an ISSA rule, and in a course of this length it is very possible to make up 1.5 seconds- but with the higher technical setting coupled with the low cone DQ it would likely not be very possible.

A very low DQ cone penalty of 6 cones was implemented.

I suggested a higher DQ penalty of 7-8 cones. Not to encourage sloppy racing- but to reduce the number of races decided solely by DQ.

In head to head racing people often push beyond into the "less than comfortable zone" where a normally clean racer may be pushed to strike some cones. As this was a technical course with little room for error I expected many people to hit more than 5 cones.

I had a GS board for the race as I do not have a TS set up at the moment. Kirby also chose to race a GS deck in fact they are all the same ROE decks.

I thought it was very funny that we were in the opposite boat of what Mandarino, Hollien, and McCree were in in Lake Elsinore.

As a result of the cone penalty being set so low many heats were decided by DQ. I don't have the final tally but I believe it was high.

Setting a low cone penalty DQ results in "careful racing" where sometimes even more cones are hit- and of course slower speeds for the bulk of competitors. Cone time penalties still add to competitors times.

Ironically if you have slower speeds due to a low cone DQ the cone penalties actually seem to count less. (You'll have to think about this for a moment).

If you increase the cone penalty to .2 seconds for a technical TS course....you get even slower racing.

If you increase the cone spacing you get faster racing for the slower people (easier for them) and slower racing for the faster people (Less pumping available for feet traveled). Which can also lead to skewed results.

It is a shame times were not kept so we could see some of the effects of the cone penalties.

Technical courses make you a "better" racer.

Faster courses make you a "faster" racer.

The right equipment will make you a better and faster racer.

The right equipment on a hard course that is fast makes you Vlad.

You certainly do not want to deny racing to those racers who can not run clean. And at the G3 there were some easier courses.

I should have asked Andy if I could have set a course solely for learning slalomers. Hopefully I'll remember for next year.

Join the ISSA 25-cone series. 5 international sessions per year.
Create your own local race. Discover slalom skateboarding now!

| World Ranking | 25-cone Series | Calendar