Qualifying Rules

[Wesley Tucker]

I'm looking for an explanation. Any reasoned insight will be appreciated.

In dual racing we have each skater take a run in both lanes. Then the adjusted times are averaged together and the fast time of the two advances.

Simple.

Why is it in qualifying we have each racer take a run in both lanes and the FAST TIME is used for qualifying? Why isn't the averaged time of both lanes used to determine the racer's qualifying time? If a racer has to compete in both lanes in order to advance shouldn't the racer's time in both lanes be used to determine qualifying position?

Oh, I've heard one possible reason: a racer gets a time in one lane and DQs in the other. What do you do then for an average? Simple: just like in dual racing the one qualifying time is used and the DQ time would be the first time plus 1.5 seconds. So if a racer runs a course in 15 seconds and DQs in the second run, the time would be 16.5. Qualifying time would be 15.75. Simple.

The process of taking two runs and only using one has never made sense to me and I've never heard the reason why it's done.

[Chris Barker]

I look at qualifying this way: You get 2 shots at getting 1 good time. There are many ways to use your 2 shots. If the course is really tricky, you might try to get a clean/safe run just to get a time and not DQ on cones and then charge hard your 2nd shot and hope for the best. Often, there are 2 boards that will work on the course so I take a run on each of them and let the clock decide which is best. Other times I take a run, make some adjustments to that same board, run again, and let the clock decide.

In none of those scenarios am I trying to get 2 fast times. In both, I am using my 2 runs to get 1 very fast time.

[Ramón Königshausen]

I look at qualifying this way: You get 2 shots at getting 1 good time. There are many ways to use your 2 shots. If the course is really tricky, you might try to get a clean/safe run just to get a time and not DQ on cones and then charge hard your 2nd shot and hope for the best. Often, there are 2 boards that will work on the course so I take a run on each of them and let the clock decide which is best. Other times I take a run, make some adjustments to that same board, run again, and let the clock decide.

In none of those scenarios am I trying to get 2 fast times. In both, I am using my 2 runs to get 1 very fast time.

It's all about findig the fastest setup.

q.e.d.

rmn

[Wesley Tucker]

Chris,

That makes perfect sense. The only issue is that you addressed how you approach qualifying under the current rules. I still don't know why we use the current rules.

Why do we average times in racing but use only the fastest time in quailfying? We run both lanes but only use the time from one. Why? You address the issue of getting equipment dialed in. What about those runs in practice?

Ramon said it's about getting the fastest set up. That's understandable. If that's the way he approaches qualifying then so be it. That's not, however, why we qualify. We qualify to seed each racer from fastest to slowest, not to allow a skater the time to figure out what bushing combination works best for him.

I really appreciate the feedback but the question is still unanswered. Y'all just addressed HOW you approach qualifying with the current rules.

My question is WHY do we do qualify one way and race another?

[Ramón Königshausen]

From my point of view it looks like this:

When I qualify I want to go as fast as possible so that my way towards the final will be as easy as possible and, on the other hand, it's quite reasonable to, as you said, "seed each racer from fastest to slowest" because we want that round by round only the best racers remain in the bracket.
Another factor could be wind or the temperature of the surface, you can imagine...

And, as also mentioned, in case of one of the top racers DQs while using the average time system you proposed, our problem would be, that two top racers meet "too early" what could be considered unfair for the other top racer that qualified better. In other words a good qualifier deserves a weaker opponent.

The reason why we use average times in racing could be explained like this:

An example fromt the Worlds in Brixlegg: Manuel Schaub had to race against Peter Klang. Manuel was qualified 6th (11.810), Peter 11th (12.220). In the first run Peter hit 11 cones, Manuel 4. Manuel was ahead by .05 and had a time of 13.690 (at this time there was a little headwind) In the second run Peter beat him by 1.16 seconds (P 3 cones, M 0 cones) The reason why Peter was so much faster was the strog headwind that had come up in the meantime. Manuel's still quite a lightweight, racers very well but when he has to race with headwind he can go home. Despite his advantage from the first run didn't help him to make his average time better, this should show that average times in head to head make sense.

Another point is that often one line is faster, has better pavement or whatever. The decision to determine who's faster in head to head should not be taken by only the fastest time of each racer. Racers shoul really have to
show that they deserve advancing into the next round by laying down a good time on either side. This is not required in qualifying since you race against anyone and it's only to determine who's gonna race who.

hm...do this explanations make sense to you?

rmn

[Chris Barker]

There is no clock in place in practice. Often there are lots of cones missing as well. The first qualifying run is always a great mystery. After that, you may choose to adjust based on how you are seeded in the first Q run results.

I think the DQ reasoning that you already mentioned is the biggest reason why your proposed method would be a problem. At Hood, Richie DQed in his first Q run. His 2nd run was not a very fast run because he just wanted to get a decent time, but enough to get him to 7th. In the end, he met me in the championship round.

If your system was applied, he would not have even made it to the A-bracket because of the first run DQ. Imagine the crying of everyone else in the B-bracket. One objective of qualifying is to get everyone in their proper order. Even with a single DQ, the current system allows for that. Your proposed system does not. If you were one of the fastest qualifiers would you want to face one of the fastest racers in the first round because of a Q run DQ?

[John Gilmour]

As people continue to race each lane there are more times to look at.

I try and determine which lane is the faster lane and put a safety run down in the slower lane.

If average time is required it would make my runs slower with less risk. I wouldn't try and post a 100% run in qualifying.

Does it matter? IMHO I think so. As far back as La Costa 2002 in a group with a dense talent pool we found almost every time in the round of 32 to be within .2 of each other.

So if you hold back to 95% in qualifying you might seed very differently than if you ran at 100%. You might even drop below the top 32!

Running at 100% of course means you are at the limit of your speed, strategy, and traction. So in order to properly seed racers in a dense talent pool- or a matured skill level- you really hope to have racers trying to put out 100% during qualifying to prevent upsets in later rounds.

Densely packed times can be caused by having courses that are considered easy for bulk of the racers.

Now there is a way around this. Careful course setting can introduce a course with a technical aspect(s) that alllows less skilled racers to make the tech section at slower speeds and skilled racers to make the tech section at high speeds. Putting in a gap to allow for less skilled racers to dump speed and faster racers to double/ triple pump will spread out the times more and could allow for your method to be used. Cone carnage can be the result of this- but if you set it with the possibility of an out of course DQ instead of hitting cones skaters will charge it but try to run clean

Also if you are racing with just a few racers of differing ability levels...there is really no need for two qualifiers assuming that the skill level difference is greater than the time differences between the two lanes.

Lastly in a race with a great number of racers. in the elims it would be expected that the A- group racers are more densely packed according to times (yes there can be some speedy guy who's a second ahead of everyone- but the bulk is very close in time).

B- group will be less densely packed together than A- group and C- group will be even less densely packed.

So for instance in a race with 48 racers entered and 3 groups of 16. I doubt you would need a run in each lane to determine the eliminations accurately for C-group. 1 run "sudden death" would likely be enough.

This would allow promoters to handle more racers (50-100) and still place them with a high degree of accuracy. Yes there could be 2 racers who meet in head to head in C- group with .02 between them but it certainly is less common than in A and B group.

You are bringing shrimp next time you come North during shrimp season- please....