2008 ISSA Rules Update - Section 3 (Equipment)

[Pat Chewning]

I think the toe stop thing can be regulated by: "Must not break the vertical plane" as in NOT wrapping over on top of the foot.

I don't run one, but all of the ones that I see at the races seem to comply with this.

There, done.


Now what else can I solve for you?

Here is a toe block that probably would be prohibited by the "break the vertical plane" wording.



As I think it should be ....

The photo is unclear as to whether or not it "overhangs" the foot and "breaks the vertical plane"

[Curt Chapman]

Joe I.
Polls have been taken and it seems that as a majority, most approve of the 6 wheelers.
I for one think they should be allowed.

I believe that poll was taken on Silverfish. I believe the audience was uneducated and not necessarily of our membership. For our purposes polls are pointless. Lets vote.

There were polls on both Silverfish and here on the ISSA board:

http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/phpBB ... php?t=5136

[Curt Chapman]

This is opening a whole new can of worms!!! Has our "ideal, goal or aesthetic vision" of slalom skateboard racing ever been formally written down, received input from marketing professionals or even been seriously discussed anywhere? Has any sort of a serious marketing plan ever been developed or followed by the ISSA? If not, this sounds like nothing more than the opinions of a few...

A marketing plan needs to be developed and goals set so that we have some sense of direction. Who is our target audience? What sort of equipment should the competitors use to appeal to the target audience? What sort of events should be developed to appeal to the audience? These questions raise many, many more questions and quickly this topic becomes a huge issue. The ISSA needs to be asking itself these things as the rulebook is being developed. All of the pieces need to fit together if this sport is ever going to go anywhere.

If Marketing is of any interest to the ISSA when thinking about these equipment rules, then the ISSA better tread very carefully when it comes to restricting equipment.

Don't shoot the messenger, but here's my personal experience with "specialized" equipment: I recently built a six-wheeler just for giggles. (And because it was a hell of a lot cheaper than buying a precision "traction" rear truck.) My 7-year-old son has only been slightly interested in skateboarding with dad... Until he saw the schwheeler. He had to ride it, and has been skating much more since then. My TS board is pretty "cool" when it comes to slalom gear. Carbon-fiber, precison trucks, blah blah blah, but it's not as cool to a 7-year-old as a schwheeler with tracker racetracks. So, because of that six-wheeler, now my son rides ALL of our skateboards a lot more. Same with all the neighborhood kids. They see me or my son riding the schwheeler, and they want to try it. They could care less about riding the other neighborhood kid's popsicle sticks, but when they see that "cool skateboard with six wheels" they want to try it, and they've gotta try and see if they can get it through some the cones.

I wasn't trying to "market" slalom skateboarding by adding another truck and set of wheels to my board, but because it's new / different / creative, it has created interest in the sport.

Restricting innovative and creative equipment will do nothing but stagnate the sport.

[Dave Gale]

Joe I.
Polls have been taken and it seems that as a majority, most approve of the 6 wheelers.
I for one think they should be allowed.

I believe that poll was taken on Silverfish. I believe the audience was uneducated and not necessarily of our membership. For our purposes polls are pointless. Lets vote.

Ready when you are!

[Dave Gale]

Well done Ron!!! See how simple the wording can be? I don't usually use them either, and have no problem w/ them...It was just a wording that needed your attention!
OK, so, how 'bout the 6 wheeler debate?

[Joe Iacovelli]

Joe I.
Polls have been taken and it seems that as a majority, most approve of the 6 wheelers.
I for one think they should be allowed.

I believe that poll was taken on Silverfish. I believe the audience was uneducated and not necessarily of our membership. For our purposes polls are pointless. Lets vote.

[Ron Barbagallo]

I think the toe stop thing can be regulated by: "Must not break the vertical plane" as in NOT wrapping over on top of the foot.

I don't run one, but all of the ones that I see at the races seem to comply with this.

There, done.


Now what else can I solve for you?

[Pat Chewning]

Pat, You're way off base about my reasons for not wanting to see bindings at a race. It has NOTHING to do with how they look whatsoever. I probably care the LEAST of everyone about how things look. I don't think that skateboarding is about fashion, style, or matters of taste. ...

Ironically, the only REAL issue that I think that currently needs to be addressed is in some of the accessories, namely toe-stops that serve as bindings. I don't want to see bindings because they blur the line between roller-skates and skateboards and can be used differently than simply standing on the board and leaning, and they can also aid in hopping a tapeswitch.
...

When you say "I don't want to see bindings....." That is exactly a "ideal, goal, or aesthetic vision" -- meant to somehow distinguish skateboard racing from rolle skates.

I think that you SHOULD care about what's safe and what's unfair. Bindings are one of the few things are really do differentiate a skateboard from a rollerskate. But if if what we bring is skateboard and not a rollerskate, bike, or other obvious non-skateboard, then let it race. What in the hell is everyone so afraid of?

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but what I'm afraid of is that your definition of "obvious non-skateboard" differs from mine, and that without defining what is "non-skateboard" we will forever be bickering on the hill about it.

Right now Pat has put forth HIS vision of what a skateboard is, and is acting as if THAT is what we should all accept if no one gives him a compelling enough reason to change his mind. It's as if his OPINION has become the accepted definition, and we can all make minor tweaks to it. No, no, no, no, no. I have so many objections to his definitions that it would be better to start from scratch with my own than to to try and modify his. I do belive that the deck should be one platform.

Yes, I have an opinion about the definition of "skateboard". Yes, I embodied that into the initial draft of the rules. I think I have been clear that other definitions and options are encouraged and that in the end, we will vote on it.

My proposal for the process to get to an end solution is here: http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/phpBB ... php?t=5552

I am still seeking volunteers to take the process forward in each section.

[Dave Gale]

Simply pointing out the possible problem(s) down the road w/ the wording of equiptment guidelines.
Oh..by the way, You're wrong!
And obviously having a hard time debating from a closed minded point of view!

[Wesley Tucker]

With a BINDING a skater could not become separated from the board.
With a TOE BLOCK there is no restraint.

While I know most S.Carolinians don't snow ski, but even a skier can be seperated from his skis if enough force is applied. A water skier is even less attached to the ski(s) But these mechanisms are known to the world as bindings. They are attached to the platform to aid in maintaing foot placement (not to insure it). Are "Skyhooks" considered bindings?

And if I gave a damn about snow skiiers your points would be relevant.

There is no murkiness among skaters who go to skateboard slalom races.

Toe blocks are not bindings.

Deal with it or don't.

[Dave Gale]

Joe I.
Polls have been taken and it seems that as a majority, most approve of the 6 wheelers.
I for one think they should be allowed.

[Ramón Königshausen]

Has ever anybody (successfully) used bindings in a Slalomskateboard race? Why should I use some kind of binding when I have concave, toe stop and grip tape?

rmn

[Dave Gale]

Not to muddy the waters, but toe blocks are a form of binding. albeit 1 or 2 demensional, and normally used only on the front foot..It still is a binding of sorts.

No they are not.

With a BINDING a skater could not become separated from the board.
With a TOE BLOCK there is no restraint.

Toe blocks are nothing more than an extension of the concept behind concaves, C-blocks and kicktails: making sure as much torque is transmitted into the board from the skater's legs and feet. That's not "binding."

While I know most S.Carolinians don't snow ski, but even a skier can be seperated from his skis if enough force is applied. A water skier is even less attached to the ski(s) But these mechanisms are known to the world as bindings. They are attached to the platform to aid in maintaing foot placement (not to insure it). Are "Skyhooks" considered bindings?

[Joe Iacovelli]

The biggest issue in 2007 was how many wheels can a slalom skateboard have.

I'd like to see a vote put to the membership that brings that issue to rest.

I understand that there are other issues to be addressed like bindings and toe stops, but to tap dance around the 6 wheel issue seems cowardly.

Is a skateboard one deck, two trucks, 4 wheels or something else? What does our roll of paid members think?

[Pat Chewning]

C) The equipment deviates from our ideal, goal, or aesthetic vision of what skateboard slalom racing should be.

This is opening a whole new can of worms!!! Has our "ideal, goal or aesthetic vision" of slalom skateboard racing ever been formally written down, received input from marketing professionals or even been seriously discussed anywhere?

Yes. Our vision of slalom skateboard racing gets discussed every day on these forums. It has been formally written down in the 1995 ISSA rules. We are attempting to revise and update those rules now -- to conform to the current ideal, goal, and aesthetic vision of slalom skateboarding. Whether we admit it or not, many of the rules are a direct result of trying to embody our ideals, goals, and aesthetic visions.

No. I am not aware of any input from marketing professionals.

Yes, occassionally the discussion is serious, focused, and productive. (But only occassionally.)

[Pat Chewning]

Ron

good point ( i hope Pat doesnt see this an an attack twords you, I am just addressing your question, like in the post he deleted)

I did not delete your post.

[Dave Gale]

Wesley,
This is where the murkiness comes into play. A toe block is a mechanism attached to the board that restrains the foot from moving foreward, and also can be shaped or oriented to restrain lateral movement. It is not a part of the deck, but an add on that "binds" the foot in place re: at least 1 but not limited to a singlular direction of movement.

[Pat Chewning]

Pat

my last post was not written as an attack, please change the name I adressed it to to gang, people or slalom skateboarders of planet eart and re post it, I believe it held a very valuable point. and the person whose name was used was for an exampe , not as a target and the point goes for everyone of us...if you cant buy the advantage, work for an advantage. Or is that not the feeling of the ISSA? Maybe the ISSA wants to hold back progress (or just certain peoples progress)? The targets of your rule discriminations that certain members are pushing twords are quite transparent, and arguments for advancement shouldnt be hidden from the skaters.

Censoship of ideas is no way to run the ISSA discussions.

The post I deleted was from Claude. It followed your "last post". It was a response to your post. It was an attack on you. It contained no useful information or contribution. Your "last post" has not been deleted, but has been editted (not by me).

[Ramón Königshausen]

Hey, if some of us care so much about equipment restrictions, why not set up a new class: The limited equipment classs where everybody would have to race on the exact same deck with the exact same setup of trucks, wheels, grip tape, bearings, spacers, nuts, bolts, bushings and lube.

That would be pretty interesting. Kiss goodbye to the idealism.

How's that?

rmn

[Wesley Tucker]

Not to muddy the waters, but toe blocks are a form of binding. albeit 1 or 2 demensional, and normally used only on the front foot..It still is a binding of sorts.

No they are not.

With a BINDING a skater could not become separated from the board.
With a TOE BLOCK there is no restraint.

Toe blocks are nothing more than an extension of the concept behind concaves, C-blocks and kicktails: making sure as much torque is transmitted into the board from the skater's legs and feet. That's not "binding."

[Dave Gale]

Not to muddy the waters, but toe blocks are a form of binding. albeit 1 or 2 demensional, and normally used only on the front foot..It still is a binding of sorts.

[Jim Weatherwax]

Ron

good point ( i hope Pat doesnt see this an an attack twords you, I am just addressing your question, like in the post he deleted)

If someone isnt allowed to make something that doesnt break the mold of Lean steer, 2 trucks, 4 wheels, no bindings etc. (yes Chris, I know that hasnt been decided yet) that would leave us without any innovation. Rules banning protos, 1 offs and ideas will kill the growth of innovation, which has made the game alot faster, safer and more interesting. Someone had to race the first set of Radikals (no body cried foul twords Kenny) Someone raced the first sets of GOG'S (anybody cry at Jason or Richie?). PLease Ron, if you have an idea, build it, ride it, race it and have fun, hopefully the ISSA board will all chime in on thisissue before it is decided. I want to see innovative wheels, theuck, bearings and new construction methods for boards, and banning protos or stuff that not everybody can get before the race is a complete joke.

People will always want the newest, greatest etc, and many will use the fact that someone has what they dont/cant afford/cant get yet/wont take the time or spend the money to innovate as an excuse for being beaten..thats racing...
Quit typing and start practicing...
Eat Ramen for a month to afford better stuff... maybe no starbucks for a month...no beers for a while(that is unless you are buying beer from my brewery:) )...
Swallow the bitter pill that someone else has a better job, better sponsor or is just a far better skater and work on your technique and save your pennies.
This have not BS has to be stopped once it is decided upon what the actual racing platform is. If you dont have big wheels, and you really want them, have them made, produce your own line of wheels to combat the ones you cant get.

[Ron Barbagallo]

Okay, legitimate question - what if a racer, not a manufacturer, not even a SPONSORED racer, just a guy who rides a skateboard and works in a machine shop decides to make his own truck just for shits and giggles, not to sell, can he race it? I mean it's gotta be safe and all. Even if it's just a CNC version of a Tracker or a Randal or something - no real innovations or maybe the other end of the spectrum and SOME kind of innovation. Let's just say the guy has billets of aluminum laying around and some free time and figures, "Hey, I can pretty much copy a Radikal for free on my lunchtimes." - is that still considered a prototype? Not tryin' to be a dick or anything, just wondering how deep this goes.

Maybe there can be a committee that has to check these items out or something? Like you hafta submit a prototype and some of you guys ride it and decide "yay" or "nay" ?

Or am I stupid and this is too much detail? Just tryin' to help

[Jim Weatherwax]

Pat

my last post was not written as an attack, please change the name I adressed it to to gang, people or slalom skateboarders of planet eart and re post it, I believe it held a very valuable point. and the person whose name was used was for an exampe , not as a target and the point goes for everyone of us...if you cant buy the advantage, work for an advantage. Or is that not the feeling of the ISSA? Maybe the ISSA wants to hold back progress (or just certain peoples progress)? The targets of your rule discriminations that certain members are pushing twords are quite transparent, and arguments for advancement shouldnt be hidden from the skaters.

Censoship of ideas is no way to run the ISSA discussions.

[Ramón Königshausen]

Chaput, you and your pesky facts. Banning isn't about fact, it's about emotions. Your wheels give an emotional advantage over the people that beat the skaters on momos. They must be banned because innovation (whether it turns out or not) is scary! I blame Frank Nasworthy, the old cheat. Oh, and you.

Whenever I entered a GS race and there was CBark with his Momos running down the hill, I rather felt curious about how he'll do than I felt an emotional disadvantage. I didn't want them like they are but someday it would be nice to have them to put on a lathe and experiment...

rmn

[Chris Chaput]

Pat, You're way off base about my reasons for not wanting to see bindings at a race. It has NOTHING to do with how they look whatsoever. I probably care the LEAST of everyone about how things look. I don't think that skateboarding is about fashion, style, or matters of taste. The clock doesn't give a rat's ass about what style you use, what stance, what you're wearing, or who this pleases. I don't like bindings because a rollerskate is a skateboard with a shoe-like binding, and because when you're bound to the board you are not simply standing on the board and leaning to steer (pushing the edges of the deck), you're pulling up on the deck and providing lift which is not what skateboards do. I also think that bindings are unsafe.

I think that you SHOULD care about what's safe and what's unfair. Bindings are one of the few things are really do differentiate a skateboard from a rollerskate. But if if what we bring is skateboard and not a rollerskate, bike, or other obvious non-skateboard, then let it race. What in the hell is everyone so afraid of?

And BTW, can we please stop pretending that "we all agree" that a skateboard is one deck, two trucks, and four wheels? That has NEVER been agreed upon. The exact opposite is true. Right now Pat has put forth HIS vision of what a skateboard is, and is acting as if THAT is what we should all accept if no one gives him a compelling enough reason to change his mind. It's as if his OPINION has become the accepted definition, and we can all make minor tweaks to it. No, no, no, no, no. I have so many objections to his definitions that it would be better to start from scratch with my own than to to try and modify his. I do belive that the deck should be one platform.

I reject the idea that there have to be exactly two trucks. I can see one long truck with two ends working well. I can see a deck that integrates axles into each end like Up Trucks, where arguably there aren't any trucks. I can see each wheel having its own axle and steering device, making four trucks total possible. I can see three trucks on a standard 6-wheeler.

I reject the idea that we need to limit the size, shape, or number of wheels. We don't.

One of the most beatiful things about slalom is the that THE COURSE dictates what the best type of equipment is. We've never had anyone have to tell us what we could or couldn't ride, and we still don't. We probably never will. But boy some people will try to convince you that the sky is falling. If we don't start banning everything, soon the weapons of mass destruction will be unleashed on the slalom world and racers without any talent are going to start winning every race. And there Mitchell will be, defenseless against the jet poles and the uberwheels and the tension decks and the tripletrucks and the minimizers...

[Marcus Rietema]

C) The equipment deviates from our ideal, goal, or aesthetic vision of what skateboard slalom racing should be.

This is opening a whole new can of worms!!! Has our "ideal, goal or aesthetic vision" of slalom skateboard racing ever been formally written down, received input from marketing professionals or even been seriously discussed anywhere? Has any sort of a serious marketing plan ever been developed or followed by the ISSA? If not, this sounds like nothing more than the opinions of a few...

A marketing plan needs to be developed and goals set so that we have some sense of direction. Who is our target audience? What sort of equipment should the competitors use to appeal to the target audience? What sort of events should be developed to appeal to the audience? These questions raise many, many more questions and quickly this topic becomes a huge issue. The ISSA needs to be asking itself these things as the rulebook is being developed. All of the pieces need to fit together if this sport is ever going to go anywhere.

[Marcus Rietema]

How long can a manufacturer deem testing. They've been out over a year. Put 'em on the market.


No one is talkng about banning inovation. We are talking abot everyone being able to race slalom on an even level.

It's no different then anything else.

What if Chris puts them on the market at $1000 a wheel?

Yes, it would be specifically to keep them exclusive to particular riders, but they would be on the market.

Do we then try and legislate "fair market value?"

I don't like this idea of trying to regulate what and how a manufacturer distributes his product. If Chaput, Gesmer, Chicken, Donald, Gareth or anyone else wants to take the time and trouble to pour, lathe, lay up or shape something just for their team, then so be it. That's racing.



As long as it's one deck, two trucks and four wheels, then it's legal. If someone has something PROHIBITED from general use then that's just the stinkin' breaks.

What do we do if Radikal produces a bushing only Keith and three or four others can use?
What if Gareth lays up a board only Michael Dong can have?

Wheels are no different than any other component.

Good points Wesley! I agree with you and don't feel the ISSA should be banning specific wheels, trucks, etc at this time.

I still think the issue of limiting a skateboard to two trucks and four wheels needs to be voted on by the membership separately.

[Pat Chewning]

I can see 3 reasons why we might want to prohibit some equipment:

A) The equipment is unsafe or potentially unsafe.

B) The equipment presents an "unfair" advantage to some racers over other racers.

C) The equipment deviates from our ideal, goal, or aesthetic vision of what skateboard slalom racing should be.

I am mostly concerned about item C, somewhat interested in item A, and much less concerned about item B.

For item B, the economic laws of price/demand and the natural laws of evolution will eventually allow all racers to have all equipment. Any "advantage" in equipment will be temporary. Therefore, I am not in favor of rules that specify "commercialized" or "low cost" or "equal" performance of equipment.

For item A, each racer should be self-motivated to supply himself with equipment that will not hurt him. I see no need for extensive rules to promote this even more. Requiring a helmet is the minimum we should do.

For item C, this is where I think we all agree that rules are needed (although to varying degrees).
Even the most vocal "run what you brung" proponent (Chaput) admits some rules are needed here to keep skateboards looking like skateboards by prohibiting bindings.

Most of us agree that we don't want propulsion or braking equipment.

Most of us agree that we want a skateboard to be only lean-steer, foot-operated.

Some of us take it further and want a skateboard to at least appear like the traditional definition (one deck, two trucks, four wheels).

And some of us want to think ahead to the natural (or unnatural) evolution of equipment, anticipate these potential developments and "nip them in the bud before people are trying to turn slalom skateboarding into a technological arms race with endless gadgets being brought to the course." (Thanks Wes for the nice description).

All of these items (C) are NOT to equalize the advantage from racer A to racer B.... these items are to prevent both racer A and racer B from deviating so far that it no longer looks, feels, rolls, and turns like a skateboard.

[Pat Chewning]

I deleted one post that was not contributing to the discussion and was a personal attack at someone.......

Blame me if you object to this.

We may be passionate and argue about various things, but let's try to keep it civil.

[Jim Weatherwax]

oh

[Wesley Tucker]

How long can a manufacturer deem testing. They've been out over a year. Put 'em on the market.


No one is talkng about banning inovation. We are talking abot everyone being able to race slalom on an even level.

It's no different then anything else.

What if Chris puts them on the market at $1000 a wheel?

Yes, it would be specifically to keep them exclusive to particular riders, but they would be on the market.

Do we then try and legislate "fair market value?"

I don't like this idea of trying to regulate what and how a manufacturer distributes his product. If Chaput, Gesmer, Chicken, Donald, Gareth or anyone else wants to take the time and trouble to pour, lathe, lay up or shape something just for their team, then so be it. That's racing.

As long as it's one deck, two trucks and four wheels, then it's legal. If someone has something PROHIBITED from general use then that's just the stinkin' breaks.

What do we do if Radikal produces a bushing only Keith and three or four others can use?
What if Gareth lays up a board only Michael Dong can have?

Wheels are no different than any other component.

[Claude Regnier]

How long can a manufacturer deem testing. They've been out over a year. Put 'em on the market.


No one is talkng about banning inovation. We are talking abot everyone being able to race slalom on an even level.

It's no different then anything else.

[Jim Weatherwax]

We now have a basic rule drafted that states the definition of a skateboard....1 deck, 2 trucks and 4 wheels, lean steer, no bindings etc. If this is the format the racers have to work with, we should not impede on the guys who are designing things to make that chosen format be the best it can be... SO what if someone has something you dont, the good ideas usually go into production, but protos must be tested in the real word. If someone shows up with an extremly different wheel design, dont ban it unless it isnt 4 wheels being used.... Someone shows up with truck protos....let em race as long as they are lean steer...hell, ask If you can ride them and give input....

Lets make the rules concise, yet simple but not ban progress...Firm definiton of a bord, but no bans on innovations

Hell, if someone really wanted the wheels that are in question, have your own made, only better... if they are that much of a miracle wheel you'll sell millions. Let the innovators innovate, or should we all go back to Tracker trucks and Avalons?

[Erik Basil]

Chaput, you and your pesky facts. Banning isn't about fact, it's about emotions. Your wheels give an emotional advantage over the people that beat the skaters on momos. They must be banned because innovation (whether it turns out or not) is scary! I blame Frank Nasworthy, the old cheat. Oh, and you.

[Chris Chaput]

There isn't a wheel, or configuration of wheels, commercially available or otherwise, that has shown a significant advantage in downhill skateboarding, streetluge, or slalom. Everyone is worried about something that our history and our experience has clearly demonstrated DOES NOT EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD. Can we please stop the paranoia and start skating again, without limitations, like we have for the past 30 plus years?

The same is true for bearings, decks, and trucks. Rules based on fears instead of facts, or on fantasy instead of reality don't serve the community of skaters for which they are written. When has a skateboard ever caused a problem at a slalom race? It hasn't happened, and some of you are acting as if it has, or that it will in the future, if we don't take a stand on "the issues" now. These are non issues. The skaters and racers have already voted on the subject of 6 wheelers, and the ISSA has already stated its position on any "contraversial" equipment. Allow it. See where it goes. Ban something if and when there's a problem, and not until.

You want to talk about Momo's performance?

Won 1 / Lost 1 at Maryhill
Won 1 / Lost 1 at Pump Station
Lost 3 at Hood River
Lost at Germany
Lost at Dixie
Lost at Irvine
Lost at Danger Bay
Lost 2 in Calgary

If there IS something out there that provides a significant advantage, GOD BLESS US ALL! Study it, copy it, make it cheap and easy to get for the masses. Ban it? That's what wussies do so that they don't have to think.

[Wesley Tucker]

I think that the focus should be what we, the majority, WANT to see at slalom races, and not simply on how we can address the irrational fears of the few.

Fortunately, this will all be put to a vote and the majority will rule.

Cool, huh?

[Claude Regnier]

4) Banning wheels that "show a significant advantage" and are "not commercially available" is not a problem in slalom right now. If we have any problem in this area, it is TRUCKS that are not "reasonably priced", and "commercially available", yet might give a "significant advantage".

I believe he calls them "momo's"

[Wesley Tucker]

Is there any kind of toe stop retriction? It should probably be stated " must not wrap around top of foot " or something so that Sky Hooks aren't dusted off - no offense Richy!

"3.3. Allowed Equipment (For example only -- not an all-inclusive list)
· Foot stops or other devices to limit the lateral movement of the feet on the deck."

[Ron Barbagallo]

What is the ruling on kilts? I don't wanna lose any standings points


Seriously though, simpler is probably better. If someone really wants to get around the rules, they'll try. And if someone is/wants to hire a lawyer, they can find fault in anything.

Is there any kind of toe stop retriction? It should probably be stated " must not wrap around top of foot " or something so that Sky Hooks aren't dusted off - no offense Richy!

[Erik Basil]

I think Marcus Rietema did an excellent job with a simplified revision, and I know he's had a lot of experience with use and interpretation of rules in skateboarding competition. His draft is simple, short and straightforward. I have only a few comments and suggestions, which I'll insert using the color-text method, below:

1. SKATEBOARD SPECIFICATIONS: Competitors are required to ride in a standing (upright) position.

A. DECK: The deck must be structurally sound and not pose a safety hazard. It can be any shape or size.

B. TRUCKS: The trucks must be lean steer activated. They can be commercially available or custom built.

C. BEARINGS: Any bearing that fits into a hub designed to fit standard 608 Bearings. Here, I'd let it go at any bearing. The "exotics" like those used in 1970's UFO wheels, the MiniMisers that were so popular in the 90's, hybrid ceramics and the recently popular 10mm bore bearings are all readily available to anyone. I'm not aware of any safety implications and think if someone were to "innovate" a better bearing (however unlikely) we should all be happy.

D. WHEELS: Wheels can be a maximum diameter of one hundred thirty millimeters (130mm / 5 1/8”). Here, I love the simplicity of such a broad envelope and would only delete the commercially available criteria because of three things: 1) I don't want any rule that stifles prototyping and racing on prototypes (be they trucks, wheels, boards, bearings, griptape or sunglasses); 2) I think it unintentionally creates a homologation requirement that will inevitably devolve into distracting arguments; 3) it addresses a problem that doesn't exist on the results sheets.

E. BINDINGS: Bindings or other devices attaching the shoes to the deck are prohibited.


2. PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

A. HELMETS: Hard shell is required. Helmets can be full face or open face design. The helmet must be worn to the manufactures recommendations. The helmet strap must be worn tight and secure as designed. NO EXCEPTIONS! Here, I would add: "Must be CPSC, ASTM and/or Snell -rated for bicycle, skateboard and/or motorsports use. No 'toy', 'ornamental' or 'novelty' helmets are permitted." This is broadly written to allow almost all helmets that aren't worthless toys.

B. FOOTWEAR: Shoes are required. They must be in good condition and laced buckled or secured as designed.

C. GLOVES: Full fingered, all leather or leather and Kevlar gloves are recommended.

D. ELBOW AND KNEE PADS: Protective padding for the knees and elbows is recommended.

Excellent work, Marcus! Simple, plain language makes picayune details unecessary. Your proposed rules accomodate one-legged skaters, allow me to skate with an Axe (kicktail") or Thane MaGee's proto (gnarly camber like an "airfoil"), Mr. Bennett's prototype truck, Kevin Labeda's prototype slalom wheel, Richy Carrasco's hideous griptape, Jack Smith's six-wheeler, a set of Jamie Hart's original OJ wheels and Wes Tucker's spandex leotard if I choose to do so, so long as I ride my board like a skateboard and wear the bare minimum of legitimate safety gear. Other than my joking reference to Wes, I think slalom racing wants all those things if it's to continue and progress.

The best rules are straightforward, easy to understand and short.

[Ramón Königshausen]

Option B sounds very liberal and since it's development in progress I think we should deal with issues when they come up and start to cause troubles.

rmn

[Pat Chewning]

3.1. Required Equipment
· A Helmet

· One shoe worn on each foot

· Lean-to-Steer Skateboard

· Exactly 1 Deck (horizontal platform for the feet)

· Exactly 4 Wheels

· Exactly Two Trucks

3.2. Prohibited Equipment
· Propulsion devices or mechanisms

· Brakes, clutches or other devices providing torque to the wheels.

· Bindings or other devices attaching the shoes to the deck.


3.3. Allowed Equipment (For example only -- not an all-inclusive list)
· Foot stops or other devices to limit the lateral movement of the feet on the deck.

· Concave, kick-tail, camber, and other shape modifications to the deck.

· Additional protective equipment (knee pads, elbow pads, gloves, etc)

[Pat Chewning]

Okay Pat, now address monobearings in split-wheels where some, but not all of them spin at different rates on a single axle...

K.I.S.S.

To addrees everyting that's never going to happen seems bizarre to me. None of the fears that a handful of skaters share have EVER been realized. Get them a couch and a therapist while we go skating.

I am not familiar with a monobearing. If there are multiple cylinders that can rotate independently, then those are multiple wheels. If the wheel is only split for a portion, such that they all rotated together, then the split does not make multiple wheels, but it is merely a "tread" split.

The purpose of addressing items that "are never going to happen" is to prevent them from happening.

But yes, I agree that the initial draft may be overly complex and in need of simplification.

[Chris Chaput]

Okay Pat, now address monobearings in split-wheels where some, but not all of them spin at different rates on a single axle...

K.I.S.S.

To addrees everyting that's never going to happen seems bizarre to me. None of the fears that a handful of skaters share have EVER been realized. Get them a couch and a therapist while we go skating.

[Pat Chewning]

Before you go worrying about how many wheels are on the board, you have to define what a wheel is.

You are unnecessarily complicating the shit out of everything in a ridiculous attempt to "preserve" a completely narrow minded value that serves no one.

Define a wheel for us. This ought to be good...

Yes, I agree that it needs some simplification.

Definition of wheel: n 1: a simple machine consisting of a circular frame with spokes
(or a solid disc) that can rotate on a shaft or axle (as
in vehicles or other machines)

[Chris Chaput]

Never in the history of slalom skateboarding has the deck, trucks, wheels, or bearings been the reason that a skater has won a race. It's never been an issue, and a LOT of time is being spent here dealing with non-issues.

In a nutshell, there are a handful of skaters who are worried about what OTHER skaters are going to bring to a race. That's all are we are dealing with here - the fear of a handful of skaters being outgunned equipment-wise. Trying to settle their fears is a futile effort, and I think that the focus should be what we, the majority, WANT to see at slalom races, and not simply on how we can address the irrational fears of the few.

1. I honestly don't care what type of bearing system anyone has in his wheels. Do you? Bring it.

2. I honestly don't care what type of wheel system anyone has on his trucks. Do you? Bring it.

3. I honestly don't care what type of truck system anyone has on his deck. Do you? Bring it.

4. I honestly don't care what type of deck system anyone has under his feet. Do you? Bring it.

Ironically, the only REAL issue that I think that currently needs to be addressed is in some of the accessories, namely toe-stops that serve as bindings. I don't want to see bindings because they blur the line between roller-skates and skateboards and can be used differently than simply standing on the board and leaning, and they can also aid in hopping a tapeswitch.

Everything else is much ado about NOTHING! Let's stop pretending that there are problems where none exist. When, as and if a problem that needs addressing appears, we'll deal with it. Until then, bring it. Bring it hard. Bring it fast. Ride it you like you stole and stop worrying about what Billybob has under his feet. Trying to hurt him doesn't help you.

[Marcus Rietema]

I think that we go through the rules proposals line by line and identify the controversial ones. Next we put them into the proper format and let the membership vote with multiple choices.

EXAMPLE

The answers would be comprised of:
(A) Pat proposal,
(B) Chaput proposal
(C) Marcus proposal

I believe a rule book using the input of multiple people will always achieve the best results.

[Pat Chewning]

You make some excellent points, some that I agree with. In the end, the trick will be in how we craft this as a vote for the members. Some method that might allow the best of each proposal to be used for the rules.....

I wouldn't want to just have a vote for "Marcus' proposal" vs "Pat's Proposal" vs "Chaput's proposal". I want a voting method where the members can choose the best (or worst) from each....

Any suggestions on the end game and how this might be achieved?

===============================

I keep trying to remind myself that the rules do not have to be perfect. They only have to be adequate, understandable, enforceable, and have the endorsement of the ISSA members.

[Marcus Rietema]

I believe rules should be as simple as possible.

.......

Here are my proposed equipment rules:

Initial take on this proposal:

1) Too much emphasis on specifying exact wheel (size) and bearing (type and size).
2) "Riding in standing position" is a technique, not an equipment rule.
3) Increased emphasis on equipment safety (deck soundly built, pads, gloves) -- this looks more applicable to downhill racing than slalom. The rules should "allow" or "require" or "prohibit" equipment -- but I don't think we should "recommend" equipment.
4) Banning wheels that "show a significant advantage" and are "not commercially available" is not a problem in slalom right now. If we have any problem in this area, it is TRUCKS that are not "reasonably priced", and "commercially available", yet might give a "significant advantage".
5) The whole can of worms about banning custom-built, expensive equipment is not a path I want to go down. Then we need to monitor what's available commercially, keep a list of banned items, etc. This adds complexity to the rules that I don't think we need.
6) Other than items 4 and 5, yes, this proposal looks simpler than the original draft.
7) The proposed rules don't prohibit clutches, brakes, propulsion devices, fairings, etc. I understand you think these don't need to be in the rules because "no reasonable person" would attempt to do this. Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but there are a few unreasonable people in the Slalom world who will try to do anything that is not expressly prohibited in the rules.
8) I agree that rules should be updated more often (yearly) .... that applies to a different section of the rules than EQUIPMENT...

1) Too much emphasis on specifying exact wheel (size) and bearing (type and size). The wheel size is a maximum! This is only to keep it skateboarding and not allow things like carve boards, dirtsurfers, etc. The bearing spec is a cost containment measure as well. This is the 608 bearing standard that has been used in skateboarding since the 70's. It keeps exotic and odd sized bearings out.

2) "Riding in standing position" is a technique, not an equipment rule. Agreed but it takes care of the problem of seats, handles, etc in a simple way and specifies how the equipment is supposed to be ridden. If not in the tech specs it should go somewhere else.

3) Increased emphasis on equipment safety (deck soundly built, pads, gloves) -- this looks more applicable to downhill racing than slalom. The rules should "allow" or "require" or "prohibit" equipment -- but I don't think we should "recommend" equipment. I disagree with you. Safety is always important especially in our increasingly litigious society. Personally, I would require gloves and pads but that's just my opinion. I think it's crazy that knee pads, gloves and full face helmets aren't required on a hill like Pumpstation or the GS at the World's. Maybe when someone gets seriously injured or killed people will take safety a little more seriously...

4) Banning wheels that "show a significant advantage" and are "not commercially available" is not a problem in slalom right now. If we have any problem in this area, it is TRUCKS that are not "reasonably priced", and "commercially available", yet might give a "significant advantage".

5) The whole can of worms about banning custom-built, expensive equipment is not a path I want to go down. Then we need to monitor what's available commercially, keep a list of banned items, etc. This adds complexity to the rules that I don't think we need.

You just said that things being commercially available is not a problem at the moment. I doubt it would ever be a big one. This doesn't need to be a complex problem at all. It's a lot easier than trying to look in a crystal ball and trying to ban every innovation before it ever exists...

7) The proposed rules don't prohibit clutches, brakes, propulsion devices, fairings, etc. I understand you think these don't need to be in the rules because "no reasonable person" would attempt to do this. Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but there are a few unreasonable people in the Slalom world who will try to do anything that is not expressly prohibited in the rules.

No, I didn't include those things because in my opinion they don't need to be there. I guess that's just a difference of opinion... Not sure why you put, "No reasonable person" in quotes because I didn't say that? I believe innovation is good and we should let people tinker. If we didn't allow innovation in the past, we wouldn't have Radikals, GOG's, foam core boards, Axe's, Avilas, Zig Zags and all sorts of other slalom specific equipment that has been developed through the years... Who cares if someone wants to put a fairing on their board? What damage could it possibly do besides make a board look unique and possibly generate some interest?