2008 ISSA Rules update -- Section 9 (Technical Specs)

[Claude Regnier]

The whole point of this discussion is to make sure we provide support information for racers and race organizers. Wesley in case you are not aware there have been several races over the last few years that were run by non slalomers hoping to make some cash on the event.

In some case experienced people did some poor course setting. What we are trying to do is make sure there is criteria for all. Adding some notes for organizational responsibility is not asking too much.

If there are some real problems with the course setting then it should be cleared up. The racers and organizers should work together to make it better. A lot of time things are sucked not to hurt some ones feelings.

ISSA should be looking into all concerns seen by the racers and add them into the race rule guidelines. How about asking about opinions on some of the crappy courses set this past year? How about getting some public opinion on poor events hosted. Poor courses – safety issues as well. Race organizers not meeting posted/sanctioned information. No advanced notice to racers of changes in the program - $$$ going from 3,000 to 600 is a lot from a racers point of view.

Sure you can keep with the KISS theory and all but if people really want some good races, venues, sponsors, spectators and growth then people need to take a step back and put their minds to laying down a complete set of rules and guidelines (open to change for the next race season) once and for all.

Try thinking of ISSA as a community. Even if less then 10% of the community is involved in the process.

[Ramón Königshausen]

If a promoter/organizer goes to the time, trouble and expense of putting on a race for everyone to attend then the promoter/organizer should have the option to set a course IF SO CHOOSING.

and IF BEING SKILLED to set a good course.

So would this come to option E)?

rmn

[Wesley Tucker]

I'm going to disagree with all this.

Half the fun and motivation for putting on a skateboard slalom race is getting to set the course. If a promoter/organizer goes to the time, trouble and expense of putting on a race for everyone to attend then the promoter/organizer should have the option to set a course IF SO CHOOSING.

Dictating that someone must come in from out of town or someone not associated with promoting the event has the "right" to set the course is counter-productive. Many organizers will probably like to defer setting the course to someone else for many reason. Others, though, may want to set the course because that's the reason they were motivated to put on a race in the first place: having people come in from all over to ride the local hill with a local course. Dictating that in order to get a certain status means bringing in outside "expertise" can be a great deterrent to some promoters wanting to get sanctioning.

[Ramón Königshausen]

This is based on the assumption that the best racers are the best course-setters. I'm not sure that is always true. And should we really be burdening our top-ranked racers with the task of setting the course?

No its not always true, but using 3 of them would work...one could set and the other two try it. And have you asked the top racers? Most would LOVE the chance/honour of setting the course!

I can confirm that even though many racers are afraid when they know that I'm setting the TS - but I lerarned to make them rideable but still challenging

Paris this year was good I think. The Pro Special course was set by Baumann, CBark and me which worked pretty good I guess. But it kind of depends who and who is working together. And for Paris' Amateur Special: Ask the Amateur racers how they liked the course...Hannover was good too although set by an amateur (Frank Beste I assume).

Maybe we should have at least have some Pro rider giving guidance to the course setting or so...

Personally for TS it is absolutely important to be on a certain level for when you practice TS you are trying get close to the limit where you can't make the course anymore. And for that effort there shouldn't be just a loose TS on a big race.


rmn

[Martin Drayton]

On a few occasions I have been to a race where the course was not representative of where 'racing' was at, at the time ie. set too wide for a true TS, too across the hill for a GS thus robbing the run of real speed etc.
On each of these occasions the course setter has been an 'ex-racer' who has not been competitive with the generation of racers competing that day.
As Peter says, you want an idea of what to expect and therefore what to train. Do you want a professional performance from the competitiors on the day? Or do you want skewed results that give too big of an advantage to the less technically skilled?

I also think any course in main/major status events should be set by a top 25 ranked racer. Now that I’m sure will cause me problems…

Your humblest
PK

I can't remember the last time I saw a top football player mowing the grass before the game.......

But I bet his agent checked it first though...

Looking further ahead equipment manufacturers need to know where things are at as well to give us contemporary products.There would be no point having trucks that can turn as tight as GOGs and Rads if the people setting at events are setting wide TS courses for example...why design boards with an 18" wheelbase?

This is based on the assumption that the best racers are the best course-setters. I'm not sure that is always true. And should we really be burdening our top-ranked racers with the task of setting the course?

No its not always true, but using 3 of them would work...one could set and the other two try it. And have you asked the top racers? Most would LOVE the chance/honour of setting the course!


I don't think its a case as Pat said of whether you are setting a "good" course or a "fair and unbiased" course, it should be a contemporary course. And who would know? A racer/racers in the top 25, who to be in that position, will have attended several recent events (with hopefully similar courses).

[Pat Chewning]

I also think any course in main/major status events should be set by a top 25 ranked racer. Now that I’m sure will cause me problems…

Your humblest
PK

This is based on the assumption that the best racers are the best course-setters. I'm not sure that is always true. And should we really be burdening our top-ranked racers with the task of setting the course?

I can't remember the last time I saw a top football player mowing the grass before the game.......

[Donald Campbell]

agreed with peter

[Peter Klang]

I think for any main or major event the cours setter/setters have to be announced in advance. If we know who’s setting the course, we know what to expect. I also think any course in main/major status events should be set by a top 25 ranked racer. Now that I’m sure will cause me problems…

Your humblest
PK

[Ramón Königshausen]

In the event there are no tourists, the course shall be set with cones in a straight line and anyone who complains shall immediately be disqualified.

This is meant ironically, right?

rmn

[Erik Basil]

Anyone ever ridden one of these horses, er, I mean courses by committee? That sure sounds like a great way to absolutely guarantee there are disputes.

I propose the following specific vote:

Should there be

A) a drawing of three (or a different number of) nations (in the case of America and Canada, each State or Province shall count as a "nation") that will each send one representative, while the host nation will have one of those. In the event more than three "nations" send a representative, those wishing to set the course must draw straws for the privilege. In the event there are not representatives from at least three "nations", the race organizer is empowered to find any tourist from another "nation". In the event there are no tourists, the course shall be set with cones in a straight line and anyone who complains shall immediately be disqualified.

or should

B) the organizer itself be responsible for a good course setting (which means it's done by somebody who knows about course setting) and have the right to immediately disqualify each and every person that shoots his mouth off about the course instead of racing;

or
C) there will be a rule that clearly determines one (or a group of) course setter(s) (like "winner of the last race" or "most successful nation of the last race", or "the idiot that spent all his time and money to put on the event", etc.)

or

D) it's the race organizers' right, responsibility and privilege to set the course any way he or she chooses. If you don't like it, go home and type something mean on the internet.

bien?

[Pat Chewning]

There are no guarantees in course setting. None of the proposed methods give a guarantee of a good course.

Unless we want to have a "course setter certification program" or something like that, I don't see how any of the proposals guarantees a good course.

Is the intent of the proposed rule to get a "good" course? Or a "fair and unbiased" course, or what?

We can set some fair and unbiased courses that are "bad".
Or some "good" courses that somehow favor one racer over another (although I think this would be difficult).

I'm having some trouble figuring out what problem is being solved by these proposals.

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

What "issues" have there been?
What thing led to your concern that the course setting was not "handled correctly"?

[Jani Soderhall]

The contest organizer is setting up everything else about the contest -- why not the placement of the cones?

If it is the European or World Championships it's not so easy to just say that the organizer is responsible. The racers need some kind of guarantee that this will be handled correctly.

/Jani

[Ramón Königshausen]

Because there have been issues about that.

rmn

[Pat Chewning]

Maybe we don't need a rule. The contest organizer is setting up everything else about the contest -- why not the placement of the cones?

[Ramón Königshausen]

Ramon: Is your post above with choices A B C D supposed to be a proposal to put one of these into the racing rules?

Yes, but where would that rule belong to?

Do you think it should be listed in here or rather somewhere else, like in Section 11 (Contest Director) ?

rmn

[Pat Chewning]

Ramon and others who are discussing WHO sets the course:

I think of racing rules as things that govern what happens as the racers are actually going through the course, not the general guidelines to the contest director for how to put together the whole race package (parties, trophies, cash prizes, crowd control, selling of tickets, setting of the course, building the ramps, etc). Therefore, I would not be in favor of specifying WHO sets the course -- in the race rules.

Ramon: Is your post above with choices A B C D supposed to be a proposal to put one of these into the racing rules?

[Dave Gale]

The host/promoter, more than likely has ridden the hill multiple times..Each and every hill has it's own characteristics and flow....... I have seldom seen an "out of towner" set a course befitting the venue, if there are some un foreseen problems with a particular section!
Notice I said seldom..It has been done!

[Eddy Martinez]

See after last years Sizzler there was a dispute as to, was it Super GS or GS. After being on the board of the ISSA. I learned there is a huge difference between the 2 disciplines. I prefer a guest course setter. I agree with Jani as to it is up to the promoter as far as the course being set, number of cones. It seems that every race I have gone to. There is allways someone complaining. The course is not tight enough, the course is too tight. Ricky Byrd once told me " when you set a course, you want it to be challenging enough for the pro and also easy for the am to make the course as well". I like to have a guest course setter. A good description of the course is very important, that I agree on. See you bros at the races. Your Amigo Eddy Texas Outlaws/Pavel Flow.

[Ramón Königshausen]

But, we must also consider how to avoid taking up valuable time in the middle of the event for the course settings.

Suggestion: For case we decide to have a group made up of different representatives to set up the course, there should be a deadline up to that the course has to be set from the chosen representatives.
That includes voting the representatives in advance and telling them the exact time when they must set the course. Otherwise...we maybe vote a "spare course setting marshall"

But before we discuss that issue we'll first have to pick one of the give (or upcoming) options.


rmn

[Claude Regnier]

Yes it is important to keep in mind that organisers should determine what types of races they want to feature.

Keep in mind that there are also major course setting issues (course management) that need to be looked at. ex. pot holes-man wholes-bumps in the road. Organizers need to listen to the racers as well.

Not all organizers can set courses. nor can all racers. Neutral course setters will always be the fairest but it is unlikely always achievable.

[Jani Soderhall]

It's important that the host "country" or "region" or "organizers" gets a say in the course setting. It's "their" race after all. So if we have a group of three selected (countries or some other similiar regional subdivision, we should make sure that one of those represents the organizer).

When we start to have really big prize purses we defintely need a more neutral course setting so that no locals can practice (days or weeks) in advance.

But, we must also consider how to avoid taking up valuable time in the middle of the event for the course settings.

/Jani

[Ramón Königshausen]

One big question we often come across is also: Who is setting the Pro course if it's not Straight Slalom?

Should there be

A) a drawing of three (or a different number of) nations that will each send one representative, while the host nation will have one of those.

or should

B) the organizer itself be responsible for a good course setting (which means it's done by somebody who knows about course setting but is not racing in the Pro class himself)

or
C) there will be a rule that clearly determines one (or a group of) course setter(s) (like "winner of the last race" or "most successful nation of the last race" etc.)

or

D) there will be some kind of schedule determining which nation can/has to set the course on a certain race


It think option A) or B) (or a variant of them) is being used by the FIS for setting Ski race courses.

rmn

[Pat Chewning]

Eddy:

I tried to figure out what suggested change you are trying to make to the rules and I could not.

1) Are you in favor of a SPECIFICATION (limit) for cone spacing in order to call a race by its discipline name? (Tight, Hybrid, GS, Super-GS)

2) Are you in favor of a SUGGESTION (guide) for cone spacing in order to call a race by its discipline name? (Tight, Hybrid, GS, Super-GS)

3) Is the point you are trying to make is that you won't know what to call your race until the day of the race when the course is set?

I understand your worry about some racer going through the course with a tape measure and then crying foul if the course differs from the specification on one cone or two.

My suggestion would be this: Clearly state in the contest sanction application the challenges you will have in setting a course that exactly meets the specification. Clearly state the known attributes (hill width, height, steepness, etc). Clearly state the intention and the potential outcomes. Choose the discipline name in favor of the "faster" or "wider" choice (Super-GS for example).

The standard rules apply to standard hills and standard contests. Going outside of the standards is allowable under rule section 11.2. That rule should probably be used for the case of a hill that can support a fun and challenging course that does not necessarily meet all of the specifications.

Rule 11.2 is the contest-director's friend. Learn to use it.

[Eddy Martinez]

What if the City you are running the course on does not give permission to set up your course on the hill until the day of the contest? Some cities may allow this and others may not. Truly the most fun tight course I ran this year was set by Karl Florgraph and the Weasle at the Buckeye. It was not straight cones, boring. It was zig zagging all over the hill and it was fast. Cone spacing was 6-7-8 ft rs, the hill was fast, and yet it was considered tight. JBH will be our course setter at Big View next year. As he said " I can only slow down the big hill so much, if I slow it down too much, then it is no longer challenging or fun". Running different course and different hills is fun. Running courses that are the same specs over and over would be boring. In order for our sport to grow it has to evolve, go bigger and faster. I can not imagine telling some one when they are setting our course, hey buddy you are over by 1 meter on the course setting. I know the difference between Super G and GS. We will do our best next year when we throw our contest, but Big View can not and will not be slowed down. We have had guest course setters every year and will continue that tradition. Mike Ohm set a killer hybrid last year, every one enjoyed it. I myself believe a course should be set according to what the hill has to offer. Specs are good for defining and separating different courses. On this I do agree on. Your Amigo Eddy Texas Outlaws/Pavel Flow

[Pat Chewning]

Grade meter: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/stewa ... /meter.htm

Inclinometer: http://www.riekerinc.com/Inclinometers.htm

Inclinometer: http://www.exploratorium.edu/math_explo ... clino.html

Clinometer: http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/astro/abney.htm

[Wesley Tucker]

When I did a Back Country and Avalanche Awareness Course some years ago, they handed out a little piece of plastic which showed slope angle if you had something vertical to work from. I think North Face made it...An inverted protractor (don't know if its the same name worldwide-its used for Geometry) could do it too.

Martin,

None of that explains the GRADE.

In other words what's needed to know is the altitude of the base of a hill and compare it to the altitude of the top of the hill. The grade is the rise in feet per 100 feet of distance.

If the bottom is at 100 feet ASL and the top is at 150 ASL and the distance from the top to the bottom is 1000 feet, we know the grade is 5% (50/1000=.05). Unfortunately for us there's no practical way to measure the difference in height between the top and bottom.

Now maybe there's a need to measure roads in a different manner, but I don't know what it is. Slope angle is great IF the road is a straight line from top to bottom. If it levels off, though, and the hill's descent fluctuates then measurements like a line of sight protractor measurement becomes useless.

I'm not a snowboarder or a snow skiier but maybe it works on a mountainside because the bulldozer shapes a run that's "straight down" the hill? In the rare instances where we have that for a skateboard slalom run (Avila Beach and Pump Station come to mind) then it might work.

[Martin Drayton]

And if you have specific "steepness" specifications for the various disciplines -- I'd like to see those too.

Well, this has been the bane of slalom skaters now since time immemorial. We can guess, we can take pictures, we can describe but it's almost impossible to know a hills' grade without being a civil engineer with a tripod sight and plum bob to survey the sight.

I wish there was an easy way to get a hill's grade but I don't know what it is.

Will GPS do it? If I stand the bottom of a hill will the GPS tell me my location above sea level? Then if I walk up the hill and take another measurement will it be sensitive and accurate enough to tell me again? If I knew the difference in height between the top and the bottom, simple math will tell me the grade - (Height/Length)=% grade.

But I don't know how to do that. Do hand held GPS devces give locations ASL? And are they sensitive enough to measure differences in just a few feet of height?

Anyway, that's the sort of thing needed in order to create a "sliding scale" of % grade/cone spacing ratio. I fully understand the dillimma - I just don't know how to achieve it.

When I did a Back Country and Avalanche Awareness Course some years ago, they handed out a little piece of plastic which showed slope angle if you had something vertical to work from. I think North Face made it...An inverted protractor (don't know if its the same name worldwide-its used for Geometry) could do it too.

[Erik Basil]

--"Road Grade" measurements are an average over the entire course usually, and don't describe steps or steep sections. For example, the "grade" of Bluegill Rd. used at the 2007 Worlds is deceiving, since it must accommodate the differing grades over distance. My suggestion is to abandon criteria regarding grade, attempts to measure grade and to let skaters be skaters. If the hill is too steep, or too flat, everyone knows it.

--Wes Tucker's idea regarding "cones per distance" seems like a very good one to me: it's simple, easy and predictable. If Wes were to modify it to also include a broad range of recommended spacing and or the limits also posted here, the result might be an elegant solution.

--Metres, meters and kilometers are neat and give a marvelously global feel to things. If we can't provide feet and inches also, the Gringos are being done a disservice. Gringos include anyone that wants to download a set of rules and set up a course. Use them both.

[Jonathan Harms]

There seems to be a difference of opinion whether tight slalom defined by how many cones per second or by absolute distance between cones. I like the simplicity of Jadranko's solution, but I wonder: does it rule out a lot of "average" hills as too steep? (I've never been to the Trocadero, so I can't compare it to other hills I have skated.)

Note also that the "draft's" 3-meter limit makes no distinction between straight or offset cones. Doesn't limiting ALL gates to no more than 2 meters (even offsets) mean that offsets can't be very FAR offset, except on fairly flat hills? Again, I agree with the intent to distinguish tight slalom from hybrid, but I think there are less extreme ways to do it.

Also, I found some interesting ideas in the FIS (Alpine skiing) rules at: http://www.fis-ski.com/data/document/ICR04.pdf. Note that some things are spelled out strictly and others are left more flexible. Not everything will translate directly to skateboard slalom, but perhaps can be adapted.

(example)

802.1.3 The Slalom should permit the rapid completion of all turns. The course
should not require acrobatics incompatible with normal ski technique. It
should be a technically clever composition of figures suited to the terrain,
linked by single and multiple gates, allowing a fluent run, but testing the
widest variety of ski technique, including changes of direction with very
different radii. Gates should never be set only down the fall-line, but so
that some full turns are required, interspersed with traverses.

[Wesley Tucker]

I just spoke to tech support at Garmin hand held GPS devices.

They have VERY EXPENSIVE (over $500) units with barometic pressure altimeters . . . with a plus or minus of 50 feet ASL.

They have straight satellite-aided GPS systems measuring altitude . . . with a plus or minus of 150 feet.

Neither of these options will allow for accurate measurements for determining road grade percentages. If it was plus or minus 5 feet then maybe it would work. But a 10% variance over 500 feet with a unit cost in excess of $500 is not feasible.

So, again, I don't know how to quickly, accurately and efficiently measure road grades in order to determine a quick scale of cone spacing/grade ratios.

[Wesley Tucker]

And if you have specific "steepness" specifications for the various disciplines -- I'd like to see those too.

Well, this has been the bane of slalom skaters now since time immemorial. We can guess, we can take pictures, we can describe but it's almost impossible to know a hills' grade without being a civil engineer with a tripod sight and plum bob to survey the sight.

I wish there was an easy way to get a hill's grade but I don't know what it is.

Will GPS do it? If I stand the bottom of a hill will the GPS tell me my location above sea level? Then if I walk up the hill and take another measurement will it be sensitive and accurate enough to tell me again? If I knew the difference in height between the top and the bottom, simple math will tell me the grade - (Height/Length)=% grade.

But I don't know how to do that. Do hand held GPS devces give locations ASL? And are they sensitive enough to measure differences in just a few feet of height?

Anyway, that's the sort of thing needed in order to create a "sliding scale" of % grade/cone spacing ratio. I fully understand the dillimma - I just don't know how to achieve it.

[Ramón Königshausen]

When I look back at the past season and compare what kind of disciplines the bigger events were running, it is common that they had Special (Tight with many offsets), Straight and Giant Slalom in Europe but in the U.S. and Canada (I assume) they mostly had Tight (Special with few offsets), Hybrid and Giant Slalom.

What I'd like to propose is that we keep this structure but vary a little in between Straight and Hybrid Slalom.

So for a 3-discipline-event we could have two major options (we won't have to stick to them, I'd rather look at them as a guideline):


Tight Slalom (with many offsets)
Straight Slalom
Giant Slalom

or


Tight Slalom (with maybe not too many offsets)
Hybrid Slalom
Giant Slalom

rmn

[Ramón Königshausen]

1) Do the descriptions of disciplines adequately describe the whole range of slalom racing that we wish to sanction? (SP Slalom Parallel, TS Tight Slalom, HS Hybrid Slalom, GS Giant Slalom, SGS Super Giant Slalom)

2) If not, do we wish to distinguish between Super-Tight and Tight?

3) If not, do we wish to eliminate SP (slalom parallel) and allow all events to be run either straight-inline, or with offsets?

3)ok, "Slalom Parallel" has also been called "Straight Slalom" (I never heard anybody call it Slalom Parallel) and therefore I suggest this shoud be set at tight gates (1.50-1.80 or whatever distance according to the hill) or as I proposed earlier this season:

The cone spacing for Straight Slalom in the Pro category shall be

- 1.60m on a flat surface

- 1.80m on a fairly steep hill

- 2.00m on a damn steep hill

Reason: This kind of slalom course requires god acceleration,feel of rhythm and a lot of concerntration: It might be one of the most impressive disciplines if set adequately; it shows best the high frequency of tight slalom racing. It is Slalom Racing at it's top level as long as it is set tight enough but when the gates are too wide and the surface too flat it very quickly looks like...boring.

2) Maybe Grüningen 2005 was Super Tight slalom or the last course at Over 80 Cones. Or maybe it was just very technical but not so tight. Honestly, I never went below 1.50 straight. Maybe sometimes it occurs that there is a tighter section (just two or three cones) in a special slalom but then it would open up again...

To anwer the question: Tight can be either technical or less technical (many hard offsets vs. few hard offsets)

The slope at the Trocadero is at the limit for tight courses.

Much more steeper will not be possible to run a tight slalom.


It is logic that you can't do this distanzes on a hill. For hills we have hybrid, GS and SGS.

Very interesting and different way to look at this.

JRAD is proposing that the distance between cones be fixed for the disciplines, and then that will necessarily limit what hills can support what disciplines.

But here in the USA, we consider the hill as fixed and vary the cone spacing to make it "tight" -- even on steep hills.

Is either method "right" ? Does it really matter if the "intent" of the race is achieved?

I agree with you Pat. I really enjoyed the TS at the Worlds even tough I never did TS on such a steep slope before. The bottom gates were set at approx. 7-8 ft. (= 2.13m-2.43m) what felt too wide to me since the top was set at 5 1/4-6 ft (1.60m-1.82m) and so the "big opening up" kind of spoilt all the speed and high frequency racing towards the finish line. So even 2.40m (8ft) felt too wide on a really steep hill. I'd say 2.20 would have been quite tight on that hill but there is no real limit for a TS hill. Maybe we shouldn't run a TS on the Worlds' GS hill...that'd be ridiculous.

But J-Rad is not totally wrong: If you have the chance to choose a different slope for each discipline (like Brixlegg 2006), feel free to find the right slope for the right discipline. It should be an "almost reasonable" choice. (Is skateboarding reasonable?)

rmn

[Pat Chewning]

The slope at the Trocadero is at the limit for tight courses.

Much more steeper will not be possible to run a tight slalom.


It is logic that you can't do this distanzes on a hill. For hills we have hybrid, GS and SGS.

Very interesting and different way to look at this.

JRAD is proposing that the distance between cones be fixed for the disciplines, and then that will necessarily limit what hills can support what disciplines.

But here in the USA, we consider the hill as fixed and vary the cone spacing to make it "tight" -- even on steep hills.

Is either method "right" ? Does it really matter if the "intent" of the race is achieved?

[Jadranko Radovanovic]

There are differenzes between the US and Europe "Parallel Slalom" "Tight-Slalom".

Grueningen
Zurich
Riga
Grenoble
Moscow

i think Gothenborg too had tight courses. The slope at the Trocadero is at the limit for tight courses.

Much more steeper will not be possible to run a tight slalom.


The most cones had a distanz of 5 feet or 1.6m. A Tight course is tigth from the beginning to the end. That is tight and will be ever tight !

It is logic that you can't do this distanzes on a hill. For hills we have hybrid, GS and SGS.

[Wesley Tucker]

Tomorrow.

It's 12:30 here. I'm done for tonight.

[Pat Chewning]

My point, though, was to illustrate how a course setter can just set a course that's perfect for the hill and not worry about how tight or loose or offset it might be. He just knows it's a great course for that particular location.

Then afterward he can go back and measure the course, count the number of cones and say, "huh, according to the ISSA, this is a "(Tight or hybrid.) So that's what one of those looks like!"

See my meaning? If he has 500 feet of course and there's 65 cones, that's easiily calculated as 13 cones per 100 feet: WHAMMO! It's a hybrid.

Just that simple.

I like simplicity. I have some hope that it could work this way. Can you take it to the next step and for the following courses, define a proposed cones per X units of distance? (I'll convert X to meters for you).

Straight Parallel Tight Slalom (SP)
Tight Slalom (TS)
Hybrid Slalom (HS)
Giant Slalom (GS)
Super Giant Slalom (SGS)

I'm looking for something I could cut/paste directly into the rules proposal ---- so I don't inadvertently change your description or intention.

And if you have specific "steepness" specifications for the various disciplines -- I'd like to see those too.

For me, it is really hard to define this -- because I would NEVER set a tight course like Jason Mitchell does on Overlook in Colorado. I can't even get 1/2 way through the course before blowing out. But the fastest best racers can do amazing tight slalom on very steep hills. I wish more of them would help us define the rules ....

[Wesley Tucker]

But I have to wonder about something. Don't you think the course setter should at least have an "intent" in mind when setting the course? I don't think you really mean that the course setter HAS NO IDEA whether the course is going to be a super-GS or a Tight Slalom race until after all the cones are laid down and some of the spacings are measured. If that were the case, we could randomly shoot cones onto the course with a cone-cannon, measure it later and then know what kind of course we ended up with.

But seriously, I think if the course setter attempts to achieve the described "Intent" of the discipline, adapts (with skill) the "Intent" to the hill, then the spacings will likely fall into the "suggested" cone spacing ranges for hills of "normal" steepness. Hills that fall outside of "normal" would have appropriately different spacings...

It's funny that we are so focused on the spacing of the cones. I really think that the Offset distance/angle does more to define the "character" of the race ....

-- Pat

Pat,

Not really. Sometimes the course setter just has the intent of setting a fun course. And like we all know the hill, the pitch, the quality of the aspalt, the crown and evil spirits can all affect how the course is set. Maybe it's set with the idea of little cone spray for the spectators' benefit or maybe it's set with the single minded purpose of making CBark and Richy fall.

I know the sport has grown to the point that most organizers are savvy enough to know whether the course is to be a tight or a hybrid. My point, though, was to illustrate how a course setter can just set a course that's perfect for the hill and not worry about how tight or loose or offset it might be. He just knows it's a great course for that particular location.

Then afterward he can go back and measure the course, count the number of cones and say, "huh, according to the ISSA, this is a "(Tight or hybrid.) So that's what one of those looks like!"

See my meaning? If he has 500 feet of course and there's 65 cones, that's easiily calculated as 13 cones per 100 feet: WHAMMO! It's a hybrid.

Just that simple.

[Wesley Tucker]

In the end, though, I cannot get too excited about being so specific about cone spacings. The steepness of the hill, the amount of offset, the road surface, and other factors come into play. Therefore, there must be so much lattitude to allow for these factors that the specific cone spacing is pretty useless by itself. Then, the cone spacing becomes more of a suggestion than a rule ....

Pat,

Maybe sometimes we have to just say some hills are TOO STEEP for "tight" slalom?

I know distance shortens with velocity so 9 feet on Gordon Street in Statesville is in many cases more difficult to make than 5.5 feet on a flat surface. That's inarguable.

I really believe, though, there needs to be a set standard that goes beyond, "well, you'll have to wiggle like a maniac to make the course" for tight to "there's a couple of hairy offsets but it's fairly easy to run" for hybrid.

[Pat Chewning]

Tiger has the course set for the race this weekend.
The DHBs have the course set for the Dixie Cup
They had the course set for the Worlds back in August.

Organizers can be just as capable of setting their courses BEFORE applying for a race sanction.

Or, races can continue to be delayed until 11:00 while organizers are setting the course and getting the timing system put down.

Yeah, let's keep that tradition going.

And yes I know not every race organizer is going to have access to their venues before the event. My suggestion, though, was for those situations where the course setters can lay down a course then take a look and THEN determine whether it's tight, hybrid or otherwise.

IN ADVANCE.

That is an excellent observation, Wes. I agree with the practice of setting courses in advance of race day -- to speed up the process and to be able to communicate course attributes to the racers.

But I have to wonder about something. Don't you think the course setter should at least have an "intent" in mind when setting the course? I don't think you really mean that the course setter HAS NO IDEA whether the course is going to be a super-GS or a Tight Slalom race until after all the cones are laid down and some of the spacings are measured. If that were the case, we could randomly shoot cones onto the course with a cone-cannon, measure it later and then know what kind of course we ended up with.

But seriously, I think if the course setter attempts to achieve the described "Intent" of the discipline, adapts (with skill) the "Intent" to the hill, then the spacings will likely fall into the "suggested" cone spacing ranges for hills of "normal" steepness. Hills that fall outside of "normal" would have appropriately different spacings...

It's funny that we are so focused on the spacing of the cones. I really think that the Offset distance/angle does more to define the "character" of the race ....

-- Pat

[Wesley Tucker]

Well, it just so happens that 30 meters is within a few inches of 100 feet:

(15-20) cones per 30 Meters equals tight (2 - 1.5 meter spacing)
(7-15) cones per 30 meters equals hybrid (4.5 - 2 meter spacing)
(3-15) cones FIRST 30 Meters + (3-10) each additional 30 Meters. (9.5 - 3 meter spacing.)


Pat,

Just one thing. I don't know about you guys on the West Coast, but over here several of us have those roller-measurers you can get from Home Depot. It measures inches and feet. And sometimes we really do use it t go from cone to cone when setting courses. I'm pretty sure all the Americans will go BACK to feet and yards. Fortunately, all the spacing conversions I just did really just happen to go back and forth between easliy convertible numbers. 2 meters is right around 6.5 feet, 15 feet is within .07 of inch of 4.5 meters and so on. I think the 30 meter/100 feet conversion was withing .04 of a meter difference, which is 4 centimeters or less than two inches.

[Pat Chewning]

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

The best way to discern the difference between Tight, Hybrid and Giant is the by the number of cones over a given distance. Dictating cone spacings is just too limiting.

Here's the deal.

******************

So many cones (15-20) per 100 feet equals tight (6.5 - 5 foot spacing)
So many cones (7-15) per 100 feet equals hybrid (15 - 6.5 foot spacing
So many cones (3-15) FIRST 100 feet + so many cone (3-10) each additional 100 feet. (30 - 10 foot spacing.)

(GS has two sets of parameters to allow for tighter spacing at the top of the hill. But it must open up after 100 feet)

******************

That's my idea. And yes, it requires math and measuring, but so does dictating each individual cone space. This type of course definition allows the course setter a lot of latitude and yet still ensures a participant will ride the course advertised.

Nothing is more infuriating than traveling a long distance for a "hybrid" with 60 cones stuffed into 300 feet or an advertised "Giant Slalom" with no spacing greater than 9 or 10 feet.

I think my "cones per 100 feet" count meets contemporary course setting, but it's certainly open to a little latitude.

And before anyone complains my course definitions means something like a GS course can't have spacing greater than 30 feet, that's not correct. If a course setter sets two cones at 40 feet, thatn means the third cone must be at 20 feet. That's 3 per 100 feet. Or if the cones are more than 40 feet and this means there can only be 2 cones per 100 feet, fine. The course setter can still "meet the average" by one or two cones EXTRA in the next 100 feet. The idea, though, is if a GS course is 1000 feet long, it certainly should not have 75 cones. That's just not GS. It might be a wide open and really fast hybrid, but that many cones spaced less than 15 feet is not GS.

Oh, special slalom? Just dictate another number of cones-per-100 feet.

Wes: Can you do something for me? Can you make a specific proposal of cones-per-distance for each of the 5 disciplines? Can you do it in international (metric) units since we are the ISSA and not the ASSA?

I think it could make sense to have BOTH a min/max cone spacing (measured individually per pair of cones -- as in the proposed 2008 rules), and an "aggregate" spacing (total cones over total distance -- nomalized to 100 meters) as Wes is suggesting.

In the end, though, I cannot get too excited about being so specific about cone spacings. The steepness of the hill, the amount of offset, the road surface, and other factors come into play. Therefore, there must be so much lattitude to allow for these factors that the specific cone spacing is pretty useless by itself. Then, the cone spacing becomes more of a suggestion than a rule ....

[Wesley Tucker]

Then we just give the race sanction after the event is over as well.

We can also award points dependant upon attendance too! Oh wait that's the other guys plan. What does it really matter as you don't do a damn thing when they set course outside of the box anyways.

Claude,

Tiger has the course set for the race this weekend.
The DHBs have the course set for the Dixie Cup
They had the course set for the Worlds back in August.

Organizers can be just as capable of setting their courses BEFORE applying for a race sanction.

Or, races can continue to be delayed until 11:00 while organizers are setting the course and getting the timing system put down.

Yeah, let's keep that tradition going.

And yes I know not every race organizer is going to have access to their venues before the event. My suggestion, though, was for those situations where the course setters can lay down a course then take a look and THEN determine whether it's tight, hybrid or otherwise.

IN ADVANCE.

Sarcasm is always best from a vantage of knowing what the hell you are talking about instead of jumping to conclusions.

[Pat Chewning]

I do not believe we will ever have a perfect method for describing the disciplines for slalom.

May I suggest that we don't get too hung up looking at the number of cones/meter (or cones per 100 feet for Wesley), or meters per cone. Rather, let's look at the "Intent" written into the discipline descriptions and if we can at least agree on the "Intent", then maybe the particulars of cone distance, steepness of hill, and other objective, measurable items may be less important.

Can I ask those interested in this subject to re-read the 2008 rules proposal and tell me if I adequately captured the "Intent" of each proposed discipline?

9. Course Technical Specifications
9.1. Starting Ramp
Start platforms shall:

· Be a minimum of 0.75m tall.

· Be a maximum of 2m tall

· Be a maximum angle of 45 degrees from horizontal

· Contain transitions of minimum radius 1m

· Be placed no closer than 4m from the 1st cone in the course.

· Provide hand-holds for the racer to pull on for propulsion from the start

· Have a signaling device placed such that the timing equipment can be signaled when the racer starts from the ramp.

9.2. Slalom: Parallel (SP)
· Course Intent: Test the racer’s ability to turn as quickly as possible on a regular, straight line course down the fall line of the racing surface. Turns are all short radius.

· May be run on flat or sloped surfaces.

· Cone Spacing Limits: 1.0m to 3.0m

· Cone Spacing Suggestion: 1.5m to 2.0m

· Course Length: 25 to 100 cones. (Suggestion: 50 cones)

9.3. Slalom: Tight (ST)
· Course Intent: Test the racer’s ability to turn very quickly, with occasional rythym interruptions and offsets away from the fall line. Course is primarily down the fall line of the racing surface. Turns are all short radius.

· May be run on flat or sloped surfaces.

· Cone Spacing Limits: 1.4m to 3.0m

· Cone Spacing Suggestion: 1.5m to 2.5m

· Course Length: 25 to 100 cones. (Suggestion: 50 cones)

9.4. Slalom: Hybrid (SH) [also known as Slalom: Special (SS)]
· Course Intent: Test the racer’s ability to turn quickly, with constantly-changing interruptions and offsets away from the fall line. Course may combine fall-line sections, angled sections, and curved sections. Turns are a mixture of short-radius and medium-radius.

· Sloped surfaces of moderate pitch are used. (Suggestion 3% to 8% grade.)

· Cone Spacing Limits: 1.5m to 4.5m

· Cone Spacing Suggestion: 2.0m to 3.0m

· Course Length: 25 to 100 cones (Suggestion: 50 cones)



9.5. Giant Slalom (GS)
· Course Intent: Test the racer’s ability to make a variety of short, medium, and long-radius turns through the course. The course should use the full width of the racing surface, with the course curving a smooth path down the hill. May be run single-lane or dual, depending on road width. Speeds are higher than the Slalom events. Racers tuck occasionally for short intervals.

· Sloped surfaces of moderately-steep pitch are used. (Suggestion 3% to 10% grade.)

· Cone Spacing Limits: 2.0m to 9.2m

· Cone Spacing Suggestion: 3.0m to 5.0m

· Course Length: 20 to 100 cones. (Suggestion: 40 cones)



9.6. Super-GS (SGS)
· Course Intent: Test the racer’s ability to make high-speed long-radius turns through the course. The course should use the full width of the racing surface, with the course curving a smooth path down the hill. Speeds are much higher than the Slalom events. Racers turn while tucking for whole subsections of the course. The cones shall determine the turning points, not just the curves in the road (to distinguish from downhill racing).

· Sloped surfaces of moderately-steep pitch are used. The road follows several natural curves and changes of pitch. (Suggestion 3% to 10% overall grade.)

· Cone Spacing Limits: 3.0m to 14m

· Cone Spacing Suggestion: 5m to 10m

· Course Length: 20 to 100 cones. (Suggestion: 40 cones)

[Pat Chewning]

Then we just give the race sanction after the event is over as well.

We can also award points dependant upon attendance too! Oh wait that's the other guys plan. What does it really matter as you don't do a damn thing when they set course outside of the box anyways.

Claude:

If you want to propose a mechanism to give race sanctions after the event is over, or to alter the status of a race after it has been completed, then could you please do that in the "ISSA Sanctions Discussion" area? This topic area is for the 2008 race rules, and in particular, the technical specification for the various disciplines.

Do you have a suggested change for how we define each racing discipline?

[Claude Regnier]

Then we just give the race sanction after the event is over as well.

We can also award points dependant upon attendance too! Oh wait that's the other guys plan. What does it really matter as you don't do a damn thing when they set course outside of the box anyways.

[Wesley Tucker]

Oh, it can also work the other way.

A race organizer can go out to the race site and set a course. He can then count the number of cones and measure the distance and VOILA!, he knows he's got a tight, hybrid or GS. The course setter may not be trying to set some specific discipline but the most challending, fun and competitive layout for that particular hill. After the course is set then the labels can be added later.

[Wesley Tucker]

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

The best way to discern the difference between Tight, Hybrid and Giant is the by the number of cones over a given distance. Dictating cone spacings is just too limiting.

Here's the deal.

******************

So many cones (15-20) per 100 feet equals tight (6.5 - 5 foot spacing)
So many cones (7-15) per 100 feet equals hybrid (15 - 6.5 foot spacing
So many cones (3-15) FIRST 100 feet + so many cone (3-10) each additional 100 feet. (30 - 10 foot spacing.)

(GS has two sets of parameters to allow for tighter spacing at the top of the hill. But it must open up after 100 feet)

******************

That's my idea. And yes, it requires math and measuring, but so does dictating each individual cone space. This type of course definition allows the course setter a lot of latitude and yet still ensures a participant will ride the course advertised.

Nothing is more infuriating than traveling a long distance for a "hybrid" with 60 cones stuffed into 300 feet or an advertised "Giant Slalom" with no spacing greater than 9 or 10 feet.

I think my "cones per 100 feet" count meets contemporary course setting, but it's certainly open to a little latitude.

And before anyone complains my course definitions means something like a GS course can't have spacing greater than 30 feet, that's not correct. If a course setter sets two cones at 40 feet, thatn means the third cone must be at 20 feet. That's 3 per 100 feet. Or if the cones are more than 40 feet and this means there can only be 2 cones per 100 feet, fine. The course setter can still "meet the average" by one or two cones EXTRA in the next 100 feet. The idea, though, is if a GS course is 1000 feet long, it certainly should not have 75 cones. That's just not GS. It might be a wide open and really fast hybrid, but that many cones spaced less than 15 feet is not GS.

Oh, special slalom? Just dictate another number of cones-per-100 feet.

[Jonathan Harms]

Maybe this is the time to get it into the rules once and for all because these questions come up and get forgotten over and over again.

Forgotten? Or just never resolved?

[Pat Chewning]

There are 5 slalom disciplines:

Super Tight Slalom
Tight Slalom
Hybrid Slalom
Giant Slalom
Super Giant Slalom

They can be run straight (cones in a straight line) or special (cones not in a straight line).

They can be run single lane or dual lane.

...

In constructing the "discipline" descriptions, I attempted to bridge the disciplines described in the 1995 rules (last official ISSA rules document), with the current practice. I believe that the 5 disciplines in the draft of the 2008 rules is more in line with what the current practice is.

What we need is for our members to answer the following questions:

1) Do the descriptions of disciplines adequately describe the whole range of slalom racing that we wish to sanction? (SP Slalom Parallel, TS Tight Slalom, HS Hybrid Slalom, GS Giant Slalom, SGS Super Giant Slalom)

2) If not, do we wish to distinguish between Super-Tight and Tight?

3) If not, do we wish to eliminate SP (slalom parallel) and allow all events to be run either straight-inline, or with offsets?

Personally, I believe that the only reasonable straight-inline parallel race is Tight.
I also believe that we do not need the distinction between Tight and Super-Tight.

Have there been any races run straight inline that were not tight (or at least advertised to be tight)? (e.g. Any straight inline Super-GS races?)

Have there been any races run "super tight" that are so much different than a "tight" race?