100-cone slalom course

Andy Bittner · Post by **Andy Bittner** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 4:18 am

For whatever it's worth, I'm with Wesley Tucker on this one. I agree that it should be as simple as he is making it.

1. Run 100 cones clean
2. Do it faster than anyone else

When put this way, nothing else matters. Run 'em at 4' or 10', on flat or off of a cliff. Hit one? Try again. Can't make it through 100 cones clean? Go get in line for the 75-cone course record event.

Vlad Popov · Post by **Vlad Popov** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 4:16 am

Hans,
I agree.

I'm 30 years old. I started racing in June this year. I don't plan to beat Luca's record. It's absurd!
But one should have ambitions if he's to succeed, and if the ego-tickling "world record attempt" title is taken out of the game, one might lose his interest. You have and will see a lot of attempts to find a loophole in the process of trying to beat the best. It's only human. What the officials consider official will be official. It will be unfortunate if this innocent "world record" idea gets in the wrong powerful hands and gets manipulated in such a way that an average slalomer will be able to earn a "world champion" title.

Vlad.

Vlad Popov · Post by **Vlad Popov** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 3:54 am

Wes,

I believe it was Martin Sweeney (GB, or England) who set the first 100-cone course and, consequently, the first world record. Martin is one of those people who “didn’t like “European” courses” and would have loved “to double the number of cones” (in “a European course” (I’m quoting this from memory as I recall it appeared in one of the Slalom! magazines, please correct me if I‘m wrong). So, I’d say a 100-course thing is British rather then European.

If we were to vote on this non-existent issue, cone-hitters will probably win by a great margin. Well, on the other hand, maybe people will see it as another way to cheat the current world record and post their own.
You know how much the NCDSA crowd hates to be reminded of Luca and “the past”? I know!

Try running a 100-cone course clean. I actually did it a couple of times (Ohm asked me), and it is a totally different exercise. There is no fun in it, it’s slow and it just sucks.

Vlad,
the current 91, 93, 97 and 101-cone “dirty” and(!) “clean” world champion (that’s what I ran last time).

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 3:05 am

I had to think about this so it would be simple:

Rule 1: Run 100 cones CLEAN
Rule 2: Do it faster than anyone else.

• Did Luca run 100 cones clean when he set his record? No. So his record is not THIS record.
• Does everyone ride the same board setting the record? No.
• So why is pitch, surface, start, spacing or weather anymore of a deciding factor? It isn't.
• Just as you set up a board to optimum tweak to run a 100-cone course, so you can set up a course to achieve optimum speeds. It's the time it take to clear 100 cones that counts.
• Is this a standard that is applicable to every location and every rider? Absolutely. Set up 100 cones in a straight line and run it clean. Simple.
• What if a skater can't run 100 cones clean? Then SLOW DOWN TIL YOU CAN! This record is as much about precision as it is speed. If you have to slow down to get it precise, then do so. (Is no one else who slaloms a musician?) Can anyone possibly put forward an argument that says you have to criddle cone 73 in order to make cone 74? Geez. They are in a straight line.
• Vlad says there would be lots of bickering and argument if the Euro '95 standard was changed. Seems to me from this past couple of weeks it's the Euro standard that has everyone on both coasts flummoxed as to who is running the fastest times. Remember, the Euro 95 record was set with everyone gathered in one place at one time running one course under conditions applicable to all.

The only real arguments that I've heard against my proposal is:
a. Running 100 cones clean is very difficult
b. It's not what the Europeans did.

Well, who said a world record should be easy and b) The Europeans standard will be great as soon as we all show up in the same place at the same time on the same course under the same conditions and spend a whole day running 100 cones. When's that gonna happen in these United States?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 2:34 am

Henry - I would think 6.5' OC would be the fastest for a few reasons. Most TS slalom decks on the market has wheelbases that run optimum to this cone distance, 6.5' OC is a no brainer on a small pitch/flat surface allowing for more of a strightline and 6.5' OC seems to be a sweet spot for most people's pumps.

Given all that I would prefer to run it at 1.7m...but hey there is room for 1.7m, 2m, 2m+ spacings in 100 cones.

Henry Hester · Post by **Henry Hester** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 2:22 am

Whoops! That's what happens when you don't read the thread.

You already covered the distance thing. I'd attempt it a 6.5',

Henry Hester · Post by **Henry Hester** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 2:16 am

Is there anything to the overall distance of the 100 man march? I mean, would it be faster at 6.5 feet or even 7ft? There is probably some distance between cones that allow for the fastest A to Z time. Understanding and respecting JG's International 1.7 meter cone setting.

Hans Koraeus · Post by **Hans Koraeus** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 1:42 am

Vlad,

For most of us the record is not within our reach anyway but that doesn't mean we can't get serious about it. It's just that there are offical and not official results. And the fastest skaters may go for the world record. If that's not reached they have the worlds fastest time of the year that in my eyes are just as admirable. For the rest of us we have our personal best. And not to forget the national records a.s.o.

Course conditions will never be comparable but I don't see that as a problem. It's just one added factor on top of all the existing ones we have in our normal competitions. But the thrill to compare times over the time overshadows this by far.

Gary Holl · Post by **Gary Holl** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 1:32 am

I understand. No worries.

Vlad Popov · Post by **Vlad Popov** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 1:02 am

Gary and Hans,
I hope everyone who tries to approach/break the record keeps in mind that it’s not official, and is just for fun/exercise. I do believe in one ideal pitch/cone distance for a 100-cone course. Not all courses are the same. And even flat courses will differ in pavement quality/wind/air conditions and latitude.

Wes,
If the current rules are to be altered, it’ll open a door for debates/suggestions/fights and crazy guys like me who couldn’t beat the 100-cone course record, but after adding one cone set a new 101-cone world record. Making it clean in one minute flat time. One meter is one meter. The meter standard is in Troyes, France. Some people don’t like France, but most are happy with the meter.

We posted better times on a flatter course. The steeper the hill the less chances one has to succeed. West Coast has absolutely no advantage.

Vlad.

Hans Koraeus · Post by **Hans Koraeus** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 12:54 am

Gary,

Of course you can compare since the rules are (apart from the 100 cones)...
- Whatever hill you like.
- Start with as much speed as you like.

The thing is to get into the course in your max cone speed and keep that speed until the end. It's as simple as that (in theory).

The tricky thing is that each person probably has an optimal cone distance for his board and the specific hill and other possible factors. So setting up a course for a world record attempt should be done to fit the fastest skaters. But then of course this would be to fast for most other skaters. So even using the same course, same hill at a specific day wouldn't be fair.

And if that wasn't enough don't forget that to get an offical result this should be done in an official competition where you have 2 runs. This not meaning that inofficial results and course setups are not interesting to hear about. They are for us slalom freaks! But for the general public who cares about what hight a highjumper has made during practice in his backyard.

Wesley,

I don't see the cone penalty as a problem. It's not an exact sience. Only a way of awarding them who do make a clean run. Not to penalize/disqualify the 95% of the others who do hit one or more cones.

[ This Message was edited by: Hans Koraeus on 2002-12-03 19:05 ]

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 12:35 am

Gary,

That's close to what I was saying two weeks ago. This record IS NOT about traveling a certain distance through 100 cones. It's about MAKING 100 cones. Period. If someone can set up 100 cones at 4 feet and reduce the travel distance to 396 feet, then power to 'em. Furthermore, if you set up 100 cones on a really steep hill, wiggle like a sewing maching needle and go even faster, then BAM! You've set another record.

Gilmour and Vlad think I'm crazy, but I still think the standard should be 100 cones. Period. Make it or don't. If it is made, though, then start making it in shorter and shorter times.

This is sort of like an Evil Knievel bike jump. (Without the blood and broken Harley Davidsons.) No one ever measured how far the bike went BEFORE it crashed into the landing ramp. He either jumped 30 cars or he didn't. He either cleared the fountains or he didn't. (He didn't, by the way.) The same should be true with 100 cones.

I know: the Europeans had cone penalties. Well, I've never been to France, so what's their standard to me? Maybe my standard would mean a DIFFERENT world record than Luca's, but that's the breaks. Sometimes things change. Whether it's a steep hill, 6-foot spacing, flat, 5.5-foot, start ramp, push start or whatever, the only real consistent parameter is MAKING 100 CONES. That's sets a record.

Oh, and about this cone penalty thing. We've already seen here in the US where different courses result in different penalties. The Giant Slalom sometimes is .2, the tight .1, etc. So maybe we should have a .1 second penalty for 6-foot 100 cones courses and .05 for 5-foot courses? Or maybe 1.25 for 7-foot courses? Or maybe no cone penalty at all, just 10% of the course on a shallow hill, 15% on a steep one? The variables get to be mindboggling.

The only standard that can really translate to any hill, any spacing, any start or any surface is 100 cones. Do it or don't. And if someone on the West Coast does it faster on a steeper hill than someone over here, that just means that the East Coast has to find a steeper hill.

What could be more simple?

Gary Holl · Post by **Gary Holl** » Tue Dec 03, 2002 11:51 pm

My time was 25.31 +3cones. When I look at the photos posted that show the Women's record holder I notice they are starting with a ramp and there is a significant amount of hill (1st 1/3 of the course). I think it would be safe to say that the "record holders" are for that hill, on that day, period. Unless everyone is on a true flat course ,comparing times from different locations, in my opinion, is useless. (but still fun).

Gary Holl · Post by **Gary Holl** » Mon Dec 02, 2002 11:34 pm

We tried the 100 Cone Challenge on Saturday at Shoreline. This parking lot has a slight downhill (1st 25 cones) maybe 1% grade, then it goes slightly uphill (2nd 25 cones) then downhill(20 cones), then up (20 cones)and then flat (10 cones). We used a timer with a manual start at the 1st gate and a IR beam at the bottom (last cone), I think my time was 25.21 + 3 cones...but I have cold and if I was healthy I could knock some time off. I did have two fast clean runs but we had timer problems.

Chris Chaput · Post by **Chris Chaput** » Sun Dec 01, 2002 6:58 am

That's what makes this thing so interesting. Gilmour go to sleep. It's now Sunday where you live.

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Sun Dec 01, 2002 6:42 am

The funny thing about the cone spacing is that if you think you can go faster by making the cone spacing larger by say.....1 foot. Well there are 99 cone spacings in 100 cones so you just made the course 99 feet longer. Somehow it all seems to come out pretty much the same.

At about 7.5 feet on a seriously steep hill you might be able to run teh gates at a very high rate of speed- but the fatgiue might come faster as well. Hard to say.

Vlad Popov · Post by **Vlad Popov** » Sun Dec 01, 2002 6:36 am

If Gaythersburg’s “Park and Ride” fits 100 cones on the left side, lets do it right after the Second Winter-Series DC Outlaw race on December 07.
I propose limited practice time and 2 timed runs.
Let’s hope it doesn’t snow. Ski resorts nearby will be open should we need a good substitute for slalom.

Noah Heinle · Post by **Noah Heinle** » Sun Dec 01, 2002 2:32 am

You could probably pace out 100 cones in 5-10 minutes. With 2 guys, it takes no extra time for one to follow the setter and put a small mark where the cone should be. (full circle not necessary) This definitely helps the cones go back in place faster and keep things moving much better than having to re-pace each knocked gate after runs. You WILL knock gates after runs. Also, I do think that when you’re in the groove that you need to be in to do this, consistency in spacing is crucial as only the right line will get you through clean.
In trying this twice now, I’ve realized that what takes the longest amt of time is actually setting 100 cones in a STRAIGHT line consistent with your fall line. If I was smarter, I’d bring a 100 ft string with me next time, but I’m not smarter.
The times I wrote were ballpark, if that, as compared to whatever happened in France at the time of the record. There’s probably a 1 sec margin of error with my stopwatch. Besides, I don’t see how any of the times that any of us post in different venues can be compared to each other, but it’s still fun.
ur13 and I had a great practice before the Boston race….we set a 5.5” straight dual and drag raced til midnight. It was really fun. Bring on the dual 100!

[ This Message was edited by: Noah Heinle on 2002-11-30 20:35 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Noah Heinle on 2002-11-30 20:36 ]

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Sun Dec 01, 2002 12:17 am

Oh, one other thing. There's been quite a bit of discussion about how long it takes and how much effort is needed to set up a 100-cone course. Here's a question for you: are y'all setting the course and CIRCLING all the cones with chalk?

My question would be why bother? The cone spacing doesn't matter. As long as you have a good measure pace, just step off the difference and replace a tipped cone. As long as you have a STRAIGHT LINE marked on the street, why bother with the circles? That's a lot of effort for a course that doesn't demand any sense of accurate consistency. All you need to do is make sure you have 100 cones in a straight line.

If one cone is 6 foot and the next is 5'11 and the next is 6'1", what difference does it make? It's the count that matters.

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Sun Dec 01, 2002 12:09 am

Been thinking a bit about this 100-cone thing and have come up with an idea. (I still think that a 100-cone race should be 100 cones clean, but that's another argument entirely.)

If someone is really serious about setting a 100-cone world record, then perhaps the "trick" to making the grade is a DUAL 100-CONE COURSE? Sure, that's a LOT of cones. Think, though, of the advantage: we all know we go faster when we RACE, not just pump. Perhaps someone to "spar" with on this attempt could be the difference between setting the record and just getting some sore thighs and lower back pain?

Noah said his time was in the 23's and Gilmour was close to breaking 20 seconds. Maybe a course where both went head to head would be the impetus to seeing JG get into the 19s? What's more, since this is a single-skater attempt, then a little "cheating" would be good for speed.

What if JG spotted Noah 10 cones and then made the effort to overcome the difference before the finish line? Could see times never before imagined. Sure, I know the big argument: who's got 200 cones? Well, if the logistics don't work out, at least the concept is worth considering.

Eric Groff · Post by **Eric Groff** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 9:21 pm

No Chris you had it right the first time, I'm way out of shape, I have not been on a skateboard since Morro Bay.

Arab

Chris Chaput · Post by **Chris Chaput** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 8:48 pm

Arab, I just re-read my post and it sounds as if I am saying that the course would get YOU, specifically in shape. I meant to say that it "would get ONE in shape". Anyone. It was killer and I thought that the last ten cones would make or break us.

Chris Chaput · Post by **Chris Chaput** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 8:44 pm

Arab, Yes that was a killer course and definitely the type that will get you in shape. I wonder if there is a common point at which the average human kind of "bonks" on a slalom run. It seems to me that the 440 yard race in running is very challenging because no one can truly sprint for that distance. It's also too short of a race to hold back.

Similarly I think that most slalomers are "hitting the wall" at about the same time or at the same number of cones. I think that it will be very interesting to see what the optimum distance(s) between the cones and pitch are for the quickest times through 100 straight cones.

I'm in favor of an unlimited push and restrictions on cone sizes. "Unlimited" pushing is easy and doesn't have to be monitored or measured.

It's probably a good idea to state that the cones must have a MINIMUM base width of about 5". That shouldn't eliminate anyone who is currently using soccer cones, Tracker cones, Turner cones or cheerphones. It WOULD prevent someone (like me) from cutting down 100 soccer cones until they were bright orange thimbles that would make the course much faster and easier to make without hitting any.

Nasse Lippen · Post by **Nasse Lippen** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 9:49 am

is there a standard size for cones?

Eric Groff · Post by **Eric Groff** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 8:13 am

Hey Chris,
Remember the 80 cone killer that you Hester and I did last year, That was the most exhausting day of slalom in my life, All I remember is it was HOT, Hester Puked, I was sore for a week, and you wanted to add more cones, Now I remember why I dont like you......... Just Kidding Hope all is well with your family.
Arab

Chris Chaput · Post by **Chris Chaput** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 5:50 am

I really need to come here more often. Excuse me if this question has been asked and answered but...

I see only three "standards":
1) 100 straight cones
2) .1 second cone penalty (unlimited)
3) timing that starts and stops at the first and last cone

If this is the case, we could experiment (on our own) with setting courses on hills of various steepneses and with using different cone spacing on different sections of the course. The farther apart the cones, the more distance you have to travel but speeds could increase.

Any ideas about the optimum distance?

This is definitely going to be a workout.

Vlad Popov · Post by **Vlad Popov** » Tue Nov 26, 2002 11:13 pm

Thanks for your advice, John. I won’t tell your secrets nobody and just keep ‘em to myself! We need to post times, and this weekend couldda been it. But it’s all about giving thanx without giving a sh*t and practicing a multi-day gluttony...Pity.

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:29 pm

One other trick.

You can also attack a 100 cone course first pumping aggressively- attaining a high top end speed and then trying to get a clean "straighter" line to carry you through the 35-70 cone mark. Then pump like a SOB for the remaining 30 cones.

It seems like you get Lactic acid buildup by the 70th cone if you are really pumping the whole thing. You only have so much oxygen and ATP available per unit time. And slalom is mostly an anaerobic sport and as we build up oxygen debt in the form of lactic acid.....our muscles don't fire as quickly when deprived of Oxygen.

So what I would do is pump to get up to speed (Cones 1-35) and then mid course change my stance to a near Parallel stance and conserve energy and give my legs a 5-7 second rest (Cones 35-70). Then move my footing again and pump for the last few cones. If the pitch of the hill is steep enough you can do this without adding to your time as the boost you get from the "rest" will help you make it up in the final cones.

You do need a strategy to approach this if you expect a good result.

You'll change your stance by sliding your rear foot up the deck....good luck.

[ This Message was edited by: John Gilmour on 2002-11-26 16:32 ]

Vlad Popov · Post by **Vlad Popov** » Tue Nov 26, 2002 6:36 pm

It’s elementary, Watson!
A Digital Video Camera shoots a video of us skating, i.e., we “shoot” each other. I then extract some good still shots off the film and submit them to slalomskateboarder.com for further trimming/stamping/uploading. Video still shots are not of the greatest quality, but one can almost always get a good still shot off the video film. Not a case with Digital and SLR photography. To get a good couple of shots one needs to “burn” a film or two.
Next year we might have an inexpensive ($500 range), good-optics digital cameras that are fast enough to shoot 10-15 frames per second. Then you’re talking good quality still shots! For now I shoot SLR with a 180 degree Fisheye lens and the guys like the picture quality. However, it is really hard to capture the best moment, as slalom has only few by nature.

Vlad.

Leonardo Ojeda · Post by **Leonardo Ojeda** » Tue Nov 26, 2002 6:17 pm

Nice pics Vlad, looks very challenging

one question tough, how di du manage to take your pic in the exact time u passed by? hehe

leo

Adam Trahan · Post by **Adam Trahan** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 10:40 pm

Cool Vlad, very cool. Thanks for sharing.

adam

Vlad Popov · Post by **Vlad Popov** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 10:03 pm

Here are some pictures from the very intense 100-cone weekend.

Mike Ohm recovering from a recent park injury. A 100-cone course is the best cure for that!

Brian Parsons stuck in what appears to be a wall of cones.

Myself getting too close to the cone.

Slappy Mixwell disturbing the cones.

WesE at around 75th cone pumping uphill on Sunday.

Can’t wait to do it again and post some times!

Vlad.

[ This Message was edited by: Vlad Popov on 2002-11-25 16:13 ]

Jack Smith · Post by **Jack Smith** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 6:27 pm

100 Cone Challenge - San Luis Obispo, Calfornia

By the time I arrived at the Prefumo Canyon hill, Howard already had the course set. It was mind-boggling to see a 100 cones stretching down the hill, much more impressive than I imagined.

The Prefumo hill is fairly shallow, no more than a 2% grade with brand new, 8-star asphalt.

Present for the challenge were myself, Howard and Dylan Gordon, David Baker and the Terry Brown-Benko clan.

After each of us had taken a few un-successful passes, usually blowing out somewhere between the 50th and 75th cone, we moved the first 25 cones to the end of the course, thus slowing it down a bit. We started the day with a headwind, that clocked around to a tailwind after an hour or so.

I started off riding a Bahne Classic fiberglass with Seismic 110mmm and Avalons, late in the day I switched to Howard's black Turner cutaway with a TTC in back an a Tracker on front and Cambrias. Terry rode Dylan's yellow full nose with Cambrias, I don't remember the truck set-up.

Concentration is key, the cones just keep coming. Seems as if you blink, you're done. We had a line at the 75 cone mark and I remember thinking, "that can't be right, I must be closer than that to the end."

Terry turned in a sensational run, hitting only one cone, her time was 32.23.

Howard ran a 30.9 which included 15 cones. My best was 30.8 with 6 cones included.

My thoughts...lots of fun and definitely a lot harder than I thought it would be. Can't wait to try it again.

Oh by the way Howard now holds the over 50 record and I hold the over 45 record. There are some good things about getting older.

Hans Koraeus · Post by **Hans Koraeus** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 1:02 pm

I think it will be a very hard task (notice that I don't say impossible although I think it's closer to impossible than very hard) to beat Giammarco's record.

To make it happen you will need...
- The quickest tight slalomer around.
- The most well trained slalomer around.
- The perfect cone distance for this rider and his board.
- The perfect hill with a very good surface.

All of these factors we had in Verrieres open in 1995. Meaning that Gianmarco could start the course in his maximun speed and then keep that max until the end. The hill we used was probably perfect for this. I you look at the picture earlier in this thread the hill starts off quite steep and then gets almost flat. If it wouldn't have been for this the speed would have been to high.

So if you can set up a 100 cone course for a extreamly skilled and well fit slalomer that makes him go close to his limit from start to finish you might have a chance to break the record.

Also notice that this has to be done in a offical competition where you only have 2 runs to have a go at it.

Even though this may sound discouraging the good news is that we shouldn't stare blind on only that world record. I think the thrill is just as high to try and do your "personal world record" and for the slalom community in large to try and have a yearly 100 cone champion.

[ This Message was edited by: Hans Koraeus on 2002-11-25 07:05 ]

ur13 · Post by **ur13** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 4:20 am

Noah and I tried 100 cones today.

I rolled into our practice spot about 15mins late and see Noah finishing laying down cones. I park my car and walk over and say "so that is 100 cones huh?" (or something like that)...Noah say "Nope that only 50"...'"50!, damn!". We had no more room and no possible area to place them.

Also our practice hill is a fairly steep, steep in that it handles tight slalom well but not GS.

So we ran the 50 6' OC cones with about a 30' push start for about 30minutes. Now we had run 30 5.5'OC cones on this same hill, we've run 40 cone TS on this hill all with minimal fuss. But this 50 cone thing was different. By about 35-40 cones in our speed was rocket like..all the way down this course things got faster and faster. You had to pull up halfway down and just turn, no pumping.

My best time with 2 cones was 10.257(hand held stopwatch), Noah was right on par with me though neither one of us were really timing runs, we were just figuring out the course.

One thing I noticed was that cone color made a difference. We were using Turner cones, the top 25'ish were red and the bottom 25'sh were white. After a few runs we moved 5 reds to the bottom of the course to allow for a bigger push start up top (30' is HUGE). I found myself blowing out at the approach of the reds at the bottom. They seemed distracting. I would see them out of the corner of my eye and think I was farther along than I was and then start hitting cones.

Again neither one of us were really pushing it hard. We eneded up running 3 other hybrid style 40 cone pumper courses for the next 3 hours.

Noah does have a spot, we realized later in the day, that will support up to a 200 to even 300 cone course. The pitch is super mellow, but fast with a steep section for a run in at the start (where we usually run cones). Sometime this winter we will try 100 - 150 there.

I was running a turner fullnose/cambrias...noah was trying his 36" pocket pistol to his fullnose/cambrias...I think i saw him on his ick too...

it is all about rythmn!

Vlad Popov · Post by **Vlad Popov** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 4:17 am

100 cones. Day two.

It was much nicer today, warmer but somewhat windy. The course was set at a different location (Walker Ln). We didn’t have a timer, and we could barely fit 100 cones in there. But all that is nothing. The pitch was terrible: the last 20 or so cones were on uphill portion of the road.

The initial grade was very nice. I switched to an 18-inch-wheelbase (from 16.5) no-flex DALV board with the same trucks and wheels I used yesterday. The entire course required pumping, and it felt faster then yesterday until about the 80th cone. Getting and keeping the rhythm seemed much easier today; it wasn’t a survivor’s course like yesterday.
The first 80 cones felt easy. Maybe it’s because the last 20 required a stronger pump uphill. Or maybe it’s because in addition to that, the course wasn’t as steep. The wind was a factor today, and it worked against us.

Foot placement wasn’t an issue like yesterday. However, at least one adjustment was needed between the 50th and 60th cone. On most runs it costed a couple of cones, but saved time in the end.

I calculated times from yesterday’s video of our runs. The fastest runs were in the 24-26 sec category plus hit cones.
Only a stopwatch and video camera were used today. Times were in 23.5 – 32 second range (depending on who posted them) plus hit cones. The last 20 cones were very slow, so we feel very optimistic about skating the real deal on a hill soon. 24-25 seconds with an average of 5 hit cones was never a problem for me today, and I feel confident about being able to shave at least a second off my time on a better course. All times are invalid and unofficial without a timer.

No problem making the course clean. Worrying about it too much slows one down. 4-5 hit cones seemed to be an average on the fastest runs of the day.

Despite the fact that we didn’t post any times, the weekend wasn’t wasted. We’ve learned quite a lot in the short period of time.

Over 100 cones for training sounds like a good idea. We were actually going to run a 101-cone course today, since we can’t possibly beat the record, but can start a new trend. :razz:

Next week: RFK stadium with a timer and hopefully more people. Weather permitting.

Thanks to everyone who supported the idea and came out to play this weekend in different parts of the country.

Vlad.

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:58 am

Before I went to the French open in 1995 I tried running 140 cones regularly. You really had to struggle to make 140 cones by 110 you were hating it- and the last 30 seemed to take forever.

Then going to run 100 cones did not seem so bad and your fade would start around cone 85. At about 5 cones per second you only had to last for 3 more seconds.

If you really feel like tortureing yourself make the last 20 cones about 4 inches tighter.

Maysey has the fitness/quickness for this event and a good high speed weighting and unweighting for this.

It is the Marathon event for our our sport.

Howard Gordon · Post by **Howard Gordon** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 1:28 am

Second day with 100 cones went a lot better - we moved the course to take out some of the slope, and we got started a bit earlier so tailwind was less of a factor. No serious threats to the existing men's and women's records, but at least we completed some runs and recorded some times - Jack's best was 30.80, I managed a 30.90, and Terry Benko had a 32.23. Dylan didn't quite complete a full course, but he looked to be on pace for a 33-34 second run, which gives him a reasonable shot at taking out the existing junior record.

Yesterday, this was looking pretty much impossible, but we turned around today. Several factors:

1. the mellower course, so speed management was possible ... we were actually pumping the final 25 cones

2. the right equipment - Jack and I ran a low camber short wheelbase cutaway, and Terry ran Dylan's fullnose

3. when we moved the course, our original finish line became the 75th cone marker. psychologically, it was great to see that marker to figure out on-course progress and pacing for the end. in the future, we'll draw lines at the 25th, 50th and 75th cones for this purpose

I think I had the fastest raw time with a sub 30-second run (plus a bunch of cones), and there were several sections of the course where everything was working and it felt like I was really flying. Realistically, I'll be thrilled to eventually get down into the 26-27 second range, and I continue to be in awe of the existing records, but at least we now know that we can complete the course.

Claude Regnier · Post by **Claude Regnier** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 1:07 am

Okay so now some of you know why I have a 150 cones and was runnin a 130 cones last year.

Conditioning, conditioning, conditioning.

Good Luck

Vlad Popov · Post by **Vlad Popov** » Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:37 am

Long story short:
A pathetic attempt to get close to the world record in the Washington, DC area ended up with a bust.
Nobody posted a time. Nobody made the course clean. Nobody was physically prepared to take that kind of abuse. But everybody loved it, and we’re doing it again!

Short story long:
The winds were blowing hard in the DC area today, gusts reaching 30 MPH. It was cold. Colder then thermometers registered. Wind-chill felt like January!

Slappy Mixwell, Mike Ohm, Brian Parsons and I met at the Grand Prix Race track by the RFK Stadium in the District of Columbia late Saturday morning. The pavement was perfect (9 out of 10), the pitch was good, the road was straight, but the conditions plain sucked. No cone doubled or tripled would have been able to stand the winds. We didn’t even bother trying. 88A and 92A wheels gripped asphalt well, and we all had a feeling we’d be coming back to that place when it “doesn’t blow”.

Slappy decided to waste no time; he got his sail-skateboard out and mounted a 5.2 m sail in 5.2 minutes. It was gusty, but those of us with windsurfing experience enjoyed a couple of runs up and down the long straightaway. Sailboards are surprisingly inexpensive (around $250 for the board) and are much fun! Slappy said he feels comfortable cruising on his sailboard at around 30 MPH on empty parking lots when conditions are right. Trucks are fully adjustable, and large pneumatic tires provide a soft comfortable ride. Team DALV is seriously considering building a sailboard next year.

The conditions indeed were right today for what Slappy enjoys doing, but for running a 100-cone course - NO WAY! After discussing every possible alternative we agreed to go to the Occoquan Park in Northern Virginia, only half an hour away from the RFK stadium. The decision was based purely on the road location- it is protected from strong winds by trees and rock on both sides. The surface quality received 6 out of 10 points from two “independent judges”. The pitch seemed nice, but inconsistent - it was steeper in the beginning, flatter in the middle and steeper at the end. After inspecting the place and sipping a couple of Warstieners we went to work.

Setting a 100-cone course is as tiring as riding one.

When we put down 100 cones and looked at the course some of us panicked. We’re used to riding 50-something-cone courses in our area. But that course looked like a monster in comparison! :eek:
There was absolutely no time to get Brian’s timer out, because park rangers could come anytime and ask us to leave. We were so eager to try running a 100-cone course, that we actually proceeded before even marking it!
The first runs ended up in blow-outs for everyone. It was simply too fast, and set-up adjustments were needed. Those of us who tried running Avalons switched to Cambrias. I was lucky to have a 16.5-inch-wheelbase board with me, so I mounted my 90-mm-axle Tracker RTX/S with 86/90A Cambrias on it. Everybody could eventually make it to the end of the course. There were many blow-outs, most of them beyond the half-point. A couple of times people couldn’t finish the last ten cones. I once bailed on the 97th cone! It felt as though 90% of skating was wiggling and (only!) 10% was pumping. Optimizing a set-up to “fit” 6-ft-cone distance is the number one step if one is to succeed.
I’m sure it was slightly different for everyone, but the common feeling was that the first 50 cones is just a breeze. They were always skated with ease, and didn’t take much physical and mental energy. 60th cone reminds one he’s just a human. 70th cone puts bad thoughts in one’s head. 80th makes one debate whether to finish or to bail out. 90th cone turns on an autopilot, and the last one gives the same amount of joy as the state of nirvana!

Pacing oneself proved to be essential. Pushing too much in the beginning led to suffering the consequences around the 70th cone. Almost always the penalty for going too hot into the course was a DQ. It was partly attributed to the specifics of our road’s pitch, as the course was getting steeper around the 70th cone. Right when one would want to have it flatter. Most of the work needed to be done in the last 30 cones. So, our road was very far from the “ideal 100-cone hill”, and the location might be changed for the future sessions. We all agreed that it is better to have it steeper in the beginning and flatter toward the end. We also found 50 ft of pushing distance to be enough for getting up to speed and positioning the feet on the board. However, it was very hard to hold the feet in the proper/same position for over 60 cones. Probably a toe stopper will help.

Walking to the top of a 100-cone course is as tiring as riding the course.

We tended to take breaks before going down the hill. Getting back uphill is quite a workout. At least 3 (4 is better) cone marshals are needed to keep things running smoothly.

Car traffic volume was rather high for that place, and it was just a matter of time when the park ranger would show up and give us a nice proposition to leave. The course was demolished within minutes.

The easiest thing about a 100-cones course is taking it down.

It was sad to leave early and not to be able to post times. So we decided to time a run using a wristwatch. I took a run on a marked course without cones and did my best to wiggle around every single mark. Slappy registered 25 something pathetic seconds. It was not a surprise, as it felt like we were in the 25s-30s all along, but when he called it out loud it just felt crashing. We will have a timer next time to see where we’re at on the real course.

Mike treated us with gin and tonic at his friend’s bar (Ohm has friends in low places), where we discussed slalom, Slalom! and slalom-related topics.

In conclusion, a 100-cone course is not what it seems. It requires a lot of training, thinking and physic. 4-5 cones per second sound unbelievable, but it is doable. And it is good fun!

One of the nicest things about a 100-cone course is watching your friends run it. :lol:

Vlad.

[ This Message was edited by: Vlad Popov on 2002-11-24 01:45 ]

Howard Gordon · Post by **Howard Gordon** » Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:19 am

Thought I'd pass along some initial observations from a 100 cone test run we set up today (we'll run the real deal tomorrow):

1. there seems to be no advantage to running on a sloped surface, except perhaps at the beginning where you want to get up to full speed - once there, you don't want or need the push of a hill while trying to maintain a rhythm

2. speaking for myself, it was not realistic to expect satisfactory results first time out after taking a break from skating. 100 cones is a *very* long course, and I certainly felt the need to start a conditioning program, going from 50 to 60 to 70 etc over a number of sessions before having any hope of reasonable results with 100 cones

In any case, best of luck to everyone who tries. It's quite a challenge, and the existing record times are very impressive.

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Sat Nov 23, 2002 6:22 pm

I finally located the complete results of the 100 cone World Record breaking at Verrieres Open, France 1995.

World record holders:
Men: Luca Giammarco, Italy 20.56
Women: Yelena Sinadolova, Russia 23.55
Juniors: Alexey Alekseyev, Russia 33.98

These times are including time penalties (0.1 per cone).

Judging from the results it is difficult to make a perfectly clean run on a 100 cone course. Actually the only one who did in the contest was myself in my second attempt and my time was 2 seconds behind Luca's.

Luca hit 4 cones in his best run, 2 in his second attempt. John you hit 6. I hit 2 in my best run.

When the next official world record attempt shows on TV it would be great if the new record man does it clean, but if others in their attempts hits cones it'll just add to the excitement. If everybody makes clear runs it might actually look too easy.

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Fri Nov 22, 2002 9:28 pm

I have 107 cones so anytime you are up for ...let's rock.
Sr. Tucker- best of luck to you to pull off a clean run. I've done it before - but you tend to get tired and make more mistakes as you go.

Vlad Popov · Post by **Vlad Popov** » Fri Nov 22, 2002 8:52 pm

Wes,

I have no problem with calling it a 100-cone course with the option of unlimited cones hit. Everyone hits cones on it. Gianmarco Luca did. Elena Sinadolova appeared to hit one (from the picture). Hitting a couple of cones is no problem. A person who hits a lot of cones has probably has lost his rhythm anyway and will not post a fast time.
The beauty of the 100 cones course to me is in what John Gilmour summed up about the slope grade/cone distance variables and in the unlimited amount of hit cones allowed.

Yes, there are logical limits to it of course. Like, some guy can get on a 15% road and plow thought most of the cones and probably post a good time even with a 9 sec penalty. But it is very unlikely to happen as most people are sane and won’t do that, because this kind of deal will not be recognized by anyone. And we also need not forget that what we’re about to do this weekend is Unofficial and only at the official competitions can we speak of breaking/posting old/new World Records.

I don’t have 100 cones either. I have 100 friends with 1 cone!

Vlad.

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Fri Nov 22, 2002 8:34 pm

Ok, time for semantics. This is the "100-cone straight slalom course." Not the "594-foot course," or the "545-foot course." The gist of it is ONE HUNDRED CONES.

If you hit ONE cone, then it becomes a 99 CONE course. You fail. By the very nature of the course description, anyone who attempts this course and this record is trying run 100 cones faster than anyone else. Not a specified distance, but a specified number of cones.

That means all or nothing. Just like the cyber slalom challenge, only four times as long. Of course, since the French and Europeans had a time penalty, then the rules should be the same in 2002.

I would suggest, though, that someone who runs 100 cones CLEAN is closer to the mark than someone who hits 5 or 6 and posts a time a fraction of a second faster. Again, if this was called the "594-foot flat slalom challenge," then there'd be no argument. Calling it "100 cones" though, to me, paints the participant into a corner. Either you run 100 cones or your don't.

By the way, I do have a 100-cone course location here in Summerville. It's part of the paved nature trail I use for cross country: paved, perfectly flat and almost 1/2 mile straight through the woods. It even has a slight inclined "ramp" at one end when it rises to street level to cross over.

Too bad I don't have 100 cones:-(

[ This Message was edited by: Wesley Tucker on 2002-11-22 14:38 ]

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Fri Nov 22, 2002 7:11 pm

.1 sec penalty per cone. And I believe they were 6 feet on center at teh French open in 1995.

BTW who knows what the current womens 100 cone record is?

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Fri Nov 22, 2002 4:08 pm

John, the first time I ever heard about this stuff was sitting in the barn at Steve's house and you were showing your portfolio of pictures.

Did you tell me the 100-cone races in Europe were all-or-nothing or was there a calculated time penalty? I know you said something and I even repeated it here earlier this week. But now as I think about it, I can't remember if you said the course was all-or-nothing or if you commented that if you hit one cone you lost. (Meaning any penalty knocked you out of the running.)

Could I prevail upon you to relate some of the requirements used when you went for this record seven years ago?

[ This Message was edited by: Wesley Tucker on 2002-11-22 10:10 ]

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Fri Nov 22, 2002 3:50 pm

As there was no standardization for the 100 cone record before I see no reason to attempt to introduce a standard now.

In the Olympic Broad Jump people postulated different records being set for high altitude vs low altitude.

IMHO, as I have run the 100 cone event before and I did actually try to train for it...... Changing the variables doesn't have that much to do with the outcome. Make it tighter and you are turning more and though the distance is less you do slow down. Make it looser and you have more distance to travel though you can hit it with more speed. Tighter- your legs start to incinerate around cone 65 ,looser- you loose too much of your High end pump by the finish.

Increase the pitch of the hill? You might end up going too fast to make the course and blow out like at the July 4th event. Run it flat....well you'll never break the record...same thing goes for short 2 push starts.

Sweeney had the long time record. I was the first to break it in France, then within minutes I think Andres Sidler, Daniel Ridoli and finally Luca beat it as well. Gianmarco Luca (Not to be confused with Gianluca Ferrero) holds the record currently.

I think it would be the most interesting to do a fixed distance of 1.7 meters as the "classic record" and an unfixed distance to see what is possible. That way...at least you could try to match the cone spacing to the hill and surface you were running. I even tried setting a variable spaced course in Boston where the cone spacing increased as the hill got faster.

The hill to break the record on is at Bienevenida Ave. Take PCH highway to Sunset and then follow Sunset uphill until you hit Bienevenida and go left. Gorman knows exactly where it is.

*my money might be on either Mollica or Chaput as Physical conditioning is key and they never seem to get tired.

Jack Smith · Post by **Jack Smith** » Thu Nov 21, 2002 10:35 pm

You're invited!
This Sunday, November 24th at noon will be holding a 100 cone World Record Challenge in San Luis Obispo. The event will be held in a new houing development just off Prefumo Canyon Road. Please email or call Jack for directions...
oldskateguy@aol.com
805-462-2712

Vlad Popov · Post by **Vlad Popov** » Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:35 pm

Tway, of course you should dig it out!

Ok, let’s finalize the rules at least for this weekend.

Sloped surface. We can’t standardize the slope, but at least we can agree it’s not flat.

25 ft or 7 m 62 cm push distance to the first cone. Timing on/off at first/last cone. Cone distance 6 ft or 182.88 cm center to center. 0.1 second penalty for hit cones.

I’m going to try 5.5 ft or 167.64 cm center to center at the exact same location just to see if it’s slower/faster. 5.5 ft is closer to the official ISSA cone distance of 1.70 m then 6 ft by 4 inches. You think it’s not noticeable? - Try taking it at full throttle on a sloped road! I use two different wheelbases to optimize pump on 5.5 and 6 ft.

And I do know this for sure: clean runs are 99% of times faster then the runs with several hit cones.
And another thing: the weather people are calling for snow flurries in the DC area this Saturday! We’re, like, Spartans! Don’t tell that to Andrew Muzikin from Moscow, Russia who recently told me that Avalons are no good...because they slide on ice

Let’s put TS back in US!
Good luck everybody!

Vlad.

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

| World Ranking | 25-cone Series | Calendar