Expanding On Fluitt's Course-Setting Poll Results

[Wesley Tucker]

In reading Gary's race course design poll results, it looks as though teams are far and away the leaders when it comes to course setting preferences. Although it may be a little tentative and certainly presumptive, I've looked at the proposed FCR Series schedule and think maybe a little regional/team competition would be a good thing?

As such, here's a proposal for course setting during 2003:

March 29/30 - Elsinore, CA: SSS and Team Ick could do the honors. The course is in their backyard. SSS gets the tight slalom wizardry of Richie Carrasco and Ick has GS champion Charlie Ransom for the second race of the weekend.

May 10/11 - Catalina Classic - Avalon, CA: Since BLR has members that cover most of So Cal, a good offshore location would allow them to show their best course ideas.

June 7/8 - Breckenridge, CO: Unfortunately, Hood River is off the schedule this year, so maybe Breckenridge would be the course best suited to Team Roe laying out the cones? After all, Fluitt is a Roe guy.

July 12/13 - La Costa, CA: no doubt about it: La Costa belongs to FibreFlex. Sure, Turner has made itself known at the Black Hill, but Turner gets Morro Bay later in the season

Aug 16/17 -Lake Tahoe, CA. I was surprised to see the Battle By The Bay not on the schedule again. So since there's nothing on the board in the Bay Area, moving a little West would be good for Comet?

Sept 26-28 - Morro Bay, CA: The cat's out of the bag. Turner get's the honors at the big year end to do.

What's more is that such an arrangement could be used to spark manufacturers to be more competitive and involved in slalom? Perhaps a total-points scored system could see an upstart team in 2004 take away the course setting rights from another manufacturer? Maybe Gravity gets in a groove and ends the year with more points than FibreFlex? Or Bahne gets it all together and makes enough of a dash for the cash to get the Morro Bay rights from Turner?

It's all in good fun, but certainly would add some more spark and "team spirit" to racing as there would a more important motive to winning as a team than just increasing product sales. Who knows? Maybe The Northern Racing Alliance takes it to the house and tells BLR they want Catalina? Maybe the Knuckleheads . . .

. . . nah. I don't think so.

But you get my point.

P.S. I do hope some numbskull doesn't reply, "why does SSS and Ick get Elsinore? Why not someboday else?" This isn't a demand and last negotiating point on my part. It's just an idea to make TLP's life more difficult. After all, isn't that why we're here?

[Andy Bittner]

Wesley, Where do you get, "it looks as though teams are far and away the leaders when it comes to course setting preferences,"? The chart Gary posted says 28% for teams, 28% for an impartial organization like the USSSF, and 36% in an unviewable "Others" column.

[Wesley Tucker]

One other thing: I didn't forget about "Team Pocket Pistol." I just haven't heard there is such a thing. Whenever someone mentions Chicken or one of the guys who rides PP boards, it's usually associated with SSS.

And, of course, several "independents."

[Wesley Tucker]

Andy,

My screen shot shows:

Race Organizers 16%
Teams 28%
Locals 10%
Impartial Racing Organization 20%
Other 36%

Also, my SUGGESTION combines both the "Team" and "Local" aspects. How do I get "far and away" from those results? Because that's the way I choose to interpret it. I'm not the statistician to say the combined results would be 38%. But hey, it's statistics. I can if I want to!

[Gary Fluitt]

Wes,
What happens if the local teams get the course wired before hand? I could tell all my Roe buddies exactly how to set the course that they will encounter at Breck. "Set four gates at 6.5 with a .5 offest. Break into a 10 gate hipper to the left, then a straight stinger for 6 gates" bla bla bla. TK then practices this course religously until Sandy threatens to leave him. He shows at Breck and DOMINATES. Arab and Chicken are left in the dust. Do you think that will fly? I think not.

I could set a Chaput course, a Hackett Course, a Dunn course, depending on who's greasin' my wheels. Oh it's so sordid.

So I promise not to tell anybody what we're going to set on race day. It's going to be a brand new course, never raced before. We're still going to set a course that's in our best interest though. With some feature that benefits me as a racer & course setter. A wicked right hand dog leg that only I have figured out how to pump through (yea right).

One idea that came out of the survey is that each team gets to throw a racer at the job of coruse setter. The UN approach. Don O'Shei as Kofi Annan. Yeah, look where that's getting us right now?!.
The multi-team approach flattens the playing field, but I've tried to set a course with Arab. taste great vs. less filling. Both are right, it takes forever, no one is particularly happy.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but homogeneous teams seems fraught with inequities.
I wish we could just hire GBJ to travel around the country in micro bus full of cones, setting courses. The traveling slalom minstrel. Minstrels were commonly hung when they failed to entertain their masters. think about it......
I think Jack, Don, GBJ, Steven King, Arab, Richie, et al, did a great job setting the courses this year. And for those guys who want to say how bad the courses were, they've probably never had to set a course for 80 racers of all ages and abilities, on a less than perfect road, at 6 in the morning, with little or no chance to adjust it. It's damn hard. Hell, GBJ was up hours before Morro Bay. No racer is going to do that. I surely wouldn't. I want to show up 30 minutes before qualifying with my entourage and race and not worry about which team has been practicing the course for weeks. But that's just me.

[Andy Bittner]

Well... your screen is mistaken. Time to get a new monitor. The statistic for the impartial organization is 28%, that's why the two bars on the graph are the same length. Also, to what end do you add-in the statistics of an option that is clearly one of the less popular ones. I guess, "because I want to," might suffice, in which case, I'm informing you that I've combined the results of all the polls as an indicator of whether people want me to be the King of The Planet, and guess what? I won, so bow.

[Wesley Tucker]

Gary,

My answer to your skepticism is "let's try it one year and see what happens?"

Sure, teams could "rig" the courses and take advantage of their strengths, but that's one of the motivators in getting the course-setting rights.

Now, if as the end of the year we see Ick and SSS won Elsinore, BLR won Catalina, Roe won Breckenridge, etc., then I would concede you have a point. There is only one way, though, to find out: do it and see what happens!

If nothing else, we've guaranteed a way to prevent one team from dominating the series. After all, the ones who set the course this week will win this week's races. Next week, new winners.

Isn't that what we really want? Complete mayhem in the point standing right down to the final weekend? Does anyone really want to see the championship clinched in August?

[Brady Mitchell]

Isn`t what Wesley proposed more of a team thang? Seems like that was one of the least favored options....

Wesley`s quote.."..March 29/30 - Elsinore, CA: SSS and Team Ick could do the honors. The course is in their backyard. SSS gets the tight slalom wizardry of Richie Carrasco and Ick has GS champion Charlie Ransom for the second race of the weekend.

May 10/11 - Catalina Classic - Avalon, CA: Since BLR has members that cover most of So Cal, a good offshore location would allow them to show their best course ideas.

June 7/8 - Breckenridge, CO: Unfortunately, Hood River is off the schedule this year, so maybe Breckenridge would be the course best suited to Team Roe laying out the cones? After all, Fluitt is a Roe guy.

July 12/13 - La Costa, CA: no doubt about it: La Costa belongs to FibreFlex. Sure, Turner has made itself known at the Black Hill, but Turner gets Morro Bay later in the season

Aug 16/17 -Lake Tahoe, CA. I was surprised to see the Battle By The Bay not on the schedule again. So since there's nothing on the board in the Bay Area, moving a little West would be good for Comet?

Sept 26-28 - Morro Bay, CA: The cat's out of the bag. Turner get's the honors at the big year end to do."

[John Gilmour]

I think the only way around course setting issues is to remove as many variables as possible.

1. Publish the course a two months beforehand. (you could mark the hill with chalk and give it a go using the marks)

2. Take a photo with a bearing on the asphalt to show the surface.

3. Guestimate the grade.

That way on race day the issues for racers won't be what type of board, trucks, wheelbase to run. It will only be wheels- and a small range of wheels at that.

It would greatly reduce the amount of gear a racer would have to carry.

Racers don't have to drop $700 (airfare, Hotel, car rental, food, entry fee) on a course they might not like or would not be able to run. For instance, If I saw that Chaput and Kludy were putting a slalom course on signal hill with 50 mph gates...I might think twice....just as I would about a slightly sloped course with coarse pavement thrown at WLAC.

It also helps promoters that set good courses on good hills increase their attendance. Giving the course out to everyone will make newbies come better equipped to race- and encourage them to race more.

[Wesley Tucker]

John,

I couldn't agree more. Your suggestion, though, even adds more weight to my notion of teams/locals getting the course-setting rights.

After all, I'm sure TLP doesn't have the time or resources to travel months in advance to every race venue. But, AH HA! the local guys are already there (well, maybe BLR would have a hard time getting out to Catalina . . . or maybe they'd love an excuse to take an ocean ferry cruise?)

It might also be difficult to cover some of the more out-of-the way locations (Tahoe for example,) but it's still doable.

Again, though, it wouldn't be left up to the race promoters to do all the "running around" of getting the race course layouts available for public review. The "locals" are already there, so let them have the honor and privilage of laying out the course in their territory.

[Dan Hughes]

I like the idea of an independent, course setter, who may or may not be racing that day, to set the course. That way everyone whose going to race has the same learning curve to go through. No bias to the locals. If for example you publish the course before hand, there's always someone who didn't know, or couldn't have known for some reason. I just think it's more fair if no one knows exactly what's going to be set on race day, except the setter of the course.

John, it's slalom, 50 mph gates? That sounds more like down hill to me.

[Andy Bittner]

John, your solution doesn't work, particularly if we're intent on bringing races to places like the middle of Boston, Capitol Hill in D.C., or others of that like. Not even Main Street, Morro Bay is going to give up their road for the amount of time that it takes to set, test and DOCUMENT a world championship course in advance. Therefore, your suggestion conflicts with the basic drive of the sport to be seen racing in highly visible and "impressive" venues. This makes it the responsibility of the race organizer to try to have the local authorities shut down a road, for several hours, two months in advance. On the sites where we'd prefer to be racing, your suggestion will probably be unworkable more than 50% of the time.

Furthermore, you don't seem to realize, with your attachment to pre-publishing courses, some of us consider showing up on race day and having to adapt to the course for that day, to be part of the fun of the sport. For me, as a racer-type personality, more than half the fun of the whole game is peak performance on race day, and showing up and racing the course that's there is part of that

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Andy Bittner on 2003-02-11 16:02 ]</font>

[Mike Ohm]

Back in the day Kenny Mollica and I could visit just about any ramp and blow away the locals. And get this, the ramp was in their driveway. Blaming the course or the course setters is lame. Just try to rip anything that is put in front of you. If you loose, take the responsibility on yourself and get better.

[Claude Regnier]

I agree Mike about not blaming winning or losing on a good or bad course.

Although a lame course is always going to produce a victor until enough people are brave enough to tell the organisers they simply don't like the course. There will crappy course or parts thereof to race on.

Right now from what I've seen and read most guys don't like them but they won't stand up for themselves because they know how some things can work againsr you.

[Gary Fluitt]

Claude are you suggesting that race organizers are black balling guys who complain about courses? You said that it can work against you to speak up? I don't think that happens. Hell Arab did the full course plow at Donner and I think at Catalina as a protest. Pretty stupid way to protest distaste for a course, but the point is that never got him thrown out of a race and that's a pretty pointed protest if you ask me. So lets not start a conspiracy theory that if you complain about a course, it's going to somehow hurt you. I know that Jack and Don have been very receptive to course comments in my experience. Lets make sure we know the difference between constructive and destructive criticism on race day too. I know a lot guys that piss and moan about the course, and other guys that try to work with the race organizer to help out. At Breck last year we set a GS course that had a dangeroulsy wide gate. We needed it to slow racers down cause we only had so much run out. Hutson suggested moving the gate in because of a street drain that racers might not see if they happen to blow out of the course there. That was really constructive. That's the kind of help we need on course set-up. Not a bunch of bitching about the course once the race has started.
gary

[Claude Regnier]

Perhaps that was a little strong. I do know that several key racer do not like some of the stuff going on but simply refuse to state it.

Perhaps someone else relays it in their own way. I don't know! I agree that Jack was open minded about La Costa and am sure it was the same in other situations. There are a lot of people to try and please at a race and trying to achieve a 100% is not going to happen.

[John Gilmour]

I agree that it isn't easier to set up a course in advance- and that it does take some skill to dial in a race set in 45 minutes on race day.....but.....


It is pretty easy to set up a course on any street provided it does not have traffic as frequent as the 405 or 1-95. All you have to do is go out there with some chalk and start making a few marks- you can certainly test a course without cones.

My July 4th race is perhaps the only exception I know to this because merging on Storrow drive is a challenge ANY hour of the day. But just try and get a roadway with that much traffic shut down.... it is going to be a very rare thing indeed.

At "DA farm 2" I had go and try out some courses on an open road. We ended up with a good challenging course. What is really the difference if we do this the day before or 2 months before?

So far as dialing in set ups..I am interested in fast racing...and if the racing can be safer...so much the better. Having the ability to get your set up more closely dialed on race day should make the racing faster for the spectators and safer for the racers. It also gives the racers more time to socialize rather than panic about their set ups. It gives the promoters more time to attend to other aspects of the race rather than dropping a course. And of course it reduces the amount of gear competitors have to carry with them from contest to contest.

Just a few thoughts to consider.

[Wesley Tucker]

John,

I think, though, you might be forgetting the marvels of modern technology.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but let me go back to the Folly Beach race course design. I DID NOT LAY THAT COURSE OUT ON THE STREET. What I did was get all the measurements, dimensions, flaws, pits, road reflectors and pitch and write it all down.

I then took those "coordinates," for want of a better word, home and put them all on to my computer layout. Once I knew where NOT TO PUT A CONE, the rest was easy. Although we didn't get to actually run that course on the street intended because of the rain (John and others still think that was a FLAT LAND course design,) I did have the cones marked Friday before the rains came. Later on Sunday after the longboard events, I places the cones in my markers and we ran them. It went down the hill perfect.

So I understand the trepidation about laying out a course on a busy street. Why can't anyone, though, get a tape measure and use a little common surveying sense and get all the details of the street?

After Morro Bay I said that Main Street was an ideal opportunity to pre-publish a course design. Andy disagreed because he said there was no way he could know in advance about some of the obstacles in the street. Well, the obstacles are still there and a tape measure can easily dictate where they are located in relation to the side and middle of the road. A simple grid detailing where to put cones and where not would be more than simple to produce. I know because I've done it.

So, I find the argument that too much traffic prevents pre-publishing a course as not very convincing. Detailing through scale and topographical representations can easily make a hill available for anyone to detail where to put the cones.

And Andy, I know you are in Maryland and Morro Bay is in California. Thus, it might be kind of difficult for you to do the kind of work I'm describing. Believe me, though, when I say this is not all about you. There are many other circumstances where a pre-published race course is not only practical, but preferable. I'm hoping this summer Brian will have a course design for the Outlaw Series prepared far enough in advance to put it out for everyone to examine. I'd love to know what I might be driving 500 miles to expereience.

[John Gilmour]

So for the computer "all thumbs guy"- and I include myself in this lot, would simple graph paper be enough for most people?

I think so.

I could imagine, perhaps in a "worst case scenario of not having a tape measure", pacing along the curb- making a mark for each one of my footsteps. Then marking on a graph where each obstacle and crack was. And later if needed measuring my sneaker to translate that. Obviously not the ideal situation- but certainly possible.

Wesley's idea is sort of neat because instead of being faced with some sort of time constraint to drop the cones and run the course....you could mill over your "paper hill" and try a lot of other variants. Later you could transcribe a few courses- modify them if needed and test them against one another and choose your favorite.

Sounds great to me as a traveling racer- that a course setter might have actualy put a good amount of effort and tried "more than once "on paper" to make a great course to race- and perhaps tested it.

And Wesley is right...I forgot that the course was not a flatland course originally- though the hill for it was not very steep...so it migrated well to the bus depot easily. But the point is that it was

1. A planned course and it worked very well-
2. We had a large turnout (to an relatively Obscure part of the world in regards to slalom skateboard history) in part I believe to the fact that the course was pre-published.
3. There were few course complaints due to the pre-publishing. Now the course was very tight for longboards, and part of the pride of longboarding is to be able to take longboards into short board terrain, and realistically this was a hard course for longboards- YET at least people knew what it was going to be. Had the course not been published I think there would have been more complaints due to the tightness of the course. But as people knew what it was going to be- people could train and prepare for what was going to be a tight course for longboards. In testimony to this I saw more new faces at this race than any other race- and more prepared racers- certainly the most prepared new slalomers I have ever seen at a race.

Some people rode custom made decks for the course, others modified their wheelbases, some modified their truck geometries to make their decks more turny, but it seemed that people came prepared to race.

Prepared to race.

PREPARED to race.

As opposed to being UNPREPARED to race.

There is something to be said for a race format where people show up....unprepared to race. You get there- you expect anything within a range of hill pitch, speed, and types of courses you test- scramble, retest, rescramble- conference with your team (should you have one), fumble with wrenches- try to borrow stuff, and sometimes end up running a set up that is inappropriate for the course and go home disappointed at your performance when it could have been better if you had been on a more appropriate set up. Sometimes you nail the set up- and go home happy- other times you overcome your set up by compensating and hope that your skill gap is enough to carry you to victory.

In MB 2001- I happened to bring my downhill board with me- it had Hyper Super Mundo 72.5 mm wheels on it. I was expecting a tight slalom course at MB 2001- instead we got a wide open coaster. I stripped my downhill wheels off my deck to run them in the slalom. Had I not run those wheels I don't think I would have qualified as well as I did. Knowing what the course would have been like in advance would have let me test other gear - same for other racers who expected something else. If Henry had known the road topography and the width of the finish arches in advance we could have had courses closer to being identical.

I can't see where a pre-published race course would be a bad thing compared to the alternatives.

[Wesley Tucker]

By the way, John, while we're at it:

You have a long, straight linoleum-floored hallway at MIT. Minimum obstacles and NO flaws in the surface.

Where's your course design? I think everyone coming to M.I.T. should have an excellent idea of what you're going to lay down.

Hmmmmm? :razz:

P.S. Some of Parsons' courses are available in the GATES forum. Maybe you could pick one, announce it to the Boston crowd and lay it down in the hallway?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wesley Tucker on 2003-02-17 21:25 ]</font>

[John Gilmour]

I think we'll do the folly beach course...it worked for me once.

Well seeing as we have no idea as to the area we may get kicked off of- who knows.

[Wesley Tucker]

Excellent choice! Of course, there's a licensing fee for that.

My attorneys will be in touch.

[Brady Mitchell]

I also like the idea of a prepublished slalom course. As far as I know, Wesley may be the first to do this.

As for the FB course at the bus depot, I would correct you John as there were complaints on it`s design. It was too tight for a longboard race. When I say longboard, I don`t mean a 36" deck with a 17" wheelbase. My deck for that race was 37" with a 30" wheelbase....and not proper gear for that course. But to give Wesley credit for that course, it was clearly stated beforehand that there would be no set wheelbase dimensions and those that took advantage of the rules were able to work the course.

Wesley, I`ve let it go and hopefully you have too. In retrospect, all I had to do was redrill my board with a tight wheelbase and I probably would`ve had fun.

Hopefully lessons were learned.

[Andy Bittner]

For whatever it's worth, I really dislike the notion of pre-publishing racing courses. It's one thing to pre-publish the nature of the race (TS, Slalom, GS, etc.) but, otherwise, show up and race. Wesley used the word, "practical", to describe the idea of pre-publishing courses. C'mon?!! Practical? Let's see... in order for us to make things practical and preferable for Wesley, someone has to go out weeks or months in advance and spend the many long hours or even days that it'd take to create a detailed topographical and obstacle map of BOTH lanes of a dual racing set-up that's somewhere around 600' long. Let's use Morro Bay as an example, and not even consider that I'm on the east coast. Let's consider pre-publishing a Morro Bay course, even for a local. In Morro Bay, on Main St., the issue is not traffic. It is illegal to skate Main Street, Morro Bay at all times other than the race. So there's no riding and imagining a course, even in the middle of the night with no traffic. Then, realistically, just how long do you think an unpaid person is going to want to spend crawling up and down Main Street, Morro Bay with a tape measure, creating a grid of every stripe, STOP letter, ridge, groove, utility cover, etc.? ...and all for what?? SO, people like Wesley can, "love to know what I might be driving 500 miles to experience." Wesley... you CAN'T know what you'll be driving 500 miles to experience from a course diagram. Drive 500 miles for a race, not a course.

What real benefit is there to knowing such specifics in advance anyway? If Wesley Tucker or anyone else thinks they can judge the quality of a course, on a hill they've never seen, on pavement they've never ridden, to the extent that they could tell the difference between a subtly poor course and a spectacular one, I'm saying they're full of it. What's would be the point anyway? Are people suggesting that they would make a decision to attend or not attend a race, based on a pre-published course diagram? Obviously, if the course were absolutely absurd, it'd show up on paper, but subtleties won't. Besides, the way I see it, anyone who'd pick and choose their races based on specific course design is a poseur anyway, not a racer.

Furthermore, if there's anyone out there who believes that they actually benefit from taking a pre-published race course, setting it up on some other venue, and "practicing" specifically for an upcoming race; I'm telling you that you're sadly mistaken. The more likely scenario is that people who take a pre-published course and attempt to "practice" it for a specific race, will only screw themselves up by "dialing-in" on a course that is different from the actual race course.

So, pre-publishing a course takes hours and hours of serious work, won't provide any reliable GO or DON'T GO data and won't provide any valuable, course-specific training information. What is practical about that? That's not practical. Pre-publishing courses really only serves the weaker minds that seem to get some kind of ethereal, security blanket-type of reassurance that they'll be able to attend a race and not upset their own delusions of being "cool", by not being able to complete a course. That's not practical. That's weak.

Now, here's another personal point... another of the reasons I am so against pre-publishing courses is that they start to get used over and over again. WEAK! Gilmour has a new, never used venue in Boston, and he's going to set up a course that was already contested elsewhere? What's the point? Was the Folly Beach course SO unbelievably spectacular that we should just give up creativity and replace it with repetitive boredom, or is this just an easy solution for a lazy race organizer? Let's face it... most of the people who want courses in advance are most concerned about being able to show up and not make a fool of themselves. Unlike real racers, who show up at races and race on what's set in front of them, these pre-published course advocates mostly seem like people who are so unconfident that they feel they need extra time, in advance, to make sure thay can even complete "the" course, so they don't show up and look like the Johnny-come-lately, "I used to be REALLY good," poseurs that they actually are.

FYI, JG, I will NEVER travel to race on a course that is simply a re-set of the "same" course from another race, and I, as a non-drinker, will also never attend a race where 25% of my entry fee is going to go toward plying the drinkers in the bunch with alcohol. I, for one, think that those are two, really bad ideas. Count me out.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Andy Bittner on 2003-02-18 08:33 ]</font>

[Pat Chewning]

I agree with Andy's point about NOT using pre-published courses for races. This will stagnate slalom. Pre-determined courses are great for teaching new racers what to practice, and for things like the Cyber Slalom.

But a course setter should have artistic license to try different things on a hill -- to get the most synergistic combination of gates and hill.

Besides, pre-determined race setups will be boring after awhile.

Contrast this to slalom ski race course setting:

1) Guidelines are published for gate spacing, # of gates, etc. However, the actual course setting is up to the race officials.

2) Racers are PROHIBITED from practicing on the course. They may inspect the course an hour before the race, but they cannot ski through it at speed.

3) Racers are PROHIBITED from shadowing the course -- i.e. skiing next to it at speed.

4) Forerunners are sent down the course to make sure it is "makeable" and safe.

5) The two-run slalom race has a re-set of the course between the 1st run and the 2nd. That means that you can only apply a bit of what you learned from the 1st run to your 2nd run.

-- So the race has an element of knowing the right lines to take, and where to be braking -- without the benefit of running the course beforehand.

So I think the current slalom skateboard practice is a good compromise between pre-publishing the exact course, and running an unpublished course without the benefit of practice runs.

-- Pat Chewning

[John Gilmour]

In skiing/snowboarding the course wears out. Also often the cycle times Ie time to go down and come back up again are too long to let people practice on a pro level course. With skaters the courses are often short- under 15- 30 seconds and it is ussually easy to cycle the racers through several times.

I am suggesting that the course that is to be set be made available if possible. It was nice at Folly Beach- and as Brady
said the course was tight for longboards- but we all knew what it was going to be and you can see that people started to dial in their gear beforehand as would be expected. If a racer did not set to pre-published course and showed up unprepared that is the racer's choice.


I am not suggesting that we just run say.... 256 premade courses. I think each course should be unique (except cyber slalom and parallel slalom).

Andy- I'm kidding. We have no idea as to the available terrain. And we don't have enough people to do it anyhow- the snow has just been wayyyyy tooo much. I doubt that we could fit Wesley's course in the corridor's even if we wanted to.

[Wesley Tucker]

Pat,

I would only say one thing to your snow ski slalom comparison. From what I understand of the sport, there is a FINITE number of ski slopes that host a competitive race. As such, the racers involved in the sport are intimately familiar with the hill, the slope, the jumps, twist, turns , etc. Putting the gates in place is pretty much just a formality when compared to how well the slalom road show knows these hills.

Such is not the case with skateboard slalom. Also, such may never be the case. Unlike ski slopes there are literally thousands if not tens of thousands of possible locations to have a race around the world. I will admit there are locations that are becoming more and more familiar as time goes by (Main Street Morro Bay, La Costa, the Gaithersburg Park and Ride, the JPL hill, etc.,) There is also, though, just as many races where no one except the promoter has any idea what's going on. Such is the case with me and a few others in April. I know I'm planning to head to Jackson, Mississippi for Ricky Byrd's race. All I can do is trust Ricky to lay down a good course on a decent hill. I'm hoping my 700 mile drive won't be a bust (I know Ricky: I'm sure it'll be a competitive and fun event.) The situation, though, remains the same: going a long way to an unknown hill with no clue what to expect.

I doubt a World Cup skier going to Innsbruck or Vail is in the same shoes. He not only knows about the hill, he probably has a different coach who's an expert on each race course!

Maybe someday we'll be that intense and focused, but I don't think it's going to happen in the next couple of years.

[Andy Bittner]

Wesley, You said, "I know Ricky: I'm sure it'll be a competitive and fun event.", and then you said, "The situation, though, remains the same: going a long way to an unknown hill with no clue what to expect." It sure sounds a lot like you DO have a clue what to expect. Considering you don't know the hill or the venue, what more would you get from a course map? Is whatever you're going to get additionally from a course map worth someone spending as many or more hours detailing the road, as you'd spend driving to the race? You'd be able to certify that the course isn't going to be absurd, but you know Ricky, right? Ricky's not going to set a course that's absurd.

So, again, I'm just failing to see what tremendous benefit you're expecting, that could possibly warrant all the extra effort that's being implied to get it.

The most obvious reason that ski racers don't get to pre-race courses is the course deterioration that happens with every run. Obviously that's not a consideration in skateboarding slalom. What Pat seems to be trying to explain is something that I've long since given up trying to have most slalom skaters understand. Because of the dynamic in ski racing that prevents on-course practice, there absolutely IS a whole additional mental dynamic to the game that makes it, at least mentally, an even more exciting sport than ours. I've been making this observation for years, but most of the current crop of slalom skaters seem more intereseted in making the sport less challenging. That'd only increase the risk of appearing less good than absolutely possible.

[Wesley Tucker]

Andy,

You seem to be missing the point of this whole sport: Whether the course is good or not really doesn't matter. I'm going to Jackson and spend the weekend hanging out with a bunch of good old boys and have a good time.

It's all about having fun. For me, laying out a course, diagramming and making it available for comment, praise and criticism is fun. Seeing other people's designs, commenting, praising and criticizing them is fun.

Believe it or not, Andy, none of this is important. For me it's just a matter of having fun. Diagramming a course is fun. I would like for others to also see the fun in seeing a course long before the race.

In all truthfulness, though, there's really only one way this will ever be settled: two races will be scheduled on the same day. One will have a clearly defined, layed out diagram of the course and street. The other will be promoted the way Andy prefers.

When that happens, where the racers go and pay their money to participate will pretty much settle the issue.

[Andy Bittner]

Wesley, I believe you are stating that the "point" of the sport is fun, and I couldn't agree more. However, my personal idea of fun does not include graph-detailing 15,000-18,000 sq. ft. of pavement contours. If your idea of fun does include this exercise, more power to you, but that doesn't make it universally true for everyone.

You say, "For me, laying out a course, diagramming and making it available for comment, praise and criticism is fun. Seeing other people's designs, commenting, praising and criticizing them is fun." I have no doubts. Social recognition seems to be a huge part of what this slalom re-birth is about for many of us aging mid-lifers. As for "comment, praise and criticism", I feel it's all nothing but social and mental masturbation anyway, because I know that I don't have enough data or genius to tell what a course drawn on a piece of paper is going to be like when it hits pavement, regardless of how much detail you give me about the pavement. That'd be like trying to judge a painting by a pile of paint chips and a thorough description of the canvas.

Furthermore, just so you know how your "fun" affects my "fun"... Pre-publishing courses (either seeing them or knowing they're available to my competitors) takes a considerable amount of what I consider to be the "fun" of slalom skateboard racing right out of the sport. It was absolutely one of the factors that contributed to last year's Folly Beach race being personally unimportant to me. If "the point" is fun, you managed to kill enough of that point for me by pre-publishing a course that it contributed to my less than eager, and eventually abandoned, efforts to be there. Not that anyone really cares whether I was there or not, but it is absolutely a case of one skater voting with his time, money and presence.

So, I haven't missed "the point", at all. It could probably be argued that I get "the point" as much or more than anyone, because over the past twenty years of regularly, routinely skating slalom, I never had much company EXCEPT "the point". Honestly, WT, your view seems to me to be much more about other people, socialization, and being recognized. Frankly, I get the impression that if the whole slalom skateboard re-birth just evaporated and there was nobody to watch your really neato parallel stance and confirm that you, too, are neato because you can do it, you'd probably (mostly) hang up your boards, and go back to whatever else it was that you've been doing with yourself over the past twenty years.

Ultimately though, you are absolutely right. This conversation is just that, a conversation. Time and the slalom skateboarding population will eventually decide what's reasonable or practical to expect from an event organizer. If pre-publishing courses is what you consider to be good promotion for an event, and you feel it really adds enough to the whole experience to warrant some guy detailing all of that pavement, knock yourself out. For me, the whole concept is a bummer, and severely detracts from "the point". I see it as an argument for the "dumbing down" of a simple sport, for no logical reason other than ego exercise, through massive over-complication. I very sincerely hope it never catches on.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Andy Bittner on 2003-02-19 20:28 ]</font>

[Claude Regnier]

Well this has certainally gotten very interesting :lol: . You all have your own opinions and this is the place to make en, that's for sure.

I think the most important element as per "course details" is wether you can show up and and expect to race a TS -GS-SGS- Hybrid- Special Slalom- Longboard - Banked Slalom- Da Bear.

The grade of road and conditions are also important factors that should be posted in advance. Other then that I don't need too know it. The bottom line is the locals are going to have and advantage one way or another.

If you got all the necssary information do you think you would be able to find a place to duplicate the course ? Do you think that if you just keep practicing the way you do it would really make a difference ? Some peolpe could most people couldn't. Want to talk further disadvantage for some. I really don't think it matters whether or not my 5th or 10 cone is offset the the left or right s per the course desing, it's more important that it be in practice regimen.

Posting course Ideas and thoughts are great to try and grow the sport and help the newbies to learn properly but being prepared to race comes down to experience, training properly, equipment and a little bit of help goes a long way.

[Mike Ohm]

Oh Claude, as long as I have known Kenny, he has never been a local at La Fuerte Rd.

Skill and confidence got the win that day. And of course a little coaching. HeHe.

[Terry Kirby]

Mike Ohms in the house.

[Claude Regnier]

Yes Ohm, sometimes there are exeptions to the rule. Most of the races are run on venues that are not even ridden regularly.

Kenny skated great and deserved his win. No doubt. I was at the bottom with BP watching it all. It looked like he running away from everyone. It is not always the case.

There are variables in anything.

[Gary Fluitt]

All this discussion about setting courses got me working on a plan for Breckenridge. We're now going to do three days of racing. The Friday of the event I will have 6-8 hours to set the course before the racing begins. We'll set two courses in that time. One for Friday afternoon, and one for Saturday. I'm hoping that gives us enough time to get two quality courses marked in before racing begins.
The course is on a big left hand sweeping turn. The pavement is excellent, the road is wide, and the venue is awesome. But the course will be set on a big curve. Anybody done that before? I know Jack set a course like that in Morro Bay on Kennedy way, but that was a pretty slight turn. This turn is a big mongo left with a 6% grade (guessing).
Planning to set the "inside" lane, then starting from the bottom cone, duplicate the inside lane into the outside lane. This "should" produce close to identical courses, but what I expect will happen is that the outside lane will start downhill of the inside lane, sort of like a runners track. The outside lane, having a slightly longer radius ought to start lower. Planning on using the Gary Cross handyman technique of triangulating off the "set course" to mark out the duplicate lane. The curve just makes it a hell of a lot harder in my head. Thoughts? Suggestions?
Here's a picture of the road.
<img src="http://www.asphaltplayground.com/images ... middle.jpg">
I should mention that on Sunday June 8 we'll be back downtown for the TS one street north of where we were in 2002. The new street, Washington, has a longer middle section which will lend itself to a tight 25 cone middle course. I'm expecting a 45-50 gate course on Sunday.
G

[George Gould]

Gary, I can't thank you enough for all the work you are doing. this definately lets people know where they stand and when to make reservations, what equipment to show up with, etc. so far you have publicized more than any race in 03. good luck. when ever you post for race deposits i'm there. G

[Andy Bittner]

Gary, It's clear that running a dual course on a curve isn't really head-to-head racing because the courses are necessarily different. It's my personal feeling, when you have a good venue with a good curving road, I'd rather see the whole hill and curve utilized to make an exciting single-lane course. There's no doubt that dual can be visually exciting, but I don't think that it can or should be forced into every good slalom venue. The problem is, if the curve is significant at all, you're not going to get people running visually side-by-side anyway. Therefore, my vote for an otherwise excellent venue with a curving road, is single lane timed racing.

[Claude Regnier]

The Venue looks great Gary and I hope your feeling better. I'm not sure where you plan on making the start from the photo bit I tend to agree with Andy about the particlar venue being used as a single lane event.

I doubt I will be there unfortunately. Most of my practicing has been on curved bike paths. Cone placement in the curved area will need to be carefully done. The curving road and the set (offset)course could lead to some extra chances of wheels sliding out.

It would be very interesting to see it. It's a great idea.

[Wesley Tucker]

Gary,

If I recall correctly, there's only three ways to hold a dual-course race around a curve as you show at Breckenridge:

1. Stagger the start line. Just as in track when the guy in the inside lane starts the farthest back, so would you have to compensate on a hill with a curve. This is the most effective means of assuring an equal race, but unfortunately it really screws things up for spectators. Who wants to see a race where one guy already has what appears to be an insurmountable lead? Plus, I guarantee you that no matter how many times you explain why the starts are staggered, someone will decide the guy in front has an advantage.

2. Have the courses with parallel start and finish lines, but the INSIDE LANE has wider offsets. This compensates for the shorter point to point distance by making the skater with the inside advantage having to go farther and thus equalizing the distance travelled between the inside and outside lanes. The real problem for this is the skaters. In essence it demands that a skater come to a race and learn TWO different race courses. Do you use one board for the inside lane and different one for the outside? Is it really equal or is there a psychological advantage for the guy who can bomb the course in the outside lane while the inside guy is weaving and picking his way through really staggered offsets? Also, this kind of course HAS TO BE diagrammed and programmed prior to race day. There's really no way to measure that a course with fifty one cones spaced at 8 feet on one lane is 400 feet, but the other course that's really 360 feet on the street is also 400 feet by adding 40 feet with offsets. A little geometry makes it easy to calculate, but who's got time to do that on a Saturday morning with the crowd showing up? That has to be done at home before you ever get to the hill.

3. Have ths skaters CROSS OVER from inside to outside and vice versa. This makes for some very exciting and daredevil racing. It's also dangerous as hell because in all honesty the racer IN SECOND PLACE almost always has to back off to avoid colliding with the racer in the lead. And what racer in his right mind will back off and assure his competition a win? In theory this works great, in practice it's a death trap. Also, the same is true with the pre-diagrammed race course. When to cross over, how many cones before and after the criss-cross to equal the distance all have to be calculated before hitting the street. (Unless you have a LOT of time to do it on race day.)

These are pretty much the three ways to offer a race around a curve as you're showing in Colorado. All have certain exciting aspects, but all three also provide some very deterimental negatives that might make them unworkable. No. 1 is ok but can be misleading, No. 2 makes for unfair racing in each lane and No. 3 is usually horrific.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wesley Tucker on 2003-02-20 18:25 ]</font>

[Andy Bittner]

Wesley has done an excellent job of detailing the most mathematically-logical solutions to setting a dual race on a curve. Thank you, Wes. To me, #2 is really the most logical solution, but who wants to calculate just how much additional offset is needed to compensate for how much curve, and attempt to extrapolate the radii on which these extended offsets should be made AND then try to practically implement the math on the hill? I ask this, because the alternative to doing it with mathematical correctness, guessing, is even more pointless than not trying to compensate at all.

Of course, all of this confirms that the logical solution is to run a single-lane race, and help broaden the scope of what is acceptable in top-level racing at the same time. Single-lane racing IS exciting. World Cup Skiing has been proving that for years.

[John Gilmour]

My favorite practice area in Boston is the Arnold Arboretum- a large spiral hill.

I have no problems with setting courses on curves (My favorite type of courses to set) -however, I too would advise against Dual racing on such a course...I also strongly advocate the use of hills that have features which make racing more exciting...like curves, bends, dips, twists, banks etc. for exciting single track racing- to add excitement split times should be announced to the spectators.

Dual racing almost demands a straight hill- which ultimately gets old.

A curved hill- is fun for spectators too- as they move around the hill- they seem to be watch different racing styles for each section.

In regards to the pre-published courses, I can understand Andy's dislike of a pre-published course- and to Andy's side I add that a non practicible race course has some advantages that I have not posted here.

1. No practice time means more time for racing and more courses that can be set.

2. Less homefield advantage....unless the home team has already been running the course.....

3. Everyone talks about the course afterwards.

The main thing that made me interested in the pre-published course thing is....the amount of new faces at Folly Beach. I think at some point pre-published courses might go away....but for the growth of the sport and getting more participants to come out and race for the first time I think it is a good thing.

And for the Pro's that think they might lose an advantage by pre-publishing (IE...I know what type of course Don O. or GBJ, or JG, or TK sets so I have an advantage over the newbies) more Newbies means more entrys- means bigger prizes. And should a newbie win it......it will only mkae our sport stronger.

[Gary Fluitt]

Thanks for all your thoughts and suggestions. Wes you put some thought into your post and I appreciate that. GBJ, you've got the experience and I trust your judgement, but on this one I have to disagree. I believe a dual GS on a big curve is totally doable and it's going to be a real blast to both watch, and compete in.

1. There will be a single lane event in Breck on "the Beaver Run curve". That happens Friday afternoon. Should be a lot of fun. We'll use every inch of asphalt. Course will break the Fall line the whole way and will use both lanes.

Let me take this opportunity to spew about course design for a minute. There are a few So Cal guys who hate the kind of racing described above cause it makes you put on the brakes dance around some cones and then pump like hell to get your speed up again. It's called SLALOM. I don't like initial gates that make you scrub speed, but I DO like courses that make you think, strategize, lay off the accelerator, brake, and then punch it. That's what GS is all about. I like courses fast but I don't like courses that take zero turning skill. That would fit the "Fast & Open" description. Believe me, I love speed. I won some downhill comps in the 80s and have video doing 53 mph in 1981. That doesn't take slalom skill. It just takes balls.
Slalom is about turning, braking, accelerating. Can I hear an AMEN! I want to see Brad Edwards on Friday June 6th tearing that hill up. But I digress. About curves...

2. I don't think running dual on a curve is misguided. I think it will be really interesting for racers to strategize how to race a staggered course. We all know how shattering it can be when your opponent gets a great start and you're already a cone behind in the 2nd gate. Any of you that have faced Chicken in a head-to-head know the feeling. It "can" freak you out. You gotta keep your head and real him in, AND stay clean doing it. Henry was a master at baiting guys, leading them into a stinger way too fast, and then letting them just slaughter the tight gates. That's genious race strategy if you can pull it off.
So this staggered start will require the inside lane racer to have some mental discipline, to be patient, and to know how much he/she can push it.
<img src="http://www.asphaltplayground.com/beav_render.jpg" align=center hspace=10 vspace=10>

3. I will use the staggered lane method Wes mentioned to make the lanes as fair and equal as possible. We'll run the lanes a bunch of times with a timer to get them as clsoe as possible. Wes brought up the point that the crowd may not understand it. "Why is the guy in the white lane always ahead of the guy in the red lane until the end"? I think you're not giving spectators enough credit. They've seen this sort of thing in all sorts of events from track and field to motor sports. They get it. And we'll explain the hell out of it. Besides, if all goes well, they will reach the finish line at the same time anyway.
GBJ I need your help setting this one. I've got a room for you in the hotel above.
G

[Glenn S]

Should they not be even after the last turn, since it looks as if the last stretch is straight? I say go with the staggered start.
Might give the guys that may "feel" as if they are behind on the inside lane incentive to try harder.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Glenn on 2003-02-21 17:26 ]</font>

[Wesley Tucker]

Gary,

I might be preaching to the choir here, but taking the route you've chosen for a dual circular course is easy to layout . . . almost.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, go to Home Depot (or likewise) and go to the hardware department. For $19.95, you can buy walking distance meter that is similar to what is used by surveyors. I'm sure you know what I mean: big wheel that measures 12" in circumference with a little meter attached. Walk along carefully and you'll get an exact measurement of the course length.

At 3:00 in the morning with no traffic, get out in the middle of the inside lane and go uphill from your finish line. When you reach your start line, mark it with chalk. Go back to the bottom of the hill, get in the outside lane and walk the same distance measured on the inside lane. When you reach that point in the outside lane, mark it with chalk. Although the difference may only be a few feet, it's enough to make a difference with your start lines.

The real problem with a course like this is YOU CANNOT MIRROR the course lane to lane. What you have to do is set the course in one lane, usually the inside lane, then go back, measure down from your start line the correct distance and space the cones identically to the first course. Again, use the walking meter. Also, have a tape measure. With one person in the original lane, a second person is setting the cones in the second lane. Theoretically, the second person will be farther down the hill in the outside lane dropping cones. Ideally, BOTH COURSE SETTERS WILL HAVE A MEASURE METER. As one guy is mearuring the first coure, he can call out distances to the second guy. Also, the first guy will then use the tape to measure the offset distance off the centerline.

"G0 8 feet, offset the cone 18" to the left!"
"Go 8 feet, no offset"
"Go 12 feet, offset the cone 20" to the left"
"Go 12 feet, offset the cone 20" to the right"

And so on.

Oh, as far as finding the centerline in both lanes? You're kind of on your own. About the only advice I can give is hope the road has lane stripes? If so, you can find the center line for the dual track by measuring from the stripe to the gutter and divide by two. If there is no lane stripe, then measure gutter to gutter, divide by four and place your course on the first and third quarter mark. Finding that around a curve equally? All I can say is good luck! Prince Henry would probably shiver at trying to navigate that one!

[Michael Dong]

One thing I really like about this dual-on-a-curve thing is that we get to ride two different courses in one race.

Will oxygen be supplied this year or will we have the hooters girls in golf karts for the return trip up the hill?

[Claude Regnier]

Mike great thought on two different courses.

One the point of racing two different courses and also making the event fair and equal. Taking into account distance traveled and measuring both lanes and all that as well.

Would it be simpler if the curves in the course were the only section set differently. Account for all the distance travelled (inside lanes travels 50' outside lane travel 60') the only difference is that you move the outside lanes cones in to shorten the line. Pick a spot before and after the curve and measure each lane.


The inside lane would be a little slower and the outside lane a little faster. Don't know reading all these thoughts and opinions let to this.

Enjoy, Many Happy Pumps,EH!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Claude Regnier on 2003-02-21 21:20 ]</font>

[Brady Mitchell]

I like the idea of the single lane course on the curve. It`s a venue we need to explore. And it will also negate the bickering.

And there`s also the dual course that runs on on the following day.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Brady Mitchell on 2003-02-21 23:28 ]</font>

[Michael Dong]

Ok, think speed skating (ice on big oval tracks). They have a very long crossover area where the skaters switch from inside lane to outside lane.

Imagine a non-staggered start, inside lane takes off and puts a fair bit of distance between him/herself and the racer in the outside lane. The crossover occurs about mid course and the inside lane racer should cross over much sooner than the outside lane racer making for little chance of crashing into each other. The crossover can be made quite long like the speedskaters making the possibility of a collision highly unlikely.

Now imagine the outside lane racer crossing over to the inside lane and hauling ass reeling the other racer in at the finish.

No bickering since you race twice, once in each start lane. Combine the times and lowest time advances.

Would be great for the spectators (including the other racers).

[Dan Hughes]

Gary, this will be on Saturday? Yet, you said something about Friday, what's the venue on that, and are you setting that up also?

This looks great, now I'm going to have to save up my pennys. (and bring an oxygen container)

[Brady Mitchell]

For those that are trying to make comparisons to other sports that go around an oval and sometimes have a cross-over point, keep in mind they are basically going through a straight course. Uh, I meam, no offset gates to manuever through.

Even if you measure each course to the same measurement, they are going to be two totally differant courses.

Try this, set 2 courses on a straight hill but make then totally differant. You can even measure cone to cone, or more precise, the curvature around the cones and set both courses the same length. Now run a timer through both and you`ll see differant times.

So if this was used as a dual race, the racers are not racing each other but the clock. AND ONLY IF, each race was switched to allow racers to ride each course.

I think this was standard with the FCR races but those were on similar courses.

There will always be a faster course, that`s a given. But head to head shouldn`t be so differant.

Anyhoos, it would be interesting to see how it works out.