No More Six-Wheelers At ISSA-Sanctioned Slalom Races

Discussion Forum
Wesley Tucker
1961-2013 (RIP)
1961-2013 (RIP)
Posts: 3279
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am

No More Six-Wheelers At ISSA-Sanctioned Slalom Races

Post by Wesley Tucker » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:56 am

Well, here's what a few (maybe many) have been waiting to see.

The ISSA just completed voting on a complete revision of the ISSA Rulebook for ISSA Santioned Races. It's important to remember these rules are for ISSA sanctioned events. If a race promoter wants to be sanctioned then the race adheres to these rules. If a race promoter wants to do his own thing, that's fine. The race just will not get a sanction.

So, here's a few choice vote results from the ISSA membership.

First of all, ISSA races will have skateboards with four wheels. The exact measure and the results are as follows:

*****************************
Should there be a rule restricting the total number of wheels allowed?
(A) Yes, exactly four wheels
50% [ 29 ]
(B) Yes, no more than six
3% [ 2 ]
(C) No, unlimited
45% [ 26 ]

Total Votes : 57
*****************************

Some folks raised an issue about why the options for more than four wheels were split but the restriction was only one choice. Trust me, if the vote for options (B) and (C) equalled more than (A), there would have been questions. BUT, the restriction on four wheels was a clear majority (well, by one vote) over either (B) or (C), so the will of the majority is clear.

Another interesting vote was there were concerns raised about wheels at races produced in limited numbers and not sold on the open market. Yes, we're talking about MoMos. Well, MoMos and any other short-run limited production wheels a manufacturer (or Zak Maytum) wants to bring to a race is . . . fine with us. The question was if there should be a rule REQUIRING wheels to be commercially available and the members voted NO.

*****************************
Should there be a rule requiring wheels to be commercially available?
(A) YES
28% [ 14 ]
(B) NO
71% [ 35 ]

Total Votes : 49
*****************************

There are no problems with racers attaching foot stops to their boards. (Yes, there were people who raised this as an issue to address in the rules.)

*****************************
Should “Foot stops or other devices to limit the lateral movement of the feet on the deck.” be expressly listed as “Allowed” in the rules?
(A) YES
85% [ 40 ]
(B) NO, this rule is not needed
14% [ 7 ]

Total Votes : 47
*****************************

Here's an interesting one. The members decided ISSA-sanctioned races must have ISSA-approved timing systems.

*****************************
What shall be the rule for timing systems allowed/prohibited?
A) No rule is needed.
24% [ 11 ]
B) Timing systems on the ISSA-approved list shall be used.
48% [ 22 ]
C) Timing systems on the ISSA-prohibited list shall not be used.
26% [ 12 ]

Total Votes : 45
*****************************

How will this be done? I have no clue. I can guarantee you one thing, though: TrakMate will be an approved system. Probably Chronocone, Equine, ALGE, BTS timer, R U Readyand the EttSexEtt timer will "probably" be approved. I guess the purpose of this rule is to make sure no one goes to a Prime or a Main and finds out the organizer brought a stop watch and a spiral notebook for a timing system.

Anyway, those are a few of the 39 items decided these past two weeks. There are also now new specifications for tight, hybrid and GS racing (I'll bet a lot of people didn't know there were old specs, huh?) and also things like whether or not there will be four or five tones to start a race.

Oh, here's one you can sink your teeth into. The membership voted to restrict wheels to FOUR. BUT, they also voted to have UNLIMITED TRUCKS on a board.

*****************************
Choose a rule for “Trucks.”
(A) TRUCKS: Exactly two trucks are required. Steering mechanisms activated by means other than lean-to-steer are prohibited.
48% [ 24 ]
(B) TRUCKS: No restrictions on number. The trucks must be lean steer activated.
51% [ 25 ]

Total Votes : 49
*****************************

Go figure.

One last thing. The members also voted to update and revise the rules ANNUALLY. So anything here or any other rule can be changed next year IF it gets 50% plus one of the vote of the membership.

Y'all be cool.
Image

Eric Brammer
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 4:48 am

WRONG MOVE

Post by Eric Brammer » Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:33 am

Well, as someone who has ridden various 6-wheeled boards for over 28 years, I gotta say this sucks squirrell intestines!

Lonnie Toft gave us 8-wheeled, um, Roller-glued-together-skates, I guess? They were considered by even Tom Sims himself to be 'Skateboards', and marketed and sold as such. Travisty. that, or at at least politically aghast hearsay....

I'm done. Bye. 39 years of skating: well, I'll still skate, but you who have very obstinate, and historically inconsiderate attitudes towards just 'what' constitutes a 'skateboard' can KEEP IT.

Good luck, especially going FASTER.

BYE! :-(
"Surfin' these Old Hills since back in The Day"

Steve Collins
Harbor Skateboard Racing
Harbor Skateboard Racing
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Los Angeles

Post by Steve Collins » Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:46 am

All the 6-wheel restriction does is undermine the legitimacy of ISSA sanctioning.

Jim Weatherwax
WAX
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 1:20 am
Location: Northern ColoRado

6 wheels

Post by Jim Weatherwax » Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:19 pm

Guys..cant this end now, the voting is over

The voting is done...Maybe you should have voted more often!!!
progress wont stop, energy can now bw focused on making the best components to make a 4 wheel, unlimited (probably no more than 4) trucked skateboard with toe stops and prototype parts.
The members have voted, sorry it didnt go your way, but as someone who has been heavily involved in putting on the US Nationals for the last 3 years, its nice to finally have some clarifacation.

Zack Levitt
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:57 am
Location: Houston Texas
Contact:

Re: 6 wheels

Post by Zack Levitt » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:09 pm

Jim Weatherwax wrote:Guys..cant this end now, the voting is over

The voting is done...Maybe you should have voted more often!!!
progress wont stop, energy can now bw focused on making the best components to make a 4 wheel, unlimited (probably no more than 4) trucked skateboard with toe stops and prototype parts.
The members have voted, sorry it didnt go your way, but as someone who has been heavily involved in putting on the US Nationals for the last 3 years, its nice to finally have some clarifacation.
Well, I have been on this site everyday for the past few weeks, and had ZERO idea that there was a vote going on. So apparently I am blind, otherwise I would have voted, in favor of unlimted wheels btw.

Wesley Tucker
1961-2013 (RIP)
1961-2013 (RIP)
Posts: 3279
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am

Post by Wesley Tucker » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:18 pm

Zack,

Do you not get my e-mails? They don't get returned as undeliverable.
Do you not have access to the ISSA-only forums?
Do you not have access to the ISSA Members voting forums?
Have you not received around 10 e-mails from me?
Have you not read my posts on Silverfish in the ISSA WANTS YOU topic?
Have you not read my posts in the public viewing areas on this forum about the vote?

I don't know what the Internet is like in Houston but I have to ask why have you not said anything before NOW if you've been online at on this website everyday?

The permissions panel shows you have the same access as every other ISSA member
The usergroup subscriptions show you are registered in the ISSA group.

Explain to us HOW you were completely uninformed as to first the month-long rules discussion process that went on in the open public ISSA RULES DISCUSSION forum and then about the two-week open voting period for ISSA members?
Image

Donald Campbell
Pavel
Pavel
Posts: 2036
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:49 pm
Location: germany
Contact:

Post by Donald Campbell » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:18 pm

it's hard to have zero idea of what's going on when you have the recent posts feature showing you what has been going on.

Erik Basil
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm
Contact:

Post by Erik Basil » Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:11 pm

I will say this: ISSA made the voting prominent on this site, and also with more than one thread in the Silverfish slalom forums and an annoying broadcast email(s) from this website's registration engine.

If people like Zack missed their opportunity to vote, I am bummed (regardless of how he may or may not have voted) because he clearly has a voice and an intent to participate. Others may be in the same boat. I don't know how many of them there are, nor whether any of the other "results margins" are as slim as that of the Six Wheeler Ban matter (one vote, if you count outside the spin zone). I think it's fairly and rightly the prerogative of the BOARD to determine what and if is to be done about this issue, and that we'd all be better off "going easy" on the matter while those folks have some time to think about it.

Some things I do know: some unlucky fella has to compile all the various rules or rulings into one book now. Somebody also has to come up with rules, criteria, standards and etc... for approval of timing systems. Take a second, click over to read the thread discussion that occurred before the voting, and then look at the results. The ongoing Six Wheeler Ban may be less of a distraction than you think .
I ride fast boards, slowly.

Donald Campbell
Pavel
Pavel
Posts: 2036
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:49 pm
Location: germany
Contact:

Post by Donald Campbell » Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:37 pm

Erik Basil wrote:I will say this: ISSA made the voting prominent on this site, and also with more than one thread in the Silverfish slalom forums and an annoying broadcast email(s) from this website's registration engine. .

wesley did a great job in keeping people informed,unfortunately zack did a great job in missing all the info.

there are not that many people who showed so much determination during the voting process and i would say that wesley was the driving force in getting votes in.
as we also all know the race scene is not so superbig.looking at the #s of votes given during the process it is very likely that the vast majority of racers ahs been reached.

people that go and say" i will quit now" should not make the mistake to boil down their career on a six wheeler.


furthermore i want to point out that this messageboard here is a messageboard for racers and people that are involved in the sport,so the results are more than credible,whereas sf is more known as a fanboy forum.nonetheless it is interesting,but the usergroup totally differs from this forum here.


so we all gotta stick with it,if people don't like it they can change it next year

Kevin Dunne
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:08 am
Location: Oceanside, Ca.
Contact:

Reguarding ISSA-Approved timers...

Post by Kevin Dunne » Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:06 pm

As far as I know, the Chronocone is the only timer that does not require a person to manually input a racer's time into the computer. Because of this, it is the only timing system that eliminates the human error (which is probably more common than any of us wants to believe). If the ISSA is going to restrict certain timing systems, and allow others, it should only allow systems that can transfer times directly to a computer. Before everyone starts crying that we can't all afford a Chronocone system take this into consideration: In every race that I attended last season (Texas, Hood River, Nationals, Worlds, La Costa) there were instances in which the person recording the times inadvertantly transposed numbers, mixed-up racer's times, or incorrectly added cone penalties. Keep in mind: I was only watching the timers for a few minutes at each of these races....there were undoubtedly more mistakes made throughout the course of the day. At least 2 of those mistakes that I witnessed, had they not been spotted, would have changed the podium on the most important race of the year. There is no way anyone can be expected to transfer 5 digit numbers, for several hours at a time, without making a few mistakes and so far, only the Chronocone can eliminate this problem...Try it at home: write down a series of 200+ 5 digit numbers, with decimal point, and then read them off and record them on a separate page, and see how many mistakes you make!

Pat Chewning
Pat C.
Pat C.
Posts: 1400
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Portland Oregon

Re: Reguarding ISSA-Approved timers...

Post by Pat Chewning » Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:13 am

Kevin Dunne wrote:Try it at home: write down a series of 200+ 5 digit numbers, with decimal point, and then read them off and record them on a separate page, and see how many mistakes you make!
Try it also with the sun glaring off the computer screen, racers interrupting you and asking questions, and after running back up the hill after taking a run. That makes it easier....

Pat Chewning
Pat C.
Pat C.
Posts: 1400
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Portland Oregon

Post by Pat Chewning » Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:50 am

Steve Collins wrote:All the 6-wheel restriction does is undermine the legitimacy of ISSA sanctioning.
I would have to disagree here, Steve. If the ISSA had developed this rule wihtout member input and voting, then the legitimacy could be called into question. The result was achieved with an open forum for suggestions on WHAT to vote on, HOW to word the vote, and open for all to voice their concerns one way or another.

If that is not legitimate, I don't know what is.

Pat Chewning
Pat C.
Pat C.
Posts: 1400
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Portland Oregon

Post by Pat Chewning » Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:14 am

Erik Basil wrote: I think it's fairly and rightly the prerogative of the BOARD to determine what and if is to be done about this issue, and that we'd all be better off "going easy" on the matter while those folks have some time to think about it.
Erik, I don't think there is an "issue" for the BOARD to make a determination on. There was no secret that voting was going on. We tried hard to get people to join the ISSA and participate.

Unless there is some outstanding evidence that people were unrighfully excluded from the vote -- I see no issue to address.

Wesley Tucker
1961-2013 (RIP)
1961-2013 (RIP)
Posts: 3279
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am

Post by Wesley Tucker » Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:22 am

I just got done e-mailing this to the ISSA members but wanted to also post it here.

These are the results of all 39 measures voted on by the ISSA membership.

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


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

For the Super Giant Slalom discipline (SGS), what should be the requirement for cone spacing?
A) Each cone spacing within a limit: 3.0m to 14m. Suggested: 5.0m to 10.0m 25% [ 11 ]
√ B) Each cone spacing within a limit: 3.0m to 20m. Suggested: 5.0m to 15.0m 74% [ 32 ]

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

What shall be the method of determining the overall winner in a contest with several events?
A) Lowest points wins method: 36% [ 17 ]
√ B) Highest points wins method: 63% [ 29 ]

Total Votes : 46

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

What should be required for ensuring that the course setting is fair, challenging, and contemporary?
A) A group of 3 people are assigned to set the course. (2 racers drawn from 2 nations, plus one person assigned by the race organizer.) 12% [ 6 ]
B) A group of 3 people are assigned to set the course. (2 racers from the top 10 racers at the event [ISSA points], plus one person assigned by the race organizer.)10% [ 5 ]
√ C) The race organizer is responsible for setting the course. The method used shall be clearly stated in the race sanction application. (Who will set the course, description of course, when will course be set, etc.) 70% [ 33 ]
D) ISSA will provide a course setter from an approved list of personnel. 6% [ 3 ]

Total Votes : 47

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

For the Giant Slalom discipline (GS), what should be the requirement for cone spacing?
√ A) Each cone spacing within a limit: 2.0m to 10m. Suggested: 3.0m to 5.0m 63% [ 26 ]
B) Average distance 3 to 15 cones per 30m (average spacing 2.0m to 10m) – 1st 30m of course. Average distance 3 to 10 cones per 30m (average spacing 3.0m to 10m) – remainder of course. Cone offset minimum: 10%. 36% [ 15 ]

Total Votes : 41

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

For the Slalom Hybrid discipline (SH), what should be the requirement for cone spacing?
√ A) Each cone spacing within a limit: 1.5m to 4.5m. Suggested: 2.0m to 3.0m 70% [ 31 ]
B) Average cone distance of 7 to 15 cones per 30m (average spacing 2.0m to 4.3m) 29% [ 13 ]

Total Votes : 44

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

For the Slalom Tight discipline (ST), what should be the requirement for cone spacing?
√ A) Each cone spacing within a limit: 1.4m to 3.0m. Suggested: 1.5m to 2.5m 65% [ 29 ]
B) Each cone spacing within a limit: 1.0m to 2.0m 20% [ 9 ]
C) Average cone distance of 15 to 20 cones per 30m (average spacing 1.5m to 2.0m) 13% [ 6 ]

Total Votes : 44

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

For the Slalom Parallel discipline (SP), what should be the requirement for cone spacing?
√ A) Each cone spacing within a limit: 1.0m to 3.0m. Suggested: 1.5m to 2.0m 73% [ 31 ]
B) Each cone spacing within a limit: 1.0m to 2.0m 16% [ 7 ]
C) Average cone distance of 15 to 20 cones per 30m (average spacing 1.5m to 2.0m) 9% [ 4 ]

Total Votes : 42

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

In the case where a racer asks for a re-run for something wrong on the course (obstacle, interference, cone-out, etc) -- what should be required of the racer?
√ A) The racer must immediately abandon the course and ask an official for a re-run. 61% [ 32 ]
B) The racer may finish the race, and then must notify officials and ask for a Re-Run within a reasonably practical period of time, as defined by the Race Director. (So that officials may review the grounds for a re-run before the race continues.) 38% [ 20 ]

Total Votes : 52

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

Should the following rule be added to the tie-breaking sequence of rules in the draft proposal? "Racers with equal final times shall be compared for cone count. The racer with the lower cone count shall be the winner of the tie-breaker."
√ A) YES 79% [ 38 ]
B) NO 20% [ 10 ]

Total Votes : 48

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

If racer A receives a 999 second DQ penalty in the 1st Head-to-Head run and racer B does not DQ, what should be the status of the 2nd run?
√ A) Racer A and Racer B proceed to take a 2nd run. 89% [ 44 ]
B) Racer B is declared the winner of the round. A 2nd run is not taken. 10% [ 5 ]
Total Votes : 49

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

What should the rule be for differentiation of the DQ penalty between PRO and AM racers in the head-to-head rounds? (When racer A DQ's and racer B does not)
√ A) No rule is needed to differentiate PRO/AM DQ penalties. 85% [ 40 ]
B) For AM racers: Racer A = Racer B +1.5 seconds 4% [ 2 ]
C) For AM racers: Racer A = Racer B + 1.0 seconds 2% [ 1 ]
D) For AM racers: Racer A = Racer B + 10% Racer B 8% [ 4 ]

Total Votes : 47

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

In the case of Head-to-Head racing, what shall be the DQ time penalty when racer A DQ's in the run and racer B does not DQ?
A) Racer A = 999 seconds. 10% [ 5 ]
√ B) Racer A = Racer B + 1.5 seconds 53% [ 25 ]
C) Racer A = Racer B + 1.0 seconds 10% [ 5 ]
D) Racer A = Racer B + 10% Racer B 25% [ 12 ]

Total Votes : 47

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

What shall be the rule for timing systems allowed/prohibited?
A) No rule is needed. 24% [ 11 ]
√ B) Timing systems on the ISSA-approved list shall be used. 48% [ 22 ]
C) Timing systems on the ISSA-prohibited list shall not be used. 26% [ 12 ]

Total Votes : 45

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

What is the upper limit for displacing cones before a DQ is given?
A) 10 cones. (11 is a DQ) 29% [ 14 ]
B) 100% of the cones on the course. 14% [ 7 ]
√ C) 20% of the total number of cones in the course. (20% + 1 cone is a DQ) 53% [ 25 ]
D) By the following formula: 20% of the # of cones, minus 1 cone for every 150 feet (50m) beyond the 1st 150 feet (50m). If this value is less than or equal to 0, then no cones are allowed (clean run or DQ). 2% [ 1 ]

Total Votes : 47

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

How shall the start be accomplished?
√ A) By a 4 second 4-tone count-down, the last tone being the START signal. 68% [ 32 ]
B) Racers are given a "Ready" signal, and some time later a START signal. 29% [ 14 ]
C) The start ramp is fitted with physical barrier gates. The racers may proceed when the gate opens. In the 2nd round of head-to-head competition, the gate for the leading racer opens earlier than the gate for the other racer (by an amount equal to the le 2% [ 1 ]

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

Total Votes : 47

How shall the early start be penalized?
√ A) By an amount 2X the early-start interval. 78% [ 37 ]
B) The racers are signaled. They stop, return to the start ramp and do a re-start. A 2nd early-start by the same racer shall result in a DQ for that racer. 17% [ 8 ]
C) No rule is needed. (No start penalty) 4% [ 2 ]

Total Votes : 47

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

Shall the cone specification be changed to include the following items?
√ A) YES 76% [ 32 ]
B) NO 23% [ 10 ]

Total Votes : 42

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

Should the following rule be included? TOE STOPS: “Toe stops are allowed. They must not wrap over, trap, or affix the rider’s foot to the deck in any way.”
√ (A) YES 75% [ 37 ]
(B) NO 24% [ 12 ]

Total Votes : 49

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

Choose a rule set regarding safety equipment:
(A) PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (described above) 47% [ 22 ] (This rule was everything required)
√ (B) REQUIRED PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (described above) 52% [ 24 ] (This rule was helmet and shoes with everything else optional.)

Total Votes : 46

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

Should “Bearings for the wheels.” be expressly listed as “Allowed” in the rules?
(A) YES 19% [ 9 ]
√ (B) NO, this rule is not needed 80% [ 38 ]

Total Votes : 47

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

Should “Additional protective equipment (knee pads, elbow pads, gloves, etc).” be expressly listed as “Allowed” in the rules?
(A) YES 48% [ 23 ]
√ (B) NO, this rule is not needed 51% [ 24 ]

Total Votes : 47

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

Should “Concave, kick-tail, camber, and other shape modifications to the flat deck.” be expressly listed as “Allowed” in the rules?
√ (A) YES 56% [ 28 ]
(B) NO, this rule is not needed 44% [ 22 ]

Total Votes : 50

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

Should “Foot stops or other devices to limit the lateral movement of the feet on the deck.” be expressly listed as “Allowed” in the rules?
√ (A) YES 85% [ 40 ]
(B) NO, this rule is not needed 14% [ 7 ]

Total Votes : 47

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

Should “Handles, seats, supports, or other equipment that provides an interface from the racer to the board other than the sole of the shoe.” be expressly listed as “Prohibited” in the rules?
√ (A) YES 64% [ 33 ]
(B) NO, this rule is not needed 35% [ 18 ]

Total Votes : 51

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

Should “Equipment that is consumed, discarded, or jettisoned during the race.” be expressly listed as “Prohibited” in the rules?
√ (A) YES 51% [ 24 ]
(B) NO, this rule is not needed 48% [ 23 ]

Total Votes : 47

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

Should “Mechanisms which alter the flex, camber, stiffness, steering devices or other characteristics of the equipment during the race.” be expressly listed as “Prohibited” in the rules?
(A) YES 30% [ 14 ]
√ (B) NO, this rule is not needed 69% [ 32 ]

Total Votes : 46

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

Should “Aerodynamic fairings, parachutes, sails, or other such devices.” be expressly listed as “Prohibited” in the rules?
√ (A) YES 60% [ 30 ]
(B) NO, this rule is not needed 40% [ 20 ]

Total Votes : 50

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

Should “Brakes, clutches or other devices providing torque to the wheels.” be expressly listed as “Prohibited” in the rules?
√ (A) YES 63% [ 31 ]
(B) NO, this rule is not needed 36% [ 18 ]

Total Votes : 49

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

Should “Propulsion devices or mechanisms.” be expressly listed as “Prohibited” in the rules?
√ (A) YES 85% [ 42 ]
(B) NO, this rule is not needed 14% [ 7 ]

Total Votes : 49

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

Should the following rule be included? BINDINGS: “Bindings, toe straps, or other devices attaching the shoes to the deck are prohibited”.
√ (A) YES 80% [ 40 ]
(B) NO 20% [ 10 ]

Total Votes : 50

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

Should there be a rule restricting the total number of wheels allowed?
√ (A) Yes, exactly four wheels 50% [ 29 ]
(B) Yes, no more than six 3% [ 2 ]
(C) No, unlimited 45% [ 26 ]

Total Votes : 57

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

Should there be a rule requiring wheels to be commercially available?
(A) YES 28% [ 14 ]
√ (B) NO 71% [ 35 ]

Total Votes : 49

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

Choose a rule for “Wheels”
(A) WHEELS: Wheels can be a maximum diameter of one hundred thirty millimeters (130mm / 5 1/8”). 32% [ 16 ]
√ (B) WHEELS: No restrictions 68% [ 34 ]

Total Votes : 50

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

Should there be a rule requiring trucks to be commercially available?
(A) YES 23% [ 12 ]
√ (B) NO 76% [ 39 ]

Total Votes : 51

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

Choose a rule for “Trucks.”
(A) TRUCKS: Exactly two trucks are required. Steering mechanisms activated by means other than lean-to-steer are prohibited. 48% [ 24 ]
√ (B) TRUCKS: No restrictions on number. The trucks must be lean steer activated. 51% [ 25 ]

Total Votes : 49

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

Choose a rule for “Skateboard Decks.”
(A) DECK: (Rigid or semi-rigid platform for the feet). Concave, kick-tail, camber, and other shape modifications to the flat deck are allowed. 30% [ 15 ]
√ (B) DECK: The deck must be structurally sound and not pose a safety hazard. It may be any shape, size or construction. 69% [ 34 ]

Total Votes : 49

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

Should the sentence “Competitors are required to ride in a standing (upright) position” be included in the “Skateboard Specifications?”
√ YES 68% [ 34 ]
NO 32% [ 16 ]

Total Votes : 50

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

On what cycle should the ISSA rules be updated?
A) Every 2 Years (per draft proposal) 36% [ 17 ]
√ B) Every Year (changing references to years as appropriate for a 1-year cycle) 63% [ 30 ]

Total Votes : 47
Image

Erik Basil
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm
Contact:

Post by Erik Basil » Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:26 am

Pat, your belief that there is no issue to address is certainly one way to deal with the issue that some eligible voters are now aware that they missed a chance to vote. I hoped I made that clear. If you read my entire post again, you might find that.
I ride fast boards, slowly.

Kevin Dunne
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:08 am
Location: Oceanside, Ca.
Contact:

I can already see a problem with the course requirements...

Post by Kevin Dunne » Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:26 am

The course requirements, as voted in by the majority, will probably eliminate some of the best hills in the country from any future races. The GS races held at Big View and at Pump Station both had cones that were more than 20 meters apart in some areas...too far apart to even qualify for ISSA sanctioning as Super GS. It would be a shame to think that these awesome hills will no longer be able to have sanctioned races due to somebody's arbitrary numbers being used to define what they think makes a race course. Giant Slalom and Super Giant Slalom should be about using the hill to create a FAST, flowing course, and that often requires spacing cones farther than a mere 20 meters apart in some areas. If these 2 rules are to stand we should at least change the names to Pussy Giant Slalom and Super Pussy Giant Slalom...Let's not make the race organizers set courses that don't allow the terrain to be considered.

Martin Reaves
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Boulder, CO

Re: I can already see a problem with the course requirements

Post by Martin Reaves » Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:41 am

Kevin Dunne wrote:The course requirements, as voted in by the majority, will probably eliminate some of the best hills in the country from any future races. The GS races held at Big View and at Pump Station both had cones that were more than 20 meters apart in some areas...too far apart to even qualify for ISSA sanctioning as Super GS. It would be a shame to think that these awesome hills will no longer be able to have sanctioned races due to somebody's arbitrary numbers being used to define what they think makes a race course. Giant Slalom and Super Giant Slalom should be about using the hill to create a FAST, flowing course, and that often requires spacing cones farther than a mere 20 meters apart in some areas. If these 2 rules are to stand we should at least change the names to Pussy Giant Slalom and Super Pussy Giant Slalom...Let's not make the race organizers set courses that don't allow the terrain to be considered.
I missed out on all of the pre-vote stuff, so I don't know what you guys talked about then, BUT...


WHY wasn't there a "no restrictions on course" option when voting? I may have missed something, but I decided not to vote on any of the course regulations because I do not want to have course regulations. You can't run the same TS course on the hill we used for Nationals TS and what we used for the COSS open. It would have been cool if there was a cone frequency regulation, so that the number of cones per second will stay within a range, allowing you to run a TS on flat or 15% grade.

Wesley Tucker
1961-2013 (RIP)
1961-2013 (RIP)
Posts: 3279
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am

Re: I can already see a problem with the course requirements

Post by Wesley Tucker » Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:09 am

Martin Reaves wrote: It would have been cool if there was a cone frequency regulation, so that the number of cones per second will stay within a range, allowing you to run a TS on flat or 15% grade.
Cones per second by whom? A guy who runs a 14.97 or a guy who runs a 17.26?

And by the way, Martin, my proposal (so many cones over a given distance as opposed to an exact spacing of each cone) accomplishes what you want. It was rejected.

But everyone take heart. This is like the NFL or NASCAR: the rules can change as racing develops. If the SIXTY SIX FEET Kevin says is too tight for some hills then we'll determine the best way to adjust it. Personally, I'm trying to envision how a cone every 22 yards (four and a half to a football field) is too tight.

But we'll just have to see.
Image

Kevin Dunne
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:08 am
Location: Oceanside, Ca.
Contact:

Post by Kevin Dunne » Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:56 am

Wes- Is that something that would have to be agreed to before sanctioning a race? The reason I ask is that, if left as is, the maximum distance of 10 meters for a GS, and 20 meters for a Super GS, would force course setters to place cones in a somewhat straight line on the steepest parts of the hill, rather than using farther-spaced offsetts. In that case, races like Big View and Pump Station would most likely have straight sections in areas more suited for big, swooping offsets. That, in turn, would make it difficult to get back into a turny, rhythmic course further down the hill...At 35-40mph, 10 meters goes by pretty quick. It's unlikely that a course would be set before sanctioning was granted...how will we (ISSA and race organizers) make exceptions to this rule without opening up grounds for protest?

Pat Chewning
Pat C.
Pat C.
Posts: 1400
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Portland Oregon

Post by Pat Chewning » Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:50 am

Kevin Dunne wrote:Wes- Is that something that would have to be agreed to before sanctioning a race? The reason I ask is that, if left as is, the maximum distance of 10 meters for a GS, and 20 meters for a Super GS, would force course setters to place cones in a somewhat straight line on the steepest parts of the hill, rather than using farther-spaced offsetts. In that case, races like Big View and Pump Station would most likely have straight sections in areas more suited for big, swooping offsets. That, in turn, would make it difficult to get back into a turny, rhythmic course further down the hill...At 35-40mph, 10 meters goes by pretty quick. It's unlikely that a course would be set before sanctioning was granted...how will we (ISSA and race organizers) make exceptions to this rule without opening up grounds for protest?
If I were a contest organizer and I wanted to set a super-GS course on a hill such as Pump Station or Big View, I would make use of rule 11.2 which allows the contest organizer to list the variations/exceptions to the rules for his contest. These are listed in advance, on the contest sanction application. If done in this manner, there will be no grounds for protest.

Since these hills are exceptional, the courses should probably be too.

Use rule 11.2 -- It is the contest organizer's friend.

When used sparingly and appropriately, rule 11.2 allows variations/exceptions to the rules as long as these are identified ahead of time and communicated properly to the racers.

Pat Chewning
Pat C.
Pat C.
Posts: 1400
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Portland Oregon

Re: I can already see a problem with the course requirements

Post by Pat Chewning » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:10 am

Martin Reaves wrote:WHY wasn't there a "no restrictions on course" option when voting? I may have missed something, but I decided not to vote on any of the course regulations because I do not want to have course regulations. You can't run the same TS course on the hill we used for Nationals TS and what we used for the COSS open. It would have been cool if there was a cone frequency regulation, so that the number of cones per second will stay within a range, allowing you to run a TS on flat or 15% grade.
There was lively and exhaustive debate on how we should define each of the "disciplines" for racing. At no time during this debate did anyone make a proposal to give up and abandon the effort to sort our races in some form.

There were people who suggested that once hills get "too steep", TS is not possible/desireable.

In my estimation, the wrong way to apply these course specification rules would be for the contest organizer to set a good course on a hill, the racers have a challenging and contemporary race, and then one sore-head loser goes into the course from cone-to-cone with his laser measuring device and finds one cone just outside of the specifications and files a protest. That is not the intent of the specifications.

The intent is to have a relatively simple way of describing the "flavor" of a course in advance -- in order for the racers to properly train and plan their equipment choices.

Race organizers should become familiar with the rules and recognize when the hill that they are using, plus the course that they want to set falls outside of the guidelines. If so, then they should use rule 11.2 to describe the deviation/variation of their course on the contest sanction.

If there are a multitude of deviations/variations over the span of the year's contests, then probably the rules need adjusting.....

Kevin Dunne
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:08 am
Location: Oceanside, Ca.
Contact:

Post by Kevin Dunne » Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:42 pm

Pat- Thanks for clarifying that. You and Wes are much more familiar with the rules than I am. That's all I needed to hear.

Zack Levitt
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:57 am
Location: Houston Texas
Contact:

Post by Zack Levitt » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:18 am

Wesley,

I will admit the email part is my fault(all my email forwards, to one address, the one i was signed up on here with stopped forwarding, fixed now). However, when it was time to vote for board members I coulnt miss it. And yes On Here and Silverfish, I have completely missed any mention of voting on any of these issues.

Joe Iacovelli
Posts: 1089
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Bristol, CT

Post by Joe Iacovelli » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:45 am

I was out of the country, in prison, and in a coma. I'd vote with Zack. Can we change the ruling?

Kevin Dunne
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:08 am
Location: Oceanside, Ca.
Contact:

Post by Kevin Dunne » Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:27 am

Joe Iacovelli wrote:I was out of the country, in prison, and in a coma. I'd vote with Zack. Can we change the ruling?
Joe- while you were in a coma, I voted for you by proxy...don't you remember giving me that authority? Oh Yeah...you were in a coma!

Donald Campbell
Pavel
Pavel
Posts: 2036
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:49 pm
Location: germany
Contact:

Post by Donald Campbell » Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:37 am

hey zack


take it easy

all is cool

sk8 and have fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wesley Tucker
1961-2013 (RIP)
1961-2013 (RIP)
Posts: 3279
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am

Post by Wesley Tucker » Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:41 am

Joe Iacovelli wrote:I was out of the country, in prison, and in a coma. I'd vote with Zack. Can we change the ruling?
Well, at least you were sober . . . for a change.
Image

Pat Chewning
Pat C.
Pat C.
Posts: 1400
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Portland Oregon

Post by Pat Chewning » Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:59 am

Joe Iacovelli wrote:I was out of the country, in prison, and in a coma. I'd vote with Zack. Can we change the ruling?
While you were in a coma, we elected you president in absentia.

Enjoy the ISSA corporate jet, the free hookers, and all the other perks ....

Zack Levitt
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:57 am
Location: Houston Texas
Contact:

Post by Zack Levitt » Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:09 pm

Don,

I was just answering Wesley's question. That is all. I take everything easy, btw.

Doug Kadzban
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:09 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by Doug Kadzban » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:01 pm

well, i never actually planned on using a 6-wheeler at all...but i guess now i can't (at least for official competition). but how hard would it be to create a separate division for 6-wheelers?

Wesley Tucker
1961-2013 (RIP)
1961-2013 (RIP)
Posts: 3279
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am

Post by Wesley Tucker » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:11 pm

A. Anyone who wants to race six wheelers can have at it.
B. Any results involving a six wheeler will not be recognized by the ISSA.
C. Anyone who wants to amend the ISSA rules is welcome to within the process layed out by the ISSA.
D. Only ISSA members can advocate, suggest or vote on any rules changes.

So how would it be to create a seperate division for 6-wheelers? Not hard at all. Organize a race and announce a 6-wheeler division. I'll do my best to be there.

The ISSA, though, won't be involved for at least a year.

**********************
On what cycle should the ISSA rules be updated?
A) Every 2 Years (per draft proposal) 36% [ 17 ]
B) Every Year (changing references to years as appropriate for a 1-year cycle) 63% [ 30 ]
Total Votes : 47
**********************

Of course, raising the issue of amending or changing the rules is no guarantee such a change will occur. It only means the Board Of Directors will consider offering the proposal to the membership for a vote. Then there's no guarantee the vote results would be different than the recent decision. But the process is in place to reconsider the decision.
Image

Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Posts: 1190
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Cornwall, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

6 wheeler Division

Post by Claude Regnier » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:35 pm

Doug, go back and read some of my original posts on the subject of a seperate division.

I would like I to simply prove that in certain situations they would be the board of choice. It likely did not get put in as an option because it was long forgoten, so much crap was stired by some people that many really just got sick of it all.

There are several people out there who just want nothing to do with them. Someday 6 wheelers will be the way to go for certain courses. The best way to prove it to the masses is to hold some events for 6 wheels only.

There is nothing stoping a race organiser from holding an ISSA sanctioned event and adding on a non-sanctioned 6 wheel race if they choose. This would not effect anything or anyone.

You will likely see some more rants on the subject however.
Many Happy Pumps!

Wesley Tucker
1961-2013 (RIP)
1961-2013 (RIP)
Posts: 3279
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am

Post by Wesley Tucker » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:55 pm

I'll repeat what I've said before about a 6-wheel racing category.

The ISSA World Ranking only recognizes TWO races per event. The reason for this rule is it dissuades a race promoter from having a Friday night outlaw, a Saturday hybrid, a Saturday night tight, a Sunday dual GS and a Sunday night GS jam and then submi the results from five events. This really is an advantage for the participants at that one event compared to another race with only 1 or 2 scheduled events. Just taking the points from the two best results for a racer keeps the points system balanced. Now, a race promoter can do all that and a participant can race in all those events, but the results from only TWO will be credited to the world ranking. It would be an opportunity to SOME racers who do have the special set up to get world ranking points that excludes other skaters who don't have the special set up.

Secondly, if a race promoter does offer a 6-wheel class race, one of three things will happen: everyone will bring a 6-wheeler, only those who have a 6-wheeler will bring one or someone would like to run but don't have the resources to enter a slalom race demanding a special kind of board. Yes, it would be the same as a race organizer deciding to have a race for a "Radikal-Trucks only class" or a "Pocket Pistol foam core only class" and telling all the Pavel and Fullbag riders they can't run.

Telling someone they must have a special and different setup to participate in an event where they pay the same registration fee as everyone else just ain't kosher. It's easy to say, "all you have to do is get a six-wheeler to race," but that's what's really contrary to the "run what you brung" philosophy. There are many skaters who have ONE slalom board they run in TS, hybrid and GS. Would we tell them they cannot race in an event because their wheelbase is too short (or long) or their wheels are too small (or large)? I doubt it.

So, race organizers and race promoters are left with three situations:

a. Have a race for six wheelers that are just for fun to see who's the fastest with no impact on the overall or world ranking results.

b. Allow six-wheelers in a race with 4-wheel boards but make sure it's understood NOTHING the six-wheel rider accomplishes will be recognized.

c. Ignore the ISSA sanction process and do whatever it pleases everyone to do.
Last edited by Wesley Tucker on Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Doug Kadzban
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:09 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by Doug Kadzban » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:59 pm

ah, thanks for that, claude and wes...makes a lot more sense now

Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Posts: 1190
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Cornwall, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Okay!

Post by Claude Regnier » Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:01 pm

And, you repeated that why?
Many Happy Pumps!

Wesley Tucker
1961-2013 (RIP)
1961-2013 (RIP)
Posts: 3279
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am

Re: Okay!

Post by Wesley Tucker » Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:12 pm

Claude Regnier wrote:And, you repeated that why?
Because Doug asked how hard it would be to create a seperate division for 6-wheelers.

I detailed many of the reasons why such a class could be considered contrary to a competitive and FAIR slalom skateboard racing event.
Image

Hans Koraeus
Corky - World Ranking Master Mind
Corky - World Ranking Master Mind
Posts: 1921
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Hans Koraeus » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:21 am

But isn't it ok to allow 6-wheelers for an event? You just have to make sure it is noted as a variation to the ISSA rules with the 11.2 rule.

So those who don't know or don't want to make a choice will keep the ISSA rules. If you are pro 6-wheelers and organize an event you could allow them?

I wonder if there might be need for a rule for what can you use the 11.2 rule for... :-|

Or maybe that will be handled by the ISSA World Ranking marshalls. If they see funny deviations from the standard rules in the event forms they might be in favor for another event that better follows the std rules.

Pat Chewning
Pat C.
Pat C.
Posts: 1400
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Portland Oregon

Post by Pat Chewning » Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:28 am

Hans Koraeus wrote:But isn't it ok to allow 6-wheelers for an event? You just have to make sure it is noted as a variation to the ISSA rules with the 11.2 rule.

So those who don't know or don't want to make a choice will keep the ISSA rules. If you are pro 6-wheelers and organize an event you could allow them?

I wonder if there might be need for a rule for what can you use the 11.2 rule for... :-|

Or maybe that will be handled by the ISSA World Ranking marshalls. If they see funny deviations from the standard rules in the event forms they might be in favor for another event that better follows the std rules.
Rule 11.2 is not intended to open a floodgate of deviations on the whim of every contest organizer. If an organizer needs to make variations to fit his existing equipment (timing system, hill, ramps), or to tailor the event for beginners or to fit a specific schedule of hill availabilty -- then I'm all for that.

If an organizer is trying to use rule 11.2 to "get around" rules that he does not like -- then the event will not be sanctioned.

MAIN and MAJOR events should not have significant variations/deviations.

PRIME, BASIC events may have a few deviations.

PLAIN events don't get a sanction anyway ...

Just because we had the wisdom to anticipate that some variances/deviations might be needed does not mean that contest organizers are free to go around all of the rules as they see fit.

Its not as if anybody ONLY has a 6-wheel board and cannot possibly come up with a board that meets the rules. We are not denying anyone the opportunity to participate by insisting on equipment that meets the specifications.

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

ISSA contest ranking marshalls should be on the look-out for sanction applications with numerous or siginificant variations listed. Contest ranking marshalls will likely be asking the contest organizer WHY a variation is needed at all.

Jadranko Radovanovic
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 5:40 pm
Location: Grüningen
Contact:

Post by Jadranko Radovanovic » Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:56 am

For the Slalom Tight discipline (ST), what should be the requirement for cone spacing?
√ A) Each cone spacing within a limit: 1.4m to 3.0m. Suggested: 1.5m to 2.5m 65% [ 29 ]
B) Each cone spacing within a limit: 1.0m to 2.0m 20% [ 9 ]
C) Average cone distance of 15 to 20 cones per 30m (average spacing 1.5m to 2.0m) 13% [ 6 ]

Total Votes : 44

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

For the Slalom Parallel discipline (SP), what should be the requirement for cone spacing?
√ A) Each cone spacing within a limit: 1.0m to 3.0m. Suggested: 1.5m to 2.0m 73% [ 31 ]
B) Each cone spacing within a limit: 1.0m to 2.0m 16% [ 7 ]
C) Average cone distance of 15 to 20 cones per 30m (average spacing 1.5m to 2.0m) 9% [ 4 ]

Total Votes : 42
Does this mean that the Tight Slalom is dead ?

3 meters is not tight slalom anymore. How you want to compare a Tight in Europe where the Pros race 1.60 meters with a Tight in the US where they race 3 meters.

I know that in the US a tight is held on a big hill, but what should a Tight Slalom show ?

- The Speed
or
- The frequency

Doesn't we have a Hybrid and a Giant which shows the speed? Does we need the Tight to show the speed as well ?

We had in Europe Tight Slaloms in Riga, Paris, Grenoble, Stockholm, Antibes, Grueningen which where on similiar hills. That is Tight Slalom, another aspect of Slalom Racing than speed.

Does it makes sense to compare a banana from Europe and an apple from US in one Ranking ?

The specifications are too loose.

Where are the Race organizers ? Just a few mentioned somthing to the rules. Where are the others ?

/J-Rad

Pat Chewning
Pat C.
Pat C.
Posts: 1400
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Portland Oregon

Post by Pat Chewning » Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:19 pm

Jadranko Radovanovic wrote: Does this mean that the Tight Slalom is dead ?

........

The specifications are too loose.
The specifications are deliberately "loose" to allow all forms of tight slalom:
Slower, flat tight slalom with cones in the 1.5m spacing range.
Faster, steep tight slalom with cones in the 2.5m spacing range

In other words: The specifications allow tight slalom to live by not forcing a race organizer into too-narrow of a range of cones. Believe me, if we had gone with the super-tight spacing (and thus flat slope) specification for T.S. then it would have died in the USA.

Jadranko Radovanovic
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 5:40 pm
Location: Grüningen
Contact:

Post by Jadranko Radovanovic » Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:19 pm

What is more important ?

That the discipline die in one region or that the discipline die overall.

Might vs. systematic thinking.

The future will show the answer.


/J-Rad

Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Posts: 1190
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Cornwall, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Don't know what to put here!

Post by Claude Regnier » Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:12 pm

J-Rad. Rules are not going to stop slalom.

Racers losing interest will be the number one reason for it dying. Costs of traveling to races is increasing so fewer people are traveling as far but luckily there are more events being held around the world. They do not all need to be big races or sanctioned races. Anyone going to them should and would expect courses and information announced ahead of time and that the promoters run the contest the way it was stated.

Promoters & organizers no longer organizing races will be the second reasons.

We know that a lack of new products will not stop us from slaloming although we as hell like the new stuff.

There won’t be any difference in the way course are set. Just that they adhere to the guidelines posted. If an organizer is informed that the course is outside of the guidelines then changes to should be made. I imagine they would be quite subtle.

What exactly is it you are continually trying to do? I’ve been to two of your races. I won’t get into the problems and things you didn’t do. I just hope you keep putting on races and actually learn to race yourself maybe you would understand a little more about some of the stuff that is really important and quit wasting time on some of the stuff that isn’t.
Many Happy Pumps!

Pat Chewning
Pat C.
Pat C.
Posts: 1400
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Portland Oregon

Post by Pat Chewning » Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:06 pm

J-rad:

The ISSA (through rules and sanctioning processes) can only do a small part of the delivery of good contests to the racers. The rest of the work must come from the race organizers, the racers, the sponsors, the community.

It seems that you fear that the liberal ISSA rules will kill off your vision of tight slalom racing. I believe that the rules allow a contest organizer to run either the slower, flat, tight slalom that you prefer, or the faster, steeper, less tight slalom that is preferred in N. America. Therefore, if one or the other forms of racing tight slalom should die, it will be because the racers and race organizers have chosen to let it die in favor of some other form -- not because the ISSA has forbidden such a race to occur.

The ISSA rules allow race organizers to flourish and to make "perfect" courses on a variety of hills. The rules also allow race organizers to fail and to make shitty courses on unsuitable hills. Depending on the race organizer (and not the ISSA) to set a proper course on a proper hill is the will of the ISSA members:
What should be required for ensuring that the course setting is fair, challenging, and contemporary?
A) A group of 3 people are assigned to set the course. (2 racers drawn from 2 nations, plus one person assigned by the race organizer.)
12% [ 6 ]
B) A group of 3 people are assigned to set the course. (2 racers from the top 10 racers at the event [ISSA points], plus one person assigned by the race organizer.)
10% [ 5 ]
C) The race organizer is responsible for setting the course. The method used shall be clearly stated in the race sanction application. (Who will set the course, description of course, when will course be set, etc.)
70% [ 33 ]
D) ISSA will provide a course setter from an approved list of personnel.
6% [ 3 ]

Donald Campbell
Pavel
Pavel
Posts: 2036
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:49 pm
Location: germany
Contact:

Post by Donald Campbell » Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:26 pm

to make this clear for all:
jadranko doesn't even have a good community in his own country that is willing to spport him.

he ends up being a keyboard racer

Hans Koraeus
Corky - World Ranking Master Mind
Corky - World Ranking Master Mind
Posts: 1921
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Hans Koraeus » Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:25 am

About 6-wheeler / 11.2 rule
I just wanted to take it up before it is done in some strange way. It is nothing in the rules saying you can't do what I said. Only the ranking Marshalls can decide what 11.2 reasons will pass or not. Unless we state it in the 11.2 rule.

TS
I agree a 2,5m cone distance is no TS. It should stop at 2m (like we voted on for the straight parallel slalom discilpine). Why it was not voted like this is because that choice did not exist. Only the option A was understandable (but unfortunatly with the wrong spacing).

But let's hope course setters will not use more than 2m.

If the hill is too steep for a TS well then do two hybrid instead. A loose/fast hybrid and a tight/tricky hybrid.

In the same manner you can do a a loose/fast TS and a tight/tricky TS.

Nothing will change for how courses are set probably. We just have to be on constant lookout for what cone distance and hill that will be used. But to call it a TS and set up a 2,5m spacing course will always fool someone who did not look at the small prints of that event. That is what rules should avoid. Avoid fooling the racers.

Well, we can change it for next year... if enough people cares about it.

Janis kuzmins
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:26 am
Location: Latvia

Post by Janis kuzmins » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:53 am

2,5, for tight is too much,(for any hill, for example Paris 2006 was medim 6.feets - 1.80 in tight, Gothenburg 2007, was actualy the same distance, sory there is no flat. 2.0 meters is inaf for any hill!!!!! Tight is a tehnical event which ask for other skils (the same as in ski slalom - speed events - downhill, sg - and tehnical events) and in some regions in USA dont practise this kind of course, and cant make a tight course, thats the reason, and thats why the rule for tight need to be not more than 2.0 meters, (and i was surprised about this rule for vouting - there was no corect point for tight) thats will be reason for practise this kind of course, every where otherway somebody cant understand what is the tight slalom. But dual tight actualy is most viewable event for spectators, and in USA are some good tight riders too(Chris b.,Mike M.,Michael D.,George P., David P., and....)

Steve Collins
Harbor Skateboard Racing
Harbor Skateboard Racing
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Los Angeles

Post by Steve Collins » Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:01 pm

I don't think anyone will be planning to set a "tight" course that is a straight row of 2.5m cones. My understanding of the 2.5m limit is to allow a course with good variation to have a few gates here and there that are longer and maybe with a bigger offset. For example, a course with a reasonable slope could be set with the following sections:

10x 1.7m straight gates
10x 1.8m gates with small offsets
1x 2.5m gate with a 0.3m offset and big direction change
11x 1.8m gate pyramid
1x 2.2m gate with 0.2m offset
10x 1.7m straight gates
7x 2m gates with 0.1m offsets
10x 1.7m straight gates.

I just thought it up for example so it might not be a great course, but wouldn't that still be considered a "tight" course or would everyone consider it "hybrid" given the the two larger gates? Setting such courses doesn't preclude anyone else from setting a row of 50x 1.5m gates on flat if they want to, it just gives organizers more leeway to set interesting courses that work in their venue. At least that's my take on the issue.

Maybe the concern is that people won't want to practice real/euro tight anymore if not forced to? What would that tell us?

Wesley Tucker
1961-2013 (RIP)
1961-2013 (RIP)
Posts: 3279
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am

Post by Wesley Tucker » Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:23 pm

Let me just add this about 2.5m (8.2 feet) spacing in tight slalom.

The 2007 World's had a tight course with 8-foot spacing at the bottom of a rather good steep hill. Ramon and a couple of other competitors complained about it being too loose.

There was cone spray from both classes of racers. The pros, the ams and the women. It did get cleaner as the brackets advanced but anything improves with more runs and more experience.

I'm not going to argue again what I said in October because the vote is over and the rules are the rules.

BUT

"Tight" slalom on a flat surface and "tight" slalom on a 9% grade are two different things. Demanding they be the same is nothing more than enjoying the spectacle of seeing orange cones flung everywhere and waiting 5 minutes between each run getting the course reset.
Image

Spike Taylor
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:04 am
Location: Geordieland, England.
Contact:

Why bother calling it 'Tight"?

Post by Spike Taylor » Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:53 pm

Isn't it a question of what skills are needed like the Latvian guy said? Isn't Tight Slalom supposed to show real technical skill and the ability to process cones quickly not just the same skills required for Hybrid and GS? Won't the spectators be bored if to them it looks like just the same event, just the cones are a little closer. The first time I saw real tight stuff, not that long agao, I couldn't believe they were doing 4 or 5 cones per second regardless of the pitch!
At least thats what I thought.

Spike.
FUN-is the bottom line!

Donald Campbell
Pavel
Pavel
Posts: 2036
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:49 pm
Location: germany
Contact:

Post by Donald Campbell » Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:10 am

ey spike

that latvian guy is the guy who can do more than 4-5 cones per second.
rumors say he is the tight slalom world champ this year
hahahaha

Post Reply