Expanding On Fluitt's Course-Setting Poll Results

Discussion Forum
Gary Fluitt
asphaltplayground.com
asphaltplayground.com
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Colorado, USA
Contact:

Post by Gary Fluitt » Sat Mar 08, 2003 8:03 pm

<b>Single Lane vs. Dual Slalom</B>

Let me be clear about the Breckenridge races. I say <font color=gold>RACES </font> (plural) because there will be THREE.

1. Single Lane GS (Friday PM)
2. Dual GS (Saturday)
3. Dual TS (Sunday)

So for those of you who like full bore GS on a single lane, crossing the fall line, and using the whole street and nothing but the street, make sure you get to Colorado no later than Friday morning - early. Racing will start at 2PM sharp Friday afternoon. Depending on size of field of racers, it will be a 3-4 run, Single fastest time wins affair. That'll keep everybody pushing hard for every race. And don't give me any s#*t about wind and averaging races to the best combine time, that's statistically as flawed as any single-run-counts scheme. I want to know who has the fastest time of the day.


Saturday Dual GS-
This is not an experiment. We've run lots of courses that were on curves (albeit less extreme than the breck hill). What we will do that WILL be different is that the finish line will be even, NOT staggered. This method of course plotting will off-set the start line, like in track. "Inside" lane will start higher up the hill than the "outside" lane. This will be as mathematically correct as my communications degree will allow me to make it.

The curve is a left hander. This feature favors the Goofy Footed Racer potentially because the curve goes left. Given that I will be setting the course (with a little help from all of you guys), and given that I am Regular Foot, I suspect the "Goofy Foot" advantage will not be huge because I'm not going to set heel side gates that I can't pump to or otherwise make.

JG- Good point. Since the lanes aren't identical anyway, why try to force it? My course setting goal is to make them as close to each other as possible, without sacrificing flow and rythum. Flow and rythum are king, followed closely by matching the run time of both lanes. If this makes the lanes un-identical, so be it. If you guys knew how much we have fudged one lane to get around water mains or asphalt imperfections in all the FCR races, you'ld probably be shocked.

We'll have the hill for a full 8 hours prior to the racing. That ought to give us enough time to dial a couple of really excellent courses (single and dual). I will not be able to publish a race course prior to event since the road is in constant use, but I will go run it with my mates around here and give you all a report on hill speed, equipment, and "proposed" course set ups. Good enough?
<center>
<img src="http://www.asphaltplayground.com/images ... _upper.jpg">

<img src="http://www.asphaltplayground.com/beav_render.jpg">
</center>


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gary Fluitt on 2003-03-08 14:15 ]</font>

Richy Carrasco
AXE Army
AXE Army
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Garden Grove, Cali
Contact:

Post by Richy Carrasco » Sat Mar 08, 2003 3:06 pm

Dual Tight and Single GS-- If we could run Single GS We could use the whole street to make super G corses, curb to curb crash or win!!!!!!!!!!

Eric Groff
Eric Groff
Eric Groff
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2002 1:00 am
Location: CA, USA

Post by Eric Groff » Wed Feb 26, 2003 8:27 am

I like Both!

JPL was a blast, I would like to see more single lane racing, When Ransom set the fast time at Presidio GS last year the place went wild. Single to me is very exciting.
I like being able to listen to the numbers, figuring out what I have to do to make up such amount of time on my next run.

then again the way MB went this year was killer, there was alot of drama.

BOTH are good! Lets see more!!

Dual Tight
Single GS

Andy Bittner
GBJ
GBJ
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Gaithersburg, MD

Post by Andy Bittner » Wed Feb 26, 2003 1:03 am

George, Please don't get me wrong. Nobody rained on my parade, and I didn't mean to rain on anyone elses. I am also not saying that people who see dual racing aren't excited about it and wouldn't stay to see who won. All of that's great. My point is that these same people haven't seen a single lane race for comparison's sake, and are not what I might consider educated slalom skateboarding spectators. Does that invalidate their experience? Absolutely not. Does it mean that their experience is very limited? Absolutely. I am just suggesting that we active supporters of this sport should be careful about projecting our own opinions, or our own conclusions onto a body of spectators that really does not exist yet.

Personally, I am looking forward to the day when we don't have to block traffic with a race in order to get the general public to look at it. I consider that each week, during each Fall, roughly one-quarter of one million people in the U.S. leave there homes, enduring traffic jams and crowds, all to pay a tidy sum to wedge themselves into a football stadium somewhere, to watch the NFL play. Now, I suspect that a significant percentage of these people have never even played football, and there probably aren't many at all who are realistically harboring a hope that they'll be called out of the stands to suit up and play. However, most of them have a basic understanding of the game and enjoy watching it. Among that group there's probably even a sub-group that enjoys a good, defensive game more than a high-scoring offensive show. The bottom line is that this weekly NFL attendance is an audience whose preferences can be quantified.

Right now, I think the most important survey question that can currently be asked of the casual spectators at places like Morro Bay is, "If you heard that there was going to be another event like this somewhere nearby, would you be inclined to come out and watch the racing?" The follow-ups would be, "Would you be likely to tell someone else about this event or bring someone new with you to the next?"

Again though, I didn't mean to sound like someone rained on someone's parade. Even as long ago as two years ago, people were making suggestions to event organizers about doing this or doing that, "for the crowd". I've always been a realist. There is no crowd for our sport, not yet. So, when I hear people making accommodations for crowds that aren't going to happen or basing decisions on the preferences of a spectator body that really doesn't even exist, it all seems a little ill-founded and delusional.

...and by the way, George, I manage the USSSF. Decisions that will affect the direction of the sport will be made by the Board of Directors and membership body, not me. I just wanted to be clear about that, because "doing whatever Andy Bittner wants is DEFINITELY NOT what the USSSF is about."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Andy Bittner on 2003-02-25 19:08 ]</font>

George Gould
AZ G.R.S.
AZ G.R.S.
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Northern Arizona (Winslow/Flagstaff)

Post by George Gould » Tue Feb 25, 2003 7:16 pm

Andy somebody rain on your parade? you run the USSSF, so do what you want, no i didn't do a study or poll on dual racing, but i will try the next time i am at a big race. let me know what questions you want asked, i will fund it too. at Morro Bay people stayed to watch the race because it was exiting! i think single lane is fine sometimes. But, there is a lot to be said for big shutting down the street, building the towers, making some freaking noise spectacle of dual alne racing. otherwise without a big readable drag race style clock a single lane isn't that interesting. and i like racing dual. i talked to numerous bystanders, 5 were on vacation from Texas, they stayed to see who was going to win. the race held spectator interest all day as many of the same faces stayed there. i know Morro Bay is somewhat special as it is the Worlds. there is something to be said for little in the middle of nowhere, racers only races too. to many people a race is against someone, be it cars, bikes or feet for that matter skateboards. Dual is cool.

John Gilmour
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

Post by John Gilmour » Tue Feb 25, 2003 5:50 pm

I've got the Kerosene- now who will set a 50-60 mph course?

I think we shouldn't toss out single lane- just on basis of the spectators and in places where there are almost no non skating spectators IMHO I think single lane should be used more than it has in the past.

I do think the skaters should be more interesting to look at. The baggy pants-old t-shirt thing is pretty stale. BLR always has a good look. Dong and Atilla are the storm troopers.

But single lane is exciting- and can be more exciting if the same things are used in our single lane racing as in other single lane sports.

For TV We could use the POV cameras that show approach and exit speeds like in the GS at Nagano for snowboarding. For our regular racing We could also use LIVE posted Splits during the course so spectators have an idea of how the racer is progressing during the course.

A leader board would also be more interesting.

Single track goes faster so spectators can see more than just one type of slalom in a day. There is little down time. I do feel that we have too much dual racing and need to intersperse more single track racing with the duals. Also the elimination bracket is unneccessarily large and cumbersome and prone to errors with a 32 man bracket. A bracket of 4 (for races of under 32 people) or 8 (for races with more than 50 racers) would speed things up a lot.

Andy Bittner
GBJ
GBJ
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Gaithersburg, MD

Post by Andy Bittner » Tue Feb 25, 2003 5:10 pm

What people like to watch dual? Are there population segments out there, other than ourselves, who have ever had the chance to see both types of racing and express a verifiable preference for one over the other, or are you just talking off the top of your head. I'd love to see your market statistics. I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense that there'd be a preference for dual, I'm just saying that we need to stop kidding ourselves about even having spectators.

I think that, elsewhere, someone else suggested that Jack line his Paso Robles course with bleachers...

For who?

George Gould
AZ G.R.S.
AZ G.R.S.
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Northern Arizona (Winslow/Flagstaff)

Post by George Gould » Tue Feb 25, 2003 4:59 pm

for the record, i like racing dual. it forces you to become a better skater. when i get in the gate on the ramp and the timer thing kicks off, the intensity level is way higher. i liked the single lane of say WLAC fine, but dual racing is the sh*#! that is why i like going to a big race. i can run single lane by myself any time. and if anybody wants to run some cones at 6800 ft stop on by. as a spectator people pick favorites. people know the difference between pro and open classes, and people like watching dual.

Andy Bittner
GBJ
GBJ
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Gaithersburg, MD

Post by Andy Bittner » Mon Feb 24, 2003 8:46 pm

My feeling is that much of Jack's point depends on how educated and truly interested the average spectator is. If we consider the average spectator to be the average walk-by spectator, like at Morro Bay, then dual racing definitely provides more spectacle. However, if we consider that the average spectator is more likely to be one of us, I, for one, don't find good single-lane racing to be any less exciting than dual racing on unbalanced courses.

Jack Smith
Morro Bay Skate legend
Morro Bay Skate legend
Posts: 736
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Morro Bay, California
Contact:

Post by Jack Smith » Mon Feb 24, 2003 7:08 pm

Only when you have a racer going between 50-60mph, with his hair on fire, wearing one of JG's fashion statement outfits will single lane racing be slightly more exciting than watching paint dry. After a watching a few runs the average spectator will drift away.

John Gilmour
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

Post by John Gilmour » Mon Feb 24, 2003 6:04 pm

Spectators?

I find that we can't expect spectators to travel to watch slalom- only we can expect spectators to stop and watch as they are passing by.

I can understand that- first off there is ussually no seating available at MOST slalom contests. The contests take a long time. And there is no particular perfect vantage point to place seats in.

As opposed to 1/2 pipe. There are key seats. And the pipe makes a spectacle of itself and is "an event draw" from a distance.

So in some slalom areas where we can not reasonably expect many spectators - IMHO we may as well optimize the event for the skaters as opposed to the spectators. We have had a few races "on empty roads- seemingly not near people"- to expect spectators to make the trip by advertising hasn't proven itself to be likely.

So this comment isn't necessarily for Gary's race- (as many of us have seen the venue and it is a cool road to race on). It is a comment to all potential promoters who plan to gear a race towards spectators in areas without regular "heavy pedestrian traffic"- or perhaps temporary heavy pedestrian traffic from another event running concurrently- with some crossover audience.

So where to have races if we want spectators to see dual racing?

Some ridiculous far fetched venues-

Times Square
Outside the summer olympics between events
The Capitol Building in DC in summer.
Wall Street during lunch
Fanueil Hall in the Summer
Baltimore Ocean front near IMAX
Venice Beach


Some not so ridiculously far fetched venues-



Central Park
Just before the Boston Marathon End when the roads are closed but the runners are miles away.
The Trocadero near the Eiffel Tower.

Greenwich, Connecticuts Main street.
Orange Street on Nantucket

Of course the temperatures should be good for walking and not so hot so spectators feel compelled to the beach or pool- nor so cold that the spectators won't stop to watch for longer than 5 minutes. Probably temps between 75-65 degrees. Gary's race should be near perfect temperatures for spectators to hang out. Last year's Breckenridge race was also scheduled well for the weather and the venue near the main street got good spectator interest.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: John Gilmour on 2003-02-24 12:30 ]</font>

Andy Bittner
GBJ
GBJ
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Gaithersburg, MD

Post by Andy Bittner » Mon Feb 24, 2003 2:17 pm

In reference to John's post, which I feel sums up the situation well, I have some pertinent experience and concerns to add.

I think there are two primary reasons to run races side-by-side. Dual racing can certainly add an additional exciting competitive element for the racers and tends to look additionally exciting to spectators as well. Both of these advantages are significantly diminished as the courses become more different from each other.

My concern is that, if the two courses become too different, it'll lend nothing to the rider's experience, and the spectator's perspective will actually suffer. The experience that causes this concern for me happened back in the summer of '01. At the time there was some discussion on Ncdsa.com of dual courses being set in a mirrored configuration. We'd pretty well arrived at the conclusion that there was really no good mathematic (making the racing more fair) cause for setting mirrored courses, but during the conversation, I'd become curious about the visual aspect of such a course arrangement.

It occurred to me that it might make for a great visual to have racers who are dead even on the course, making mirrored movements toward and away from each other. I guess it must've been at one of the '01 Summer Night Slalom Sessions that we went ahead and gave it a try. What I discovered was that the only thing interesting about the visual was how completely confusing and detrimental it was.

The Gaithersburg Park and Ride is as good a place to set nearly identical courses as I've ever seen, and a good example of that would be the '01 Summer Night Season Finale course(s). There is a dynamic to identical, or nearly identical dual courses, where a focused spectator (or even the rider on the other course) can tell who is ahead from almost any angle. In my opinion, this is dual racing at its' best for everyone involved. The opposite was true for the mirrored courses. Not only was it NOT easy to tell who was ahead, it was even visually hard to determine that there was a race going on, or who was on what course. I mean... even standing at the top of the course, between the courses, as starter, and never blinking for the whole run, it was just plain ol' confusing to look at.

I'm glad we did that experiment, because I love coming up with unexpected results. Unfortunately, in this case, the unexpected results were decidedly negative. Does anyone else remember this experiment and agree? Who was there? KMG? BoBo? Mitch?

The end result, tying all of this information to this particular thread, is that I believe the two most significant and positive benefits to dual racing, enhanced competitive feel for the riders and enhanced visual excitement for spectators, become seriously diminished as the two courses become increasingly dissimilar.

Gary, is there any particular reason why you seem completely unwilling to consider a single lane race on what looks to be a great venue for just that? I'll admit that, starting a new job next week, I probably won't be able to make it anyway, but I am curious about what actually seems to be a reluctance on your part.

Terry Kirby
Team RoeRacing
Team RoeRacing
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Hampton, NH USA

Post by Terry Kirby » Mon Feb 24, 2003 5:53 am

at the bob turner memorial race this year i noticed a strange happening. in the left lane assuming you are looking down the hill, many top riders crashed at the 5th gate. there was nothing difficult about the gate yet cris linford, charlie ransome, gary fluit, mike bream, all went down there. was this coincedence. gary, what happened there.tk

John Gilmour
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

Post by John Gilmour » Mon Feb 24, 2003 5:30 am

In dual racing we strive to have the two identical courses actually be as close to "identical" as possible.

Otherwise Dual racing isn't really dual racing. If the courses are significantly different what we really are doing is tallying the times from two "separate" single track races together to find a winner.

That being recognized- perhaps in a case where the two courses can not be "very identical" we might not have to have the courses identical at all. They could be different courses raced side by side. For this is what really ends up happening. If one of the courses ends up losing "flow" because it is getting to wide ...ie on the outside- or perhaps too tight...the inside..... we might be better optimizing the courses for the hill as opposed to struggling to make them identical.

Sounds ridiculous?

It is really not very different.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: John Gilmour on 2003-02-24 12:51 ]</font>

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Mon Feb 24, 2003 3:51 am

Jack,

Replied to your message and covered copied it in an e-mail to "Old Skate Guy."

Gary Fluitt
asphaltplayground.com
asphaltplayground.com
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Colorado, USA
Contact:

Post by Gary Fluitt » Mon Feb 24, 2003 3:46 am

Dual courses are always slightly different, one being faster than the other. I think that's your point Brady, no matter what you're going to have different courses. That's why we run both lanes and the difference always decides the victor. So we're running around a curve. The courses will for sure be different. We'll try to make them as similar as possible, with an exciting finish.
Dan- to answer your question about Friday's event, here's the low down.
Friday 2pm - 8pm SINGLE LANE LONGBOARD GS
Saturday 9am - 6pm DUAL GS
both the above are at the Beaver Run resort on the curve.
Sunday 9am - 5pm DUAL TS downtown Breck

Jack Smith
Morro Bay Skate legend
Morro Bay Skate legend
Posts: 736
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Morro Bay, California
Contact:

Post by Jack Smith » Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:38 pm

Hey Wes,

Did you get my private message?

Thanks

Brady Mitchell
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Hollywood Hills, Florida

Post by Brady Mitchell » Sun Feb 23, 2003 3:35 am

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.

Dan Hughes
Dan Hughes
Dan Hughes
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Renton, WA
Contact:

Post by Dan Hughes » Sat Feb 22, 2003 6:16 pm

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)

Michael Dong
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Bothell, WA

Post by Michael Dong » Sat Feb 22, 2003 11:39 am

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).

Brady Mitchell
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Hollywood Hills, Florida

Post by Brady Mitchell » Sat Feb 22, 2003 4:48 am

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>

Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Posts: 1189
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Cornwall, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Post by Claude Regnier » Sat Feb 22, 2003 3:15 am

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>

Michael Dong
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Bothell, WA

Post by Michael Dong » Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:39 am

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?

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Sat Feb 22, 2003 12:04 am

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!

Glenn S
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 2:00 am

Post by Glenn S » Fri Feb 21, 2003 11:23 pm

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>

Gary Fluitt
asphaltplayground.com
asphaltplayground.com
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Colorado, USA
Contact:

Post by Gary Fluitt » Fri Feb 21, 2003 11:16 pm

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

John Gilmour
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

Post by John Gilmour » Fri Feb 21, 2003 6:26 pm

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.

Andy Bittner
GBJ
GBJ
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Gaithersburg, MD

Post by Andy Bittner » Thu Feb 20, 2003 11:51 pm

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.

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:55 pm

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>

Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Posts: 1189
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Cornwall, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Post by Claude Regnier » Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:21 pm

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. :sad: 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.

Andy Bittner
GBJ
GBJ
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Gaithersburg, MD

Post by Andy Bittner » Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:39 pm

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.

George Gould
AZ G.R.S.
AZ G.R.S.
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Northern Arizona (Winslow/Flagstaff)

Post by George Gould » Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:32 pm

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

Gary Fluitt
asphaltplayground.com
asphaltplayground.com
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Colorado, USA
Contact:

Post by Gary Fluitt » Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:15 pm

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

Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Posts: 1189
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Cornwall, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Post by Claude Regnier » Thu Feb 20, 2003 2:55 am

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.

Terry Kirby
Team RoeRacing
Team RoeRacing
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Hampton, NH USA

Post by Terry Kirby » Thu Feb 20, 2003 2:19 am

Mike Ohms in the house.

Mike Ohm
Posts: 525
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Alexandria, VA

Post by Mike Ohm » Thu Feb 20, 2003 1:20 am

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.

Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Posts: 1189
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Cornwall, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Post by Claude Regnier » Wed Feb 19, 2003 4:48 pm

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.

Andy Bittner
GBJ
GBJ
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Gaithersburg, MD

Post by Andy Bittner » Wed Feb 19, 2003 3:06 pm

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>

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:29 am

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
GBJ
GBJ
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Gaithersburg, MD

Post by Andy Bittner » Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:15 am

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Wed Feb 19, 2003 1:35 am

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.

John Gilmour
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

Post by John Gilmour » Wed Feb 19, 2003 1:30 am

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.

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

Post by Pat Chewning » Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:50 am

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

Andy Bittner
GBJ
GBJ
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Gaithersburg, MD

Post by Andy Bittner » Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:24 pm

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>

Brady Mitchell
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Hollywood Hills, Florida

Post by Brady Mitchell » Tue Feb 18, 2003 6:27 am

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.

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Tue Feb 18, 2003 5:21 am

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

My attorneys will be in touch. :wink:

John Gilmour
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

Post by John Gilmour » Tue Feb 18, 2003 4:46 am

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Tue Feb 18, 2003 3:23 am

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
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

Post by John Gilmour » Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:47 am

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Tue Feb 18, 2003 1:54 am

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.

Post Reply