Post
by Chris Chaput » Sat Nov 09, 2002 3:57 am
I can certainly understand that a spectator would "get" the concept of a gate on a ramp. Most spectators would assume that the clock starts for both lanes at the same time. In the case of the FCR series, they would be correct. It is however, only an assumption and would not be accurate in the case of a race that uses independent start timing for each lane. Actually, there is always independent timing used, it's just that some races implement it along with a common start.
This is neither wrong nor right, it's just one method of starting a slalom race. Spectators understand that some racers get better starts than others, but it doesn't always mean that much. There are two runs, cone penalties, DQs, advantages after the first run and of course, the race to the finish line. After the second run of heat, even experienced racers are left to wonder who has won the race because there are various calculations to be made before a winner is determined.
Sometimes a guy is slow out of the gate because he has a commanding lead after the first round and doesn't want to blow it by hitting the gate. Sometimes he is just "off" on that run. Sometimes they are hung up after barging the gate. Sometimes they're a little slow out of the gate, but make up for it with a great pull and/or transition pump. Some guys are just plain slow. I've seen Chicken and Olson and Dunn with "perfect" starts, and I've also seen all three have it backfire on them.
What's my point here? Ramps and gates can work well, but I wouldn't use gates. Here's why.
Gates are based on the concept of a "fair start". I think that fair starts are important, but there are several ways to achieve a fair start without gates. Gates are what I call "restraint devices". Henry Hester's wheel holder is another example of a restraint device. The concept is simple. Racers can't leave until the gate/door/lever is open. In reality though, racers will attempt to leave before it's open. Powerful athletes force their way through to try and get a jump on the other racer. They often defeat the system or break it, or end up hurting themselves. IMHO it's not "if" this will happen, it's "when". It introduces a high likelihood of down-time on race day. Although spectators can relate to the effect of a racer's good reaction time, they can also relate to a great start that is the result of a strong pull (or push) and a good transition pump. I honestly believe that if spectators saw a racer pull out of the top of a ramp that had no gate, they wouldn't be missing a thing. They would naturally assume (and correctly so) that some method of determining a fair start was in place. In other words, you could run a race on ramps without gates and no one would care.
Race organizers however, do care about racers leaving the start at about the same time. It would look wierd if one guy left a couple of seconds after the other guy, finished well behind the other guy, and still won the heat. I would never propose a system that allowed for this because some racers would choose to "pace" the other rider and attempt to "reel him in". With a very simple system that implements a small window of time in which to leave the starting line, fair and exciting starts could occur without the need for gates.
Consider the following:
In single lane racing, we already accept a "good start" as one that comes from a strong push, not a well timed push. We know this because races like the San Francisco GS and the banked slalom race in Albuquerue had the timer start when the rider crossed a beam or wand or tapeswitch, rather than from a countdown.
In dual lane races with a common start, there is only one set of circumstances in which someone can determine the winner of a race without doing any calculations. That is when a rider crosses the finish line ahead of his opponent and is clean in BOTH heats. Otherwise, time differentials and cone penalty differentials must be calculated before determining the victor. Considering that spectators often can't even determine who crossed the line first (in tight races) and don't always do the math with regard to the cone penalties or even remember who is ahead after the first run, I see nothing wrong or bad in having a system where sometimes the rider who crosses the line slightly ahead of the other isn't the winner. It's already like that now. We wait, we count, we do the math, and THEN we announce the winner. Everyone accepts this.
Here is what I want to see in racing:
1. Fair starts.
2. No false starts.
3. No gates.
4. Independent start devices (triggers) in each lane.
5. Making the system as bulletproof, inexpensive and available as possible.
To me, it's cheaper, easier and safer to put a tapeswitch on each ramp than a mechanical gate. Fair and exciting starts can occur without promoting false starts. If ramps are not available or desireable in certain situations, the same timing system can be implemented without them.
This is a very simple and basic programming task and one that I think we should explore. I am confident that once such a system is used at a race, everyone will accept it. I am also confident that until it is built, many guys will knock it before they even try it.
If anyone would like to pursue this idea with me, I'd be happy to share the details of my idea. It's nothing new, but perhaps new to slalom skateboarding.
p.s. There was a 4-Man downhill skateboarding race held in NM the day before "The Bear". The starter released an elastic cord (like the one Jack used at Cambria and Gary used in Colorado) and a small metal weight attached to the cord struck a cymbal at the starting line. The STARTER was responsible for releasing the cord within 5 seconds of "SET" when no one was touching the cord. THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS A FALSE START. Restarts could have been necessary but never were because everyone was frozen at the line without being able to time a countdown. Not only were the racers able to visually determine when they could leave, but they could hear the start signal (the cymbal) as well. Not only did this idea work, but several riders were overheard saying what a great idea it was and that they'd like to see it replace some of the questionable starting methods that other organizations use.