2008 ISSA Rules Update - Section 3 (Equipment)

[Pat Chewning]

2. 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. Mechanisms which alter the flex, camber, stiffness, or other characteristics of the deck during use are prohibited. Aerodynamic fairings are prohibited.

(B) DECK: The deck must be structurally sound and not pose a safety hazard. It may be any shape, size or construction.

The Choice A lumps the definition of deck, the allowable modifications, and prohibited items (altering flex... fairings) all into one choice. Since the allowable modification, and extra prohibited items are covered in other questions, they should be removed from this question.

7. Should there be a rule restricting the total number of wheels allowed?

(A) Yes, four
(B) Yes, six
(C) No, unlimited

I would prefer that choice A be clarified so that it means EXACTLY 4 wheels, no more, no fewer. I think (but I'm not sure) that choice B should be a maximum number of wheels.

8. Should the following rule be included?
BINDINGS: “Bindings, toe straps, or other devices attaching the shoes to the deck are prohibited”.

(A) YES
(B) NO

9. Should the following items be expressly listed as “Prohibited” in the rules?

a) “Propulsion devices or mechanisms.”
b) “Brakes, clutches or other devices providing torque to the wheels.”
c) “Aerodynamic fairings, parachutes, sails, or other such devices.”
d) “Mechanisms which alter the flex, camber, stiffness, steering devices or other characteristics of the equipment during the race.”
e) Handles, seats, supports, or other equipment that provides an interface from the racer to the board other than the sole of the shoe.”
f) “Equipment that is consumed, discarded, or jettisoned during the race.”

(A) YES
(B) NO, these rules are not needed

I would like the "propulsion" "brakes" "Fairings" "mechanisms" "handles" "consumed" items to be individual YES/NO choices, similar in wording to the "bindings" question. The current voting questions are biased in favor of the "bindings" over the other proposed prohibited items.

10. Should the following items be expressly listed as “Allowed” in the rules?

a) Foot stops or other devices to limit the lateral movement of the feet on the deck.
b) Concave, kick-tail, camber, and other shape modifications to the flat deck.
c) Additional protective equipment (knee pads, elbow pads, gloves, etc)
d) Bearings for the wheels.

(A) YES
(B) NO, these rules are not needed

Each items a,b,c,d in the proposed "allowed" equipment should be individually voted on. I think some members might want to expressly allow foot stops, but not the rest of the items. Lumping them all together makes it biased in favor of a NO vote.

Thanks,

--- Pat

[Marcus Rietema]

Marcus, I now realize that it probably sounds as if I was attacking you or your ideas, when I actually agree with most all of your ideas. I just would hate to see you going down the path of "solving" problems that don't exist. Please don't bite on the fairing thing. It is a complete and total non-issue.

Ha ha! Chris, don't forget, I'm not even an ISSA Board member. I'm just a racer who happens to posses a lot of experience with skateboard racing rules, regulations and event management. I became very concerned while reading the proposed equipment specs. I've seen the problems that bad rules can create first hand. I'm all for seeing a racer get down a hill as fast as possible.

Fairings were not legal on street luges when I competed at the 95' & 96' X Games so I circumvented the rules and called mine a "Head rest"... I was also the only person wearing one of Landingham's speedsuits back in 95' and the only one riding a six wheeled luge. I personally love finding loopholes in rules to gain a performance advantage. Because of this I'm also pretty good at writing rules to close those same loopholes.

I believe the "toe stop" rule I proposed states the intent quite well. “Toe stops are allowed. They must not wrap over, trap or affix the rider’s foot to the deck in any way." If you don't think so, please submit an alternative.

FYI: The ISSA rules I proposed made no reference to fairings whatsoever. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed on the boards or the rider.

[Chris Chaput]

Marcus, I now realize that it probably sounds as if I was attacking you or your ideas, when I actually agree with most all of your ideas. I just would hate to see you going down the path of "solving" problems that don't exist. Please don't bite on the fairing thing. It is a complete and total non-issue.

You and I both know that it is entirely impossible to impose an anti-fairing rule because the easy way around it is to just make the deck a 3D foam carving wrapped in some type of composite shell. Since no fairings were attached, none exist. Then some idiot will say "the whole board is a fairing" when really it just acts as one. And the idea that tis is a bad thing? When did "we" vote on that? Then we get to that wonderful place where someone has to basically say, "anything that works very well is threatening to me and I don't want to have to work that hard ,or pay that much, or practice or test equipment is order to stay competitive". You see, THAT would be the truth and should be avoided at all cost. We instead should use irrational and fear based lobbying to guilt or shame others into accepting our agenda. "Fairings are gay" and "6-wheelers are for cheaters" and "those expensive trucks are unfair". That's the skater way to grow a sport from hundreds of particpants to a few dozen.

Toe-stops: Write the intent of the toe-stop rule! THEN write the rule. If we don't want a feature of the deck to allow a rider to "pull" the board up instead of just pushing down by leaning, then say so. We also have to consider hooks or clips or fasteners on the shoes that could pull up the rails. By saying what it is that we want to avoid and listing a few specific examples of what is not allowed, we don't have to write a 16 page book on a toe-stop.

What's true is that with a vertical toe-stop and a matching heel-stop, one could spread his feet apart enough to lift or "jump" the board. I say fine to that, and "no" to skyhooks or bindings, because it will keep things simple and there isn't (yet) a problem with it.

[Dave Gale]

Here is my proposed "Toe stop" question. The wording revises the vertical plane wording that could prove problematic when using toe blocks made from soft materials like C-Block.

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
(B) NO

Yes.

An excellent "non binding" resolution.

There is no such thing as a "non-binding" resolution! It's either resolved, or it's not!
Why must things be soo difficult

[Wesley Tucker]

Here is my proposed "Toe stop" question. The wording revises the vertical plane wording that could prove problematic when using toe blocks made from soft materials like C-Block.

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
(B) NO

Yes.

An excellent "non binding" resolution.

[Marcus Rietema]

Here is my proposed "Toe stop" question. The wording revises the vertical plane wording that could prove problematic when using toe blocks made from soft materials like C-Block.

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
(B) NO

[Marcus Rietema]

(B) PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

a) HELMET: No restrictions

b) SHOES: One shoe worn on each foot

c) ADDITIONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Knee pads, elbow pads, gloves, etc are allowed.

I would like the wording changed somewhat on a) HELMET

Something like: a) HELMET: Required.

The goal of the re-wording is to reinforce that a helmet is required. "No restrictions" might be mis-interpreted to mean there are no restrictions on the # of helmets -- including 0 helmets.

Pat, I just edited Question #11 choice #B to the following:

(B) REQUIRED PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

a) HELMET: No restrictions on type or design.

b) SHOES: One shoe must be worn on each foot.

c) OPTIONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Knee pads, elbow pads, gloves, etc.

I think that does a better job of reflecting your position.

[Pat Chewning]

(B) PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

a) HELMET: No restrictions

b) SHOES: One shoe worn on each foot

c) ADDITIONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Knee pads, elbow pads, gloves, etc are allowed.

I would like the wording changed somewhat on a) HELMET

Something like: a) HELMET: Required.

The goal of the re-wording is to reinforce that a helmet is required. "No restrictions" might be mis-interpreted to mean there are no restrictions on the # of helmets -- including 0 helmets.

[Marcus Rietema]

Good job Marcus ... this looks very close to complete and unbiased choices for the vote.

Only 1 item missing that I saw, in relation to the foot-stop:

I think the toe stop thing can be regulated by: "Must not break the vertical plane" as in NOT wrapping over on top of the foot.

I don't run one, but all of the ones that I see at the races seem to comply with this.

There, done.


Now what else can I solve for you?

Thanks Pat. I'll wait until next week to make any modifications to the ballot. I rather do a few changes at once rather than continually changing it and reposting daily.

[Marcus Rietema]

Marcus, I have to run to the bank right now and I'm like two sentences into the rules and I'm already wondered who, when and where it was suggested that fairings not be allowed or things that alter the flex characteristics of of a deck not be allowed? Whay the hell not? What specific decks are we talking about?

We SHOULD be racing on boards that are aerodynamic. We SHOULD be looking for a deck that can accelerate us faster than ever before. We SHOULD be looking at every imaginable way to go faster than we have ever gone before. We should be evolving the sport, progressing and keeping an open mind to new ideas.

Sometimes it helps to start the process of writing rules by stating the intent of the authors. It is also helpful in giving specific examples about what IS, and IS NOT a skateboard or skateboarding. A declaration of the spirit of the rules can a long way in avoiding having to write a rulebook that only a lawyer could decypher.

The spirit of the rules could say that skating is basically standing on, but not being bound to, a deck with wheels that is steered by leaning. If a guy comes and kneels he's not standing. If he's strapped or hooked in he is bound. If it has a steering wheel it's not simply lean-steer. If it has a jet, motor, sail, rockets, or propellors, we simply laugh him off the premises and give him no audience. Period. We know that's what would happen. Why are we pretending that we wouldn't? Is he going to bring a lawyer and demand time on the slalom course with his Hummer, and are we going to let him? No.

Chris, Please go back through and read this entire thread. If you do you will see that I have been arguing nearly all of the same points you have. You and I are in agreement on about 95% of the rules and maybe it's something like 98%. I'm really busy with the IGSA at the moment but I felt this was too important for me to just not worry about. I've tried to take in everyone's input and present it in an unbiased way so that people can make clear choices. This sport is much bigger than what you, Pat, I or anyone else think on our own. It's best to let the riders make the choices and the ISSA follow their wishes. It's not perfect but I think this ballot will go a long way toward having equipment rules that reflect the sentiment of the majority. Those who care enough about slalom to be members of the ISSA. I hope it will also help the ISSA gain the respect of people like Wax so he and others will choose to become an ISSA member to participate in the voting process. Having rules that the riders respect will go a long way toward the ISSA gaining credibility and the support of slalom skaters worldwide.

If there's one thing I've learned the past eleven years with the IGSA, it's to listen to the will of the riders whenever possible. It's much more effective to have an organization that works with the riders as opposed to one that fights them.

[Pat Chewning]

Marcus, I have to run to the bank right now and I'm like two sentences into the rules and I'm already wondered who, when and where it was suggested that fairings not be allowed or things that alter the flex characteristics of of a deck not be allowed? Whay the hell not? What specific decks are we talking about?

That would be me, Chris. The initial draft of the rules contained the anti-fairing and anti-dynamic gadgets wording. I'm not against altering the flex of a deck. I am against any gadgets that allow it to be altered during the race. Fairings have their place in downhill racing, not in slalom.

Those are my opinions, they differ from yours probably. Good thing we get to vote.

[Pat Chewning]

Good job Marcus ... this looks very close to complete and unbiased choices for the vote.

Only 1 item missing that I saw, in relation to the foot-stop:

I think the toe stop thing can be regulated by: "Must not break the vertical plane" as in NOT wrapping over on top of the foot.

I don't run one, but all of the ones that I see at the races seem to comply with this.

There, done.


Now what else can I solve for you?

[Chris Chaput]

Marcus, I have to run to the bank right now and I'm like two sentences into the rules and I'm already wondered who, when and where it was suggested that fairings not be allowed or things that alter the flex characteristics of of a deck not be allowed? Whay the hell not? What specific decks are we talking about?

We SHOULD be racing on boards that are aerodynamic. We SHOULD be looking for a deck that can accelerate us faster than ever before. We SHOULD be looking at every imaginable way to go faster than we have ever gone before. We should be evolving the sport, progressing and keeping an open mind to new ideas.

Sometimes it helps to start the process of writing rules by stating the intent of the authors. It is also helpful in giving specific examples about what IS, and IS NOT a skateboard or skateboarding. A declaration of the spirit of the rules can a long way in avoiding having to write a rulebook that only a lawyer could decypher.

The spirit of the rules could say that skating is basically standing on, but not being bound to, a deck with wheels that is steered by leaning. If a guy comes and kneels he's not standing. If he's strapped or hooked in he is bound. If it has a steering wheel it's not simply lean-steer. If it has a jet, motor, sail, rockets, or propellors, we simply laugh him off the premises and give him no audience. Period. We know that's what would happen. Why are we pretending that we wouldn't? Is he going to bring a lawyer and demand time on the slalom course with his Hummer, and are we going to let him? No.

[Marcus Rietema]

Okay, here is my first shot at a ballot for the technical rules. I've tried to take in everybody's arguments that I've seen this far. If you see something that needs to be added or changed I'm sure you'll let me know. Time for me to drive to San Diego and actually ride a skateboard!!!

Please choose one answer from each question

1. Should the sentence “Competitors are required to ride in a standing (upright) position” be included in the “Skateboard Specifications?”

(A) YES
(B) NO

2. 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. Mechanisms which alter the flex, camber, stiffness, or other characteristics of the deck during use are prohibited. Aerodynamic fairings are prohibited.

(B) DECK: The deck must be structurally sound and not pose a safety hazard. It may be any shape, size or construction.

3. Choose a rule for “Trucks.”

(A) TRUCKS: Exactly two trucks are required. Steering mechanisms activated by means other than lean-to-steer are prohibited.

(B) TRUCKS: No restrictions on number. The trucks must be lean steer activated.

4. Should there be a rule requiring trucks to be commercially available?
“Commercially available” means the product must be available for sale to at least 24 people outside the company.

(A) YES
(B) NO

5. Choose a rule for “Wheels”

(A) WHEELS: Wheels can be a maximum diameter of one hundred thirty millimeters (130mm / 5 1/8”).
(B) WHEELS: No restrictions

6. Should there be a rule requiring wheels to be commercially available?
“Commercially available” means the product must be available for sale to at least 24 people outside the company.

(A) YES
(B) NO

7. Should there be a rule restricting the total number of wheels allowed?

(A) Yes, four
(B) Yes, six
(C) No, unlimited

8. Should the following rule be included?
BINDINGS: “Bindings, toe straps, or other devices attaching the shoes to the deck are prohibited”.

(A) YES
(B) NO

9. Should the following items be expressly listed as “Prohibited” in the rules?

a) “Propulsion devices or mechanisms.”
b) “Brakes, clutches or other devices providing torque to the wheels.”
c) “Aerodynamic fairings, parachutes, sails, or other such devices.”
d) “Mechanisms which alter the flex, camber, stiffness, steering devices or other characteristics of the equipment during the race.”
e) Handles, seats, supports, or other equipment that provides an interface from the racer to the board other than the sole of the shoe.”
f) “Equipment that is consumed, discarded, or jettisoned during the race.”

(A) YES
(B) NO, these rules are not needed

10. Should the following items be expressly listed as “Allowed” in the rules?

a) Foot stops or other devices to limit the lateral movement of the feet on the deck.
b) Concave, kick-tail, camber, and other shape modifications to the flat deck.
c) Additional protective equipment (knee pads, elbow pads, gloves, etc)
d) Bearings for the wheels.

(A) YES
(B) NO, these rules are not needed

11. Choose a rule set regarding safety equipment:

(A) PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

a) HELMETS: Hard shell is required. Helmets can be full face or open face design. The helmet must be worn to the manufactures recommendations. The helmet strap must be worn tight and secure as designed. NO EXCEPTIONS! Must be CPSC, ASTM and/or Snell -rated for bicycle, skateboard and/or motorsports use. No 'toy', 'ornamental' or 'novelty' helmets are permitted.

b) FOOTWEAR: Shoes are required. They must be in good condition and laced buckled or secured as designed.

c) GLOVES: Full fingered, all leather or leather and Kevlar gloves are recommended.

d) ELBOW AND KNEE PADS: Protective padding for the knees and elbows is recommended.

(B) REQUIRED PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

a) HELMET: No restrictions on type or design.

b) SHOES: One shoe must be worn on each foot.

c) OPTIONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Knee pads, elbow pads, gloves, etc.

[Chris Chaput]

Can we be real honest here guys. Seriously, let's put aside the fear, put aside the fashion, and put aside the paranoia for just a minute.

THERE IS NOT NOW, NOR WILL THERE EVER BE ANY "SLALOM POLICE" THAT WILL INSPECT AND REGULATE RACE GEAR. This is soooooo far removed from NASCAR or other sports where rules and regulations and both desireable and necessary. Which of following shouldn't be allowed to race, and who is going to make that decision:

1. Early Manx wheels that came from that one really great pour that only Chicken, Carrasco, Barker and Mitchell have.
2. Trimmed Avalons
3. Stingers, La Costas, Hypers and other discontinued wheels.
4. Amber Flywheels on the older cores
5. 72a Gumballs
6. Seismics in the old colors
7. Pink (Reflex Formula) Gumballs
8. Wheels that Mollica pre-cones on his lathe
9. Avilas that Kosick has coned through hours and hours of riding
10. Wheels that are trimmed by hand but worn into perfection
11. Wheels that cost a lot
12. Wheels that aren't widely available
13. Wheels that made from two or more wheels glued together
14. Split wheels that go on a single axle
15. Wheels that take a 688 bearing without an adaptor
16. Wheels that use an adaptor to use a 688 bearing
17. Wheels that use a bearing with a 10mm bore.
18. Wheels with precision spacers
19. Wheels with odd sized spacings (not .300" or .400")
20. Wheels with special new urethane formulas
21. Wheels that are dyed a different color
22. Wheels that are cooled in an ice chest before each run.
23. Wheels that use 3 or 4 bearings
24. Wheels with grooves added
25. Wheels with razor slices in them
26. Wheels that are chamferred or radiused by the rider
27. Wheels with aluminum cores machined into them
28. Wheels designed for inline or quad skating
29. Wheels from China
30. Wheels with lead added for mass
31. Wheels with hollow cores
32. Wheels with modified core spokes
33. Wheels with modified bearing seats
34. Wheels that are heated before a run
35. Wheels that are intentionally slow
36. Wheels without spacers that allow "bearing pinch" to regulate speed (isn't that a brake?)
37. Do I really need a 37th wheel example to make my point? Nobody really cares about this crap because the very nature of racing is to try to go as fast as you can and unnecessary restrictions are exactly that - UNNECESSARY and RESTRICTIVE. As soon as you start writing restrictions that aren't necessary, you have to start including these all-inclusive rules and regulations that address utterly absurd scenarios that have never surfaced and never will. "Just in case" someone brings a jet powered streetluge to a Tight Slalom race.

C'mon guys. BE REAL! Tim Oates brought a 6-wheeler tothe 2001 Worlds and no one batted an eye. Some guy apparantly brought a single rollers skate to a slalom race in the 70's or 80's and I rather suspect that he either didn't win or wasn't given awards if he did, because everyone knew it was a rollerskate, with or without any rules about it. There are at least two people that I know of who are planning/have planned to bring bindings to arce soon, and IMHO this should be addressed.

Toe stops are usually thought of as an attachment to deck, but one can be easily integrated into the deck's structure, or be formed out of wood, foam, resin, or griptape and provide the same function. It's the function of having people being able to lift and twist a deck that is the issue, and not how it is attached. A tough rule may eliminate many of the current toe-stop designs, but you can't allow "good people" with "bad toe-stops" to race if bindings are voted down. My vote would to ban bindings or features of a board that cover or overhang the feet or shoes or anything that the rider wears. The "vertical" test is a good start on crafting that rule. Sorry to anyone making millions of dollars on toe-stops right now. Start designing them to comply or start lobbying to get them (grandfathered) in.

Everything that I said about wheels goes for trucks and bearings too. Don't eliminate ANYTHING unless and until it is a known problem and has to be dealt with. Even then, don't be surprised if what is asked for is EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM that there is a problem. People whining on the message boards about somebody else's equipment doesn't constitute a problem, even though they do it in all caps and do it often.

We gotta getta grip here guys. There are no WMDs, no terrorists, and no threats of terrorism in slalom. Let's not start writing legislation as if there is. We all know that if someone brings something to skateboard race that isn't a skateboard, it's not going to race. We may want to watch the guy with the vehicle in question do his thing for the sake of novelty, but who here is really afraid that Gareth or CBark or Marion is going to hand a trophy over to a guy on a scooter? Anyone?

[Ron Barbagallo]

No need! We agree to disagree. My first day off in months and I'm feelin' frisky!
My stand remains tho, a toe stop is a type of binding, the rule should read.."no bindings, other than lateral, single axis toe stop types"

so if you're using a bushing as a toestop, at what durometer does it become more than a single axis, in other words how soft before your foot begins to sink INTO the toestop pushing it into binding territory?

okay, NOW I'm just bein' a dick! :lol:


and for the record I do agree with you

[Dave Gale]

I've spent the last 87 days outside, I think I'll stay in today and catch up on these debates! And digest everyone's "opinions" !

[Wesley Tucker]

My first day off in months and I'm feelin' frisky!

Well, Frisky is tired and needs to go outside.

[Dave Gale]

A "binding" restricts vertical motion of the foot.

A "toestop" restricts lateral or horizontal movement of the foot.

Basically, if you can lift up your foot it's a toestop.

You put your foot AGAINST a toestop, you put your foot IN or UNDER a binding.


Shall I go on?

No need! We agree to disagree. My first day off in months and I'm feelin' frisky!
My stand remains tho, a toe stop is a type of binding, the rule should read.."no bindings, other than lateral, single axis toe stop types"

[Pat Chewning]

Yes, I will do it. When will my deadline be to put a ballot together? I think we should let people continue to talk about this subject and explore different options before we actually put it to a vote.

Voting start: Nov 15
Voting end: Nov 30

We have now til Nov 15 to prepare and discuss a complete, unbiased wording of the voting.

I disagree. There are still too many (good) racers out there that do not ride the keyboard regularly or are intereste in forum discussions. I think the voting should take place on the first couple of big events of next season. The rules will be printed and distributed (also by E-Mail) to the racers to read through and then the voting will take place. If we vote in the proposed period, many will have to accept the new rules next season without even having heard of the discussion and voting.

IF we still decide to proceed with the proposed voting schedule, we should at least have a non-anonymous voting so that we can clearly see WHO all took part.

The voting should be obligatory for at least the top 20 Pros!

rmn

Well, the ISSA Constitution allows online voting. Signup for races is done online. Payment for races is done online. I don't see how we can meet the schedule without doing it online.

As far as making the voting obligatory for the top 20 Pros .... well, what if they don't vote? What are we going to do --- go forward even more time without rules? Maybe ban those Pros who did not vote from further competition? (Sarcasm)

I think we can make it easier and encourage more vote participation (with an email to members reminding them to vote around Nov 15). But we should not delay any longer, or force people to vote. The people who are interested are involved.

[Wesley Tucker]

Yes, I will do it. When will my deadline be to put a ballot together? I think we should let people continue to talk about this subject and explore different options before we actually put it to a vote.

Voting start: Nov 15
Voting end: Nov 30

We have now til Nov 15 to prepare and discuss a complete, unbiased wording of the voting.

I disagree. There are still too many (good) racers out there that do not ride the keyboard regularly or are intereste in forum discussions. I think the voting should take place on the first couple of big events of next season.

Ramon,

The voting is open ONLY to ALL ISSA members. This is an ISSA issue. Anyone with an interest in slalom skateboarding and the goals of the ISSA are welcome to join and participate in the vote.

I can assure you ALL ISSA member will be notified and informed of this process REPEATEDLY. That's one of the things as Secretary that I do.

This discussion is open to the public and all input, suggestion, criticisms and support is appreciated.

In the end, though, the vote on these rules and any changes will take place in the ISSA MEMBERS ONLY forum.

[Ron Barbagallo]

A "binding" restricts vertical motion of the foot.

A "toestop" restricts lateral or horizontal movement of the foot.

Basically, if you can lift up your foot it's a toestop.

You put your foot AGAINST a toestop, you put your foot IN or UNDER a binding.


Shall I go on?

[Ramón Königshausen]

Yes, I will do it. When will my deadline be to put a ballot together? I think we should let people continue to talk about this subject and explore different options before we actually put it to a vote.

Voting start: Nov 15
Voting end: Nov 30

We have now til Nov 15 to prepare and discuss a complete, unbiased wording of the voting.

I disagree. There are still too many (good) racers out there that do not ride the keyboard regularly or are interested in forum discussions. I think the voting should take place on the first couple of big events of next season. The rules will be printed and distributed (also by E-Mail) to the racers to read through and then the voting will take place. If we vote in the proposed period, many will have to accept the new rules next season without even having heard of the discussion and voting.

IF we still decide to proceed with the proposed voting schedule, we should at least have a non-anonymous voting so that we can clearly see WHO all took part.

The voting should be obligatory for at least the top 20 Pros!

rmn

[Dave Gale]

Then simply refer to them as "toe stops" And don't generalize them into what will and is considered a binding by definition!

p.s read any good books lately?

[Marcus Rietema]

As far as ISSA in concerned the "six wheel issue" is settled until December 31, 2007. We decided through the end of this year race organizers had the discretion to allow or disallow a six-wheeled skateboard.

So, by me calendar, we have 73 days to determine and ratify a rule for the 2008 season and beyond.

I think it would be prudent to follow the voting schedule that has been proposed. The new rules would go into effect on January 1, 2008.

[Wesley Tucker]

Are we on the same page yet?

I have no clue. Your book must be written in Swahili.

Here's the bottom line: toe stops will not be banned. Bindings will.

[Dave Gale]

As soon as skaters start riding in snow, ice and water then maybe bindings will be applicable.

Any further attempt to equate sky bindings with slalom skateboard bindings is nothing more than obstinate intransigence in the face of reality.

Have at it.

Aint tryin' to equate anything!
Simply pointing out a possible controversy in the future re: limitations, and the wording of such!
A binding, is a binding. Concave is concave (unless viewed 180 out, then it becomes convex)
Just as a wheel is a wheel (no matter how many there are)
Simplicity at it's finest!

Are we on the same page yet?

[Wesley Tucker]

As far as ISSA in concerned the "six wheel issue" is settled until December 31, 2007. We decided through the end of this year race organizers had the discretion to allow or disallow a six-wheeled skateboard.

So, by me calendar, we have 73 days to determine and ratify a rule for the 2008 season and beyond.

[Pat Chewning]

Yes, I will do it. When will my deadline be to put a ballot together? I think we should let people continue to talk about this subject and explore different options before we actually put it to a vote.

Voting start: Nov 15
Voting end: Nov 30

We have now til Nov 15 to prepare and discuss a complete, unbiased wording of the voting.

[Pat Chewning]

EB,

I don't feel that any user (ISSA or SF) is fully educated. Information on 6 wheel boards has not been fully shared. I'm sorry if my post came off that way.

I'd like to see a forum for ISSA members to share information for a finite period of time, and then vote. Let's resolve this issue once and for all.

I'm currently on the board of directors, can I call for a vote?

Joe

You may, but I would like to suggest we follow the method decribed for the voting on rules, so that the end result is a complete set of rules, rather than a piecemeal approach to each item.

Method described here: http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/phpBB ... php?t=5552

Example methodology here:http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/phpBB ... php?t=5552

Voting approx Nov 15-30


I see that Marcus has volunteered to take on the "Moderator" task for the "Equipment" section of the rules. -- So a vote will soon be on the way.

[Wesley Tucker]

As soon as skaters start riding in snow, ice and water then maybe bindings will be applicable.

Any further attempt to equate sky bindings with slalom skateboard bindings is nothing more than obstinate intransigence in the face of reality.

Have at it.

[Marcus Rietema]

i strongly support what marcus pointed out.
it is very important to keep the basic rules simple and understandable.
his proposals were very overseeable and understandable,whereas your(pat) ruleset is
more than irritating.
chaput made his points too and they seem also to be just.
please keep this simple and understandable for the masses you don't have to ridicule them.

thanks marcus for making this look good

Marcus's contribution does seem to be gaining proponents. Will Marcus volunteer to be the moderator of the vote for this section of the rules? I think he would do a good job. He certainly made improvements over the initial draft of this section.

What about it, Marcus?
http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/phpBB ... php?t=5552

I never intended to ridicule anyone. I am guilty of drafting the initial proposal with too much complexity.

Yes, I will do it. When will my deadline be to put a ballot together? I think we should let people continue to talk about this subject and explore different options before we actually put it to a vote.

[Joe Iacovelli]

EB,

I don't feel that any user (ISSA or SF) is fully educated. Information on 6 wheel boards has not been fully shared. I'm sorry if my post came off that way.

I'd like to see a forum for ISSA members to share information for a finite period of time, and then vote. Let's resolve this issue once and for all.

I'm currently on the board of directors, can I call for a vote?

Joe

[Ron Barbagallo]

Eh? I have one. I made one when I saw Chappy's. And I did it just because it looked cool - kinda like what CMC said above. See? I agreed with Curt even though he didn't blow his party horn while he was racing at our NJ Outlaw race - but I digress.

[Threadjack]

FB,

I believe you've got me mixed up with Carve Master Curt DeBartolo

But that's ok, we both seem to enjoy carving sideways on planks.... Now, back to your regularly scheduled daytime-talkshow-type program...

[/Threadjack]

You sir are correct!

If you know CMC, then you KNOW how stringent my apology is!!!!

Apology x100, my good man!!!

[Curt Chapman]

Eh? I have one. I made one when I saw Chappy's. And I did it just because it looked cool - kinda like what CMC said above. See? I agreed with Curt even though he didn't blow his party horn while he was racing at our NJ Outlaw race - but I digress.

[Threadjack]

FB,

I believe you've got me mixed up with Carve Master Curt DeBartolo

But that's ok, we both seem to enjoy carving sideways on planks.... Now, back to your regularly scheduled daytime-talkshow-type program...

[/Threadjack]

[Pat Chewning]

simplicity is the key to all rules involved

That is a good point. Maybe when we get to the voting, we should ensure that one of the selections is:

F) None of the above, this rule is not needed, delete it.

[Ramón Königshausen]

So then David Pirnack is going do be withdrawn his World Championship Title in Hybrid Slalom?

rmn

I hope this is a joke, right?

The rules we are discussing are for the FUTURE, not the PAST.

I just wanted to emphasize the aspect that this exact type of toe block has been successfully used and now someone wants to prohibit it.

rmn

[Donald Campbell]

simplicity is the key to all rules involved

[Pat Chewning]

i strongly support what marcus pointed out.
it is very important to keep the basic rules simple and understandable.
his proposals were very overseeable and understandable,whereas your(pat) ruleset is
more than irritating.
chaput made his points too and they seem also to be just.
please keep this simple and understandable for the masses you don't have to ridicule them.

thanks marcus for making this look good

Marcus's contribution does seem to be gaining proponents. Will Marcus volunteer to be the moderator of the vote for this section of the rules? I think he would do a good job. He certainly made improvements over the initial draft of this section.

What about it, Marcus?
http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/phpBB ... php?t=5552

I never intended to ridicule anyone. I am guilty of drafting the initial proposal with too much complexity.

[Erik Basil]

Ron your solution on toe stops is simple and effective. It makes clear that a mounted barrel bushing, extended bolt or nub of wood is okay, and also that an inverted conical bushing wouldn't be. Good job.

Since there are some toe stops out there that use a barrel/pivot to elevate a contoured piece, those might be implicated too...especially when someone races in Doc Martens that can notch down under the "toe stop" and then they ollie right over a cone (where's Jack Smith?)... Anyway, I think the arguments over whether a toe stop is or isn't a binding aren't focused on the solution: do we want to allow toe stops? Do we only want toe-stops that aren't overlapped or hooked onto shoes? If that's the case: "Toe stops are allowed, so long as they aren't hooked over or overlapping the shoe". Now it doesn't matter what the semantics are, it's allowed.

[Pat Chewning]

So then David Pirnack is going do be withdrawn his World Championship Title in Hybrid Slalom?

rmn

I hope this is a joke, right?

The rules we are discussing are for the FUTURE, not the PAST.

[Pat Chewning]

Informal polls give us some idea of where people are thinking. But they are different than a vote of the members of the ISSA on the subject of the EXACT wording of the rules that we agree to use for racing.

We will soon be having a VOTE of the MEMBERS of the ISSA for the EXACT WORDING of the rules.

All we need is a volunteer to devise the vote, pass it by the rest of us to make sure it is complete and without bias, then we can vote.

Who is going to volunteer to do this?

The process is outlined here:

http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/phpBB ... php?t=5552

[Dave Gale]

Joe I.
Thanks for bringing the unflattering remark I made to my attention (I've edited it out)
Joe Iacovelli wrote:
Dave Gale wrote:
Joe I.
Polls have been taken and it seems that as a majority, most approve of the 6 wheelers.
I for one think they should be allowed.


I believe that poll was taken on Silverfish. I believe the audience was uneducated and not necessarily of our membership. For our purposes polls are pointless. Lets vote

[HUYNH BACH SAC Frédéric]

Hey, if some of us care so much about equipment restrictions, why not set up a new class: The limited equipment classs where everybody would have to race on the exact same deck with the exact same setup of trucks, wheels, grip tape, bearings, spacers, nuts, bolts, bushings and lube.

That would be pretty interesting. Kiss goodbye to the idealism.

How's that?

rmn

I like the idea, like in sailing racings...

[Donald Campbell]

i strongly support what marcus pointed out.
it is very important to keep the basic rules simple and understandable.
his proposals were very overseeable and understandable,whereas your(pat) ruleset is
more than irritating.
chaput made his points too and they seem also to be just.
please keep this simple and understandable for the masses you don't have to ridicule them.

thanks marcus for making this look good

[Ron Barbagallo]

Well done Ron!!! See how simple the wording can be? I don't usually use them either, and have no problem w/ them...It was just a wording that needed your attention!
OK, so, how 'bout the 6 wheeler debate?

Well.........now that you ask:

Eh? I have one. I made one when I saw Chappy's. And I did it just because it looked cool - kinda like what CMC said above. See? I agreed with Curt even though he didn't blow his party horn while he was racing at our NJ Outlaw race - but I digress.

Now those of you that know me also know that I am no one in the race standings - D class at best. That being said, here's what I think aboot the 666wheeler - I really don't see it as an advantage. Yes, in theory it provides more traction in the back, but realistically only on certain courses. On a GS or more likely on a Super G kinda course it MAY be an advantage. On the majority of the courses I've raced in the past few years, that translates into maybe a couple. It seems to me that the additional traction really only becomes an asset above a certain speed, at lower speeds the 6 seems a bit ungainly.

Will Chris Chaput and his 666wheeler beat Jason Mitchell or Dominick (yeah, I'll go Euro for ya'!) running GOG's and BigZigs? Prolly not - no offense Chris, you're a great guy and a great racer - but those two have screws loose, and you can't beat insane with conventional weapons.

Now remember this MY OPINION ONLY, and based on NO FACTS WHATSOEVER! But Dave asked me what I thought and since I have a tiny bit of experience with riding a 6, I thought I'd chime in.

Perhaps there could be an equipment approval committee like I said before. If Mr Chappadoodledoo would like to race his 6 or some other Weapon of Cone Destruction, he could provide a sample or prototype to The Committee for evaluation. If The Committee finds it to be safe and not a blatant advantage like an engine or nuclear device, then it's "approved for racing" - nothing more. The Committee does not encourage said item, only says that it's safe for competition.

Racers then may or may not try it. If it's truly better, then everyone will want one. This will in turn bring the price down for said item making it available to the masses...blah, blah, blah, capitalist/marketing blah.

All I'm saying is this: there's a fine line between innovation and unfair advantage. Is a 6er really an unfair advantage? Everyone CAN have/make/buy one, so I don't see it as unfair. Advantage? MAYBE - and if it is and racers embrace and use it, it becomes an innovation.

Okay, so group hug and we all get some nice jelly doughnuts and coffee

Next?

[Erik Basil]

Joe I.
Polls have been taken and it seems that as a majority, most approve of the 6 wheelers.
I for one think they should be allowed.

I believe that poll was taken on Silverfish. I believe the audience was uneducated and not necessarily of our membership. For our purposes polls are pointless. Lets vote.

One poll was taken on Silverfish. It was started by Zak Maytum, a young skater of some current reknown and many of the uneducated people you so despise voted in it. Each of their names is visible...including the uneducated Wesley Tucker, Donald Campbell, Claude Regnier, Chris Chaput, Ron Barbagallo and others that are not a member of any elite club, but are skaterboarders. Are they below we of the Order of the ISSA or are they somehow above us for not having descended to the gutters of picayune? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that a smart fella such as yourself (and anyone else reading this) can look at that poll, the various levels of discussion/bickering/flaming and insight contained in the threads, then gander at who voted and how and then get an idea what various skaters think...even those not elite enough to be "of our membership".

That thread is here, for anyone that would like to take a look: http://www.silverfishlongboarding.com/f ... hp?t=46602

Another poll was taken right here at the ISSA site, by the highly educated, insider cum laude, Donald Campbell. I linked to it earlier in this thread (it's on the first page for most folks) and, although you cannot see who voted each way, you may find yourself encouraged that the participants were only "of our membership", no matter how uneducated and naive they may be.

The ISSA poll by Donald Campbell, is here: http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/phpBB ... php?t=5136

The banning of skateboards from slalom has been bantered around for more than a year. There have been polls. There are certainly a hardcore few that have ensured it remains a very personal issue, even though the guy you were all so scared of hasn't been racing on one. Newsflash: even our own ISSA members have voted in favor of tradition: run what ya brung. The rest of the skateboard world look in on this and laugh at the repeated attempts to re-poll, revisit or redesign the issue so that anyone other than a hardcore few will support banning skateboards from skateboard racing.

If we don't like the results of informal polls, let's put the matter to a simple vote, and one that's honest: Shall Skateboards with more than 4 wheels be banned from all ISSA competition? The bickering gets nowhere... at least nowhere we haven't already trod.

[Dave Gale]

No it would not. And no it shouldn't.

This toe block is simply an open frame accomplishing the same thing a solid toe block accomplished. The design shown does not wrap over or around the foot. It is simply a lightweight functional toe block used to transmit a person's forward momentum and torque to the wheel

Isn't that what a binding does? It actually transmits the person's foreward momentum and torque to the deck, which in turn transmits to the trucks, which in the end transmit to the wheels.

I'm not gonna nit-pick, but that can be constituted as a binding of sort!! Period

[Wesley Tucker]

I think the toe stop thing can be regulated by: "Must not break the vertical plane" as in NOT wrapping over on top of the foot.

I don't run one, but all of the ones that I see at the races seem to comply with this.

There, done.


Now what else can I solve for you?

Here is a toe block that probably would be prohibited by the "break the vertical plane" wording.



As I think it should be ....

No it would not. And no it shouldn't.

This toe block is simply an open frame accomplishing the same thing a solid toe block accomplished. The design shown does not wrap over or around the foot. It is simply a lightweight functional toe block used to transmit a person's forward momentum and torque to the wheels.

This is not contradictory in any way to the toe block allowance.

[Ramón Königshausen]

So then David Pirnack is going do be withdrawn his World Championship Title in Hybrid Slalom?

rmn