2008 ISSA Rules Update -- Section 5 (RACE RUNS)

general rules, special-tight-giant rules

Moderators: Jonathan Harms, Robert Thiele

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

Cones displaced by the action of other cones

Post by Pat Chewning » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:59 pm

Michael Stride wrote:Hi there, Im just writing guidence notes for the coneheads at the Cadwell race.

Can you clarify something? Is a cone counted as 'displaced' if it is hit by a cone form the SAME course, ie a forward hit? Or is it treated the same as if hit by the adjacent courses cone?

Thanks!!!!
A red cone displaced by the action of another red cone IS counted in the cone count for red course.

A red cone displaced by the action of an "outside agent" (including the action of a white cone) is NOT counted in the cone count for the red course.

This is in section 5.3 of the rules (although not as clear as it could be)....

Michael Stride
Octane Sport (RIP)
Octane Sport (RIP)
Posts: 594
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 2:00 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Michael Stride » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:58 pm

Thats a shame Peter.

But then I guess Sweden does have more snowploughs than we do.

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

Post by Spike Taylor » Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:16 pm

Peter Klang wrote:Just to steer up the discussion. We will NEVER have a maximum cone count in Sweden.
No matter what

Not even for the World Championships? Really? What was the point of all the voting then, I'm puzzled.
FUN-is the bottom line!

Peter Klang
Klangster
Klangster
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:26 am
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

Post by Peter Klang » Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:32 pm

Just to steer up the discussion. We will NEVER have a maximum cone count in Sweden.
No matter what

Martin Drayton
Gecko Decks
Gecko Decks
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Park City,Utah!
Contact:

Re: Section 5.2

Post by Martin Drayton » Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:29 pm

Pat Chewning wrote:
4) It appears that you are against racers actually practicing and gaining skill in race starts.... Why is this method of gaining an "advantage" bad?
No, I am for seeing the benefit of training 'in the course' not on the ramp.personally I want to see the fastest racer through the course rewarded, not the one with the best ability to time a cadence start. but i take your point.
I don't think its bad, but then I am in a country where no-one has a decent start ramp...and the random beep looks to be coming into use in our biggest race to date.

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

Post by Donald Campbell » Fri Nov 23, 2007 6:37 pm

i find the random start idea interesting
on the other hand i favour the regular start...
i also think it is good to train to get the best start possible from the start signal we all know
people who practice the start have an advantage but why not.
the start is one of the most essential things in all disciplines,right?

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

Re: Section 5.2

Post by Pat Chewning » Fri Nov 23, 2007 6:32 pm

Martin Drayton wrote:I'm surprised the vote on Starts is going the way of the countdown beeps....It just makes more sense to me to make it random so that no-one has an advantage.

Here's what I think:

1) The vote is going this way because most people are familiar with the 4-beep method.

2) The 4-beep method gives LESS difference in starting position than the "random" start method, so it actually places LESS emphasis on the start. (Because everyone should be able to go right at the beep, since they know when the beep is happening.)

3) It would be very interesting to compare the start intervals ("reaction time") with the "finish time" for a race. I'm not sure that you will get a good correlation between the racers who get the best times and the racers who get the best starts.....

4) It appears that you are against racers actually practicing and gaining skill in race starts.... Why is this method of gaining an "advantage" bad?

Martin Drayton
Gecko Decks
Gecko Decks
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Park City,Utah!
Contact:

Section 5.2

Post by Martin Drayton » Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:49 pm

I'm surprised the vote on Starts is going the way of the countdown beeps....It just makes more sense to me to make it random so that no-one has an advantage. Those with lots of race practice (or a good set-up at home) will be at an advantage over the less frequent racer. How many people in the heat of the moment have pulled a whole beep early and got a huge penalty?
To quote John Gilmour from another site some time ago...

"Because as the talent pool matures (Which btw it has) you see that the time differences between the final 4 racers in the course have become smaller than the differences at the start.

So what we really are doing from 1/4 finals forward is rewarding racers start ability as opposed to their racing ability. (assuming massive cone carnage is not the issue)."


I couldn't have said it better...

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

Post by Pat Chewning » Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:10 am

Wesley Tucker wrote:Pat,

This is my formal proposal for a rule standard to determine cone penalties.
_______________________________________
OK, Wes That's what I'll put to the vote. BTW, I think you mean the cone DQ penalty, not the cone penalty (i.e. 0.2 per cone).

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:36 pm

Pat,

This is my formal proposal for a rule standard to determine cone DQ penalties.
_______________________________________

Course length is determined as distance from first cone to last cone. Lead in from start line to first cone and from last cone to finish line are not considered for these specifications.

Cone DQ penalties are determined with the following calculation:

1. Displacing 20% of the cones designating the course is allowed.

2. Always round DOWN to determine 20% of displaced cones allowed.

3. Determined 20% of cones displaced total PLUS ONE equals disqualification.

4. Subtract one cone from the 20% total cones allowed for every 150 feet (45 meters) of course length after the first 150 feet (45 meters) of course length. Courses measuring 299.9 feet (89.9 meters), 349.9 feet (105.9 meters), etc., do not meet the cone disqualification reduction standard.

5. 20% - (150-foot/45 meter unit Penalty) = 0 - results in clean no-cones-displaced runs only. One cone displaced equals disqualification.
Last edited by Wesley Tucker on Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:52 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Image

Martin Drayton
Gecko Decks
Gecko Decks
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Park City,Utah!
Contact:

Re: Different courses.

Post by Martin Drayton » Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:39 pm

Jani Soderhall wrote:
Ramón Königshausen wrote:Has there ever been a different course of HS, GS or SGS for Pros and Ams? (I'm not 100% sure, but I guess it's not)
To me it seems completely reasonable to have different courses also in these disciplines, if there is a good reason for it. The upcoming Dixie cup seems to have different starting positions for the various categories. That's not so easy to implement, but it may make sense if the course is really long and really fast. There may be situations where inexperienced ams would be better off not doing the full "pro" course.

Setting two completely different courses may be hard to handle, but let's allow some variations that may make the courses more appropriate for less experienced (I'm obviously not talking about the top ams!)

/Jani
This would also prevent some GS courses turning into tuck from top-to-bottom races so that everyone can make them. Make the Pro courses one you have to fight to make those turns and hold on at 30mph!

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

Different courses for different racer groups.

Post by Pat Chewning » Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:38 pm

For those of you who favor different courses for the different racer groups:

Is there a proposal to write this into the rules as REQUIRED practice, DESIRED practice, or not?

Or are you just discussing some aspects of how races get done, but do not wish to alter the rules?

Ramón Königshausen
Airflow - Skateboards
Airflow - Skateboards
Posts: 1485
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Different courses.

Post by Ramón Königshausen » Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:23 pm

Ramón Königshausen wrote:Has there ever been a different course of HS, GS or SGS for Pros and Ams? (I'm not 100% sure, but I guess it's not)
Jani Soderhall wrote: To me it seems completely reasonable to have different courses also in these disciplines, if there is a good reason for it.
Okay, I agree.

But if there are different courses, they have to be set and marked before (or early in the morning of) race day.
Feel the flow – Airflow Skateboards

Real skateboard wheels come in green – ABEC11

Enjoy the ride – GOG Slalom & DH Trucks

Jani Soderhall
ISSA President 2011-2024
ISSA President 2011-2024
Posts: 4702
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Sweden, lives in France
Contact:

Re: Different courses.

Post by Jani Soderhall » Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:56 pm

Ramón Königshausen wrote:Has there ever been a different course of HS, GS or SGS for Pros and Ams? (I'm not 100% sure, but I guess it's not)
To me it seems completely reasonable to have different courses also in these disciplines, if there is a good reason for it. The upcoming Dixie cup seems to have different starting positions for the various categories. That's not so easy to implement, but it may make sense if the course is really long and really fast. There may be situations where inexperienced ams would be better off not doing the full "pro" course.

Setting two completely different courses may be hard to handle, but let's allow some variations that may make the courses more appropriate for less experienced (I'm obviously not talking about the top ams!)

/Jani

Ramón Königshausen
Airflow - Skateboards
Airflow - Skateboards
Posts: 1485
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Different courses.

Post by Ramón Königshausen » Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:37 pm

Martin Drayton wrote:For years now in Europe there have been seperate courses for Ams and Pros and as I see it, it has had the following advantages:

-A vehicle to show a high level of technical skill for the Pros where they are tested on a course appropriate to their skillset.
-An Am course that does the same for their level.
-Makes the transition from Am to Pro not just one of going faster, but also gaining technical skill.
-Keeps the cone count appropriate to the level of the riders on the course.
-Shows the public the difference in skill level because they cannot tell the speed difference with the naked eye between some Pros and Ams.

I don't agree that you just tell the Pros to go faster if they find an 'Am-friendly' course too easy. Didn't a lot of Pros at the Worlds have to go for longer wheelbases in the Tight for just this reason because although the top of the course was an appropriate level of difficulty for them but the end of the course was so widely spaced? To me it doesn't feel like a TS if I have to ride my Hybrid board to feel any level of difficulty or high speed and effectiveness of technique.
Has this worked in Europe? Recent transitions from Am to pro...Kowalski, Berruchon, Price, Scholler, numerous Swiss and Swedish racers etc.
IMHO it should show the difference between Skill plus speed-v-speed.
I totally agree with you! It's absolutely important to keep the Pro courses on a technically higher level than the Amateur courses. Compromises should not be made.

But: This should only count for Tight and Straight Slalom courses. Everything else (HS, GS, SGS), except we want to make it a highly technical as well, can be run on the same course. I don't think it makes too much sense to set two different HS, GS or SGS courses or as Chaput maybe would argue: Has there ever been a different course of HS, GS or SGS for Pros and Ams? (I'm not 100% sure, but I guess it's not)

rmn
Feel the flow – Airflow Skateboards

Real skateboard wheels come in green – ABEC11

Enjoy the ride – GOG Slalom & DH Trucks

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

Post by Pat Chewning » Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:25 pm

The very 1st post in this topic area contains the wording for the vote on various suggested changes. Take a look, tell me if it is complete and unbiased for voting. Voting start Nov 15.

Martin Drayton
Gecko Decks
Gecko Decks
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Park City,Utah!
Contact:

Different courses.

Post by Martin Drayton » Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:48 am

For years now in Europe there have been seperate courses for Ams and Pros and as I see it, it has had the following advantages:

-A vehicle to show a high level of technical skill for the Pros where they are tested on a course appropriate to their skillset.
-An Am course that does the same for their level.
-Makes the transition from Am to Pro not just one of going faster, but also gaining technical skill.
-Keeps the cone count appropriate to the level of the riders on the course.
-Shows the public the difference in skill level because they cannot tell the speed difference with the naked eye between some Pros and Ams.

I don't agree that you just tell the Pros to go faster if they find an 'Am-friendly' course too easy. Didn't a lot of Pros at the Worlds have to go for longer wheelbases in the Tight for just this reason because although the top of the course was an appropriate level of difficulty for them but the end of the course was so widely spaced? To me it doesn't feel like a TS if I have to ride my Hybrid board to feel any level of difficulty or high speed and effectiveness of technique.
Has this worked in Europe? Recent transitions from Am to pro...Kowalski, Berruchon, Price, Scholler, numerous Swiss and Swedish racers etc.
IMHO it should show the difference between Skill plus speed-v-speed.

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

Section 11.2 should be your friend.

Post by Pat Chewning » Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:41 am

Kevin Dunne wrote:I don't think you can set a precentage that will be acceptable for every course. There is a lot of variation from one course to the next. Steeper, faster hills may require a higher number of cones be allowed to be hit before a DQ...it should be up to the race organizer to determine the number of cones that constitute a DQ. If he/she wants to take a consensus, that's fine, but ultimately, it should be up to the race organizer. I've been reading all of this rule stuff for the last few nights and it kind of makes me sick...Whatever happened to lazier faire? Does the B.O.D. have to meddle in everything?
There have been some very strong requests from top-notch race directors for the ISSA to provide a set of unified enforceable rules for slalom skateboarding. The same request has come from plenty of racers. I don't think that establishing a set of rules is meddling at all -- it's a basic function of a sports organization.

If you are not aware yet, I suggest you become familiar with section 11.2 of the (proposed) rules. It allows for variations from the "standard" rules being developed, provides a method for informing racers of the deviations, and provides some guidance for how far afield someone can deviate without affecting race status.

My personal opinion is that setting a reasonable cone penalty somewhat outside of whatever is chosen as the "standard" is a minor deviation that would be allowable at even the highest race status level.

GARY GLASSER
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:06 am
Location: ColoRADo
Contact:

Post by GARY GLASSER » Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:23 am

I know you understand that I dont accept that its the breaks Wes. I am just trying to make the "breaks" not stop so sharply for some. That they (the Ams) come to a nice rolling stop. There is room for DQ adjustment and course adjustment, just like at La Costa. I think certain races should be allowed this adjustment and these races will not be the US Nationals (but that would be great if it was) for example.

I have to ride among giants here, whether the hills, the cone amount or of course the pro's that I have to skate with. I know first hand what adjustments can do to improve the overall race experience for Am's.

Have a great day with Football!

G
I am the slowest COSS slalom racer..Lucky for you!

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:12 am

Kevin Dunne wrote:Does the B.O.D. have to meddle in everything?
I'm not meddling in anything.

I'm making suggestions for standardizing our sport. You know, like three strikes and you're out are the rules here but you get five in California. Is that really what you think is preferable?

10 or 12 big races a year with 10 or 12 different standards, rules, conditions and penalities is not cool. A skater should be able to go to any race anywhere and know what to expect before race day.

That's not meddling. It's called "growth."
Image

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:08 am

GARY GLASSER wrote:Here is what I hear: Course too hard. Ramp is crazy (little to know experience on it) Too many cones. DQ'd both times now I am out as well as my 50 or so bucks. What was my time? "I not great at coneheading, what? I have to conehead a pro race!" What is "griddling?" Why do I have to skate against a 16 yr old yet I am 45 with a bad back and pension
Gary,

It's 11:00 here and I got to go to bed to get up early to go to a football game tomorrow. So let me say this before I go.

I'm not the fastest guy in the world and this year I didn't race nearly as much as last year and my performance suffered. But I do know this. Courses can be made that are challenging for both the pros and the ams and be the same. How? Well, anytime a "pro" argues the course is too easy and not challenging enough, my reply is the same: "then go faster. Acceleration will make the cones tighter." Conversely, Ams who can't make the course maybe are in over their skill level and should slow down. If that's what it takes to make the course, then so be it.

I'm experienced enough to know there's a law of diminishing returns in meeting that "challenging/easy/hard" happy medium. What a course cannot be is so wide open that a guy on a rocket sled can't go fast. Then again it can't be made so difficult that no one makes it clean no matter how skilled. This is the sort of situation where course setting becomes as much an art as a science. But either way there are ways to compensate for a course that does not mean pulling up the cones and resetting them for different racing brackets.

And as far as the guy who comes to a slalom race and complains he spent $50 to blow out of the course, all I can say is at some point people have to realize this is COMPETITIVE RACING. Sometimes poeple can make it and sometimes they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for all of 34 seconds for two runs on a 17-second course. Sorry. That as my old man is fond of saying, is the BREAKS.

And one last thing: this sport is not going to "grow" with guys buying a new Axe on Tuesday and coming to Longmont for the Nationals on Friday. It grows with more and more grassroots racing where skaters can develop the skills to be competitive. I know these rules are supposed to be comprehensive but let's face it: there's going to be differences between a Plain and a Basic held in a parking lot and a Main or Major produced on downtown city streets. I would have to conclude a lot of those Open guys you hear complaining about spending $50 and going nowhere have limited experience, maybe no racing at the grassroots level and are completely flummoxed by the process we consider normal on race day.
Image

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

Post by Kevin Dunne » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:59 am

I don't think you can set a precentage that will be acceptable for every course. There is a lot of variation from one course to the next. Steeper, faster hills may require a higher number of cones be allowed to be hit before a DQ...it should be up to the race organizer to determine the number of cones that constitute a DQ. If he/she wants to take a consensus, that's fine, but ultimately, it should be up to the race organizer. I've been reading all of this rule stuff for the last few nights and it kind of makes me sick...Whatever happened to lazier faire? Does the B.O.D. have to meddle in everything?

GARY GLASSER
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:06 am
Location: ColoRADo
Contact:

Post by GARY GLASSER » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:52 am

Wesley Tucker wrote:
GARY GLASSER wrote:I think its best left up to the race director(s) prior to the race based upon previous experimentation.
That's the way things are because that's the way it's been. The value for course penalties can be standardized. What's more is it eliminates any opportunity for complaint. If a course is a given length and contains a certain number of cones then that means the cone penalty will be determined by a rule and not by a committee on the hill 10 minutes before the race starts.

Getting away from the early morning-mid morning-late morning meanderings of putting a race together is the one thing I want eliminated (or at least reduced.)

Believe me, Gary, my idea is not revolutionary or preposterous. 99% of the time it reflects what would end up being the course rules anyway.

I buy into a formula the same way I buy into that formula being adjusted for the Ams. The point was made well about slower in the same course. I dont buy into the same course being good for the Ams, as being any more enjoyable as in the overal experience. You know, "Wow that was fun, instead of "..whoa, f*ck that was too hard.." (after the EMT is attaching the Am to the stretcher)

Here is what I hear: Course too hard. Ramp is crazy (little to know experience on it) Too many cones. DQ'd both times now I am out as well as my 50 or so bucks. What was my time? "I not great at coneheading, what? I have to conehead a pro race!" What is "griddling?" Why do I have to skate against a 16 yr old yet I am 45 with a bad back and pension

These may seem small things to many -above- (from where I skate) but these things add and subtract from the overall experiences, for the Am's.

So Ramp starts should be optional depending on the race status?

I am still open to a DQ no DQ cone count/ or time adjustment.

Master Race/Class (again I hear it from my elders)

And the rest is more or less edumacation, but needs to addressed too.

I apologize that some of this can be addressed in other threads
[/b]
I am the slowest COSS slalom racer..Lucky for you!

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:48 am

Marcus Rietema wrote:It's been very interesting coming into the slalom world this year and not having any knowledge of who the top Pros, top Ams, influential characters, hard workers, etc were. I'm still learning all the time. What was really nice is that I was able to come in and look at the whole scene without any bias or prejudice. I see a lot of good people with a lot of heart working very hard. I also see people, for whatever reason, determined to stick with flawed ways. I hope that in the future this process of determining who is an Am and who is a Pro can be looked at.
Marcus,

I've had some discussions with my buds here on the East Coast and there's a growing opinion about there not being "pro" and "open" or "amateur" slalom skaters.

Developing "A" and "B" brackets at every race would be more competitive. With this there would be no more assuming certain racers will always race against other certain racers. We would have instead racers bracketed into an "A" or "B" bracket at every event and that means the fast guys race the fast guys and the slower guys race each other.

As an example there will be no "pro" racing at the Dixie Cup Pump Cone Fest Duals on Saturday. On race day there will be qualifying. Everyone qualifies the same. Afterwards there will be FOUR brackets of 16 racers each for a total of 64. The "A", "B," "C," and "D" brackets will have nothing to do with "pro" or "open" status. As such anything can happen. Maybe one of the fastest guys in the world gets squirrelly and falls on his first run. In his second run he's tentative enough so that all of a sudden one of the top racers in the sport finds himself in the "C" bracket. Yes, that really could happen. This is also the way The Farm and some other races operate.

We have "Pro" and "Amateur" in the World Rankings and it could remain that way. If a "pro" wins the "C" bracket that means he is 33rd overall and that's his points award. The idea, though, of segregating certain racers just because they declare themselves a "pro" may be a little ahead of where this sport is right now.

Of course, I also know this response belongs in Section 10 and not here, but hey, rules were meant to be broken!
Image

Marcus Rietema
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 2:16 am
Location: Petaluma, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by Marcus Rietema » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:24 am

Open and Pro is a racer's decision. It is inappropriate to force anyone to race one way or the other. But once a racer decides to go pro then the racer stays pro. A competitor cannot go back and forth between racing for money or not racing for money. And I'll say this: slalom skateboarding has been outstanding in seeing those skaters able to race pro going pro. Cbark, Noah, Adam and others exemplify this. On the other hand, If Brad Jackman, Martin or Zack want to stay open then it's their decision.
It's been very interesting coming into the slalom world this year and not having any knowledge of who the top Pros, top Ams, influential characters, hard workers, etc were. I'm still learning all the time. What was really nice is that I was able to come in and look at the whole scene without any bias or prejudice. I see a lot of good people with a lot of heart working very hard. I also see people, for whatever reason, determined to stick with flawed ways. I hope that in the future this process of determining who is an Am and who is a Pro can be looked at.
Marcus, "nope" means I disagree.


Sorry for the misunderstanding. I perceived "nope" as telling him, "No, that is not possible." I'm pleased to hear there will be a vote!
Marcus Rietema
President- International Gravity Sports Association
Phone: 951-532-6378
Email: rietema.m@gravity-sports.com
Website: www.igsaworldcup.com

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:21 am

GARY GLASSER wrote:I think its best left up to the race director(s) prior to the race based upon previous experimentation.
That's the way things are because that's the way it's been. The value for course penalties can be standardized. What's more is it eliminates any opportunity for complaint. If a course is a given length and contains a certain number of cones then that means the cone penalty will be determined by a rule and not by a committee on the hill 10 minutes before the race starts.

Getting away from the early morning-mid morning-late morning meanderings of putting a race together is the one thing I want eliminated (or at least reduced.)

Believe me, Gary, my idea is not revolutionary or preposterous. 99% of the time it reflects what would end up being the course rules anyway.
Image

GARY GLASSER
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:06 am
Location: ColoRADo
Contact:

Post by GARY GLASSER » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:15 am

I think I have seen the course director and other Pro's gather around and discuss a carnage number based on what they think is doable by the other pro's in attendance. Taken in account steepness/tightness etc. With many races already having run several times on the same streets/park's highways etc. I think its best left up to the race director(s) prior to the race based upon previous experimentation.
I am the slowest COSS slalom racer..Lucky for you!

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:03 am

Pat Chewning wrote:Wes, as I try to translate what you are suggesting into a proposed wording in the rules, I will have to use ONE set of numbers ..... Unless you say otherwise, I will use the original proposed numbers.
Pat,

My point is I don't want the CONCEPT to fail because the numbers aren't acceptable. I'm just one guy. I think 20%/150 feet works well. But if I'm one guy out of 100 who votes the concept fails over a technicality.

So, I'd like to hear what others say about their idea of optimum max cone counts or cone counts in relation to course length. But the actual proposal is simple:

1. "X" % of the course is allowed
2. Subtract one cone from the "X" % for every "Y" feet after the first "Y" feet.
3. "X" % - Penalty = 0 - results in a super penalty to be determined.

And so "X" and "Y" are still open to discussion (if any.) The whole thing might be ignored and I'll stick to my original numbers and submit it as such.
Image

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

Post by Pat Chewning » Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:55 am

Wesley Tucker wrote:One other thing:

DO NOT GET HUNG UP ON MY NUMBERS

20% can be 15% or 25%

150 feet can be 100 feet or 200 feet or whatever.

It's the CONCEPT I'm selling not the specifics.

I'm sure there are those with greater experience than I who can pinpoint optimum percentages and distances to make this work.

The standard, though, is workable.
Wes, as I try to translate what you are suggesting into a proposed wording in the rules, I will have to use ONE set of numbers ..... Unless you say otherwise, I will use the original proposed numbers.

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

Post by Pat Chewning » Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:49 am

I will be formulating the voting questions for the controversial items in this section (similar, and hopefully as well as Marcus did for the "Equipment" section). It will be an open process subject to review before voting occurs.

The voting will include the suggestions of the members, including this suggestion of 1.5 sec DQ penalty for H2H for AMs (differentiated from 999s penalty for PROS).

The section you might want to look at for "forcing" AMS to the PRO class would be section 10. It currently provides for self-determination on the part of the racers as to class.

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:44 am

Marcus Rietema wrote:Open skaters who are as fast as the pros should be forced to move into the pros at the conclusion of the season. Conversely pros who are completely uncompetitive and are running times that would be mid-pack in the Open/Ams should be forced out of the Pros. I don't know what heading that proposal should fall under but it needs some serious consideration!!! Is there any criteria to determine if someone is a Pro or Am or is it just a matter of checking whatever box you feel like when you enter?
Nope.

Open and Pro is a racer's decision. It is inappropriate to force anyone to race one way or the other. But once a racer decides to go pro then the racer stays pro. A competitor cannot go back and forth between racing for money or not racing for money. And I'll say this: slalom skateboarding has been outstanding in seeing those skaters able to race pro going pro. Cbark, Noah, Adam and others exemplify this. On the other hand, If Brad Jackman, Martin or Zack want to stay open then it's their decision.

Marcus, "nope" means I disagree. I'm not going to vacillate and pretend I do on some level. If I don't then I don't. That means you state your position and I say "nope." It has nothing to do with being on the Board or any other position. Of course it's open to a vote and I'm not going to dictate or determine anything. I'm just going to make my position clear IF it's completely different than yours.
Image

Marcus Rietema
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 2:16 am
Location: Petaluma, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by Marcus Rietema » Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:21 am

Wesley Tucker wrote:
GARY GLASSER wrote:
Marcus Rietema wrote:I feel it would be good to have separate rules for the Amateur/Open classes from the Pros with respect to DQ penalties..

Since the Ams/Open racers are there for recreation and most of them need all of the practice they can get, they should get a 1.5 penalty for a DQ. It's important for them to get in all of their race runs. Keep the AMS/Open skaters happy and they will continue to support the events and grow the sport.

The Pros should be held to a higher and tougher standard. For them it would make sense for a DQ to mean automatic elimination.

I alluded to this before. Its the Ams' where the future most likely will come from. As well as the money and the fun factor. (Who hasn't seen a pro "ignite" for a missed cone by a 12 year old cone head) The Ams just want to compete, have some swag and or beer while saying that was the most fun ever.

If the DQ penalty is not altered for the Ams, then take some cones out at the bottom.

As a bottom feeder myself and I speak for, right now, about 7 or so more Ams/open guys these are some of the things WE would like to see.
Nope.

The assumption is Open riders will hit more cones and thus need a higher count to remain competitive.

If this is true then it must also be assumed Open skaters will go SLOWER than the Pros. So a course that is challenging to the Pros at one speed will be equally challenging BUT NOT OVERWHELMING for Open skaters at a slower speed. Open skaters who are as fast as the Pros should also be as adept in order to avoid hitting cones.

Always remember: cone distance is proportional to speed. If a pro is running 3 cones a second at one speed then it's safe to assume an Open rider would be maintaining a 2.75, 2.5 or as slow as a 2 or less cone per second average.

It's unreasonable to then conclude the Open skater is going slower PLUS hitting more cones. At some point the realization comes along this is SLALOM and that means going around the cones.

Pros and Opens riding the same course should race with the same cone count and penalty.
I think this is a very important point and also something that could really help to differentiate the Pros higher level of skill from the Open/Ams in the publics eye. This should definitely be put to a vote in a fashion similar to what we are doing with the equipment specs. Wesley, being a member of the BOD shouldn't give you the right to just say "Nope" when an ISSA member has a legitimate concern. THE MEMBERSHIP NEEDS TO VOTE ON ALL CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES!!!

Open skaters who are as fast as the pros should be forced to move into the pros at the conclusion of the season. Conversely pros who are completely uncompetitive and are running times that would be mid-pack in the Open/Ams should be forced out of the Pros. I don't know what heading that proposal should fall under but it needs some serious consideration!!! Is there any criteria to determine if someone is a Pro or Am or is it just a matter of checking whatever box you feel like when you enter?
Marcus Rietema
President- International Gravity Sports Association
Phone: 951-532-6378
Email: rietema.m@gravity-sports.com
Website: www.igsaworldcup.com

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:51 am

GARY GLASSER wrote:
Marcus Rietema wrote:I feel it would be good to have separate rules for the Amateur/Open classes from the Pros with respect to DQ penalties..

Since the Ams/Open racers are there for recreation and most of them need all of the practice they can get, they should get a 1.5 penalty for a DQ. It's important for them to get in all of their race runs. Keep the AMS/Open skaters happy and they will continue to support the events and grow the sport.

The Pros should be held to a higher and tougher standard. For them it would make sense for a DQ to mean automatic elimination.

I alluded to this before. Its the Ams' where the future most likely will come from. As well as the money and the fun factor. (Who hasn't seen a pro "ignite" for a missed cone by a 12 year old cone head) The Ams just want to compete, have some swag and or beer while saying that was the most fun ever.

If the DQ penalty is not altered for the Ams, then take some cones out at the bottom.

As a bottom feeder myself and I speak for, right now, about 7 or so more Ams/open guys these are some of the things WE would like to see.
Nope.

The assumption is Open riders will hit more cones and thus need a higher count to remain competitive.

If this is true then it must also be assumed Open skaters will go SLOWER than the Pros. So a course that is challenging to the Pros at one speed will be equally challenging BUT NOT OVERWHELMING for Open skaters at a slower speed. Open skaters who are as fast as the Pros should also be as adept in order to avoid hitting cones.

Always remember: cone distance is proportional to speed. If a pro is running 3 cones a second at one speed then it's safe to assume an Open rider would be maintaining a 2.75, 2.5 or as slow as a 2 or less cone per second average.

It's unreasonable to then conclude the Open skater is going slower PLUS hitting more cones. At some point the realization comes along this is SLALOM and that means going around the cones.

Pros and Opens riding the same course should race with the same cone count and penalty.
Image

GARY GLASSER
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:06 am
Location: ColoRADo
Contact:

Post by GARY GLASSER » Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:34 am

Marcus Rietema wrote:I feel it would be good to have separate rules for the Amateur/Open classes from the Pros with respect to DQ penalties..

Since the Ams/Open racers are there for recreation and most of them need all of the practice they can get, they should get a 1.5 penalty for a DQ. It's important for them to get in all of their race runs. Keep the AMS/Open skaters happy and they will continue to support the events and grow the sport.

The Pros should be held to a higher and tougher standard. For them it would make sense for a DQ to mean automatic elimination.

I alluded to this before. Its the Ams' where the future most likely will come from. As well as the money and the fun factor. (Who hasn't seen a pro "ignite" for a missed cone by a 12 year old cone head) The Ams just want to compete, have some swag and or beer while saying that was the most fun ever.

If the DQ penalty is not altered for the Ams, then take some cones out at the bottom.

As a bottom feeder myself and I speak for, right now, about 7 or so more Ams/open guys these are some of the things WE would like to see.



I am the slowest COSS slalom racer..Lucky for you!

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

Re: Cone DQ's

Post by Wesley Tucker » Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:41 am

Ramón Königshausen wrote:Bring in a reasonable cone maximum given in percent of total amount.
That's what I said.
Image

Ramón Königshausen
Airflow - Skateboards
Airflow - Skateboards
Posts: 1485
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Cone DQ's

Post by Ramón Königshausen » Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:22 am

Martin Drayton wrote:Most of the riders that i can think of who regularly have double figure cone counts yet post some of the fastest times mostly come from one country, so perhaps this is down to a training ideology?
So which country is it? I can only think of one, at maximum two.

When there was a cone maximum at this year's World Championships I first felt kind of uncomfortable fearing too hit too many cones but by the end I learned that 4 cones maximum in a TS isn't that much - somehow. Bring in a reasonable cone maximum given in percent of total amount.

rmn
Feel the flow – Airflow Skateboards

Real skateboard wheels come in green – ABEC11

Enjoy the ride – GOG Slalom & DH Trucks

Marcus Rietema
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 2:16 am
Location: Petaluma, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by Marcus Rietema » Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:15 am

Pat Chewning wrote:
Jadranko Radovanovic wrote:Suggestions with gates in the H2H:

1st run:
The gates open for the riders at the same time

2nd run:
The gate open for the faster rider from the first run bofore the gate of the slower.


It makes it easy for the audience to understand and if they run clean the audience see who won when they go over the finish line. And they see what it means "that the riders where close in the first run" when they see how short the differenze is when the gates open.

For us it cost 590 $ to get all things together to have the start method mentioned in the draft rules.
We won't spend the money for this. If it means no high status possible because of this, we won't organise a race in Switzerland for next year.
Putting the "GATES" method of starting into the rules would require every race organizer to now come up with gates -- at an extra cost to all of the race organizers. I don't think we want to do that.

The cost of $590 is about $10 per person for a 60-person race. Would the racers rather not have any races in Switzerland, or would they rather spend $10 more for one race? Will there REALLY be no races in Switzerland if the rule vote goes with tone starts and 2X start penalty? I find that hard to believe.


HOWEVER: If you are proposing to use the "GATES" method of start as a deviation to the rules for one race -- then that is an entirely other matter altogether.

Are you proposing to change the rules from TONE start to GATE start, or are you just trying to run one race with GATE start as a deviation from the rules?

I agree with Marcus that a GATE start might provide some "WOW" factor for the spectators, but I disagree that it should be embodied into the rules as the standard method.
They should be an option.
Marcus Rietema
President- International Gravity Sports Association
Phone: 951-532-6378
Email: rietema.m@gravity-sports.com
Website: www.igsaworldcup.com

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:11 am

One other thing:

DO NOT GET HUNG UP ON MY NUMBERS

20% can be 15% or 25%

150 feet can be 100 feet or 200 feet or whatever.

It's the CONCEPT I'm selling not the specifics.

I'm sure there are those with greater experience than I who can pinpoint optimum percentages and distances to make this work.

The standard, though, is workable.
Image

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:00 am

I wrote this up for the Board some months ago and the feedback was minimal. I'll reprise it here.

The biggest complaint was that it was complicated. Well, not really. My explanations trying to cover every contingency make it appear complicated.

But the summary makes the most sense for a cone-penalty standard:

1. 20% of the course is allowed
2. Subtract one cone from the 20% for every 150 feet after the first 150 feet.
3. 20% - Penalty = 0 - results in a super penalty to be determined.

Read the rest. It'll come to you.

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

OK. I've been working on this for a little while. I don't think it has any striking radical (with a "c") ideas, but it does bring consistency to the idea of penalties and DQs. Read through it, check my math (I majored in Journalism for a reason) and tell me what everyone thinks. If the board thinks it's appropriate, we'll go forward with it. Remember, it's just an idea. It is, though, an idea based on a LOT of races I've attended over the past 30 years.

_____________ _____________ _____________ _____________

Cone penalty standards are easy IF skaters will alter their preconceptions about setting a penalty.

The DQ should be established on a PERCENTAGE of cones. 20% is a good round number to start. A 35-cone course would DQ on the 8th cone. A 50-cone course would allow 10, the 11th is a DQ.

Now, what about tightness and such? Should a 35-cone tight have the same DQ as a 35-cone hybrid or a 35-cone Super GS?

No. All that needs to be done is incorporate a simple sliding scale.

35-cones: 7 cones allowed MINUS cone cone for every ADDITIONAL 150 feet of course after the first 150 feet.
50-cones: 10 cones allowed MINUS cone cone for every ADDITIONAL 150 feet of course after the first 150 feet..

_______________________

So, if a 35-cone course is 228 feet long (6.5 foot spacing,) that's 7-0=7. 8th cone DQ (78 feet does not meet the extra 150 foot rule.)

The 35 cones again but now it's 310 feet long (A decent hybrid with some big offsets) 7-1=6. 7th cone DQ. (Additional 10 feet does not meet the extra 150 foot rule.)
_______________________

What about a medium GS course with 40 cones? Cone spacing averages 15 feet for a 600-foot course.

600 foot course = 600/150 = 4-1 for the first 150 feet or 3 cones subtracted from 20% of 40 (8)

Course penalty: 8-3 = 5 cones. 6th cone DQ.
_______________________

So, it's simple:

20% allowed, one more is a DQ, one cone subtracted for every 150 feet after the first 150 feet.

What about the difference between .2 and .1? That's also something to set a standard. Quite simply the ISSA adopts a standard of so many cones in a given distance is .1, so many in a given distance is .2

The distances? Easy.

Any course with no 150-foot penalty is .1 (That's any course you can cram into 299 feet)
Any course with an additional 150-foot penalty is .2


Here's a fun one:

Any course course where the 20% minus the 150-foot penalty equals ZERO, CLEAN RUN REQUIRED.

How would this work?

35 cones over 1200 feet (Is that close to Pump Station?) would be 7 cones but a penalty of 1200/150=8. Minus 1 for the first 150 feet = 7.
7-7=0.

Any course that wide open and spaced over that distance should be clean. Or the membership can say .3 or whatever. It's about the same, thoug - .3 on a course like that would be a deal breaker.

So, that's my idea for standard cone pentalies

1. 20% of the course is allowed
2. Subtract one cone from the 20% for every 150 feet after the first 150 feet.
3. 20% - Penalty = 0 - results in a super penalty to be determined.

I think this will work anywhere. Of course, race organizers will have to go to Home Deport and invest $21 in a ilttle walking roller measurer to get the course length. This number coupled with the cone count means cone penalties will always be consistent.
Image

Martin Drayton
Gecko Decks
Gecko Decks
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Park City,Utah!
Contact:

Cone DQ's

Post by Martin Drayton » Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:33 am

Jadranko Radovanovic wrote:
- let the racer's hit Cones as much as they can.



I couldn't disagree more! It just makes it look as if we really are not very good at what we do and that there is no reward for precision. I watched fast runs at the Euro Champs and saw cone counts around 13, 14 or 15. It looks terrible no matter how fast the rider goes. If we want to be taken seriously as skilled, professional athletes, we need to show that we have that skill...I thought the whole point was to avoid the cones.
If I watch someone beat Luca to the line with 8 cones to Luca's clean run (unlikely) and hear that the other racer wins, as a member of the public or potential sponsor from outside the sport, I don't think that would leave me very impressed...
When slalom was reborn, there were 10% DQ's or 20% DQ's, this meant for example that if you hit more than 4 cones on a 40 cone course you were out (10%) or 8 on a 20% course. Once you start allowing 10 out of 40....that just isn't skillfull IMHO.Most of the riders that i can think of who regularly have double figure cone counts yet post some of the fastest times mostly come from one country, so perhaps this is down to a training ideology?

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:02 pm

MANDATING gates right now is not good.

Having rules to standardize gates for those events using them would be good.

If two events are going to use gates then skaters should expect the same kind of routine and procedure at both.

As far as I know the only races in the current era of slalom to use gates were the FCR races. These gates worked well but I have heard several stories of skaters getting hung up and close to injury when the gate's performance failed.

Just as an opinion I think a "saloon door" gate with two panels meeing in the middle is superior to the swinging gate used by FCR. With a saloon door gate the skater can still "bust through," but there's less chance of injury if the gate fails. Two small panels opening in the middle means the skater can get through. A wide gate across the face of the start ramp can really impale someone if the latch, spring and pivot fail.
Image

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

Post by Pat Chewning » Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:54 pm

Jadranko Radovanovic wrote:Suggestions with gates in the H2H:

1st run:
The gates open for the riders at the same time

2nd run:
The gate open for the faster rider from the first run bofore the gate of the slower.


It makes it easy for the audience to understand and if they run clean the audience see who won when they go over the finish line. And they see what it means "that the riders where close in the first run" when they see how short the differenze is when the gates open.

For us it cost 590 $ to get all things together to have the start method mentioned in the draft rules.
We won't spend the money for this. If it means no high status possible because of this, we won't organise a race in Switzerland for next year.
Putting the "GATES" method of starting into the rules would require every race organizer to now come up with gates -- at an extra cost to all of the race organizers. I don't think we want to do that.

The cost of $590 is about $10 per person for a 60-person race. Would the racers rather not have any races in Switzerland, or would they rather spend $10 more for one race? Will there REALLY be no races in Switzerland if the rule vote goes with tone starts and 2X start penalty? I find that hard to believe.


HOWEVER: If you are proposing to use the "GATES" method of start as a deviation to the rules for one race -- then that is an entirely other matter altogether.

Are you proposing to change the rules from TONE start to GATE start, or are you just trying to run one race with GATE start as a deviation from the rules?

I agree with Marcus that a GATE start might provide some "WOW" factor for the spectators, but I disagree that it should be embodied into the rules as the standard method.

Marcus Rietema
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 2:16 am
Location: Petaluma, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by Marcus Rietema » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:15 pm

Jadranko Radovanovic wrote:Suggestions with gates in the H2H:

1st run:
The gates open for the riders at the same time

2nd run:
The gate open for the faster rider from the first run bofore the gate of the slower.


It makes it easy for the audience to understand and if they run clean the audience see who won when they go over the finish line. And they see what it means "that the riders where close in the first run" when they see how short the differenze is when the gates open.

For us it cost 590 $ to get all things together to have the start method mentioned in the draft rules.
We won't spend the money for this. If it means no high status possible because of this, we won't organise a race in Switzerland for next year.
These would be a fantastic addition to any race and would really improve the show for the spectators. The old World Pro Skiing Tour used the exact system and format that you proposed. We've used these "Horse Gates" at a number of Red Bull sponsored downhill events in the past and they worked great! False starts are non-existent.
Marcus Rietema
President- International Gravity Sports Association
Phone: 951-532-6378
Email: rietema.m@gravity-sports.com
Website: www.igsaworldcup.com

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

Post by Jadranko Radovanovic » Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:02 am

Suggestions with gates in the H2H:

1st run:
The gates open for the riders at the same time

2nd run:
The gate open for the faster rider from the first run bofore the gate of the slower.


It makes it easy for the audience to understand and if they run clean the audience see who won when they go over the finish line. And they see what it means "that the riders where close in the first run" when they see how short the differenze is when the gates open.

For us it cost 590 $ to get all things together to have the start method mentioned in the draft rules.
We won't spend the money for this. If it means no high status possible because of this, we won't organise a race in Switzerland for next year.

Marcus Rietema
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 2:16 am
Location: Petaluma, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by Marcus Rietema » Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:28 am

I feel it would be good to have separate rules for the Amateur/Open classes from the Pros with respect to DQ penalties..

Since the Ams/Open racers are there for recreation and most of them need all of the practice they can get, they should get a 1.5 penalty for a DQ. It's important for them to get in all of their race runs. Keep the AMS/Open skaters happy and they will continue to support the events and grow the sport.

The Pros should be held to a higher and tougher standard. For them it would make sense for a DQ to mean automatic elimination.
Marcus Rietema
President- International Gravity Sports Association
Phone: 951-532-6378
Email: rietema.m@gravity-sports.com
Website: www.igsaworldcup.com

Stephen Lavin
Topsider
Topsider
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:50 am
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Contact:

Post by Stephen Lavin » Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:53 pm

Pat, on this I mis-interpreted the the cone placement discussion in the rule. I was thinking about the cone simply not within the confines of the circle - not all the way out - not thinking 1mm more like 1 to 8CM's. Moot post at this point.
LAVIN

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

Post by Pat Chewning » Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:32 pm

Stephen Lavin wrote:Again nice draft Pat.

This post may be related to the other for reference:

http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/phpBB ... php?t=5560

5.3. Cone Displacements

A cone is counted as being displaced if either of these occurs:

· The entire base of the cone is outside of the entire cone-circle on the surface of the course.

· The cone is tipped over and not standing upright.

The first bullet needs some clarification as it relates to a cone-out or third bullet in section 8.1.1 IMO. One cone not entirely in a circle is one thing but multples could affect a head-to-head race(?). for example it is possible to have a cone technically not fully outside its circle to one side and another subsequent and immediately following cone not fully outside its circle to other potentially non-favorable side for the rider. This would be an issue at speed and in TS situations. Being a shitty skater I would likely request a re-run if this happened to me :)

Not sure what the suggestion is I am attempting to make just pointing out some opportunity for tightening up a bit.
If I understand your concern correctly it is this:
A) Cone completely out of circle to count as cone penalty (against the racer)
[You appear to be OK with this]

B) How far "out" of exactly-centered does a cone need to be before the course is declared "not ready" for racing. (e.g. If the racer should abandon the course and say that the course is not ready because the center of the cone is not within 1mm of the center of the chalk circle.) [I see the point, but I don't have an answer.]

Stephen Lavin
Topsider
Topsider
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:50 am
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Contact:

Post by Stephen Lavin » Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:36 pm

Again nice draft Pat.

This post may be related to the other for reference:

http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/phpBB ... php?t=5560

5.3. Cone Displacements

A cone is counted as being displaced if either of these occurs:

· The entire base of the cone is outside of the entire cone-circle on the surface of the course.

· The cone is tipped over and not standing upright.

The first bullet needs some clarification as it relates to a cone-out or third bullet in section 8.1.1 IMO. One cone not entirely in a circle is one thing but multples could affect a head-to-head race(?). for example it is possible to have a cone technically not fully outside its circle to one side and another subsequent and immediately following cone not fully outside its circle to other potentially non-favorable side for the rider. This would be an issue at speed and in TS situations. Being a shitty skater I would likely request a re-run if this happened to me :)

Not sure what the suggestion is I am attempting to make just pointing out some opportunity for tightening up a bit.
LAVIN

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

Post by Pat Chewning » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:05 pm

Yes, please move timer-related stuff out of this topic area and somewhere else. I would move the timer-related posts to another forum if I knew how to do that.

Jani Soderhall
ISSA President 2011-2024
ISSA President 2011-2024
Posts: 4702
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Sweden, lives in France
Contact:

Post by Jani Soderhall » Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:15 pm

I think we have a real concern here if the ISSA BOD makes statements such as the above
Sorry Pat, I didn't mean that the current statement was made by the BOD, but rather meant "if" that would be done. But I was really disappointed that the two of you, that I highly respect, thought this was not an important topic.

But OK, let's not discuss timers in this topic. It wasn't really part of the proposed new rules, and which timer we use, does not affect the rest of the rules, so let's not get this in the way of progress on the rules update.

As you have a better overview of the current rules discussion, you can bring up the timer discussion in a more appropriate context. Maybe that is a general comment on moderation of these new rules topics. "off topic" should quickly be moved out of the current threads, so that we can focus on the exact writing in each section.

/Jani

Locked