A disertation by JG as copied from NCDSA
penalties- why .2 is too much On 10/22/2004 John Gilmour wrote in from 207.172.xxx.xxx: (United States)
Chris B. cone penalties. (This is going to be a long post- please copy paste this on slalomskateboarder.com as I have gone into this before on ncdsa but it gets buried)
The way cone penalties should work IMHO is if you have a person run a course "clean" and then you have him go faster and he hits a few...ideally when both times and penalties are tallied they should be reasonably close or slightly more penalized in adjusted time for the run with hit cones. The assumption being that hitting cones is always faster, and the faser you go beyond your ability level the more cones you will hit until you DQ from hitting too many or go off course.
When you have a "mature" racing bracket- nearly all the racers are fast. In ski racing for instance similar to slalom racing .....sometimes you'll see many times bunched up near the top racers.
Actually if times appear to be really really close for nearly everyone....usually it is an indication that the course was too easy for all the particpants and they are just "Searching for roll/glide". In ski racing such slow simple courses on easy pitch are called "waxing courses" where the skier without the best skills or best tuck or most practice wins merely because he has a better wax job on his skis- or can afford lots of Cera F wax additive (more expensive than cocaine).
If courses are too easy....sometimes the promoter will say....cone penalties are now increased....etc. Because they figure the course is easy enough so cones should not be hit. The idea being that the faster racers won't hit as many cones as the slower racers. And so the adjusted times won't be so close.....showing that the faster guys are really faster (when in fact they might only be a little cleaner) the other reason of course for setting a course that is "too easy" is so no one goes home bummed with a DQ. (also to reduce the need for cone marshals).
Unfortunately if cone penalties are too high and a course is tight...but say not technical.... the racers all slow way way way down in fear of losing over a single cone penalty. "Tip toe through the minefield".
The end result is slower racing..... and many clean runs or runs with very few cone hits....none of which are that exciting for the spectators. You've seen one clean run....you've seen them all. It isn't much fun to have to race at 60% of your ability in fear of hitting a cone. Racing SHOULD IMHO be as fast or perhaps faster and more accurate and more intense than practice.
When people show up for a race they want to give it their all. Fact is.....if you go too fast on a decent fast hill with a technical course.....what happens????
Well at first you might have to criddle a cone or two just to stay in the course....but if you exceed that speed.....it's gonna turn into a DQ. You'll blow out of the course. (a good course setter when setting a course for a bunch of different skill level slalomers will put areas in the course to allow slower racers to check their speed through turn shape)
In good racing the faster racer will almost always run cleaner (and sometimes not hit any). The slower racer should likely try to race above his ability level....accept the possiblity (not the inevitability…… since it is just probably- not definite)that he could hit many more cones than he is comfortable with....or perhaps DQ(or get lucky and have a clean run at speed). Why???Because he is racing someone faster...so he MUST push his limits to try and win- or he shouldn't have bothered to show up and race at all. (Besides….he already got a time for the course in qualifying, so he shouldn't hold back).
why .1 is better than .2 On 10/22/2004 jg wrote in from 207.172.xxx.xxx: (United States)
If the cone penalties are too high....sadly- it becomes nearly hopeless for the slower racer (only an extremely lucky perfect run would help). He has to slough along carefully through the course fully expecting to get eliminated even before he leaves the start ramp.
Cone penalties are there to show that a racer isn't following the course. They are to penalize the racer for not having a perfect run. IF you push too fast ….you get a DQ which if you think about it should be a 99999999.00 second penalty. However in American slalom racing an arbitrary number is selected to represent the penalty of a DQ and added to the time of the racer who completes the course and this time becomes the time of the racer who DQ's.
So for instance if I raced you in the first run in which you DQ and I get a 23.78 second time if the DQ penalty is 3 seconds your time would be 23.78 + 3 = 26.78. So going into the next run I would have a whopping 3 second advantage. Nearly insurmountable.
or
If I race you and you win the first run by 2.99 seconds and in the second run you DQ. I win. because 3 seconds would be added to my run on the second run and when the times are added for both runs I would win by .01 seconds.
What's wrong with that???? Well let's say I was much faster than you- but the DQ time penalty is arbitrary.
In many racing events a DQ is fatal- game over. If you are racing so hard that you DQ- well you are probably pretty close to skidding out if you are trying to make the course.
In the system where a DQ is fatal- yet cone penalties are not excessive you see very aggressive racing..... , p[erhaps some criddling, but not so many falls- because racers know a DQ is fatal. I think there are fewer injuries with this system.
In a well run race when you see racers seeded against each other with larger time differentials say 1 vs 16 or 1 vs 32 you should realistically see many of the slower racers DQ'ing in their second runs. That does not mean the race was decided by DQ. It just meant that the racer who DQ'ed gave it his all.
In races where closer seeded races are racing say.. in the round of 32 (btw which I have always felt was too deep a bracket) you might see in the race of 16 vs 17- a dq….mostly because if the racers are seeded lower (Assuming that there are not many more than 32 racers) the course might be difficult for one or both of them. But it would probably be not as likely as seeing a Dq in the race of 1 vs 16 in the next round.
By the time we get to the round of 8 - in a big group of skilled racers….. you should see fewer DQ's mostly because all of the top 8 racers can handle the technical difficulty and speed of the course. Except perhaps in 1 vs 8 as # 8 might have to through down an "all or nothing run" in an attempt to survive and take the top seeds position. . By the time we get to the final 4 you likely won't see a DQ in the 1 vs 4 or 2 vs 3 round or even in the consolation round……but in some cases you will see a DQ in the second run of 1 vs 2 Why? Because both racers know the worst they can get is 2nd place….and they want to go for the money.
No one wants to DQ. For many racing to the top of their ability level in some courses means a possibility of a DQ when faced with a faster racer. There is ABSOLUTLY no shame in a DQ during racing (particularly in your second run). However in qualifying- a double DQ looks lousy.
Slalom racing in skateboarding is the art of avoiding obstacles while staying on course. If everyone avoided all the obstacles all the time…it wouldn't be interesting. Set 11 foot straight cones on flat ….snore.
finally I'm done On 10/22/2004 jg wrote in from 207.172.xxx.xxx: (United States)
Again if you had to go very slow through a course because a single cone penalty would knock you out…that is also boring. High cone penalties remove criddling as an option. Criddling on courses without excessive cone penalties allows course setters to set faster more technical courses without sending a ton of people home with DQ's. Some course setters might even set a course with a cone as an intentional criddle- to see if smarter racers pick up on it. If cone penalties are too high newbies get discouraged, courses get too simplified and become boring for the better racers, and it gets very repetitive looking for the spectators when nearly every other run is a clean run. It's not all that impressive to see Simon Levene run 12 foot centers at 17 mph on a gentle hill. However seeing him run tight offsets at 25mph on a steep hill where no one else can even complete the course at ANY speed is impressive. I think most people attend skateboard contests in hopes of being awed.
why cone penalties count even if they are small. On 10/22/2004 john gilmour wrote in from 207.172.xxx.xxx: (United States)
Finally....some people think if cone penalties are super low why don't I just hit all the cones?
This only works for straight cones.
You still have to go around the furthest inside part of the cones at the very least or DQ.
I a well set course- and if the course setter has decided not to put any criddling cones, the fastest adjusted time possible through the course should be a clean run by the most skilled racer. Even if the cone penalty is .05 the racer still must go around the course- he must cover almost all of the distance.
Try setting a technical course that is on a fast hill and change the cone penalties and run two identical brackets of 8 and you'll see the racers are still in the same order at the finish. But they are all going for it more- and a clean run means even more because.......
#1 it is at a higher speed
#2 few others have been able to run it clean.
Which is better, a high cone penalty or low?
Moderators: Jonathan Harms, Robert Thiele
-
Christopher Bara
- KILL CITY RACING
- Posts: 637
- Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2002 1:00 am
- Location: Detroit
-
John Gilmour
- Team Roe Racing
- Posts: 1207
- Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
- Location: USA
I just want to see some fast intense racing. If the cone pentaly is low...it doesn't mean the top guys will hit lots of cones....it just means courses can be set more difficult ( because lesser skilled skaters can criddle cones without being so penalized as to be completely out of the running by striking a single cone.
One good turn deserves another
john gilmour
john gilmour
-
Christopher Bara
- KILL CITY RACING
- Posts: 637
- Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2002 1:00 am
- Location: Detroit
I would tend to agree...
I only see two trends that i think distract from the sport, buth of which could probably be fixed with a well set run
First, you made the point that some courses have an offset cone that experience racers would know to criddle for strategy. Where that may be true, i think it's lame that skaters would consider it as a part of strategy. It will always cost me in time, but i cant get it out of my head that i should try everything i can to MAKE the course that's set, not to knock a cone here or there to better my time. To set a course with 0.1 penalties for most cones, but 0.2 "bonus cones" on a couple that are more difficult would probably be more challenging than having one set penalty for every cone....do races ever have that? (the voice of inexperience here)
Second, i still find it to be bs that some skaters will consistently bowl over the wider offsets and still win matches.....fast races are fun to watch, true...but "fast and sloppy" doesnt seem to be what the goal is.....it gives more incentive to fly down the course and hope to get lucky than it does to master the course.
Of course, that too could be fixed with a higher penalty on a few of the wider cones, no?
I only see two trends that i think distract from the sport, buth of which could probably be fixed with a well set run
First, you made the point that some courses have an offset cone that experience racers would know to criddle for strategy. Where that may be true, i think it's lame that skaters would consider it as a part of strategy. It will always cost me in time, but i cant get it out of my head that i should try everything i can to MAKE the course that's set, not to knock a cone here or there to better my time. To set a course with 0.1 penalties for most cones, but 0.2 "bonus cones" on a couple that are more difficult would probably be more challenging than having one set penalty for every cone....do races ever have that? (the voice of inexperience here)
Second, i still find it to be bs that some skaters will consistently bowl over the wider offsets and still win matches.....fast races are fun to watch, true...but "fast and sloppy" doesnt seem to be what the goal is.....it gives more incentive to fly down the course and hope to get lucky than it does to master the course.
Of course, that too could be fixed with a higher penalty on a few of the wider cones, no?
-
Wesley Tucker
- 1961-2013 (RIP)
- Posts: 3279
- Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
At Folly Beach I kept it simple: no cone penalty BUT a max cone for DQ. It made for fun racing.
That was two years ago and things have developed rapidly. I still think, though, that a no-cone penalty race has its merits. Hey, no one gets zapped in downhill skiing for hitting a gate, you just lose speed if you get too wrapped up in the pole.
I think Giant Slalom (which Folly Beach at the Bus Depot wasn't) best lends itself to no-cone penalties. Just run the course, criddle what you think is the best cone to your advantage and charge for the finish line. The fast guy really does win and the sloppiest goes home.
A good rule of thumb is 10% of the cones is safe, the next one is a DQ.
That was two years ago and things have developed rapidly. I still think, though, that a no-cone penalty race has its merits. Hey, no one gets zapped in downhill skiing for hitting a gate, you just lose speed if you get too wrapped up in the pole.
I think Giant Slalom (which Folly Beach at the Bus Depot wasn't) best lends itself to no-cone penalties. Just run the course, criddle what you think is the best cone to your advantage and charge for the finish line. The fast guy really does win and the sloppiest goes home.
A good rule of thumb is 10% of the cones is safe, the next one is a DQ.
-
Hans Koraeus
- Corky - World Ranking Master Mind
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 2:00 am
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
This is an old idea I have had. Never tried yet at a competition. 3 first cones are "freebies". After that they count 0.3. The idea is to let people who are good really go for it and the lower your skill are the more you have to try and go for safety than speed. At 4-5 cones the system brake even with the normal 0.1 penalty system but after that you get more and more punished for many cones. I don't like DQ-ing people for too many cones but I also like to punish them. You have to give people a carrot to go clean but also a carrot to go fast. I think this system would work for that. It's up to each racer to make the judgement that suits him the best. The problem with this system is that you could criddle the 2-3 difficult cones with no punishment (if that is all the cones you take). One could also see people starting to go for it and taking some cones that will be forced to slow down. With this system a DQ is a DQ. No funny time adding for DQ.
1 0.0 - 0.1
2 0.0 - 0.2
3 0.0 - 0.3
4 0.3 - 0.4
5 0.6 - 0.5
6 0.9 - 0.6
7 1.2 - 0.7
8 1.5 - 0.8
9 1.8 - 0.9
I also like the idea to add cone penalty for certain "key" cones in the course so that people don't get encourage to criddle them but instead gives encourage to take them. It has been discussed before but I don't know any event that has tried it out yet. The problem with this system and many other good ideas is that they complicate the cone judging which is already a complicated/sensitive task.
To avoid people criddling the "Key cones" in the first system one could imagine a mix of the two above. For example there are some cones that are not free (the key cones) and that will always count even if just taking 1-3 cones. But there we are. Interesting in theory but too complicated to manage in a live situation.
In Antibes they used the "max cones free" system for the nation team discipline. After 4 cones hit you where DQ'd. Exactly the system Wesley described. The advantage with this system is for people looking. First over the finish line wins (unless he is DQ'd of course). This system makes sense mostly for head to head racing I think.
1 0.0 - 0.1
2 0.0 - 0.2
3 0.0 - 0.3
4 0.3 - 0.4
5 0.6 - 0.5
6 0.9 - 0.6
7 1.2 - 0.7
8 1.5 - 0.8
9 1.8 - 0.9
I also like the idea to add cone penalty for certain "key" cones in the course so that people don't get encourage to criddle them but instead gives encourage to take them. It has been discussed before but I don't know any event that has tried it out yet. The problem with this system and many other good ideas is that they complicate the cone judging which is already a complicated/sensitive task.
To avoid people criddling the "Key cones" in the first system one could imagine a mix of the two above. For example there are some cones that are not free (the key cones) and that will always count even if just taking 1-3 cones. But there we are. Interesting in theory but too complicated to manage in a live situation.
In Antibes they used the "max cones free" system for the nation team discipline. After 4 cones hit you where DQ'd. Exactly the system Wesley described. The advantage with this system is for people looking. First over the finish line wins (unless he is DQ'd of course). This system makes sense mostly for head to head racing I think.
-
John Gilmour
- Team Roe Racing
- Posts: 1207
- Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
- Location: USA
KEY cones- or weighting cones.
I am all for faster and more technically difficult courses. To set these and not have 1/2 DQ (that 1/2 being newer racers and less skilled racers) you NEED lower cone penalties.
A straight course with cones 8 feet on center vs one with 7 feet on center on a mild pitch...which is more technically difficult?
Answer below
...neither, because neither course has anything technical about it.
Some courses have been referred to as "technical" when in fact they are just tightly set courses .
What kind of skill does it take to run tight courses?
Well, not much- in fact most of the skill is setting up a board correctly to run tight cones. There are a few people who run tight courses on wide boards with wide trucks and long wheelbases (Simon Levene) Strouble ran wide trucks and long wheelbase on a narrow board at MB04TS.
But most of the "Skill" is just being on a good setup- and wiggling like crazy.
However- in a course with technical difficulty- the cone spacing may not be all that tight.....but the body angulation required to make the course and course analysis.....can be very high as well as board set up. I find this to be the most involved type of racing as Practice, board set up and tuning, course analysis, and skill all come into play at once.
As for assigning higher time penalties for the hardest cones....why do that? That just makes it worse! (but I can understand why people think it would be better- I felt that way at one point, until I saw the dynamics of how cone penalties affect racing)
The idea is to set a course that is SOOOOO Fast and SOOOO technically advanced that everyone goes home with a slightly different experience. But all POSITIVE- and everyone improves in skill level....not just in gear set up.
At a hypothetical race.
Matt Wilson: goes home 1st run DQ second run with tightened bearings makes the course but feels it was fun anyhow despite lower placing. In shock at how much practice he has before him.
Chris Stepanek; Excited about technical fast course puts in fast qualifiers, realizes that there is something new in the course he hasn't seen before and even though he is having trouble with that particular section- criddles- and survives due to his fast speed in other sections gets high placing and goes home excited to set up section like that to run at home in practice for the next year.
Noah Heinle: At first tries to stuff 36 inch pocket pistol through the course- no success in practice. redrills deck and runs well- but still blows out first qualifier in fast section with bigger offsets. Watches rest of fast qualifiers body postion through those gates and imitates it successfully, posts 3rd fastest qualifiing run, but carries too much speed in eliminations.
Wesley Tucker: Finds hill is fast enough to justify using a parallel stance despite having a slower first few cones- his start is quick enough to save him some time- makes up some good time in stinger sections. Though is forced to criddle the widest offsets and is willing to do this to be able to use his stance for the stingers at the end. As a result he catches a lot of racers off guard and gets his best placing in the North East.
Kenny Mollica: Rides surf stance- uses 36 pocket pistol with total success- due to on course modification to put in high wedge in radikal front truck and running a looser rear truck than normal- goes full Radikal. Puts in a safety run for first qualifier, then blows out on suicide 2nd run. Goes into elims wondering what the top possible speed before blowout is in the course and every run gets hairier. Not feeling fatigued- he goes deep into the brackets surprising everyone on this technical course- he chooses to criddle the two most technical gates. In the 1/4 finals he realizes that even at .1 second per cone....he won't make it to podium. Tries to run clean but selects the wrong cone to criddle and one criddled cone hits another- knocking him into consi round. Decided he has to be careful about selecting which cones to hit for next time.
Chris Chaput: Finally very excited to see a fast course. Chris has no problem with the technical body angualation aspects of the course because he is actually made of rubber- despite never have practiced this type of slalom. With Chris's fast start and surprisingly "on the edge" type turns he posts one of the faster times of the day- until....he meets Steve Evans who jumps the start to get ahead and then criddles a cone into Chaput's course right before a technical section causing Chaput to DQ- Evans advances into second run with some time advantage. Chris decides he was too worried about the technical difficulty of the course and forgot who he was racing against.
Jon Ravitch: Has never seen this level of racing before and gets very excited and decides to purchase 2 more decks specifically for this type of racing. Spends a good deal of time looking at what successful other racers are running and tries a few of their decks.
Micheal Dong: Micheal's fast start at the top give him a .3 second advantage going into the technical sections- many less experienced racers struggle to catch up and go into the technical sections unprepared in regards to the line their body has to take. Despite Dong's time not being the fastest he has had more racers DQ against him than ever before. His strategy- run hot at the top and cruise the rest of the course.....but semi finals are coming and he worries about what to do for the top 6 guys who will not be affected by this strategy.
Gary Fluitt: Runs the course clean most of his runs. Though seems to be having some trouble carrying a lot of speed into a offset gate immediately followed by a decreasing radius curve. Switches from his softer PS laminate to a foam core Roe to get faster pop exiting the offset. That cures his problem, but the next section is so pumpable for his Laminate....but now he is on a foam deck...What to Do? In the end it doesn't matter as he makes it to the round of 4. Goes home determined to find the right set up for this type of course.
Vlad Popov; Has clearly most exciting angulation to watch in course....his starts improved a lot since last race. The technical sections are no problem for him. But he has selected a very short wheelbase deck which is costing him on roll- but he is making that up by doing controlled slides at teh last possible moment before entering tech sections and hitting the widest offsets.. He wonders if he should criddle a very easy 2 cones so he could triple pump both and create a "speed chute at the top" that section at the top. Tries this in the round of 4 and manages to eliminate Fluitt who now wants to kick himself as he had thought of the same thing- but was too nervous at the time to try it. Vlad had been planning to do that all day- but didn't want anyone to see him try it in practice so during the round of 16 he snuck off to set the cones and his battery time to check his hunch-
TK- has the most fun ever not attending this race- but his wife kills him when she finds he has gone over his 4000 minute plan while talking non stop to all the racers. Gets Nextel lifetime achievement award.
So who won?
I have no idea.....and we won't know until we have a race like this.
The ability to criddle cones without a huge penalty allows course setters much more leeway in setting the difficulty level of the course. So a more complex course can be set and of course the fastest guys likely will be the cleanest- though like in ANY RACE the racers who take some time to develop a sound strategy will get further than anyone would expect.
High cone penalties = simple courses= no one learns anything on race day except how to match duros to the road surface. Making the hardest cones even worth more time penalty means racers really holding back on the most exciting cones. Simply KILLS the fun of racing both for the racers and the spectators.
I would rather see racers with more strategy options than fewer. Vlad's creation of the speed chute at the top is discussed over pizza- tway cuts a mini vid of it. Evans runs are talked about and so is Kenny's nervousness on the next DVD when he says to the Camera..."I don't know if this will work, but I'm sure going to give it a try". Other things heard were "In the beginning there was a lot of cone spray and criddling....but as the racing went on and people wired the course...that went away. Even Gilmour ran clean in that round. In the final 8 only two racers intentionally criddled. It was weird...it was like everyone was getting better and faster as the day went on and you really couldn't tell who was going to win at any given time- it was exciting right down to the last run."
--------------------------------------------------
In an Offset universe-
A simple course was set with very high cone penalties .2 for most cones and .4 for the bigger offsets. Top Racers ran as clean as they could for most of the day often running slower than their opponents waiting for their opponents to screw up and DQ or hit so many cones that about 30% of the time the racer that crossed the finish line second won.
Spectators were interested initally, but lost interest when it became easy to see who won the run just by counting how many cones were hit.
Without a lot of spectator interest it is unlikely we will be able to secure that same great hill for next year.
The course was okay- but not nearly as tough as anything I would run in practice (a lot of easy straight cones), which was good because cone penalties were so high.
I met a lot of people, but I didn't really learn how to get much faster.
----------------------------------------------------
Racing should be about taking risks. but if cone penalties are too high the risks can be too great for both the course setter and the racer. The course setter is worried about having too many races decided purely on cone hits (or racers DQing because they try so hard not to criddle they just blow out) so he sets easier slower courses (Nothing is worse than having to start over with a new course in the middle of an event) , the racer is too worried about losing a race by hitting only 2 cones and holds back much of his ability (the spectators never get to see how fast slalom racers can really go....except perhaps in the final round of 4....but they have already lost interest in watching endless clean slow runs and are already home.
A straight course with cones 8 feet on center vs one with 7 feet on center on a mild pitch...which is more technically difficult?
Answer below
...neither, because neither course has anything technical about it.
Some courses have been referred to as "technical" when in fact they are just tightly set courses .
What kind of skill does it take to run tight courses?
Well, not much- in fact most of the skill is setting up a board correctly to run tight cones. There are a few people who run tight courses on wide boards with wide trucks and long wheelbases (Simon Levene) Strouble ran wide trucks and long wheelbase on a narrow board at MB04TS.
But most of the "Skill" is just being on a good setup- and wiggling like crazy.
However- in a course with technical difficulty- the cone spacing may not be all that tight.....but the body angulation required to make the course and course analysis.....can be very high as well as board set up. I find this to be the most involved type of racing as Practice, board set up and tuning, course analysis, and skill all come into play at once.
As for assigning higher time penalties for the hardest cones....why do that? That just makes it worse! (but I can understand why people think it would be better- I felt that way at one point, until I saw the dynamics of how cone penalties affect racing)
The idea is to set a course that is SOOOOO Fast and SOOOO technically advanced that everyone goes home with a slightly different experience. But all POSITIVE- and everyone improves in skill level....not just in gear set up.
At a hypothetical race.
Matt Wilson: goes home 1st run DQ second run with tightened bearings makes the course but feels it was fun anyhow despite lower placing. In shock at how much practice he has before him.
Chris Stepanek; Excited about technical fast course puts in fast qualifiers, realizes that there is something new in the course he hasn't seen before and even though he is having trouble with that particular section- criddles- and survives due to his fast speed in other sections gets high placing and goes home excited to set up section like that to run at home in practice for the next year.
Noah Heinle: At first tries to stuff 36 inch pocket pistol through the course- no success in practice. redrills deck and runs well- but still blows out first qualifier in fast section with bigger offsets. Watches rest of fast qualifiers body postion through those gates and imitates it successfully, posts 3rd fastest qualifiing run, but carries too much speed in eliminations.
Wesley Tucker: Finds hill is fast enough to justify using a parallel stance despite having a slower first few cones- his start is quick enough to save him some time- makes up some good time in stinger sections. Though is forced to criddle the widest offsets and is willing to do this to be able to use his stance for the stingers at the end. As a result he catches a lot of racers off guard and gets his best placing in the North East.
Kenny Mollica: Rides surf stance- uses 36 pocket pistol with total success- due to on course modification to put in high wedge in radikal front truck and running a looser rear truck than normal- goes full Radikal. Puts in a safety run for first qualifier, then blows out on suicide 2nd run. Goes into elims wondering what the top possible speed before blowout is in the course and every run gets hairier. Not feeling fatigued- he goes deep into the brackets surprising everyone on this technical course- he chooses to criddle the two most technical gates. In the 1/4 finals he realizes that even at .1 second per cone....he won't make it to podium. Tries to run clean but selects the wrong cone to criddle and one criddled cone hits another- knocking him into consi round. Decided he has to be careful about selecting which cones to hit for next time.
Chris Chaput: Finally very excited to see a fast course. Chris has no problem with the technical body angualation aspects of the course because he is actually made of rubber- despite never have practiced this type of slalom. With Chris's fast start and surprisingly "on the edge" type turns he posts one of the faster times of the day- until....he meets Steve Evans who jumps the start to get ahead and then criddles a cone into Chaput's course right before a technical section causing Chaput to DQ- Evans advances into second run with some time advantage. Chris decides he was too worried about the technical difficulty of the course and forgot who he was racing against.
Jon Ravitch: Has never seen this level of racing before and gets very excited and decides to purchase 2 more decks specifically for this type of racing. Spends a good deal of time looking at what successful other racers are running and tries a few of their decks.
Micheal Dong: Micheal's fast start at the top give him a .3 second advantage going into the technical sections- many less experienced racers struggle to catch up and go into the technical sections unprepared in regards to the line their body has to take. Despite Dong's time not being the fastest he has had more racers DQ against him than ever before. His strategy- run hot at the top and cruise the rest of the course.....but semi finals are coming and he worries about what to do for the top 6 guys who will not be affected by this strategy.
Gary Fluitt: Runs the course clean most of his runs. Though seems to be having some trouble carrying a lot of speed into a offset gate immediately followed by a decreasing radius curve. Switches from his softer PS laminate to a foam core Roe to get faster pop exiting the offset. That cures his problem, but the next section is so pumpable for his Laminate....but now he is on a foam deck...What to Do? In the end it doesn't matter as he makes it to the round of 4. Goes home determined to find the right set up for this type of course.
Vlad Popov; Has clearly most exciting angulation to watch in course....his starts improved a lot since last race. The technical sections are no problem for him. But he has selected a very short wheelbase deck which is costing him on roll- but he is making that up by doing controlled slides at teh last possible moment before entering tech sections and hitting the widest offsets.. He wonders if he should criddle a very easy 2 cones so he could triple pump both and create a "speed chute at the top" that section at the top. Tries this in the round of 4 and manages to eliminate Fluitt who now wants to kick himself as he had thought of the same thing- but was too nervous at the time to try it. Vlad had been planning to do that all day- but didn't want anyone to see him try it in practice so during the round of 16 he snuck off to set the cones and his battery time to check his hunch-
TK- has the most fun ever not attending this race- but his wife kills him when she finds he has gone over his 4000 minute plan while talking non stop to all the racers. Gets Nextel lifetime achievement award.
So who won?
I have no idea.....and we won't know until we have a race like this.
The ability to criddle cones without a huge penalty allows course setters much more leeway in setting the difficulty level of the course. So a more complex course can be set and of course the fastest guys likely will be the cleanest- though like in ANY RACE the racers who take some time to develop a sound strategy will get further than anyone would expect.
High cone penalties = simple courses= no one learns anything on race day except how to match duros to the road surface. Making the hardest cones even worth more time penalty means racers really holding back on the most exciting cones. Simply KILLS the fun of racing both for the racers and the spectators.
I would rather see racers with more strategy options than fewer. Vlad's creation of the speed chute at the top is discussed over pizza- tway cuts a mini vid of it. Evans runs are talked about and so is Kenny's nervousness on the next DVD when he says to the Camera..."I don't know if this will work, but I'm sure going to give it a try". Other things heard were "In the beginning there was a lot of cone spray and criddling....but as the racing went on and people wired the course...that went away. Even Gilmour ran clean in that round. In the final 8 only two racers intentionally criddled. It was weird...it was like everyone was getting better and faster as the day went on and you really couldn't tell who was going to win at any given time- it was exciting right down to the last run."
--------------------------------------------------
In an Offset universe-
A simple course was set with very high cone penalties .2 for most cones and .4 for the bigger offsets. Top Racers ran as clean as they could for most of the day often running slower than their opponents waiting for their opponents to screw up and DQ or hit so many cones that about 30% of the time the racer that crossed the finish line second won.
Spectators were interested initally, but lost interest when it became easy to see who won the run just by counting how many cones were hit.
Without a lot of spectator interest it is unlikely we will be able to secure that same great hill for next year.
The course was okay- but not nearly as tough as anything I would run in practice (a lot of easy straight cones), which was good because cone penalties were so high.
I met a lot of people, but I didn't really learn how to get much faster.
----------------------------------------------------
Racing should be about taking risks. but if cone penalties are too high the risks can be too great for both the course setter and the racer. The course setter is worried about having too many races decided purely on cone hits (or racers DQing because they try so hard not to criddle they just blow out) so he sets easier slower courses (Nothing is worse than having to start over with a new course in the middle of an event) , the racer is too worried about losing a race by hitting only 2 cones and holds back much of his ability (the spectators never get to see how fast slalom racers can really go....except perhaps in the final round of 4....but they have already lost interest in watching endless clean slow runs and are already home.
One good turn deserves another
john gilmour
john gilmour
-
John Gilmour
- Team Roe Racing
- Posts: 1207
- Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
- Location: USA
Also just because you lower cone limits and racers feel ready to really give it their all. They might go into a section of the run thinking....."hmmm if I am off my line I might hit 3 cones....but if I'm on it I'll run it clean" and often that is the case.....especially in competition....................and sometimes....sometimes...........You CHOKE....but isn't that a lot more thrilling than a bunch of clean runs at slightly different speeds. Isn't it more exciting for the spectators to see one rider dominating...and then unexpectedly choke? Or even more wild to see some guy give it his all every run and run clean, even amazing the racer that he made it uncscathed through the guantlet each time?
LETS FACE IT> 17mph is LAME. LAME LAME LAME LAME...I don't care what you set but 13- 17mph for the fastest guys at a race is totally Lame (French pronounce this LA-MAY) .........who cares. I wouldn't bother to watch it unless it was friends racing. There's better stuff on DVD.
But anything above 20mph Starts.... STARTS...... just Starts, to get interesting. Anything close to 25mph and above IS definitely interesting. Anything over 30mph has everyones full attention....why, because you can't run that fast you NEED wheels to go that fast. If a spectator can sprint faster than you RACE on skateboards....is he impressed? Maybe if he thinks it is harder to go through cones on a board at speed than on foot. (how impressed would you be watching a bunch of guys race dual slalom on unicycles at a slow jog? How long would you watch???? Would you be really impressed? Not very, but now watch them do it at 25mph and I bet it's exciting to watch.....people want to see feats that are out of their realm.....and so do we).
Again...high cone penalties discourage really fast "let it hang it all out" racing. And it starts even before the racers have their first practice run....with the course setter. If the course setter isn't thinking about the rules before he drops the course...then someone else should be setting. And heavy copne penalties affect all the action..........except.......in Super G because IMHO a well set super course has so much speed that eventhe best competitors would be taking the wrong line to go close to the cones....they would end up scrubbing. A great Super G course in skateboarding allows the skater to determine how close to run to the cones before he is actually going slower or blowing out from loss of traction because he is gaining too much speed.
TS is about how close you can run to the cones....Super G is about figuring out the fastest line away from the cones. So in Superg.....it is fine to have huge cone penalties.......so long as the Super G course hill is
A) really fast (approaching or exceeding 30mph for over 60% of the course).
b) The gates are true Super G gates with much more down spacing than lateral spacing.
besides .....who wants to walk 3/4 of a mile to reset a cone.
This is just My opinion for what its worth. But when it comes to anything other than Super G. high cone penalties kill racing. In auto racing...we push the engines to the limit.... we don't say....there is a high penalty if your engine explodes- everything must look very tidy.
LETS FACE IT> 17mph is LAME. LAME LAME LAME LAME...I don't care what you set but 13- 17mph for the fastest guys at a race is totally Lame (French pronounce this LA-MAY) .........who cares. I wouldn't bother to watch it unless it was friends racing. There's better stuff on DVD.
But anything above 20mph Starts.... STARTS...... just Starts, to get interesting. Anything close to 25mph and above IS definitely interesting. Anything over 30mph has everyones full attention....why, because you can't run that fast you NEED wheels to go that fast. If a spectator can sprint faster than you RACE on skateboards....is he impressed? Maybe if he thinks it is harder to go through cones on a board at speed than on foot. (how impressed would you be watching a bunch of guys race dual slalom on unicycles at a slow jog? How long would you watch???? Would you be really impressed? Not very, but now watch them do it at 25mph and I bet it's exciting to watch.....people want to see feats that are out of their realm.....and so do we).
Again...high cone penalties discourage really fast "let it hang it all out" racing. And it starts even before the racers have their first practice run....with the course setter. If the course setter isn't thinking about the rules before he drops the course...then someone else should be setting. And heavy copne penalties affect all the action..........except.......in Super G because IMHO a well set super course has so much speed that eventhe best competitors would be taking the wrong line to go close to the cones....they would end up scrubbing. A great Super G course in skateboarding allows the skater to determine how close to run to the cones before he is actually going slower or blowing out from loss of traction because he is gaining too much speed.
TS is about how close you can run to the cones....Super G is about figuring out the fastest line away from the cones. So in Superg.....it is fine to have huge cone penalties.......so long as the Super G course hill is
A) really fast (approaching or exceeding 30mph for over 60% of the course).
b) The gates are true Super G gates with much more down spacing than lateral spacing.
besides .....who wants to walk 3/4 of a mile to reset a cone.
This is just My opinion for what its worth. But when it comes to anything other than Super G. high cone penalties kill racing. In auto racing...we push the engines to the limit.... we don't say....there is a high penalty if your engine explodes- everything must look very tidy.
One good turn deserves another
john gilmour
john gilmour
-
Vlad Popov
- Moscow-Washington
- Posts: 1543
- Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 2:00 am
- Location: Moscow, Russia
- Contact:
You’d be surprised, but from the spectators’ point of view clean runs are worth more.
We have this tendency of mixing and confusing spectators’ and participants’ views on the same issue. Fast guys want challenging courses. Slower guys want simpler courses. The crowd wants to see clean runs and close parallel racing …according to my survey of several race spectators who don’t skateboard. 25MPH looks as fast and as slow as 30 and 20 MPH. But going slower around more cones turns on people more then a 35 MPH 3-cone GS run. 50 MPH still looks slow on TV. All of the above feels very differently to the racers, but the crowd doesn’t feel. It only sees.
I personally hate to hit cones on purpose and would like to see more courses where constant pushing is rewarded more then any other strategy. But for now everyone who wants to win will have to think of shortcuts. Even though Cridling is legal I feel like I’m cheating every time I do it.
So, to make slalom more appealing to the spectators it makes sense to enforce high cone penalties. I’m very happy with 0.1 seconds per cone no matter what.
We have this tendency of mixing and confusing spectators’ and participants’ views on the same issue. Fast guys want challenging courses. Slower guys want simpler courses. The crowd wants to see clean runs and close parallel racing …according to my survey of several race spectators who don’t skateboard. 25MPH looks as fast and as slow as 30 and 20 MPH. But going slower around more cones turns on people more then a 35 MPH 3-cone GS run. 50 MPH still looks slow on TV. All of the above feels very differently to the racers, but the crowd doesn’t feel. It only sees.
I personally hate to hit cones on purpose and would like to see more courses where constant pushing is rewarded more then any other strategy. But for now everyone who wants to win will have to think of shortcuts. Even though Cridling is legal I feel like I’m cheating every time I do it.
So, to make slalom more appealing to the spectators it makes sense to enforce high cone penalties. I’m very happy with 0.1 seconds per cone no matter what.
-
Hans Koraeus
- Corky - World Ranking Master Mind
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 2:00 am
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact: