SHOULD 6-WHEELERS BE ALLOWED AT A GS RACE???

Donald Campbell · Post by **Donald Campbell** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:03 am

i would love to see a healthy discussion and the participation in the poll to finalize decisions on the current debate.
the issa should then change their rules according to the outcome of the discussion.
thank you for participating.

Ramón Königshausen · Post by **Ramón Königshausen** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:53 am

Ramón Königshausen wrote:Six-Wheelers are time-eaters. There are too many possibilities to set them up. I'd rather have an extra training session than spend time on setting up a six wheeler properly. Has a convenient side-effect: it benefits your physical health/strength.

rmn

rmn

Rick Stanziale · Post by **Rick Stanziale** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:08 pm

my 5 (paid for 6) votes are for sale

contact me at diebold@skitching.com

Jeff Goad · Post by **Jeff Goad** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:48 pm

Rick Stanziale wrote:my 5 (paid for 6) votes are for sale

contact me at diebold@skitching.com

5 votes = 1 PBR

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:54 pm

Rick Stanziale wrote:my 5 (paid for 6) votes are for sale

Fun! Just in this poll or you want to transfer your membership permanently? Let me know if and when it happens. (The board might have an opinion on such transfer?)?

(anyway, online polls are open to all registered members of the forum).
(and we're not even close to a ISSA membership vote on 6-wheelers - at least it was my understanding that the ISSA board is allowing them, such rule discussions are more likely to place in the autumn if I read another post correctly).

/Jani

Eddy Martinez · Post by **Eddy Martinez** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 3:38 pm

Chappy!!!!!!

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:06 pm

What is the definition of "skateboard" to be allowed in races?

If we do not limit the # of wheels....
If we do not limit the # of trucks ...
If we do not limit the # and type of deck....
If we do not limit the "foot stops" or "bindings".....

Then we may end up with "skateboards" like this:

Ramón Königshausen · Post by **Ramón Königshausen** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:45 pm

The blahblah gradually seems to come to an end on NCDSA: Posts indicating that people start getting sick and tired of the whole discussion have been made.

It's absolutely futile. Four wheels will win. Six wheels will be here and there up in the ranking. Nice. And?

If Six wheels are going to be prohibited, anarchy results. (System Thesis of mine.)

rmn

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:51 am

The ISSA rules need to be updated (for many reasons --- a minor reason is for the 6-wheel determination).

When those rules are written, we will need a good definition of "skateboard" outlining what is and what is not allowed.

If the equipment rules are too lax, you will see some people pushing against those limits which MIGHT include things like:
Rollerblades (if the rules do not restrict the # of decks, the attachment of decks to feet, the #of wheels, etc.)
Jet-engines ("the rules don't prohibit a jet engine, so it must be allowed")
And other monstrosities

If the equipment rules are too restrictive, you will hear loudly from the "equipment racers" about killing off inovation....

Here is a proposed start to those rules. We can comment on these.

Equipment Allowed and Prohibited for Slalom Races:

REQUIRED equipment takes priority over PROHIBITED EQUIPMENT.
PROHIBITED equipment takes priority over ALLOWED EQUIPMENT.

REQUIRED EQUIPMENT:
ONE deck. (Note: Two platforms attached minimally with a flexible element is TWO decks).
Minimum ONE lean-to-steer mechanism for attaching the wheel(s) to the deck.
Minimum TWO wheels.
ONE helmet. (Hard-shell helmet -- not cloth or leather).
Shoes (one for each foot)

PROHIBITED EQUIPMENT
Propulsion mechanisms and energy conversion mechanisms. (Motors, sails, engines, cranks, etc)
Jetisoned (discarded) material. (Water ballast, compressible gasses, weights, etc)
Dynamic mechanisms for braking or slowing the skateboard (brakes, anchors, parachutes, etc)
Dynamic mechanisms for varying the flex, width, length, or height of the deck during the race.
Dynamic mechanisms for varying the characteristics of the lean-to-steer apparatus during the race. (e.g. Variable dynamic steering angle, variable dynamic spring force, etc)
Mechanisms for restricting the rolling motion of the wheels in one direction (clutches, pawls, escapements, etc)
Bindings which attach the feet to the board in a vertical direction. (Magnets, clips, overhanging foot stops, etc)
Handles,handle-bars, or seats. (The interface between the rider and the deck shall be made thru the feet/shoes only)

ALLOWED EQUIPMENT
This is not a complete list of what is allowed, but is just a clarfication.
Decks with curvature and profile (kick-tail, concave, camber, etc) -- without size restriction.
Wheels of unlimited size, number, and construction.
Bearings of unlimited size and configuration.
Lean-to-Steer mechanisms of unlimited size and configuration.
Deck attachments for interfacing to the feet/shoes for restricting the lateral or longitudinal motion of the foot relative to the deck. (Foot stops)
Protective clothing and pads. (Slide gloves, kneepads, elbow pads, etc.)

Steve Collins · Post by **Steve Collins** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 3:59 am

Pat, that looks to be a good start, thanks.

What is your reasoning for prohibiting the dynamic flex and truck adjustments? I've never heard of anything like that and find myself wondering if that might be precluding some useful innovation.

Also, as for bindings, it would be interesting to see what the consensus is on allowing or prohibiting them. It would also be interesting to see just what kind of performance advantage they might offer. I'm not advocating them, just wondering.

James Peters · Post by **James Peters** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:31 am

overhanging foot stops

i can already see the fine line on bindings prohibition. some of us are riding fairly sophisticated mechanisms affixed to the board, things like skyhooks or other custom metal pieces that grip the shoes. even foam blocks that are trimmed to 'cup' the whole front edge of a shoe...

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:44 am

This is just a start, a strawman proposal to get some thoughts.

My reasoning for prohibiting "dynamic" adjustments of various things is to keep slalom skateboarding skills limited to body inputs to the board (lean, weighting, pumping, etc), and to keep out things like moving adjustment levers while racing, voice-activated skateboard adjustments, etc. I want it to be an athletic competition, not a technological competition. That's my bias that I have embedded into the proposal.

As for foot stops and binings: I want to prevent real "bindings" that would allow a one footed rollerblade type thing. A skateboard (in my mind) is a platform that is ridden, not a piece of apparel that is worn or attached. There should be a way to better define this so that a water-ski like binding is not allowed, but a moderately undercut foot stop is allowed.

Vlad Popov · Post by **Vlad Popov** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:29 am

Rick Stanziale wrote:my 5 (paid for 6) votes are for sale

contact me at diebold@skitching.com

Nice touch!

Mine have been up for sale for over a year.

PS. Chris Chaput is a hero.

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:27 am

Vlad Popov wrote:Mine have been up for sale for over a year.

Maybe we'll open up a new thread where you can trade your "shares": The ISSA Stock Exchange. As the handler of this business maybe I can make a few cents on each deal and earn a fortune? I'll also build a nice graph module that shows the highs and lows etc.

/Jani

Chris Chaput · Post by **Chris Chaput** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 3:36 pm

An inline skate isn't lean steer. Yes, it is usually leaned when it is steered, but there is a twisting motion from the foot that requires a boot or bindings. An inline skater can be in a snowplow with each skate leaning in opposite directions and still turn by twisting and sliding the skates in one direction.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I think that simply stating the intent of the author at the beginning of the rules section goes a long toward explaining one's position on such matters. For example:

The ISSA allows and encourages a variety of skateboards to compete in its races. The ISSA limits it participants to riding only skateboards and expressly prohibits the use of rollerskates (both quad-skates, inline skates, or hybrids thereof), scooters, bicycles, tricycles, and any vehicle with handle bars used for steering. It is intent to have racers stand on top of their boards while racing, without being otherwise attached to their boards. Boots, bindings, hooks, straps, magnets, or other attachment devices are prohibited. Griptape, traction pads, toe-stops, kicktails and special board contours are allowed with some restrictions (see section XX for details). Aside from the assistance of gravity and pushing at the start of a race (described in section XY), a racer is only allowed to generate speed by "pumping" or otherwise maneuvering his skateboard . The use of a motor, jet, sail, or any other device used to propel the racer is prohibited. Brakes or braking devices, other than a racer's shoe, are prohibited.

A skateboard is defined as a lean-steer standing platform (deck) with any number of wheels attached to it...

Keep it simple. Use plain english. Don't create complex definitions where simple ones would suffice. Keep it real. Unless and until someone shows up in an all metal suit and parks a giant magnet at the finish line, you don't need to write a rule that prohibits it. The same goes for toe ropes from low flyinging helicpters, friends running along side with leaf blowers, and racers with paintball guns nailing his opponent on the way down.

BTW, I think that the issue of "Binding vs Toe Stops" can be pretty easily addressed. You can state that features on the standing platform of the deck cannot extend or protrude at an angle past 90 degrees - it cannot overhang or cover any part of the foot or shoe. A sky-hook would be prohibited because it overhangs the foot, but a block or stop that allows the foot to be positioned against (but not "under") it would be allowed.

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:29 pm

That is a good idea to include the intent -- it can help resolve unforseen developments and controversy.

The intent statement, coupled with more detailed structured rules would be ideal.

Jack Smith · Post by **Jack Smith** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:29 pm

Well, there goes my racing season. I was planning on debuting my SSIB (slalom step in binding) system at Hood River.

There is a huge energy loss between the foot and the deck. Concave, super traction grip tape and toe blocks help to a certain extent. The SSIB creates a more positive foot/board interface.

Yes, it would only work for ramp start races, and of course you're locked in. However there are not that many falls at the elite level of racing.

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:32 pm

Jack Smith wrote:Well, there goes my racing season. I was planning on debuting my SSIB (slalom step in binding) system at Hood River.

There is a huge energy loss between the foot and the deck. Concave, super traction grip tape and toe blocks help to a certain extent. The SSIB creates a more positive foot/board interface.

Yes, it would only work for ramp start races, and of course you're locked in. However there are not that many falls at the elite level of racing.

It's a SUGGESTION.

Rally the troops and vote it down.

Defeat is only for the shoeless.

Besides, it's only for 2008. You can still sink millions into the product R&D and lose it all long before the new season starts.

Malakai Kingston · Post by **Malakai Kingston** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:45 pm

Just wanted to say thanks to the ISSA for providing a platform where this issue can be resolved. My votes in the box.

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:19 pm

Jack Smith wrote:Well, there goes my racing season. I was planning on debuting my SSIB (slalom step in binding) system at Hood River.

There is a huge energy loss between the foot and the deck. Concave, super traction grip tape and toe blocks help to a certain extent. The SSIB creates a more positive foot/board interface.

Yes, it would only work for ramp start races, and of course you're locked in. However there are not that many falls at the elite level of racing.

Jack:

1) The proposal above is just a PROPOSAL for FUTURE rules.....
2) Hood River race is being run by Gareth Roe.
3) If you think your bindings might be controversial, I suggest you contact Gareth and find out what is allowed/prohibited for this race.
4) My own bias is to prohibit bindings, but if you were to make some good arguments for allowing bindings and the majority goes with that -- then bindings will likely be allowed in the 2008 rule revisions.....

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:52 pm

If we allow bindings, do we need a rule that all 4 wheels must be on the ground? Then what if you slide or your trucks are tightened so hard a wheel lifts off the ground?
Are you allowed to jump around the cones?
Oops, this a completely different topic and many not yet planned for situations. But it is interesting to see how we can push this sport forward!

The topic on bindings is probably more complex than that of 6 wheelers. We probably need a new topic for it.

/Jani

Chris Chaput · Post by **Chris Chaput** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:01 pm

I thought that Jack was kidding. He banned sky-hooks didn't he? Jack?

I think that it's inherently dangerous to step "into" something as opposed to stepping "onto" something. The IGSA has very specific rules against toe loops or any other piece of the vehicle "enclosing" the rider in their streetluge/downhill rulebook.

Of course the distinction between a "skateboard with a binding" and a rollerskate becomes an issue that is brought about by allowing boots, bindings, strap, hooks, velcro, magnets, etc.

Again, I think that any portion of the standing platform that extends beyond vertical - anything that overhangs, encloses, or otherwise attaches the foot to the board is a safety concern and can be dealt with accordingly. This also has the effect of limiting any type of "fairing" that was dangerous for the same reason.

Although it's a separate issue, the likelihood of lifting the front wheels over a tapeswitch at the start of a race (intentionally or not) would be increased by the use of the aforementioned bindings. I have other ideas of how to deal with that on ramps...

Jack Smith · Post by **Jack Smith** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:52 pm

Chris, that was "six" years ago...times, people and ideas change.

Skateboard racing is dangerous..

Chris Chaput · Post by **Chris Chaput** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:29 am

Well, I'm glad to hear that you're thinking of new ways to get 'r done.

Have you tried your idea using something that you can step out of vertically, without having to also move your foot forward or back? Can you "wedge" your foot into a couple of vertical blocks that get closer together?

Are you actually lifting up on the board as opposed to just unweighting it? It sounds very interesting whatever it is...

Chris Chaput · Post by **Chris Chaput** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:43 am

Okay, I'm a bit embarrassed now. I've been trying to figure out where the hell it is that you pay the damn $25 to join this thing and I can't find it.

Bueller?

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:59 am

http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/phpBB ... php?t=3429

PayPal $25 (US) to:

issa@slalomskateboarder.com

Jani is not on the board but is an integral part of the ISSA leadership. He receives the money in France, will update the profile allow access to the ISSA MEMBERS only forum and deposit the cash an ISSA account.

Chris Chaput · Post by **Chris Chaput** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:03 pm

Thanks Wesley. Found it. Sent it...

Malakai Kingston · Post by **Malakai Kingston** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:25 pm

As an acting member of the ISSA I request a call to vote on this issue for the 2008 season.

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:33 pm

Malakai,

Here's what I proposed:

"The ISSA shall only sanction slalom skateboard racing contests where specific skateboard-exclusive accessories are allowed. This decision shall be effective commencing with the 2008 calendar year."

Yes, the DHB still get to have the option since their's is a 2007 race.

Now, what's a "skateboard-exclusive accessory?" Simple. It's stuff for skateboards. This way all the concerns about motors, brakes and who knows what else is covered. Skateboards with another truck and two more wheels is just more skateboard. No complaint.

Erik Basil · Post by **Erik Basil** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:37 am

Wes, I don't think that wording gets it done. There are, for example, skateboard specific braking systems. I think the Question of Six is better resolved with something that leaves that particular question clearly answered.

Shall there be any limit on the number of lean-steer trucks on skateboards? Y/N

Shall there be any limit on the size or number of skateboard wheels? Y/N

Shall there be any limit on the use of leather and/or body jewelry? Y/N

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:48 am

Malakai Kingston wrote:As an acting member of the ISSA I request a call to vote on this issue for the 2008 season.

I promise there will be a vote on this before December 15 2007.....

However, I think it is premature to do the vote right now because:

A) Most racers are busy racing, organizing races, and doing other "middle of the season" activities. It will be best to do this after season's end.

B) I would like to see all questions of equipment in a single written document that is voted on as a "rules change" -- rather than voting individually on each little thing in an asycnronous manner.

C) The overall slalom skateboard racing rules need an update anyway. It will probably be most efficient for the ISSA board to develop some working groups to develop proposed rule update documents (with racer input) and then vote on all of these in a coordinated manner to publish the 2008 rules....

Yes, there will be a vote, but it might look different than what you originally had in mind.

-- Pat

Malakai Kingston · Post by **Malakai Kingston** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:43 am

All due respect to the ISSA and everyone actually involved in this, I understand that a middle of the year voting and change makes no sense. I feel however that a definitive ruling before the end of the racing season would be advisable.

My choice to bring this up is purely to resolve the discourse surrounding this issue, please let me know if there is anything I can do. I have no personal agenda.

Rick Floyd · Post by **Rick Floyd** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:24 am

Does the ISSA have, or can it have, an annual meeting? I have a marathon kayak racing background with the USCA and there are just about as many rule ideas when it comes to boats and paddles and what is fair / allowed. There is an annual meeting in a different place each year where regional representatives, who have already polled their regional competitors, show up to vote on changes, which are then official. Sometimes we make a new rule, which is possibly contoversial, into a "trial" rule. So if a new kind of boat is in the mix, a separate race is held at Nationals but not as a "medal" event. An agreed upon number of participants would then make the "class" official - if there is low or no turnout the idea is nixed. So maybe there would be a "six-wheel" class and a "four-wheel" class in skate slalom, with any individual racer allowed to compete in both classes. Some rules in the uSCA are put in place for an agreed upon "trial period" - so the new rule is good for, say, three years before it can be voted on again for a change. A "voting override" is in place as well, in case it is unanimously decided at the next annual meeting that the idea was bad.

I'm just thinking out loud here, and I realize we do not have a super-organized regional delegate system quite yet...maybe something to work toward? Maybe I've absorbed too much bearing lube into my brain?

Chris Chaput · Post by **Chris Chaput** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:44 am

Here's my take:

You made a ruling regarding the use of equipment back in April of 2006. It's 14 months later and there has been nothing to indicate that anything "controversial" has caused any problems at any races. Racers have raced on whatever they brought, and the races have gone on without a hitch. That's not to say that certain (usually anonymous) posts don't arise on the messages boards after the fact, but that's to be expected no what you do.

So basically the issue is that ISSA, and not individual race organizers, are the ones who have to make the rules and enforce them. One set of rules. Just like an Association such as the NBA awards 3 points for shots from behind the cirlce in EVERY game, the shot clock is always 24 seconds, 5 players always get to play, etc.

Although I'd personally like to see things buttoned down as much as possible, the rules can give the race organizers some choices on fine tuning their races, but they don't get to just make stuff up on their own. For example, make cone penalties equal to either one tenth or two tenths of a second, but don't allow someone to make them .05 or .25 or .30 seconds. Make the maximum number of cones allowed before a DQ be equal to either 10% or 20% of the number of cones, and not an arbitrarily chosen number.

I want to be able to go to a race, know what to expect, and have only a few questions answered to know how to race. The only questions that we'll have to ask are the ones where the organizers have some discretion (.10 or .20, 10% or 20%, etc).

We should have a known countdown sequence for timers, known push or "foot fault" violations, etc. I'd like to see a racer's "best run" always used instead of some races using the best 2 out of 4, and others the best 3 out of 5.

I'd like to see all of the questions at the riders meeting answered in 30 seconds or less. "The GS is the best of four runs, two tenths penalty per cone, you can hit 6 cones without a DQ (10% of the 63 cones), start in front of the backstop and push anywhere on the course. Everything else is in the ISSA rulebook here on the table. Any questions?"

I hope that I never have to see a Slalom Equipment Technical Inspection station open at 6:30am before the race with every rider having to get in line and have every one of his boards inspected and tagged before the event, only to have every board from every rider re-inspected after every run in every heat to make sure that any and all alterations or modifications to the boards after the initial inspection weren't in conflict with the equipment bans set forth in the rulebook. God please may we avoid going down that path...

Chris Chaput · Post by **Chris Chaput** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:45 am

Malakai Kingston wrote:All due respect to the ISSA and everyone actually involved in this, I understand that a middle of the year voting and change makes no sense. I feel however that a definitive ruling before the end of the racing season would be advisable.

My choice to bring this up is purely to resolve the discourse surrounding this issue, please let me know if there is anything I can do. I have no personal agenda.

We impeach presidents during their term, not after it!

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 6:48 am

Chris Chaput wrote:Here's my take:

So basically the issue is that ISSA, and not individual race organizers, are the ones who have to make the rules and enforce them. One set of rules. Just like an Association such as the NBA awards 3 points for shots from behind the cirlce in EVERY game, the shot clock is always 24 seconds, 5 players always get to play, etc.

Although I'd personally like to see things buttoned down as much as possible, the rules can give the race organizers some choices on fine tuning their races, but they don't get to just make stuff up on their own. For example, make cone penalties equal to either one tenth or two tenths of a second, but don't allow someone to make them .05 or .25 or .30 seconds. Make the maximum number of cones allowed before a DQ be equal to either 10% or 20% of the number of cones, and not an arbitrarily chosen number.

I want to be able to go to a race, know what to expect, and have only a few questions answered to know how to race. The only questions that we'll have to ask are the ones where the organizers have some discretion (.10 or .20, 10% or 20%, etc).

We should have a known countdown sequence for timers, known push or "foot fault" violations, etc. I'd like to see a racer's "best run" always used instead of some races using the best 2 out of 4, and others the best 3 out of 5.

I'd like to see all of the questions at the riders meeting answered in 30 seconds or less. "The GS is the best of four runs, two tenths penalty per cone, you can hit 6 cones without a DQ (10% of the 63 cones), start in front of the backstop and push anywhere on the course. Everything else is in the ISSA rulebook here on the table. Any questions?"

I hope that I never have to see a Slalom Equipment Technical Inspection station open at 6:30am before the race with every rider having to get in line and have every one of his boards inspected and tagged before the event, only to have every board from every rider re-inspected after every run in every heat to make sure that any and all alterations or modifications to the boards after the initial inspection weren't in conflict with the equipment bans set forth in the rulebook. God please may we avoid going down that path...

No innovation allowed for race organizers, but unlimited innovation allowed for racer's equipment? That seems to me a bit unbalanced.

This vision places all of the allowed "innovation" on the skateboard equipment, and none on the method of running the race.

The following "innovations" are being used in slalom races (to varying degrees of success), and I don't think we want to throw all of this out to have perfect cookie-cutter identical races -- how boring!

Partial list of race-organizer innovations and alterations (do we want to allow innovations like these in ISSA races?):
A) Mirrored courses instead of both courses identical.
B) Slalomcross where there is a short shared section of race course for both racers.
C) Ditch racing on banked slopes.
D) Skate-park slalom
E) Timing system with false-start 2X penalty
F) The A, B, C bracketing system
G) Ladder bracketing system
H) Coneless practice runs
I) Limit on cones before auto-DQ
J) Limited "DQ-advantage" carried into 2nd run in head-to-head racing (1.5 sec )
K) Extremely steep hills with very few cones
L) Extremely flat surfaces with very tight cones

I totally agree with Chris that the current system allows too much lattitude to the race organizers.

However, I disagree with the vision that the ISSA rules should be so restrictive on the race organization and structure so that there are no alterations, improvements and variations from one race to the other.

Likewise, I disagree with the vision that the equipment rules should be totally "run what you brung", without any limitations or structure.

Putting all of the structure and requirements onto the way the race is run, and none of the structure and requirements on the equipment being used seems to be extreme in both cases (in opposite directions). Probably the best approach is to take that vision stated above, add some rules for the equipment, and allow some lattitude for the race organizers.

But I do share a lot of the vision stated above. There SHOULD be less controvery from race-to-race. One way to achieve this is by adding structure and "meat" to the rules. The other way is by requiring that all "race innovations" be documented and published by the contest organizer ahead of the contest. Both of these need more work .....

======================

One example of published rules for a race is here:
http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/Conte ... /Rules.pdf

Chris Chaput · Post by **Chris Chaput** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:05 am

What I'm saying is that there is great value in having the height of the net the same in every game of basketball and tennis. There are several things that DON'T need to change from race to race. The same for the length and width of the court. The problem with allowing every race organizer to get "creative" with the rules is that some of the ideas are just plain stupid. The racers have to accept it, the ISSA has to accept it, and then what - we have to "wait until next year" for the rules to be changed and restored to sanity?

Mirrored courses are a good idea, but they have issues of convergence. A racer gets a run in each lane. It's pretty fair. I'm fine seeing it either way.

I think that the ISSA should maintain its focus on street slalom. Slalomcross is something I'd like to see, just not in the ISSA. The courses are all going to be radically different, you're going to need a bunch of judges to making calls on blocking fouls when collisions occur. There will be non-calls where a call was needed, or calls when it was "just racing". Ditch racing and park slalom are also very different sports that require very specialized venues. Where is there a legal ditch besides Kona?

Why should we have Tom, Dick, and Harry coming up with his own 2x or 3x or 4x or DQ false start penalty when ONE acceptable penalty is all that we need? This is not an area to be creative or innovative.

Why re-invent the wheel every time there's a new race? Let's get it right the first time, and stick with it.

I want restrictions on equipment, namely on motors, sails, hooks, bindings, etc. But if it's a skateboard, let it run.

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:00 am

Chris Chaput wrote: .................

Why should we have Tom, Dick, and Harry coming up with his own 2x or 3x or 4x or DQ false start penalty when ONE acceptable penalty is all that we need? This is not an area to be creative or innovative.

Why re-invent the wheel every time there's a new race? Let's get it right the first time, and stick with it.

I want restrictions on equipment, namely on motors, sails, hooks, bindings, etc. But if it's a skateboard, let it run.

1) For the false-start penalty stuff, not every timing system is compatible with supplying the "reaction time" and then able to calculate the penalty. Not every race uses the same timing equipment and spreadsheet.

2) The problem might be that there are several "RIGHT" ways to do it. For example: is .1s cone penalty right or is .2s ? Both are right. Is a 2X false start penalty right, or a 3X? Both are right.

3) I also want restrictions on equipment. I might want to add a little thing like "wheels" onto your list.

My challenge to you (or to anyone proposing rules) is this: Write some part of the rules. Any part you choose -- describe the rule for equipment, describe the start procedure and equipment, describe the bracketing and head to head process, describe the cone penalty. Put your proposal up here for us to see. I guarantee you that whatever you propose will not be "right" the first time, and that you will not get consensus from the membership.

You make it sound so simple, and it would be if everyone were thinking like Pat Chewning (or Chris Chaput). The problem is, we have independent minds, each with their own idea of the ideal slalom race.

Let's use one thing as an example: Cone penalties. Should they be .1s , .2s, .5s , DQ? If you select a low penalty, you have encouraged the racers to go all-out and hit cones with abandon, just go fast! If you select a high penalty, you have encouraged racers to be careful, go around all the cones wider than necessary, just get thru the course clean! So you can either optimize the goal of GO FAST, or RACE CLEAN -- in your choice of cone penalty. Since the racing community cannot agree on the goal (GO FAST, or RACE CLEAN), how can we expect to agree on a standardized cone penalty? In my mind, this is a perfect example of something that the rules ought to leave to the discretion of the race organizer.

You said (about race rules): "Why re-invent the wheel every time there's a new race? Let's get it right the first time, and stick with it." From someone who's livelyhood is, literally "reinventing the wheel" -- I would expect you to be more open to innovation. If we applied your statement ("get it right the first time, and stick with it") to the skateboard EQUIPMENT, rather than the RACE RULES -- you would probably violently object because we are restricting innovation.

Chris Chaput · Post by **Chris Chaput** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:00 pm

Pat,

Let's not make this more difficult than it really is. At some point in time we have to get off the fence and commit to a common set of rules, or a RANGE of parameters from which to choose. In basketball and tennis, the court is always the same size, but in baseball and soccer, the field of play is set withing an acceptable range.

We all understand the result of having penalties that are either too small or too large. I can say without reservation that .05 is too small and .40 is too large. When it has been set at .30, there are a lot of complaints. When a rule or penalty is beyond an acceptable (or well established) range, it appears to the racers that someone's aganda is being imposed upon them. You have small camps with different philosophies, and if they are allowed to make rules as extreme as they want, they may change the game to something that doesn't reflect the will of the majority of racers.

For example: Let's say that there is a group of TS specialists who aren't particularly fast, and who believe that "cleanliness is next to godliness". They can make a ridiculously large penalty for hitting a cone, establish a tiny number of cones allowed before a DQ, reward clean runs by reducing raw times by some arbitrary amount, or make up some other way to impose their viewpoints on how slalom "should" be run. They'll tilt the game WAY TOO FAR in their favor to push their philosphies on all of the racers. Next week a different group (the "Speed Freaks") will allow any number of cones to be hit, without penalty, and will ADD a second to slower times as a "stalling" penalty. Is THAT the type of innovation or creativity that you want to see in racing?

Personally, I would be happy if the only choices available for cone penalties were either one tenth or two tenths of a second. I've never been to a race where one or the other wouldn't have been acceptable.

I'd also be happy if we never reduced times for clean runs, or added penalties to slow times.

I'd be happy if we never had races where there were "golden cones" that have either increased or decreased penalties associated with hitting them.

I'd be happy if the false start penalty was one of the two following choices:

1. A DQ
2. A time equal to twice the amount of the jump

Why would I want to have to adjust my mindset and my strategy at a bunch of different races where the organizers have decidied to have the penalty be anything from 1.5X to 5X?

I'd be happy if a DQ was a DQ, and there were no second bites at the apple after someone blew out of the course of nailed 50% of the cones. With that system, if I meet a relatively slow racer in the early rounds, I can just "waive" my first run and take him out in the second, or blow him out in the first run and waive my second run. And since a race organizer "has the right" to make a ridiculously low penalty for DQing his first run, this point becomes even more relevant.

Creativity and innovation in the rules is FINE for grassroot races, experimental races, outlaw races, and other events that don't count for World Cup points. I'm not sure why the ISSA would want to award points for a slalom circus or slalom sideshow that is peretuated by the absence of leadership.

There is a sweetspot for every timing issue and the rules have to narrow the availble choices to reflect this. If you keep it up to the organizers, you don't have any control over how slalom will look and feel from race to race. We don't need a weak, impotent, or indecisive sanctionaing body overseeing World Cup events. At this point, there are some common rules that are near universally accepted in most all of the racing. You're never going to get everyone to agree to everything. That's not the goal. But you don't just leave the basic freamwork of what a slalom race is wide open and subject to interpretation.

I want to see a sanctioning body that will look at what the racers want for themselves, and then make a common set of rules that are adhered to from race to race. A strong, healthy, decisive group that understands that WITHOUT RACERS, there are no races. Right now, the racers are collectively spending more money to race than the race organizers are spending to put on the race. Many of the race organizers haven't done a good job of marketing their events or bringing in the necessary media coverage to attract sponsors. They always seem to ask the same skateboarding companies for schwag, have next to NOTHING to offer after the race as far as media coverage, press releases, etc. We're lucky if the know who made the podium within 48 hours of the closing ceremonies and usually don't see any pictures in a message board until the racer and his freinds or family get home and post them. I got news. Tiger Woods doesn't need to win a set of golf clubs at a competition. The media coverage that he gets is far more valuable than his earnings, and he makes about a million dollars when he wins. He often gets paid just to show up. That's the power of the media. At our events, the RACERS pay for entry fees, pay for transportation, pay for lodging, pay for everything it takes to be there. Most of the time the ONLY thing that they bring home from the event is their memories. If racers don't participate in consistently good races, they won't show up and spend their money on "the chance" that the next race organizer is going to magically get it right. The ISSA has to make sure that the race organizers have to either get it right, or go it alone.

The racers are STARVING for leadership.

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:46 pm

I agree with most of what you said (and said well) above, except for:

Chris Chaput wrote:
The racers are STARVING for leadership.

In my experience so far with the ISSA, I have found a large percentage of racers who believe:
A) An organizing body inhibits the "bro-ness" or "freedom" of skateboarding.
B) Even if some organization is good, the ISSA is not the proper body.
C) Even if the ISSA is the proper body, the "idots" running it are clueless
D) That races serve more of a social/gathering type function than a formal competition function.
E) That the functions of running and structuring a race should be primarily done by the race organizer, and not an organizational body like the ISSA.

Other than a small handful of racers and race organizers, I don't think there is much STARVING for leadership.

This was especially true before the "rebirth" or "re organization" of the ISSA in December 2005... I have seen some progress in the ISSA being more accepted as the governing body of slalom racing in the past 2 years. I think that once these rules are developed we will see more accpetance...

==============

Next steps:

I will be working with the rest of the ISSA board members to define a process for re-writing, updating, and modernizing the slalom skateboarding rules. It will include a mechanism for racers to participate in working groups to develop these rules. I look forward to your participation in this process.

Hans Koraeus · Post by **Hans Koraeus** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:43 am

Beware! The sixwheelers are coming http://www.freebords.se/index.html

Erik Basil · Post by **Erik Basil** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:48 pm

Ha ha!! Well if you promise to ride a fully-functional Freebord, I will race and whoop any of you on a slalom course. Note: Freebord to be fully functional, all six wheels down. I get to ride my 4 wheeled Axe, or possibly a Grentec Coyote II.

Finally...I can taste the champagne, already! ha ha!

Join the ISSA 25 cone series. One cyber race every second month!

Regular sessions allow newbies to join our community and discover slalom racing.