2008 ISSA Rules Update - Section 3 (Equipment)

[Marcus Rietema]

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

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

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

[Dave Gale]

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

p.s read any good books lately?

[Ramón Königshausen]

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

Voting start: Nov 15
Voting end: Nov 30

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

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

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

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

rmn

[Ron Barbagallo]

A "binding" restricts vertical motion of the foot.

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

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

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


Shall I go on?

[Wesley Tucker]

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

Voting start: Nov 15
Voting end: Nov 30

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

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

Ramon,

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

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

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

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

[Pat Chewning]

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

Voting start: Nov 15
Voting end: Nov 30

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

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

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

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

rmn

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

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

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

[Dave Gale]

A "binding" restricts vertical motion of the foot.

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

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

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


Shall I go on?

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

[Wesley Tucker]

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

Well, Frisky is tired and needs to go outside.

[Dave Gale]

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

[Ron Barbagallo]

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

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

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


and for the record I do agree with you

[Chris Chaput]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marcus Rietema]

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

Please choose one answer from each question

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

(A) YES
(B) NO

2. Choose a rule for “Skateboard Decks.”

(A) DECK: (rigid or semi-rigid platform for the feet). Concave, kick-tail, camber, and other shape modifications to the flat deck are allowed. Mechanisms which alter the flex, camber, stiffness, or other characteristics of the deck during use are prohibited. Aerodynamic fairings are prohibited.

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

3. Choose a rule for “Trucks.”

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

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

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

(A) YES
(B) NO

5. Choose a rule for “Wheels”

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

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

(A) YES
(B) NO

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

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

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

(A) YES
(B) NO

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. Choose a rule set regarding safety equipment:

(A) PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

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

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

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

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

(B) REQUIRED PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

a) HELMET: No restrictions on type or design.

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

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

[Chris Chaput]

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

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

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

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

[Pat Chewning]

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

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

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

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

There, done.


Now what else can I solve for you?

[Pat Chewning]

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

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

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

[Marcus Rietema]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marcus Rietema]

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

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

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

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

There, done.


Now what else can I solve for you?

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

[Pat Chewning]

(B) PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

a) HELMET: No restrictions

b) SHOES: One shoe worn on each foot

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

I would like the wording changed somewhat on a) HELMET

Something like: a) HELMET: Required.

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

[Marcus Rietema]

(B) PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

a) HELMET: No restrictions

b) SHOES: One shoe worn on each foot

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

I would like the wording changed somewhat on a) HELMET

Something like: a) HELMET: Required.

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

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

(B) REQUIRED PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

a) HELMET: No restrictions on type or design.

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

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

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

[Marcus Rietema]

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

Should the following rule be included?
TOE STOPS: “Toe stops are allowed. They must not wrap over, trap or affix the rider’s foot to the deck in any way.”

(A) YES
(B) NO

[Wesley Tucker]

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

Should the following rule be included?
TOE STOPS: “Toe stops are allowed. They must not wrap over, trap or affix the rider’s foot to the deck in any way.”

(A) YES
(B) NO

Yes.

An excellent "non binding" resolution.

[Dave Gale]

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

Should the following rule be included?
TOE STOPS: “Toe stops are allowed. They must not wrap over, trap or affix the rider’s foot to the deck in any way.”

(A) YES
(B) NO

Yes.

An excellent "non binding" resolution.

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

[Chris Chaput]

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

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

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

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

[Marcus Rietema]

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat Chewning]

2. Choose a rule for “Skateboard Decks.”

(A) DECK: (rigid or semi-rigid platform for the feet). Concave, kick-tail, camber, and other shape modifications to the flat deck are allowed. Mechanisms which alter the flex, camber, stiffness, or other characteristics of the deck during use are prohibited. Aerodynamic fairings are prohibited.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(A) YES
(B) NO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

--- Pat