2008 ISSA Rules Update - Section 3 (Equipment)

general rules, special-tight-giant rules

Moderators: Jonathan Harms, Robert Thiele

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

2008 ISSA Rules Update - Section 3 (Equipment)

Post by Pat Chewning » Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:04 am

Put Comments for Section 3 here.

You may view the draft rules here in 3 forms:

As a WORD document: http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/ISSA/ ... -DRAFT.doc

As a PDF document:http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/ISSA/ ... FT-0_2.pdf

As a Webpage:http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/ISSA/ ... -DRAFT.htm

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

Equipment section

Post by Pat Chewning » Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:37 pm

3. Equipment
3.1. Required Equipment
· Helmet

· Shoes

· Skateboard

· Deck (rigid or semi-rigid flat platform for the feet)

· 4 Wheels

· At least one lean-to-steer mechanism attaching the wheels to the deck

3.2. Prohibited Equipment
· Propulsion devices or mechanisms

· Brakes, clutches or other devices providing torque to the wheels.

· Bindings or other devices attaching the shoes to the deck.

· Aerodynamic fairings, parachutes, sails, or other such devices.

· Mechanisms which alter the flex, camber, stiffness, steering devices or other characteristics of the equipment during the race.

· Handles, seats, supports, or other equipment that provides an interface from the racer to the board other than the sole of the shoe.

· Equipment that is consumed, discarded, or jettisoned during the race.

· Steering mechanisms activated by means other than lean-to-steer.

3.3. Allowed Equipment (including, but not limited to)
· Foot stops or other devices to limit the lateral movement of the feet on the deck.

· Concave, kick-tail, camber, and other shape modifications to the flat deck.

· Additional protective equipment (knee pads, elbow pads, gloves, etc)

· Bearings for the wheels.
I placed a more "traditional" specification for the equipment here. I expect some controversy and comments. I expect the end result will be a vote.

If you have comments, I would appreciate a suggested wording of what you think might work. Or at least tell me if you want the rule to be more or less restrictive on equipment.

Hans Koraeus
Corky - World Ranking Master Mind
Corky - World Ranking Master Mind
Posts: 1980
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Hans Koraeus » Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:52 am

I did not understand this:

"At least one lean-to-steer mechanism attaching the wheels to the deck"

Does it mean it's ok with one truck?

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

At least on lean-to-steer mechanism?

Post by Pat Chewning » Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:16 am

Hans Koraeus wrote:I did not understand this:

"At least one lean-to-steer mechanism attaching the wheels to the deck"

Does it mean it's ok with one truck?
My thinking went this way:

One truck (steering mechanism) is needed to turn the skateboard.

The other truck (wheel mounting mechanism) need not steer the skateboard. In fact, some people are de-wedging the rear truck so much that it is approaching the point of adding no steering.

Is there an alternative proposal?

Jani Soderhall
ISSA President 2011-2024
ISSA President 2011-2024
Posts: 4609
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Sweden, lives in France
Contact:

Re: At least on lean-to-steer mechanism?

Post by Jani Soderhall » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:10 am

Pat Chewning wrote:One truck (steering mechanism) is needed to turn the skateboard.

Is there an alternative proposal?
Two trucks (steering mechanism) is needed to turn the skateboard. Wouldn't that be easier and avoid any strange objects showing up at the race site.

/Jani

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

Re: At least on lean-to-steer mechanism?

Post by Pat Chewning » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:19 am

Jani Soderhall wrote:Two trucks (steering mechanism) is needed to turn the skateboard. Wouldn't that be easier and avoid any strange objects showing up at the race site.
Calling for two steering mechanisms MIGHT avoid any strange objects....
But: How many steering mechanisms are in a STROKER type of truck? (I count one mechanism for each wheel for a total of 4)

Only one steering mechanism is needed to turn the skateboard (by physics). We may require (by rule):
A) At least one.
B) At least two.
C) Exactly two.
D) At least one, but no more than the number of wheels (4).

I started simple with suggesting "at least one".

Toby Warg
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 4:43 pm
Location: Umeå, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Toby Warg » Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:13 pm

Does the rule '4 wheels' mean that there cannot be less or more than 4 wheels?

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

4 wheels is not equal to 5 wheels or 3 wheels

Post by Pat Chewning » Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:28 pm

Toby Warg wrote:Does the rule '4 wheels' mean that there cannot be less or more than 4 wheels?
That is correct. 4 wheels, not 3, not 5, not 6

My intent was to start with the "traditional" definition.

I expect there to be some controversy and discussion.

I expect we will be putting this to an official vote.

But I'd like to see if people want more restriction or less restriction on equipment (from the traditional definition).

Toby Warg
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 4:43 pm
Location: Umeå, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Toby Warg » Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:11 pm

I do not use more than four wheels, but I am against restrictions.
I suggest that there should be no limit in the number of trucks or wheels on the deck.

Robert Gaisek
Robo
Robo
Posts: 738
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:18 pm
Location: Gothenburg Sweden

Post by Robert Gaisek » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:58 pm

What about the "toestopper" or what the name is for it??
Image
· Handles, seats, supports, or other equipment that provides an interface from the racer to the board other than the sole of the shoe.
Image

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

Footstops

Post by Pat Chewning » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:10 pm

robert gaisek wrote:What about the "toestopper" or what the name is for it??
· Handles, seats, supports, or other equipment that provides an interface from the racer to the board other than the sole of the shoe.
3.3. Allowed Equipment (including, but not limited to)
· Foot stops or other devices to limit the lateral movement of the feet on the deck.

· Concave, kick-tail, camber, and other shape modifications to the flat deck.

· Additional protective equipment (knee pads, elbow pads, gloves, etc)

· Bearings for the wheels.
Sure looks like it is allowed to me. (Not listed under Prohibited, Listed under Allowed)

RTFM

Robert Gaisek
Robo
Robo
Posts: 738
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:18 pm
Location: Gothenburg Sweden

Post by Robert Gaisek » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:13 pm

Sorry.......my brain is missing.
Image
Image

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:16 pm

Pat,

If your proposal is to LIMIT skateboards to four wheels, then you need to modify what you say:

- 4 wheels.

You're going to laugh at this, but six-wheelers have four wheels . . . plus two more. Technically a six wheeler would meet this standard.

If your proposal is eliminate six wheelers from ISSA sanctioned events, then I really suggest is says "Four wheels only." This eliminates six wheelers, 2-wheelers, 3-wheelers (sort of a tricycle arrangement) and anything Lonnie Toft designs.

That is, IF that was your intention.
Image

Erik Basil
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm
Contact:

Post by Erik Basil » Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:06 pm

I ride fast boards, slowly.

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

Post by Marcus Rietema » Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:34 am

1. EQUIPMENT
1.1. REQUIRED EQUIPMENT
Helmet
Shoes
Skateboard
Deck (rigid or semi-rigid flat platform for the feet) This rule makes concave and kicktails illegal!
4 Wheels This specific rule should be voted on by the membership!
At least one lean-to-steer mechanism attaching the wheels to the deck This rule should read, "Skateboards must be lean steer activated."
1.2. PROHIBITED EQUIPMENT
Propulsion devices or mechanisms
Brakes, clutches or other devices providing torque to the wheels.
Bindings or other devices attaching the shoes to the deck.
Aerodynamic fairings, parachutes, sails, or other such devices. What is the scope of this rule? What is the definition of a fairing?
Mechanisms which alter the flex, camber, stiffness, steering devices or other characteristics of the equipment during the race. Is this really a potential problem? Is this rule even needed? What are you trying to ban?
Handles, seats, supports, or other equipment that provides an interface from the racer to the board other than the sole of the shoe. Is this really a potential problem? Is this rule even needed? What are you trying to ban?
Equipment that is consumed, discarded, or jettisoned during the race.
Steering mechanisms activated by means other than lean-to-steer.
1.3. ALLOWED EQUIPMENT (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO)
Foot stops or other devices to limit the lateral movement of the feet on the deck.
Concave, kick-tail, camber, and other shape modifications to the flat deck.
Additional protective equipment (knee pads, elbow pads, gloves, etc)
Bearings for the wheels.

Why is “Allowed Equipment” even in here? It’s not needed!! You have “Required Equipment” and “Prohibited Equipment”. Those are the only things that need to be in the rules. Everything else should be allowed.
Marcus Rietema
President- International Gravity Sports Association
Phone: 951-532-6378
Email: rietema.m@gravity-sports.com
Website: www.igsaworldcup.com

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

Post by Pat Chewning » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:15 am

Marcus Rietema wrote:1. EQUIPMENT
1.1. REQUIRED EQUIPMENT
Helmet
Shoes
Skateboard
Deck (rigid or semi-rigid flat platform for the feet) This rule makes concave and kicktails illegal!
4 Wheels This specific rule should be voted on by the membership!
At least one lean-to-steer mechanism attaching the wheels to the deck This rule should read, "Skateboards must be lean steer activated."
1.2. PROHIBITED EQUIPMENT
Propulsion devices or mechanisms
Brakes, clutches or other devices providing torque to the wheels.
Bindings or other devices attaching the shoes to the deck.
Aerodynamic fairings, parachutes, sails, or other such devices. What is the scope of this rule? What is the definition of a fairing?
Mechanisms which alter the flex, camber, stiffness, steering devices or other characteristics of the equipment during the race. Is this really a potential problem? Is this rule even needed? What are you trying to ban?
Handles, seats, supports, or other equipment that provides an interface from the racer to the board other than the sole of the shoe. Is this really a potential problem? Is this rule even needed? What are you trying to ban?
Equipment that is consumed, discarded, or jettisoned during the race.
Steering mechanisms activated by means other than lean-to-steer.
1.3. ALLOWED EQUIPMENT (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO)
Foot stops or other devices to limit the lateral movement of the feet on the deck.
Concave, kick-tail, camber, and other shape modifications to the flat deck.
Additional protective equipment (knee pads, elbow pads, gloves, etc)
Bearings for the wheels.

Why is “Allowed Equipment” even in here? It’s not needed!! You have “Required Equipment” and “Prohibited Equipment”. Those are the only things that need to be in the rules. Everything else should be allowed.
I agree with:
Removing the word "flat"
Voting on controversial items such as the # of wheels.

I will explain:
Fairings: Devices which reduce aerodynamic drag.

Not allowing devices which alter flex ............: Because I want the ONLY control between the racer and the wheels to be achieved by foot interaction with the deck, either by leaning or weight-shifting. No levers, cables, voice-activated devices, turnbuckles, or other items interacting with the skateboard during the race.

Not allowing handles, supports, seats ........ ; Because I want the only interface between the racer and the board to be through the sole of the shoe and not through extra devices. "Supports" would include bindings or "jet sticks" or other devices to give a "better" attachment of the shoe or lower leg to the deck.

Allowed Equipment is a clarification section just to make sure that people won't assume (wrongly) that "flat" means so flat that foot stops, kicktails, camber, concave are not allowed. It prevents stupid questions like "You didn't say anything about bearings, can't I have bearings?"

I don't understand:
The question about "scope".

I disagree:
The lean-to-steer function is achieved through a mechanism. Therefore, calling for a lean-to-steer mechanism to be required makes sense.

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

Post by Pat Chewning » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:20 am

Wesley Tucker wrote:Pat,

If your proposal is to LIMIT skateboards to four wheels, then you need to modify what you say:

- 4 wheels.

You're going to laugh at this, but six-wheelers have four wheels . . . plus two more. Technically a six wheeler would meet this standard.

If your proposal is eliminate six wheelers from ISSA sanctioned events, then I really suggest is says "Four wheels only." This eliminates six wheelers, 2-wheelers, 3-wheelers (sort of a tricycle arrangement) and anything Lonnie Toft designs.

That is, IF that was your intention.
Yes, the intent was to start with a more "traditional" definition of skateboard -- with exactly 4 wheels.

I understand that it will require an official vote to close this out.

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

Post by Marcus Rietema » Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:13 am

Pat Chewning wrote:
Marcus Rietema wrote:1. EQUIPMENT
1.1. REQUIRED EQUIPMENT
Helmet
Shoes
Skateboard
Deck (rigid or semi-rigid flat platform for the feet) This rule makes concave and kicktails illegal!
4 Wheels This specific rule should be voted on by the membership!
At least one lean-to-steer mechanism attaching the wheels to the deck This rule should read, "Skateboards must be lean steer activated."
1.2. PROHIBITED EQUIPMENT
Propulsion devices or mechanisms
Brakes, clutches or other devices providing torque to the wheels.
Bindings or other devices attaching the shoes to the deck.
Aerodynamic fairings, parachutes, sails, or other such devices. What is the scope of this rule? What is the definition of a fairing?
Mechanisms which alter the flex, camber, stiffness, steering devices or other characteristics of the equipment during the race. Is this really a potential problem? Is this rule even needed? What are you trying to ban?
Handles, seats, supports, or other equipment that provides an interface from the racer to the board other than the sole of the shoe. Is this really a potential problem? Is this rule even needed? What are you trying to ban?
Equipment that is consumed, discarded, or jettisoned during the race.
Steering mechanisms activated by means other than lean-to-steer.
1.3. ALLOWED EQUIPMENT (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO)
Foot stops or other devices to limit the lateral movement of the feet on the deck.
Concave, kick-tail, camber, and other shape modifications to the flat deck.
Additional protective equipment (knee pads, elbow pads, gloves, etc)
Bearings for the wheels.

Why is “Allowed Equipment” even in here? It’s not needed!! You have “Required Equipment” and “Prohibited Equipment”. Those are the only things that need to be in the rules. Everything else should be allowed.
I agree with:
Removing the word "flat"
Voting on controversial items such as the # of wheels.

I will explain:
Fairings: Devices which reduce aerodynamic drag.

Not allowing devices which alter flex ............: Because I want the ONLY control between the racer and the wheels to be achieved by foot interaction with the deck, either by leaning or weight-shifting. No levers, cables, voice-activated devices, turnbuckles, or other items interacting with the skateboard during the race.

Not allowing handles, supports, seats ........ ; Because I want the only interface between the racer and the board to be through the sole of the shoe and not through extra devices. "Supports" would include bindings or "jet sticks" or other devices to give a "better" attachment of the shoe or lower leg to the deck.

Allowed Equipment is a clarification section just to make sure that people won't assume (wrongly) that "flat" means so flat that foot stops, kicktails, camber, concave are not allowed. It prevents stupid questions like "You didn't say anything about bearings, can't I have bearings?"

This just seems incredibly redundant to me... I guess you should add in grip tape, axle nuts, bushings, modified bushings, wheels with cores, wheels without cores, ceramic bearings, bearing spacers, mounting screws, mounting nuts, riser pads, angled riser pads, aluminum trucks, steel trucks, composite trucks, etc, etc, etc... where does it end... If rules are well written there should be very little confusion

I don't understand:
The question about "scope".
Are you talking about fairings on the board, shoes, body, helmet. Take it from my experience... This is a very difficult rule to enforce!!! The simple teardrop shape of a board could be considered a fairing...

I disagree:
The lean-to-steer function is achieved through a mechanism. Therefore, calling for a lean-to-steer mechanism to be required makes sense.

Not allowing devices which alter flex ............: Because I want the ONLY control between the racer and the wheels to be achieved by foot interaction with the deck, either by leaning or weight-shifting. No levers, cables, voice-activated devices, turnbuckles, or other items interacting with the skateboard during the race.

Do you seriously think someone is going achieve an advantage by adjusting their board as they're flying down a slalom course??? If someone did actually come up with something like this I'd sure like to see it! Something that created that much of an advantage and was detrimental to the sport, could always be banned in the future.

Not allowing handles, supports, seats ........ ; Because I want the only interface between the racer and the board to be through the sole of the shoe and not through extra devices. "Supports" would include bindings or "jet sticks" or other devices to give a "better" attachment of the shoe or lower leg to the deck.

I still don't understand this one? You've already addressed bindings in a previous rule. When you talk about handles and seats it sounds like you're referring to a street luge??? What are "Jet sticks"???

Allowed Equipment is a clarification section just to make sure that people won't assume (wrongly) that "flat" means so flat that foot stops, kicktails, camber, concave are not allowed. It prevents stupid questions like "You didn't say anything about bearings, can't I have bearings?"

This just seems incredibly redundant to me... I guess you should add in grip tape, axle nuts, bushings, modified bushings, wheels with cores, wheels without cores, ceramic bearings, bearing spacers, mounting screws, mounting nuts, riser pads, angled riser pads, aluminum trucks, steel trucks, composite trucks, etc, etc, etc... where does it end...

I don't understand: The question about "scope".

Are you talking about fairings on the board, shoes, body, helmet. Take it from my experience... This is a very difficult rule to enforce!!! The simple teardrop shape of a board could be considered a fairing...


The lean-to-steer function is achieved through a mechanism. Therefore, calling for a lean-to-steer mechanism to be required makes sense.[/quote]

Why does it matter how lean steering is achieved?
Marcus Rietema
President- International Gravity Sports Association
Phone: 951-532-6378
Email: rietema.m@gravity-sports.com
Website: www.igsaworldcup.com

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:34 am

Marcus,

I believe jet sticks are those ski poles some tried to bring to slalom in the early '80s.

Although I think they are maiming waiting to happen, I can also see where in GS someone who's very adept at their use could use them to PUSH from cone to cone. I don't know if it would be an advantage or not, but then again I have no desire to find out. Slalom is about turning, pumping, gravity and traction. Devices beyond a deck, trucks and wheels and a few common accessories like toe stops and C blocks keep it that way.

Pat's initiative here is to nip in the bud right now anyone getting too clever in the future and trying to turn slalom skateboarding into a technological arms race with endless gadgets being brought to the course.

Yes, it could be considered overkill and probably needs editing, but at least most every conceivable gadget is here for review. It's better in this process to DELETE than to realize later something was forgotten and attempt to add it to the list.

As far as fairings are concerned, I can't imagine a concept where any sort of fairing would be adapted to slalom. Trying to incorporate a fairing while trying to steer left and right just doesn't add up for me. And when considering how fast downhill ski slalomers go and the fact they have eschewed fairings for over a 100 years, I think it's safe to say it will be a very long time before we see any sort of draft management device stuck on a slalom board.

Of course, there's the issue of Spandex, but that's probably another rule (somewhere under lewd and lascivious behavior on race day.)
Image

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

Post by Pat Chewning » Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:45 am

Are you talking about fairings on the board, shoes, body, helmet. Take it from my experience... This is a very difficult rule to enforce!!! The simple teardrop shape of a board could be considered a fairing...
Yes, I'm talking about all of the above -- it is all equipment.* The shape of the board is not a fairing, it is still a board. Just because it is difficult to enforce does not mean it should not be a rule.

*EXCEPTION: The "body" is not equipment. Some bodies are more aerodynamically shaped than others . This rule does not apply to the skater's body since that is not "equipment"

Do you seriously think someone is going achieve an advantage by adjusting their board as they're flying down a slalom course??? If someone did actually come up with something like this I'd sure like to see it! Something that created that much of an advantage and was detrimental to the sport, could always be banned in the future.
These potential "adjustable" devices detract from the sport whether they create an advantage or not.


I still don't understand this one? You've already addressed bindings in a previous rule. When you talk about handles and seats it sounds like you're referring to a street luge??? What are "Jet sticks"???
A handle and a seat are not bindings. A "Jet stick" was a plastic device that attached to the back of leather ski boots to support the calf when doing the "jet turn" (circa 1972 or so). It extended the interface between the skier and the ski from the ankle to just about mid-calf.


This just seems incredibly redundant to me... I guess you should add in grip tape, axle nuts, bushings, modified bushings, wheels with cores, wheels without cores, ceramic bearings, bearing spacers, mounting screws, mounting nuts, riser pads, angled riser pads, aluminum trucks, steel trucks, composite trucks, etc, etc, etc... where does it end...
I agree it is somewhat redundant. But not "incredibly" so. That's why it says "including but not limiting" .. It is a clarification that is not meant to be all-inclusive.


Why does it matter how lean steering is achieved?
It doesn't matter how it is achieved, as long as there is at least one mechanism to achieve it.

If you have an alternative proposal for the "Equipment" section, please post it here and then we can include it in the voting that will certainly be required to resolve this controversial section of the rules. (This applies to anyone)

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:53 am

I guess I was wrong about Jet Sticks.

But I still think ski poles and skateboard slalom shouldn't mix.
Image

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

Post by Marcus Rietema » Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:01 am

If you have an alternative proposal for the "Equipment" section, please post it here and then we can include it in the voting that will certainly be required to resolve this controversial section of the rules. (This applies to anyone)
Thanks for the clarification Pat. I'll put something together. Is there a way I can attach documents on this website or do I need to find a place to host them?
Marcus Rietema
President- International Gravity Sports Association
Phone: 951-532-6378
Email: rietema.m@gravity-sports.com
Website: www.igsaworldcup.com

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

Post by Pat Chewning » Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:39 am

Marcus Rietema wrote: Is there a way I can attach documents on this website or do I need to find a place to host them?
I can attach documents on this website -- I have the secret password and login name. Send it to me and I can store it and give you a link.

Alternatively, you can host it somewhere yourself and post a link.

My offer applies to anyone with alternative rule proposals.

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

Post by Marcus Rietema » Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:15 am

I believe rules should be as simple as possible. Rule books should be updated on a yearly basis. In my experience they are dynamic and ever changing as new situations arise and equipment trends change. I feel the safety specifications are quite relaxed and should be improved in the future. At least recommending pads and gloves is a start. I don't believe worrying about futuristic energy systems and crazy steering systems should be where we focus our energy. Even six wheelers have not proven to have an advantage. They just look weird...

One piece of equipment I have seen make a big difference are wheels like the Momo. These have shown a performance advantage but are not available for the average racer to purchase. I'm all for companies being allowed to innovate so they can bring better products to the market place. The Momo has proven its' benefits and has been around for more than a year, but still is only available to a select few. I feel these are the types of products that should either be made available for sale or banned from future use.

Here are my proposed equipment rules:

1. SKATEBOARD SPECIFICATIONS: Competitors are required to ride in a standing (upright) position.

A. DECK: The deck must be structurally sound and not pose a safety hazard. It can be any shape or size.

B. TRUCKS: The trucks must be lean steer activated. They can be commercially available or custom built.

C. BEARINGS: Any bearing that fits into a hub designed to fit standard 608 Bearings. SKF 608 Bearing Specifications: Bore 8mm (0.3150”), OD Race 22mm (0.8661”), Width 7mm (0.2756”)

D. WHEELS: Wheels can be a maximum diameter of one hundred thirty millimeters (130mm / 5 1/8”). If a particular wheel proves to have a significant performance advantage and is not made commercially available* for a reasonable price, it could be specifically banned in the future.

E. BINDINGS: Bindings or other devices attaching the shoes to the deck are prohibited.

*Commercially available means the product must be available for sale to at least 24 people outside the company.



2. 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!

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.
Marcus Rietema
President- International Gravity Sports Association
Phone: 951-532-6378
Email: rietema.m@gravity-sports.com
Website: www.igsaworldcup.com

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

Post by Pat Chewning » Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:43 am

Marcus Rietema wrote:I believe rules should be as simple as possible.

.......

Here are my proposed equipment rules:
Initial take on this proposal:

1) Too much emphasis on specifying exact wheel (size) and bearing (type and size).
2) "Riding in standing position" is a technique, not an equipment rule.
3) Increased emphasis on equipment safety (deck soundly built, pads, gloves) -- this looks more applicable to downhill racing than slalom. The rules should "allow" or "require" or "prohibit" equipment -- but I don't think we should "recommend" equipment.
4) Banning wheels that "show a significant advantage" and are "not commercially available" is not a problem in slalom right now. If we have any problem in this area, it is TRUCKS that are not "reasonably priced", and "commercially available", yet might give a "significant advantage".
5) The whole can of worms about banning custom-built, expensive equipment is not a path I want to go down. Then we need to monitor what's available commercially, keep a list of banned items, etc. This adds complexity to the rules that I don't think we need.
6) Other than items 4 and 5, yes, this proposal looks simpler than the original draft.
7) The proposed rules don't prohibit clutches, brakes, propulsion devices, fairings, etc. I understand you think these don't need to be in the rules because "no reasonable person" would attempt to do this. Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but there are a few unreasonable people in the Slalom world who will try to do anything that is not expressly prohibited in the rules.
8) I agree that rules should be updated more often (yearly) .... that applies to a different section of the rules than EQUIPMENT...

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

Post by Marcus Rietema » Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:47 am

Pat Chewning wrote:
Marcus Rietema wrote:I believe rules should be as simple as possible.

.......

Here are my proposed equipment rules:
Initial take on this proposal:

1) Too much emphasis on specifying exact wheel (size) and bearing (type and size).
2) "Riding in standing position" is a technique, not an equipment rule.
3) Increased emphasis on equipment safety (deck soundly built, pads, gloves) -- this looks more applicable to downhill racing than slalom. The rules should "allow" or "require" or "prohibit" equipment -- but I don't think we should "recommend" equipment.
4) Banning wheels that "show a significant advantage" and are "not commercially available" is not a problem in slalom right now. If we have any problem in this area, it is TRUCKS that are not "reasonably priced", and "commercially available", yet might give a "significant advantage".
5) The whole can of worms about banning custom-built, expensive equipment is not a path I want to go down. Then we need to monitor what's available commercially, keep a list of banned items, etc. This adds complexity to the rules that I don't think we need.
6) Other than items 4 and 5, yes, this proposal looks simpler than the original draft.
7) The proposed rules don't prohibit clutches, brakes, propulsion devices, fairings, etc. I understand you think these don't need to be in the rules because "no reasonable person" would attempt to do this. Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but there are a few unreasonable people in the Slalom world who will try to do anything that is not expressly prohibited in the rules.
8) I agree that rules should be updated more often (yearly) .... that applies to a different section of the rules than EQUIPMENT...
1) Too much emphasis on specifying exact wheel (size) and bearing (type and size). The wheel size is a maximum! This is only to keep it skateboarding and not allow things like carve boards, dirtsurfers, etc. The bearing spec is a cost containment measure as well. This is the 608 bearing standard that has been used in skateboarding since the 70's. It keeps exotic and odd sized bearings out.

2) "Riding in standing position" is a technique, not an equipment rule. Agreed but it takes care of the problem of seats, handles, etc in a simple way and specifies how the equipment is supposed to be ridden. If not in the tech specs it should go somewhere else.

3) Increased emphasis on equipment safety (deck soundly built, pads, gloves) -- this looks more applicable to downhill racing than slalom. The rules should "allow" or "require" or "prohibit" equipment -- but I don't think we should "recommend" equipment. I disagree with you. Safety is always important especially in our increasingly litigious society. Personally, I would require gloves and pads but that's just my opinion. I think it's crazy that knee pads, gloves and full face helmets aren't required on a hill like Pumpstation or the GS at the World's. Maybe when someone gets seriously injured or killed people will take safety a little more seriously...

4) Banning wheels that "show a significant advantage" and are "not commercially available" is not a problem in slalom right now. If we have any problem in this area, it is TRUCKS that are not "reasonably priced", and "commercially available", yet might give a "significant advantage".

5) The whole can of worms about banning custom-built, expensive equipment is not a path I want to go down. Then we need to monitor what's available commercially, keep a list of banned items, etc. This adds complexity to the rules that I don't think we need.

You just said that things being commercially available is not a problem at the moment. I doubt it would ever be a big one. This doesn't need to be a complex problem at all. It's a lot easier than trying to look in a crystal ball and trying to ban every innovation before it ever exists...

7) The proposed rules don't prohibit clutches, brakes, propulsion devices, fairings, etc. I understand you think these don't need to be in the rules because "no reasonable person" would attempt to do this. Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but there are a few unreasonable people in the Slalom world who will try to do anything that is not expressly prohibited in the rules.

No, I didn't include those things because in my opinion they don't need to be there. I guess that's just a difference of opinion... Not sure why you put, "No reasonable person" in quotes because I didn't say that? I believe innovation is good and we should let people tinker. If we didn't allow innovation in the past, we wouldn't have Radikals, GOG's, foam core boards, Axe's, Avilas, Zig Zags and all sorts of other slalom specific equipment that has been developed through the years... Who cares if someone wants to put a fairing on their board? What damage could it possibly do besides make a board look unique and possibly generate some interest?
Marcus Rietema
President- International Gravity Sports Association
Phone: 951-532-6378
Email: rietema.m@gravity-sports.com
Website: www.igsaworldcup.com

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

Post by Pat Chewning » Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:05 am

You make some excellent points, some that I agree with. In the end, the trick will be in how we craft this as a vote for the members. Some method that might allow the best of each proposal to be used for the rules.....

I wouldn't want to just have a vote for "Marcus' proposal" vs "Pat's Proposal" vs "Chaput's proposal". I want a voting method where the members can choose the best (or worst) from each....

Any suggestions on the end game and how this might be achieved?

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

I keep trying to remind myself that the rules do not have to be perfect. They only have to be adequate, understandable, enforceable, and have the endorsement of the ISSA members.

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

Post by Marcus Rietema » Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:33 am

I think that we go through the rules proposals line by line and identify the controversial ones. Next we put them into the proper format and let the membership vote with multiple choices.

EXAMPLE

The answers would be comprised of:
(A) Pat proposal,
(B) Chaput proposal
(C) Marcus proposal

I believe a rule book using the input of multiple people will always achieve the best results.
Marcus Rietema
President- International Gravity Sports Association
Phone: 951-532-6378
Email: rietema.m@gravity-sports.com
Website: www.igsaworldcup.com

Chris Chaput
Abec 11
Abec 11
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Huntington Beach, CA USA
Contact:

Post by Chris Chaput » Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:00 pm

Never in the history of slalom skateboarding has the deck, trucks, wheels, or bearings been the reason that a skater has won a race. It's never been an issue, and a LOT of time is being spent here dealing with non-issues.

In a nutshell, there are a handful of skaters who are worried about what OTHER skaters are going to bring to a race. That's all are we are dealing with here - the fear of a handful of skaters being outgunned equipment-wise. Trying to settle their fears is a futile effort, and I think that the focus should be what we, the majority, WANT to see at slalom races, and not simply on how we can address the irrational fears of the few.

1. I honestly don't care what type of bearing system anyone has in his wheels. Do you? Bring it.

2. I honestly don't care what type of wheel system anyone has on his trucks. Do you? Bring it.

3. I honestly don't care what type of truck system anyone has on his deck. Do you? Bring it.

4. I honestly don't care what type of deck system anyone has under his feet. Do you? Bring it.

Ironically, the only REAL issue that I think that currently needs to be addressed is in some of the accessories, namely toe-stops that serve as bindings. I don't want to see bindings because they blur the line between roller-skates and skateboards and can be used differently than simply standing on the board and leaning, and they can also aid in hopping a tapeswitch.

Everything else is much ado about NOTHING! Let's stop pretending that there are problems where none exist. When, as and if a problem that needs addressing appears, we'll deal with it. Until then, bring it. Bring it hard. Bring it fast. Ride it you like you stole and stop worrying about what Billybob has under his feet. Trying to hurt him doesn't help you.
Last edited by Chris Chaput on Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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

Post by Pat Chewning » Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:27 pm

Chris Chaput wrote:Before you go worrying about how many wheels are on the board, you have to define what a wheel is.

You are unnecessarily complicating the shit out of everything in a ridiculous attempt to "preserve" a completely narrow minded value that serves no one.

Define a wheel for us. This ought to be good...
Yes, I agree that it needs some simplification.

Definition of wheel: n 1: a simple machine consisting of a circular frame with spokes
(or a solid disc) that can rotate on a shaft or axle (as
in vehicles or other machines)

Chris Chaput
Abec 11
Abec 11
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Huntington Beach, CA USA
Contact:

Post by Chris Chaput » Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:35 pm

Okay Pat, now address monobearings in split-wheels where some, but not all of them spin at different rates on a single axle...

K.I.S.S.

To addrees everyting that's never going to happen seems bizarre to me. None of the fears that a handful of skaters share have EVER been realized. Get them a couch and a therapist while we go skating.

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

Post by Pat Chewning » Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:41 pm

Chris Chaput wrote:Okay Pat, now address monobearings in split-wheels where some, but not all of them spin at different rates on a single axle...

K.I.S.S.

To addrees everyting that's never going to happen seems bizarre to me. None of the fears that a handful of skaters share have EVER been realized. Get them a couch and a therapist while we go skating.
I am not familiar with a monobearing. If there are multiple cylinders that can rotate independently, then those are multiple wheels. If the wheel is only split for a portion, such that they all rotated together, then the split does not make multiple wheels, but it is merely a "tread" split.

The purpose of addressing items that "are never going to happen" is to prevent them from happening.

But yes, I agree that the initial draft may be overly complex and in need of simplification.

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

A simplified proposal (Option B)

Post by Pat Chewning » Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:50 pm

3.1. Required Equipment
· A Helmet

· One shoe worn on each foot

· Lean-to-Steer Skateboard

· Exactly 1 Deck (horizontal platform for the feet)

· Exactly 4 Wheels

· Exactly Two Trucks

3.2. Prohibited Equipment
· Propulsion devices or mechanisms

· Brakes, clutches or other devices providing torque to the wheels.

· Bindings or other devices attaching the shoes to the deck.


3.3. Allowed Equipment (For example only -- not an all-inclusive list)
· Foot stops or other devices to limit the lateral movement of the feet on the deck.

· Concave, kick-tail, camber, and other shape modifications to the deck.

· Additional protective equipment (knee pads, elbow pads, gloves, etc)

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

Post by Ramón Königshausen » Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:39 pm

Option B sounds very liberal and since it's development in progress I think we should deal with issues when they come up and start to cause troubles.

rmn
Feel the flow – Airflow Skateboards

Real skateboard wheels come in green – ABEC11

Enjoy the ride – GOG Slalom & DH Trucks

Erik Basil
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm
Contact:

Post by Erik Basil » Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:18 pm

I think Marcus Rietema did an excellent job with a simplified revision, and I know he's had a lot of experience with use and interpretation of rules in skateboarding competition. His draft is simple, short and straightforward. I have only a few comments and suggestions, which I'll insert using the color-text method, below:
Marcus Rietema wrote:
1. SKATEBOARD SPECIFICATIONS: Competitors are required to ride in a standing (upright) position.

A. DECK: The deck must be structurally sound and not pose a safety hazard. It can be any shape or size.

B. TRUCKS: The trucks must be lean steer activated. They can be commercially available or custom built.

C. BEARINGS: Any bearing that fits into a hub designed to fit standard 608 Bearings. Here, I'd let it go at any bearing. The "exotics" like those used in 1970's UFO wheels, the MiniMisers that were so popular in the 90's, hybrid ceramics and the recently popular 10mm bore bearings are all readily available to anyone. I'm not aware of any safety implications and think if someone were to "innovate" a better bearing (however unlikely) we should all be happy.

D. WHEELS: Wheels can be a maximum diameter of one hundred thirty millimeters (130mm / 5 1/8”). Here, I love the simplicity of such a broad envelope and would only delete the commercially available criteria because of three things: 1) I don't want any rule that stifles prototyping and racing on prototypes (be they trucks, wheels, boards, bearings, griptape or sunglasses); 2) I think it unintentionally creates a homologation requirement that will inevitably devolve into distracting arguments; 3) it addresses a problem that doesn't exist on the results sheets.

E. BINDINGS: Bindings or other devices attaching the shoes to the deck are prohibited.


2. 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! Here, I would add: "Must be CPSC, ASTM and/or Snell -rated for bicycle, skateboard and/or motorsports use. No 'toy', 'ornamental' or 'novelty' helmets are permitted." This is broadly written to allow almost all helmets that aren't worthless toys.

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.
Excellent work, Marcus! Simple, plain language makes picayune details unecessary. Your proposed rules accomodate one-legged skaters, allow me to skate with an Axe (kicktail") or Thane MaGee's proto (gnarly camber like an "airfoil"), Mr. Bennett's prototype truck, Kevin Labeda's prototype slalom wheel, Richy Carrasco's hideous griptape, Jack Smith's six-wheeler, a set of Jamie Hart's original OJ wheels and Wes Tucker's spandex leotard if I choose to do so, so long as I ride my board like a skateboard and wear the bare minimum of legitimate safety gear. Other than my joking reference to Wes, I think slalom racing wants all those things if it's to continue and progress.

The best rules are straightforward, easy to understand and short.
I ride fast boards, slowly.

Ron Barbagallo
Fatboy
Posts: 757
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 3:23 pm
Location: Jersey
Contact:

Post by Ron Barbagallo » Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:08 pm

What is the ruling on kilts? I don't wanna lose any standings points


Seriously though, simpler is probably better. If someone really wants to get around the rules, they'll try. And if someone is/wants to hire a lawyer, they can find fault in anything.

Is there any kind of toe stop retriction? It should probably be stated " must not wrap around top of foot " or something so that Sky Hooks aren't dusted off - no offense Richy!
Evil Potentate
Team Fatboy - all hopped up on goofballs!

Still douchebags, but CLASSY douchebags ;)

UNDISPUTED WORLD CATAMARAN CHAMPS!

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:22 pm

Ron Barbagallo wrote:Is there any kind of toe stop retriction? It should probably be stated " must not wrap around top of foot " or something so that Sky Hooks aren't dusted off - no offense Richy!
"3.3. Allowed Equipment (For example only -- not an all-inclusive list)
· Foot stops or other devices to limit the lateral movement of the feet on the deck."
Image

Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Posts: 1189
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Cornwall, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Here's one!

Post by Claude Regnier » Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:21 am

4) Banning wheels that "show a significant advantage" and are "not commercially available" is not a problem in slalom right now. If we have any problem in this area, it is TRUCKS that are not "reasonably priced", and "commercially available", yet might give a "significant advantage".

I believe he calls them "momo's"
Many Happy Pumps!

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:24 am

Chris Chaput wrote: I think that the focus should be what we, the majority, WANT to see at slalom races, and not simply on how we can address the irrational fears of the few.
Fortunately, this will all be put to a vote and the majority will rule.

Cool, huh?
Image

Chris Chaput
Abec 11
Abec 11
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Huntington Beach, CA USA
Contact:

Post by Chris Chaput » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:20 am

There isn't a wheel, or configuration of wheels, commercially available or otherwise, that has shown a significant advantage in downhill skateboarding, streetluge, or slalom. Everyone is worried about something that our history and our experience has clearly demonstrated DOES NOT EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD. Can we please stop the paranoia and start skating again, without limitations, like we have for the past 30 plus years?

The same is true for bearings, decks, and trucks. Rules based on fears instead of facts, or on fantasy instead of reality don't serve the community of skaters for which they are written. When has a skateboard ever caused a problem at a slalom race? It hasn't happened, and some of you are acting as if it has, or that it will in the future, if we don't take a stand on "the issues" now. These are non issues. The skaters and racers have already voted on the subject of 6 wheelers, and the ISSA has already stated its position on any "contraversial" equipment. Allow it. See where it goes. Ban something if and when there's a problem, and not until.

You want to talk about Momo's performance?

Won 1 / Lost 1 at Maryhill
Won 1 / Lost 1 at Pump Station
Lost 3 at Hood River
Lost at Germany
Lost at Dixie
Lost at Irvine
Lost at Danger Bay
Lost 2 in Calgary

If there IS something out there that provides a significant advantage, GOD BLESS US ALL! Study it, copy it, make it cheap and easy to get for the masses. Ban it? That's what wussies do so that they don't have to think.

Erik Basil
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm
Contact:

Post by Erik Basil » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:31 am

Chaput, you and your pesky facts. Banning isn't about fact, it's about emotions. Your wheels give an emotional advantage over the people that beat the skaters on momos. They must be banned because innovation (whether it turns out or not) is scary! I blame Frank Nasworthy, the old cheat. Oh, and you.
I ride fast boards, slowly.

Jim Weatherwax
WAX
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 1:20 am
Location: Northern ColoRado

Rules

Post by Jim Weatherwax » Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:49 am

We now have a basic rule drafted that states the definition of a skateboard....1 deck, 2 trucks and 4 wheels, lean steer, no bindings etc. If this is the format the racers have to work with, we should not impede on the guys who are designing things to make that chosen format be the best it can be... SO what if someone has something you dont, the good ideas usually go into production, but protos must be tested in the real word. If someone shows up with an extremly different wheel design, dont ban it unless it isnt 4 wheels being used.... Someone shows up with truck protos....let em race as long as they are lean steer...hell, ask If you can ride them and give input....

Lets make the rules concise, yet simple but not ban progress...Firm definiton of a bord, but no bans on innovations

Hell, if someone really wanted the wheels that are in question, have your own made, only better... if they are that much of a miracle wheel you'll sell millions. Let the innovators innovate, or should we all go back to Tracker trucks and Avalons?

Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Posts: 1189
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Cornwall, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Proto's - Testing.

Post by Claude Regnier » Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:58 am

How long can a manufacturer deem testing. They've been out over a year. Put 'em on the market.


No one is talkng about banning inovation. We are talking abot everyone being able to race slalom on an even level.

It's no different then anything else.
Many Happy Pumps!

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

Re: Proto's - Testing.

Post by Wesley Tucker » Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:13 am

Claude Regnier wrote:How long can a manufacturer deem testing. They've been out over a year. Put 'em on the market.


No one is talkng about banning inovation. We are talking abot everyone being able to race slalom on an even level.

It's no different then anything else.
What if Chris puts them on the market at $1000 a wheel?

Yes, it would be specifically to keep them exclusive to particular riders, but they would be on the market.

Do we then try and legislate "fair market value?"

I don't like this idea of trying to regulate what and how a manufacturer distributes his product. If Chaput, Gesmer, Chicken, Donald, Gareth or anyone else wants to take the time and trouble to pour, lathe, lay up or shape something just for their team, then so be it. That's racing.

As long as it's one deck, two trucks and four wheels, then it's legal. If someone has something PROHIBITED from general use then that's just the stinkin' breaks.

What do we do if Radikal produces a bushing only Keith and three or four others can use?
What if Gareth lays up a board only Michael Dong can have?

Wheels are no different than any other component.
Image

Jim Weatherwax
WAX
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 1:20 am
Location: Northern ColoRado

Wheels

Post by Jim Weatherwax » Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:43 am

oh

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

Post by Pat Chewning » Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:01 am

I deleted one post that was not contributing to the discussion and was a personal attack at someone.......

Blame me if you object to this.

We may be passionate and argue about various things, but let's try to keep it civil.

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

Post by Pat Chewning » Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:54 am

I can see 3 reasons why we might want to prohibit some equipment:

A) The equipment is unsafe or potentially unsafe.

B) The equipment presents an "unfair" advantage to some racers over other racers.

C) The equipment deviates from our ideal, goal, or aesthetic vision of what skateboard slalom racing should be.

I am mostly concerned about item C, somewhat interested in item A, and much less concerned about item B.

For item B, the economic laws of price/demand and the natural laws of evolution will eventually allow all racers to have all equipment. Any "advantage" in equipment will be temporary. Therefore, I am not in favor of rules that specify "commercialized" or "low cost" or "equal" performance of equipment.

For item A, each racer should be self-motivated to supply himself with equipment that will not hurt him. I see no need for extensive rules to promote this even more. Requiring a helmet is the minimum we should do.

For item C, this is where I think we all agree that rules are needed (although to varying degrees).
Even the most vocal "run what you brung" proponent (Chaput) admits some rules are needed here to keep skateboards looking like skateboards by prohibiting bindings.

Most of us agree that we don't want propulsion or braking equipment.

Most of us agree that we want a skateboard to be only lean-steer, foot-operated.

Some of us take it further and want a skateboard to at least appear like the traditional definition (one deck, two trucks, four wheels).

And some of us want to think ahead to the natural (or unnatural) evolution of equipment, anticipate these potential developments and "nip them in the bud before people are trying to turn slalom skateboarding into a technological arms race with endless gadgets being brought to the course." (Thanks Wes for the nice description).

All of these items (C) are NOT to equalize the advantage from racer A to racer B.... these items are to prevent both racer A and racer B from deviating so far that it no longer looks, feels, rolls, and turns like a skateboard.

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

Re: Proto's - Testing.

Post by Marcus Rietema » Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:57 am

Wesley Tucker wrote:
Claude Regnier wrote:How long can a manufacturer deem testing. They've been out over a year. Put 'em on the market.


No one is talkng about banning inovation. We are talking abot everyone being able to race slalom on an even level.

It's no different then anything else.
What if Chris puts them on the market at $1000 a wheel?

Yes, it would be specifically to keep them exclusive to particular riders, but they would be on the market.

Do we then try and legislate "fair market value?"

I don't like this idea of trying to regulate what and how a manufacturer distributes his product. If Chaput, Gesmer, Chicken, Donald, Gareth or anyone else wants to take the time and trouble to pour, lathe, lay up or shape something just for their team, then so be it. That's racing.



As long as it's one deck, two trucks and four wheels, then it's legal. If someone has something PROHIBITED from general use then that's just the stinkin' breaks.

What do we do if Radikal produces a bushing only Keith and three or four others can use?
What if Gareth lays up a board only Michael Dong can have?

Wheels are no different than any other component.
Good points Wesley! I agree with you and don't feel the ISSA should be banning specific wheels, trucks, etc at this time.

I still think the issue of limiting a skateboard to two trucks and four wheels needs to be voted on by the membership separately.
Marcus Rietema
President- International Gravity Sports Association
Phone: 951-532-6378
Email: rietema.m@gravity-sports.com
Website: www.igsaworldcup.com

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

Post by Marcus Rietema » Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:36 am

Pat Chewning wrote:C) The equipment deviates from our ideal, goal, or aesthetic vision of what skateboard slalom racing should be.
This is opening a whole new can of worms!!! Has our "ideal, goal or aesthetic vision" of slalom skateboard racing ever been formally written down, received input from marketing professionals or even been seriously discussed anywhere? Has any sort of a serious marketing plan ever been developed or followed by the ISSA? If not, this sounds like nothing more than the opinions of a few...

A marketing plan needs to be developed and goals set so that we have some sense of direction. Who is our target audience? What sort of equipment should the competitors use to appeal to the target audience? What sort of events should be developed to appeal to the audience? These questions raise many, many more questions and quickly this topic becomes a huge issue. The ISSA needs to be asking itself these things as the rulebook is being developed. All of the pieces need to fit together if this sport is ever going to go anywhere.
Marcus Rietema
President- International Gravity Sports Association
Phone: 951-532-6378
Email: rietema.m@gravity-sports.com
Website: www.igsaworldcup.com

Chris Chaput
Abec 11
Abec 11
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Huntington Beach, CA USA
Contact:

Post by Chris Chaput » Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:52 am

Pat, You're way off base about my reasons for not wanting to see bindings at a race. It has NOTHING to do with how they look whatsoever. I probably care the LEAST of everyone about how things look. I don't think that skateboarding is about fashion, style, or matters of taste. The clock doesn't give a rat's ass about what style you use, what stance, what you're wearing, or who this pleases. I don't like bindings because a rollerskate is a skateboard with a shoe-like binding, and because when you're bound to the board you are not simply standing on the board and leaning to steer (pushing the edges of the deck), you're pulling up on the deck and providing lift which is not what skateboards do. I also think that bindings are unsafe.

I think that you SHOULD care about what's safe and what's unfair. Bindings are one of the few things are really do differentiate a skateboard from a rollerskate. But if if what we bring is skateboard and not a rollerskate, bike, or other obvious non-skateboard, then let it race. What in the hell is everyone so afraid of?

And BTW, can we please stop pretending that "we all agree" that a skateboard is one deck, two trucks, and four wheels? That has NEVER been agreed upon. The exact opposite is true. Right now Pat has put forth HIS vision of what a skateboard is, and is acting as if THAT is what we should all accept if no one gives him a compelling enough reason to change his mind. It's as if his OPINION has become the accepted definition, and we can all make minor tweaks to it. No, no, no, no, no. I have so many objections to his definitions that it would be better to start from scratch with my own than to to try and modify his. I do belive that the deck should be one platform.

I reject the idea that there have to be exactly two trucks. I can see one long truck with two ends working well. I can see a deck that integrates axles into each end like Up Trucks, where arguably there aren't any trucks. I can see each wheel having its own axle and steering device, making four trucks total possible. I can see three trucks on a standard 6-wheeler.

I reject the idea that we need to limit the size, shape, or number of wheels. We don't.

One of the most beatiful things about slalom is the that THE COURSE dictates what the best type of equipment is. We've never had anyone have to tell us what we could or couldn't ride, and we still don't. We probably never will. But boy some people will try to convince you that the sky is falling. If we don't start banning everything, soon the weapons of mass destruction will be unleashed on the slalom world and racers without any talent are going to start winning every race. And there Mitchell will be, defenseless against the jet poles and the uberwheels and the tension decks and the tripletrucks and the minimizers...

Locked