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

general rules, special-tight-giant rules

Moderators: Jonathan Harms, Robert Thiele

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

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

Post by Pat Chewning » Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:09 am

Put comments on Section 5 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
5. Race Runs
5.1. Start of Run
The start of the run shall follow a predictable and consistent sequence for all racers:

· Racers are called to the start and assume a ready position in the start ramp

· Race officials determine that the course is ready and the racers are ready.

· The timing system is armed and the racers given an audible signal.

· The timing system provides tones on 1-second intervals:

· 3 seconds to start

· 2 seconds to start

· 1 second to start

· START (Shall differ in pitch, duration, or volume from the preceding tones)

· Upon START signal, the clock will start for both courses, regardless of whether the racers have passed the start line.

· Should a racer start before the START signal, the racer shall be penalized by an amount of 2X the early-start interval.

· Should a racer start after the START signal, no additional penalty is given

5.2. Successful Passing Through The Course
A racer is deemed to have successfully passed through the course if the skateboard:

· Passes thru the start line and triggers the start signal.

· Passes cones on the correct side.

· Passes cones on the incorrect side, yet displaces the cone.

· Passes through the finish line and triggers the finish signal.

· The racer is not disqualified for other reasons.

5.3. Cone Displacements
A cone is counted as being displaced if either of these occurs:

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

· The cone is tipped over and not standing upright.



A cone is NOT counted as being displaced if:

· The cone is tipped over by an outside agent (includes being hit by a cone from the adjacent course).



The cone penalty shall be:

· 0.1 second for Slalom races

· 0.2 second for GS races

· 0.3 second for Super-GS races

5.4. Disqualifications
The racer is disqualified during the run for any of the following:

· Unsuccessfully passing through the course.

· Displacing more than 10 cones.

· Displacing any cone by contact above the knees.

· Placing any part of the body (including hands and feet) onto the course surface during the race.

· Unsporting conduct (interfering with a racer, damaging equipment, etc.)

5.5. Finish of Run
The time for each racer stops when the racer passes over the finish line.

After passing the finish line, the racer may stop in any manner (foot-drag, slide, carve, turn uphill, etc.)
OFFICIAL VOTE FOR THIS SECTION 5 (Race Runs)

The quoted text box above is the "draft proposal". In this area, we capture all of the requested changes in the form of a vote. Then the section will be changed as dictated by the outcome of the vote.

Please make comments as to whether the voting completely encompasses all alternatives, and without bias. The expected date of this vote will be Nov 15-Nov30

Vote Question #5.1 (Section 5, 1st Vote)
How shall the early start be penalized?
A) By an amount 2X the early-start interval.
B) The racers are signaled. They stop, return to the start ramp and do a re-start. A 2nd early-start by the same racer shall result in a DQ for that racer.
C) No rule is needed. (No start penalty)

Vote Question #5.2 (Section 5, 2nd Vote)
How shall the start be accomplished?
A) By a 4 second 4-tone count-down, the last tone being the START signal.
B) Racers are given a "Ready" signal, and some time later a START signal.
C) The start ramp is fitted with physical barrier gates. The racers may proceed when the gate opens. In the 2nd round of head-to-head competition, the gate for the leading racer opens earlier than the gate for the other racer (by an amount equal to the lead).


Vote Question #5.3 (Section 5, 3rd Vote)
What is the upper limit for displacing cones before a DQ is given?
A) 10 cones. (11 is a DQ)
B) 100% of the cones on the course.
C) 20% of the total number of cones in the course. (20% + 1 cone is a DQ)
D) By the following formula:
20% of the # of cones, minus 1 cone for every 150 feet (50m) beyond the 1st 150 feet (50m). If this value is less than or equal to 0, then no cones are allowed (clean run or DQ).

Vote Question #5.4 (Section 5, 4th Vote)
What shall be the rule for timing systems allowed/prohibited?
A) No rule is needed.
B) Timing systems on the ISSA-approved list shall be used.
C) Timing systems on the ISSA-prohibited list shall not be used.
Last edited by Pat Chewning on Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:11 am, edited 8 times in total.

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

Post by Jadranko Radovanovic » Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:07 am

The timing system is armed and the racers given an audible signal.

· The timing system provides tones on 1-second intervals:
What if there is no audible start signal ? A start with Gates, where the time starts when the Gates open ?

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:

Post by Jani Soderhall » Mon Oct 15, 2007 12:59 pm

Jadranko Radovanovic wrote:What if there is no audible start signal ? A start with Gates, where the time starts when the Gates open ?
I assume it should be considered not allowed. Nobody has such gates, or use them, at this time. If we want equal rules we'd better use a system without such hardware.

/Jani

Carsten Pingel
Carsten Pingel
Carsten Pingel
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:54 pm

Post by Carsten Pingel » Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:25 pm

...and not everybody has the "signal" start! There must also be a solution for "normal" starts like "racers ready, 5 seconds warning, go!"

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

Post by Jadranko Radovanovic » Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:41 pm

I agree that theer should be the same rules for all.

I think there will be a need to have a trackmate to do it in this way? For us it's not a problem to get the hardware we need for the beep things together. It's just a question of money. I think there will be a need of knowledge transfer for the organiser which don't work with this start methode.

How does the trackmate knows when the time must start ? Does the Input comes from a computer ? or how it works ?

How is the pre start showed on the trackmate ?

The solutions with the Gates is the same as the doubled false start.
Both want to keep false starts from the races.

The solution with the Gates is for shure easier than the other. The differences is that it is not possible to make any mistakes with a startgate as long the gates works well. The other solution has the human who has to transfer the times from the timer to the spreadsheets and a timer which starts, than stops for the false start and than stops again for the finish time.

Is it possible to have displays connected to the trackmate ?

Here it will be important to get the organisers together for this rule, to find out if it's possible or not to run it in this way.

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

Post by GARY GLASSER » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:28 pm

There may be other timing systems in the future, will the rules accept other and future timing applications?[/i][/b]
I am the slowest COSS slalom racer..Lucky for you!

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

Post by Donald Campbell » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:37 pm

the main issue at the moment is the price other systems are set at.
a trackmate or anything comparable is the fairest solution for any race organizer.

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:44 pm

Jadranko Radovanovic wrote:How does the trackmate knows when the time must start ? Does the Input comes from a computer ? or how it works ?

How is the pre start showed on the Trackmate ?
Jadranko,

The new TrakMates have TWO modes: one is for qualifying and the other for racing. In one mode the timer starts when you hit the tape switch and it stops when you hit the second tape switch at the end of the course.

In the other mode the Race Marshall hits a button.
There are FOUR TONES.
The timer STARTS on the fourth tone whether the racer starts or not.
If the racer goes EARLY (before the fourth tone) the false start appears on the screen as a NEGATIVE number.
The clock starts at the same time for both racers.
The FIRST racer to hit the bottom tape swith stops HIS clock. The second racer will then stop HIS clock.

It really is head to head racing. No more sandbagging or jumping the start. Everything is racing against the clock and against the other racer in the other lane.

The new TrakMate handles all this.
Image

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:49 pm

One other thing.

Everyone has to remember these rules are for ISSA SANCTIONED EVENTS.

I think it's safe to assume a race organizer who gets a Basic, Prime, Main or Major status will have the wherewithall to have an up-to-date timing system.

Without such a system it would be fruitless to pursue having a sanctioned race.

So, the ISSA establishing rules for appropriate timing systems is certainly within the purview of the oragnization.

After all, would you want to travel to a Prime only to find out the timing is a stop watch and some flags at the bottom of the hill?
Image

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

Post by Jadranko Radovanovic » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:56 pm

Thanks for the info Wesley.

How long do you have time to write the false start time down?

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

Timing systems vs timing specifications

Post by Pat Chewning » Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:01 pm

The timing system is NOT specified in the rules. There are at least 3 timing systems that I am aware of that meet the specifications (Tones, common-start, display reaction time). There are likely to be more in the future.

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

The Trackmate is one good example, and JRAD asks several questions about that timing system, which are good questions, but outside the scope of defining the specifications for the timing requirements of the race.

The details of the internal workings of the timing system (interface to computer, arming procedure, connection to speakers, synchronization of tones to timing) are not specified.

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

One of the more important, and perhaps "hidden" items in this rule is this:

The timing is the same (common start, tones, false-start penalty) for single-lane races, for qualifying, and for head-to-head.

The reasons I did not put in the individual-start timing method for qualifying or single lane is:

A) To prevent people from sitting in the gate for a long time. (e.g. A certain racer at Hood River who sat in the gate for a full minute waiting for a head wind to subside).

B) Consistency for the racers. Same thing every time.

C) Consistency for the organizers. No need to remember to switch from one mode to another.

D) Professional appearance: racers are motivated to go on the "START" tone

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

Post by GARY GLASSER » Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:03 pm

My thought is if you limit yourselves to a certain brand/function i.e Trackmate and they go out of business..what will be accepted next? I only suggest that the rules say/imply a start stop electronic timing device and software that accomplishes what is already used currently. (must have a capture of .001) I agree it be uniform but not completely limited.

The reasoning that there are other devices out there that ISSA may find acceptable currently and in the future. (Without having to make a rule change and or addendum when a better system is found)

For example that ISSA may find the timing devices/software used by marathon races all over the world will work as well (if not better) in the near or not so near future.
I am the slowest COSS slalom racer..Lucky for you!

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:14 pm

Jadranko Radovanovic wrote:Thanks for the info Wesley.

How long do you have time to write the false start time down?
The reaction time stays on the timer as long as the race time does. In other words the Race Marshall can take all the time he needs to record the reaction time or the false start. It doesn't go away until the timer is reset for the next run.
Image

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

False start display time -- Trackmate

Post by Pat Chewning » Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:19 pm

Jadranko Radovanovic wrote:Thanks for the info Wesley.

How long do you have time to write the false start time down?
The trackmate stores the results in a stack/buffer that can be accessed until you turn off the timer. I am not sure of the size/depth of the buffer, but it is at least 20 racers.

In practice, the person running the timer will usually write down the false-start and the elapsed time, the cone counts, and then arm the timer for the next racers. Once armed, the display goes away, but can be accessed later by stepping through the buffered results.

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 2:49 am

5.1 START OF RUN
I think there are two ways of handling fals starts
1. With time penalty
2. With restart. 2:nd False start is DQ.

The second solution is good when not having timing equipment to give you fals start timing.

5.4 DISQUALIFICATIONS
I don't think there should be a fixed rule to say that more than 10 cones is DQ.

If you have a DQ time of 1 second on a 0,1 sec conepenalty course then it would be true.
But if you have a 10% of total time DQ or whatever then it may be different.

And by all means the best: Take as many cones as you want and be penalized for it. But never DQ:ed.

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

Post by GARY GLASSER » Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:03 am

Hans Koraeus wrote:5.1 START OF RUN


5.4 DISQUALIFICATIONS
I don't think there should be a fixed rule to say that more than 10 cones is DQ.

If you have a DQ time of 1 second on a 0,1 sec conepenalty course then it would be true.
But if you have a 10% of total time DQ or whatever then it may be different.

And by all means the best: Take as many cones as you want and be penalized for it. But never DQ:ed.
This is good for races that don't have a "b" or "c" course and the newest slalomer has to run the same course the pro's run. It can be frustrating especially if you just spent 50$ or more (not including gas/flight and BenGay and BandAid's)
I am the slowest COSS slalom racer..Lucky for you!

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

# of cones for a DQ?

Post by Pat Chewning » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:06 am

Hans Koraeus wrote:5.1 START OF RUN

5.4 DISQUALIFICATIONS
I don't think there should be a fixed rule to say that more than 10 cones is DQ.

If you have a DQ time of 1 second on a 0,1 sec conepenalty course then it would be true.
But if you have a 10% of total time DQ or whatever then it may be different.

And by all means the best: Take as many cones as you want and be penalized for it. But never DQ:ed.
The 2008 Rules proposal contains:
10-cone DQ
999 second DQ penalty

There is no provision for a "DQ" time of 1 second -- (I assume this means add 1 second to the opponent's time in head-to-head racing).

There is no provision for a "10% of total time DQ" -- (I assume this means add 10% to the opponent's time in head-to-head racing. Or maybe 10% to the racer's raw time?)

The reasoning behind the heavy DQ penalty of 999 seconds (basically DQ and you're out) is described in the discussion of section 6.

The reasoning behind a cone limit of 10 for a DQ is:

A) 10 cones are easily counted by one person in a reasonable amount of time.
B) More than 10 cones looks really bad to the spectators and they have to wonder if the racers are even supposed to go around the cones.
C) My personal bias that courses should be set and racers should be "encouraged" to run cleaner. One way to encourage cleaner runs is to set a DQ penalty for too many cones hit.


Remember -- these rules as stated are the "STANDARD" rules for high level competition. I expect some limited amount of variance to the rules for lower status competitions. In this particular case, I would rather that the lower level competition adjust the course setting so fewer cones are hit -- rather than re-adjusting the number of cones allowed before a DQ.

Some courses, some hills 10 cone DQ will be too many cones. Some courses, some hills 10 cone DQ will be too few.

In my mind, the ideal race (at higher levels of competition) will DQ about 1/4 of the field of racers. Another 20-30% will not have fast enough times to make the head-to-head. The final 50% of the racers will make it into the head-to-head rounds.

I'm interested in other opinions.....

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

Timing system does not give false start amount.

Post by Pat Chewning » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:17 am

Hans Koraeus wrote:5.1 START OF RUN
I think there are two ways of handling fals starts
1. With time penalty
2. With restart. 2:nd False start is DQ.

The second solution is good when not having timing equipment to give you fals start timing.
Method 1 above is the ONE way of doing false starts that is being proposed in the 2008 rules update. (The standard way to run a race of higher status)

If you are running a race of lower status and do not have timing equipment to give the false start amount, then you can document this deviation from the rules in the sanction application, receive a sanction for a lower-status race, and run the race in that manner.

You will still need timing system that DETECTS (but does not quantify) a false start to apply method 2 above .....

If your timing system does not even DETECT a false start, then the race is probably going to be run with "individual timing" (no common tone-start). Which is yet another deviation from the standard 2008 rules -- and would have to be documented on the sanction application.

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

Raising the bar for higher status races.

Post by Pat Chewning » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:31 am

GARY GLASSER wrote:
Hans Koraeus wrote:5.1 START OF RUN


5.4 DISQUALIFICATIONS
I don't think there should be a fixed rule to say that more than 10 cones is DQ.

If you have a DQ time of 1 second on a 0,1 sec conepenalty course then it would be true.
But if you have a 10% of total time DQ or whatever then it may be different.

And by all means the best: Take as many cones as you want and be penalized for it. But never DQ:ed.
This is good for races that don't have a "b" or "c" course and the newest slalomer has to run the same course the pro's run. It can be frustrating especially if you just spent 50$ or more (not including gas/flight and BenGay and BandAid's)
One of the goals of revising the rules is to "raise the bar" and make the rules present the best racing for the highest-skilled racers on the highest status races. I'm afraid that one of the outcomes of this will be to remove the expectation that the lowest-level beginner racer can (or should) enter the same race as Pro racers. We don't expect everyday drivers to enter F1 races, and we don't expect weekend skiers to enter World Cup ski races. The days of a single race course accomodating Pros and beginners is unfortunately over. In order to challenge the Pros, we will probably have to make it nearly impossible for the beginners to make the course. Such is the price of progress.

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

Post by Jadranko Radovanovic » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:10 am

If you have a high DQ Penalty there is no need to run the second run in the H2H.

Keep it low (p.e. 1 second) the second run will be intresting.

It's the way they do it in the Snowboard Parallel Slalom. Even if you are 5 second behind, you get the max Penalty of 1.5 seconds or somthing like that.

Where are the spectators on slalom races ?

There are millions of weekend skier every where on this planet. But there are perhaps 1000 weekend slalom skateboarders out there.

Make a 10 Cones DQ and you bann the technical tight races from Slalom Events !


My suggestions:

- set a max DQ time low enough.
- let the racer's hit Cones as much as they can.
- make a list with the timingsystems which can be used.
- Test the timingsystems if they are correct before include it on the list.
- It should not be allowed to use another not tested timingsystem at races



We are able to test the timing with our ALGE timingsystem.

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

Suggestions need to be converted into proposals.

Post by Pat Chewning » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:33 am

Jadranko Radovanovic wrote:If you have a high DQ Penalty there is no need to run the second run in the H2H.

Keep it low (p.e. 1 second) the second run will be intresting.

It's the way they do it in the Snowboard Parallel Slalom. Even if you are 5 second behind, you get the max Penalty of 1.5 seconds or somthing like that.

Where are the spectators on slalom races ?

There are millions of weekend skier every where on this planet. But there are perhaps 1000 weekend slalom skateboarders out there.

Make a 10 Cones DQ and you bann the technical tight races from Slalom Events !


My suggestions:

- set a max DQ time low enough.
- let the racer's hit Cones as much as they can.
- make a list with the timingsystems which can be used.
- Test the timingsystems if they are correct before include it on the list.
- It should not be allowed to use another not tested timingsystem at races



We are able to test the timing with our ALGE timingsystem.
======================================
Eventually, what will be needed is to translate suggestions such as yours into a specific set of words to inject into the rules.

Can you propose a specific wording to accomplish you suggestions above?

Things like "low enough" need a specific number -- don't leave it up to me or "low enough" will be 999 seconds!
=======================================

Racers hitting as many cones as they want: Is this really good racing and what we want to promote? In my opinion, slalom racing is about going AROUND the cones, not through them.

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

List of timing systems -- no, I do not think the ISSA will be doing that. That opens up a HUGE problem with liability for not placing some system on the list that should be there, or placing one on the list that shouldn't be there. Then there's the overhead to test each manufacturer's timing system models every year ... blah .... blah.... blah I can't see the benefit. The ISSA proposed rule update has timing system requirements (common start, tones, display finish time, display false-start interval). It is up to the race organizer to select and implement a timing/display system that can do those functions (purchase or make). And who is going to buy all of these timing systems and test them?

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

I agree that the RACE ORGANIZER should never use a timing system that he has never tested before race day. But the ISSA is not involved in testing timing systems, and should not be.

==============================================
A high DQ penalty in the H2H may mean that some 2nd runs are not made. I consider that a benefit of a high DQ penalty, not a problem ......

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

If high DQ penalty -- Then no 2nd run in H2H?

Post by Pat Chewning » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:50 am

The 2008 rules update proposal calls for a 999 second DQ penalty (basically, DQ and you're out).

If this stands after all controversy and comments are done, would it make sense to add a rule that states:

"In Head-to-Head competition, if only one racer should DQ in the 1st run of a heat, the 2nd run of the heat is not taken."


Argument FOR: Well, racer A just got a 999 second DQ penalty. The 2nd run is not going to be very interesting as racer B coasts through with an easy run and racer A does whatever he can (spray cones) to make racer B DQ.....

Argument AGAINST: There is a chance that Racer B might DQ in the 2nd run, so this chance should be played out. Maybe the layout of the course and crown of the hill makes it more likely to DQ in one lane than the other. Racers are "ripped off" and don't get as many runs as they'd like.

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

Post by GARY GLASSER » Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:34 pm

Pat, I understand making it more challenging or raising the bar for the pro's. In many races though, 3/4 of the racer's are not pro's. Most of the money then is coming from the open riders who dont make the course, or make it but badly.
You take out all/most chances for the open/novice to finish the race, then you wont have prize/insurance money. Then you are left at getting sponser's to pony up cash. Which has been fairly tough I understand.
You are also telling open racers who want to have fun, to not race at all. This is not growing slalom.
Maybe an incouragemnt from ISSA to have 2 courses set to keep the open/novices interested.(to keep the growing amount of particpants coming back) My view is maybe more unique in Colorado where nobody sets an easier course for any race at anytime. I like to compete but spending 50 bucks or more and barely make a course so I can support the pro's is not what I call ideal for the growth of slalom.
I am the slowest COSS slalom racer..Lucky for you!

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

Different courses for different skill levels.

Post by Pat Chewning » Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:24 pm

GARY GLASSER wrote:Pat, I understand making it more challenging or raising the bar for the pro's. In many races though, 3/4 of the racer's are not pro's. Most of the money then is coming from the open riders who dont make the course, or make it but badly.
You take out all/most chances for the open/novice to finish the race, then you wont have prize/insurance money. Then you are left at getting sponser's to pony up cash. Which has been fairly tough I understand.
You are also telling open racers who want to have fun, to not race at all. This is not growing slalom.
Maybe an incouragemnt from ISSA to have 2 courses set to keep the open/novices interested.(to keep the growing amount of particpants coming back) My view is maybe more unique in Colorado where nobody sets an easier course for any race at anytime. I like to compete but spending 50 bucks or more and barely make a course so I can support the pro's is not what I call ideal for the growth of slalom.
Having 2 (or more) courses for the various skill levels is probably a natural outcome of making the PRO course challenging enough for the Pro racer...

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

Post by Jadranko Radovanovic » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:43 pm

We have diffrent courses for special and tight at the most races in Europe.
Pro or Amateur.

Suggestions:

The Racer who DQ get a Penalty of 1 second.

There is no DQ/limit for hitted cones.

The used timing-systems should be known by the ISSA.
Software based timing-systems are not allowed.


Why testing the timing-system?
-To not have an inaccurate timing-systems on a Major/Main event.

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

How does the DQ penalty of 1 second really work?

Post by Pat Chewning » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:56 pm

Jadranko Radovanovic wrote:We have diffrent courses for special and tight at the most races in Europe.
Pro or Amateur.

suggestions:

The Racer who DQ get a Penalty of 1 second.

There is no DQ/limit for hitted cones.

The used timing-systems should be knowen by the ISSA.
Software based timing-systems are not allowed.


Why testing the timing-system ?
To not have an inaccurate timing-systems on a Major/Main event.
In your proposal, you have a DQ penalty of 1 second.

Is this:
A) Added to the racer's raw time without any cone penalties?
B) Added to the racer's raw time , then add any cone penalties?
C) Added to the racer's opponent's time (if running dual-lane). (If so, then what about qualifying or single-lane events?)

I wanted a single way to treat DQ's regardless of whether they occur in head-to-head, single-lane racing, or qualifying.

I don't see why we would want to "soften" the DQ penalty once we get into the head-to-head rounds....

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

Timing Systems

Post by Pat Chewning » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:07 pm

Jadranko Radovanovic wrote:The used timing-systems should be known by the ISSA.
Software based timing-systems are not allowed.


Why testing the timing-system?
-To not have an inaccurate timing-systems on a Major/Main event.
Every timing system will have some inaccuracies. It is only when the magnitude of the inaccuracies start to affect the race outcome that we should become concerned.

In fact, for most of our racing, we do not require accuracy (total time accuracy to a known standard), because we are merely comparing racer A to racer B who are being timed by the same system under the same conditions, at the same time.

We have no need to compare to racer C (on another course, under different conditions, at a different date, using a different system).

I don't think we have the money, time, or expertise to qualify/test timing systems.

Almost every timing system involves some level of software (including Trackmate) ... does this mean we cannot use Trackmate, or any other system that has embedded software?

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

Post by Jadranko Radovanovic » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:42 pm

For quali the best time counts for the H2H. There is no DQ time added. Two DQ's you are not qualified. In the H2H the faster racer has a "bye of 1 second".

If you have one lane, how do you do a H2H ?

One lane means for me 1-n runs best run count. No DQ penalty.


This just to keep it interesting in the H2H. Snowboard Parallel Slalom makes this because of the mentioned reason.


Not allow Software means there must be a hardware clock, not tapeswitches connected to the PC.

I don't want to compare with Racer C or D. Just to compare if the delta time of the Trackmate is every time the same compared to our ALGE. If the delta time is every time the same than there is no problem, if it isn't than there is a problem.

It is clear that the timing systems will not show the same times, but it will be intresting if the difference is every time the same.

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:

Post by Jani Soderhall » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:56 pm

Historically the ISSA applied a 99 sec DQ penalty. We considered that shouldn't be able to recover from a DQ, other than if the other guy does a DQ too, in which case you have one timed run each and can compare those. Easy.

Then the FCR series started with the 1.5 sec DQ penalty (I don't know if it had been done before), and a few guys actually managed to win back that 1.5 sec penalty. Especially in GS (which was dual back then).

I've kind of adapted (or accepted, don't know which) the 1.5 sec DQ penalty and now find that it leaves a bit of a challenge in a race that is pretty much doomed - but remember, you should never give up (I've done that too many times - I'm not doing it again!).

The JRAD proposed 1 sec penalty is most likely too small. We've seen several (longer) races, especially in the US, where second runs are slower than the first by that and sometimes more. Of course it would probably affect both riders in a dual run, but still.


Another aspect, which I wanted to bring up for you to consider, is that if you meet a really fast skater (32 against 1, for example), do your best, make the course and the clock shows that you're > 1.5 sec behind. In that case you would actually have been better off jumping off the board just before the timing strip. How cool is that? Maybe after all the 99 sec penalty wasn't all that bad?

I don't remember if this has been debated at length before, so I'm bringing it up, so we can go though it and decide what is best, easiest & most fair.

/Jani

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:

Post by Jani Soderhall » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:58 pm

I'll send JRAD one of my Trackmates so that he can compare it to the Alge timer. That can't do any harm.

If someone has a scientific method and the appropriate skills to test a timer, please contact me.

/Jani

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 4:26 am

Jani Soderhall wrote:I'll send JRAD one of my Trackmates so that he can compare it to the Alge timer. That can't do any harm.


/Jani
Actually, it COULD do some harm. What if the ALGE and the TRACKMATE show differing results? Which one will be called "inaccurate"? Which timer, when used in a race will cause a boycott of the race?

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 4:59 am

Pat Chewning wrote:
Jani Soderhall wrote:I'll send JRAD one of my Trackmates so that he can compare it to the Alge timer. That can't do any harm.


/Jani
Actually, it COULD do some harm. What if the ALGE and the TRACKMATE show differing results? Which one will be called "inaccurate"? Which timer, when used in a race will cause a boycott of the race?
OK.

It's like this.

If both systems are used simultaneously on the same dual course, let's hope the result are identical

BUT

If they are not, let's hope both systems are off to the same degree.

What does that mean?

Well, let's say the Trakmate records two times as the following

Red: 15.287
Whi: 15.347

That's a difference of .06

Now, let's say the Alge Timer records:

Red: 15.276
Whi: 15.336

Guess what? The difference is still .06

Does that mean one is recording a time that's .011 different from the other?

Yes.

Does it matter in determining who won the race? No. The differential is the same.
What's more who's going to say WHICH timer is correct and which one is off?

As long as the timing is CONSISTENTLY off then does it matter? Even in qualifying will it matter if the timing is .011 off if it's off the same for every skater?

Now, if red on Trakmate comes back 15.287 and red on Alge comes back 16.395, we may have a problem.

BUT

Not if the timing is consistently the same from race to race to race.
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 7:03 am

Wesley Tucker wrote:

As long as the timing is CONSISTENTLY off then does it matter? Even in qualifying will it matter if the timing is .011 off if it's off the same for every skater?

Now, if red on Trakmate comes back 15.287 and red on Alge comes back 16.395, we may have a problem.

BUT

Not if the timing is consistently the same from race to race to race.
I think Wesley is saying:
A) We do not need a "very high" degree of accuracy. (Agreement with the National Bureau of Standards Cessium clock)
B) We do need a "reasonably low" value for the random error in the timing system. (Different results of a random and indeterminate nature when measuring the same standard event under the same conditions)
C) We can accept a "reasonably high" value for the systematic error in the timing system (constant offset from reference value, or constant scaling error). As long as the systematic error is applied to all racers and every race run.

Who is going to figure out the real values needed for "very high" accuracy, "reasonably low" random error, and "reasonably high" systematic errors?

I don't think you will be able to determine the timing system performance against the A, B, C criteria by: "send the system to 'X' and he'll compare it with 'Z' timing system".

Even if we (the ISSA) could do all of this, I don't think we SHOULD because we have much more significant (real and potential) errors to worry about such as:
i) Did the correct racer name and lane get assigned to the time on the clock?
ii) Did the cones get counted correctly?
iii) Did the starting ramp move closer or farther from the finish from race-to-race?
iv) Did the time on the clock get entered correctly into the spreadsheet? (Or was 22.465 entered as 22.456 ?)
--- etc.

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:

Post by Jani Soderhall » Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:25 am

I think we have a real concern here if the ISSA BOD makes statements such as the above.

Well, if you don't think precision is important, why do you record 1/1000's? And if we accept a certain "reasonably low" random error. Wouldn't we be better off recording 1/100s instead?

I think this is big concern. Time is all I care about and here you state, that it's not that important. It's worrying.

For sure I don't trust JRAD to do the "professional" testing for us, but I'm sending him a timer to check out the PC output.

/Jani

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 8:41 am

Jani Soderhall wrote:I think we have a real concern here if the ISSA BOD makes statements such as the above.

Well, if you don't think precision is important, why do you record 1/1000's? And if we accept a certain "reasonably low" random error. Wouldn't we be better off recording 1/100s instead?

I think this is big concern. Time is all I care about and here you state, that it's not that important. It's worrying.

For sure I don't trust JRAD to do the "professional" testing for us, but I'm sending him a timer to check out the PC output.

/Jani

The ISSA BOD has made no statement on timing system precision, accuracy, repeatability, or other attributes. My statement is made by myself, and does not represent the official ISSA BOD policy. If some statement about timing system attributes should become an ISSA policy or requirement or rule, it will be clear in the publication that it is official ISSA policy (rather than Pat Chewning's opinion).

Jani, I think you misunderstood my points.

My 1st point is that there are various elements that can contribute to the inaccuracy, or errors of a timing system. Some of these elements are more important than others.

My 2nd point is that all timing systems have errors and inaccuracies, it is only the magnitude that differs from one system to the next.

My 3rd point is that Slalom Skateboarding probably has some maximum magnitude of error or inaccuracy beyond which a timing system becomes "useless" for our application. I don't know what that limit is. (e.g. Is 1/1000" close enough? Is 1/500" How about 1/200"? )

My 4th point is that of all the errors that might influence the final results of a race, it is my belief that the timing system is one of the smaller potential errors.

My 5th point is that choosing timing requirements, buying and testing systems, and qualifying and monitoring those systems is a task outside of the RACING RULES, and a process that I don't think the ISSA is ready to take on. (My personal opinion)

Finally, you have now introduced another attribute "PRECISION" which is entirely different from accuracy, repeatability, reproducability, and error. All of these attributes have specific meanings and they are not interchangeable.

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:

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

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

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

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

/Jani

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

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

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

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

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

Again nice draft Pat.

This post may be related to the other for reference:

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

5.3. Cone Displacements

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

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

· The cone is tipped over and not standing upright.

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

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

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

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

Stephen Lavin wrote:Again nice draft Pat.

This post may be related to the other for reference:

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

5.3. Cone Displacements

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

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

· The cone is tipped over and not standing upright.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions with gates in the H2H:

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

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


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

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

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

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

Jadranko Radovanovic wrote:Suggestions with gates in the H2H:

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

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


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

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

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

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

Jadranko Radovanovic wrote:Suggestions with gates in the H2H:

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

MANDATING gates right now is not good.

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

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

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

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

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

Cone DQ's

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest. It'll come to you.

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

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

_____________ _____________ _____________ _____________

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________

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

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

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

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

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

So, it's simple:

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

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

The distances? Easy.

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


Here's a fun one:

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

How would this work?

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

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

So, that's my idea for standard cone pentalies

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

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

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

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

One other thing:

DO NOT GET HUNG UP ON MY NUMBERS

20% can be 15% or 25%

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

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

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

The standard, though, is workable.
Image

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Re: Cone DQ's

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

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

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

rmn
Feel the flow – Airflow Skateboards

Real skateboard wheels come in green – ABEC11

Enjoy the ride – GOG Slalom & DH Trucks

Locked