The Double standard

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Tue Oct 29, 2002 5:13 pm

The current 32 man Duals system takes so much time that it greatly reduces the number of events that can be held in a single day. It results in more skating time for some and less for others. I hope to see more contests organized with perhaps 2 single track events and one dual with a 8 man qualifying bracket so that everyone gets more time skating and less time waiting. In such a format we could see a weekend race that had these events.

Day one: Super G slalom (best of 2 runs), Dual Slalom (8 man bracket), Vintage slalom racing (single run), Newbies race Single run, Father /son race (best of all 4 combined times but take 1/2 of son's time)

Day Two: Single track slalom, dual parallel slalom ~30 cones (16 man bracket- in that it is quick to reset after each run), Giant slalom

In such a format a skater would get a minimum of 13 timed runs (perhaps more if they progress in the duals)- much better than just two qualifying runs on each day. I'll assume less than 60 skaters entering.

Miko Biffle · Post by **Miko Biffle** » Tue Nov 05, 2002 6:54 am

So in this format would the top eight from the 'single track' time trial move to the 'dual' elimination?

That sounds like a fun and friendly way to seed a final. The 'sudden death' that occurs in qualifying - 32 dual format can be tough to swallow, when you've paid the dough, travelled, and want some hill time...

I could see a 'Jam' format where riders can continue taking as many runs as they can fit into a given time frame... then take the top x riders into a 16 or 8 rider dual. You could easliy fit two of these events in a day.

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Thu Nov 14, 2002 1:41 am

I think the Jam session approach is interesting as it gives many different strategies to approaching a race. Also entrants can get in many runs if there are not too many entrants.

We did try something different on the last July 4th race in Boston.

I believe the format was like this.
We wanted to create an 8 man dual bracket and also reduce the chances of upsets so if a person had a bad run he would have a chance to make a comeback.

We also wanted to discourage sandbagging and wanted to see fast qualifying times. A fast racer's best strategy was to put in fast qualifying times. In fact it was to everyone's advantage to put in fast qualifying times.

So the racing went like this.

Everyone got two qualifying runs - one in each lane.

The two fastest racers (with the best time of two runs) #1 and #2 in qualifing got seeds numbers 1 and 2 in the bracket of 8. (these racers are now free to do interviews, help announce with the race, and do clinics with newbies, sign autographs, cone marshall etc)

The next 8 fastest racers #'s 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
all took two more runs and the fastest 4 combined times would advance the racer to the next round. (so if you missed the chance to put in a single fast run during qualifying... you now had to put in two fast runs - penalty for sandbagging during first qualifying run = extra runs + having to be consistant). Those 4 fastest times now take their respective places in the bracket of 8 as seeds number 3,4,5,6. Even numbered racers are paired with odd numbered racers.

Now there are two places left in the bracket of 8.

To get those two remaining racers we do this.
Qualifiers that did not advance in the last round are added back into this round. So assuming a perfect world
qualifiers #7-38 would race off. a coin is flipped to determine whether odds race odds in pairs like this (7 - 9) (11 -13) etc and evens race evens in the same manner. OR The order is staggered such that there are 4 spaces between each raced pair ie... (7- 11) ( 9 - 13 ) etc. This would help reduce the likelyhood of having to race the same racer often. It could be extended such that there is a gap of 6 racers or 8 racers or whatever.

After they race the fastest 2 times from the odd bracket and the fastest two times from the evens bracket combine in the (1 -4 ) (2 - 3) pairings.

The fastest two combined times from this race becomes seeds #7,8 in the final bracket of 8.

In this format the most experienced skilled racers race less and have more time to help promote the sport. The racers that are newest actually get to race more and also are guaranteed to have a very close race with someone near their ability level (Just like in the higher qualifiers). For small racing groups of say 4 skaters traveling from another state with a wide range of ability levels within that group they will certainly have some of the most challenging skating of their lives at race day.

Intersting to note in that in this format the only true head to head eliminations occur in either the race for seeds 7 and 8 and of course in teh final bracket of 8. This helps introduce skaters to the concept of eliminations. In the system of fastest combined times you are racing BOTH "the skater" and "the Field" for position. Which certainly makes it more exciting.

For some pairs we might find cooperation amongst pairs in the later races for the final seeds of 8.

As for the crowds. They will witness almost every race as a close race. There will be no #1 vs #32 blowouts. Such races are not much fun for #1 or #32 and certainly do not interest the spectators much.

By running the odds and evens pairs from the lower qualifying numbers spectators will be treadted to faster and faster racing as the day progresses- with of course a teaser of the fastest racers in qualifing.

Had I written this down in Boston I'm sure it could have gone a bit faster. But some skaters told me were more encouraged to come and compete under this format as they would be guaranteed to get more than a scant 2 qualifying runs for their entry fee and time spent traveling. Hearing that I decided it was a good idea for our sport.

Glitches we hit were in close pairings often teh same skaters had to face each other more than once. Adding the variable of staggering the gaps between skaters to 4 spaces , 6 spaces etc. should help to allieviate that.

Coolest thing though was that so long as you did not DQ you could still be in the game to get to the final bracket even after the inital qualifying runs.

Terry Kirby · Post by **Terry Kirby** » Thu Nov 14, 2002 2:44 am

JG,I thought the format in Boston was a bit cofusing and took a long time to get to what would have been the final 4 racers any way you ran it. Granted guys got to run lots of runs but in some cases it was too many runs which left the top qualifiers waiting around and getting "cold". Races are races and camps are camps(seminars) its difficult to combine the two. As it was we were only able to get in two events on the 4th with a small group of racers. Mabey a side course can be set for people to run all day with a timer and where advanced rider can give tips. If you run the 32 man bracket and do it in an organised fashion and all will be well. At the farm we got in a gs, a ts, and a vintage despite rain delays . We did this by running single lane race format and by having great timing people keeping things moving and cone marshalls communicating w/ two way radios . Running the single lane makes more time for one or two different events. I personally like running a single lane best of 3 gs course and then using the results to seed racers for a duel slalom event(we did this in farm 1). This way everyone races and you get in 2 events in a day. Henrys la costa event was way cool because it had a split A pro and B pro class. That was about the coolest race ever IMO and I didnt even qualify for the B pro! TK

Jack Smith · Post by **Jack Smith** » Thu Nov 14, 2002 2:51 am

I personally favor a 16 racer, head to head format. The first round of a 32 racer bracket is quite boring.
Races are for racing. Someone wins, someone loses. Practice more at home and your hill time on race day will increase.

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:29 am

When Gareth Roe, Michael Dong, and I sat down and discussed what goals we had for our Northwest Series races, we wanted a format that did not "eliminate" anyone -- we wanted participation to continue til the end of the event. We also wanted races that were really races, instead of "byes" where the fastest is set against the slowest.

So we will be running a "Challenge Ladder" format after the qualifying runs. In the Challenge Ladder format, the racers are ordered in position according to their qualifying times. Then their position can move one place up (by beating the person ahead of him) or one place down (by getting beat by the person behind him). After a series of these Challenge Ladders are run, the cream should rise to the top.

In this way, all of the final races should be close (because they are adjacent racers going against each other) and nobody gets eliminated. All racers will do the same # of runs.

Anyway, that's what we're going to try and we'll let you know how it works out. I think it meets the goals that we set out.

-- Pat Chewning

Chris Eggers · Post by **Chris Eggers** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 9:19 am

I also thought a lot about that. Your system seems to make some sense to me. But I had a few thoughts which I found important and not very good.

Let me make sure I understand that right: #1 qualifier goes against #2 qualifier in two runs, times combined and the slower racer is out?

Lets say #1 qualifier advances.

Ok good you repeat that until you reach #31 against #32. Lets say #31 advances being one of the slowest qualifiers. So you have #2 qualifier out, but he is really fast, a lot faster than #31 who advanced one round. Is that good?
#2 will have no chance for a top 16 finish, where he should be. #31 will automatically be in the top 16.
There seems to be something wrong.....

[ This Message was edited by: Chris Eggers on 2003-04-08 03:21 ]

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 4:18 pm

Chris,

In this "Challenge Ladder" system nobody is ever "out". Everyone remains in until the end. In the example you gave, #2 qualifier went against #1 qualifier. #2 did not beat #1. Therefore, the relative position of #1 and #2 remains the same and in subsequent rounds #2 will again meet #1 for a chance to beat him.

If #2 had beat #1, then the relative positions would swap and #2 would be the new #1 and #1 is the new #2.

An obvious outcome of this system is that racers of equal ability will continue to meet each other in subsequent races. But that is consistent with the goals which is to have close races and NOT to eliminate anyone.

I hope this explains it better. It may be hard to move away from the paradigm of "eliminating" slower racers until 1 racer is left at the top. Think of it this way: In this system we are stacking a deck of cards until the highest ranking cards are on top and the lowest ranking cards on the bottom. In the other systems, you throw away the low cards until only the highest ranking card remains.

Another disadvantage of this "Challenge Ladder" is that it may take longer to complete since each of the "final" rounds includes ALL of the racers. So it might be more suitable for races with smaller # of entrants (which is exactly what we expect at our NW series of races).

I hope that explains the system better. It sounds good in theory, but we will soon know how it operates in a real race.

-- Pat Chewning

[ This Message was edited by: Pat Chewning on 2003-04-08 10:22 ]

Gary Fluitt · Post by **Gary Fluitt** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 6:07 pm

Jack - We need a rule of thumb on the round of 32. When we have over 50 racers (a la La Costa where we had 100) we go to a round of 16 straight away. There's just not enough time to qualify that many racers and do all the brackets.

When we 50 racers , there's no need to pare it down to 16 so quickly, so we can do all 6 rounds. Unless there is weather or permit restraints, in which case you could eliminate the 32 round.

G

Neil Gendzwill · Post by **Neil Gendzwill** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 7:56 pm

One thing I've done in martial arts tournaments is to run seeded pools to feed an elimination draw. Suppose you have 32 contestants. Seed them according to previous races or a qualifying run. Top 8 go into the normal seeded spots in a draw of 16. The remaining 24 are divided into pools of 3, with each pool having a fast guy, a medium guy and a slow guy. 3 head to head races determine who wins the pool, pool winners go on to feed the other 8 slots of the draw.

This gives everybody except the very top seeds a minimum of two races, plus qualifying. If you don't want to give the top seeds buys, just put everybody into pools and have #1 and #2 from each pool carry on. In this case, a #1 from one pool always meets a #2 from another pool in the first elimination round.

Chris Eggers · Post by **Chris Eggers** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 1:58 pm

Oh yes Pat I understand better now, thanks.
It will be an interesting format to try out, but I am afraid it will not be suitable for a real race, because it may be hard to follow for spectators and may take very long. But a godd idea for sure. Try it and let us know how it went.

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 4:37 pm

Of course with a Challenge ladder you will often have the same people racing each other. I think this happens often inpractice and if you only have locals racing it might not seem that diffferent froma pactice.

You often see good slalomers develop strong skills when two slalomers come from the same area and practice together and are close in times. To my mind comes Hester/Skoldberg, Piercy/Ryan, Ransom/Evans, Olson/Hackett, Soderhall/Dematos, Sidler/Ridoli, Bimler/Lutz , Gatti/Luca etc.

Perhaps to keep it interesting you might run a "challenge ladder" this way.

In the first round you race someone who is 4 spots away from you. In the next round you race another who is 3 spots away from you, then 2 spots , and then in the final round someone who is 1 spot away from you.

Of course you could make the first round someone who is 6 spots away, then the next 4 spots away, then 2 , then 1 etc.

Just try a few formats. The best one is the one where many racers race many other different racers in close heats.

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Thu May 01, 2003 6:30 am

We ran our 1st race using the "Ladder" system in the finals, and many people thought it worked well.

The races were close, as expected. We had 16 racers. One racer gained 2 place positions over the 4 final heats, one racer lost 2 place positions, three racers gained a position, and three racers lost a position. So we did have quite a few "rematches" of the same people racing each other.

Michael Dong suggested an improvement that we might try next time. In this "Double Indemity Ladder" (my label) the winner of each race goes up a whole bracket and the loser goes down a whole bracket, and there are NO time comparisons from one bracket to the next. That way the racers are guaranteed not to repeat against each other from heat to heat. It also makes the outcome easier to figure out and re-seed for the next round.

I think we'll try this at our next race June 28th.

Anyway, I believe that the Ladder format does meet our goals (close races, no elimination). But the "double indemity ladder" promises to meet those goals AND keep the races from repeating the pairings so much.

-- Pat

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Thu May 01, 2003 4:55 pm

Very cool. Are the brackets 8 man or 4 man brackets. How many heats are required to win?

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 7:08 pm

Here is the bracket system we use for our races in Portland.

Some noteworthy items:

1) If racers are consistent with their times, then they will end up in the same place as they qualified.

2) Possible to gain 5 places (see "Winner" in example)

3) Possible to lose 5 places (see "Loser" in example)

4) Expected results are to win,lose,win or lose, win, lose -- both ways get you back to where you started.

5) Expandable to "N" number of qualifiers -- just depends on how much time you have to run heats.

6) Everyone keeps racing right to the end.

See example at:
http://www.pgrass.00sports.com Click on "Contacts/Links" Then at the bottom click on "Racing Ladder"

[ This Message was edited by: Pat Chewning on 2003-07-08 00:29 ]

Hans Koraeus · Post by **Hans Koraeus** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 11:52 pm

Pat,

I like that as a version. But how do you get your initial placement. 2 Qualification runs? If so being 50 racers with 5 runs each will give a total of 125 races (250 runs/2 lanes). Hmm. Lot's of races. Lot's of fun. But taking some time. Doubled amount of races compared to a 2Qual 16bracket version but then again trippel fun. Up to organizer to decide depending on how many disciplines you want to fit in on a day, I guess.

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Sat Jun 28, 2003 2:41 am

The placement into the ladder is after 4 qualifying runs.

It should be noted that our races in Portland are (so far) small events with around 20 people. This ladder system might not work so well at larger events.

-- Pat

Rick Stanziale · Post by **Rick Stanziale** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 10:03 pm

My first slalom race was Folly Beach just over one year ago.

In longboard slalom, I did not qualify (cones).

Slalom, Mandarino did away with me easily.

I sat there in the wee hours of the morning (outside a stinking bus terminal), with guys continuing to race, stunned that my racing was over.

Since then I have advanced to a final bracket in Mississippi, round of 8 in St. Louis and the round of 8 in Breckenridge.

I like bracket racing because it rewards you for both going fast and winning.

Besides, it's ISSA rules

[ This Message was edited by: Rick Stanziale on 2003-06-29 16:06 ]

Tom Thompson · Post by **Tom Thompson** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 11:34 pm

I don't think anyone in this discussion questions the fact that one must pay his dues before true success comes......

On a grassroots level, I think Pat is onto something. The point is to make these races more enjoyable for everyone, right?

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 7:19 pm

[quote]
On 2003-06-29 16:03, Rick Stanziale wrote:
My first slalom race was Folly Beach just over one year ago.

In longboard slalom, I did not qualify (cones).

Slalom, Mandarino did away with me easily.

I sat there in the wee hours of the morning (outside a stinking bus terminal), with guys continuing to race, stunned that my racing was over.

Since then I have advanced to a final bracket in Mississippi, round of 8 in St. Louis and the round of 8 in Breckenridge.

I like bracket racing because it rewards you for both going fast and winning.

Besides, it's ISSA rules

well my concern is thqt the racing should be fun and no a drag. With the duals system we spend a tremendous amount of time trying to determine the winner of a single race.

As we get larger the amount of top guys gets heavier and it becomes harder to crack into the top. THUS IS WOULD GET MORE DISCOURAGING. not what I particularly what I want to see. I certainly don't want a format that becomes more discouraging to new racers as the sport develops.

So lets talk about the possible alternatives.

Rick Stanziale · Post by **Rick Stanziale** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 9:01 pm

We're not larger.

Colorado July 5 - 16 racers

St. Louis May 24 - 30

Mississippi April 12 - 19

Da' Farm - 40 signups

Georgia - 33

Bridge Day - 25

I can see the benefits of having A class / B class in a region that races 16 or more on a regular basis, but I think the top B class racers will improve quicker racing A class and being eliminated early. Just my opinion, haven't raced A/B unless you count FCR.

Terry Kirby · Post by **Terry Kirby** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 9:14 pm

Rick, cracking the top 8 at the Farm will be tough. You best be practicing. T

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:42 pm

Rick- I believe you are right... for the time being we are not bigger.

But many are getting better- much much better.

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 11:29 pm

While we're talking race format standards, here's one I'd like to try some day . . . not today, but eventually.

Set a course early in the morning, and open up the hill. Skaters can take as many runs as they want and work all day on improving their times. ALL TIMES will be recorded.

This would lead to one of two scenarios:

1. A lot of tired skaters ready to quit by noon OR

2. Skaters constantly pushing one another to get the better time by the end of the day.

What we would have is say, skater 1 (we'll call him JG) runs the course and posts a 20 second time. Skater 2 (call him TK just for kicks,) sees JG's time and is determined that no matter what he will get 19.99 before sundown. Then, around 11 in the morning, TK gets his 19.99 and goes to top. JG sees this, tweaks his board and WHAM! posts a 19.5. Tk goes back to the drawing board. Meanwhile, Skater 3 (Oh, I don't know, VP?) sees this, grabs his fastest plank and runs the course in a 19.4. Now all three skaters are within the podium.

In the meantime, a fourth skater, (I'll call him WT) is watching this. Early in the morning his best time is 23. He's pissed. So he works, skates, runs the course 15 times over the next three hours and all of a sudden finds a line that is perfect and posts a 20.01. He's in the running.

Now, it's getting late, the sun is setting and the streetlights are coming on. Everyone is scrambling to get down the hill and post their best time of the day. Fatigue, equipment failure and giddiness leads to times actually going UP. JG can't break 21, TK is rummaging around at 21.75 and VP is stroking in with a best time of 19.2. Day is over.

A look at the computer shows that at 1:30 earlier that afternoon, VP has posted a 19.1 for the best time of the day. He wins. He knows he has the best time and spends all day watching and protecting his lead. Lots of tension, lots of racing and lots of competition.

This format also has one other drawback: you'd need some dedicated marshalls to spend all day running a computer spreadsheet keeping what could be hundreds of times from 30 or 40 racers. Plus, the cone marshalls would work all day. If we did something like this, we might actually have to pay someone like Dan Gesmer or Yvonne Gamble to run the judges table all day. Plus, a charitable contribution to a Boy Scout Troop or college fraternity would be needed to guarantee quality course maintenance.

Other than that, I think it would be a fun day. It would be giant slalom, a big course on a big hill. Some skaters might get bored running the same course all day, but I think most racers would enjoy the opportunity to have ALL DAY to work on improving their time with unlimited access to the hill.

The advantage would be no brackets, no limits and no eliminations. You can skate all you want and as much as you can tolerate. And your skating would be worth something: somewhere in that day of skating is YOUR best time and it might be the fastest of the day. BOOM! You win.

Rick Stanziale · Post by **Rick Stanziale** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 11:44 pm

TK - you're right, I'd have to be ON IT to make 8, but I think I can make top 16....and I'm not discounting the format you've chosen, but a chance to race against a Gilmour, Mollica, you, Dong, Vlad, et al is exactly why I'm flying to NY next week.

As far as practicing, I'm back to stock trucks for a few days, new kingpin arriving late next week

Slappy Maxwell · Post by **Slappy Maxwell** » Sun Jul 20, 2003 12:17 am

I agree with John. Being a middle of the pack rider it is/was discouraging to be knocked out after 1 or 2 rounds.

I really like the A/B format because of the opportunities. I can go all out in qualifying and make the A bracket, just to go one or two rounds. Or I can relax in qualifying and race much more in the B.

Racing in a B pool has given me the opportunity to use other race tactics I hadn't been able to experience, like sitting back and then playing catch up.

It also motivates me to practice more so I can go deeper in the A's.

Racing in A and having to look at the backsides of Vlad and Parsons isn't as motivating.

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Sun Jul 20, 2003 1:00 am

I happen to like the jam style format that Wesley proposes. In places with no spectators I think it is fine. We could do something funny.....like you get 1 free run. Then you gotta ante up for each additional run. As you walk up the hill.....you pay off the cone marshalls (say .50 per mashall- you run clean....no pay nothing to the marshalls). How about $5 per run to the pot everytime?

If you have no money....you marshall. Wanna cover your gas costs?

Winners divide up the money- payouts could go pretty deep.

bottom of the pack racers might get coaching from the faster ones (The faster ones would encourage this to grow the pot...and to slow down other approaching racers runs).

[ This Message was edited by: John Gilmour on 2003-07-19 19:07 ]

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Sun Jul 20, 2003 1:42 am

How about if we base the amount each racer pays based on the blue book trade in value of their car?

If someone is driving, oh, I don't know, an 8-year old Camaro worth about eight grand, he pays .80¢. If someone, though, is driving a $24,000 Mercedes, he pays $2.40?

That sounds fair to me. Of course, Tway and Parsons are lucky. We'll have to PAY them to take a run!

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Sun Jul 20, 2003 2:16 am

we could also base the price on a person's annual shrimp intake.

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Sun Jul 20, 2003 2:47 am

How do we measure that: metric, english or calories?

Terry Kirby · Post by **Terry Kirby** » Sun Jul 20, 2003 3:14 am

Actually the Jam session format would be great for everyone except John. HE would end up getting in mabey 2 or 3 runs before he became distracted. Good for the rest of us though. Mabey we'll try it at the farm if we have time. TK

Dan Mitchell · Post by **Dan Mitchell** » Sun Jul 20, 2003 4:04 am

Jam format sounds cool. But how does this work with dual(head to head) racing? Or does'nt it apply?

Terry Kirby · Post by **Terry Kirby** » Sun Jul 20, 2003 4:07 am

does not apply.

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Sun Jul 20, 2003 4:27 am

Theoretically, duals would work, but it would be COMPLICATED. First, there would no "head-to-head" racing. Just twice as many courses for people to jam on. That would make for more opportunities for everyone to get to ride.

Secondly, if you had two courses, it would be just like regular duals: two runs, average times, find your fastest time. But that would mean the judges table would have to keep up with which course you are on and placing the time in the correct column ("A" for course one, "B" for course two.) That's complicated. At the end of the day if you had 15 runs in course one and one in course two, you'd only get one time towards first place. So you would probably have to make it a point to go back and forth. Again, not really complicated for the skaters, just for the marshalls keeping track of it all.

The advantage would be you could still race your friends, grudge matches and as we all know skaters go faster when someone in the next lane. It's instinctive. Also, as I see it, a Jam session (as JG labelled it,) works best with a BIG, WIDE OPEN giant slalom. Something you can sink your teeth into. So duals would require a BIG STREET, like a four lane road with a median. Very hard to get permits for something like that.

Again, I agree with TK that what I'm suggesting is probably single-lane racing. With the right computers and timing system, though, to automate keeping everyone's times and calculating the averages, duals would work. It would just take a big hill, a big street and a time keeper with the patience of Job.

Like I said: someday . . . maybe not today

By the way, does this still apply to the Double Standard? Don't want to stray too far from whatever JG was talking about originally back in October!!

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Sun Jul 20, 2003 4:49 am

It still applies to the double standard...mostly because I want to see some alternative that allows people more racing- Particularly more racing for the guys who need and would appreciate the experience the most.

I'm sure Jani Soderhall would rather put down 2 fast runs and sit out the rest of the day watching people trying to break his time.

Later Simon Levine would cruise up in a Jag, lay down a a perfect run while smoking a stoogie and then kick back until Soderhall- takes a little sand out of his sandbags and drops the time further.

Hypothetically if this was done at G3 I could have stayed in bed until later- wandered out- laid down a fast run and prayed ..It ain't over until its over.

One thing I think is cool is that the cone marshalls would get compensated. Newbies truly "pay their dues" and get free coaching in return.

Want to make it a little more interesting? You could tip the cone marshalls according to the number of cones hit. $1 per cone. (McCree would be making change for everyone while laughing).

I figure a day of racing might cost you $20 if you were really good and say $60 if you weren't all that good. It is almost a sliding entry fee system....so winners likely would win a higher multiple of their entry fee than normal.

Put the timing table at the bottom and run a reset cable to the top. When you get to the bottom you wait by the table and record the time of the next racer that goes through- racers aren't recording their own times.

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Sun Jul 20, 2003 5:30 am

Furthermore with the jam style format there is not a defined racers order. All the slalom courses get utilized as much as possible.

So let's say we had a race at Troy's spot in the Hamptons.

Here three hills are adjacent to each other- all courses could begin at the same intersection. All races Begin and stop at the same time...this way there are no long lines...no waiting for runs.

Now you start racing. Noah sets fast times on all three courses on three separate optimized decks. Then Noah and Vlad start battling it out on the TS course. UR13 sits back and starts looking at their times letting them do all his research on wheel durometers, steering angles and wheelbases for him- waiting for road temperatures to drop. Ur13 goes in fresh at the end and posts the fastest time on the TS. It is the only event he cares about winning- his focus pays off- for the rest of the day no one can break his time.

TK quietly puts in a faster GS run on a yet unavailable Roe Prototype he has hidden in his car until the right moment in the end he gets 2nd in the GS. Vlad panics and sees UR13's low TS time- drops the GS course and runs to post a fast TS time, Power screwdriver in hand on line as he strips his PVD's off his GS deck.

Wesley then sets a fast time on the Parallel/cyber slalom. Vlad freaks- frantically tries to remount his single set of PVD's again. Micheal Dong is already there taking runs..Dongs times are dropping.

Noah massages out his cramps and then rushes to put in a good run in the tight slalom gets 2nd.

Vlad tells Victoria to put on a more revealing outfit and distract Dong while Vlad uses a special pushing technique. Vlad just barely clinches the cyber slalom. Meanwhile pro sandbagger extraordinaire, Mark McCree, puts down a blistering GS run and wins the GS while everyone's attention is over at the cyber slalom. Experience counts...see?

I show up too late to enter , but beg for a run anyway and try to convince a flag girl that I could have won. Chaput is left with one dollar short for his cab ride to the airport once again explaining to the cabbie..."If I had only hit one less cone."

3 events in one day- with some time left over.

(BTW this "non ordered format" worked well at WLAC Nov 2000- it wasn't a pure jam format- but you got two runs in on each course- also 3 adjacent hills)

[ This Message was edited by: John Gilmour on 2003-07-19 23:39 ]

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Sun Jul 20, 2003 5:42 am

Meanwhile, Tway and Parsons show up (they're late after waiting two hours for WesE to get out of the bathroom,) and take a quick look at the situation.

"Naw, man," they both agree, "this is way too much for us. Let's go somewhere and drink heavily!"

Eddy Martinez · Post by **Eddy Martinez** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:46 pm

When competing in a Grassroots event who exactly am I competing against? A mixture of Pros and Amatures. I understand that I must pay my dues. My goal this year is to gain experience and not to D/Q. Should Grassroots events have an Open Class for up and coming racers. Only because some of the Pros cannot make to every FCR event and choose to race in a local grassroots event. Eddy Texas Outlaw.

Hans Koraeus · Post by **Hans Koraeus** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 1:26 pm

Wes,

The jam format is what they are using and have been using since last year on the weekly competitions in Stockholm. It works perfect for mixing newbies and more experienced riders. 2 best times per rider are added together for the final result. Take as many rides as you want.

Hans Koraeus · Post by **Hans Koraeus** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 1:35 pm

The jam format could work in parallel courses as well. You ride against someone else for the racing feeling but it's your personal time that counts. Final result is your best time in "red" course + best time in "white" course.

It does demand some things to make it run smoothly. That's why the 161-guys in Stockholm has invented their specific timer program for this delicat purpose.

Hans Koraeus · Post by **Hans Koraeus** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 3:47 pm

Another race idea.
_______________________________
- Part 1 Filtering
Divide everybody into groups of 8 depending on their skills. Every group gets like 40 minutes. If you manage to shoot off a race every 2.5 minutes you will get 4 races per skater. Best time in red course and white course are added.

- Part 2 Finalizing
You regroup riders according to the results from the part 1 filtering (1-8,9-16,...).
Now let each group do a normal head to head race. This will take 40 minutes per head to head block. Depending on time you can limit how many groups that will do the part 2.

_________________________________
- Part 1 Filtering
The advantage is that you might be able to even set up a time schedule when you are supposed to skate. When you skate you do it intensly instead of running around not knowing when it's your turn. By running groups of 8 you can be sure racers are ready and in place.

- Part 2 Finalizing
The advantage is that everybody can get the feeling of tight head to head racing. Even if you are place 29. Then you will race for places 25-32 with racers close to your own skill. Depending on chance some will get the feeling of racing as favorite (place 1,9,17,25,...) or as underdog (place 8,16,24,32,...).
________________________________
32 skaters will take 5h 20min (40min x 4)+(40min x 4)*
minimum 6 races per skater (4+2)
maximum 10 races per skater (4+6)

[ This Message was edited by: Hans Koraeus on 2003-07-29 04:02 ]

Hans Koraeus · Post by **Hans Koraeus** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 3:48 pm

...delete this post...

[ This Message was edited by: Hans Koraeus on 2003-07-29 04:04 ]

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 5:56 am

We ran a "double jeopardy" ladder at our race on 7/27/2003.

We had 2 qualifying runs which seeded the 24 racers into the 24 spots in the ladder.

Racers had 2 runs for each final round.

In total:

24 racers X (2 Qual runs + 6 final runs) = 192 runs.

We started about 11:00 and were done by 2pm.

The ladder bracket was a success: It allowed everyone to race until the end, and the final races were for final placings.

I think we are on to something good here.

-- Pat

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

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