Start methods

Timing System

Moderator: Jani Soderhall

Post Reply
Gary Fluitt
asphaltplayground.com
asphaltplayground.com
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Colorado, USA
Contact:

Start methods

Post by Gary Fluitt » Mon May 03, 2004 7:26 pm

Snagged this most excellent summary from the other site. Thanks Pat.
Pat Chewning wrote:Great discussion about starting techniques:

What I learned:

There are several ways to "force" a simultaneous start. Here they are in order of "most forceful" to "least forceful":

1) A physical restraint that holds the racer in place, prevents him from starting too soon, and actually propels him down the course at the right time. (Forces racers to start neither too early or too late. Does not exist yet?)

2) A physical restraint that holds the racer in place, prevents him from starting too soon. (Gate or rope that drops away. Allows late starts but not early starts.)

3) A "surprise" common-start signal that is not preceded by a count-down cadence. Racers who precede this signal by any amount are DQ'd. (All racers start after the tone, the amount is determined by their skill and quickness in reacting to the tone)

4) A common-start signal that is precede by count-down tones. Racers who precede this signal are penalized a time proportional to their early-start amount. Racers who start after the tone are naturally penalized by the fact that the clock is running and they are not.

5) A start signal that has no meaning other than the timer is armed and the race is ready to be timed. Each racer individually starts his own lane timer by passing over a start switch. Racers are free to start whenever they want.

- Methods 1 and 2 are risky to the racers, involve complicated mechanical devices, and cost more.

- Method 3 has been historically rejected for slalom racing (why I don't know), and results in DQ's which might detract from the race experience. However, it does have enough merit that I will include such an option (non-cadence start tone) in future releases of the Chronocone timing system.

- Method 4 is what I proposed (So it must be the best, right?) Actually it seemed to me that it was good compromise for "encouraging" racers to start at the tone, eliminating undesireable DQ's, and being easy for race organizers to implement.

- Method 5 is like 2 independant courses. It is actually the method we use for most of our Cascade GRS races -- which are more "informal" and "friendly" than the big dog-eat-dog races. Also, this is a good start technique for push-starting.

Of these 5 methods, I prefer methods 3 and 4 because they do not result in excessive number of DQ's, are not risky to the racer, do not involve a lot of costly mechanisms, and force the racer to start at the GO tone. Not as forcefully as methods 1 and 2; but a good compromise of forcefulness and ease of implementation by the race organizer.

I agree with Chris: Most races involve enough variables (of cone counts, start imprecision, non-duplicate course lengths and difficulty, run1 vs run 2 variances) to make it difficult to have a "first across the finish line wins" scenario.

I agree with Michael: Even with all these difficulties, we should strive for the ideal of "first across the finish line wins".

I believe that start methods 1-4 above help achieve this ideal (in varying degrees).

-- Pat Chewning

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 May 04, 2004 12:22 am

Method 3 has been historically rejected for slalom racing (why I don't know)
I also like this one. I think this is the most fair way. Otherwise the one who is most used to the countdown have an advantage. And it's easy to DQ when trying to hit the perfect start. When using a surprise signal you shouldn't go until the signal so "theoretically" no DQ's possible.

I like the false start detection that will be used in Paris. No obstacle used. Only a start strip that detects false start if run over before start signal is made.

John Gilmour
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

Window size for a suprise start

Post by John Gilmour » Wed May 05, 2004 6:37 pm

The "suprise start" is likely one of hte fairer starts as it does not allow anticipation. For a true surprise start racers should be told the start signal will chime at anytime within the next ten seconds.

Ten seconds is arbitrary. But I chose it for a reason.

If you tell racers that the start signal will go within say 2 seconds and they start counting....they are likely to begin to start moving at about 1.5 seconds into the count down knowing that since they haven't heard the start signal yet. it will come in .5 seconds. So if the start chime doesn't happen immediately...the time is still too short to not allow the racers to anticipate the start.

So the time has to be large enough so that the accuracy of the racer counting and the likelyhood of the start occuring near the end of the possible chime window are both small. Then I beleive the racers are likely to react to the chime instead of attempting to anticipate it.

But again- let's say in this scenario that the winner of the start wins more than 90% of the time ....is this too much weight on the start?
One good turn deserves another
john gilmour

Matthew Wilson
Posts: 241
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Lone Tree, CO
Contact:

We are horses!

Post by Matthew Wilson » Wed May 05, 2004 7:14 pm

Hey, isn't this the way that dog races and horse races begin??

But I suppose that track races, swim races, and many other Olympic race-oriented events begin with a single sound-signal where no build up or countdown is provided.

I say don't even let the racers know that there is any amount of seconds.

I think that a race is a race from start to finish. ALL skills are important in winning a race, whether it's against a clock or another person.
Therefore, should the timer begin as a result of the racer's action or the tone that signals the start?

As far as I know, in all head-to-head competitive races, the timer begins when the start signal is initiated. (I guess Super G ski racers don't have control over their timers, though).

I then suppose that the type of timing system can differ depending on the type of race--since there are varying mental mindsets depending on the race type. Head to head races might benefit more from a signal-initiated timing system whereas single course races might be better off incorporating a timer that is invoked by the rider.

I think the ultimate timing system would allow for both modes.

JG wrote: "But again- let's say in this scenario that the winner of the start wins more than 90% of the time ....is this too much weight on the start?"

I say no; that would not indicate that there is too much weight on the start. I think it means that other racers need to develop better starting skills, or top end pumping skills, or better line picking skills. If the above is true then either that racer who is winning by virtue of his/her starts is just really good or the course itself might need to change.
I think that the method of invoking the timer has more of an effect on a racer's ability to be mentally "in" the race than the actual course itself.
I think there would be too much weight put on the start if a race organizer changed the timing system mid-race or even pre-race (after another method was already communicated to the riders).

But this is just my inexperienced opinion ;-)
slalom is good

John Gilmour
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

Re: We are horses!

Post by John Gilmour » Wed May 05, 2004 10:31 pm

Matthew Wilson wrote: I think that a race is a race from start to finish. ALL skills are important in winning a race, whether it's against a clock or another person.
Therefore, should the timer begin as a result of the racer's action or the tone that signals the start?
Matt- the start method proposed uses a small "start window" that teh racers must leave witin in order not to either

A. Get a false start from going too soon before the chime
B. Hang out in the box and get assessed a DNS (did not start).

This makes the racers go on go....and there is no advantage to either jumping the start or lagging the start so long as you leave within that defined "start window". IF the window is small- it will always look like the racers react to the start tone.

If the window is made very large- the skill of starting is obliterated. And Rabbit chasing could start.

I am not proposing the latter.

Given the dynamics of slalom
1. It is mostly an anerobic sport

we can't just extend the course to de-emphasise the start like with motorized sports. I think you would agree that the start in the 100 yard dash is more important than the start in a 15 mile race.

Race promoters have been putting weight on the start in many races. If they shorten the course it increases the value of a good strong start. In MB2002 GS the course had a very offset cone right after the ramp- pulling too hard could result in a DQ.

I don't think we are horses. If we could run as fast and as long as a horse can we would be able to easily deemphasize the start to where it fit as a skill and was not disproportionate to the other skills. I don't think people would be interested in watching a horse race that was as short as a slalom course...... it wouldn't be very exciting......too much emphasis would be weighted on getting a good start.

You'll see horses make their move in the middle of the race, around the far turn, sprinting at the end...or some just staying out in front the whole way. BUT you never know what is going to happen in that kind of race and that is what keeps it exciting until the finish. In a horse race that was only 100 yards long- we wouldn't see these factors come into play at all.

The problem is that slalom racers have trouble doing a lot of cones. 100 cones is a long way. Most people start feeling a lot of fatigue by cone 80. I've done 120 cone courses and frankly they kill explosive power and focus purely on endurance. By the time courses are long enough to balance out the start- Endurance is over weighted. (IMHO 65-75 cones for a tech ts seems to come pretty close, but in GS you may not be able to pump as frequently to reduce the empasis of a start...even if the course is longer in actual length) So what's to do about it?

So we don't have the luxury of many other sports to easily change the dimensions of our sport to emphasize or de-emphasize certain skills.

Why are playing fields laid out the way they are? Because someone put some thought what would make a well balanced game. People take a look at human limits and then try to make rules that introduce some Uncertainty to make it interesting. You try to equalize certain factors. If you too heavily weight a factor it can get boring.

Let's look at Bowling.
Is it too easy to get a strike?
Are competitions just waiting games until someone misses a strike?

Why is tennis more interesting to watch and compete in than bowling? Well...I know there is women's tennis and those skimpy outfits for one.....

I'm just trying to deweight the start a little to make other skills worth more- and add more skill to racing than have the hole shot guy win 90% of the time in the later rounds.
One good turn deserves another
john gilmour

Matthew Wilson
Posts: 241
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Lone Tree, CO
Contact:

I see your point

Post by Matthew Wilson » Thu May 06, 2004 12:16 am

I get where you're coming from, JG. I completely understand most of the factors taken into consideration in the design of a field or area in which a contest/sport is to take place. However, I am wondering if the start method might not be best determined not so much by the "field" in which slalomers play, but by the fact that what they are doing is racing.

Maybe the question should be: what start method best facilitates good racing, and then change the "field" or course to accomodate the start method.

I guess that leads me back to a previous question I raised-- the question of whether the same start method is appropriate for both single lane, race the clock races and dual, head-to-head races. Not only does it seem that the mentality of a racer differs between both, but also the general approach to such a race changes as a result of the differences in environment.

It seems a bit unrealistic to attribute one start method to A) 2 very different methods of racing [sing lane and dual] and B) the numerous possibilities in course setup.

p.s. I claim to be NO expert here. You certainly have much more experience than I do. So, my thoughts are presented humbly.

Next, please let me know if I appear to be misunderstanding what you are trying to accomplish in this discussion. I'll believe you if you say so, since my wife says I misunderstand most things all of the time anyway ;-)
slalom is good

John Gilmour
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

Post by John Gilmour » Thu May 06, 2004 2:42 am

You pretty much have the idea. Your thoughts on changing the game to fit the start is the first place you would logically think to go to fix the weighting of the start to fit. Weighting the start might seem less "pure" than simply changing the course.

The problem is that we race like a "Sprint" and to do anaerobic sprints of long courses and expect 10 perfect runs to get to the top....well...it is very very hard to do.

No to mention it takes longer to reset the course, takes more space, cone marshalls, ..................................and after a long race where some competitors continue to advance and race many many more cones than others... When the next event of the day happens...will they have any energy left for the lext race? (Note I'm not refering to races with only 1 event per day).

It would seem that deemphasizing the start is the easiest thing to do.

In the lower round races where seeds have huge differences in qualifying times...You might not notice it as much.
Last edited by John Gilmour on Thu May 06, 2004 4:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
One good turn deserves another
john gilmour

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 » Thu May 06, 2004 3:15 am

Maybe the best way would be that the start has no effect at all. I.e each lane is timed independently (method 5). The only thing I don't like with this is that people may take advantage to start after the other racer to have better control over what is happening.

So this is maybe a method 6. A mix of method 3 and 5.

Step 1. There is a "surprise" signal (method 3).
Step 2. From the signal there is a, let's say 0.5 second window for starting.
Step 3. After 0.5 second window your clock starts running weather you want it or not.

If both starts inside this window it's the pure talent in the course that counts. (And maybe start technique getting speed out of the start ramp). Each lane independently. (Method 5)

If you deliberatly try to wait out the other you will start loosing time.

About the distance of courses I don't like when they get so long you can't oversee the whole action from start to finish. Not good for the audience either I think. With the start method above short courses are not a problem. I have to ask Marcus at 161 how difficult it would be to coding a system like that into a timing software.

A techincal skater is normally faster on both the short and long course unless the endourance come into play (80 cones and more). We have the 100 cones discipline for that. Apart from that I don't thing slalom racing should be about endurance but more about technical skill. Fitness is needed anyway beacuse it's a factor in a good technique.

A shorter course (around 40 cones) is also better to administer for organizers. That it takes half the time than a 80 cone course is also good for the competition.

Terry Kirby
Team RoeRacing
Team RoeRacing
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Hampton, NH USA

Post by Terry Kirby » Thu May 06, 2004 3:16 am

[quote="John Gilmour"]

The problem is that we race "Sprint" and to do anaerobic sprints of long courses and expect 10 perfect runs to get to teh top....well...it is very very hard to do.


It would seem that deemphasizing the start is the easiest thing to do.

John, ITS SUPPOSED TO BE HARD TO DO>>>ITS A COMPETITIVE SPORT
The common start is stressful???GOOD ,ITS SUPPOSED TO BE STRESSFUL

10 runs tough on the old legs..GOOD < ITS SUPPOSED TO BE TOUGH ON THE LEGS!!!

How bout rewarding the racer who TRAINED THE HARDEST

Stop trying to make it easier on the racers . iT SHOULD BE DIFFICULT.
I might as well tave up golf....Cart Please

Terry Kirby
Team RoeRacing
Team RoeRacing
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Hampton, NH USA

Post by Terry Kirby » Thu May 06, 2004 3:24 am

How bout this.
A guy asks you "racer ready?"
If you are indeed ready you say YES.
The the guy asks the other guy youre racing the same thing.
He thinks for a second and say YES

At this point you should feel a slight twinge, thats pride fuckin wif you..no wait its not pride its just butterflies.

You listen real hard.

Then, he goes THREE TWO ONE GO!

As soon as you hear GO you go boy. You pull outta that gate or start pushing or do whatever you have to do to get the jump on that son of a bitch in the next lane.

If you win you get to do it again. If you lose you get to go sit down and bitch about how you got a crappy start and the other guy got a good start and how he always gets a good start and thats how come he always wins.

Matthew Wilson
Posts: 241
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Lone Tree, CO
Contact:

Post by Matthew Wilson » Thu May 06, 2004 3:43 am

terry kirby wrote:
John Gilmour wrote:
The problem is that we race "Sprint" and to do anaerobic sprints of long courses and expect 10 perfect runs to get to teh top....well...it is very very hard to do.


It would seem that deemphasizing the start is the easiest thing to do.

John, ITS SUPPOSED TO BE HARD TO DO>>>ITS A COMPETITIVE SPORT
The common start is stressful???GOOD ,ITS SUPPOSED TO BE STRESSFUL

10 runs tough on the old legs..GOOD < ITS SUPPOSED TO BE TOUGH ON THE LEGS!!!

How bout rewarding the racer who TRAINED THE HARDEST

Stop trying to make it easier on the racers . iT SHOULD BE DIFFICULT.
I might as well tave up golf....Cart Please
I AM WITH TK on this one. I think we are not putting weight on the start, we are just over complicating it. If we are comparing this to a sprint, then just have this start method:

"racers ready!"
GUN FIRES and timer starts.

Let's not turn the sport into something more complicated than it is. IT'S RACING. And maybe I'm missing something, but I see it as taking on 2 shapes:
1) A racer goes against the clock. This to me is the "thinkers race". You can see what others have done before you, you can gauge your strategy, you can have some predetermined method to your madness (i.e. whether to criddle that tricky offset or not).
The race is determined strictly by the numbers. In this case there is no need for any auto-initiated timer. The racer can think out his/her strategy then go when ready and start the clock upon by their own volition.

2) Dual, head-to-head, racing. This is the "instinctual" race. A racer must instiinctually determine their strategies at various points in the course. If you hear your opponent kicking cones left and right, and you have only hit 1 you can adjust your speed mid-course to make that last stinger because you know that the penalties that will be imposed on your opponent will prevent them from winning. Also, there is alot more pressure because you have less time to think. And finally, there is a mixed crowd: people rooting for oyu and agianst you at the same time. In a single lane race the only people not rooting for you are those who have better times than you. As far as timing goes:
"racers ready!"
Gun shoots, timer starts.

If not that type of time method then what's the point of head-to-head??

TK is on the money. This isn't meant to be easy. And I think that the type of timing method is only trully "weighted" when the method determined is one that changes the very nature of slalom's fundemental roots in RACING.

Oh, and I really am for the GUN in head-to-head. I think the gun shot is very poignant and short. It doesn't resonate like a beep but has this effect of getting your keester going more quickly.
slalom is good

Jack Quarantillo
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 3:15 am
Location: G'burg, MD, USA
Contact:

Post by Jack Quarantillo » Thu May 06, 2004 4:03 am

My humble vote...

Left Racer Ready?
(yes)
Right Racer Ready?
(yes)

Random beep/shot whatever.

Timer starts, racers go (if they choose to.)

False start DQs. (or has proportional penalty)

If you wanna chase rabbits, you gotta pay the price.

No closing to the "window"... too complicated.
When the window opens, you go (assuming you choose to, and know what you are up to if you don't).
If you go before the window opens you gotta pay...

Q

John Gilmour
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

Post by John Gilmour » Thu May 06, 2004 4:37 am

Matthew Wilson wrote: Oh, and I really am for the GUN in head-to-head. I think the gun shot is very poignant and short. It doesn't resonate like a beep but has this effect of getting your keester going more quickly.
I think using guns at the start though effective, really puts too much emphasis on the racer who reacts quicker.

Besides- it would slow things down everytime Keith raced and we had to clear away the remains of other guy. Blood on pavement can be slippery.

But it would add the gore of auto racing.
Hans Koraeus wrote: Maybe the best way would be that the start has no effect at all. I.e each lane is timed independently (method 5). The only thing I don't like with this is that people may take advantage to start after the other racer to have better control over what is happening.

So this is maybe a method 6. A mix of method 3 and 5.

Step 1. There is a "surprise" signal (method 3).
Step 2. From the signal there is a, let's say 0.5 second window for starting.
Step 3. After 0.5 second window your clock starts running whether you want it or not.

If both starts inside this window it's the pure talent in the course that counts. (And maybe start technique getting speed out of the start ramp). Each lane independently. (Method 5)

If you deliberatly try to wait out the other you will start loosing time.
I think we are getting to a good compromise.

If reaction time (for in this example it truly is reaction time....not anticipation) is really to be a factor we could shorten the window- and thus those who did not react within that window would still be standing in the gate. I think .5 seconds would eliminate the reaction time factor almost entirely for the great majority of the racers. IF this window was .3 seconds or less we would still see poor reaction times penalized- and likely the best starts rewarded. I think we have an idea of how close people are to anticipation times...but I don't know what the reaction times are for the racers.

If peoples anticipation times have a range of about .5 seconds- I think this reaction time method would be an improvement if the range of reaction times is less than people's range of anticipation times. IF they are actually larger.....in RANGE then this would not be as good of a result. We are looking for the range of times to hit the 1st pressure strip/false start strip.

The only advantage of reducing the "start window" is to try and make the racers leave as close together as possible.

Either way I see no reason why Hans' idea would not deemphasize the start and give more weight to skateboard skills. I also think it would make racing more enjoyable for 1st time racers. And also Hans' idea does not affect the power with which the racer pulls from the gates, or the ability to pump the transition, or the ability to pump to the first cone.
One good turn deserves another
john gilmour

Terry Kirby
Team RoeRacing
Team RoeRacing
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Hampton, NH USA

Post by Terry Kirby » Thu May 06, 2004 5:02 am

Matthew Wilson wrote:If reaction time (for in this example it truly is reaction time....not anticipation) is really to be a factor we could shorten the window- and thus those who did not react within that window would still be standing in the gate. I think .5 seconds would eliminate the reaction time factor almost entirely for the great majority of the racers. IF this window was .3 seconds or less we would still see poor reaction times penalized- and likely the best starts rewarded. I think we have an idea of how close people are to anticipation times...but I don't know what the reaction times are for the racers.

If peoples anticipation times have a range of about .5 seconds- I think this reaction time method would be an improvement if the range of reaction times is less than people's range of anticipation times. IF they are actually larger.....in RANGE then this would not be as good of a result. We are looking for the range of times to hit the 1st pressure strip/false start strip.
You have got to be kidding me. Reaction times, anticipation times???

You are making this wayyyy to complicated and I am starting to develop a low grade head ache.

John Gilmour
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

Post by John Gilmour » Thu May 06, 2004 5:21 am

TK I thought you were so tough that a headache just made you faster.
IF you want headache- try reading through this.

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/reactiontime.html

"* Expected: the driver is alert and aware of the good possibility that braking will be necessary. This is the absolute best reaction time possible. The best estimate is 0.7 second. Of this, 0.5 is perception and 0.2 is movement, the time required to release the accelerator and to depress the brake pedal."
One good turn deserves another
john gilmour

Terry Kirby
Team RoeRacing
Team RoeRacing
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Hampton, NH USA

Post by Terry Kirby » Fri May 07, 2004 2:46 am

Simple is always better.

John Gilmour
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

Post by John Gilmour » Fri May 07, 2004 6:44 am

IF that was true I'd drive a corolla
so sell me back my PVD's
One good turn deserves another
john gilmour

Terry Kirby
Team RoeRacing
Team RoeRacing
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Hampton, NH USA

Post by Terry Kirby » Fri May 07, 2004 2:59 pm

If you drove a Corolla you'd be able to afford to buy back your PVD's.

John Gilmour
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

Post by John Gilmour » Sat May 08, 2004 3:47 am

If I drove a Corolla I'd slit my wrists. What's next? Dating Kelly Osbourne? I'll have to go and get some Dockers and Old Navy shirts to round it all out.

Now if you can think of a way to deemphasize the start without using a "start window" that would be something good.

I don't WANT to know who will likely win within .03 seconds after the start. I'd rather wait until at least half of the course to start placing my bets. And I would like wins to be repeatable. So if racers run head to head for two runs...and later were to do the same thing...I'd like to think it reasonable expect the results would be the same AT LEAST 2/3 of the time. If it was a crapshoot as to who got the better start...what kind of ranking is that?

For instance in MB 2003 TS
I want to know that if Kenny and Luca took a few more pairs of runs- Luca would beat Kenny by roughly the same amount. Kenny should beat Dong by roughly the same amount. Dong should beat me by roughly the same amount. (Given that we are on the same course using the same gear). Not everytime is required but certainly significantly more than a random 50/50.

I don't think asking for significantly more than a random 50/50 is too much to ask.
One good turn deserves another
john gilmour

Terry Kirby
Team RoeRacing
Team RoeRacing
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Hampton, NH USA

Post by Terry Kirby » Sat May 08, 2004 2:04 pm

John we could go round and round with this and we'll never agree.
You want a sterile race enviroment where everything is predictable, you never get winded, you could show up 3 hours late for the race and still make your start window, upsets never happen, and guess what...THE SAME GUY WINS EVERY TIME....BOOOORRRRRRRIIINNNG. I'd RATHER date Kelly Osborn than waste my time and money on a predictable outcome and boring competition.

Here is the JG perfect race.... Show up 3 hours late.
Say hi to the Pom Pom Girls and Media
Get Dressed in race outfit
Take an unlimited push Run,hit tons of cones.
Take official Run with unlimited push towed in by a Hooters girl riding a Ninja.
Win with said run.
Recieve check and Bowl.

"you guys hear? Gilmour won again, Really, he won the last 4 races too, did he use the Ninja? Yep....Lame"

John Gilmour
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

Post by John Gilmour » Mon May 10, 2004 5:19 am

I just want a fair racing environment. A Ninja? That would be weighting the start.
If I didn't want slalom to be fair- I'd opt for the Ninja.

If you don't want the pom pom girls and Hooters girls- then slalom is gay.

What if having a fast bearings was 90% of winning and the fastest bearings cost $1000 each? Would we want to demphasize the effect on fast bearings?

What if having big arms was 90% of winning and a strong pump and good skating skills weren't as important? I think that no single skill should so heavily outweigh the others so that any single skill was 90% of winning when it comes down to closely seeded racers.

Your mind is really open when it comes to gear- why not this?
One good turn deserves another
john gilmour

Terry Kirby
Team RoeRacing
Team RoeRacing
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Hampton, NH USA

Post by Terry Kirby » Mon May 10, 2004 2:40 pm

Pumping is a skillset.
Timing is a skillset
Strength is something anyone can work on.
Endurance also attainable.
Equipment, Luca showed how much that mattered IF your other tools are sharp.
Starting is a skill set
Foot Draging is a skillset.
If your start sucks, improve it.

These are all parts of racing. A good racer races any kind of start and does it well.
Lets talk about foot dragging courses for a while. This is getting tired.

Terry Kirby
Team RoeRacing
Team RoeRacing
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Hampton, NH USA

Post by Terry Kirby » Mon May 10, 2004 2:46 pm

Why not this, heres why. Because doing it your way would be a major pain in the ass for all the grass roots race organisors who would now have to re do their timing and start methods . If common start racing is so bad why havnt the DC guys all got together to bitch at Parsons?
Why didnt all the teams like Fat City, Black Leather, Turner, Ick and so forth band up and REFUSE to race the common start because it was so unfair.
Why didnt you rig up a new system for the 4th races so we could race the independent start and not common?
I'll tell you why because it would of been a pain in the ass and the common start method worked fine.
Theres other things to change in slalom before we get to the start.

John Gilmour
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

Post by John Gilmour » Mon May 10, 2004 3:50 pm

For grass roots racing IMHO the racers are so far apart in skill that the starts have much less influence on the outcome. There is absolutely zero need for a deemphasized start for skaters who are racing seconds apart as opposed to hundreths.

At the Newbie and intermediate level I think it is fair to say that pumping and cone skills are not overpowered by the start.

I'm happy with my starting skills but I don't feel other racers should have to attend several races just to wire a start if they are already skilled. With airfares and travel as expensive as it is- you might have to drop over $3,000 before you've had enough gate start experience to be competitive. (not to mention hanging yourself on a few gates along the way- even if your starts are good...(take a look at your chin in the mirror) - my scars are gone now.

Both Keith Hollien and Vlad Popov are good racers- but both had to attend several races until they were able to adapt to the start. You and I are already used to the start ramps- so why should I argue?

Mostly because I think it is discouraging for racers entering the circuit- and at a time when we need more growth I think we should be trying to encourage new racers to enter. I also feel we should allow local racers a "first race free" entry to local races.

To practice at home for several months or years- compare your times favorably to cyber slalom times, and then to come out and race and loose to someone you feel you are faster than (except the other guy has more gate experience) is a bummer once you've spent $800 in travel costs. And have to sit it out for the rest of the day after only 2 runs.

I remember you were that racer once... I remember - clearly, that you were discouraged (mostly about your starts) after Morro Bay. Not everyone gets into things as deeply or committed as you do. So not to have it like hazing - (I had to do it why shouldn't they?).

It wasn't so long ago.
One good turn deserves another
john gilmour

Terry Kirby
Team RoeRacing
Team RoeRacing
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Hampton, NH USA

Post by Terry Kirby » Mon May 10, 2004 4:53 pm

Now you are narrowing it it down even more.
Ramp Starts, non Grass roots, new Racers etc.

Let me say this. Even if there is an independant start at these races you specified, the new racer (me) will still get smoked(50 something at La Costa).

Why you ask? Because its not the fact that the new racers timing is off by .05 nor is it the common start or the beeps.

ITS THE RAMPS!!!! I don;t care if I had a 2 sec window my starts still would have sucked because I never pulled out of a ramp. Plain and simple. We have gotton to the core and heart and soul of this quandry.

Its those damn ramps that are so unfair. True True True.
I dare you to deny it.

BTW, When I cracked my chin on the start gate and put myself on queer street for 10 sec. I still won the race. I had so much adrenaline up in those ramps it over rode the knock out sensation.. That was exciting no?

Terry Kirby
Team RoeRacing
Team RoeRacing
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Hampton, NH USA

Post by Terry Kirby » Mon May 10, 2004 5:02 pm

cyber slalom times have nothing to do with the race enviroment.
cyber slalom is a drill.

John Gilmour
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

Post by John Gilmour » Mon May 10, 2004 11:36 pm

Ramps are difficult if you haven't skated vert before, though I thought your surfing experience might have helped with that. The more practiced you are with a ramp- the more proficient you are at it- but I think once you get used to taking off of the platform...it's pretty much the same for all the other ramps. Even so the starts still vary...even if you are completely used to the ramps.

I personally don't find it hard to adapt to different ramps- though the one in Japan was unusual as it lacked a start platform...and was made for riders under 120 lbs.

I agree that cyber is only a drill- but at the moment it is the only comparitive baseline anyone has at this point. A good canned course would be more helpful.

IMHO I thought it was rad that you got cut and still won.I got hung racing on Sunday at Breck and lost. Others have been hung- and while its pretty funny- to see it ...until you do it once you don't want to do it . Once hung- you know to stay in the start platform a little longer.
One good turn deserves another
john gilmour

Terry Kirby
Team RoeRacing
Team RoeRacing
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Hampton, NH USA

Post by Terry Kirby » Tue May 11, 2004 3:03 am

Just admit it, its the ramps that freak out new racers. All this talk about starts and its been the ramps all along. Just ask any new racer if it was the ramps or the common start that hurt them. I did and they ALL said it was the ramp not the start. Ask them , go ahead. Then come back and say "Terry, you were right, I was barking up the wrong tree with all this common start nonsense, you are wise beyond your age" Ask Ilva, ask Vlad, Ask me, Ask Stepanek, Ask Tway, never mind ,dont ask Tway, Ask Hollien. Ask away and find the truth because right now only YOU think its the start method.

PS , Surfing has as much to do with pulling down a start ramp as go cart racing does.

Vlad Popov
Moscow-Washington
Moscow-Washington
Posts: 1543
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contact:

Post by Vlad Popov » Tue May 11, 2004 3:24 am

How funny.
If you move this drama to Random Topics, it'll get more attention.

WV independent timing worked well and many people seemed to like it. The DC timer has this option. All that's missing is an extra pressure strip. There's probably no interest, as the current system works well.

TK, it's the gates that killed me, not the ramp. I like ramp starts better then push starts. And it's true, if I can't make up .5 seconds on the course that I lost in the gates, it's not worth the trip. Edit: because of the "equal opportunity" course, not because of the gates. The rules are different everywhere you go. The IV Gathering races had different rules and different starts.


I'm getting in my Corola and going shopping...to Old Navy!
______________________
One good start deserves another

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

Post by Wesley Tucker » Tue May 11, 2004 3:50 am

I love racing. I love all kinds of racing:

Foot racing
Marathon racing
Swim racing
Relay racing
Horse racing
Harness racing
Dog racing
Dog sled racing
Bicycle racing
Bi-athlon racing
Ironman racing
Drag racing
Open-wheeled racing
NASCAR racing
Prototype racing
Swamp buggy racing
Motorcycle racing
Side-car motorcycle racing
Sports car racing
Powerboat racing
Limited airplane racing
Unlimited airplane racing
Balloon racing
Blimp racing
Sailboat racing
Crew racing
Kayak racing
Ski racing
Snowboard racing
Downhill skateboard racing
Slalom skateboard racing
Lumberjack racing
Hey, I even watch the races on IRON CHEF now and then to see how fast those guys can whip up a souflee'.

In all the racing I have watched, experienced, competed, read about, seen on TV or pretended to understand I have never, ever heard anyone in anyway discount or minimize the importance of the START. Whether its out of the gate, off the stand, out of the paddock, getting the green light, getting the pole position or running like an SOB at Le Mans, the start means EVERYTHING.

Until John Gilmour came along. He's the first guy I have ever come across who races and for some strange reason wants to discount and minimize the start, start techniques and the first split second of a race.

But, you see, only I know the real reason for John's position. See, I kicked his ass SO BAD at Folly Beach ON THE START and he's been stewing about it ever since! Sure, he won the race, but that searing image of me five cones down the course while he was still standing in the box has burned on his brain to the point of dementia. So now here it is two years later and what's Gilmour's solution to his MISERABLE start that humid day on the beach so long ago?

He argues we need to change the rules.

Sure. That'll happen.

Terry Kirby
Team RoeRacing
Team RoeRacing
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Hampton, NH USA

Post by Terry Kirby » Tue May 11, 2004 4:47 am

Right Vladi, it was the GATES and the COURSES that got you NOT the COMMON START....Put that in your hooka and smoke it Mr Gilmour.

ps gates are part of the FCR ramps so technically it was the ramps but you made my point just fine. Thanks Vlad

PPS Go ahead and ask for a independent timed start at a lumberjack race and see how fast you get an ass whoopin.

Jack Quarantillo
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 3:15 am
Location: G'burg, MD, USA
Contact:

Post by Jack Quarantillo » Tue May 11, 2004 5:48 am

Wes T,
You left out Submarine Races ;)
(are you close enough to the coast in SC to have Submarine Races?)

Q

Brady Mitchell
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Hollywood Hills, Florida

Post by Brady Mitchell » Tue May 11, 2004 3:08 pm

As I see it, from the beginnings of this discussion on NCDSA, to it`s corrent status here on SS.com, it seems to me that this proposal of Pat`s was for a better start. It seemed to impart that it would be better for Pro type races. No?

As for grass roots, you probably don`t even need a timer. Yell GO and see who crosses first. But a timer would help an indivisual learn what or how his or her skills improved. An adjustment here, another there, and now you`re running a faster time consistantly.

My impression of what JG is proposing....take the emphasis off of the start. And I agree with TK, Why ? Or take the ramp out of the equation.

Actually, I`d like to see a universal ramp design, that can be constructed at a reasonable cost, maybe have it in a printable blueprint format, that even a non skater/carpenter can interpret and build.

Hester`s ramps had that metal brace, 66`s looked alittle flimsy, but Ricky`s ramp looked the closest to a do-able, all wood, easy to build ramp.


LET`S KEEP the #3 option and make the ramps uniform. Now how simple and fairer can you get?

I vote...

random start
no gates
common start
separate false start
no start window
uniform ramps

Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS)
Got ants?

Vlad Popov
Moscow-Washington
Moscow-Washington
Posts: 1543
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contact:

Post by Vlad Popov » Wed May 12, 2004 6:57 pm

I'm not taking sides in this. It'd be much better if everyone had universal rules. But even with ISSA, the ramps were different everywhere.

See what you did, TK. John is gone. It's just sad.

Terry Kirby
Team RoeRacing
Team RoeRacing
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Hampton, NH USA

Post by Terry Kirby » Thu May 13, 2004 1:19 am

"See what you did, TK. John is gone. It's just sad."

True, but Brady is here.

Post Reply