[2007] Paris Slalom World Cup 2007, May 26-28, 2007

Guillaume Saint-Criq · Post by **Guillaume Saint-Criq** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:03 pm

hi Claude

For travelling from Paris to Hannover, there is a low cost company (TUIFLY) which fly from Paris Orly to Hannover, for very cheap prices.

Happy to see you again this year.

Tyler Hager · Post by **Tyler Hager** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:40 am

This will be my first time coming to this race, but not my first time in Europe.

To say I'm stoked doesn't even begin to capture it.

I'll see you cats in May.

Claude Regnier · Post by **Claude Regnier** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:07 am

Just wondering if the Paris event this year will due away with the false starts and change to the added penalty for the races?

It's too late. The tickets are already purchasd but it would still be nice to know what the plan is.

Karl Floitgraf · Post by **Karl Floitgraf** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:42 am

Claude Regnier wrote:Just wondering if the Paris event this year will due away with the false starts and change to the added penalty for the races?

It's too late. The tickets are already purchasd but it would still be nice to know what the plan is.

Yeah somebody needs to take that DAMN FOGHORN away from the timing tent. It was lame in brixlegg.

Donald Campbell · Post by **Donald Campbell** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:37 am

mmmmhhhhhh foghorns

Ramón Königshausen · Post by **Ramón Königshausen** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:57 pm

What was wrong? The only thing I can remember that wasn't proper was that sometimes you couldn't hear the beeps due to the wind stroking past the speakers!

rmn

Claude Regnier · Post by **Claude Regnier** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:24 pm

My question has nothing to do with the use of the Foghorn.

It has to use with unnecessary delays in racing. If Europe switches to the false start penalty adapted at most races in North America it is simply better for the racers and the audience.

Time after time, we have had to watch restarts of racer. There are times when we've seen restart after restart in a round, in several heats. This is not entertaining in the least. Let the racers go and as usual the commentary follows with "Oh that was an early start. We'll have to see what the time penalty will at the end" rather then the Foghorn or whatever to slow things down and bring everybody back to the starting gates. Sometimes it's as long as, a minute or two. Calculate that into the endless possibilities of false starts.

I'm sure this will be the system used at the Worlds (Marion?) this year and as we are hoping to have a strong European contingent I would expect that you would like to have time to get used to the system.

The one thing expressed over the years about Slalom is that watching it can be boring. At any event, constant delays are boring and cause people to wonder off and leave. All it takes is a small distraction and some people will move on. This is simply another way to keep things moving along and run an event a little quicker. Think about it. If there we’re 60 (yeah likely more then usual) false starts in a day it would add up to an extra hour. Over a 3 day, event it becomes too much for anyone. Also, having personally attended a lot of races over the last few years there are very few people who like the present system.

Patrick Allan · Post by **Patrick Allan** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:30 pm

I agree with you... We'll talk about amongst ourselves and make a decision quickly...

Chris Barker · Post by **Chris Barker** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:09 pm

Can someone let us know what kind of courses to expect for 2007?
Is straight at 6 meter? Are the special and giant going to be new or
do you run the same painted courses every year?

Thanks.

David Rudnianski · Post by **David Rudnianski** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:14 pm

Chris,

Courses are changed evry year. The are usaly set few days before the race. We use to do a pro tight at 1.80 m and a.m at 2.00meters. Special should be in the same length . The giant Could be set up on the black track up to the red track, in the garden. It's 50 m longer and the slope is bigger with great asphlat. But this is not sure at all.

Chris Barker · Post by **Chris Barker** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:28 pm

Thanks David. So is Pro Tight at 1.8m or 2.0m? In 2005, I thought it would be 1.8, but then I think we ran 2.0. Maybe I am mistaken, but please let us know...

Thanks.

Ramón Königshausen · Post by **Ramón Königshausen** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:46 pm

So you're talking about either discipline Straight AND Special Slalom?

To run both disciplies at 1.80m sounds reasonable for the Trocadéro slope. In the past years we used to do 2m in the Pro category and 2.40m (?) in the Amateurs category. Since I participated in this competition we have never run Straight Slalom tighter than 2m.
If you wanted to succeed you had to use a bigger board and wider wheelbase.

I'm glad we finally got rid of 2m Straight in the Pro category!

rmn

Patrick Allan · Post by **Patrick Allan** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:06 pm

I'm pretty sure last year was 2m for pros and 2m20 for ams

Sorry guys, that's the way it is, Vincent prefers wide gates... j/k

No, seriously, I will peronally see to it that the tight and the special courses be tighter this year for the pros... :niark: We'll have to talk about it amongst ourselves...

And there is also a chance, as David said, that the giant might be set on a slightly longer and steeper hill but with a slightly less smooth pavement, right above the the normal hill next to the gardens...

Ramón Königshausen · Post by **Ramón Königshausen** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:16 pm

I believe I can imagine where it is. When you come down the Trocadéro then you have to turn to the right side, right?

rmn

David Rudnianski · Post by **David Rudnianski** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:03 pm

Sorry all, Patrick is right ( I was thinking about our flat race) Pro are 2 meters.

Chris Barker · Post by **Chris Barker** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:42 pm

I am still confused... So will the Pro straight be 1.8m or 2.0m?

Vincent Berruchon · Post by **Vincent Berruchon** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:42 am

Hi guys,
sorry I don't have much time to check the forums these days.

For the moment, the straight should be as it ever been (off course you bet it hasn't any link with what I could like or not)
Some racers really enjoy to compare their times from one year to another. I think it's not so bad to have this as a standard race but we can think about it if we have some real complaints about 2m/PRO and 2m20/AM and FEM.

The setting of the special and giant slalom will be set before the race. We never use the same course.
Last year, pro special wasn't an easy course with tight parts and wider parts
( http://www.longboard.ch/videos/pswc06_pro_special.mpg ).

Vincent Berruchon · Post by **Vincent Berruchon** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:15 am

About false start penalty we'll put that to the points to discuss.
I can't see some real reasons not to try if it can make thing more simple and quick

If the race director is ok will probably do it this way (to confirm with Jani, depending also of which penalty).

Michael Dong · Post by **Michael Dong** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:06 am

2.0 meters is certainly not tight for a pro level racer. Most would use a GS board for this. Why not make it 1.8m in 2007 and keep this? Looks much cooler for the spectators going at a faster cone rate.

Ramón Königshausen · Post by **Ramón Königshausen** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:38 am

What is going on? Once you've made a compliment about that you finally want set the course at reasonable measures you contradict yourself again?

Michael Dong wrote:2.0 meters is certainly not tight for a pro level racer. Most would use a GS board for this. Why not make it 1.8m in 2007 and keep this? Looks much cooler for the spectators going at a faster cone rate.

Ramón Königshausen wrote:To run both disciplies at 1.80m sounds reasonable for the Trocadéro slope. In the past years we used to do 2m in the Pro category and 2.40m (?) in the Amateurs category. Since I participated in this competition we have never run Straight Slalom tighter than 2m.
If you wanted to succeed you had to use a bigger board and wider wheelbase.

I'm glad we finally got rid of 2m Straight in the Pro category!

rmn

Tyler Hager · Post by **Tyler Hager** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:42 am

I hate to sound like a newb or a pest or anything like that, but for an am's sake, can someone give just a rough estimate on what type of spacing I should be practicing for the TS, Special and Gs? I'd hate to spend all that money and go all the way to Europe just to suck.

Thanks in advance,

T

Karl Floitgraf · Post by **Karl Floitgraf** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:54 am

Tyler Hager wrote: can someone give just a rough estimate on what type of spacing I should be practicing for the TS, Special and Gs?

1.8 meters is 5.9 feet on center
2 meters is 6.5 feet on center
2.2 meters 7.2 feet on center
pesky metric system

I'd hate to spend all that money and go all the way to Europe just to suck.

Yeah that never stoped me before from sucking- haha.

HUYNH BACH SAC Frédéric · Post by **HUYNH BACH SAC Frédéric** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:38 am

6 feet for pros and 7 feet for ams seems cool... bring some brand new shoes !

Vincent Berruchon · Post by **Vincent Berruchon** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:30 am

Ramón Königshausen wrote:What is going on? Once you've made a compliment about that you finally want set the course at reasonable measures you contradict yourself again?

rmn

I don't understand whom and what you say Ramon, but perhaps it has something to do with the facts that some parisians write things here but they never came to any meeting of the organization or anything, or didn't even report anything to us about what you asked here.

so only me, Guillaume Sant-Criq and Jani Soderhall are referents about PSWC.
The email is:
pswc [-at-] riderz -dot- net

The others can give you some good informations about different things, but they talk for their own as long they didn't consult or join the organization committee.

(at least I see we have two people ready to paint some new marks.. great Pat and Fred

)

HUYNH BACH SAC Frédéric · Post by **HUYNH BACH SAC Frédéric** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:15 pm

The things I write are MY opinion ( and not in the name of Riderz ), but I'm sure that the readers are smart enough to see the difference ?!

So I repeat myself : I ( and only I, as an AM competitor ) would like to see 6 feet for the pros and 7 feet for the ams...

Hans Lucas · Post by **Hans Lucas** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:20 pm

I'm sure that some Dutch riders (AMs) would like to see the cone distance for TS on 7 feet / 2,10m. They have great difficulties with 6,5 feet / 2m because of their fast wheels and technique...

But a few are eager to train on 6,5 feet / 2m; I've scared them with the ISSA rule of 1,70m

So now they skate every week, if the weather allows us to...

Later I learned that Paris 2005 was on 2,50 m (AMs). With that distance, they do have a chance.
But of course: you (PWCS!) decide.

HUYNH BACH SAC Frédéric · Post by **HUYNH BACH SAC Frédéric** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:24 pm

Hans Lucas wrote:I'm sure that some Dutch riders (AMs) would like to see the cone distance for TS on 7 feet / 2,10m. They have great difficulties with 6,5 feet / 2m because of their fast wheels and technique...

But a few are eager to train on 6,5 feet / 2m; I've scared them with the ISSA rule of 1,70m So now they skate every week, if the weather allows us to...

Later I learned that Paris 2005 was on 2,50 m (AMs). With that distance, they do have a chance.
But of course: you (PWCS!) decide.

You have to warn them about the "natural speed" of the Trocadéro slope too...

Hans Lucas · Post by **Hans Lucas** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:36 pm

HUYNH BACH SAC Frédéric wrote:You have to warned them about the "natural speed" of the Trocadéro slope too...

I have; they train on much steeper slopes than that...
Anyway; those speed freaks are a lot faster than I am; but still I can finish the 2m track (c-t-c) flawless, hè hè

Anyway, whoever wants to see some Dutch slalom tracks/skaters on video (<2mb, no sound, MOV), just let me know and I'll mail it.
And of course, you may also join us during our training. The next one is scheduled on Sunday April 8 on a pretty steep slope.
See our longboard forum, "Meetings".

Ramón Königshausen · Post by **Ramón Königshausen** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:51 pm

Whatever you all say, one last beg before I can't take you serious anymore:

Please, as several persons in here have proposed, set the PRO Straight Slalom at 1m80cm (5.905 ft). Altough it seems to be 20cm (0.656 ft) less than last year, it indeed is a step forward to a higher and more compeditive level in the Pro category. Not only it tends to make more sense for compeditive reasons but it also looks more impressive.

I don't see any reason why we should stick to those 2m (6.56 ft). Everyone in the Pro category is (or should be) able to make it at 1.80m (5.095 ft).

rmn

Donald Campbell · Post by **Donald Campbell** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:49 pm

interesting story to the cone disctance debate from uncle don:
last years's great western was 6 foot pro and 7 foot am
our hill generated the same feeling when you go down the trocadero.
first some were like"hey that's brutal" or"are you serious about that?"
but after a few runs everybody really liked it and i favour the possibility
to upper the ante at bigger contests anyway.
if you want to go easy,visit some grassroots or smaller fun contests.
bigger contests should demand something from the experienced riders and they should not be seen as a starting point for beginners or just as a touristic attraction.

so bring the 1,80m course for the pros and the 2,00m course for the ams.

and stop this discussion...

Hans Lucas · Post by **Hans Lucas** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:19 pm

Donald Campbell wrote:...
so bring the 1,80m course for the pros and the 2,00m course for the ams.

and stop this discussion...

As I read elsewhere on this forum: GS skaters can always try to make larger curves around the cones to slow down the speed.

I have succesfully experimented with simply mounting smaller wheels for the TS to still make the track without hitting any cones -> this means a slightly slower speed, which works for me. If that doesn't do the job, I have very old and rusty bearings waiting for me...

(Ramón, may I pls borrow some of your old wheels? *LOL* )

After all, I think every decision should be up to the chief organiser, without any discussion by others.
To quote a fanatic Dutch slalom skater: "Don't worry about the contest, go skate and leave the organisation to the organisers!" Whoever has a problem with that, should organise his(/her!) own contest with his/her own rules.

Remember one of the basic rules of "Concrete Wave": Everyone should have fun! I support that; why else skate?

Donald Campbell · Post by **Donald Campbell** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:14 pm

i get your drift hans,but as a matter of fact so many compromises have been made here and there on so many contests that it really gets boring for all the "better" ams f.e. at some point.
going to the course length posted above at least creates some challenge again.
as you may have seen i organized a few contests myself last year and i'm likely to do it this year again.so there is a certain experience coming from my statements.i am also able to reflect the input given to me by riders all across the globe because i'm a good listener.
fact is,that some courses need improvements to create a bigger challenge here and there.
if you think that's too hardcore or whatever for you,then skip it,but let the more experienced riders have their challenge.
the quality of the races and the riders has vastly improved over the last few years.
so the challenges have to be imprroved too,end of discussion.
if you visit a race out of a touristic aspect,please do so,but-on the other hand-respect the demands of the more experienced riders

i,PERSONNALLY,would LIKE to see more CHALLENGE
especially in paris

Patrick Allan · Post by **Patrick Allan** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:27 pm

Vincent Berruchon wrote:
Ramón Königshausen wrote:What is going on? Once you've made a compliment about that you finally want set the course at reasonable measures you contradict yourself again?

rmn
I don't understand whom and what you say Ramon, but perhaps it has something to do with the facts that some parisians write things here but they never came to any meeting of the organization or anything, or didn't even report anything to us about what you asked here.

Maybe it is simply because many people, me included, have given there opinion here stating that they would prefer a tighter course, and that you seem to be ignoring them...

cheers

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:40 pm

Thank's for all your comments. Keep 'em coming, but better be quick. We're about to settle all of the rules of this event, so if you want to propose changes let's hear from you now, no later than in the next few days. But it doesn't help screaming about it, or repeat the same requests over and over again. We do follow this topic and we're listening to every comment.

Once we've heard your comments, we'll make the decision and then the discussion can end.

/Jani

Donald Campbell · Post by **Donald Campbell** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:48 pm

hey jani
that's not screaming for me,that's emphasizing.
i was just wondering if all this might be understood the way it was meant when i read your post.

good suggestions from all sides again
you guys heard the racers...

Vincent Berruchon · Post by **Vincent Berruchon** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:25 pm

Patrick Allan wrote:Maybe it is simply because many people, me included, have given their opinion here stating that they would prefer a tighter course, and that you seem to be ignoring them...

cheers

As I said I have no time to check this forum and nobody talk to me about that - so we just need to discuss about it with the people involved.
But we listen to inputs and enjoy them if they can better the contest.
Jani ever told you.

Ramon: I have a full time work, girlfriend, friends to see, to move from my appartement in the next week, an association and website to run and many other things that don't let me a lot of sleep.
So please propose your good ideas, wait a few days and keep your comments away!
I should say that I'm really fed up with polemics on this forum!

HUYNH BACH SAC Frédéric · Post by **HUYNH BACH SAC Frédéric** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:04 pm

VinZzZ, it is a FORUM, remember ? a place when you can share opinions, feelings, ideas, and so on... ( even if you're not a race organisator... ) !

Ramón Königshausen · Post by **Ramón Königshausen** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:08 pm

Sorry Vinzz I didn't want to put stress onto you but as Donald explained I just wanted to emphasize my point about the cone distance in the Straight Slalom. I've been telling that for so many times to so many organizers and each time it was, almost, the same: They skiped it or didn't care. Therefore we found ourselves at the race site running 2m, sometimes even on a flat surface.
This forum is work in progress. People give bare inputs hoping for elaborate outputs. It's like a brain-storming or having a brainchild that has to be written down immediately if it ought not to be forgotten, or even, never been proposed.
I understand that people have lives outside the slalom scene. Every single one of us has a life out there, away from cones, starting ramps and keyboard-surfing.
That's not the spot I'm pointing at because I have been proposing this single issue for so many times and now it just tends to be postponed again.

Jani Soderhall wrote:But it doesn't help screaming about it, or repeat the same requests over and over again. We do follow this topic and we're listening to every comment.

I explained why I kept repeating the same requests over and over. I'd like to have those things done properly...
And btw. USING CAPITALS means screaming. Frotunatley I'm not that far yet.

I'm not accusing anyone nor do I want to annoy you.

Hans Lucas wrote: (Ramón, may I pls borrow some of your old wheels? *LOL* )

Of course you can

rmn

Guillaume Saint-Criq · Post by **Guillaume Saint-Criq** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:21 pm

Claude Regnier wrote:Just wondering if the Paris event this year will due away with the false starts and change to the added penalty for the races?

can someone from US/Can explain what rule you use for false start?

We try something at our last Pirate Race :

penalty for false start = ABS(negative false start delay) * 5

It s very dissuasive, maybe too much

Chris Barker · Post by **Chris Barker** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:46 pm

Guillaume Saint-Criq wrote:can someone from US/Can explain what rule you use for false start?

We try something at our last Pirate Race :

penalty for false start = ABS(negative false start delay) * 5

It s very dissuasive, maybe too much

I think 5x penalty is too much.
Most races have run with a 2x penalty, but 3x has been used.

3x is more severe, for example, leaving .05 early (which is a pretty close start),
will cost you .15 sec, which could be 1 1/2 cones of penalty in a TS.

Paris 2005 was the only place I attended a race with the "blow the horn and do it over" rule.
It seems to lend itself to a lot of gamesmanship, leaving early on purpose, making the other guy stop, walk back up, and get ready all over again.

If you are going to blow the horn, I think it should be automatic DQ and that heat is over.

Ramón Königshausen · Post by **Ramón Königshausen** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:40 pm

Well, making a false start on purpos can also have tactic reasons; to make your opponent nervous.

However. I'd suggest to add the time you left too early to your run time:

e.g.: false start by 0.05 + raw time 11.93 + 3 cones = 12.28

rmn

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:15 pm

Ramón Königshausen wrote:However. I'd suggest to add the time you left too early to your run time: e.g.: false start by 0.05 + raw time 11.93 + 3 cones = 12.28

Ramon,

If you don't double the false start time, it's as if you haven't done any. The clock doesn't start until it has reached the official starting moment. So I assume you're proposing x2.

I'm afraid that the x2 doesn't discourage the rider enough from false starting (and thus getting a better position throughout the race, with less cones flying in front of him). I'd always try to start too early.

/Jani

Ramón Königshausen · Post by **Ramón Königshausen** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:19 pm

Hm, the earlier you leave the harder you'll get charged, isn't that logical?

What about racers who lift their front wheels over the tape switch?

rmn

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:30 pm

Ramón Königshausen wrote:What about racers who lift their front wheels over the tape switch?

If a racer lifts his front wheels over the tapeswitch -- I see no problem.

A) The timing equipment and the 2X (or 3X) start penalty can still apply -- being automatically done by the timer.

B) The racer who does this successfully has probably lost the 0.1 advantage by the extra effort of raising the wheels and being slightly less able to pull harder and be on balance.

So if they have the skill, then I say its OK. Similar to ski race starting where the skis are kicked back, the body gains momentum, and the boots are delayed from tripping the start wand.

However, should a racer do this lifting motion and the tapeswitch is not run over with sufficient force to trip it, then tough luck racer -- you just DQ'd by not getting a proper start.

This could be solved by replacing the tape switch with a start wand or an optical beam switch at shin height...

Chris Barker · Post by **Chris Barker** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:24 pm

Jani Soderhall wrote:I'm afraid that the x2 doesn't discourage the rider enough from false starting (and thus getting a better position throughout the race, with less cones flying in front of him). I'd always try to start too early.

As Jani mentioned, the clock actually starts at the beginning of the last beep, not when you cross the tapeswitch. So if you leave before the start of the last beep, you are not being "charged" for the time between crossing the tape and the clock actually starting.

2x = You are adding back the early start time plus a penalty of 1x the early start
3x = You are adding back the early start time plus a penalty of 2x the early start

Jani, I doubt you would try to always start early with 2x. Sure, if you could always
plan your start .001 early, but that is not realistic. You may find you leave .3 early,
costing you that same amount of penalty under 2x rule. Why give your opponent .3 secs?

Under 3x rule, it is even more penalty, costing you .6 secs or 6 cones worth in a TS race.
Not a wise strategy in my opinion...

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:35 pm

Chris,

Isn't it worth something being first out of the starting blocks? Like that you don't have to worry about cones flying. Until of course that faster guy you're racing actually catches up with you. But that's another story. Didn't happen often before. Happens all the time nowadays... So, my current vote is for 3 times the penalty.

Pat,

The "lift your board over the timing switch trick" is very well mastered by some and it's been tolerated over the last two years. I personally don't think we should allow it. To me it's a method that was invented to "fool" the clock, not to try to go faster, thus not worthy of keeping. If in addition you ride a longer board, you save more time. Where's the logic? Time to stop it, I'd say, but maybe we should discuss that in another topic. But we may have to wait until we have a hardware solution to the problem.

/Jani

Patrick Allan · Post by **Patrick Allan** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:49 pm

You can always just put the tapeswitch half way down the ramp...

Ramón Königshausen · Post by **Ramón Königshausen** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:56 pm

Chris Barker wrote: 2x = You are adding back the early start time plus a penalty of 1x the early start

Well this is what I meant. I'm not good at mathematics...sorry.

rmn

Chris Barker · Post by **Chris Barker** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:01 pm

Jani Soderhall wrote:Isn't it worth something being first out of the starting blocks? Like that you don't have to worry about cones flying.

If there are lots of cones flying and you could strategically spray one into the opponent's lane, then that is an advantage. With 3x, I don't think it is worth the penalty.

On the other hand, it may be an advantage for the other guy if you start early. You become his rabbit and he is trying to track you down.

I understand that in Austria, the clock started when you crossed the strip, not when the beep started. So essentially each lane was individually timed and the beeps were not really meaningful. I heard that some riders purposely stayed in the gate just to have a rabbit to track down.

Jani Soderhall wrote:The "lift your board over the timing switch trick" is very well mastered by some and it's been tolerated over the last two years. I personally don't think we should allow it. To me it's a method that was invented to "fool" the clock, not to try to go faster, thus not worthy of keeping. If in addition you ride a longer board, you save more time. Where's the logic? Time to stop it, I'd say, but maybe we should discuss that in another topic. But we may have to wait until we have a hardware solution to the problem.

For those that master this trick, I know it is an advantage. It obviously is exploiting a hole in the tapeswitch technology. Yes, you could eliminate tapeswitches to fix this. But couldn't there be similar issues with a beam, depending on where it was placed? If someone could make a wand/gate for the price of a tapeswitch, I believe that would solve most of the problem, unless someone was daring enough to start their board and remove their front foot to avoid the wand. Doesn't seem like a benefit. Others would try to start with their front leg as far back as possible. Not a great benefit either.

It seems like a beam that runs several feet vertically is ideal, so you have a true plane that is monitored. When the first part of your body or equipment breaks the plane, it is detected.
Is there something like that out there for reasonable cost?

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:17 pm

Patrick Allan wrote:You can always just put the tapeswitch half way down the ramp...

Yes, that might work, until the racers figure out how to lift their wheels part-way down the ramp ...... Another problem might be if the weight on the wheels in that part of the ramp is not enough to reliably trigger the tape switch.

Where, exactly, is the definition of the start of the race? How do racers adapt to these variations (timing of their pull from the ramp, raising wheels, etc.)
A) At the top of the ramp. (MOST COMMON)
B) Partially down the ramp.
C) At the bottom of the ramp.
D) At the 1st cone (Used for the 100-cone challenge)

You have to admit that the nature of the starts are going to be much different for option A than for option D. I'm talking about the timing of the racers pulling out from the start. My guess is that for option D you will have a much wider variation of early/late starts among the racers than using option A (even taking into account lifting of wheels).

I'm still in favor of option A for races. If it looks like the winning racers consistently use this technique, then two options come to mind:
i) Everyone learns this technique and it becomes standard start method (lifting wheels)
ii) Race organizers install wands, optical beams, or other start indicators which take away the advantage of lifing the wheels.

What I cannot see working well is a judge at the start ramp trying to see if racers have used this technique and then doing something about it (Restart? DQ? Start-technique penalty?) I don't think that will work.

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

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

[2007] Paris Slalom World Cup 2007, May 26-28, 2007

Timming this year!

Re: Timming this year!

Foghorn not the problem!

2.0 Meter Pro Tight?

Re: 2.0 Meter Pro Tight?

Re: 2.0 Meter Pro Tight?

Re: 2.0 Meter Pro Tight?

Re: 2.0 Meter Pro Tight?

Re: Timming this year!

Re: Timming this year!

Starting technique of lifting front wheels.

Pretty good solution