Definition of giant slalom

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Sat Aug 31, 2002 5:38 pm

I would appreciate if someone on the US continent could give me and fellow Europeans who haven't been to any of the recent events in the US the definition of giant.

What is the typical cone spacing? Is there any minimum, maximum figures, number of cones, or does it all depend on the course setter and the hill?

Regardless of which I'd appreciate an approximate description of a typical course. The first couple of cones at LaCosta looked very wide. The giant slalom we used to do in Europe wasn't that widely spaced, but with longboarders on the scene, and a strong American community, it is time to grow the cone distances.

Thank you!

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 5:44 pm

We are starting to see longer board lengths (Some 36" models by Pocket Pistols, Roe, and longer ICKS) so indeed the cone distances are growing.

In the USA the concern of FCR has been not to host an event where there are cones being hit and scattered as it would look bad for television. The distances as a result have been very large. At the Bobby Turner Memorial Cup race many cone distances for the TS exceeded 8 or 9 feet which ironically made them too wide to be ideal for the short wheelbase boards Bob Turner was most famous for. The GS at La Costa featured widely spaced cones wth a tremendous amount of offset requiring a lower to the ground approach of riding.

The spacing has typically been left in the hands of the Course setter. Jack Smith seems to have set the majority of the FCR courses with notable exceptions of GBJ coming out from DC to set the Tight slalom at The Battle By the bay race in San Franciso. Ritchie C. and I believe Barrett Deck set the last 2002 La Costa course and Henry Hster and I think Eric Groff set the 2001 La Costa course. Henry also set the Course at Last years Morro Bay race which was a wide open GS style course set on a gentle grade- I helped to set the duplicate dual course for that hill.

In order to run higher GS speeds we certainly need an excellent surface to maintain the traction as we move across the hill at higher rates of speed generating more lateral g forces on our wheels and requiring more traction. The surfaces so far have not been ideal in California save for the Cambria hill. Most have been moderately rough requireing wider softer high traction wheels with large traction patches. Some surfaces have been relatively smooth yet not offered a lot of traction such as at Catalina.

At La Costa 25 or more feet between the cones with more than 10 feet of offset
seemed like what was set. La Costa is an "exceptional hill" as it is relatively planar without a hump in the middle or spine.

Speeds for the GS at La Costa topped out at about 22-23 mph. with most speeds in the 18-20mph range. Faster speeds are currently hit in the TS events. Hopefully as better surfaces are found this will change and we culd see speeds for GS and Super G in the 20-38mph range.

12-15 foot cone distances with about 4-5 feet of offset also seems to be common for american GS.

Gary Holl · Post by **Gary Holl** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 10:35 pm

Jani, I have many photos from the FCR contests that have taken place so far. please feel free to visit my site at :

http://homepage.mac.com/garyholl

follow the links at the top of the page, hopefullty some of the photos will give you a perspective of the type of courses we have seen during the FCR series.

Vlad Popov · Post by **Vlad Popov** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 5:52 pm

“The giant slalom we used to do in Europe wasn't that widely spaced, but with longboarders on the scene, and a strong American community, it is time to grow the cone distances.”

Jani,

EU slalom is well known for its diversity and IMO should not be Americanized.

Instead of changing one discipline, why not add a Super Giant Slalom (SG) called the American Slalom to the list of events? If it’s a hit, the GS will naturally die off. And if it’s a flunk, you’ll still have GS.

Vlad.

Leonardo Ojeda · Post by **Leonardo Ojeda** » Tue Sep 17, 2002 5:35 pm

i always get confused with the many definitions of the distance on slalom, i organized the "first" (in 20+ years) slalom competititionin my home town, i tought it was GS but i want your oppinion.

the course consisted in a mellow hill, with 25 cones 11 feet apart OC. more or less like the cyber slalom. the difference was the starting line, u only had one push(the one at the ground at the starting box) and it was a man-to-man race.

how do u qualify this setup, XGS, GS?

i think that this need to be unified if we want the slalom to grow worldwide.

leo

Henry Hester · Post by **Henry Hester** » Tue Sep 17, 2002 6:09 pm

IMHO, I find there are basiclly two ways to present GS. One is by setting a course that reaches down the hill and provides a good degree of speed (over 28mph?). The other would be more like a DonO course that would require traction and traversing across the hill.

Now... from what I have picked up from the racers, they seem to like the easier, faster down the line GS courses that measure, on average, about 25' X 4' off center. Most people can ride these and feel like a man. Most people can handle the speeds and most people don't want to scrub a set of wheels trying to make the wider course.

For me? I prefer the wider challenge and slower speeds. Anything that provides a reason to think a little more than being in front of a TV.

[ This Message was edited by: Henry Hester on 2002-09-17 12:14 ]

Henry Hester · Post by **Henry Hester** » Tue Sep 17, 2002 6:19 pm

In addition, tomorrow night we are going to do the VO (voice over) for the La Costa Vision GS. I'm sure that there will be much more to discuss, on-screen, once we see the skaters traversing the fall line, falling, spinning out, taking bad lines and all.

Jack Smith · Post by **Jack Smith** » Tue Sep 17, 2002 6:45 pm

John, you have now found another forum to state your opinion...I would only ask that you get the facts correct.

Regarding La Costa, I did indeed set the "Tight Slalom" course. Yes, cone spacing on this course was not the Euro standard of 6'. The hill was very fast. If I had set a "real" tight course only a handful of racers could have made the course without scattering a great number of cones. John, please remember that courses this year have been set to accomodate a everyone from a 10 year old to a highly skilled racer such as yourself.

Do you remember the course at Cambria, the hill is not that steep and yet even you and Paul Dunn rarely made a clean run. The days of 6' courses on steep hills may be over, given the increased speeds due to better urethane formulas and faster bearings.

Having been on course at every FCR event this year I have noticed that the spectators love to see clean, fast runs by all classes of racers.

For the record I set the following courses this season:

Battle By the Bay - Single lane GS
Catalina - Dual tight and Dual Slalom (I don't like to use the "Hybrid" term")
Tahoe - Did not set
Breckenridge - Dual Giant - Helped set Slalom with Gary Fluitt
La Costa - Set Tight Slalom - actually slalom
Hood River - Did not set

Vlad, I was never lucky enough to race in Europe so I have no first hand knowledge of the courses. All I know is what I have seen in pictures, most of which show ramp starts onto flat, tight, no offset courses. I'm sure other types of courses were also raced, I just have never seen them.

Your comment that "EU slalom is well known for its diversity and IMO should not be Americanized", is interesting. I guess it would be ok to "Europanize" American slalom. No.

Course setting at events where all ability levels are present is very difficult. If we someday are able to have a Pro Racer only series, I know that I would set much different courses.

Please remember that this is the first season of racing in many years and that we all are doing our best to promote slalom in an interesting and exciting format.

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Wed Sep 18, 2002 9:41 pm

Jack said, "The days of 6' courses on steep hills may be over, given the increased speeds due to better urethane formulas and faster bearings. "

The trouble here is the definition of a word like "steep." What is steep?

Jack, 6-foot offsets on steep hills are run all over the East. 'da Farm is steeper than Seneca Creek Park and Seneca Creek is steeper than the P&R in Gaithersburg. Storrow drive is a LOT steeper than E. 5th Street at Folly Beach (which is near flat,) and Gran Elen Drive in Athens Georgia is as steep as any of them. But what is "steep?" Every one of those hills has entertained a 6-foot tight technical slalom course this summer.

Also, you believe that better urethane and faster bearings will make tight courses on steep hills even more unrideable in the future. My way of thinking is the new wheels and equipment makes riding these tight courses at higher and higher speeds is even more attainable. This is akin to auto racing: the courses ranging from Daytona to Monza have been the same for decades. New tires and engines, though, make cars go faster and faster on the same course. A 6-foot cone spacing is a 6-foot cone spacing. All that changes is the degree of offset and the SPEED through the course. Whether it's a steep hill or on the flat doesn't matter. It's the SPEED under any circumstances that is measurable. I don't think we've yet reached the point of diminishing returns while riding tight 6-foot cones. Except for Gilmour, of course, but that's just the result of getting closer and closer to 40.

I also know the obvious answer: 6-foot cone spacing is what we ride on the East. It's not what is advocated out West. Since it isn't seen that much out West, then obviously it's fading away. Unfortunately, nobody bothered to tell us over here.

Jack Smith · Post by **Jack Smith** » Wed Sep 18, 2002 10:29 pm

Wes,
Sorry I don't own a GPS unit so I can't give a specific grade.

Have you watched "This Isn't Skateboarding"? Take a look at the Cambria race, the hill is not all that steep, yet guys like Dunn and Gilmour were still hitting a number of cones. Plowed cones from a spectators point of view gives the impression of lesser skill.

What kind of offsets are you guys running?

Better urethane and bearings have made skating faster. However a point will be reached where the traction can no longer keep up with the speed. Race cars also have the advantage of being able to create considerable downforce.

"Whether it's a steep hill or on the flat doesn't matter." - are you serious?

Please don't assume to know what I advocate.

I wish people would stop looking at FCR/westies as the end all for courses, gates, etc. Just because we are doing things a certain way doesn't mean we are not open to other styles, courses and venues.

We undertook a very ambitious plan with very little money and have poured our heart and soul into it, it's what we do. You and anyone else are of course free to run your own events any way you choose.

Best Regards,
Jack

Henry Hester · Post by **Henry Hester** » Sat Sep 21, 2002 9:17 pm

I agree with Jack. Both of us would love to skate a 6' TS course but we've got to think about the fun factor for the entire field. It seems to me that there are only about 20 FCR guys that can make it through one, at any speed.

At Cambria, there were only about 10. At Stink Hill, we ran what seemed like 6.5' cones and only 8 or 10 people decided to enter that race. I made it through about 30% of my attempts - concentrating very hard. Hey, I suck.

That's all good and fair but when you've got America and the World looking at Slalom Skateboarding for the first time in 25 years, you had better make it look fun and accessable. This is what Jack did at La Costa this year. It was the right decision. Plus, it was a haulin' ass course.

Brady Mitchell · Post by **Brady Mitchell** » Wed Sep 25, 2002 3:03 pm

Funny how this thread went from definition of GS to TS.

I, myself, like a wide open course with larger offsets to give the surfy feel.

Speeking of setting courses that most riders can make...just what was the number of DQ`s on that course you set Wesley at FB as to those that actually qualified? 50/50? And that was on a flat surtace. Hopefully that mistake won`t be repeated.

George Gould · Post by **George Gould** » Wed Sep 25, 2002 7:35 pm

i think (there i go again, when i think i gets in trouble) part of our issue in racing is the hill. we don't have set race courses like Daytona or Indianapolis. El Fuerte (La Costa) is a "known" entity and really a "friendly" hill. there are a bunch of seriously steep and scary hills out west. starting off ramps, after 5-6 cones speeds would be unmakeable with 6 ft spacing to all but the best riders. if there were permanent known hills it might be a little different. like somebody is going to build us a road huh? part of the better riders ability is to ride what is set at the time and conditions. i look back and think i could do better, but didn't at the time. i am behind the learning curve and need to work harder. different course are half the battle. fast G/S or Tech G/S and knowing how to deal with them. i never thought of it in that light until the above discussion. thanks.

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Wed Oct 02, 2002 4:21 am

It seems that this forum might be better focused if there was indeed some definition of what is GS. What type of spacing and offset is currently run and called GS?

It makes perfect sense to have an event where the course is makable for most of the contestants. The difficulty for the course setter is to make this possible and not to make the course "too easy" (no challenge) or "too difficult" (avoiding a DQ becomes the challenge instead of racing your best).

IMHO the Morro Bay course last year was very easy to complete. The Cambria course was beyond the ability for many of the contestants at the time (but as there was no baseline to compare ability level .....).... though now I think a great many people would be able to make the Cambria Course(even that being said- I found the course a bit tight for the equipment we were running) had I ran a narrower shorter deck it would have been easier- though certainly someone like Simon Levene like would have found himself right at home on that course. Even that being said IMHO I find faster TS courses that aren't overly tight the most thrilling to race on and watch. At 'Da farm II race we had a fast TS course (no gate was tighter than 6.5 feet and the majority of the gates were closer to 7 foot on center in the TS) in which not every contestant who entered the GS entered- but it certainly was exciting to watch every racer who entered race it.

IMHO for the Current ability level and equipment available (wide slalom decks and truck hangers over 4 inches) for the majority of Americans, 6 foot centers is too tight.

6.5 foot seems to be the limit if the cones are not offset. and about 7.5+ feet for slight offset- For TS. And after you increase the offset distance more and the cone spacing..... you have GS. Of course this is from an American Point of view and Americans have tended to use the Tracker Full Track truck and Indy 101 as the basis for much of the slalom skating.

The Europeans tend to use narrower truck widths and short boards so they are not as sensitive to tight cone spacing as Americans. Though it will be interesting to see if the Europeans find the GS speeds to great or the offsets too wide to allow for enough traction with a narrow truck/board/wheel and short wheelbase.

So Jani's question as to what the GS courses are like is to measure in part how effective his present set up is for racing and whether or not he should consider modifying it or leave it as is.
--------------------------------------------
The goal for the course setter IMHO is to set a challenging course that is makable for many of the contestants that choose to enter.

In other downhill slalom sports the easiest discipline for a beginner to enter is the GS. There is more time to prepare for gates and there is also a lower top end speed. For the daredevils Super G is the next easiest event. The TS or "Slalom" as it is refered to in many other sports -is the most difficult, as the turns come very close together in time with little room to correct a serious mistake.

In Snowboarding, for instance, you will see many people enter a GS event- fewer enter a Super G and fewer enter a Slalom. Mostly because the skill set required for slalom is more specialized as may be the equipment- the GS equipment represents the norm- and Super G and TS equipment is often considered ridiculously long or too short for effortless cruising.

That doesn't make slalom a non viable event-in that all slaloms have to be set so everyone can make it..... in fact not every GS contestant that attends a slalom race should be able to make a slalom. If for instance a snowboarding slalom was set so everyone could make it.... it would resemble a GS course just run at slower speeds. And then the essence would be lost.

It would be possible for instance in Snow skiing - to set a course where no racer would DQ- and every racer that entered could make the course- so that even a 13 year old beginner skier girl with short skis- or a 28 year old male pro Skier with 230cm skis could make the course. I'm not sure what that course would look like to the spectator- or what the "entertainment value" for the spectator would be- but it is likely that it would be less interesting than a course that offered some racers more challenge than others.

The GS courses also could be set with the bulk of GS contestants in mind or preferably there could be a separation of racers into separate classes for ability level. That way racers can race a course which offers them challenge and is somewhat tailored to their ability level.

One way to do this would be to have a tapeswitch in the middle of a course. The Intermediate/advanced racers would get a time when they tripped the tapeswitch in the middle of the course. The Pro racers would also get a time recorded at that segment and then continue onward to higher speeds and higher technical difficulty levels.

In this manner only one course need be set and the start and finish do not need to be moved. The Intermediate/advanced racers could compare their times to the pro racers "split times".

At this juncture of our sport we could use some GS definitions so that people would have an idea of what equipment to buy and what general idea of a course to train for. It is unrealistic to expect an American to travel to France with his entire board quiver to race a GS. Kudos to Wes Tucker who was more than clear on his course description (gave out the course layout in advance)- something that I have not done myself. IMHO promoters would attract more racers if the racers have an approximate idea of what to expect. It would also make it easier for board designers if they had some criteria. Of course I wouldn't want courses to stagnate- and with some desciption for each course I doubt that would happen.

[ This Message was edited by: John Gilmour on 2002-10-01 22:39 ]

[ This Message was edited by: John Gilmour on 2002-10-01 22:43 ]

Mike Muckenthaler · Post by **Mike Muckenthaler** » Sat Oct 19, 2002 7:04 pm

Damn, I love reading these posts ....

From the viewpoint of television, the crashes and DQ's ... show that the course is technical and takes skill to navigate ... and the temper tantrums and attitudes of those who don't make it... shows passion about skating. The La Costa show had all the elements of great competition ... and we got tons of emails from viewers who wanted to know how they could get involved. (I directed them to the FCR and NCDSA sites, for more info.)

Maybe this whole discussion could be resolved by setting a 'standard' spacing for cones within' a discipline, choosen by a concensus (vote) of all the FCR members .... one for tight, one for slalom and one for giant slalom ....... Each course would have variances of it's own, but the standard spacing would have to be applied 'as close as possible' for each hill. No one could complain, if a standard was in place, that the majority of participants agreed upon.

As far as the courses at Avila Beach and
Morro Bay ... I heard a lot of complaining from the top pros about wanting to go faster at Avila ... and a lot of happy comments about the course being perfect (for the hill) at Morro Bay. (I think the guys with greater skills love speed ... and see GS as just a slight step below Stand-up Downhill, with a little more carving skills involved)

I know it's not practical to set two courses (one for pros and one for ams, and the kids) But maybe that could be an alternative in the future ... Either way, I think FCR has done a great job trying to put together something in the middle and Jack should be commended on putting together a great series.

I go to almost all the World Cup events ... with street and vert skating ... and no matter how the ramps and obstacles are set-up, there is always someone who 'hates' the course ..... Bottom line, complaining is part of competition ... and it's all good.

Miko Biffle · Post by **Miko Biffle** » Tue Nov 05, 2002 6:37 am

On 2002-10-19 13:04, mike muckenthaler wrote:

(I think the guys with greater skills love speed ... and see GS as just a slight step below Stand-up Downhill, with a little more carving skills involved)

Hey Mike! My love for GS is nearly entirely based on my 'speed demon' sitting on my shoulder saying... 'It won't HURT to make this course as fast as the hill will go!'

I still like the hard offsets, but please make them utilize the full speed of the hill. I feel robbed when I've only rolled at the hill's true speed for a cone or two. Make it RIP and still be hard!

I'm also a downhiller, and looking forward to mile long Super GS courses with 2 minute times and 70-125 cones. Drama, excitement and endurance.

I go to almost all the World Cup events ... with street and vert skating ... and no matter how the ramps and obstacles are set-up, there is always someone who 'hates' the course ..... Bottom line, complaining is part of competition ... and it's all good.

As John Hutson likes to say... "I like all courses!"

Set it and learn from it and you'll be a better rider. Learn to make 'impossible' sections and you'll be at ease with most contest courses. (I guess a no whining clause goes with all that! I'll try to remember that next time I'm dissing a course!)

Richy Carrasco · Post by **Richy Carrasco** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 5:01 am

Chicken and I set Sunday's La Costa 2002. We did consider the course dimensions and kicked some of the cones out a bit to help all make it through! I actually sat there during the Open warm-ups and coached all who would listen on how to run GS (ie: a true GS course requires the rider to turn out ahead of the gates -- like ski slalom).

Next year if we get the chance we are all about full speed!!!!!!! The SSS team practices are about pushing it as hard as we can!

One way to see if you are setting a fast course is to see if there are any speed killers (a cone that kills the course) and NUke them! Test your course and fine tune it! Also We should never run courses that have full tucking through gates or we have moved on and out of GS riding. All courses need to have skills of slalom turning!!!!!!!

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 5:03 pm

Here here!

Richy Carrasco · Post by **Richy Carrasco** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 12:31 am

Those of us who ran the Tahoe courses enjoyed a great site with good pitch! The Gs event was a blast,Decent offsets with great speed!Lacosta had good speed at the top to hold you on the offsets!

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

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