Some complaints from a rider or parent at NAUCC 2023
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
I'm copying this to you as I received it; they had some valid issues, and recommended some things I agree with. I do not know this person's name, but they posted some videos to demonstrate two of the problems:
------
1. SafetyI believe the rules must specify the area between start and typical finish to be free from any obstacles. As far as I understand, riders are allowed to cross the line anywhere, and they should have the space to do this. As you can see here https://youtu.be/Re1jslixF0s , the organizers did not anticipate any competitive riders and did not provide safe environment because it was not specified in the IUF Rulebook (their explanation).2. Practice ridesIUF Rulebook does not explicitly require event organizers to offer practice or test rides. As we learned at the NAUCC 2023 that means there might be no test rides offered.3. Practice course identical to the competition courseI think IUF Rulebook does not require an extra slalom practice course. I would strongly suggest to require (in the rulebook) that event organizers either offer practice time at the competition course before the competitions start, or they setup a special practice course _identical_ to the competition one. Identical means both the same surface, and the cones shape and position, and the measurements. Here is an example of “practice course” for NAUCC 2023: https://youtu.be/ZZUgSsBiuj8 Compare the surface and the cone orientation to the competition course (video link above).4. Cones position / orientationI would suggest to specify cone orientation in the IUF rulebook. During the NAUCC 2023 competition the cones 3-7 were turned 45º to the baseline. I would suggest to require the cone orientation so that the line connecting the shortest distance between the sides is parallel to the starting line (that would work for cones with even number of sides at least).5. There was also a discussion if IUF slalom could have the awards based on the best times overall with the finalists granted extra attempts rather than only considering the results from the finalist round
Comment
Thanks for sharing this feedback - I think feedback from riders is very important to identify problems in the rules and therefore always worth to be heard. I also heard from some riders from Germany that there was a feedback/idea box at the last Unicon and I already asked Felix Regelsberger if this feedback could be made available to the Rulebook Committee. Unfortunately, I have not yet received an answer from him in this regard.
Now to the specific points from the feedback you got:
> 1. Safety
I completely agree here that the setup shown in the video is not safe. It is also absolutely true that the IUF Rulebook does not specify this and I wanted to open a discussion about this myself - not because of the safety problem shown in the video, but for another reason that goes in a similar direction: In Germany, I noticed at some competitions that the pavilion for the judges at the IUF Slalom is very close to the start/finish line - usually on the start rather than the finish side. However, some riders start very far to the right, so in this setup they would have to start virtually under the pavilion, which is not possible.
All in all, I would suggest that there should be at least 1.5 m of space behind the start/finish line, in which there should only be equipment directly needed for timing, but no pavilions, tables, or hurdles as in the video.
> Practice rides & Practice course identical to the competition course
I think the track part of the rulebook is actually one of the few parts where there are no rules for practice. At all the competitions I have been, there was always the possibility to practice and there was always a second IUF Slalom on the same ground - so I guess I didn't notice that there is no rule in the Rulebook for that. But I agree 100% that there must be the possibility to practice on the track as well and especially for the IUF Slalom a second course to practice on is very desirable. An alternative would certainly be practice runs on the competition slalom, if only one slalom can be set up on the same ground.
> Cones position / orientation
This goes exactly in the direction of what we have already discussed in the discussion about the size of the cones. I think that a smaller distance between the cones in the slalom (and exactly that is achieved with a 45° rotation) can affect the riders (even if it is only psychological). Exactly for this reason I was against allowing round base plates with a diameter of 43 cm for the cones - in terms of minimal psychological impairment, the cones in the slalom should, in my opinion, be set up in such a way that the distance between the cones is maximized. Or in other words: Since the base plates have to fit into a square, this (imaginary square) should be parallel to the start/finish line with two sides.
> IUF Slalom Final
I think in the rules it is mentioned how a final should be run!? Basically I can understand that an IUF Slalom final needs a lot of time - I think it is therefore understandable that in IUF Slalom there is both the option of a final ranking and the option of a separate final, so that the organizers can decide whether they have the time needed or not.
Regarding flying starts: electronic monitoring, such as at Unicon in France, prevents this problem very effectively and makes it much easier for the judges. But we could clarify the rules a bit - e.g. to what extent a flying start is a failed attempt, as this is currently not regulated. At the competitions I have been to so far, however, flying starts were always not counted as an attempt in the sense of the athlete.
Comment
>Unfortunately I don't have the opportunity to contact the complainant to find out why having the cones on a 45-degree angle is perceived as a problem.
I think I would know the answer. In the video description, the poster (which is likely to be the same individual as the complainant) writes "Some cones are positioned rotated by 45º to force wider turns for no apparent reason." This is probably inspired by the fact that the corner of the rotated cone sticks out farther from the centre line. It remains to be seen, however, if this really forces a wider turn, because in the "non-rotated" orientation, the two corners stick out further into the contact point trajectory. Regardless, I would agree to Jans suggestion "the base plates have to fit into a square, this (imaginary square) should be parallel to the start/finish line with two sides".
>flying starts were always not counted as an attempt in the sense of the athlete
I think you mean that after a flying start, the rider could start again while still having the same number of attempts?
Otherwise, I agree to all comments so far.
Comment
>This is probably inspired by the fact that the corner of the rotated cone sticks out farther from the centre line.
I think the psychological impact of the unusual alignment of the cones plays a significant role here. For the riders, it looks as if they have to make a larger turn, although this is not actually the case. I think this example shows well that the psychological aspect cannot be neglected when it comes to evaluating to what extent the alignment of the cones plays a role.
> I think you mean that after a flying start, the rider could start again while still having the same number of attempts?
Yes, that's what I wanted to say.
Comment
I agree with Jan's idea for #1 on the start/finish line area. Some riders cross the line fast, many cross the line sideways or backward and they need some space to be safe. As for starting position, I wonder if we need to add anything there about giving riders leeway in their start location along the line? Moving to the right only makes it a greater distance to get to cone #1, with very little reduction of turn size. The most logical starting point is roughly where it is shown in the Slalom course diagram.
Practice Rides:
Here's my idea: "At least one practice course is required." For larger events, two would be better. "If the practice course is not on a surface similar to the timed course, each rider should be allowed one practice run before their timed run. If they do not do both of their timed runs at the same time, another practice run must be allowed before the rider's second timed attempt." That's a big ask, but important if the practice course is on a very different surface. Story time: At Unicon III (Tokyo), I don't remember if there was a practice course. If there was, it was not on the red tartan surface of the track infield, where the timed course was. No opportunity to practice on that "exotic" (for unicyclists in the 80s) surface. It was a rough, soft rubber compound, and the tires were tearing it up. It looked like an old pencil eraser with lots of wear & tear on it. The only way I could get a taste of the course was to "play dumb" and take off before they were ready. I got to cone #1 and immediately my wheel slipped out from under me on all the loose bits of track material. Oops! excuse me, sorry. I then took the turns with a less aggressive approach and completed the course. I then cautioned all riders that would listen to be careful on those turns! I think we left some permanent Slalom marks on the infield of that track in Edogawa, Tokyo!
Cone orientation:
To me (and the riders I trained with), it was clear that cone base orientation had no effect on riding the course. If anything, putting cones 3-7 on a 45-degree angle gave the appearance of a wider "lane" to ride through on. But with anything short of very large cones, their orientation didn't matter. That being said, rather than making some riders uncomfortable, I am fine with a rule that states that square cone bases should be oriented parallel (or however to say it) to the start/finish line.
Finals:
I would not want to require a separate Finals for the Slalom, though I think it's a beautiful thing, I'd be in favor of recommending it though.
Flying Starts:
Of course not allowed. I think Jan referred to an automated way to prevent this; a light beam behind the wheel? Best way to keep riders honest. If that's what it was, allow the rider to break that beam once, and start over, but after that, it's a DQ.
Comment
> As for starting position, I wonder if we need to add anything there about giving riders leeway in their start location along the line?
I think that if there is a total of 1.5 m of free space before/behind the start/finish line, this is sufficient for everyone to start where they feel comfortable. Of course it lengthens the way if you slide further to the right, but still some riders seem to feel more comfortable with this than to make the first turn a (very) bit smaller. Of course you won't set a record this way, but I think it's also an unnecessary restriction to let the riders start only in a very small area.
> "At least one practice course is required."
I agree.
> "If the practice course is not on a surface similar to the timed course, each rider should be allowed one practice run before their timed run. If they do not do both of their timed runs at the same time, another practice run must be allowed before the rider's second timed attempt."
Thats also fine for me.
> For larger events, two would be better.
I agree that two would be best for large events, but in many stadiums it is not possible to set up more than one slalom per side in the interior of the track. So there will be many stadiums where it is simply not possible to provide more than one practice slalom.
> To me (and the riders I trained with), it was clear that cone base orientation had no effect on riding the course.
Apart from the riders' impressions, the uniform alignment also ensures that our setup is always as identical as possible, which is not a bad thing in principle I think.
> I would not want to require a separate Finals for the Slalom
The rules currently require an IUF Slalom final only for the Unicon, which I think is okay. I would not be in favor of changing this - I think at all other events it should be up to the organizer whether a final is held or there is only one final.
> I think Jan referred to an automated way to prevent this; a light beam behind the wheel?
Yes exactly. The IUF slalom setup that we used eg. at the Unicon in France has two light barriers at the start - one on the start line and one about 45 - 50 cm behind it (I would have to measure at home to tell exactly how far apart the light barriers are). Of course you can roll a little bit backwards with this setup. In practice, however, it very effectively prevents the riders from making flying starts.
> allow the rider to break that beam once, and start over, but after that, it's a DQ.
I think this is something we should include in the rules. Currently there is nothing in the rules about what happens when a flying start is made. So far, we have just let the riders start from the beginning every time a flying start is detected.
Comment
Fitting in multiple practice courses: This is part of why we redesigned the course in 1989. The earlier version was larger, and you started at cone #2. From the start you rode to cone #1 and then continued the course from there. The distance between Cone 1 and 2 was made much shorter, and the overall "top to bottom" dimension was shrunk a bit as well. Amazingly, times on the new course were very similar to the old version. The goal was to make it so you could fit it into a tennis court. This works, but not without a little extra space in a few spots.
I didn't realize Unicon now requires a finals event! I think it may have gotten cancelled last year? We didn't end up going to that. Slalom is my "best" remaining competition event, but I arrived at the end of the last possible day to do it after running halfway down the ski mountain (all the way down to the town below) and my legs were noodles. In the process, I did get better a trusting my brake but there were still many sections of loose "powder" dirt that was unpredictable so I wasn't trusting my brake enough. Also that group of riders was fast! Not much waiting around. :-)
The automated light beam behind the wheel is probably sufficient to control flying starts; I think I experienced it for the first time that day, and had a little trouble getting used to it. I don't think we need to modify the rule as long as that system is in place, but possibly have text for smaller events, where less technology is available.
Comment
> I think it may have gotten cancelled last year?
Yes, in France we had to cancel the final at very short notice because heavy thunderstorms were announced and the local guys assumed that we'd better get the stadium empty as soon as possible. In the end, the thunderstorm didn't hit the stadium after all - but that's always a thing with thunderstorms.
Comment
>I think that if there is a total of 1.5 m of free space before/behind the start/finish line, this is sufficient for everyone to start where they feel comfortable.
Only if the light beams (front and rear) are wide enough to allow that leeway.
Uniform alignment of cones: yes to requiring that, in the way proposed.
Finals requirement for Slalom: I agree to keep as is.
Second flying start (either by breaking the rear light beam, or observed by eye) in the same attempt results in DQ for that attempt: OK.
Requiring only one practice slalom course is OK with me.
Comment
Light beam vs. starting position; riders will have to adapt to the light beam placement. Long as it matches the official Slalom diagram, that should be sufficient. I don't believe the rules mention where you have to be along the start/finish line, so the light beams should be set up in the most logical position to get the rider to cone #1.
Alignment of cones: Fine, or leave as-is, also fine.
Second flying start DQ: yes, unless it's light beam with a tight gap for rider wheel movement. I remember triggering it a few times while I was lining up for my runs last year. In that case, more flexibility is recommended.
Requiring one practice course: yes. But I recommend adding that two is better, if space permits.
Comment
Cancelled Slalom Finals last year: Yes, we were there for that! Now I remember. We had just bought a new camera (to replace my big SLR that got stolen out of our car) and I spent a lot of time figuring out how to work the Sony controls vs. the Canon controls. Got to see the WW finals, which were amazing. Keeping feet under control for 30m is hard work, and extremely difficult to do a high speed! Then the weather started getting sketchy and as soon as the announcement was made that we should go, Jacquie and I got out of there. The weather was looking very "iffy". Slalom is no fun in the wet!
Comment
> Second flying start DQ: yes, unless it's light beam with a tight gap for rider wheel movement. I remember triggering it a few times while I was lining up for my runs last year. In that case, more flexibility is recommended.
Maybe you were used to some rolling start, in the absence of a "hard" check :-). Obviously, the window of correct start location should allow some freedom, but not too much, in the name of fair competition. Jan mentioned that he thought the rear beam was some 45-50 cm behind the front beam. I don't know to how many cm of "play" this translates, it depends on a lot of variables, the height of the light beams being an important one. Maybe we should discuss how many cm of "play" should be granted before either light beam trips. Maybe 25 cm?
Comment
> Only if the light beams (front and rear) are wide enough to allow that leeway.
You are right, of course, that a smaller distance would probably be sufficient at the start, since the riders have to position themselves directly behind the start line anyway and the light barriers (front and rear) are not 1.5 m apart. But you also need a little space to get to your starting position. And at the finish line I think 1.5 m is not too much, because sometimes you cross the finish line with a lot of momentum. And I think it's easier to define a uniform "protection zone" than different distances at the start and at the finish.
> I remember triggering it a few times while I was lining up for my runs last year. In that case, more flexibility is recommended.
I think for many riders it is indeed uncommon to line up so close to the start line, especially because the light barriers in our system are very low, so that the tire contact point is the decisive point. However, the leading edge of the tire is not that useful for the slalom, because the judge has to evaluate at the finish line whether a rider has crossed it in control, and the moment of the finish is actually only easy for the judge to recognize if the tire contact point is decisive.
> I don't know to how many cm of "play" this translates, it depends on a lot of variables, the height of the light beams being an important one. Maybe we should discuss how many cm of "play" should be granted before either light beam trips. Maybe 25 cm?
I will try to measure later how much play you have with respect to your start position with our arrangement of the light barriers.
Comment
> I will try to measure later how much play you have with respect to your start position with our arrangement of the light barriers.
The optical axes of the two light barriers are about 47 cm apart in our system, resulting in a freedom of movement of about 26 cm for the riders on a standard 24 class unicycle.
We can of course decide to give the riders a little less freedom, but in my experience, it should not be too much less, because then particularly inexperienced riders will have many problems to adjust their start position in this area.
Comment
I tried to bring all the aspects discussed here into one rule proposal. I have taken into account the safety area in front of/behind the start/finish line, the possibility of practicing, the alignment of the cones and the rule regarding repeated flying starts.
I hope that I have not forgotten any aspect:
2B.8.1 IUF Slalom
1. The IUF Slalom is a parcours consisting of 10 cones, as shown in figure X.X, which must be run through as fast as possible in the correct pattern, without knocking cones over. No remounting after a dismount is allowed. Riders get two attempts.
2. The rider has to start directly behind the Start line. The Starter gives the opening, and then the rider has to start during the next 3 seconds. The timer is started when any defined point of the tire (for example the part that crosses a low light beam) crosses the start line, and stops when a similar point of the tire crosses the finish line. If the rider has not yet started after 3 seconds, the timer will start counting anyway. This does not invalidate the attempt. Time measurement at start and finish line must be identical to insure accurate time measurement.
3. It must be secured that riders do not gain momentum before crossing the start line (no flying starts). If a flying start occurs, the start must be aborted, this can happen automatically e.g. by a light barrier behind the rider at the start or by the responsible judge. If this happens the first time during an attempt, the rider is allowed to start over, but if it happens the second time, it will count as an invalid attempt.
4. Cones may be hit, but not knocked over, otherwise the attempt will count as invalid. The course must be followed correctly, including the direction of turns. Riders who go the wrong way around a cone can go back and make the turn the correct way with the clock still running, otherwise the attempt will count as invalid. Arrows marked on the ground should indicate the direction of the turns for riders unfamiliar with the course. The last cone must be completely circled before the rider’s time is taken at the finish line.
5. The cones used are plastic or similar material traffic cones. Cones must be between 45 and 60 cm tall and the base plate must fit in a square with side length 32 cm. The alignment of the cones is done in such a way that the square in which the base plate must fit is aligned with two sides parallel to the start/finish line.
Note: The cones should be stable enough to stay put even in a stiff wind.
6. The course must be set up accurately. The proper positions of the cones should be marked on the ground for a cone to be replaced quickly after it has been knocked over. An area of at least 1.5m in depth must be kept clear in front of the start line/behind the finish line, in which there shall only be equipment directly needed for timing.
7. At least one practice course is required. If the practice course is not on a surface similar to the timed course, each rider should be allowed one practice run before their timed run. If they do not do both of their timed runs at the same time, another practice run should be allowed before the rider's second timed attempt.
Comment
Let me clarify what I meant by leeway and space etc.
You wrote that there is 1.5 m of space before and behind the finish line. I think you mean there must be no obstacles within 1.5 m from that line (on either side), except light beam equipment. You added: "This is sufficient for everyone to start where they feel comfortable." What I meant with my response to that, is that the two elements of the light beam (source and detector, or source/detector and reflector) should have sufficient distance between them, so that wherever the rider positions themselves for the start, or wherever they cross the finish line, they do cross/cut the light beam. This assumes that the start and finish are detected by the a single light beam. The 1.5 m space is not very relevant in this regard.
> the moment of the finish is actually only easy for the judge to recognize if the tire contact point is decisive
But is this finish moment indeed the rule for Slalom? In most track races, the front of the tyre is decisive. So most judges must be able to judge finishing "in control" and that point. It would then be the most consistent to judge Slalom in the same way. Note that it does matter for the results if some distance is "moved" from the start to the finish, because 30 cm more on the first leg (to cone 1) is ridden fast, but 30 cm more after cone 10 is ridden slower.
I would have to check, but I think some time ago the front of the tyre was decisive in Slalom. If we de facto changed to contact point, I think this will have made the resulting times a little bit faster.
> The optical axes of the two light barriers are about 47 cm apart in our system, resulting in a freedom of movement of about 26 cm for the riders on a standard 24 class unicycle.
Excellent distance, in my opinion. Is this with typical tyre compression (which will make the wheel wider if you see what I mean) taken into account?
If 20 Class riders have a little bit more than 26 cm of freedom due to their smaller wheel, that's fine with me. Usually they are less experienced or less stable.
Comment
> What I meant with my response to that, is that the two elements of the light beam (source and detector, or source/detector and reflector) should have sufficient distance between them, so that wherever the rider positions themselves for the start, or wherever they cross the finish line, they do cross/cut the light beam.
I understand. Yes, of course, the reflectors should of course be located so far out (in our case the transmitters/receivers are located approx. 3m to the left of the last cone at the start/finish line) that they do not represent any restrictions on the route. But this is usually not a problem - should we write something about that in the rules?
> This assumes that the start and finish are detected by the a single light beam.
I'm not sure what you mean, but I recommend using separate light beams for the start and finish, otherwise it's not possible for the next rider to line up at the start when the previous rider is still on the track. Waiting until the previous rider is at the finish line takes much more time during the competition.
> But is this finish moment indeed the rule for Slalom?
The Rulebook says: "The timer is started when any defi ned point of the tire (for example the part that crosses a low light beam) crosses the start line, and stops when a similar point of the tire crosses the finish line."- but it was indeed the front edge of the tire until the Rulebook 2012 and then became the current rule in the Rulebook 2013.
All in all, no point is completely clearly defined - I think, as in all places where it is necessary to check with the eye whether something is fulfilled or not when crossing a line ( one foot, coasting), this is however only possible really well with the tire contact point. In the track races, in contrast, there is normally a camera.
> Is this with typical tyre compression (which will make the wheel wider if you see what I mean) taken into account?
I quickly measured the dimension last weekend in our garage. I guess that on tartan with the compression of the tire, the clearance becomes even slightly smaller.
Comment
> should we write something about that in the rules?
Yes, we might. Something like: finish light beam equipment should be located at such positions that the rider can cross the start and finish line at any reasonable location. Or do we want to be more specific about which "lateral windows" are at least required? You have more experience than I in what is reasonably needed/used by a variety of riders, and certainly more insight in what is doable from an equipment point of view.
Comment
I would tend to try a general statement first - at the competitions I have been to in the past, the reflectors and light beams were always positioned in such a way that they did not interfere with the riding path. There are definitely enough light beams that allow a distance of 5 to 6 m to the reflector, so the area in which the riders can cross the start and finish line can be chosen very large. I would estimate that most riders start within a 2 - 2.5m area and cross the finish line in a similar, perhaps slightly smaller area.
Comment
Sorry for my late responses:
> Re: triggering the "back" beam at the start line
Note that I was not triggering it when starting a timed run; it was only while I was getting my wheel positioned and preparing to go. I wasn't used to the "narrow" amount of space to move around in. A proper start requires no rollback, especially when the rider gets to decide when to go. 26cm should be plenty.
> the moment of the finish is actually only easy for the judge to recognize if the tire contact point is decisive
I actually had forgotten that the Slalom measures from the bottom of the tire, unlike the other races. This makes sense for beam timing, and as long as it's consistent (same method at start and finish) it equals out. The odd thing about the Slalom course is that most riders don't cross the finish line perpendicular to it; they cross it at all angles.
> should we write something about that in the rules? (width of beam at the finish line)
Assuming we are still able to post proposals(?), not a bad idea, even if only to recommend a minimum of 3m width of beam, starting to the "left" of cone #10 (as viewed in the standard course diagram) and extending the minimum 3m to the right across the line. A diagram for setting up the beams (and other timing equipment/riding hazards) would be a good idea as well.
> ...it was indeed the front edge of the tire until the Rulebook 2012...
Technically not the front edge, but whatever part of the tire crossed the plane of the finish line first (long as the rider rode in circle around the last cone).
Nikolay pointed out some interesting statistics of the IUF Slalom at recent Unicons, including one that I was never aware of. Did you know it gets more competitors than any other single event? I did not know this! He pointed out that having only two tries is extremely limited, but contrasted with the high attendance it reinforces the idea that time will be a factor when you need to run more than 500 riders on your competition course! His suggestion of allowing more attempts for the Finalists should be considered with that high attendance in mind. I always knew I liked the Slalom; I never realized how very popular it was!
Comment
No problem, thanks for your input :)
> Assuming we are still able to post proposals(?), not a bad idea, even if only to recommend a minimum of 3m width of beam...
We can still create proposal - but for the IUF Slalom I have also already created a "dummy proposal", which we can still edit in any case.
I would try to work in the aspects related to the space for crossing the start and finish line later.
> > ...it was indeed the front edge of the tire until the Rulebook 2012...
Technically not the front edge, but whatever part of the tire crossed the plane of the finish line first
Okay, maybe the rules were meant that way back then - the wording was not very clear (for me), because a precise definition of the decisive point was only given for the start ("The timer is started when the front of the wheel crosses above the Start line. [...] The last cone must be completely circled before the rider’s time is taken at the finish line."). But that doesn't matter now, anyway, because the definition has changed and the new definition makes sense for slalom from my point of view.
> He pointed out that having only two tries is extremely limited [...] His suggestion of allowing more attempts for the Finalists should be considered with that high attendance in mind.
I agree that two attempts are of course very limited - on the other hand, in the racing disciplines you even have only one attempt and in actually all other technical disciplines also only two attempts. So actually all track disciplines are very limited in the number of attempts and I wouldn't say that the limitation in IUF Slalom is harder than e.g. in Coasting or Gliding.
Overall, the question for me is why more attempts would be necessary/meaningful in IUF Slalom?
Comment
I have added the following to paragraph 6:
With electronic timing, the light beams at the start and finish should be placed in such a way that the rider can cross the start and finish line at any reasonable location.
Note: A proven position for light beams is 3m to the left of the centerline with a start corridor of at least 5m and a finish corridor of at least 6m.
Are there any comments on this? Or are there any other aspects that we should adjust/add to the rule?
NEW Rule:
2B.8.1 IUF Slalom
1. The IUF Slalom is a parcours consisting of 10 cones, as shown in figure X.X, which must be run through as fast as possible in the correct pattern, without knocking cones over. No remounting after a dismount is allowed. Riders get two attempts.
2. The rider has to start directly behind the Start line. The Starter gives the opening, and then the rider has to start during the next 3 seconds. The timer is started when any defined point of the tire (for example the part that crosses a low light beam) crosses the start line, and stops when a similar point of the tire crosses the finish line. If the rider has not yet started after 3 seconds, the timer will start counting anyway. This does not invalidate the attempt. Time measurement at start and finish line must be identical to insure accurate time measurement.
3. It must be secured that riders do not gain momentum before crossing the start line (no flying starts). If a flying start occurs, the start must be aborted, this can happen automatically e.g. by a light barrier behind the rider at the start or by the responsible judge. If this happens the first time during an attempt, the rider is allowed to start over, but if it happens the second time, it will count as an invalid attempt.
4. Cones may be hit, but not knocked over, otherwise the attempt will count as invalid. The course must be followed correctly, including the direction of turns. Riders who go the wrong way around a cone can go back and make the turn the correct way with the clock still running, otherwise the attempt will count as invalid. Arrows marked on the ground should indicate the direction of the turns for riders unfamiliar with the course. The last cone must be completely circled before the rider’s time is taken at the finish line.
5. The cones used are plastic or similar material traffic cones. Cones must be between 45 and 60 cm tall and the base plate must fit in a square with side length 32 cm. The alignment of the cones is done in such a way that the square in which the base plate must fit is aligned with two sides parallel to the start/finish line.
Note: The cones should be stable enough to stay put even in a stiff wind.
6. The course must be set up accurately. The proper positions of the cones should be marked on the ground for a cone to be replaced quickly after it has been knocked over. An area of at least 1.5m in depth must be kept clear in front of the start line/behind the finish line, in which there shall only be equipment directly needed for timing. With electronic timing, the light beams at the start and finish should be placed in such a way that the rider can cross the start and finish line at any reasonable location.
Note: A proven position for light beams is 3m to the left of the centerline with a start corridor of about 5m and a finish corridor of about 6m.
7. At least one practice course is required. If the practice course is not on a surface similar to the timed course, each rider should be allowed one practice run before their timed run. If they do not do both of their timed runs at the same time, another practice run should be allowed before the rider's second timed attempt.
Comment
In another discussion, John noted the following about IUF Slalom Finals. Since this discussion is about the IUF Slalom, I would like to move the comment here:
>> So the rules are very clear that a IUF Slalom Final must be held only at Unicon...
Though I like the idea of this, I wonder if it's a problem for organizers to make it fit, since it takes quite a bit of time. I'm in favor of it, though I don't know if it's been successfully held more than once, that being at Unicon 18, Spain. If there was one in Korea I missed it, and at Unicon 20 it was cancelled due to sudden weather, which I don't consider to be a rules violation. Does everyone think a Slalom Final should be mandatory for Unicon? I will vote for this proposal either way...
I think for a Unicon it is OK if a slalom final is mandatory. In Korea there was definitely a slalom final, my brother and I wired up new light beams the night before because the light beams that the organizers had and that were used in the age group races were causing extreme problems.
Comment
I have created an official proposal with the text suggested here and some minor wording changes to be consistent with the other rules.
If there are any further comments, or if we should change anything regarding the final for the IUF Slalom, please let me know!
Otherwise, there is one more issue:
I got the justified feedback to the current illustration of the IUF Slalom that it is not obvious from the illustration that the cones are built symmetrically to a center line, i.e. the slalom and the last cone are exactly in the middle between the other cones. I would try to adjust the illustration so that this becomes clear and then add links to the old and new illustration in the proposal.
Comment
In the proposal under (3), why do we have those two phrases "otherwise the attempt will count as invalid"? Is it not clear without that phrase, what the consequence of a rule violation should be? We have countless rules in the Rulebook, but we rarely if ever mention what the consequence is. In this particular case, it seems quite obvious and I think those two phrases can be deleted.
Why is the last sentence of (5) a "Note"? I think it could be part of the running text.
The note under (6), concerning the position of the light beams, is not clear. The start cone is 6 m to the left of the centerline, so having a light beam at only 3 m left of the centerline would require a diagonal first leg (from start to first cone). I think I understand what is meant: it's about the light source (not the light beam), while the width of the "corridor" defines the position of the two detectors. But I think that if we want to include suggestions for light source and detector/reflector placement, a dedicated picture would make things clearer.
I think that the Rulebook should require a slalom final, at least at Unicons. In Unicon 20, although I understand the decision based on the weather forecast at the time, I know that at least a few of the Slalom finalists were not happy.
Comment
> Is it not clear without that phrase, what the consequence of a rule violation should be?
I think that if it is not explicitly stated, it is also not clear what the consequence should be - see the previous/old rule on the flying start. Is the rider simply allowed to start again? Does the attempt count as invalid? Will the rider be disqualified? If we don't state this clearly, it is also not clear what should happen in this situation. That's why I've tried to mention this clearly in all the rules that we've reformulated or changed.
> We have countless rules in the Rulebook, but we rarely if ever mention what the consequence is.
I think we should find these places and make them more concrete. I hope in the new track rules, there are no more such parts. Otherwise we should still change them.
> Why is the last sentence of (5) a "Note"? I think it could be part of the running text.
That's how we voted the sentence in Proposal 15. I have taken this part from Proposal 15. From my side, we can also integrate the sentence into the rule - even if it is of course somewhat vague/imprecise.
> The note under (6), concerning the position of the light beams, is not clear.
I see you pint - I always translated "Lichtschranke" with "light beam", but you are right that this is probably not the correct translation, or at least not a clear one.
I'll see if I can include the positioning in the illustration and adjust the sentence accordingly - if we want to include the note at all.
Comment
> ...allowed to start again? ...count as invalid? ...disqualified?
You are right, we need to specify the consequence.
> I hope in the new track rules, there are no more such parts
I have no overview of the rules with all the changes implemented that we have agree upon so far (through accepted proposals). Just a couple examples from the 2019 Rulebook:
* shoes must not be fixed to the pedals in any way
* Riders must wear their race number clearly visible on their chest
* riders must stay in their lane
* The non-pedaling foot must have left the pedal when the tire contact point crosses the 5m line
* No contact with pedals or crank arms is allowed
I'll stop here, you get the idea. I don't think we have explicitly stated the consequence for violating each of these (and many other) rules. Nor am I advocating to do that.
> From my side, we can also integrate the sentence into the rule - even if it is of course somewhat vague/imprecise.
There is indeed some vagueness/subjectivity in "a stiff wind". But if such vagueness is acceptable in a note (which is, after all, part of the rules), it should also be acceptable when not in a note.
> I always translated "Lichtschranke" with "light beam"
My German is so-so, but I think a "Lichtschranke" is a light barrier? That is basically the same as a light beam, I think. So the translation seems not too bad. I think the confusion arises from the fact that a Lichtschranke/light beam does not have a single position. It is a line of finite length, spanning the distance from the light source to a light sensor. So specifying a location for it requires two points, not one.
If you want to make an illustration to clarify positioning, I'd say it should be a separate picture in the 2D section. It doesn't seem useful for the riders to have their picture of the IUF Slalom "contaminated" with measuring equipment details.
Comment
> "Note"
That one is possibly my fault, if I said something like "we should add a note about that". I agree with incorporating that into the text of the rule and rephrasing as needed to make it fit.
> Light beams
I don't know what to call them. If we want to be a bit more precise we could say something like 'light beam apparatus' to indicate we are talking about that piece of hardware as well as the beam. "...light beams at the start and finish should be placed in such a way that the rider can cross the start and finish line at any reasonable location." This is a little vague, but not sure how to be more specific without going into great detail. The updated diagram should specify the (minimum?) required left and right edges of both the start and finish spaces, which should be equal to the areas covered by the start and finish beams.
> Consequences for violations
False start? Flying start? In my opinion, those should each be allowed once per competitor, per getting timed. In other words, a rider can do each once, hopefully with appropriate/helpful/educational instruction about what not to do next time. If the rider does not do both attempts in one visit, it may be hard to track this so instead of trying to, the same allowance will be made if that happens again. I believe it's a fairly rare thing for a rider to not do both timed attempts, but it does happen. (it happened to me in Grenoble; I was so wiped out from the Muni ride earlier in the day, I had to take a break between my two timed runs!)
Failing to start during the 3 seconds is not a violation, but if a rider does not understand they are supposed to go (due to language or lack of instruction) they should be allowed to restart that attempt.
Other disqualifying events would be dismounts, knocking down a cone or not completing the course as designed; in other words, repeating from where they went off course, with all turns done correctly. For the finish line, a good measurement of a "clean" dismount would mean no part of the rider's body may touch the ground on the course-side of the start/finish line.
> Rider number must be worn on chest
This is critically important for multi-rider events, but not necessary for Slalom. I do not suggest to change that rule, however I don't have a problem with Slalom officials ignoring this rule. I would only need the rider to show me their number, so they can't impersonate someone else. Pinning those things on is a pain, and if the Slalom is being held away from the track, I'm not going to make people suffer. :-)
> Stiff Wind
For the same reason I have excused myself from the wind measurement discussions, I have no background on this. It definitely would not be a wind speed thing; more like the strength of wind gusts. I guess "stiff wind" is meant to say if wind can knock them down, they're not adequate. If we want, we could change "stiff wind" to something like "strong wind gust". Still vague, but perhaps raises the bar of how stable a cone must be.
I hope I've covered everything I'd intended to...
Comment
> > "Note"
I will chnage that in the proposal.
> My German is so-so, but I think a "Lichtschranke" is a light barrier?
"Lichtschranke" in German means more the transmitter and reciver unit than the actual light - but all in all, ligth beam is not the right term. So if we want to leave this note in the rules I would definitely revise it.
> If you want to make an illustration to clarify positioning, I'd say it should be a separate picture in the 2D section. It doesn't seem useful for the riders to have their picture of the IUF Slalom "contaminated" with measuring equipment details.
I would agree with that - however, I don't think it's particularly useful to have specific setup details for the technical disciplines elsewhere. The current rule contains some things that are actually only relevant for the organizers. I think it is not really easy to separate the organizer part from the rider part.
> False start? Flying start? In my opinion, those should each be allowed once per competitor, per getting timed. In other words, a rider can do each once, hopefully with appropriate/helpful/educational instruction about what not to do next time.
Right now we don't have any rule about false starts in IUF Slalom, because what is a false start in IUF Slalom? The time beginns to run if you cross the start line and you have three secons to do so, before the time starts to run anyway - so this is fundamentally different to the races... I'm not against making a rule about false start, but I think it's quite hard.
> Failing to start during the 3 seconds is not a violation, but if a rider does not understand they are supposed to go (due to language or lack of instruction) they should be allowed to restart that attempt.
I would stongly disagree. The riders have to know the rules and they have to know that they need to start in 3 seconds and otherwise the time will starts to run. If we would garant a new attempt here, we could also garant a new attempt if a rider goes the wrong way, if they circle the final cone only half, and so on - because one could always say: "They don't know/understand the rules"
> Other disqualifying events would be dismounts, knocking down a cone or not completing the course as designed;
All these things are covered by the proposal. But in my opinion these things must not lead to a disqualification, but only to the fact that the attempt becomes invalid. A disqualification would require the referee's decision, which in these cases is not practical and not necessary. Furthermore, in my understanding, disqualification always means that a rider is excluded from the event - which is not the case here. In this case, only the single attempt becomes invalid and the rider can make his second attempt without any restrictions.
Comment
I have moved the note of paragraph 5 into paragraph 5 and I also changed the note of paragraph 6 and I hope it is now clear how its meant.
Are there any further remarks to the text of the rule?
Comment
A light beam is just that, a beam of light. Not something we place on or near the track, but something that is created by the equipment we put there. So maybe change light beam to "light beam apparatus" (as John suggested) or "light beam equipment", or something similar that refers to the contraption that we put there.
Unlike the current text suggests, the abortion of the start does not happen automatically. What about:
If a flying start occurs, the start must be aborted. Flying starts can be detected automatically e.g. by a light barrier (etc)
On all other issues I agree with Jan.
Comment
> "A proven position for transmitters/receivers of light beams for electronic timing is 3 m to the left of the centerline and the reflectors on the outside giving a start corridor of about 5 m and a finish corridor of about 6 m."
Is it always to that the transmitter and receiver are in a single unit, and the light beam goes from there to a reflector and back? I'm asking because I can also imagine a system with a transmitter on one end and a receiver on the other end. For that scenario, the text does not work well, and we should write something that is more generally applicable.
Comment
> Unlike the current text suggests, the abortion of the start does not happen automatically. What about:
If a flying start occurs, the start must be aborted. Flying starts can be detected automatically e.g. by a light barrier (etc)
I see your point. What I meant to say is that if the system can automatically detect a flying start, then an aborted start should also be automatically signaled, because I think a corresponding signal is quite important. But this is indeed not clear.
What about: "If a flying start occurs, the start must be aborted ba a clear and predefined signal. Flying starts can be detected automatically e.g. by a light barrier behind the rider at the start or by the responsible judge."
> For that scenario, the text does not work well, and we should write something that is more generally applicable.
You are of course right that there can be other configurations. The note was only intended to exemplify a proven configuration. We could make this even clearer, e.g. by adding a second sentence: "Other configurations are also possible." Or simply omit the note altogether and rely on the fact that the sentence "With electronic timing, the light beams at the start and finish should be placed in such a way that the rider can cross the start and finish line at any reasonable location." is sufficient.
Comment
I suggest then:
If a flying start occurs, the start must be aborted. Flying starts can be automatically detected and signalled to the rider, e.g. by a light barrier system (etc)
> We could make this even clearer, e.g. by adding a second sentence: "Other configurations are also possible." Or simply omit the note altogether
I like omitting that note about a proven position. Someone who is responsible for light beam placement will figure it out, based on the requirements that remain in the rule.
An additional sentence "Other configurations are also possible" implies that the foregoing already described a configuration. But it doesn't ,or at least not clearly, the reader has to interpret/deduce what configuration is meant.
Comment
> but all in all, light beam is not the right term
If you want a shorter name for this, how about 'Beam Apparatus' or 'Beam Set'. Optionally add 'light' on the front. Apparatus is an ugly word but means a "device" that may have multiple parts. Set also covers the idea that it may be multiple parts (I assume there are different designs with different methods of accomplishing the same thing).
> Right now we don't have any rule about false starts in IUF Slalom, because what is a false start in IUF Slalom?
These rules also govern lower-budget competitions that might not have electronic timing. I'm not sure of an alternative way to indicate "problems with the start" With a stopwatch, it just means the rider started before the clock. That would be added to the list of things that might get a single warning, but after that lead to the "end of that attempt".
> The riders have to know the rules and they have to know that they need to start in 3 seconds
I'm going to disagree with you there. Yes, riders have to know the proper route around the course, how to cross a finish line, can't knock over cones, etc. but this 3-seconds thing is relatively new thing, and is more about how the timing works than how the athlete does the sport. Many riders from the smaller unicycling countries may arrive at the Slalom course without a translator and have trouble with details they did not practice at home. In all cases, it is hoped that the people running the Slalom event will be helpful and not snarky, and be better than what was described by the guy from NAUCC in Minnesota. I hope it won't be the same person(s) running that event at the next Unicon! :-O
> Other disqualifying events would be dismounts, knocking down a cone or not completing the course as designed;
Correct, I didn't mean disqualifying, maybe we need specific language to keep this clear, as Slalom is the only Track event where people get multiple attempts (other than false starts) so 'end that attempt' is a suggested way to say it, but perhaps not the best. Then 'aborted attempt', as you mentioned above, could be the label for an attempt that gets to be restarted (once).
Comment
> Optionally add 'light' on the front.
Yes, I'd rather have "light" there, because a "beam" can also be a physical object, which could be rather confusing.
> Slalom is the only Track event where people get multiple attempts
Not true. Two attempts are also given in Slow Balance Forward, Slow Balance Backward, and Stillstand.
As to be lenient with the three seconds start window, I'm on the fence. Maybe we could solve it by lengthening the window from 3 to 10 seconds? Most riders will start within a second or two from the opening, and so this change would not cause the event to take any more time. If someone waits for more than 3 seconds, he/she probably hasn't understood the start procedure (or has not heard the opening) and can be prompted by spoken word to start as yet, without time penalty. It would be on the starter to be helpful here.
Comment
I'm good with adding "light" (let there be light!)
Slow Balance races are, so far, impossible to judge objectively. But some people still like doing them! And Stillstand, the boringest competition ever. It was quite a bit more entertaining when we had some informal stillstand competitions where everyone competed at once. But judging that was only slightly easier than objectively judging Slow Balance... :-P
The proposal looks great as is, with the following suggested tweaks:
- The changing back from 'shall' to 'must'
- "Invalid attempt" might need to be clarified that it means the rider has used one of their two attempts, and it does not allow for additional "do-overs". Maybe say "that will count as an unsuccessful attempt" or similar?
- "the base plate shall fit in a square with side length 32 cm" - To avoid misinterpretation, change "in" to "within" or "inside", a way of indicating 32 cm is a maximum size, not a required size
- "...stable enough to stay put even in a stiff wind" - If we're not happy with that, possibly change to "stay in place with strong wind gusts"?
I would vote for it as-is but please consider those.
Comment
> I suggest then:
If a flying start occurs, the start must be aborted. Flying starts can be automatically detected and signalled to the rider, e.g. by a light barrier system (etc)
What are your reasons for dropping the "by a clear and predefined signal" from the first sentence? The rest of the sentence is fine for me.
> I like omitting that note about a proven position.
While I like to give possible organizers and developers of such systems a hint of what is proven and works well, I am also fine with not including it in the rules. Perhaps we can create an additional document outside of the Rulebook, with guidance on the IUF Slalom setup. For example, a drawing with diagonal measurements would also be very useful for the slalom setup. But of course all this doesn't have to be in the rules, it could just be an additional document on "Best Practice on Slalom Setup".
> I'm not sure of an alternative way to indicate "problems with the start" With a stopwatch, it just means the rider started before the clock.
But can this always be blamed on the rider, or is it perhaps in this case also the fault of the judge that he has signaled the rider to be ready, but it was not yet? Maybe it makes more sense to have a "hole" in the rules at this point and just let the rider start again?
In my experience, it has also not been a problem so far to have "unlimited" attempts on flying starts, but it's also okay for me to regulate this. But especially in the case of a false start, we must then also define from when the start process begins, i.e. from when a rider is no longer allowed to cross the start line - when setting up, the start line is regularly crossed and this obviously cannot be considered a false start.
> but this 3-seconds thing is relatively new thing, and is more about how the timing works than how the athlete does the sport.
The rule has been in the rulebook for over ten years now - which means it has probably been in the rulebook longer than most of the current riders have been unicycling at competitions at all. So, from my point of view, there is no reason why riders should know these rule less than others. And of course the start process is part of how an athlete does the discipline - so it's clearly a crucial point for them to have three seconds to start after a start signal and they should be aware of.
Or in other words: I would leave the rule as it is. And if a judge decides at his own discretion that a rider has obviously not understood how the procedure is and therefore decides to explain this to the rider again and not to count the attempt before, then let it be that way. But I would not include this possibility in the rulebook.
> Correct, I didn't mean disqualifying, maybe we need specific language to keep this clear
That's what I tried to do with the rule, and that's why I added in a few places that an attempt can be invalidated by this or that.
> Invalid attempt" might need to be clarified that it means the rider has used one of their two attempts, and it does not allow for additional "do-overs". Maybe say "that will count as an unsuccessful attempt" or similar?
To be honest, "invalid attempt" sounds clearer to me than "unsuccessful attempt" - but I'm not a native speaker. If you say that "invalid attempt" is not clear, how about "failed attempt" (that's how it is called in atlethics)?
We should then adapt this in some other technical disciplines as well, where currently "invalid attempt" is in the rules.
Comment
> "Starter gives the opening," (From current version of the proposal)
I don't know what that phrase means. I think what will work for the riders is "The Starter tells the rider that when they indicate they are ready to start, they will have 3 seconds in which to start, which will automatically start the timer. Or if manual timing is used, the usual three-count start." Or similar words to that effect.
> Proven position and technical diagram(s)
The Slalom should have a "rider-friendly" diagram at the beginning of the section, similar to what we currently have. But to help organizers I recommend a second diagram, appearing in the section(s) where those details are described, to show the recommended and "minimum" locations for timing gear, markings for cones, etc. It can (should) also include that diagonal dimension that would help course-builders to keep their course at a more accurate 90-degrees.
> 3-Second thing:
Yes, leave as it is, as long as there is room for officials to use discretion if they think a rider doesn't understand how that works.
> Failed vs. Invalid Attempt:
"Failed" has a worse connotation, but may be more clear. We just have to define what it means; that the rider has used up one of their two attempts. Whereas with a starting "mistake", for instance, officials can grant a "do-over" that does not use one of the two attempts. I think the current version of the proposal is pretty clear; just need to change "invalid" to "failed", followed by "A failed attempt means that the rider has used one of their two attempts.
Comment
> > "Starter gives the opening," (From current version of the proposal)
I don't know what that phrase means.
I have always understood it that the starter (or the system in the case of electronic timing) gives a start signal and from then on there are three seconds to start.
In my experience, using the normal start beeb or counting makes no sense in slalom, because the time does not start automatically with the start signal, but instead when the rider crosses the start line. Therefore, there is no need to exactly predict the start moment, because the rider sets the start moment himself.
With a normal "count-down start signal" there is of course the danger that the rider starts before the final signal and thus makes an false start. If one would use such a "count-down start signal", then indeed something should be contained to false starts in the rule, because then it would be easy to define from my point of view what a false start is - namely a start between the beginning of the "count-down start signal" and the final start signal. But I don't know of any system that uses such a start signal, and I wouldn't recommend it for slalom either.
> But to help organizers I recommend a second diagram, appearing in the section(s) where those details are described
Currently we have only one section where the IUF slalom is described and that is in the riders chapter. I think it is also very difficult to make a meaningful division in the technical disciplines into rules for organizers and rules for riders. I think a division would only make it more complicated for organizers and some parts would be duplicated or difficult to find.
In the end it would only be a recommendation/"Best-Practise" regarding the positioning of light sensors and so on - that's why I thought of a separate document.
> "Failed" has a worse connotation, but may be more clear. We just have to define what it means; that the rider has used up one of their two attempts.
Do we really need to explain what it means when an attempt is scored as failed? For me it would be clear, exactly as in the case of an invalid attempt.
Comment
> "Opening"
Maybe instead it should say "Starter indicates the start of the 3-second time to cross the start line." Or something similar if that doesn't translate well.
> Second diagram, separate document?
Not necessarily a bad idea, but implementing it could be complicated using our fragmented rule-changing process. Perhaps it's something we need to propose for the next round, making it open to all the disciplines if they have any technical details they might want to separate from what riders need to know. It could also be part of the same document, either at the back, or separated from "what riders need to know". For now we should probably go with what we have.
> Failed vs. Invalid vs. Do-Over
"Failed" is clear enough, or "invalid". The important part is to make it clear when a "do-over" is allowed, rather than counted as one of the two attempts. In reading through the proposal, it seems pretty clear with these suggested edits:
> 4. Cones may be hit, but not knocked over, otherwise the attempt will count as invalid.
I think you commented about that one before. I think it can be simply "4. Cones may be hit, but not knocked over, otherwise the attempt is invalid."
> Also, "Riders who go the wrong way around a cone can go back and make the turn the correct way with the clock still running, otherwise the attempt will count as invalid.
Change that to "Riders who go the wrong way around a cone must go back and make the turn the correct way with the clock still running, otherwise the attempt is invalid."
Comment
Hopefully, I have incorporated all of the suggestions for improvement addressed here into the official proposal.
Comment
Typo:
in (3) aborted ba > aborted by.
Note that the requirement in (5) about alignment allows the cone sides not to be parallel to the start line, in case the cone base doesn't fit tightly in the 32x32 cm square. This is not a problem for me, but maybe someone else might want to sharpen this up so that always one side of the cone base is parallel to the start line.
Otherwise I agree to the proposal.
Comment
> Typo
I will correct that
> Note that the requirement in (5) about alignment allows the cone sides not to be parallel to the start line, in case the cone base doesn't fit tightly in the 32x32 cm square.
I see your point. What about: "The alignment of the cones is done in such a way that cones that do not have a round base plate are aligned with at least one side parallel to the start/finish line."
I think that would cover the point, right?
Comment
>I think that would cover the point, right?
Yes, that's fine.
Comment
That's fine. Once you get to six or more sides it matters less and less which way they face, at least in terms of riding around them. :-)
Comment
Revision is done.
Comment
>Once you get to six or more sides it matters less and less which way they face, at least in terms of riding around them
True, but it also doesn't hurt to specify it, AND it takes away a possible reason for a complaint by "a rider or parent at NAUCC". (Or creates a reason for complaining in case the orientation rule is not followed in practice.)
Comment
The alignment of the cones is done in such a way that cones that do not have a round base plate are aligned with at least one side parallel to the start/finish line
could be simplified to
Cones that do not have a round base plate must be aligned with at least one side parallel to the start/finish line
Comment
> AND it takes away a possible reason for a complaint by "a rider or parent at NAUCC"...
You hit the nail on the head, as it were. Nothing like the "P" word to make us reconsider!
Comment
> could be simplified to
Cones that do not have a round base plate must be aligned with at least one side parallel to the start/finish line
Simpler is better I think - I will once again revise the proposal :)
Comment
Are there any further comments or ideas on this proposal, or are we ready to vote?
Comment
I'm ready to vote.