|
|
|
| Long Distance Pumping (LDP) (1492 Posts)
|
| Topic |
Info |
|
The Trap...
|
|
On 8/30/2004
Adam
wrote in from
United States
(66.121.nnn.nnn)
Yep.. I have some coding to finish for Steve's new trap distances. Hopefully I'll find some time this week. A few new forums coming online too..
|
|
|
|
|
cool
|
|
On 8/30/2004
slim
wrote in from
United States
(69.110.nnn.nnn)
when things settle down and you guys have more time to get back to it, I'll be reading! It sounded cool and might motivate me to work on my pumping skills too.
|
|
|
|
|
The Trap...
|
|
On 8/28/2004
Steve in AZ
wrote in from
United States
(130.13.nnn.nnn)
yeah, Slim, I noticed that too. Good reason...
Adam was working non-stop around the Breck race, trying to get the CS competition squared-away. He has yet to update The Trap forum for the revised rules. My wife is now expecting, so the desire (or time) to get out and run some high-speed passes is lower than what it was.
I'll get Adam a more stream-lined goof-proof version of the rules, and we'll try to get the forum set with the correct entries & calculations. Michael D's 44' trap times are still there, but the new version will allow for conversion to MPH for any of the Traps. I still believe that either 88' or 176' will become the standard, but it's still in the planning stages.
The other thing is that the racing season is now in full swing. We'll get The Trap up-to-speed (so to speak) after Morro, and set something up at one of the races or gatherings next season.
-=Trap Daddy=-
|
|
|
|
|
boom bust
|
|
On 8/28/2004
slim
wrote in from
United States
(69.110.nnn.nnn)
I think this topic must be one of the all time boom to bust topics! There was so much interest and talk about it for a few days and then, wham, it's dead. What happened? (and still only one time posted on the "trap" page.)
|
|
|
|
|
LeMans style racing
|
|
On 8/11/2004 psYch0Lloyd
wrote in from
United States
(198.160.nnn.nnn)
we've considering a LeMans style skateboard pump race here in chitown. by employing multi member teams riding a single board per team w/pit stops (and crew) we'll see how many laps a team can make in like an hour. anybody who's been at any of our races knows that our choice of venues offers all too many possibilities and challenges. uphill, down hill, through tunnels and s-curves galore, drafting and even some pedestrian avoidance skills should come in handy.
anybody up for a different kind of challenge?
|
|
|
|
|
pumping competitions
|
|
On 8/10/2004
binus
wrote in from
United States
(24.184.nnn.nnn)
would anybody be interested in a pumping contest in central park NYCity? get back to me at binusboards@yahoo.com for more info!!
|
|
|
|
|
The Trap...distances
|
|
On 8/6/2004 TrapMaster in AZ
wrote in from
United States
(192.175.nnn.nnn)
I've gotten some great feedback on the other site in coming up with an International Standard.
Good news is that it will still be in FEET; This makes MPH easier to calculate, and then MPH can be converted into KPH for our European & Canadian friends.
We also have still not determined a standard Trap distance, but 176' and 88' are still the two most appropriate numbers.
As far as running "The Trap" at home, it was suggested that all THREE distances be allowed: 44', 88' and 176';
But when POSTING your time, post the 88' time! So:
- 44'secs x 2 = 88' secs.
-176'secs x .5 = 88' secs.
- 88'secs, post as-is.
This will make it easier for Adam to format the page when he can get around to it. Of course, this may change if we adopt a 176' standard.
The 176' standard is gaining popularity; Run as a contest, there would be a greater time differential between the contestants with runs between 4.5-7.0 seconds over the 58 yards 2 feet Trap (yup! It's over 1/2 the length of an American football field). Runs on the 88' Trap would be 2.25-3.5 secs.
RIGHT NOW...the consensus is split between 88' and 176'.
Thanks for your continued input and support of a standardized Flatland Skateboard Speed Record & the associated participation and competition.
-=TrapDaddy-S=-
|
|
|
|
|
The Trap length
|
|
On 8/3/2004 TrapDaddy...in AZ
wrote in from
United States
(192.175.nnn.nnn)
Hehe...it's cool to hear all the discourse about The Trap!
At this rate, we'll have everything ironed out by the end of August.
Let me first start by re-interating that I'm NOT against a 176' official trap. I have yet to give all of this a REAL full-pad run myself, so both C&C and Mike Dong have one up on me that way. I may well decide that 176' is the way to go.
C.Chaput said: "If we looking for top speed only and we have a timing system, make the trap 11 feet or 22 feet. It's not really a course then, it's just part of the timing system."
YES!! That's IT. Or at least that's what I had originally proposed.
C.Yandal said: "From My point of view... 5-6 seconds of extreme effort to move down the line is just right to test the clock."
Almost. The "extreme effort" in this "event" is more in the accelleration prior to The Trap, and then maintaining the speed through it...however long or short. 95% of one's energy should be expended in reaching maximum speed. Remember...NO maximum approach! It's going to take not only strength and agility for this event, but some amount of skill in timing your speed "apex", and not burning out too soon.
C.Chaput: "The reason that I prefer 176 feet to 88 feet (or less) is because you actually have room to accelerate through the course."
oops. That just means that you hit The Trap too early, Chris, and your final speed will suffer as a result. You gotta hit that sucker at MAX speed and maintain it through The Trap.
C.Chaput: "For hand-timing your runs, the shorter courses will double or quadruple the margin of error."
Absolutely correct. 176' is the best hand-timed distance...no question. But for competition, better systems are required, and a shorter Trap can be effectively utilized. Besides...88' ain't all that short.
C.Chaput: "What I'm hoping will happen is that someone will take about 150 feet to push up to more than 20mph, pump for the next 150 feet and GAIN speed and then maintain that speed for the length of the trap. I'm not loking to wear anyone out. I want them to "peak" at the right time and place and maintain it for a reasonable length of track."
Bingo. Now we just have to agree on what's 'reasonable'.
Eric "silversurfer": "I would like to hear more about peoples' theories (as to)what equipment would be best for this new skateboarding event."
Hehe...As CC had mentioned, once a higher speed is obtained, a slightly longer more stable board with good wheels will give the skater the ability to pump 'in a higher gear', so to speak. The VERY best deck for this would be made in Alaska and have a very cool fiberglass bottom. ;-)
Seriously, I see 34-40" GS boards set up with narrow, sticky wheels. My C.Ya currently has a wedged German Seismic in front, a GeezerX offset rear and Avilas. If I were "Trapping", I'd go with a more narrow wheel and run the front truck flat.
I'll end with C.Ya's comment: "...We (really) need some serious hands-on acid tests to test the waters. not once.. but MANY times :D"
Until then, have fun at either 176' or 88'.
-=S=-, The TrapMaster.
|
|
|
|
|
Trap Length
|
|
On 8/3/2004
silversurfer
wrote in from
United States
(24.62.nnn.nnn)
C&C are making sense. I like 176 FT. and would even like to
see a longer course used for a seperate endurance event.
Theres a lot of great energy going into the planning and
brainstorming of the event though. Should be really
cool no matter what rules you end up with.
I would like to hear more about people's theorys
about what equipment would be best for this
new skateboarding event.
Great Job, Steve in AZ!
|
|
|
|
|
176' Flatland Speed Sk8Dance
|
|
On 8/2/2004
Chris Yandall
wrote in from
United States
(68.101.nnn.nnn)
From My point of view... 5-6 seconds of extreme effort to move down the line is just right to test the clock. the shorter tests won't be good enough for *absolute* proof? really we need some serious hands-on acid tests to test the waters. not once.. but MANY times :D . chris chaput feels it in his video what needs to be done.
C <diggin the scene with a gangster lean> Ya
|
|
|
|
|
Trap Speed
|
|
On 8/2/2004
Chris Chaput
wrote in from
United States
(66.116.nnn.nnn)
If we looking for top speed only and we have a timing system, make the trap 11 feet or 22 feet. It's not really a course then, it's just part of the timing system. The reason that I prefer 176 feet to 88 feet (or less) is because you actually have room to accelerate through the course. For hand-timing your runs, the shorter courses will double or quadruple the margin of error.
Any reasonably fit guy can maintain pumping or pushing speed for the 6 seconds that it takes to travel 176 feet. If someone pushes up to 20mph before the trap but can only pump at about 15mph, he will fade toward the end but not because he is tired. It's because he pushes faster. If that same rider wants his best time, he should just push through the trap.
What I'm hoping will happen is that someone will take about 150 feet to push up to more than 20mph, pump for the next 150 feet and GAIN speed and then maintain that speed for the length of the trap. I'm not loking to wear anyone out. I want them to "peak" at the right time and place and maintain it for a reasonable length of track.
In track the 100 yard/meter dash is a sprint and the 440 is murder. 176 feet is a lot more like the 100 than the 440.
|
|
|
|
|
Silverpushersurfer
|
|
On 8/2/2004
Joshua Burt
wrote in from
United States
(67.160.nnn.nnn)
Punch yourself in the crotch before you start so you don't feel the pain in your legs.Also,I like to ride a light board.You don't want to start feeling the weight at mile 5... I ride a Curve Swift 29 with Indy 129s and Avalons.I am able to pump(to keep this forum oriented)most of the course.I don't know about the NYC course,but the routes I have to choose from are butter smooth.You can pump with confidence,the surfaces are nice and grippy.I am always last no matter how I do because I think it's bad form to place at my own event.The series leader,Robin McGuirk,is unstoppable!He's riding his own lumber-Eastside Longboards.It's a smaller board as well,with Randal 150s and Kryptos.Another skater worthy of mention is Adam Fuller.That guy is the King of Punk!He raced #1 in combat boots and got 3rd!!!On a Wentzle Ruml!I am going to start doing the trap and getting times for these guys.I bet they are some of the fastest around!Pump,push,or tick-tack-PORTLAND RULES!!!The KINGS of flatland racing!
|
|
|
|
|
Updating "The Trap"
|
|
On 8/2/2004
Steve "Father of the Trap" in AZ
wrote in from
United States
(192.175.nnn.nnn)
Geez! I wish I could have been there with C&C to give this all a try.
I was stuck here in AZ for the weekend, so I didn't have the chance to run Traps or even try different distances.
After considering the latest feedback (and the Video of Chris C.), here's what I got:
-PAT C.; Yep, you got my bad math. But the calulation is still correct:
A 44' course (at Breck??) in .875 seconds:
MPH = 3x44 / 4.4x.875 = 132/3.85 = 34.286 MPH
-The Calculation is precise for official record trys, with no "rounding" or .333 or .6666 stuff.
-Chris's "120/secs = MPH" works for 176' courses.
-For shorter courses, half the numerator in the formula:
88' course MPH = 60/secs.
44' course MPH = 30/secs.
-This is a simplified version of my intial formula, and is accurate under all circumstances.
Lastly:
-Chris is also correct in that running a 176' course is easier to time with a simple hand-held stopwatch, and also requires more stamina and strength on the part of the skater. If that's what the contest is supposed to measure, then that would be fine. But CYa asked the question first: "I wonder how fast you really can go?" My impression is that The Trap should be first and foremost a contest of raw speed...a race for the sprinters, so to speak. If that means that some lightweight can waterbug their way up to 24.9 MPH in a short, manic sprint, then that should stand against a bigger, stronger skater who can hold his or her speed over a longer trap.
I'm not opposed to a longer trap (176 ft), but if it eliminates the record time of someone who enters the trap fast but fades in the last 88 feet, I think that's not right...at least not for contest.
The good news is that anyone who practices with a 176' trap has the advantage of building endurance and being able to time their try more easily. And you can infer from this that riders with good 176' times will probably increase their MPH over the shorter course, if only by a little. I may change my mind after a few fully-padded runs, but for now, I'm leaning towards 88' at official competitions.
Adam: I'll try to keep changes down to a minimum so we're at least a little consistent. Please update "The Trap" forum to incorporate the following:
-The submitted times can be either on 176' or 88' courses. I'm getting the idea that a 44' trap would be just too narrow, and that even the "sprinters" would not have too hard of a time with an 88' trap. So be it; No 44' traps.
"OFFICIAL" times (submitted under contest guidelines) would require the 88' course AND a taped or other accurate timing method, 6' wide at each of the start and finish tapes.
And still, NO MIN/NO MAX approach, NO LIMIT to Pump or Push or Skog or Flail, including through the trap. Please update the official Rules as such:
-Eliminate the push limits; No DQ's for pushing or pumping, even through The Trap.
-Eliminate the "Country" and "IP addy" columns.
-Add Columns for "Trap Dist: 176'/88'", then the time column, then "MPH".
-Is there a way that Trap distance and best time could be entered by the skater, and MPH could be calculated by formula within the webpage? That's it.
So sayeth the TrapMan.
Or TrapDaddy. :-D
-=S=-
|
|
|
|
|
Measuring wheel
|
|
On 8/2/2004
Chris Chaput
wrote in from
United States
(66.116.nnn.nnn)
I almost forgot that I had two of these measuring wheels from different makers. They are pretty darm accurate for what we are doing. They make marking off a course pretty easy. At 176 feet, even we are off by 21 inches in our course and/or our trigger-finger, we are till within 1% accuracy.
Tape switches and the Chronocone would work great for just about any length, but I'd still like to see us all run the 176 foot course.
|
|
|
|
|
Groovin' in the Flat Slot
|
|
On 8/2/2004
Chris Yandall
wrote in from
United States
(68.101.nnn.nnn)
The neat thing about Chaput coming down was that he hand delivered 2 sets of Gumballs. The other neat thing was seeing his 5 year old keep daddy inline :D Chaput is showing he's a world class dad too!
My average speed was around the 20mph mark with Chaput's(fresher legs) slightly better. We were timing ourselves thru the course and after about 15 -20 runs it became obvious that the average was hovering around that speed.
We also did a power skogging run mixed with pumping for a mile thru the summer mission beach boardwalk crowds. jungle skating !
I never pushed with one leg as hard as I did for the timed runs. i was amazed to see that the differnce within the 176' timing area to be tiny between pushing and pumping. at least from a seasoned veteran perspective on blasting the flats on a skateboard, you young whippersnappers should be able to blaze into the 24-25mph with ease? :D
Thanks Chris for a memorable occassion!
|
|
|
|
|
Simplify it
|
|
On 8/2/2004
Chris Chaput
wrote in from
United States
(66.116.nnn.nnn)
If we standardize on 176 feet, we can make our calcs super simple.
Chris and I ran only an 176 foot course. The mph = 120 / our time. We know our distance is in feet. Our stopwatch only gives us seconds. This makes life simple.
120 / 6.000 = 20.00 mph
120 / 6.160 = 19.48 mph (My best pushing run so far)
120 / 6.630 = 18.10 mph (My best pumping run so far)
120 / 6.648 = 18.05 mph (This is Dong's time over 176 feet)
120 / 7.000 = 17.14 mph
120 / 7.500 = 16.00 mph
120 / 8.000 = 15.00 mph
I wasn't at Bicknell (I was in the Bahamas with family) but I believe they had 30 cones on 6 foot centers. There were 29 cone spacings (which is 174 feet) plus the start and finish. Richy's fastest raw time was 6.22 seconds. That was a steep hill but the tight settings slows you down a bit. I'm not sure that 176 feet in 5 seconds (24mph) is possible but we'll see.
|
|
|
|
|
Steve, go back to math class
|
|
On 8/2/2004
Pat Chewning
wrote in from
United States
(15.252.nnn.nnn)
Your example of going over a 44' course in .875 seconds:
Your speed calculation: 26.25 MPH
Correct speed calculation: 34.29 MPH
|
|
|
|
|
Two different course lengths
|
|
On 8/2/2004
Pat Chewning
wrote in from
United States
(15.252.nnn.nnn)
Silversurfer:
Michael Dong's speed trap was for a 44 ft course at 1.6 seconds.
Thats 18.05 MPH
Chris Chaput's speed trap was for 176 ft at 6.16 sec
Thats 19.48 MPH
Use the "official" formula or the following formula for MPH:
(DistanceInFeet / TimeInSeconds) X (60MPH / 88FeetPerSecond) = MPH
|
|
|
|
|
Trap Speeds...
|
|
On 8/2/2004
silversurfer
wrote in from
United States
(24.62.nnn.nnn)
so if 4.0 sec = 30 mph
how fast was micheal dong
going at 1.6 seconds?
is he using the same protocol
as Chris Chaput and Chris Yandal?
how can you go more than 30 mph in
under 2 seconds on a skateboard?
i think that's faster than some cars.
i know that Michael Dong is the cyber
slalom champ, but damn that is impressive!
But if times are going to be in the
one to ten second range wouldn't a
longer course be better, or no?
Or keep it at that length for the pump event
and add a 1/2 mile push or pump sprint,
just an idea might not be a good one.
|
|
|
|
|
Congradulations...
|
|
On 8/2/2004
silversurfer
wrote in from
United States
(24.62.nnn.nnn)
to Joshua Burt for completing all
three stages of the Portland Pusher
series so far!
Good luck in the next race!
Josh - can you give me any tips for my
up coming 7 mile push race
(nyc central park - may 2005)?
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmm
|
|
On 8/2/2004 Dave G
wrote in from
United States
(207.69.nnn.nnn)
Chris's
Unlike most I'm excited to have a newly paved section of asphalt, (followed by an extremely steep section!) This whole idea is a great instance to get some results pn some set-ups!I'll pull out the survey station to find out how "flat the section is,but I think you've given me a target to shoot!!!!
Enkoy,
Dave G
Been soo busy, I need to skate!
|
|
|
|
|
Setting the trap
|
|
On 8/2/2004
Chris Chaput
wrote in from
United States
(66.116.nnn.nnn)
Great weekend in San Diego with my daughter, Chris Yandall and his son Justin. We marked off an 176 foot section of the boardwalk. We used a 25 foot tape measure, pulled out to 22 feet, 8 times over. This is a nice length for sprint/pump. We used a handheld stopwatch and got some pretty consistent times. The concrete was a little sandy and I didn't have any pads so I didn't push it too far.
I tried one run just pushing through the course pretty fast. It took me 6.16 secs for a speed of 19.48 mph. It took me 6.63 seconds to pump through it for a speed of 18.1 mph. It's not going to be that easy to go much faster than 20mph unless we some guys who are really dedicated to the craft.
I wouldn't mind seeing an unlimited push right up to the trap. That way "coasters" would be slower than their fastest push but "pumpers" could actually accelerate past their push speed and top out over 20mph.
It's going to be tough to do 176 feet in 5 seconds no matter how you propel yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
The Trap online rankings
|
|
On 8/1/2004
Adam
wrote in from
United States
(66.121.nnn.nnn)
One time already logged on Ncdsa.com's online The Trap rankings. I didn't realize the times would be so short (1.6 sec).. that pretty much rules out the handheld stopwatch timing method.
|
|
|
|
|
Obispo - Sunday, August 01, 2004
|
|
On 8/1/2004
Chris Yandall
wrote in from
United States
(68.101.nnn.nnn)
|
|
|
|
|
Portland Pusher
|
|
On 7/31/2004
Joshua Burt
wrote in from
United States
(67.160.nnn.nnn)
The Portland Pusher series began due to a conversation with Paul Fujita.We were talking about the Skate Across America event,and wondered if anyone would do a marathon-style race from one end of Portland to the other.I decided to take action,and the series was born.The idea was to build up to the cross-town race with several smaller races,each one increasing in distance.The first race was only 3 1/2 miles on an almost completely flat bike path.Everyone pushed the entire course.The second race was 5 miles,with some small climbs and descents.Most racers were able to pump the uphill sections and pass others on the 'downhill'.The third race was held on the same course as the first,but going both ways(there and back).By then everyone had their own formula for going faster,and it proved to be the closest race so far.The next race is going to be the big one.14-18 miles with several different sections to negotiate(flat,uphill,downhill,sidewalk cracks,street crossings,etc.).The rules?Racers over 40 and under 20 start at the front,everyone else starts behind them.You can push,pump,or tick-tack for speed,but you can't get on a bus or get in a car to move ahead.For the longer races there are checkpoints where the racers numbers are taken down to ensure there are no cheaters.Entry is free,and all prizes are donated by generous sponsors.Oh,did I mention it's rain or shine?The first race included both.The others have been sunny and dry,which made it easier to pump for speed.The next race is on hold due to lack of sponsor donations.I've milked most of the sponsors for all I can,so I'm hoping to gain new interest in the series and continue with this brutal format.Ultimately,I'd like to hold a race to the beach from Portland,but for now we'll stay in town.
|
|
|
|
|
How to Pump