2013 Rules

[Hardline]

Originally Posted by ittybitty

It's the same as trying to get through a gate that you can't get all 4 tires through and you only get one tire inside becIfause your rear falls off to the side so you have to drive back around and try again to get at least two tires inside.


Gate penalty...reverse penalty...PROGRESS

Thanks but I don't quite see how that answers the question. He didn't "drive back around and try again"...just backed up a few inches without leaving the gate and then completed taking the gate in a second motion. The whole question was whether he should have driven back around and try again. IE, does what he did constitute a second "attempt"? If both axles need to progress on a single attempt, then perhaps he never legally progressed. We just let it go, but wondered. Personally, I think it was fine.

[EvilTwin v2]

Originally Posted by Hardline

Thanks but I don't quite see how that answers the question. He didn't "drive back around and try again"...just backed up a few inches without leaving the gate and then completed taking the gate in a second motion. The whole question was whether he should have driven back around and try again. IE, does what he did constitute a second "attempt"? If both axles need to progress on a single attempt, then perhaps he never legally progressed. We just let it go, but wondered. Personally, I think it was fine.

Since his axles never left the gate (he didn't back all the way out), that was still considered the same attempt. Just because he hit a gate and backed up a little, doesn't mean he have up on that attempt. Or did he drive all the way out going forward the first time (when he drove over the gate with the rear)?

If he drove out, past the gate (all tires through and past the gate mArkers, then re-entered the gAte in reverse, then that would be a course direction penalty
And scored: Gate, no progress, reverse, course direction, reposition to last cleared gate.

If his rear wheels did not exit or leave the plane of the gate then he was still in that attempt of the gate and would receive the following: Gate, reverse, progress.

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Originally Posted by EvilTwin v2

Since his axles never left the gate (he didn't back all the way out), that was still considered the same attempt. Just because he hit a gate and backed up a little, doesn't mean he have up on that attempt. Or did he drive all the way out going forward the first time (when he drove over the gate with the rear)?

If he drove out, past the gate (all tires through and past the gate mArkers, then re-entered the gAte in reverse, then that would be a course direction penalty
And scored: Gate, no progress, reverse, course direction, reposition to last cleared gate.

If his rear wheels did not exit or leave the plane of the gate then he was still in that attempt of the gate and would receive the following: Gate, reverse, progress.

And if he wanted he could of back all the way out and made another (full)attemt.

[EvilTwin v2]

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

And if he wanted he could of back all the way out and made another attemt.

But if he backed all the way out, he'd have to make a full attempt, still getting 1 front and 1 rear through.

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Originally Posted by EvilTwin v2

But if he backed all the way out, he'd have to make a full attempt, still getting 1 front and 1 rear through.

Yes Sir.

[Hardline]

Originally Posted by EvilTwin v2

If his rear wheels did not exit or leave the plane of the gate then he was still in that attempt of the gate and would receive the following: Gate, reverse, progress.

He backed the rear axle completely free of the gate -- but not the front axle.

We just didn't know if hitting the ball terminated the first "attempt". If so the reverse and second motion was a second attempt. The front tire only passed thru the gate in the first attempt -- the rear tire only passed thru the gate in the second attempt. But if two distinct forward tries separated by a gate penalty do not mean two attempts, then no problem.

Just didn't have a useful definition of "attempt" to work with. Some people thought hitting the ball with the back tire was the end of that attempt of progress. I see their point.

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Your rig enters the gate, it has to come all the way out of the gate to be call another attempt

[Calderwood]

Is there going to be any size changes regarding chassis construction in the 2014 rules?

[ROWDY RACING]

Originally Posted by Calderwood

Is there going to be any size changes regarding chassis construction in the 2014 rules?

I do not think so.

[Curcal]

Ran into an interesting quandary at our comp today and everyone had at least a little bit of an opinion on the interpretation of the rules. So I took some pictures and though I'd bring it to the rules discussion here and figure out something a little more clear.

The question posed, is How to measure the 16" required between gate markers and what correct way to clear the gate all four tires. The gate is obviously 16" (measured nearly vertical) . However, looking down on the gate, where is a car going to get all four tires through the gate?

There were two view points on the way the gate should be measured and called.

1. Gate is fine as is: upper gate is out of play and wont be called on drivers

2. Gate should measure 16" horizontally and the upper gate can be moved to clearly define two points to be driven through.

The reason why this question came to my mind was because this was another way to look at the controversial 2012 BOTW "cave gate" that I judged all day long.

This issue didn't affect the way the gate played out or was called all day long, but it definitely was a topic for discussion. Myself and many of the other people who were participating in this discussion are looking forward to what you all were thinking.

[PaloAltoK5]

I'll illustrate this with a picture, after I post this. The rule 16", in any direction, however the course designer needs to be smart an allow a way for the gate to be progressed. In this case you could clear it cleanly with a little wall ride, or just take the lower, so in my opinion its a good gate. We've used similar style gate numerous times over the years, here is an example of how to clean the this gate style. In this case the gates were grey stones.

So, #1. The gate is fine.



The angle of the photo doesn't show it well, but the ground area was flat, and the wall was a slight overhang and there was a live boundary made of rocks that prevented you from driving straight at the gate forcing you to either drive up the wall or take the lower gate and move on.

[Curcal]

But the distance between those gates on a horizontal measure looks much closer to 16". The question is not the wall ride gate or progression difficulty. The issue is Being forced to drive under the high gate to clear the lower almost as if you were "floating" the gate. You cant drive an 10" car through a gate that is 8" wide.

You're course designers need to be smart with gate placement for progression

[PaloAltoK5]

Originally Posted by Curcal

But the distance between those gates on a horizontal measure looks much closer to 16". The question is not the wall ride gate or progression difficulty. The issue is Being forced to drive under the high gate to clear the lower almost as if you were "floating" the gate. You cant drive an 10" car through a gate that is 8" wide.

You're course designers need to be smart with gate placement for progression

The horizontal distance between two gate was about 8" in person.

I'll put this as clearly possible. If you take a string/stick and connect the two cones/balls in a straight line is it 16" or greater? If yes, it is a legal gate.

Don't get caught up with floating, it doesn't apply in your gates scenario. The intent of the gate was to force you up the vertical wall in some way to clear the gates cleanly, so if the distance along the rock is 16" or greater it's legal.

I hope this helps, Fish will back me on this, and yes, I'm on the Rules Committee and I was a marshall/judge at BOTW as well.

[PaloAltoK5]

Originally Posted by Curcal

But the distance between those gates on a horizontal measure looks much closer to 16". The question is not the wall ride gate or progression difficulty. The issue is Being forced to drive under the high gate to clear the lower almost as if you were "floating" the gate. You cant drive an 10" car through a gate that is 8" wide.

You're course designers need to be smart with gate placement for progression

Here is a better picture of the wall ride:

[Curcal]

Cool. We played fine with the gate like this all day and I had no issues with the way it was being called. It also worked out to be a really good gate. It just looked really funny.

[Calderwood]

So if you drive over a gate it gets called but you can legally drive under a gate?

[Hardline]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoK5

I'll put this as clearly possible. If you take a string and connect the two cones/balls keeping the string on the rock is it 16" or greater? If yes, it is a legal gate.

I don't get it. If I have two balls 8" apart, but a big rock ridge between them, the string connecting them while touching the rock might be 16" long. But the gate isn't 16" wide.

[EvilTwin v2]

Originally Posted by Hardline

I don't get it. If I have two balls 8" apart, but a big rock ridge between them, the string connecting them while touching the rock might be 16" long. But the gate isn't 16" wide.

Which is why I never liked using string.

[Grandmasboy]

Originally Posted by Hardline

I don't get it. If I have two balls 8" apart, but a big rock ridge between them, the string connecting them while touching the rock might be 16" long. But the gate isn't 16" wide.

Originally Posted by EvilTwin v2

Which is why I never liked using string.

The 16" measurement between gate markers is a straight line distance. This can be measured horizontally, diagonal, vertical, or however the gate is set up as long as the markers are at least 16" apart.

When building a course, the course designer has to be careful about making questionable gates. In the case of the gate in question, since the lower gate marker was the one creating the obstacle, and the upper gate marker was not a factor, the upper marker could have been moved further away to make an extra wide gate. Then no one would have to drive under the upper marker.

Remember, the 16" measurement is only a minimum. A 24" wide gate is perfectly legal if the situation calls for such a gate.

[ROWDY RACING]

Originally Posted by Grandmasboy

The 16" measurement between gate markers is a straight line distance. This can be measured horizontally, diagonal, vertical, or however the gate is set up as long as the markers are at least 16" apart.

When building a course, the course designer has to be careful about making questionable gates. In the case of the gate in question, since the lower gate marker was the one creating the obstacle, and the upper gate marker was not a factor, the upper marker could have been moved further away to make an extra wide gate. Then no one would have to drive under the upper marker.

Remember, the 16" measurement is only a minimum. A 24" wide gate is perfectly legal if the situation calls for such a gate.

Couldn't have said it any better.