Unofficial UK Slalom BBS

but I'm sure in the mid 90's a friend who was racing at the time explained that there was a minimum weight and a maximum addition to make up the minimum weight so in effect there was a lower weight that boats were built to so competitors could add the weight under their seat to reduce the turning i...

I agree, but who do we need to tell?

I have this dreadful feeling it is outwith BC's control and we need to convince Westminster that the investment is, well perhaps not all wrong, but certainly missing a critical part of the discipline....?

The only reason I would consider paddling C2 is if I thought it might be essential to help the class grow, I really do not think I have the temperament to paddle C2, in fact my last attempt to paddle a canoe tandem on WW would heavily suggest that I don't, irrespective of how much fun myself and Gar...

Officials boats may have been weighed (but probably not), but I'm pretty sure Officials weren't weighed. They're not very big scales :-) Ha ha, that's me that is! My K1 wasn't required to be weighed, I did it for my own interest as I had made some repairs over the winter but it wasn't written down ...

I'm mostly in agreement with you David, it does seem a bit odd to be raising the minimum weight and allowing extra weight in existing boats. I don't see anything about this in the current rules, but I'm sure in the mid 90's a friend who was racing at the time explained that there was a minimum weigh...

Chris Baillie wrote:All boats were weighed on 1st runs at the Pinkston div 1.

Must have been just officials that weren't weighed then?

Boats are weighed for championships too, I'm sure at Pinkston Div 1 it was only the boats of competitors in the Vets and Juniors championships that were weighed? Which reminds me I should ask Spitt if he remembers what weight my C1 was, although I think my post Symonds Yat patch up will have ensured...

Canadian Paddler wrote:Although teh rule book has it under
B3.3 Accelerated Promotion
not early access to bigger water.

That's probably just due to being lost in translation....

Oh wait, it's landsailing where the French version of the rules is definitive not canoe slalom

Just to keep the history straight: whatever the intro to this motion says, paddle up was not introduced to create points/promotion opportunities: it was to give paddlers earlier access to, and experience of, bigger water. I know because I wrote the original paddle up proposal. The 40% achievement i...

Spot on Steve and Steve - we can have this rule for a year, see if it makes things better or worse and then if necessary put forward a new motion next year to improve it, or remove it as appropriate. This comes back to something Steve Agar mentions in the PP thread - I don't know about CR CATS but P...

There seems to be an assumption that paddlers only enter as a paddle-up to beat 40% of the competition and obtain a paddle-up voucher! On the contrary, it is quite clear that paddlers like to do paddle up for all the reasons you list, but it seems that the idea behind its introduction was for only ...

Ah right, I must have missed that clause. So much to take in!

I also understand that it is being included within slalom. Anyone who has raced Slalom Cross (ICF)/Boater X with gates/Giant Slalom on the international circuit I feel appreciates how different this event is to conventional slalom. This is just another reason why I believe that if Slalom Cross is t...

It's much simpler if you just think of a successful paddle up as 1000 points, superseding whatever points were earned in the Div 3 race. That's how it's managed. And I presume that's how it will be managed with PP, any lower division paddler that manages to earn points from the higher division will...

Yes, lets take the time and effort to ensure that we keep paddlers in division 4 for longer. Where we've got two really fast paddlers in a div 4 race with 5 entries, lets make sure that we keep that second placed paddler in division 4, we don't want to welcome people into the ranking system and eng...