Titre racoleur pour un sujet "rmc les grandes gueules".
Vous en pensez quoi de cette disqualification de Johan Soe le dernier jour de compétition, après qu il est dominé l épreuve et aurait dû être sacré champion du monde de slalom à 20ans?
La cause de la dsq serait la modification manifeste d une de ses voiles. D après l intéressé sa voile ne serait pas à la côte de qq millimètres et il ne l aurait pas utilisé en compète cette saison. D après point7, il ne l aurait presque pas utilisé et pas de démenti sur une éventuelle modif. Pas d info de la Pwa sinon qu un communiqué sera fait en temps voulu...
Personnellement je suis très surpris par le manque de transparence des uns et des autres. Surpris aussi que Ben Proffitt ne se soit pas encore emparé du sujet...
Tout ça est très louche. C est sûrement un coup des illuminati avec la complicité des Francs maçons du complexe militaro pharmacopée industriel !
|
Les derniers posts
Disqualification de Johan Soe : le grand complot ?
Modérateurs: manutzh, thomas, Ad, matalsurfing
16 messages
• Page 1 sur 2 • 1, 2
Disqualification de Johan Soe : le grand complot ?
de DeuxCinqTrois » 16/11/2023 08:00
- DeuxCinqTrois
- L'océan et moi ne faisons qu'un!
- Messages: 452
- Inscription: 30/05/2022 08:28
Re: Disqualification de Johan Soe : le grand complot ?
de vlad2001 » 16/11/2023 09:14
ca manque d'infos pour le moment. Après, utilisé ou pas n'est pas le sujet, le matos est enregistré, il doit donc être dans les clous.
-
vlad2001 - Aime
l'océan
- Messages: 153
- Inscription: 24/06/2008 23:00
Re: Disqualification de Johan Soe : le grand complot ?
de Matthewb » 16/11/2023 09:48
les règles de course sont des règles de course. Si vous les respectez, vous n’avez pas à vous en soucier.
- Matthewb
- Vient
de découvrir l'océan
- Messages: 14
- Inscription: 23/10/2021 21:25
Re: Disqualification de Johan Soe : le grand complot ?
de vlad2001 » 16/11/2023 10:18
Bien résumé ici : https://www.windsurfjournal.com/article ... lina,10258
-
vlad2001 - Aime
l'océan
- Messages: 153
- Inscription: 24/06/2008 23:00
Re: Disqualification de Johan Soe : le grand complot ?
de thomas » 16/11/2023 13:16
il n'y a pas de complot et meme pas de debat. Les voiles ont été modifiés ce qui est strictement interdit par le reglement. Il y a des controles chaque année (meme a l'epoque ou il n'y avait que du fin), Cucchi/P7 n'en n'est pas a son premier coup du genre. Ils se sont fait gauler, ils se font sanctionner. Ca coute son titre au jeune, c'est regrettable mais c'est comme ca. Il savait tres bien ce qu'il faisait.
La voile en question a eu des goussets de lattes deplacés, les cotes ne sont pas conformes avec 2 cm d'ecart (ce qui est enorme) et il a été constaté que les coutures etcs ont ete déplacé, bref il n'y a pas de doutes sur le fait que ca n'est pas conforme avec ce qui a été enregristré en début d'année.
La PWA a assumé son role de bout en bout, ce uqi est plutot une bonne nouvelle voir surprenant mais c'est tant mieux.
Pour ceux qui extrapolent/affabulent sur le sujet voila la derniere mise au point de la pwa
STATEMENT FROM THE PWA ON TTHE DISQUALIFICATION OF DEN-37
FROM THE PWA MANAGEMENT BOARD
The PWA is a rider and manufacturer governed association. Rules are set by the PWA Management Board that is elected from the industry and rider members of the association. The rider and industry representatives on the PWA Management Board consult with the members on all matters, including competition rules.
All PWA racing is run on registered production equipment. As such, sails, boards, and foils must be registered by the manufacturers before the start of the season. All participating brands and riders are aware of these requirements.
This is intended to ensure that any competitor has access to the same level of equipment, and so that any advantage through having additional wealth or funding is minimised, creating as level a playing field as possible.
This also creates an environment whereby recreational sailors can also obtain and enjoy using the same high-performance gear as the pros.
For 2023 competitors registered the 3 boards, 6 sails, and one set of foil components that they would compete on for the whole year, at the first event they participated at.
Not all equipment is checked at events as it is expensive and time consuming to do so, but riders are expected to abide by the rules and the responsibility is on the competitors themselves to make sure that their equipment is not in breach of the rules. If they are in any doubt they can request to have their equipment measured to check it for legality. Equipment is checked randomly at events across multiple brands and riders to help ensure that the rules are upheld.
As part of equipment checks at the PWA slalom finals in Japan, sails from top riders were inspected to check for rule compliance. Examples of sails from NeilPryde, Challenger, Severne and point 7 were collected from the riders.
All of the sails collected were measured, with the battens and cambers removed, and on a flat hard surface with the sails being pulled flat to the ground.
On inspection the Point 7 sail belonging to DEN-37 showed clear and undeniable indications that the sail had been modified from its original factory construction. Marks left from the original construction, such as glue and stitching holes were clearly visible, and normal graphics printed on the sail were obscured where batten pockets had been moved. Neither Point 7 or DEN-37 have denied or challenged this fact.
The Point 7 sail was found to have leech measurements between the battens that were outside of the registered specification by more than 2 cm, and even with the production tolerances of 0.35% applied, were still 1.5cm outside of the registered specification.
To ensure fair consideration, a control sail from another rider using the same Point 7 production sails was also inspected. This sail showed none of the signs of modification that DEN-37’s sail did, there was no glue or altered stitching and the graphics that had been obscured on DEN-37s sail were fully visible. All of the sails measurements were within the acceptable tolerances.
To ensure that all reasonable doubt was eliminated, the measurements of the other production sail were then taken as base measurements, tolerances were applied, but DEN-37s sail was still found to be more than 1.5cm out of spec even with the extra millimetres granted by the variances in the second production sail.
The judges then convened a hearing with DEN-37 to ask him if he could provide any information as to why his sail had been modified, why it was out of the tolerance of the registered specification and to allow him the chance to explain the situation from his point of view and put forward any mitigating circumstances that might justify the discrepancies discovered in the inspection.
The sail had been registered for competition by DEN-37 and therefore needed to be to the correct specification whether used or not, but it was found that it had been used through the year including in Japan.
After hearing DEN-37s evidence, and equipped with the findings of the inspections, the judges reconvened to discuss the situation and decide on whether the rules had been infringed and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
The judges were unanimous in their opinion that the sail did not – with all tolerances and reasonable doubt applied – meet the required specification and was therefore illegal for use in PWA racing. The committee found that although DEN-37 may not have used the sail in a counting heat in Japan, that he had used it in valid starts where he could not have known that the heat would subsequently be abandoned, so that this argument was not a valid defence. The committee also felt that although they did not have measurements taken from this particular sail at other events, he had used it in its current state throughout the season, and therefore whether he had used it in Japan or not was not the only consideration.
The judges therefore felt they had no option but to apply the rules which state.
{2.5.3} Equipment Scrutinizing (SLALOM)
(a) Scrutinizing of equipment will be performed either by a PWA Representative, or any member of the PWA Race Crew. A sailor must make his/her equipment available for scrutinizing at any time whilst the event is in progress. Failure to present equipment for scrutinizing may result in disqualification from the respective race or from the entire discipline.
(b) Equipment used by sailors must meet all registered specification and shall not have been modified in any way without prior approval from the protest committee. Modification from the normal specification as delivered by the manufacturer shall not be permitted. For the purposes of this rule, the addition of any extra tack or clew cringles or positions, puncturing of the sail to allow any attachment to provide tension other than devices supplied with the sail as standard or any other attachment or modification that is designed to alter the shape or performance of the sail from the standard supplied configuration shall not be permitted. For the avoidance of doubt, brochure / website specification and or the majority specification of other identical items of equipment may be used as evidence of the standard supplied specification by the protest committee.
(c) Batten types and tension, mast type and tension, adjustment of camber inducers including sanding / filing and the addition of any spacers or other optional devices that are supplied as standard for the adjustment of battens, masts or camber inducers, shall be excluded from this rule and may be adjusted at the discretion of the sailor in question.
(d) Any sailor found to have been using equipment that has not been registered, or equipment that does not meet the registered specification for that particular item of equipment, including the conditions outlined above, shall be disqualified from the entire race discipline for that event.
Therefore, the committee was left with little option other than to disqualify DEN-37 from the event in Japan.
As with any decision by the judges at an event, DEN-37 will have the right to appeal the decision and the hearing may be reopened if significant new evidence can be presented. DEN-37 has indicated that he intends to appeal, although no appeal has been presented at this time and as DEN-37 will be travelling home currently, he will be granted further time to lodge an appeal, should he choose to do so.
The PWA takes the application of the rules surrounding equipment registration seriously and competitors or brands who breach such rules do so with great disrespect to the vast majority of their contemporaries who strive to uphold the rules.
STATEMENT FROM POINT 7 SAILS
Point-7: It was not the first time that our brand has been at the top of the PWA podium and certainly not the last. We proved it in different disciplines and often with new young talents. We are very competitive and work hard on our development and for 2024, as Johan has already signed with us, we are even more motivated to take him back to the top, as he has shown amazing racing skills. We are happy to support PWA in the task in enforcing the checking of riders equipment throughout all events.
La voile en question a eu des goussets de lattes deplacés, les cotes ne sont pas conformes avec 2 cm d'ecart (ce qui est enorme) et il a été constaté que les coutures etcs ont ete déplacé, bref il n'y a pas de doutes sur le fait que ca n'est pas conforme avec ce qui a été enregristré en début d'année.
La PWA a assumé son role de bout en bout, ce uqi est plutot une bonne nouvelle voir surprenant mais c'est tant mieux.
Pour ceux qui extrapolent/affabulent sur le sujet voila la derniere mise au point de la pwa
STATEMENT FROM THE PWA ON TTHE DISQUALIFICATION OF DEN-37
FROM THE PWA MANAGEMENT BOARD
The PWA is a rider and manufacturer governed association. Rules are set by the PWA Management Board that is elected from the industry and rider members of the association. The rider and industry representatives on the PWA Management Board consult with the members on all matters, including competition rules.
All PWA racing is run on registered production equipment. As such, sails, boards, and foils must be registered by the manufacturers before the start of the season. All participating brands and riders are aware of these requirements.
This is intended to ensure that any competitor has access to the same level of equipment, and so that any advantage through having additional wealth or funding is minimised, creating as level a playing field as possible.
This also creates an environment whereby recreational sailors can also obtain and enjoy using the same high-performance gear as the pros.
For 2023 competitors registered the 3 boards, 6 sails, and one set of foil components that they would compete on for the whole year, at the first event they participated at.
Not all equipment is checked at events as it is expensive and time consuming to do so, but riders are expected to abide by the rules and the responsibility is on the competitors themselves to make sure that their equipment is not in breach of the rules. If they are in any doubt they can request to have their equipment measured to check it for legality. Equipment is checked randomly at events across multiple brands and riders to help ensure that the rules are upheld.
As part of equipment checks at the PWA slalom finals in Japan, sails from top riders were inspected to check for rule compliance. Examples of sails from NeilPryde, Challenger, Severne and point 7 were collected from the riders.
All of the sails collected were measured, with the battens and cambers removed, and on a flat hard surface with the sails being pulled flat to the ground.
On inspection the Point 7 sail belonging to DEN-37 showed clear and undeniable indications that the sail had been modified from its original factory construction. Marks left from the original construction, such as glue and stitching holes were clearly visible, and normal graphics printed on the sail were obscured where batten pockets had been moved. Neither Point 7 or DEN-37 have denied or challenged this fact.
The Point 7 sail was found to have leech measurements between the battens that were outside of the registered specification by more than 2 cm, and even with the production tolerances of 0.35% applied, were still 1.5cm outside of the registered specification.
To ensure fair consideration, a control sail from another rider using the same Point 7 production sails was also inspected. This sail showed none of the signs of modification that DEN-37’s sail did, there was no glue or altered stitching and the graphics that had been obscured on DEN-37s sail were fully visible. All of the sails measurements were within the acceptable tolerances.
To ensure that all reasonable doubt was eliminated, the measurements of the other production sail were then taken as base measurements, tolerances were applied, but DEN-37s sail was still found to be more than 1.5cm out of spec even with the extra millimetres granted by the variances in the second production sail.
The judges then convened a hearing with DEN-37 to ask him if he could provide any information as to why his sail had been modified, why it was out of the tolerance of the registered specification and to allow him the chance to explain the situation from his point of view and put forward any mitigating circumstances that might justify the discrepancies discovered in the inspection.
The sail had been registered for competition by DEN-37 and therefore needed to be to the correct specification whether used or not, but it was found that it had been used through the year including in Japan.
After hearing DEN-37s evidence, and equipped with the findings of the inspections, the judges reconvened to discuss the situation and decide on whether the rules had been infringed and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
The judges were unanimous in their opinion that the sail did not – with all tolerances and reasonable doubt applied – meet the required specification and was therefore illegal for use in PWA racing. The committee found that although DEN-37 may not have used the sail in a counting heat in Japan, that he had used it in valid starts where he could not have known that the heat would subsequently be abandoned, so that this argument was not a valid defence. The committee also felt that although they did not have measurements taken from this particular sail at other events, he had used it in its current state throughout the season, and therefore whether he had used it in Japan or not was not the only consideration.
The judges therefore felt they had no option but to apply the rules which state.
{2.5.3} Equipment Scrutinizing (SLALOM)
(a) Scrutinizing of equipment will be performed either by a PWA Representative, or any member of the PWA Race Crew. A sailor must make his/her equipment available for scrutinizing at any time whilst the event is in progress. Failure to present equipment for scrutinizing may result in disqualification from the respective race or from the entire discipline.
(b) Equipment used by sailors must meet all registered specification and shall not have been modified in any way without prior approval from the protest committee. Modification from the normal specification as delivered by the manufacturer shall not be permitted. For the purposes of this rule, the addition of any extra tack or clew cringles or positions, puncturing of the sail to allow any attachment to provide tension other than devices supplied with the sail as standard or any other attachment or modification that is designed to alter the shape or performance of the sail from the standard supplied configuration shall not be permitted. For the avoidance of doubt, brochure / website specification and or the majority specification of other identical items of equipment may be used as evidence of the standard supplied specification by the protest committee.
(c) Batten types and tension, mast type and tension, adjustment of camber inducers including sanding / filing and the addition of any spacers or other optional devices that are supplied as standard for the adjustment of battens, masts or camber inducers, shall be excluded from this rule and may be adjusted at the discretion of the sailor in question.
(d) Any sailor found to have been using equipment that has not been registered, or equipment that does not meet the registered specification for that particular item of equipment, including the conditions outlined above, shall be disqualified from the entire race discipline for that event.
Therefore, the committee was left with little option other than to disqualify DEN-37 from the event in Japan.
As with any decision by the judges at an event, DEN-37 will have the right to appeal the decision and the hearing may be reopened if significant new evidence can be presented. DEN-37 has indicated that he intends to appeal, although no appeal has been presented at this time and as DEN-37 will be travelling home currently, he will be granted further time to lodge an appeal, should he choose to do so.
The PWA takes the application of the rules surrounding equipment registration seriously and competitors or brands who breach such rules do so with great disrespect to the vast majority of their contemporaries who strive to uphold the rules.
STATEMENT FROM POINT 7 SAILS
Point-7: It was not the first time that our brand has been at the top of the PWA podium and certainly not the last. We proved it in different disciplines and often with new young talents. We are very competitive and work hard on our development and for 2024, as Johan has already signed with us, we are even more motivated to take him back to the top, as he has shown amazing racing skills. We are happy to support PWA in the task in enforcing the checking of riders equipment throughout all events.
-
thomas - Serial posteur
- Messages: 15542
- Inscription: 16/10/2004 23:00
Re: Disqualification de Johan Soe : le grand complot ?
de DeuxCinqTrois » 16/11/2023 13:58
Merci Thomas !
Là c est clair, y a plus débat. C est juste fou qu ils n aient pas expliqué les détails de la modif direct, non ?
Et quel intérêt pour point7 et Johan Soe ? La voile de série manque t elle de perfo à ce point ?
Là c est clair, y a plus débat. C est juste fou qu ils n aient pas expliqué les détails de la modif direct, non ?
Et quel intérêt pour point7 et Johan Soe ? La voile de série manque t elle de perfo à ce point ?
- DeuxCinqTrois
- L'océan et moi ne faisons qu'un!
- Messages: 452
- Inscription: 30/05/2022 08:28
Re: Disqualification de Johan Soe : le grand complot ?
de thomas » 16/11/2023 16:39
ils ont du probablement un peu la rater sur cette taille ou on decouvert que qlq ajustements la rendant terriblement meilleure, je ne sais pas. Matteo Iachnio declarait que si il pouvait modifier ces voiles de 2.5 cm comme c'est le cas sur la P7 ca changerait complement la donne. Bref Cucchi est un rital et en bon rital, c'est un roublard, il n'en ai pas a son coup d'essai. Il a du se dire que ca passerait creme, d'ailleurs le jeune a utilisé la voile une partie de la saison apparement.
Bon apres on est pas non plus dans le monde des bisounours, c'est surement pas le seul a gruger mais lui c'est fait chopper et voila tout... Les normes, jauge ou monotypie c'est extremeent compliqué à faire respecter et surveiller c'est pour ca que le open bar c'est plus simple mais cela avait été fait ainsi pour limiter les couts de transports et de developpement pour les marques.
Bon apres on est pas non plus dans le monde des bisounours, c'est surement pas le seul a gruger mais lui c'est fait chopper et voila tout... Les normes, jauge ou monotypie c'est extremeent compliqué à faire respecter et surveiller c'est pour ca que le open bar c'est plus simple mais cela avait été fait ainsi pour limiter les couts de transports et de developpement pour les marques.
-
thomas - Serial posteur
- Messages: 15542
- Inscription: 16/10/2004 23:00
Re: Disqualification de Johan Soe : le grand complot ?
de Gadjo » 16/11/2023 18:05
thomas a écrit: Bref Cucchi est un rital et en bon rital, c'est un roublard...
Ahahah mdr ... tu vas avoir des problèmes !!
-
Gadjo - L'océan et moi ne faisons qu'un!
- Messages: 447
- Inscription: 20/04/2011 23:00
- Localisation: Paris et Var
Re: Disqualification de Johan Soe : le grand complot ?
de kazuya » 16/11/2023 18:32
Franchement je n’y comprend rien au règlement.
En course, Tu as le droit de poncer la planche, utiliser des ailerons custom des wish et tout des mats choisi par les coureur .
En vague, il ya pas mal de planches custom, les voiles j'ai l’impression que le custom est autorisé (Bernard rédiger, baptiste Cloarec etc.
En course, Tu as le droit de poncer la planche, utiliser des ailerons custom des wish et tout des mats choisi par les coureur .
En vague, il ya pas mal de planches custom, les voiles j'ai l’impression que le custom est autorisé (Bernard rédiger, baptiste Cloarec etc.
Planches : Flikka freestyle 120l & Ricco compact wave 115l
Voiles freestyle / foil : Teiva freestyle 6.0, Gun Yeah 5.2, Gun Yeah 4.8,
Voiles vagues : NP atlas 6.2 Gun seal 5.3, Gun blow 4.7, NP combat 4.2
Foil : NP glide 1490, fanatic stingray 130
Voiles freestyle / foil : Teiva freestyle 6.0, Gun Yeah 5.2, Gun Yeah 4.8,
Voiles vagues : NP atlas 6.2 Gun seal 5.3, Gun blow 4.7, NP combat 4.2
Foil : NP glide 1490, fanatic stingray 130
-
kazuya - Serial posteur
- Messages: 669
- Inscription: 29/01/2009 00:00
- Localisation: cotentin
Re: Disqualification de Johan Soe : le grand complot ?
de thomas » 16/11/2023 21:42
faut pas tout melanger.
Il y a differentes disciplines et differentes règles.
En vagues: aucune regle matos
En freestyle : obligation de board de serie
En slalom foil: Les riders doivent enregistrés 3 planches et 6 voiles + un mat et 2 fuselages, 2 ailes avant et 2 arrieres et ce pour la saison. tu peux voir la liste la https://nor.pwaworldtour.com/JPN_23_Equipment.htm
Il y a differentes disciplines et differentes règles.
En vagues: aucune regle matos
En freestyle : obligation de board de serie
En slalom foil: Les riders doivent enregistrés 3 planches et 6 voiles + un mat et 2 fuselages, 2 ailes avant et 2 arrieres et ce pour la saison. tu peux voir la liste la https://nor.pwaworldtour.com/JPN_23_Equipment.htm
-
thomas - Serial posteur
- Messages: 15542
- Inscription: 16/10/2004 23:00
Re: Disqualification de Johan Soe : le grand complot ?
de aloha35 » 25/11/2023 23:12
C'est pas le seul, là il s'avère qu'il s'est sûrement fait balancer, ils ne contrôlent pas tous le matos.
Donc le titre racoleur de départ n'est peut être pas dénué de sens
Donc le titre racoleur de départ n'est peut être pas dénué de sens
-
aloha35 - Ride
l'océan
- Messages: 230
- Inscription: 07/12/2011 23:23
- Localisation: Vignoc 35
Re: Disqualification de Johan Soe : le grand complot ?
de Kouby » 26/11/2023 13:02
kazuya a écrit:Franchement je n’y comprend rien au règlement.
En course, Tu as le droit de poncer la planche, utiliser des ailerons custom des wish et tout des mats choisi par les coureur .
Oui, mais tout ceci n'est pas référencé dans la liste du matos enregistré donc c'est open bar ! Et tu peux rajouter les lattes, sujet ô combien sensible et important.
Et en foil, entre une aile de 730 (proprement enregistrée) et une autre aile de 730, avant d'en voir les différences... Rien qu'à voir ceci tu te poses quelques questions : https://www.windsurfing33.com/forum/vie ... 1&t=131064
Et je t'en passe d'autres, des vertes et des pas mûres ; je te mets par exemple au défi de commander début 2024 tout le matos qui aura été enregistré et soit-disant "de série"...
Soe s'est fait gauler, c'était trop flagrant (grosse faute de point 7 !) et clairement de le voir gagner dérangeait les autres (bon, ça dérange toujours quand c'est pas toi qui gagne
)On peut aussi se poser la question pour ceux qui n'ont pas fait le tour complet et qui ont enregistré le matos le plus adapté pour les épreuves où ils se sont rendus. Fair ou pas fair ?
Powered by MWS-
Kouby - Vient
de découvrir l'océan
- Messages: 90
- Inscription: 15/01/2008 00:00
Re: Disqualification de Johan Soe : le grand complot ?
de thegut » 27/11/2023 08:10
Kouby a écrit:On peut aussi se poser la question pour ceux qui n'ont pas fait le tour complet et qui ont enregistré le matos le plus adapté pour les épreuves où ils se sont rendus. Fair ou pas fair ?
Si tu sais que tu n'auras de toute manière pas le budget pour certaines épreuves, alors absolument fair. En plus dans cette configuration tu n'est plus prétendant au titre.
Perso je ne vois pas ce qui serait dérangeant dans la victoire d'un p'tit jeune. Manifestement les modifications de sa voile étaient très grossières, le CR de la PWA décrit le problème et le contenu des échanges avec les parties prenantes. Ces parties prenantes n'ont pas contesté les faits, basta.
Complot dans le titre c'est déplacé (en plus perso les complotistes... mouahahah)
-
thegut - Ride
l'océan
- Messages: 216
- Inscription: 21/09/2006 23:00
- Localisation: lorient
Re: Disqualification de Johan Soe : le grand complot ?
de thomas » 27/11/2023 10:17
meme avis que thegut. Tout le monde s'arrange avec les limites du reglement mais la c'etait tres grossier et vraiment hors des clous. Il se fait chopper et sanctionner, normal.
Le plus simple serait qu'il n'y ai pas de regles pour eviter tous les problemes qu'on connait mais c'est les marques et coureurs eux memes qui les ont demandé pour limiter budget et couts... ces memes gens qui derriere vont chercher à contourner ces memes règles qu'ils ont demandé... tout un paradoxe....
Le plus simple serait qu'il n'y ai pas de regles pour eviter tous les problemes qu'on connait mais c'est les marques et coureurs eux memes qui les ont demandé pour limiter budget et couts... ces memes gens qui derriere vont chercher à contourner ces memes règles qu'ils ont demandé... tout un paradoxe....
-
thomas - Serial posteur
- Messages: 15542
- Inscription: 16/10/2004 23:00
Re: Disqualification de Johan Soe : le grand complot ?
de DeuxCinqTrois » 27/11/2023 12:07
Matteo Iachino en parle un peu dans sa mini interview sur WJ. Albeau aussi en a parlé pas mal avec Ben Proffitt lors de leurs live de la semaine dernière.
C'est tout de même intéressant de voir à quel point le slalom est devenu hyper pointu techniquement avec le foil. Si une marque prenait le temps de faire une websérie autour de la R&D, je serais hyperfan !
Je pense qu'une limitation à du matos de série est indispensable si on veut laisser une chance aux jeunes. Ou alors il faut 2 tours : un tour de qualif en matos de série et un tour exclusif en matos custom/proto limité à une petite élite.
après il pourrait y avoir des variantes à la solution actuelle :
- enregistrement du matos à chaque épreuve plutôt qu'à l'année, comme au début du "slalom42"
- enregistrement pour une demi saison
- consignation de materiel enregistré et utilisé en compète par la PWA qui se charge ensuite de l'acheminement sur chaque épreuve (cela mutualise les couts de transport mais il faut du matos en double pour l'entrainement).
Le plus simple restant surement de systématisé les contrôles, des X premiers, à chaque étapes.
C'est tout de même intéressant de voir à quel point le slalom est devenu hyper pointu techniquement avec le foil. Si une marque prenait le temps de faire une websérie autour de la R&D, je serais hyperfan !
Je pense qu'une limitation à du matos de série est indispensable si on veut laisser une chance aux jeunes. Ou alors il faut 2 tours : un tour de qualif en matos de série et un tour exclusif en matos custom/proto limité à une petite élite.
après il pourrait y avoir des variantes à la solution actuelle :
- enregistrement du matos à chaque épreuve plutôt qu'à l'année, comme au début du "slalom42"
- enregistrement pour une demi saison
- consignation de materiel enregistré et utilisé en compète par la PWA qui se charge ensuite de l'acheminement sur chaque épreuve (cela mutualise les couts de transport mais il faut du matos en double pour l'entrainement).
Le plus simple restant surement de systématisé les contrôles, des X premiers, à chaque étapes.
- DeuxCinqTrois
- L'océan et moi ne faisons qu'un!
- Messages: 452
- Inscription: 30/05/2022 08:28
16 messages
• Page 1 sur 2 • 1, 2
Qui est en ligne
Utilisateurs parcourant ce forum: Aucun utilisateur enregistré et 1 invité