Getting MUKy

I’ve been trying to be more disciplined and spend one evening a week on each project. Thursdays is for mountainboardng.uk.com. Having looked at the analytics I took the Your Questions Answered out of the menu and the sidebar as it obviously isn’t getting any interaction from visitors. I also added a couple of new products and collated some info for an article. Just got to write it now. I’ve also got a list of design changes to make to the site but at least now I know that I can expect to work my way through them every Thursday evening.

The MUK ifttt seems to be working pretty well. Even though each post only gets a few views (because not many people like the page and because facebook doesn’t really like automated posting), it’s a regular feed of mountainboarding stuff happening online in the UK. The ebay listings yielded a positive result of getting an old mountainboarder to buy a board and get back into it.

The Stelzer Solution

Spent all day building the spreadsheet to run the BoarderX racing.

We start with a list of riders who have entered the comp, order them based on their results from last year, split them in groups of sixteen so riders of the same ability are competing against each other, give them three races each to earn points, add those points up to get their qualified position, sort the riders into their categories maintaining the order they qualified in, fold them into their first knockout race, remove the two who finish 3rd and 4th, repeat unto the final, and then add up all the finishing places to get a list that looks very much like the one we started with.

ATBA-UK Product/Market Fit

How do we make sure that the products we deliver (competitions, membership, instructor training, etc) are want our customers (riders, parents, instructors, centre owners, retailers, etc.)?

Product/Market Fit has been described as if 40% of your customers would be disappointed if they could no longer use your products. This easily applies to competitions, I’m pretty sure most of the people who come to the comps would be disappointed if we didn’t run them, but what about our other products? They don’t have the same customer engagement and loyalty, and if they stopped, most people probably wouldn’t care.

We need to change that. But how? It’s relatively easy to survey the riders at a competition, but surveying about membership and instructor training is much harder. The question, ‘What does the customer want?’, is difficult to answer when the customer doesn’t know what they want.

So, we continue to add benefits and extras to things like membership and instructor training to improve the inherent value of the product, but we still can’t be sure we’re heading in the right direction.

Misdirection

One of my Google Alerts for my name turned up a couple of weeks telling me that I was a Director of the ATBA-UK. This was news to me. I don’t remember discussing it at a committee meeting or agreeing to it.

Having confirmed it with the person who files the returns to Companies House, I suddenly felt a little conflicted. It’s a pretty big deal being a company director, it comes with a lot of responsibility and consequences if someone else doesn’t do what they are supposed to.

On the other hand, I kinda expect to be involved with the ATBA-UK for the next ten years  or so, and I think I’ve got a lot to bring to the success of the organisation, so I guess it kind of makes sense. However, I am definitely going to work on putting more robust systems in place to make sure we comply with the regulations.

Something else I will work on is a guiding policy to ensure things like how directors are chosen, and having 25% of the board members being female, are followed.

How to layout berms

Today’s work on berms.

Finding the centre of existing berms using two dissected chords.

What is the best radius for a berm? Somewhere between two and three times the width of the track.

Laying out the out-track to make use of the tangent line the rider will be following as they leave the berm.

Euler Curve for the cross-section of the berm, giving a 5m wide track a riding width of approx 5.6m in the berm.

Just need to get it all into some kind of easy to follow instructions.

How we should build berms

I’ve been thinking more about writing track building guidelines, and although they need to be quite detailed, I think they also need to have simple takeaway ideas that are easier for people to get their head around and make it more likely that the guidelines will get adopted.

These could be things like:

  • Tracks – Build up, don’t dig down.
  • Berms – Constant radius, and build on the track, not next to it.
  • Rollers – Seven times as long as high

What we learned from our first Downhill comp in the woods

The ATBA-UK’s first woodland downhill comp took place on the 6th April. Here’s so of the things we learned, and will use when planning future comps.

  • Downhill comps that don’t use the riding track as the uplift track run far more smoothly as the riding keeps flowing. Previous comps that used fire tracks for riding down and driving up could only do one at a time, which interrupted the flow of the comp and wasted time.
  • Our uplift held four people at a time, which as it turned out was fine.
  • The riding started at 11:30, half an hour later than planned but not a problem, and went on til about 15:30. The riders stopped before we ran out of time, which is better than the other way round.
  • The riders took breaks when they wanted, which worked out better than having a scheduled lunch break.
  • We need more dedicated officials. This one took the concept of ‘Rider-run comps’ to a new level, with injured and tired riders taking over the timing. It’s great that we have a) such a strong community of riders and b) such a simple system that this can happen, but it does mean that things will be missed and mistakes happen during the change-overs.
  • The synchronised watch timing system is still the best solution, not only for it’s simplicity and that it doesn’t need communication between top and bottom, but mostly because it proved plenty accurate enough at this comp.
  • Finding/making a track that is challenging to the Pro’s and yet accessible to new-comers continues to be something we need to think about. The solution to me, especially in places like Head Down, is to have two tracks, an easy and a hard, both starting and finishing at the same places.

Parallel Processing in Preparing for Competitions

Usually, the comps come together through a small amount of coordination between a few of the people involved, and lots and lots of thinking on our feet and improvising. This isn’t a very efficient way of doing something like organising a comp, and often means things get missed that really shouldn’t be.

So, I’ve been writing up the workflow processes for running ATBA-UK comps, with the short term aim of streamlining the process, and the long term aim of making hand-over to new committee members/event organisers more effective.

It’s actually more complicated than you might think. It’s hard enough to just mindmap everything into one place, there is always more to add and stuff you’ve forgotten. But having got enough stuff on the list, it’s then time to start organising the list. The obvious way of doing this is ‘first thing first’, ‘second thing second’. But this is a very linear or serial approach, and raises problems. The first problem is that the second thing can’t be done until the first thing is done, so if something stops the first thing, everything grinds to a halt. The second problem is that it’s much harder to coordinate a group of people to all accomplish things on the list together.

You could divide the list into smaller lists, one for promotion, one for paperwork, etc., and give each person their own sub-list. But then what we see is that each list contains a wide variety of tasks and that the person assigned that list may not have skills to accomplish everything on their list. So that won’t work.

What we need is a way of parallel processing the tasks on the list so that everyone involved can take on tasks that they are able to complete, do them at an appropriate schedule, and not get in the way of other tasks or people. Hmmm, needs more thinking about…

Working out kickers

Been thinking about and trying to work out some rough guidelines on the best dimensions and ratios to use when building a kicker for a couple of months now.

The question pops up on SurfingDirt Forum occasionally and it needs to be in the ATBA-UK Track and Jump building guidelines anyway.

So, after a late night session yesterday, and some summing up today here’s what WSG7, Brindy and me have come up with:

  • Kicker designs usually start with, ‘I’m going to build it this high…’, so that’s where we started. Everything would have to be based around the height of the kicker.
  • The radius is the next thing, and usually the hardest bit to get your head around. We would need five simple ratios to give us Really Mellow, Mellow, Medium, Steep and Really Steep kickers.
  • It would be handy to know how long the kicker is going to be so you plan how much wood or mud you’ll need to build it.

Kicker Ratios

Working from deciding what height you want your kicker to be, the radius for a Really Steep kicker is 1:1.6, a Steep kicker is 1:1.8, a Medium kicker is 1:2, a Mellow kicker is 1:2.3, and a Really Mellow kicker is 1:2.6

Length

We can work out how long the kicker is going to be with this simple formula: height / TAN (angle in degrees) = length.

Summary

Here’s WSG7’s handy Kicker Measurements Table.

Next…

Next I need to put some more time into:

  • Doing the calculations that figure out where a rider will land, how high they will go, and how much time they will spend in the air, on each kicker and different speeds.
  • Checking the model against the measurements I took of real mountainboarders going over a real jump ant Ironsides.
  • Do some thinking about landings and where they should be for each tracjectory to reduce the Effective fall Height.
  • Get it all written up in a way that makes sense so it can go in the ATBA-UK Jump building Guidelines