 Poster: A snowHead
|
Damn, I was going to round 109,5 km/h to 110km/h and then change it to 110mph. But I see I've been busted on that plan 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
There are apps out there that are much better than others at this sort of thing. E.g. Alpine Replay will filter out any points that demonstrate acceleration greater than freefall, and also reports a sustained speed (smoothed over a time period I can't remember). Applying a bit of intelligence to the traces, such as the one above, will also let you quickly see which data is roughly good and which is bad.
They will all underestimate speed and distance travelled if you're turning and they're just linking a series of points with straight lines though, but when it gets down to an accuracy of a few percent, does it really matter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| andy wrote: |
40 mph on a fast cruise? full tuck schuss more like.
|
Hmm - the couple of speed traps I've gone through have shown ~70kph (40mph) and it feels pretty normal, especially, tellingly, in the stop at the bottom. And those are the little short ones in ski amade, not the flying K or anything special.
I wouldn't think that topping 40mph on skis was anything major special on an open clear easy red run (what I call a fast cruise). It's not an average speed, it's the high end of the speed you are doing. Ghosts (superb) graphs show the same sort of result. A lot of 50kmh (30mph) with fairly frequent sustained 75kmh/45mph bursts. I can't see how his entire gps track can be incorrect/badly rounded.
Ironically, now I'm thinking I might have to break the gps out again so I can create some tracks to take a look at - this thread is old and the original data from back then is long gone 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I definitely do not confuse kph or mph and you can switch between the two in the settings of Ski Tracks to view the same track in both measurement standards. I would concur that my max speeds, whether 5% or 20% innacurate, were only held for a short period e.g.100 metres or so. There is no wat that the pistes I was on were steep enough for long enough to do more than this.
They were all recorded on open red runs with no one in front and also importantly no one following close behind, if you're both going fast and the person in font wipes it could lead to a multiple crash. The only person in danger was me. Yes I was in danger but you know that's the case when you do it, as in any form of race type environment. As long I'm the only one at risk and i can asses my own risks then it's a calculation as to whether I take it or not.
These days on much fatter all mountain skis I wouldn't be able to hit the same speeds and I'm somewhat over it, though I like the occasional blast now and then
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've hit easily 100km plus. On DH skis. There are times when I shat myself.
I did this on the DH course for the Army's back in the early 90's and it was on a World Cup track in France - forgive me for not remebering the exact place as I simply can't remember as we raced all over the place.
I just remember this one place as it scared the crap out of me as it had a massive jump that in training I kept pre-jumping too early and kept  it up. On the day, I got it perfect and hit the next gates too fast (for me) and had too slam on the anchors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Yeah looks about right 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sure. That's faster than the speedski hill record with "standard" equipment at some seriously steep hills. And standard equipment means 215cm DH skis and a race suit. It's also faster than all world cup downhill speedtraps with the exception of Wengen, where the record is just over 160. Congratulations...you must be the fastest skier on the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
i am not a fast skier but like to let go on straight sections at the bottom of blacks or reds. This year i topped out at 61 kph at the finish of the black mamba in kaprun and that was fast enough for me thanks. I was shaking with adrenaline at the bottom and felt magic. I have also hit 70.1 kph on a speed gun section on the ski welt which again felt far to fast and i would travel at that speed outwith a controlled area as i am not sure i could stop very quickly.
i love skiing more than anything but i also love being able to walk so you can keep the silly high speeds i am more suited to cruising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
I'll just leave this here:
On rockered all mountain skis and wearing a rucksack.
Photo was taken after a compression and just before it joined the piste, hence the start of a plough to scrub some speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Val Thorens last year I borrowed a friends Volkl Tigersharks, and got a high speed of 73mph (as measured by Ski Tracks).
This year, same resort, but on a different long red (and fortunately one which was almost deserted). I was also on some Kastle MX88 188cm skis which, although they're billed as all-mountain skis, are just so rock solid and reassuring at speed. That record has since gone up to 77.8mph . I know that I could have pushed it more, if I hadn't had to shave off some speed around a corner to avoid scaring some other skiers - there's always next year!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
I use TraceSnow and did 53 mph at Breck on Peak 10 2 weeks ago with sustained at 45. I was on Atomic Vantage 95 C- 170 (all mountain) and the snow was fast. I'm 5'8" (17 cm) and weigh 154 (70 kg). Going out at the end next week and will try to hit 60. I would love to hit my age, but not likely since I was 73 years old last June.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Very much depends on an empty piste and a bit of a run off for me. Normally cruise around 35-40mph but when conditions are right I've gone over 60 mph - it is exhilarating but I'm definitely aware of how much distance you need to either stop or at least take avoiding action. It's not one for busy slopes or blind bits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
When I was watching the race I cant spell in Kitzbuhel last week some of the world's top skiers were clocking up top speeds of around 100 kph. Makes you wonder about some of these claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
The EN 1077 ski helmet test for CE certification involves dropping helmet from 1.5 metres onto a fixed anvil. I think it replicates something like a 12 mph impact. Pretty useless eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| pam w wrote: |
| When I was watching the race I cant spell in Kitzbuhel last week some of the world's top skiers were clocking up top speeds of around 100 kph. Makes you wonder about some of these claims. |
I certainly take all the GPS app claims with a pinch of salt. However the men's downhill were approaching 145kph on some bits in Wengen, which is 90mph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@feef, hahaha 60mph snowplough
Was this on the Haneggschuss?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
The record speed skiing is 253.18 km/h (157.4 mph). Wengen has been altered over the past few years because speeds were approaching 100 mph. The course was shortened this year because of visibility. The start was brought down the mountain from the full 4.4-kilometer distance to 2.7 km because fog and snow prevented a planned early-morning training run on the top section. The fastest time at the 4.4 km distance, because of course changes, is the Haneggschuss where speeds now reach 89 mph. Haneggschuss (note the "schuss") is the fastest section on the Lauberhorn and where in 2013 Johan Clarey became the first skier to break the 100 mph barrier in a downhill race. For expert skiers if the visibility is good, the run is clear of skiers who can get in your way, there is adequate run out, and as long as you are skiing under control, speed is not an issue!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| wadgebeast wrote: |
| Very much depends on an empty piste and a bit of a run off for me. Normally cruise around 35-40mph but when conditions are right I've gone over 60 mph - it is exhilarating but I'm definitely aware of how much distance you need to either stop or at least take avoiding action. It's not one for busy slopes or blind bits. |
What utter dangly bits 😀
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pruman wrote: |
| The EN 1077 ski helmet test for CE certification involves dropping helmet from 1.5 metres onto a fixed anvil. I think it replicates something like a 12 mph impact. Pretty useless eh? |
I had a same thought when I looked into the standards a few years ago. I can only assume its not more stringent or "real life" because no practical sized helmet could pass it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When we had a professional speed trap in Tignes on Trolles the standard 'Aps' were over reading by 30%. One or two people hit 102-103 kph but that was about it. It might be worth remembering that on a men's downhill course the speeds on the gun are about 125-130 (with one or two exceptions like Wengen)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
After an hour and a half seated lunch in St Anton ,according to one if our numbers app recorded us travelling half a kilometre can't remember the speed ,but he had not even got up to use the loo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After an hour and a half seated lunch in St Anton ,according to one if our numbers app recorded us travelling half a kilometre can't remember the speed ,but he had not even got up to use the loo
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| jean claude mont blanc wrote: |
| After an hour and a half seated lunch in St Anton ,according to one of our numbers app recorded us travelling half a kilometre can't remember the speed ,but he had not even got up to use the loo |
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| jean claude mont blanc wrote: |
| jean claude mont blanc wrote: |
| After an hour and a half seated lunch in St Anton , one of our numbers app recorded us travelling half a kilometre can't remember the speed ,but he had not even got up to use the loo |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They have a "Speed skiing experience" on the Chamois red run in Lez Carroz d'Araches at present. It isn't particularly steep or long but your speed is clocked and flashed up at the end of the run.
I clocked up 52.12. I was hoping that it was mph but I suspect that it was kph !
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I think people both underestimate and overestimate their speeds.
Underestimation because skiers can get up to speed fairly quickly. Be aware that on a reasonably steep piste, with decent skis, if you straight line it then you will accelerate to 70 kph in about 5 seconds.
Overestimation because of the proliferation in apps on phones which are notoriously inaccurate. A few years back I went down a roped-off piste with a speed gun at the end and did just over 100kph. My phone had me doing over 130kph.
I'd be interested to know what dedicated watches are like in terms of accuracy (i.e. the Garmin Forerunner) as I know my Garmin bike computer is within 3% as I've compared it with the car speedo and also gone past (in the car) a mobile speed detectors they attach to lamp-posts to try and encourage reductions in speeds to verify both that and the car speedo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I hit 91kph last year in saalbach. completely shat myself when started to stop and realised how fast i was going(took a while to slow down, Dint think was going as fast as i was) Last week in soll i clocked 77kph and to be honest that was fast enough for me
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@mattiwilkin, That roped off "speed trap" at Leogang (going down to the Alte Schmiede) is always seductive, especially when it's clear and not mogulled or dotted with snow-ploughers, so you can get a run at it. I'm embarrassed to admit that the best I've achieved is 84kph, whereas my considerably younger companion the other day clocked 109.8kph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
Pruman wrote:
The EN 1077 ski helmet test for CE certification involves dropping helmet from 1.5 metres onto a fixed anvil. I think it replicates something like a 12 mph impact. Pretty useless eh?
I had a same thought when I looked into the standards a few years ago. I can only assume its not more stringent or "real life" because no practical sized helmet could pass it...
|
Er, well not really. You are misunderstanding what ski (and cycle) helmets actually attempt to do. The 12mph impact is about what you get if you drop a head like object from 6 feet vertically onto a hard surface. So you are being protected from toppling over and bashing your head on something hard. It is certainly not attempting to protect you from stopping yourself at 50mph by presenting your head to an immobile object!
Of course in practice, most falls at speed do not involve your head hitting something hard, directly, before you have decelerated. Typically you will fall, slide, slow down and then may hit something with a glancing blow - all of these things mean the impact of your head will be MUCH lower than your 50mph into a tree scenario even if you started at 50mph.
I'm no expert on ski racing but I believe that racing helmets are heavier and more protected than recreational helmets, And of course motorbike helmets are altogether more protective still (but even these are not really meant to save you from a head on crash at speed - more reflect that you can still be carrying a lot of speed when you slide across the road and into a kerb)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Quote: |
I clocked up 52.12. I was hoping that it was mph but I suspect that it was kph ! Very Happy
|
I suspect it was given in knots
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@jedster, I presume there is also a speed beyond which it is pointless designing a helmet for. You might design a helmet that cna withstand a 50mph impact, but your brain inside will be scrambled so there so there is no point.
@dsoutar, I'd be genuinely surprised if Ski Tracks does over-read significantly. The GPS chips inside an iPhone are remarkable accurate and correspond very well with the speed a Tomtom registers. Theyt also correspond with a car speedometer when you deduct the 5% or so that a speedo over-reads. So, if there is an error, where does it originate? Is Skitracks set to deliberately over-read? That seems unlikely.
Rather sadly I actually emailed the makers of SkiTracks a while back with some queries. For your delectation here are the answers:
1. Does the app take into account the vertical component of movement when calculating speed. In other words if I was to ski off a cliff would it show me as stationary or falling like a brick? Yes it uses the vertical component in calculating the speed.
2. Does it calculate speed from time taken between track points, or from the Doppler shift effect? The time is taken directly from the GPS signal this means that between to points the time is as accurate as possible - with regard to the Doppler effect this is not integrated into Ski Tracks.
3. How often does the app log data points. Is there a, purely theoretical, of minutely underestimating the speed because the app might \'cut the corner\' of frequent small slalom turns and thereby underestimate the lateral distance travelled. Ski Tracks currently uses around 10m/30ft resolution depending on conditions - so yes it is possible trick Ski Tracks in theory but in reality the faster you go the harder it is to turn within the radius that would cause an inaccurate speed. Having said this we are incorporating new technologies into Ski Tracks for the future to make it very more accurate including elevation service to accurately give elevation, use of gyro and accelerometer will also be including in the calculation...
these responses were from two years ago.
I have no idea what I was on about when I asked about the Doppler effect. I was clearly more intelligent two years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@jedster, I do realise that dropping a helmet onto an anvil isn't exactly representative. There is new test where the drop is greater but the anvil moves to replicate a hard sliding impact and almost no ski helmet passes it. Just top end Sweet and POC.
| Quote: |
most falls at speed do not involve your head hitting something hard, directly, before you have decelerated
|
I don't think you can assume that. Catch an edge at high speed, go into a tumble, and it's easily possible its your head that'll smack into the rock hard piste first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| johnE wrote: |
| Quote: |
I clocked up 52.12. I was hoping that it was mph but I suspect that it was kph ! Very Happy
|
I suspect it was given in knots |
or it might have been in smoots per hour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another thing to bear in mind (at least from a safety perspective) is that the skis most people use on piste these days aren't designed to be stable at the sort of speeds we're talking about. When I did my 100kph+ I was on 195 skis. I'm not sure I would have the balls to do the same in my normal 177 skis as at high speed the tips flap about quite a bit. Maybe that's just the rocker but I'm no expert on ski mechanics so could be way wide of the mark here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I skied 30mph once. Felt extremely fast to me. I ski slowly, and don`t give a poo-poo 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Quote: |
don't think you can assume that. Catch an edge at high speed, go into a tumble, and it's easily possible its your head that'll smack into the rock hard piste first.
|
Yes but your speed is probably only partly relevant to the impact - the speed only matters if it has a big component in the direction of impact. That is part of the point. Falling sideways at 40mph does not make your head strike the ground harder than sideways at 0mph. If you strike your head in the direction of travel its entirely different. Of course in the real world you would probably strike at some angle to the direction of travel so you get some additional energy from your speed but not a high proportion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The big point is that is completely erroneous to think a helmet provides no protection at 40mph. There are many types of fall when it would. But obviously not all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
