@hyperkub well, all 3 points are your opinion only based only on your skiing abilities. Don't think everyone have same abilities as you. Same goes for pretty much everyone else complaining about "idiots who ski fast". Thing is someone who is skiing at 100km/h can be a whole lot less dangerous then someone skiing at 40km/h. It's all about how good they are in skiing And you don't need to tuck and point straight down to get to 100km/h. Anyone claiming this, should really never try it, as they have no idea about skiing, and will most certainly never ski at that speed safely.
primoz, any video of you going at 100km/h?
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Tue 2-02-16 10:23; edited 1 time in total
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
I am not an expert on GPS, but I suspect that the biggest sources of error are:
a) Measurement of altitude by GPS is much less accurate than lat/long. When skiing fast, altitude is normally changing rapidily. Testing in a car on a motorway doesn't tend to include big altitude changes.
b) Skiing takes places in mountainous areas. Ski runs at lower altitude often have thick forest on each side. These factors mean that than number of satelites visible over the horizon is often limited and accuracy degraded.
Maximum speeds are also very vulnerable to error unless you do some pre-processing to filter out outliers. A single overestimated reading is enough to give a false picture. I notice the same with one of my (cheap) bike computers. It reads the correct speed 99.9% of the time and recorded distances are in line with digital map measurements, but it very occasionally glitches. Thus the maximum speed reading after a few hundred km of riding nearly always reads something ridiculous. It has probably counted the passage of the magnet twice for some (unknown) reason and this momentarily messes up the reading. I guess apps like Skitracks have algorithms which attempt to filter out bad data, but it's quite a difficult statistical problem to develop a totally reliable method.
There have been similar discussions about these issues on bike forums. Apps like Strava also try to filter out bad data. Strava is better than it was, but there are still plenty of KOMs that I, quite frankly, don't believe are true. When amateur cylists seem to be performing like Fabian Cancellara or Bradley Wiggins then something doesn't quite add up.
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?
Gerry wrote:
primoz wrote:
@hyperkub well, all 3 points are your opinion only based only on your skiing abilities. Don't think everyone have same abilities as you. Same goes for pretty much everyone else complaining about "idiots who ski fast". Thing is someone who is skiing at 100km/h can be a whole lot less dangerous then someone skiing at 40km/h. It's all about how good they are in skiing And you don't need to tuck and point straight down to get to 100km/h. Anyone claiming this, should really never try it, as they have no idea about skiing, and will most certainly never ski at that speed safely.
Any video of you going at 100km/h?
No. but this is a video from the hill where I did 132km/h. Conditions were not very good (one reason why there is no film) and the jury decided we were not allowed to start from the top. So my run was from the lower start (where the first skiers shown start from). Maximum speed with standard equipment from that point was, if I remember, 138-9km/h. So I was a little off the pace, but it was my first experieince at that hill.
A film from my local hill, showing 128km/h using special equipment. On Sunday I went 123,02 on this hill with standard equipment. My daughter did 120,35 - I expect to be overtaken pretty soon
Comparing ST to standalone satnavs like the eTrex is not very helpful either. I gather most of these devices have the same/lower quality GPS chips and there is no reason they should be any more accurate.
Speed is a totally derived parameter. Consistent speed on 4 devices in a straight line with clear line of sight is not the same as stop start wiggly route on skis, bike or foot.
FWIW I clocked 20km/h on Saturday. Hiking up a small mountain. Erm Twice.
Both Polar watch and eTrex show such interesting features but at different times. By eTrex, I really mean "recorded GPX file interpreted by Endomondo". OK it's not ST, and it's not an Android device vs an Apple device, but both devices were located at different ends of my left arm for the duration.
The multiple devices in a straight flat line is certainly one thing I want to test for altitude accuracy. Another area that definitely causes inaccuracy in interpretation.
I just know when to interpret BS. If they're willy waving, then the BS alarm goes off.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Just to explain, the first film is from 2014, when conditions were obviously perfect. In 2015 the piste was not in such good condition and the weather was not so good either.
@hyperkub well, all 3 points are your opinion only based only on your skiing abilities. Don't think everyone have same abilities as you. Same goes for pretty much everyone else complaining about "idiots who ski fast". Thing is someone who is skiing at 100km/h can be a whole lot less dangerous then someone skiing at 40km/h. It's all about how good they are in skiing And you don't need to tuck and point straight down to get to 100km/h. Anyone claiming this, should really never try it, as they have no idea about skiing, and will most certainly never ski at that speed safely.
Any video of you going at 100km/h?
No.
Actually I was asking primoz.
I agree with the stuff you said earlier, btw.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
hyperkub wrote:
The primary issue is physics, not skiing ability. The stopping distance of even a great skier at over 100km/h is substantial and the outcome of a crash likely to be very serious indeed.
Naturally there are people better at skiing and boarding than I am. I know several on a personal basis including people with serious merits, like competing at the Olympics and World Cup. They can ski very very fast indeed. But they know better than to go all out in an open piste.
I actually have few really good friends, who have victories in World cup downhills, and some of them even Olympic medals in their resume, and surprisingly all of them prefer to go skiing with SG skis... on public courses. Anyone who was ever skiing SG skis, knows what speed you need to even turn these skis right way. But yes, they know better then go all out on public piste... but then again, thing is, 100km/h is far from all out for some people, while for other 40km/h is way beyond their limit.
Yes I prefer to ski with race GS skis, and if it's really empty with SG skis, yet I still don't consider myself dangerous. In 30+ years of skiing (with way over 100 days/year on skis), I never had not even close call and even less accident involving some other skier. So I guess I'm not all that dangerous as someone might think based just on speed... yeah I know it's just pure luck Or maybe it has something to do with doing whole bunch of skiing, with a lot of race training and racing in all these years, and maybe it has something to do with me picking empty ski places and going fast there, not when courses are full of people. And I'm pretty sure I can stop faster and safer at 100km/h then someone who's standing on skis for second time in his life and goes 40km/h. But nah, it's only the speed that matters. But nah, it's only the speed that matters.
Gerry wrote:
Any video of you going at 100km/h?
Not handy, but will try to search for some when I will have some time. I'm just not really big fan of cameras when I go skiing, so I don't have much of this stuff on stock
After all it is free
After all it is free
Hm... I don't get it. I've never tried to go fast on a blue, these runs are for beginners. It's dangerous and inconsiderate to do so. You never know what the novices downhill from you are are going to do. They often don't look uphill before starting out and stop/fall in silly places. If you're that good then go find a black to tuck down.
It's certainly frowned upon in Canada anyways. Maybe it's a cultural thing?
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.
Canuck wrote:
Hm... I don't get it. I've never tried to go fast on a blue, these runs are for beginners. It's dangerous and inconsiderate to do so. You never know what the novices downhill from you are are going to do. They often don't look uphill before starting out and stop/fall in silly places. If you're that good then go find a black to tuck down.
It's certainly frowned upon in Canada anyways. Maybe it's a cultural thing?
Blue runs are not for beginners. The colour simply signifies the difficulty of the run, not who is allowed to ski it. Skiing fast on a blue run is perfectly acceptable if there is nobody on it, in the same way that skiing fast in a black run is unnaceptable if it is crowded. Incidentally, don't forget that different colours mean different things in different countries. http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/infoandadvice/article.aspx?articleID=98#.VrECXErfWrU
Please don't tell me you also think that only experts should be allowed on black runs?
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
andy wrote:
Quote:
Comparing ST to standalone satnavs like the eTrex is not very helpful either. I gather most of these devices have the same/lower quality GPS chips and there is no reason they should be any more accurate.
Speed is a totally derived parameter. Consistent speed on 4 devices in a straight line with clear line of sight is not the same as stop start wiggly route on skis, bike or foot.
FWIW I clocked 20km/h on Saturday. Hiking up a small mountain. Erm Twice.
Both Polar watch and eTrex show such interesting features but at different times. By eTrex, I really mean "recorded GPX file interpreted by Endomondo". OK it's not ST, and it's not an Android device vs an Apple device, but both devices were located at different ends of my left arm for the duration.
The multiple devices in a straight flat line is certainly one thing I want to test for altitude accuracy. Another area that definitely causes inaccuracy in interpretation.
I just know when to interpret BS. If they're willy waving, then the BS alarm goes off.
Good point about speed over a straight course vs wiggly course, however that would reduce the speed measurement not increase it.
Outliers - yes that might account for any errors, but my motorway experiment didn't produce any outliers at all.
I still think any errors could be down to altitude measurements, but surely these would show up on a flat run too?
My guess is that SH may have some errors, but overall it's far more accurate than people give it credit for.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
not so much straight vs wiggly, but more consistent vs non consistent
and I don't expect motorway to produce outliers. but I do expect a walk up a forest trail, a ski down a red run and a MTB descent down an alp to have outliers.
I think i mentioned my 326km/h or whatever it was MTB ride before, but a quick glance at the last week on my endomondo feed shows a sH managing to clock up approximately half the speed of a satellite in low earth orbit.
my bs detector was fine tuned by a previous colleague. he was one of those that would repeat stories after enough beers, and each time things would get rounded up a bit, and then magically swapped from km/h to mph. so not only was he right up there with our championship speed skiing freinds (think there are a couple on here?), but he was up there in normal ski gear on rental skis on a busy 3V piste when the speed skiers are in skin suits, aero lids, full tuck and 2,40 skis to get those speeds. I know when a punter has a 1.6x speed factor and rounding up error in their apres ski story over 4 pints.
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.
Cmon guys/girls...70mph is 110 km/h.
I think you are exaggerating a little too much. If you are not a speed racer or downhill skier, than these numbers are fantasy...
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
@matejp, not necessarily. I'm not an expert skier or a lunatic, but I can regularly clock up about 55mph. Quite fast enough for me, but I can see that others would easily hit 70mph.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
It's all about appropriateness....for skier, for piste, conditions, other skiers etc etc. There are too many who ski beyond what is appropriate, mostly on the easier pistes as these are the only places they are able to get up to the higher speeds without feeling scared.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Wed 3-02-16 19:36; edited 1 time in total
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
andy wrote:
not so much straight vs wiggly, but more consistent vs non consistent
and I don't expect motorway to produce outliers. but I do expect a walk up a forest trail, a ski down a red run and a MTB descent down an alp to have outliers.
I think i mentioned my 326km/h or whatever it was MTB ride before, but a quick glance at the last week on my endomondo feed shows a sH managing to clock up approximately half the speed of a satellite in low earth orbit.
my bs detector was fine tuned by a previous colleague. he was one of those that would repeat stories after enough beers, and each time things would get rounded up a bit, and then magically swapped from km/h to mph. so not only was he right up there with our championship speed skiing freinds (think there are a couple on here?), but he was up there in normal ski gear on rental skis on a busy 3V piste when the speed skiers are in skin suits, aero lids, full tuck and 2,40 skis to get those speeds. I know when a punter has a 1.6x speed factor and rounding up error in their apres ski story over 4 pints.
Why would one type of movement produce outliers rather than another. All the GPS is doing is logging a series of positions and then calculating the distance between them and the time taken. I can't see why the calculations would vary in accuracy so the question is whether the position logging is prone to errors. I agree that altitude accuracy is variable, but once again why would it vary on one type of terrain compared to another? The GPS doesn't know the terrain is changing, it just takes the positions as best it can.
I agree that there can be a degree of user 'error' involved. Either when people lie about their speed, exaggerate, or muddle MPH with KMH. But i'm still struggling to determine why SkiTracks might be inaccurate - if it is.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
matejp wrote:
Cmon guys/girls...70mph is 110 km/h.
I think you are exaggerating a little too much. If you are not a speed racer or downhill skier, than these numbers are fantasy...
I would say that on the right piste with a reasonable set of ski's its achievable.
I've managed 80km on a fairly soft snowboard on a bumpy piste so a decent skier on the right slope and skis should be able to clock over a 100 without too many issues.
obviously the tool that you're using to measure the speed plays a part as well, I just used the local Chamonix app, no idea how accurate it is and I've only used it once so nothing to compare it too!
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
foxtrotzulu wrote:
Canuck wrote:
Hm... I don't get it. I've never tried to go fast on a blue, these runs are for beginners. It's dangerous and inconsiderate to do so. You never know what the novices downhill from you are are going to do. They often don't look uphill before starting out and stop/fall in silly places. If you're that good then go find a black to tuck down.
It's certainly frowned upon in Canada anyways. Maybe it's a cultural thing?
Blue runs are not for beginners. The colour simply signifies the difficulty of the run, not who is allowed to ski it. Skiing fast on a blue run is perfectly acceptable if there is nobody on it, in the same way that skiing fast in a black run is unnaceptable if it is crowded. Incidentally, don't forget that different colours mean different things in different countries. http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/infoandadvice/article.aspx?articleID=98#.VrECXErfWrU
Please don't tell me you also think that only experts should be allowed on black runs?
It must be different in Europe than in Canada then. Anyone is welcome to ski on any run, but if you're caught tucking down a blue run in Canada you lose your pass.
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?
@Canuck,
No, it's the same here (in theory), but because you won't get your pass taken away you get idiots on every colour piste.
SKi tracks had me at 88kpm last week which is far too fast for a man of my years. It's about 40 kph slower than when I left ski tracks running and went out in the car though.
Having written software that uses the GPS on iPhones I would definitely be wary of putting too much trust in individual GPS readings - they can vary a lot even when the position of the phone doesn't change. When calculating speeds when not moving in a straight line, altitude is changing and there are nearby objects that can affect GPS signals (trees, cliffs, hills etc) a lot will depend on the algorithms the software developers use to approximate location, speed etc. I don't know about Ski Tracks but Strava often shows me cycling over roundabouts and taking short cuts through gardens
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Wed 3-02-16 18:26; edited 1 time in total
@Canuck, @musher, I've never seen or heard of any suggestion that schussing or high speeds are prohibited on any run. What is frowned upon/against the rules is excessive speed. Speeds of 70mph on a deserted Blue, miles from any intersections etc. are unlikely to count as excessive in anyone's book. Speeds of 15MPH at an intersection or near a nursery slope might well be excessive. IMO the people who ski at 20MPH past the 'go slow' signs are far more of a danger in many ways.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@Canuck, @musher, I've never seen or heard of any suggestion that schussing or high speeds are prohibited on any run. What is frowned upon/against the rules is excessive speed. Speeds of 70mph on a deserted Blue, miles from any intersections etc. are unlikely to count as excessive in anyone's book. Speeds of 15MPH at an intersection or near a nursery slope might well be excessive. IMO the people who ski at 20MPH past the 'go slow' signs are far more of a danger in many ways.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Quote:
Strava often shows me cycling over roundabouts and taking short cuts through gardens
So you are the menace who's decimated my petunias?
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.
Strava often showed me wandering off the dead straight path in to people's gardens, thereby making a longer apparent route, and hence a higher top speed and average speed, and also used to make up additional elevation gain (ie, more than the total of every delta between each data point).
cack for accuracy, but ace for those king of the willy waving racing on piste/path/road
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
foxtrotzulu wrote:
Why would one type of movement produce outliers rather than another
I don't know the science, and won't pretend to, but from my experience on the MTB Strava is far more likely to be accurate on the flowing open parts of a trail than it is on the tighter stuff. It's one of the reasons that I don't bother with an app to ski, the only reason I really have it on the bike is to see roughly where I've been and how long it took
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
30 feet per second....= 30 mph.....
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.
yorkshirelad wrote:
30 feet per second....= 30 mph.....
30fps = 20.5MPH
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
SnoodyMcFlude wrote:
foxtrotzulu wrote:
Why would one type of movement produce outliers rather than another
I don't know the science, and won't pretend to, but from my experience on the MTB Strava is far more likely to be accurate on the flowing open parts of a trail than it is on the tighter stuff. It's one of the reasons that I don't bother with an app to ski, the only reason I really have it on the bike is to see roughly where I've been and how long it took
Are you assuming that the map is 100% accurate? Google Earth should be, but OS maps might not be for a minor track.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@foxtrotzulu, Strava lays over a Google Earth map. Like I say, I only use it for a guide on where I've been rather than an exact representation. Quite often when I'm lapping a trail then it can throw up two laps that are quite different from each other...which is why I don't really trust it and would never trust a ski app.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
OK. I was on powder skis today, but not hanging around on-piste at all, and faster than almost anyone else on piste.
According to Ski Tracks, my max speed was 40.1mph. (It also seems I totally underestimated my speed - I thought I skiied at about 30, and I go considerably faster than I did today on race skis and in good visibility on a nice clear run). However, I still doubt I am going 75% faster when really on it. and I genuinely am a fast skier compared to most (another SH can vouch for this - but he is even faster...)
This certainly makes the claims of 70-80mph on piste on this thread seem a bit ambitious.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Foxtrotzulu.. Thought i had typed 20... must try to look at what ive typed before i press "submit" lol
Try looking at something thats 60 feet apart as you ski past... Its amazing how slow/fast you are actually going
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Harry Flashman wrote:
OK. I was on powder skis today, but not hanging around on-piste at all, and faster than almost anyone else on piste.
According to Ski Tracks, my max speed was 40.1mph. (It also seems I totally underestimated my speed - I thought I skiied at about 30, and I go considerably faster than I did today on race skis and in good visibility on a nice clear run). However, I still doubt I am going 75% faster when really on it. and I genuinely am a fast skier compared to most (another SH can vouch for this - but he is even faster...)
This certainly makes the claims of 70-80mph on piste on this thread seem a bit ambitious.
To be honest, 40 mph sounds suspiciously low for someone 'not hanging around'. Was there a schuss involved at all?
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?
I thought the following was quite interesting:
Quote:
The authors measured the speed of some 650 individuals at three different ski resorts in the U.S. during the winter of 2002/2003. One resort was primarily a destination resort in Utah, one was a day area in New York, and the third resort in Vermont had a combination of destination and day skiers. The speeds were determined by means of a calibrated radar speed gun. Speeds were gathered on consecutive skiers and snowboarders as they were observed from an uphill, looking downhill position. The speed recorded was the highest speed observed during a several second interval while the observed person went through several turns as the skiers and snowboarders moved away from the observer. All observations were made on wide, straight, well-groomed ‘blue square’ (more difficult) trails. The slopes ranged from 16–20° in steepness.
The average speed for all observations was 43.0 km/h (26.7 mph), with a standard deviation of 11.2 km/h (7.0 mph). The average speed for skiers of 44.5 km/h (27.6 mph) was significantly higher than that for snowboarders at 38.9 km/h (24.1 mph). The average speed under good visibility of 46.7 km/h (29.0 mph) was significantly higher than for poor visibility conditions at 38.3 km/h (23.7 mph). The average speed for helmet users of 45.8 km/h (28.4 mph) was significantly higher than those not using a helmet at 41.0 km/h (25.4 mph). Males ski and snowboard significantly faster than females. Skiers and snowboarders are fair at estimating their speed (r = 0.56), but they tend to underestimate their speeds the faster they go; for example, at an actual 48 km/h (30 mph), they estimate that they are traveling at 37 km/h (23 mph).
The observed speeds are well above the speeds (22.6 km/h, or 14.0 mph) used for ASTM F 2040 helmet testing protocols for recreational snow sports helmets.
@foxtrotzulu, so basically a helmet is a psychological crutch rather any practical use but encourages people to ski faster. Like we didn't already know that!
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Raceplate wrote:
@foxtrotzulu, so basically a helmet is a psychological crutch rather any practical use but encourages people to ski faster. Like we didn't already know that!
The evidence above suggests that either helmets encourage people to ski faster or that the people who ski faster are more likely to wear helmets. You certainly can't deduce anything about the practical use from the evidence above.
@foxtrotzulu, so basically a helmet is a psychological crutch rather any practical use but encourages people to ski faster. Like we didn't already know that!
The evidence above suggests that either helmets encourage people to ski faster or that the people who ski faster are more likely to wear helmets. You certainly can't deduce anything about the practical use from the evidence above.
Er, yes you can. The "practical use" comment refers to the fact that the helmet certification in the article states that it only protects you up to a 22 km/h impact speed. The article also states that the average speed for all observations was 43 km/h. I'd say that that is conclusive proof that a standard certified helmet is of no practical use in an average speed impact...
I also distinctly remember when the first helmet debates came about that someone qualified to comment said a polystyrene helmet would need to be 80cm thick to prevent brain damage in a 30mph impact with a tree so the above stats don't surprise me at all. 22 km/h is just 14 mph.
I wear a helmet but I also regularly ski at 80+ km/h. Believe me, it will be of no practical use at all if I hit a rock/pylon/tree/random solid object at that speed.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
foxtrotzulu wrote:
Harry Flashman wrote:
OK. I was on powder skis today, but not hanging around on-piste at all, and faster than almost anyone else on piste.
According to Ski Tracks, my max speed was 40.1mph. (It also seems I totally underestimated my speed - I thought I skiied at about 30, and I go considerably faster than I did today on race skis and in good visibility on a nice clear run). However, I still doubt I am going 75% faster when really on it. and I genuinely am a fast skier compared to most (another SH can vouch for this - but he is even faster...)
This certainly makes the claims of 70-80mph on piste on this thread seem a bit ambitious.
To be honest, 40 mph sounds suspiciously low for someone 'not hanging around'. Was there a schuss involved at all?
No. Low visibility, snowing, and powdery bumps. Some fast carving on open visible runs, but that's it.
After all it is free
After all it is free
@Raceplate, a 14mph impact is not the same as a skier travelling at 14mph though. If I fall then it's likely that there will be a deceleration before my head hits the ground, and even then it won't be perpendicular, I'll hit it at an angle. Fair enough it won't protect me against hitting a tree, but as a piste skier it's not high probability
appreciating that someone died earlier this week in La Plagne, so the possibility is there. However given the number of people that will have skied that particular piste on that particular day, I'd still say probability of an intermediate piste skier hitting a tree is low
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.
SnoodyMcFlude wrote:
@Raceplate, a 14mph impact is not the same as a skier travelling at 14mph though. If I fall then it's likely that there will be a deceleration before my head hits the ground, and even then it won't be perpendicular, I'll hit it at an angle. Fair enough it won't protect me against hitting a tree, but as a piste skier it's not high probability
Agreed. But the average skier speed was 27mph. They need 50% deceleration to just scrape into the realm of the certified protection level of the standard helmet. What's the probability of that level of deceleration? What about all the people going above 27 mph as it was an average? What are their chances of getting below 14 mph before impact? I'm not a scientist but I'm pretty sure the answer is statistically provable to be, "Not bloody likely!"
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@Raceplate, So the helmets Svindal and Streitberger and Reichelt were no use at all in Kitzbuhel?
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
And you don't need to tuck and point straight down to get to 100km/h. Anyone claiming this, should really never try it, as they have no idea about skiing, and will most certainly never ski at that speed safely.
