 Poster: A snowHead
|
When i ski i do tend to go fast where possible, because i like high speed carving.... how fast is not important, ....as long as its fast to me!!! In italy three years ago i managed to destroy my knee during a crash, looking back i reckon i was only doing more that 30 mph, no more..... also....when skiing i never think that im safe because im where a helmet..i only have a helmet so i can fasten my goggles to it when using sunglasses and have somewhere to put my gloves etc. and hang them on a hook in the bar  ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@beequin, FIS regulated helmets have a different certification to punter helmets.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@Raceplate, but if a helmet is certified to protect me at 14mph then it's still offering more protection at 27mph than if I wore nothing at all?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@SnoodyMcFlude, of course, logic says yes. But if it's only the difference between being dead and being a vegetable, is it actually helping?
I wonder if a certain ex-F1 driver's family think his certified ski helmet helped him? I bet if he'd had his F1 helmet on he wouldn't have suffered the same brain damage. (Might have broken his neck through whiplash from the added inertia of a heavier helmet, mind, but who really knows?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
I wonder if a certain ex-F1 driver's family think his certified ski helmet helped him?
|
Well it might have if his cam hadn't allegedly been riveted to the helmet (probably compromising the shell) rather than a normal adhesive mount, and the suggestion that the impact might have sent the camera through the helmet. But who knows for sure what happened that day? That test for certifying helmets seems woefully inadequate to cynical old me. It's just a fear-based money-go-round. Buy a cheapo helmet and you buy something that only just passes an inadequate test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
How on earth have you people managed to turn yet another thread about a different topic into yet another helmet thread?
It's incredibly dull. For the love of God, please stop, or find your own thread to flirt on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes! My bruised ego is making me cranky!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Raceplate wrote: |
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| 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. |
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. |
I have no desire to get drawn into a helmet thread. I've got my hands quite full enough with rucksacks and hip flasks. However.... While a helmet may not protect you completely when meeting a stationery object like a tree it does work wonderfully for the more typical glancing blow encountered when you fall on the piste and hit your head on the snow/ice etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| it does work wonderfully for the more typical glancing blow encountered when you fall on the piste and hit your head on the snow/ice etc. |
Really looking forward to reading the evidence you post up 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| I have no desire to get drawn into a helmet thread. I've got my hands quite full enough with rucksacks and hip flasks. |
See, if you had a rucksack then your hands would be empty 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| eddiethebus wrote: |
| 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! |
really??????? 80kms, id be surprised!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| iskar wrote: |
| eddiethebus wrote: |
| 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! |
really??????? 80kms, id be surprised!! |
Why? Without inflating my own level I've done probably about 800+ days riding so i'm quite good, there are better snowboarders than me (obviously) and I've got mates that still leave me for dead, but i'm more than capable of pointing it down a hill and going fast
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@iskar, I have to say that I'm inclined to agree with @eddiethebus. I'm an averagely cr@p skier and really not a speed demon but looking back at my maximum speeds over a week I achieved 80 kmh on five out of six days. If I can do it, then I don't doubt he can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I really don't understand this need to measure and brag about speed. For sure it is COMPLETELY disconnected from skiing ability - the ability to go fast is not at all reflective of how good a skier you are. In fact - skiing well at low speeds is something only advanced skiers can achieve, most others end up with some sort of stem or upper body movement. It is also true that in my experience those who straight-line to go as fast as possible are amongst the least capable skiers on the mountain - and are even more dangerous as they generally do not recognise that fact.
I also think it is extremely dangerous as it encourages a focus on speed rather than control. And encourages irresponsible behaviour. IF, as is stated here, you are going at 80+ KPH then it is a fact that any collision with another skier could well be fatal to the person that is skied into. And I doubt very much if those claiming those speeds have anything like the technique or perhaps more importantly physique to be in any control at all at those speeds. Racers would only ski at that speed when on a closed race track, and they can and do crash.
Where on earth did this need for speed come from? And how would any of us feel if we caused serious injury or death to another as a result of skiing so fast on what are by default public pistes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Neither the dangers or difficulties are linear with respect to speed. Kinetic energy (and thus stopping distance) rises with the square of speed. In fact stopping distance tends to get relatively even longer because at very high speeds braking hard becomes difficult, so you have to rely on air braking in the first phase of slowing down.
It's the same when accelerating. Getting to (say) 80 is relatively easy. But to get to 120 needs a much longer and steeper hill. As you go faster, oppsing aerodynamic forces increase, making net acceleration less. and a much longer clear line of sight (not only down but also to the sides).
I think a good rule of thumb is that going at a speed which requires initial air braking before using the skis is too fast for an open piste. What that speed is depends to a certain extent on skill level, but also on snow conditions, slope angle and so on. Other invincible forum super heroes might have a higher limit, but for me that limit in reasonable conditions is normally somewhere around 80-90km/h.
I think that figure is reasonable not only based on my own experience but also based on observations at a speedski competition I attended last year at a small ski centre where there was limited room for a braking area. Thus competitors needed to stand up quickly after the timing and brake pretty hard. When speeds got up into the mid 90s there were a couple of crashes under braking. Nothing serious, just a slide into the netting. But....at 95 competitors were having some difficulty to come to a stop quickly and under control. And these were excellent skiers with long experience of alpine competitions and speedski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Coming back to this thread after using Ski Tracks for a few seasons, depending on my mood and conditions I'm typically seeing peak speeds of mid 40's to low 50's (mph). The latter would be carving GS turns on an open blue (Canadian) slope in good conditions. On the odd occasion I've been a fraction over 60 mph. That's about what I thought back on p2 before I had any actual data to back it 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?
|
I might add that I have also been chief of course and technical delegate at plenty of alpine competitions for speed events up to U16 level (and they ski fast at that age). A key part of planning is to ensure that the braking area is large enough and that the surface is acceptable. I once held the start on a competition and made all the competitors tramp down some fresh snow which had fallen until I was satisfied that braking was going to be safe.
Going fast is pretty easy....stopping can present rather more of a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| 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? |
Ummmm - correct, only experts should be allowed on black runs. In fat this is often made very clear on signposting but ignored by many. The reason is simple - if you lose control on a steep slope you are very likely to cause a significant hazard to other slope users. In simple terms you are likely to slide further and faster following a fall (and we have all seen people sliding faster and faster down a steep slop after falling). If you are not an expert you are very much more likely to lose control, as by default you will not have the skills, experience and capability to ski a steep slope safely. Frankly it is incredibly arrogant and irresponsible of anyone who is not expert to ski on a steep slope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| zikomo wrote: |
| I really don't understand this need to measure and brag about speed. |
Nor do I. Put some moguls in the way, that soon highlights the ability deficiency. And maybe try chucking the helmet and get the good sensations at lower speeds. Bit like driving a drop top.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I really don't understand the need to ski big moguls! I don't mind the soft pillowy type you get after a decent snow dump, but I don't find big icy moguls on piste any fun whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@uktrailmonster, big slushy ones best. All I'm saying is that those who should be hooning around at warp speed are those who can handle the trickier conditions with aplomb. Moguls are a kind of natural proficiency test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You just need to be in full control and aware of the conditions. I can safely ski at 50+ mph in the right conditions and it's a lot of fun carving out huge GS turns across a nicely groomed piste. Moguls are not my strong point, I can get by on them if I really need to. It's just not my thing anymore, hurts my ageing knees too much for a start!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| zikomo wrote: |
| 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? |
Ummmm - correct, only experts should be allowed on black runs. In fat this is often made very clear on signposting but ignored by many. The reason is simple - if you lose control on a steep slope you are very likely to cause a significant hazard to other slope users. In simple terms you are likely to slide further and faster following a fall (and we have all seen people sliding faster and faster down a steep slop after falling). If you are not an expert you are very much more likely to lose control, as by default you will not have the skills, experience and capability to ski a steep slope safely. Frankly it is incredibly arrogant and irresponsible of anyone who is not expert to ski on a steep slope. |
What a crock of crap. Firstly define expert? Secondly its your ability to ski the run in a safe and controlled manner you don't have to be a top level skier to handle a black run, or any other run for that matter. Thirdly not all blacks, reds, or blues for that matter are the same. Combe de Saulire in Courchevel 1850 should probably be a black just because the entrance is steep and gets icy/cut up. And while we are in the 3vs Creux was a red and is now a blue. Is that because every skier in the world is now better or because they've altered the run. Neither.
I dont have to be an F1 super licence holder to drive at 70 on a motorway, i just have to be competent and safe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I dont have to be an F1 super licence holder to drive at 70 on a motorway, i just have to be competent and safe.
|
Thing is, we're not discussing motorways. You don't get 3 year olds wiped out just below a crest on a motorway. Asking 'how fast can you ski on a blue run' is akin to asking 'how fast can you drive in a suburb/school zone'. Basically, no matter how good a driver you might be, going flat in a school zone would make you a hazard on the road.
And 'empty' public blue runs?! Those are exactly the type I try to find to ski on with my 3 year old. I really hope you don't encounter us below a crest or around a bend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
But... thanks for rehashing this thread. It makes me realise again how dangerous skiing on the piste can be, if only I could get eyes in the back of my head now! Can't wait for my daughter to advance so we can get to more interesting terrain where there are less idiots
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 dont have to be an F1 super licence holder to drive at 70 on a motorway, i just have to be competent and safe.[/quote]
This. By default you cannot be competent and safe to ski a black slope (by definition and "expert" slope and the hardest classification on the mountain) unless you are an expert skier.
Almost everyone overestimates their skill level (driving and skiing), the very definition of arrogance. No question that piste grading is subjective and inconsistent but it is the best guide available, and is at least intended to make the mountain safer. Almost every time I ski a steep slope I see many people who clearly do not have the skill set to ski it properly in control. And "surviving" it only puts others at risk, only those who can properly control speed and line on steep slopes should attempt them.
Oh and your logic referring to driving is facile. You MAY be safe and competent at 70 mph on a motorway (I haven't seen you drive) but by default this is at the easier end of driving challenges (level road, few bends, multiple lanes, hard shoulder, good drainage) more akin to skiing a blue/red slope (in fact we often refer to easy, wide pistes as "motorways"). You do however need a different level of competence (and license) to drive fast on a racetrack or rally circuit which is a better analogy for the slopes that have the highest classification of difficulty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Canuck, i wasn't taking about speed, but skiing ability and piste rating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Anybody aspiring to be an expert has to ski increasingly difficult terrain. I seriously doubt whether anybody is a true "expert" when they ski their first steep black run.
So black runs will always have wannabees taking their first steps into harder skiing. True experts understand and sympathise with this....and (a) don't try to bully less experienced skiers into being satisfied with mediocrity and (b) seek challenges at the next level such as off piste or racing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| @iskar, I have to say that I'm inclined to agree with @eddiethebus. I'm an averagely cr@p skier and really not a speed demon but looking back at my maximum speeds over a week I achieved 80 kmh on five out of six days. If I can do it, then I don't doubt he can. |
im just querying the 'soft snowboard on a bumpy piste' bit, I find that hard to believe, im not saying its not possible on skis, our kids are often skiing over 80kph on slalom skis let alone GS, but ive never seen a boarder get close to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@iskar, Fair point. The evidence posted yesterday suggests that snowboarders typically travel about 20% slower than skis, so 80kmh might be pushing it a bit. I was talking to a mate on Friday who was telling me about an incident he'd had in Courchevel last week when he hit an unexpected compression on his snowboard at (measured) 100 kmh. Incidentally, that's below his top speed of 120 kmh on skis. No, I'm not suggesting it was sensible. Just that these speeds are attainable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
There has actually been a scientific study of skier/snowboarder braking distances. The article, by Schmitt and Muser, was publushed in the European Journal of Sport Science 2014.
The skier/snowboarders in the study were travelling at an average of 39km/h. They were on a red piste and were instructed to do an emergency stop when a horn sounded. The participant are described as being a lixture of advanced and intermediate skill level.
The results (averages):
Reaction distance 11.1m
Braking distance 7.8m
Total stopping distance 18.9m
Ok. Lets extrapolate that to 80km/h. To do that we double the reaction distance and quadrupal the braking distance (kinetic energy rises as the square of speed).
Reaction distance 22.2m
Braking distance 31.2m
Total stopping distance 53.4m
The extrapolated figures for 120km/h are as follows:
Reaction distance 33.3m
Braking distance 70.2m
Total stopping distance 103.5m
Now this is only an approximation. As speed increase air resistance becomes more significant but on the other hand it becomes too risky to immediately brake hard withe the skis. So typically braking takes place in two phases. First aur braking and then braking with the skis. Whether that leads to a longer or shorter stopping distance than predicted is a bit uncertain.
Of course in races the braking distance is shorter at the finish line. This for two reasons. Firstly the skier can anticipate the need to brake after passing the finish line. Secondly the finish area is normally flat.
I found another interesting figure. Canadian Ski Cross recommend a braking area of minimum 25m for skiers estimated to be travelling at 60-65km/h. Extrapolating just the braking distance from 39 to 65 gives a braking distance of about 20m. Probably elite competitors can shorten this a bit but on the other hand several oeople have to stop in close prominity. So as far as I can judge...the science seem roughly in line with practice.
I think the (estimated) figures for 80km/h speak for themseves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@hyperkub, I wouldn't dispute your figures. However, that doesn't really tell us much other than that you need enough distance to stop and that distance increases with speed. On the occasions when I've skied at 80kmh I've probably had closer to 120m space available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Hit 78kph last week in La Plagne, felt like 100mph! lost my bottle and scrubbed off the speed! as my user name suggests I like to cruise and enjoy the view, coffee and try to improve my technic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I can't remember the last time I was forced to do an emergency stop on skis. I've had to change direction pretty sharpish on occasion, or had to scrub a fair chunk of speed off, but very rarely (if ever as I can't recall a single instance) a total stop to avoid hitting someone. I find skis very agile in change of direction even at relatively high speed and if you anticipate what's coming ahead there are very few surprises. 9 times out of 10 a subtle change of line is all that's needed to take you safely past a slower skier with loads of margin for error. You're either in control or you're not and speed is just one factor in that. A true expert skier will almost certainly be in more control at 80 kph than an average intermediate at 30 kph or less. IME expert skiers are rarely dangerous on the slopes, even if they look like they are to someone who can't comprehend. The ones to watch are the cocky intermediates who are really pushing themselves to ski faster without the skill set to remain in full control. Unfortunately there's quite a few of those around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
But there are always factors which you can't totally control. Even world cup skiers occasionally lose a ski, for example. I broke a racing binding once in a high force turn. It was replaced under warranty but it just goes to show....
So why not sign up for race training if you like going fast? It's much more demanding than straightlining an empty red even at stupid speeds and you are only likely to hurt yourself. If you guys are all so skillful and in control you ought to get on the podium, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
So why not sign up for race training if you like going fast?
|
you won't get speed training, not around gates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| You're either in control or you're not and speed is just one factor in that. A true expert skier will almost certainly be in more control at 80 kph than an average intermediate at 30 kph or less. IME expert skiers are rarely dangerous on the slopes, even if they look like they are to someone who can't comprehend. The ones to watch are the cocky intermediates who are really pushing themselves to ski faster without the skill set to remain in full control. Unfortunately there's quite a few of those around. |
Exactly, true experts know better than to blast down an open blue run. You NEVER see them doing it. The only people you see doing it are wannabe intermediots!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| moseyp wrote: |
| Quote: |
So why not sign up for race training if you like going fast?
|
you won't get speed training, not around gates |
Facepalm.....super-g and downhill are known as the alpine speed events. Believe it or not, competitors train for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Facepalm.....super-g and downhill are known as the alpine speed events. Believe it or not, competitors train for them.
|
You can't just sign up to train sg and dh, you'll only be able to do gs and sl, and skiing around gates will slow you down. you won't get the same speed as straightlining it down an empty piste. Unless you're six and have just joined a race club, and then I stand corrected - but you don't seem that young and neither do the other posters here
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Mon 8-02-16 10:21; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
