 Poster: A snowHead
|
Today I had the opportunity to try speed skiing on my local hill. It is a red run with a fall height of about 150m, so not a huge hill but still big enough to get up to quite a high speed. We had a substantial braking zone at the bottom of the hill going up towards the car park. The upward gradient was very useful for slowing down.
I did 5 runs in total, building up gradually. First start was from a fall height of about 100m and I took it in a standing position. Next run was in a tuck position from the same start point. Then it was time to strip down to my race suit and start from a little higher. By the final run I was starting from the very top.
By far the hardest bit was where the hill flattened out. This was the point of maximum speed and the compression was pretty severe.
My fastest speed was clocked at 109km/h. This was a pretty accurate measurement using official speed ski timing equipment.
One or two conclusions I could draw:
1) I didn't increase my speed much in the final two runs, despite starting from higher. Basically I had reached terminal velocity for the slope of the hill. To go faster I would need to (a) improve my tuck position and (b) get faster skis. An important aspect of improving my tuck position (according to the instructor) is to keep the head down and only look at the snow immediately in front. This is easier said than done and it takes some getting used to. I think maybe softer boots or a bit more forward lean might have helped too, in a really low tuck I felt I was a little bit further back than I would like.
2) Anybody claiming to reach this kind of speed on ordinary recreational skis in a piste open to the public and wearing ordinary clothes is probably exaggerating wildly.
3) It was a lot of fun. I thought it would be boring, but it's much harder than it looks when it comes to fine-tuning your position and technique.
Fastest speed of the day was 128km/h, but that was done by someone using "special class" equipment. I.e. latex suit, streamliners behind the legs, special helmet and 240cm speed skis. I think the fastest recorded by someone in "ordinary" equipment was about 112km/, maybe a bit faster (since it was just a practice session there was no result list, that was the fastest speed I heard of).
M
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
It isn't 109kmh and its an iPhone app so is open to dismissal but...
Ps, going fast isn't big or clever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Always interesting to upload the GPS track into some analysis software so that the anomolies in the GPS can be removed (missing records, and jumps in altitute/long/lat). Then average the speed over 5 seconds, and you'll see that the "Max speed" isn't always so high.
http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=71240&start=80
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
A lovely set of statistics, but what is really interesting is that you went up almost 600m more than you came down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I think you add Accent to ski vertical to get total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I have GPS tracks registering over 90km/h when free skiing on super-G skis (in a piste not open to the public). But what I learnt yesterday was what 90-100-110 (measured accurately) actually feels like. And there was a difference.
i was skiing on 204/r33 super-G skis. They felt pretty stable but still a bit of a wobble on one run. To go any faster I would want some downhill skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
A lovely set of statistics, but what is really interesting is that you went up almost 600m more than you came down.
|
A GPS error is possible but it is also entirely plausible that the GPS track didn't start and finish in the same place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| johnE wrote: |
| A lovely set of statistics, but what is really interesting is that you went up almost 600m more than you came down. |
| homers double wrote: |
its an iPhone app so is open to dismissal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| hyperkub wrote: |
2) Anybody claiming to reach this kind of speed on ordinary recreational skis in a piste open to the public and wearing ordinary clothes is probably exaggerating wildly.
.
.
.Fastest speed of the day was 128km/h, but that was done by someone using "special class" equipment. I.e. latex suit, streamliners behind the legs, special helmet and 240cm speed skis. I think the fastest recorded by someone in "ordinary" equipment was about 112km/, maybe a bit faster (since it was just a practice session there was no result list, that was the fastest speed I heard of).
M |
I'm a bit surprised about the commments above. A few years ago I went through a speed trap in VT at 106kph and I wasn't using a skin suit or special skis (197 K2 GS). On the world cup circuit, downhill skiers whilst admittedly wearing skin suits don't utilise any other speed skiing equipment yet regularly exceed 150kph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dsoutar, WC downhill courses are a teensy weensy bit icier (aka a lot) than normal pistes which makes them a hell of a lot faster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
The SkiTracks app uses an average algorithm to smooth out the data. We played with the speed trap in Tignes this year and iPhone was reporting about 110kph against the resort's 96kph. Similarly, using iPhones and Androids recording simultaneously, half a dozen of us skiing together on the same runs would inexplicably give differences in up to 20kph on the speeds. The differences were "between apps" rather than "between devices".
So, it must be a function of the speed at which the GPS data are polled, and where extremes of data might occur across a polling window. Phones were a mixture of iPhone 4 & 5 and also some decent ones too 
As for the screenshot, 18km in 4h20 - must be an awful lot of standing around!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| homers double wrote: |
its an iPhone app so is open to dismissal
|
I can't remember if I'm honest but it was holiday with a total beginner so I'm putting it down to that 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| meh wrote: |
| dsoutar, WC downhill courses are a teensy weensy bit icier (aka a lot) than normal pistes which makes them a hell of a lot faster. |
Yes - I am aware of that (http://www.steinbach-alpin.com/injektion_us.php for example) but I was just trying to say that one does not need to resort of a lot of aero equipment to achieve those sort of speeds
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
240's are also real nice stable platforms, you can really focus on squatting down low (well until the quads start hurting too much).
clocked 123ish at les arcs many years ago on my second run, & had there been any racing suits for sale in town I would have snapped one up and gone back for more next day.
very enjoyable and addictive.
I will say after my first run one of those 'wish I still smoked' moments !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
