 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
One question before I even bother him with it. Is the sum and substance here that you believe it to be physically impossible for a snowboarder after deeply compressing, excuse me "applying a bending moment" in the tightest possible fashion to subsequently LITERALLY accelerate his rate of travel into the new direction by virtue of the energy released in the recovery action as well as spring response of his tail?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Great question! Stay much farther TO THE SIDE of snowboarders, regardless to distance behind them, because our speed relative to each other was merely an incidental factor here. The unpredictability and disregard and disrespect for fellow riders that snowboarders who are making THIS SPECIFIC type of maneuver demonstrate earns them by no quality other than that of brute force, a much wider berth. That is the real-world net effect, and absent any external intervention to prevent this sort of action in the way the powers that be certainly do intervene to prevent other reckless behavior, then in this case might makes right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Great question! I answered but lost the message by accident before sent. Will retype shortly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Well I’m relieved to see that you acknowledge you will do something different. If you’re giving a wider berth that’s job done in my view and as the uphill skier I’d say you’re fulfilling your obligation to avoid a downhill skier or boarder in this scenario. It’s not just a question of being further behind but more one of just not filling the same space at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| bumpybrandy wrote: |
| One question before I even bother him with it. Is the sum and substance here that you believe it to be physically impossible for a snowboarder after deeply compressing, excuse me "applying a bending moment" in the tightest possible fashion to subsequently LITERALLY accelerate his rate of travel into the new direction by virtue of the energy released in the recovery action as well as spring response of his tail? |
It's a "simple" matter of Newtonian mechanics and vector arithmetic. For your friend, it will indeed be simple. I absolutely believe it is possible for a snowboarder to accelerate as you say. It's the direction that I'm questioning, in the specific case of an ideal circular carved turn. If you don't want to put the argument to your friend on that basis that's up to you but if you still claim your structural engineer agrees with your view on this then I will still think you didn't correctly explain the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
What is my view? The guy turned hard and fast and accelerated out of the turn at a 90-degree angle from his former path of travel. Obviously, he covered more than a nanometer before it happened. Why must Sir Isaac and Pythagoras get involved? We seem to agree.
BTW - To return to Kramer's opinion, which bugs me a lot, perhaps you are not accustomed to this in the UK but in the US when people enter into discussions about a specific topic online, they generally do so with a quick one sentence synopsis of any relevant info about themselves, so people know where they are then coming from on the subject. Like on a dating website one might start off by saying "SWF, highly paid Professional Prostitute with extremely realistic implants," for instance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| bumpybrandy wrote: |
| BTW - To return to Kramer's opinion, which bugs me a lot, perhaps you are not accustomed to this in the UK but in the US when people enter into discussions about a specific topic online, they generally do so with a quick one sentence synopsis of any relevant info about themselves, so people know where they are then coming from on the subject. |
Your opinion of yourself, repeated on this forum is that you are an expert skier.
Yet the evidence given to us by yourself is both that you don’t understand the FIS rules, and you’re not capable of safely overtaking a snowboarder.
Forgive me, but when someone on the internet continually bigs themselves up, but then shows me that they don’t really understand what they’re talking about, I tend to go with what they’ve shown rather than what they say.
You come across as an entitled ignorant blowhard. The type of American who puts people off other Americans I’m afraid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@bumpybrandy My point is that he can't accelerate out of a turn without a force acting in that direction (Newton's first law) and if he's carving and at 90° there isn't such a force in that directiion, so he's actually decelerating due to air resistance and friction.
Net of this is that events cannot have happened exactly as you recall them, because that would be physically impossible. You may disbelieve that if you choose or you may insist that Newtonian mechanics is not relevant to accelerating* bodies but the physics is unequivocal on this.
* Accelerating in this (correct) sense is not equivalent to speeding up and encompasses changing direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
You come across as blind insofar as I haven't demonstrated a lack of understanding of anything, I can read FIS or The Communist Manifesto till I know them by heart, that doesn't make them right, or beyond reproach, you sheep. My contention remains the same as moment one. There is a new type of snowboard activity which endangers the public. Good luck to you when you encounter it and apologize to the person you slam into that you have broken the rules, and whatever you have that passes for teeth. Secondly a previous comment portrayed I had come here because of being shot down on a US board. The opposite is true, I mistakenly ended up on this European site and took my leave when I realized we don't speak the same language even though we both speak English. I returned just because of a few post notifications that showed me there were some people on the board that don't take pride in swearing blind allegiance to possibly obsolete dogma, perhaps because they weren't handed a prized position in the upper caste as you strike me as having been, thus making the status quo your most desirable outcome in any matter. Finally, for your comment in relation to the stereotype, me, of an ignorant American blowhard I beg of you to demonstrate any hint of literal ignorance on my part. Finally, regarding blowhard I am quite surprised that being an expert skier is bragging. It's not a particularly uncommon thing. When the ski shop gives a document to fill out your skill level so they can set your binder din accordingly do you write "I may be somewhat proficient, possibly, in that I manage to get down the hill without risking falling, but I would hate to brag so please just set my din so that I pop out of my bindings if I get off the chairlift too confidently?" Let me tell you something about Americans. We don't like snobs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hes winding you all up, don't bite and give him what he's looking for , bit of a troll .
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
TSGSH, understood, ill get back to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Don't want to be sexist, could be she . Still a troll .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gitty, Hi, it's hard for me to be sure so just to confirm, is it Kramer you see as a bit of a troll or me? Thank you
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@bumpybrandy, you are the troll. It’s amazing that you even have to ask.
You did indeed start by bugging yourself up.
Then continued to try and justify skiing right into a snowboarder.
I, like most here, have never come close to crashing into a downhill slope user. And also like most I am used to sharing the slopes with our snowboard brothers and sisters. It’s not that hard really.
You are at fault. If you can’t recognise that you are a danger to yourself and others. So change your ways or stop skiing or recognise at least that you are not very good at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
LOLROF! Did I stumble into a prep school forum? It's nice to see you protect eachother's feelings like that. Our snowboard brothers! Anyhoo, thank god there are no British ski destinations. I think I did learn an important lesson here. Thank you for that, and farewell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| bumpybrandy wrote: |
| Anyhoo, thank god there are no British ski destinations. |
More general ignorance on display here. Unfortunately we're depending on these f[i]uc[ktards to save the world from a Trump - Putin coalition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
<laughs> not that one! He used MAGA language in some of those insults.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| stevomcd wrote: |
Be more careful next time, you could really hurt someone boring straight down the piste not paying attention like that.
This is utter nonsense:
| Quote: |
the spirit of the skiers' code being that everyone traveling down a run should be moving in the same general direction.
|
|
Another example of someone not reading and understanding Rule 5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
Another example of someone not reading and understanding Rule 5. |
Funny how you are the only one who understands it.
Let's take a blue run popular with early intermediates (and their ski instructors). Skiers, singly and in groups (and I dare say snowboarders too but I rely on them to comment) will traverse across the run at a shallow angle, turn and traverse back. Two skiers doing this who approach each other in this way are likely to meet at an angle of 150° or more. Are these people (and their instructors) not understanding Rule 5? You'll get exactly the same nearly-head-on approach with otherwise confident skiers negotiating moguls or a steep icy section of an otherwise straightforward piste. Do you ski past them telling them how wrong they are?
The Note to Rule 5 (not the Rule itself) that you rely on so much is about carving uphill. It explicitly refers to the relatively recent development of carving skis/boards and neither of the scenarios I described above are associated with carving and also happened in the 80s, for example.
Maybe it's time to recognise that only you (and @bumpybrandy who appears to have flounced off) think you are right and maybe, just maybe, you are wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
There's nothing better than finding an empty piste where I can do big carves, using the full width of the piste. I say empty piste because this style of skiing can be BLOODY dangerous if there are other skiers about.
I feel for the OP, looks like he was legally responsible for the crashb but things have moved on since the FIS rules were written and carving has become a "thing".
However
I was responsible for writing the rules for a test method manual for a production facility and found that simplicity is key to success.
Making the uphill skier responsible in most cases, keeps things simple.
Yes, it may be frustrating, having to hold back or take a wider path, just in case the lower skier does something unpredictable, it has happened to me, where someone making full width traverses, decided to turn after only 1/3 of the way across, we hit, no damage done, valuable lesson learned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
There are the rules, and there is reality.
The rules cannot require a descending skier to have upslope awareness, to be on the look out for bigoted slope users who will not accommodate unexpected manoeuvres by those below them.
Unfortunately, in reality, bigoted slope users exist, as well as incompetent/out-of-control ones, and so, for purposes of self-preservation, skiers would do well to check upslope when safe to do so (though they shouldn't have to).
That said, it is very difficult to determine from an uphill skier's appearance or behaviour as to whether they are bigoted or not. Of course, incompetent/out-of-control ones are a tad easier to spot.
Having checked for incompetent and out-of-control skiers, one just has to cross one's fingers and pray that today, one is not going to be collided with by a bigot.
The rules don't work on bigots - or those ignorant or dismissive of them.
It's dangerous out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@tsgsh, I refer to the OP:
"If they were doing 45 or 55 degree turns fine, but this is 90 degrees and sometimes more, even headed back uphill!"
@bumpybrandy is referring to just the scenario covered by Rule 5 with a boarder "moving upwards", and they are required by Rule 5 to do this without endangering others and must look up and down the slopes. OP said the boarder did this without bothering to look up, so the boarder broke Rule 5. Simples.
And my point on the Rule 5 amendment is imo it should include a 90 degree turn in that rule, not just a >90 degree turn.
i.e. change Rule 5 from >90 degrees turn, to >=90 degrees. i.e. not just "moving upwards", but also "moving perpendicular". It's actually a very small change to the existing rule to include 1 additional degree of turning angle.
It's fascinating how difficult Rule 5 is for people to actually understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
| @tsgsh, I refer to the OP: |
I refer the honourable member to my previous answers at 12:59 on Wednesday, and 10:07 and 22:42 yesterday (GMT). Firstly, events physically could not have transpired exactly as the OP described, nor did the OP describe the boarder as "moving uphill". Secondly, the >90° turn but not exactly 90° turn is entirely your interpretation of the intent of the Note to Rule 5, specifically the phrase "turn upwards". You are saying 90° should be included but 89° should not. No one can determine a fall line to an accuracy of 1° except perhaps on a World Cup standard Ski Jump. Nor is it a constant, the direction of the fall line will vary constantly as you move. That note goes on to say "move opposite to the general downhill traffic"; as several snowHeads have pointed out above, "general traffic" is a difficult phrase to use in a rule (hint: it's not in a rule) but only you are claiming that 91° is "opposite to the general downhill traffic", when it in reality it is "roughly perpendicular to the typical direction taken by other slope users averaged over a large enough area of the piste".
| Pyramus wrote: |
| It's fascinating how difficult Rule 5 is for people to actually understand. |
If you wrote "a person" rather than "people", you might find a consensus. Or you could stop trying to use it to prove your original point. You're persistent, I'll give you that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@Pyramus, Yes. It's amazing how you struggle to understand the rules or how to ski safely. It seems that the vast majority here do not have any difficulty at all doing both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m struggling to see how Rule 5 applies - 5: Harden the fsck up 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| tsgsh wrote: |
| Secondly, the >90° turn but not exactly 90° turn is entirely your interpretation of the intent of the Note to Rule 5, specifically the phrase "turn upwards". |
It's not my interpretation though is it? The Rule 5 notes clarify that "moving upwards" relates to a carving manoeuvre uphill, which by definition means a 91 degree turn such that they are moving up the slope rather than down it. How else can it be interpreted, how would you interpret it?
All this debate really makes it obvious that Rule 5 is confusing and people have different interpretations of what "moving upwards" means and when they should have a requirement to "look up and down the slope".
IMO, FIS should review the rule and decide what they actually want to achieve with the "moving upwards" reference and then re-write it. I've just proposed one option that I think would encourage some more common sense behaviour when carving straight across the piste rather than slightly up the piste, to help avoid collisions like has been described.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@Pyramus, will you be writing to the FIS or your national snow sports federation, with your proposal? I’m not (in this instance at least) trying to be flippant. But, I would assume that the FIS does have some form of review system for its code that is subject to lobbying from its respective member nations and probably the industry. Lovely as SHs is I doubt if the FIS spends much of its corporate time trawling its threads looking for minority opinions. So even if you are right and IMHO you are not, you are barking up the wrong tree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
| people have different interpretations of what "moving upwards" means |
Not "people", just "you": "moving upwards" is not "by definition" a 91 degree turn, and it's absurd to argue that it is in the absence of an FIS-published definition.
You lost the audience weeks ago. No one here is interested in your proposal because you keep making ridiculous arguments to justify why you are right and everyone else (bar @bumpybrandy) is wrong. By all means, try to persuade the FIS that improvement is required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
To the tune of "Tubthumping"
He gets knocked down
But he gets up again
You're never gonna keep him down
He gets knocked down
But he gets up again
You're never gonna keep him down
He gets knocked down
But he gets up again
You're never gonna keep him down
He gets knocked down
But he gets up again
You're never gonna keep him down
Pissing the snowHeads off
Pissing the snowHeads off
He skis right up the piste
He skis across the piste
He skis right down the piste
He skis straight into you
He reads the rules that remind him of the old turns
He reads the rules that remind of the carving turns
Oh, Pyramus
Pyramus
Pyramus
Repeat ad nauseum
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
First paragraph on FIS own page on rules.
Rules for the Conduct of Skiers and Snowboarders
FIS has since many decades published guidelines to assist in the
promotion of skiing and snowboarding, such as the rules for the conduct of
skiers and snowboarders. These are to be used for guidance only and are
subject to and do not replace the specific rules applicable to any given ski
area, course, park or competition.
The following document is the latest version of those guidelines.
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Fri 23-02-24 15:17; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
From what I see on the slopes, most problems are people skiing to fast and too close to other people, and they are way too impatient about waiting to get past people. However, there are also plenty of people making stupid sudden blind moves, that don't allow for the fact, they are not alone on the slopes. The real problem is that there are often too many people around and not enough space.
If the OP and the boarder were the only 2 people on that section of slope, then the OP was to blame. However, if it was a bit more crowded, then the boarder was almost always going to have someone hit him with the move.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Fri 23-02-24 16:15; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@tsgsh, lol nice one
I note you never answered my question though. Please answer me, what is your interpretation of "moving upwards" in Rule 5, taking into account the accompanying Rule 5 notes?
Or are you saying you can't answer as there is no clear FIS-published definition of what "moving upwards" means? In which case, you are agreeing with me that the rule needs re-writing as it is not clear?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| beeryletcher wrote: |
| However, if it was a bit more crowded, then the boarder was almost always going have someone hit him with the move. |
Yup you hit the nail on the head, well done.
So it begs the question why instructors don't instruct to reduce chances of this scenario occurring, and the FIS rules do not discourage such behaviour or at least encourage safer behaviour by actually looking first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
| what is your interpretation of "moving upwards" in Rule 5, taking into account the accompanying Rule 5 notes? |
Sidestepping or herringboning up the slope because that's how you move up a piste (snowboarders can hop). Doing so where you block a piste or can't be seen is dangerous. The note to rule 5 says "there's another way to do this nowadays but that doesn't remove you of this responsibility".
Anything else is turning Rule 5 into something different from what it used to be. What you want is a change to Rule 3 to give the skier/boarder a responsibility not to endanger skiers/boarders behind as well as in front.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
| beeryletcher wrote: |
| However, if it was a bit more crowded, then the boarder was almost always going have someone hit him with the move. |
Yup you hit the nail on the head, well done.
So it begs the question why instructors don't instruct to reduce chances of this scenario occurring, and the FIS rules do not discourage such behaviour or at least encourage safer behaviour by actually looking first. |
The OP did not mention the slope being crowded at any point in this discussion. No one is saying the boarder was not an idiot (Rule 1 applies). If it had been crowded, Rule 2 would have applied as well. Nevertheless the collision was clearly avoidable and the OP can't justifiably blame the boarder for that. They could certainly have blamed the border for forcing them to turn sharply to prevent the collision: "look before you do that you idiot!".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
A selection of thoughts...
During a lesson very early on in my sliding career an instructor told us quite simply "If you're going to do something different to what you've been doing, its a good idea to signal to people behind you that you're about to do it and just point where you're going, like if you're going to go all the way across the trail to another run, point at it", which made sense and I still do it if I'm going to stop to regroup or hack across etc. I've always put this into the 'Don't be a dick' category of Ze Rules!.
I bothered to have a look at the Official FIS PDF (2002) and I'd never realised the bit you've bikkering about... from the General Comments section...
| Quote: |
| The development of carving skis and snowboards allows their users to carve and turn upwards on the slopes. Hence they move opposite to the general downhill traffic. They must, therefore, make sure in time that they can do so without endangering themselves and others. |
So bottom line seems to be 'If you're going to pull the old Crazy Ivan, watch out and bail on it if it looks sketchy - and this seems perfectly acceptable and in line with the 'Take care of people below you' rule and 'Don't be a dick'...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Richard_Sideways wrote: |
A selection of thoughts...
|
^^^^^^^
THESE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@tsgsh, so you are basically disagreeing with the FIS notes accompanying rule 5 and saying "moving upwards" should not include carving, I think?
So I think we are getting somewhere here and agreeing Rule 5 is not clear, and FIS need to clarify it somehow, either with better notes, or a re-write of the rule.
@Richard_Sideways, Yes that note is what is causing a lot of the argument which I quoted on a previous page of this thread. It is imparting responsibility on the downhill skier to "look up the slope" if they decide to "pull the old Crazy Ivan" to use your words, whereas there are pages and pages of comments from people saying anyone can pull a Crazy Ivan and not worry about collisions because everyone uphill of them will have allowed them enough space, as if..
The OP is suggesting the boarder was pulling such a move and he didn't look up. So he broke the code of conduct. The debate is whether the boarder really needs to be "moving upwards" or just "moving directly across" which is only a subtle difference of carving angle on the turn.
Where has @bumpybrandy gone, he's left me all alone? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
no
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see anyone saying that people should pull a Crazy Ivan just that the rules should protect those that do. Of course as we've seen here that is a colossal fallacy as there are numerous entitled assets who lack the skills or awareness to avoid those doing the unexpected so my personal rule 1 is Protect Yo'self. I still get hit but less often and usually in a way that causes more damage to the hitter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
