 Poster: A snowHead
|
No, an equilateral triangle with one side vertical has the other sides at 30º to the vertical. Stick one pole in the ground, measure a ski pole length up the slope.
If the slope is 30º that point will be a ski pole length from the top of the vertical pole.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Tue 2-12-08 12:34; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
snowball, i know, but just kidding around as anything to do with maths seems to get people excited here... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 think I may mark a pole with tape as Mark Handford says.
For those with no Tangent tables - the length (from the bottom to the tape - if the total pole length is x) will be:
15º = 0.27x
20º = 0.37x
25º = 0.47x
30º = 0.58x
35º = 0.70x
40º = 0.84x
45º = 1.00x (ie the whole pole)
You need to decide if you will stick the pole in the snow, in which case you exclude the bit below the basket.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Tue 2-12-08 12:41; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
skimottaret, oh right..... I am so easy to wind up 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| snowball wrote: |
| If nobody knows perhaps someone has a 1:25,000 map and could count contours for the top section and work it out (roughly). |
I do, but it's one of those that's quite hard to work out because it's rocky at the top and it's hard to read the contour lines.
I must admit that I've never managed to get onto the Swiss Wall when it's been anything other than bumped up - which makes the estimate hard.
The first 100m is significantly steeper than the rest - which probably mellows out to a sustained 30 degrees for most of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
snowball, looks interesting, but can you round those to 1 significant figure for me? in engineering notation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PhillipStanton, I did read somewhere that the very top section of Swiss Wall is 80 degrees?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why stop at 80 degrees. How about 101 degrees?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per cent is not the same as degrees.
100% is 45 degrees.
So 80% is about 36 degrees.
Diamant Noir in Flaine has a strecth that's over 40 degrees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Percent is horizontal distance devided by vertical x 100 (ie Tangent x 100) so 80% (looking at my Natural Tangents tables) is over 38º. But I bet thats just the steepest bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GordonFreeman wrote: |
| Surely this means you must ski one at a time, wait til the 1st person down has got to a flat section and then ski after them? Or...traverse and then traverse to them but that still leaves 2 of you in one place potentially putting more weight on the pack? |
ski one at a time from safe zone to safe zone. safe zones aren't necessarily flat. and flat places aren't necessarily safe
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| GordonFreeman wrote: |
| PhillipStanton wrote: |
| On the "cutting" thing - it's not unreasonable to suggest that you should seek to minimise risk to people below you by not skiing directly above them. |
Surely this means you must ski one at a time, wait til the 1st person down has got to a flat section and then ski after them? Or...traverse and then traverse to them but that still leaves 2 of you in one place potentially putting more weight on the pack? |
One at a time is good. However, I think PhillipStanton refers to looking out for other groups. Do not ski where an avalanche you create can hit other groups. The polite and safe way is to wait in a safe place until the group below has moved away. A related point is to keep an eye out above you for impolite groups who ski above you and put your group at risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I see people ignoring this all the time off piste! Admittedly, they might only be a little off piste and when level is 2 but still...
How do you define safe zones? A lot of people just stop at regular intervals on off piste sections for a rest.
I guess the point I'm making is that very few people follow these rules unless you are way off in the backcountry perhaps with a guide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| GordonFreeman wrote: |
| I guess the point I'm making is that very few people follow these rules unless you are way off in the backcountry perhaps with a guide. |
Well if they have any doubt about the safety of a slope they must. It is irresponsible not to. If they have no idea if it is safe then by definition they have doubt.
A safe point is one off the main slope, the safety of which is in doubt (or slope threatened by it). A typical place would be on a ridge to one side of the slope being skied, or at least to one side under a section with exposed rocks where the natural line for the avalanche of the slope would tend to divert snow away from it. Or if possible wind plaque on one face of the slope were the danger, then it might just be a bit of the slope with another orientation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Near to the pistes you get people who are just learning about off piste and who do not know the etiquette or know about the risks of off piste. Further from the piste you find the better skiers and (unfortunately) the reckless and the stupid. I have skied with guides who wait carefully for other groups to pass below, they wave thanks to groups above who have waited for us. They have also shouted and sworm at groups who ski above us and put our group at risk.
I agree with snowball about places of safety. Perhaps another way of finding safe places is to look at the places that are risky. Then work out why they are risky and choose the safe places that minimize the risks.
Risky: The middle of a big snow slope as the whole slope may avalanche.
Risky: Below a big face or below rocks that may avalanche.
Risky: Near slopes that have already avalanched.
Risky: Areas that have a history of avalanches.
I am sure others here can give other examples of risky places.
You cannot avoid risks off piste, so the goal is to minimize them. Waiting in safe (ie less risky places) and skiing one at a time across the less safe areas means that should anything happen then only one person is exposed and the rest of the group have only one person to rescue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Adrian wrote: |
or below rocks that may avalanche.
|
Not sure what you meant by this? Rocks are normally good (unless there are other factors).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Yes, sorry snowball, poor my phrasing. Below rocks with lots of snow on them or above them. Below rocks where you have not been able to see what is above them. You could even worry about rock slides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Related question...
How much surface hoar is considered bad?
Sitting on the lift today, you could see the hoar over the snow that hadn't been skied on, ie the glistening stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
