[quote]
Facepalm.....super-g and downhill are known as the alpine speed events. Believe it or not, competitors train for them.
[/quote
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 flatlining 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
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Canuck wrote:
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!
Depends entirely on what run you are talking about and the conditions at the time. I'll post you a video later if you like for your "safety critique"
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 wrote:
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?
I've done a fair bit of race training as it happens and it's totally different than skiing on easy open terrain without gates. Not even worth discussing in this context.
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've obviously never seen candide weaving in and out of the people on the drag lift
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
eddiethebus wrote:
Canuck wrote:
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've obviously never seen candide weaving in and out of the people on the drag lift
I have seen this type of comment so many times....I simply have to respond...
The whole Candid thing is so obviously a SET UP! Anyone with any sense or intelligence can see that. I very much hope I don't have to give time checks and what to look at to prove that too you all.
Also - I happen to know for a fact that it was pre-planned in great detail, I was involved (not in the skiing but in the planning).
you may have been responsible for planning everything from his breakfast to his underwear but if you think that "true experts" never go down pistes at high speed you're crazy!
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Canuck wrote:
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!
And I suppose you've never seen an ESF instructor heading home for his lunch?
After all it is free
After all it is free
eddiethebus wrote:
you may have been responsible for planning everything from his breakfast to his underwear but if you think that "true experts" never go down pistes at high speed you're crazy!
I wish I had been THAT involved, it was much more mundane (legal!)
I never said that experts do't speed. I just said non-experts should not ski on slopes where they are a danger to themselves but more importantly others. I hear this all the time - after watching someone struggle down a steep slope, in good humour I quip "that looked tough" or "did you enjoy that" I am often get the answer "I survived/did it/managed it/have done it lots before!" which is a bit like saying you smoke a lot but have not yet died and you don't care about the effect of the secondary smoke so you do it in the car. I have also, quite a few times, seen competent skiers taken out and badly injured by less combatant skiers falling on a steep then sliding and crashing into them at high speed. If you can't control speed and line then you should not be there. If you can, then I have no problem with speed per se.
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.
I genuinely don't have the slightest problem with people skiing at whatever speed they like - if it is done in such a way that it doesn't endanger others. To make rules with maximum speeds or say schussing can only be done on a red run or black run are daft. A blue run devoid of any other skier is perfectly reasonable place to schuss compared to a red run with other people nearby. By all means let's rant and rave at people skiing dangerously, but when was the last time you saw a speeding skier injure another skier on a run where there were no other skiers?
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Where I ski I often see instructors and other experts having an early morning blast on easy blue/red runs when it's perfectly safe to do so. It's one of the reasons to catch the first lifts on a nice groomed day. To suggest that experts NEVER ski fast on open blue runs is totally ridiculous.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
I personally refuse to believe any of the ski tracks app type data when the Downhill skiers are struggling to top 98/kmh (64 mhp) on a non injected part of the the run in South Korea, especially on FIS down hill skis with perfectly groomed and prepared slopes.
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.
lordf wrote:
I personally refuse to believe any of the ski tracks app type data when the Downhill skiers are struggling to top 98/kmh (64 mhp) on a non injected part of the the run in South Korea, especially on FIS down hill skis with perfectly groomed and prepared slopes.
It depends how flat that section of the course is and whether or not there is a headwind. 64 mph is obviously Vmax in those specific conditions. For me it's usually around 50-55 mph on easy open terrain. I'm also pretty sure ski tracks isn't that far off if you ignore any obvious glitches. I've been through speed traps that have indicated the same sort of speeds. It's really not THAT fast. Skiing faster on a typical WC downhill course would be infinitely more challenging! It's not really a good comparison to fast piste skiing to be honest.
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
lordf wrote:
I personally refuse to believe any of the ski tracks app type data when the Downhill skiers are struggling to top 98/kmh (64 mhp) on a non injected part of the the run in South Korea, especially on FIS down hill skis with perfectly groomed and prepared slopes.
Yeah that was interesting. What was also interesting is how much air and hang time they still managed to get over the jumps.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@uktrailmonster, FIS downhill courses have to have a minimum gradient of vertical decent to achieve the correct speeds for the speed events. The SK course is very much at the more gentile end of it, that I do concede. However resort based speed trap data isn't always that accurate either, such things require a lot of calibration and are prone to giving vaguer than usual measurements. I've worked on some of the speed events in the alps and I've seen the difference in the level of equipment used even the level of grooming that goes into even junior events pistes, its far higher than any resort runs usual conditions. I've seen technical delegates go out and groom the piste themselves when they deemed the local resort staff's jobs unsatisfactory. Also the difference in speed a well prepared downhill ski and cat suit will have over even the highest end shop equipment is massive.
@SnoodyMcFlude, Areo dynamics of being in tuck and in a cat suit have their advantages when required. I've hit the FIS course in Saalbach when I was working out there and getting flight in normal gear at speeds well below theirs was a reminder of why they don't wear baggy jackets... Even on a prefect and still day the drag off my normal gear was silly.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Quote:
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!"
Then you are wrong.
It's not just the deceleration, it's the angle of impact. If you fall perpendicular to your direction of travel then your speed adds nothing to the impact (it's the same as falling over when you are standing still). If you ski straight into a hard object head first you get 100% of your speed. Anything in between and it is less. In my experience, ski falls are MUCH more likely to be close to the perpendicular (lose and edge and fall sideways) than forwards. So your helmet tends to strike at a small proportion of your forward speed. Then you have the proportion of incidents when the snow is less than boiler plate hard (i.e. vast majority) which degrades the impact some more. So the right answer is "very bloody likely!" but not always.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
I don't know why i'm still checking this thread, its getting really dull now
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
lordf wrote:
@uktrailmonster, FIS downhill courses have to have a minimum gradient of vertical decent to achieve the correct speeds for the speed events. The SK course is very much at the more gentile end of it, that I do concede. However resort based speed trap data isn't always that accurate either, such things require a lot of calibration and are prone to giving vaguer than usual measurements. I've worked on some of the speed events in the alps and I've seen the difference in the level of equipment used even the level of grooming that goes into even junior events pistes, its far higher than any resort runs usual conditions. I've seen technical delegates go out and groom the piste themselves when they deemed the local resort staff's jobs unsatisfactory. Also the difference in speed a well prepared downhill ski and cat suit will have over even the highest end shop equipment is massive.
So are you trying to say that you don't think 50 mph is easily achievable on piste without racing gear? The difference in the speed of pistes varies massively from day to day too. I'm sure if those WC racers were only able to hit 64 mph in that specific instance, then I would have been struggling to reach 30 mph on the same slope, but that doesn't mean I can't ski considerably faster in other places, conditions and so can the racers! Not that it really matters, it is what it is. But in the interest of the thread title I still think my speeds are pretty close to what the GPS suggests (that is peaks in the 40s or low 50s (mph), averages obviously far lower than that). As I mentioned very early on in this thread before I had GPS, I judged the speed based on how it feels on a bike with an accurate speedometer. 50 mph feels pretty damn quick actually on skis and 70 mph would feel way faster than that due to the square law of wind resistance. I don't think I've ever been over 60 mph on skis, certainly not for any sustained period of time.
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?
@jedster, so you think if I'm doing 50mph+ and I get a pre-release my head will hit the deck at less than 14mph? B@llocks.
@Raceplate, Thye vertical speed of your head when it hits the snow will be 13.5 mph. It's impossible to know what the horizontal component will be without knowing the exact surface. Obviously. it's the g-force that matters, not the speed. If the surface is ice then that horizontal component will be close to zero. If it's a tree then the vertical component will be zero but the horizontal will sting a bit.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
@foxtrotzulu,
thanks - that covers it
@Raceplate, First up why 50mph, you were talking about 27mph before? Even then it could very possibly be <14mph in the direction that transfers force to your head. Obviously the faster you are going the MORE LIKELY it is that the component of force in the relevant direction will exceed 14 mph.
Incidentally cycling helmets have very similar spec to recreational ski helmets. I've had two bike crashes when the helmets have had to do their thing - crush and deform to absorb the impact and protect my head. Both times I was doing more than 14 mph and hit the tarmac directly with my helmet. I didn't even have a headache afterwards. The helmets were toast of course. Using your logic I would have been crippled. Obviously the component of force in the direction of impact was well within the design limit.
This is "O" level physics, by the way, that Newton bloke nailed it a few centuries ago, it's not been controversial for quite a while
@foxtrotzulu, nice try but also b@llocks. I know damn well it's the G force that matters, as well as whiplash, density of object hit and coup or contrecoup brain damage. But what do you think creates G force? Er, speed, maybe?
For both yours and @jedster's info, I've been knocked unconscious for 3-4 minutes with concussion for several days afterwards through hitting the deck after a skiing collision. I was probably doing around 35mph at the time when I was taken out, nowhere near 50mph+. So no, I don't think my head hit the deck at c.10mph using your logic.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
jedster wrote:
@Raceplate, First up why 50mph, you were talking about 27mph before?
Because the AVERAGE sample speed of the skiers tested was 27mph. Therefore, some of them are going much faster than that. The MAXIMUM certified impact speed for the helmet though is 14mph. Therefore, the helmet is not protecting people who ski at higher than average speeds. i.e. ME!
You 'O' Level physics geniuses can work out where the cutoff point for protection is if you're really that bored, I'm not
After all it is free
After all it is free
Quote:
So no, I don't think my head hit the deck at c.10mph using your logic.
Are you trying not to understand the points we are making?
Nowhere have I suggested that you CAN'T hit your helmet at the equivalent force to full speed, I'm just making the point that in many, indeed a large majority of, collisions, the impact will be lower than that suggested by the full speed you are travelling at. This means that helmets will usually be useful when you are travelling at significantly higher speeds than 14mph. That is all.
Quote:
been knocked unconscious for 3-4 minutes with concussion for several days afterwards through hitting the deck after a skiing collision. I was probably doing around 35mph at the time when I was taken out
What state was your helmet in? Do you think it would have been worse without it? Genuine question - not making a point.
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.
Quote:
You 'O' Level physics geniuses can work out where the cutoff point for protection is if you're really that bored, I'm not
bloody hell! The whole point really is that there isn't a cut off! It's probabilistic based on the exact direction your head its the ground relative to your direction of travel plus the hardness of the surface - obviously the faster the speed the higher the CHANCE that you will completely overwhelm the protection but its not a given at any speed.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Raceplate wrote:
Therefore, the helmet is not protecting people who ski at higher than average speeds. i.e. ME!
Not strictly true, the helmet is no longer 'certified' to protect those people, that isn't the same as not offering any protection.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Quote:
So no, I don't think my head hit the deck at c.10mph using your logic.
And on this. Imagine the following.
You are standing on a tiled floor with your hands in your pocket. someone pushes you over, you cant break your fall and your head hits the tiles. That is the 13.5mph test. You could easily get worse damage doing that than you say you had from that fall. In fact you could die. So it is far from obvious that your head strike was higher than 10mph. I'm not saying it wasn't. Just trying to point out that 13.5 mph onto a hard surface is NOT a trivial impact.
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.
jedster wrote:
@foxtrotzulu,
thanks - that covers it
@Raceplate, First up why 50mph, you were talking about 27mph before? Even then it could very possibly be <14mph in the direction that transfers force to your head. Obviously the faster you are going the MORE LIKELY it is that the component of force in the relevant direction will exceed 14 mph.
Incidentally cycling helmets have very similar spec to recreational ski helmets. I've had two bike crashes when the helmets have had to do their thing - crush and deform to absorb the impact and protect my head. Both times I was doing more than 14 mph and hit the tarmac directly with my helmet. I didn't even have a headache afterwards. The helmets were toast of course. Using your logic I would have been crippled. Obviously the component of force in the direction of impact was well within the design limit.
This is "O" level physics, by the way, that Newton bloke nailed it a few centuries ago, it's not been controversial for quite a while
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
Skiing gets increasingly demanding and more risky as you go faster. The demands and risks rise very fast above about 80-90km/h. Funnily enough this is about the speed limit in most countries on normal roads. That reflects the fact that collision energy, cognitive loading and risk of losing control in unexpected circumstances rise rapidly above this speed. In controlled safe situations, eg motorways, somewhat higher speeds are reasonable. Really high speeds are the realm of the racetrack.
Learner are drivers are rubbish at driving. But they are involved in very few serious accidents mainly because they drive slower. A typical learner driver accident is a low impact non-injury accident which causes a few dents. Similarly a rubbish skier travelling at 30 might well have a crash or a collision, but it probably will just lead to some bruises.
Why is these basic concepts so hard to grasp when applied to skiing? I'm not setting an exact speed limit in a dogmatic fashion, I'm simply pointing out what physics and cognitive science has to contribute when thinking about how fast it's reasonable to ski and what kind of example we should be setting. Speed needs to be treated with respect.
Just watching DH racers at 100+ ought to be a fairly convincing argument that such speeds are possible on an open piste only for a very few people on a very few occasions. Tall tales along the lines of "my mate hit a roller at 110" are no more than....tall tales.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Raceplate wrote:
@foxtrotzulu, nice try but also b@llocks. I know damn well it's the G force that matters, as well as whiplash, density of object hit and coup or contrecoup brain damage. But what do you think creates G force? Er, speed, maybe?
For both yours and @jedster's info, I've been knocked unconscious for 3-4 minutes with concussion for several days afterwards through hitting the deck after a skiing collision. I was probably doing around 35mph at the time when I was taken out, nowhere near 50mph+. So no, I don't think my head hit the deck at c.10mph using your logic.
Whiplash, density of the object etc, are all related to g-force anyway. My point, in case you missed it, is that you are far better off falling over on your head at 50mph onto a very low friction surface than at 10mph onto a HIGH friction surface.
What do I think causes G-force? No, it's not speed. It's change in speed.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Tue 9-02-16 8:12; 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:
foxtrotzulu wrote:
Raceplate wrote:
@foxtrotzulu, nice try but also b@llocks. I know damn well it's the G force that matters, as well as whiplash, density of object hit and coup or contrecoup brain damage. But what do you think creates G force? Er, speed, maybe?
For both yours and @jedster's info, I've been knocked unconscious for 3-4 minutes with concussion for several days afterwards through hitting the deck after a skiing collision. I was probably doing around 35mph at the time when I was taken out, nowhere near 50mph+. So no, I don't think my head hit the deck at c.10mph using your logic.
Whiplash, density of the object etc, are all related to g-force anyway. My point, in case you missed it, is that you are far better off falling over on your head at 50mph onto a very low friction surface than at 10mph onto a HUGH friction surface.
What do I think causes G-force? No, it's not speed. It's change in speed.
Skiing gets increasingly demanding and more risky as you go faster. The demands and risks rise very fast above about 80-90km/h. Funnily enough this is about the speed limit in most countries on normal roads. That reflects the fact that collision energy, cognitive loading and risk of losing control in unexpected circumstances rise rapidly above this speed. In controlled safe situations, eg motorways, somewhat higher speeds are reasonable. Really high speeds are the realm of the racetrack.
Learner are drivers are rubbish at driving. But they are involved in very few serious accidents mainly because they drive slower. A typical learner driver accident is a low impact non-injury accident which causes a few dents. Similarly a rubbish skier travelling at 30 might well have a crash or a collision, but it probably will just lead to some bruises.
Why is these basic concepts so hard to grasp when applied to skiing? I'm not setting an exact speed limit in a dogmatic fashion, I'm simply pointing out what physics and cognitive science has to contribute when thinking about how fast it's reasonable to ski and what kind of example we should be setting. Speed needs to be treated with respect.
Just watching DH racers at 100+ ought to be a fairly convincing argument that such speeds are possible on an open piste only for a very few people on a very few occasions. Tall tales along the lines of "my mate hit a roller at 110" are no more than....tall tales.
Im not sure anyone is disagreeing with you. High speeds are more dangerous than low speeds and need to be treated with respect. Anyone who does 80kmh plus on anything other than an empty piste is a fool. Personally, I don't care if they do that speed down a black run or a green run as long as it is completely empty and they don't endanger anyone except themselves. On that basis it's up to them.
I'm a bit less sure about the 'tall tales' comment. I don't doubt for a second that many skiers touch the 100kmh mark. More than that, I don't know. A friend tells me his max is 120kmh and I have no reason to doubt him. He is not someone prone to boasting or exaggeration.
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?
foxtrotzulu wrote:
Anyone who does 80kmh plus on anything other than an empty piste is a fool.
Of course you are free to think whatever you want, but if you are not able to ski good, it's kinda hard to assume everyone are skiig the way you do. You do realize, there are people, who spend more time on skis in month, then you did in your life? Some people had years of proper race training and real racing, so I guess it's not too hard to conclude, they probably ski a bit better then average British tourist, with 5days of skiing a year, or?
And yes, that's absolutely true... people who know how to ski, they never ski fast on public courses Too bad most of you guys who think this way, have never seen racers or ex-racers ski
I do laugh at all this bollux about people who are experts or race trained are going to be capable of skiing balls out down a busy piste. We've all seen what occasionally happens on the FIS WC when occasionally a course worker ends up not being where they should - and that's just ONE person
These people find it challenging enough to ski down a course at speed where the gates don't move so I don't see how it's going to be easy for them to ski down one with loads more gates that are moving unpredictably and I doubt you'd find any pro racer who would consider it acceptable anyway
As several people have said above, if you like skiing fast (and that includes me), fine but don't do it where there's a risk of anyone else being hurt by your actions. Expert skiers crash too so they're hardly infallible
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Surely the point is that you cannot be sure that a piste is going to stay empty? People can and do enter pistes without looking. People can and do hide behind rollers. When skiing, like when you drive, you have to make allowances for other people's potential mistakes. Unless you are on a closed, controlled race course.
Some of the people here seem to be suggesting the equivalent to it's OK for a F1 driver to drive balls out on public roads because of their high skill levels. Except of course they probably aren't F1 drivers but keen amateur go kart racers IYSWIM.
Anyone who does 80kmh plus on anything other than an empty piste is a fool.
Of course you are free to think whatever you want, but if you are not able to ski good, it's kinda hard to assume everyone are skiig the way you do. You do realize, there are people, who spend more time on skis in month, then you did in your life? Some people had years of proper race training and real racing, so I guess it's not too hard to conclude, they probably ski a bit better then average British tourist, with 5days of skiing a year, or?
And yes, that's absolutely true... people who know how to ski, they never ski fast on public courses Too bad most of you guys who think this way, have never seen racers or ex-racers ski
I'm not sure I understand your point/attitude. I'm saying that it's ok to ski fast, where it is safe to do so. My point, which I thought you would agree with, is that skiing at, say, 80kmh on an empty piste is acceptable but skiing at the same speed on a busy piste is not. I don't really care if you are Jean Claude Killy it's not sensible for anyone to ski at that speed near others. Even if you are an expert you can't always take into account other people's actions.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@jedster, I take your point, but there are plenty of places where you can clearly see a very long way ahead and be 100% certain that nobody is about to enter the piste. If there are blind dips, rollers, people standing nearby, intersections etc. then IMO it wouldn't be safe.
After all it is free
After all it is free
dsoutar wrote:
I do laugh at all this bollux about people who are experts or race trained are going to be capable of skiing balls out down a busy piste.
Has anyone actually suggested that? Quotes please or it didn't happen.
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.
jedster wrote:
Some of the people here seem to be suggesting the equivalent to it's OK for a F1 driver to drive balls out on public roads because of their high skill levels. Except of course they probably aren't F1 drivers but keen amateur go kart racers IYSWIM.
Likewise, who is suggesting this then? You seem to have made up an analogy that nobody suggested.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
dsoutar wrote:
I do laugh at all this bollux about people who are experts or race trained are going to be capable of skiing balls out down a busy piste. We've all seen what occasionally happens on the FIS WC when occasionally a course worker ends up not being where they should - and that's just ONE person
How many races did you do? None, because if you would do any, you would know why this happens.
But it's always the same... people who discovered skiing 3 years ago, and go skiing 5 days a year since then, know everything about skiing, and they judge everyone else based on their (missing) abilities to ski.
foxtrotzulu it depends then what's busy and what's empty I understood "empty piste" as empty piste... basically closed for public. I guess noone who knows how to ski is stupid enough to go 100km/h when there's full line of peope from edge to edge. On the other hand, it's possible to ski safely at such speed even when other people are around. Believe it or not, I can see and I regularly check what's happening around me even at 80 or 100km/h, and with courses wide enough (and not completely full), you can easily avoid other skiers wide enough, that even their unpredictable moves or actions doesn't influence you. I'm not saying it will never happen, but in 30+ years of skiing, I never had not even a single close call. Well...ok except one I had some 5 years ago during Garmisch WCH, when I was skiing together with some Canadian racers on course which was closed for public, and we came under break at full speed just to find out, there's line of kids from ski school lined under... yet we all still stopped way before anyone would be in danger
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
I understood "empty piste" as empty piste... basically closed for public. I guess noone who knows how to ski is stupid enough to go 100km/h when there's full line of peope from edge to edge. On the other hand, it's possible to ski safely at such speed even when other people are around. Believe it or not, I can see and I regularly check what's happening around me even at 80 or 100km/h, and with courses wide enough (and not completely full), you can easily avoid other skiers wide enough, that even their unpredictable moves or actions doesn't influence you. I'm not saying it will never happen, but in 30+ years of skiing, I never had not even a single close call. Well...ok except one I had some 5 years ago during Garmisch WCH, when I was skiing together with some Canadian racers on course which was closed for public, and we came under break at full speed just to find out, there's line of kids from ski school lined under... yet we all still stopped way before anyone would be in danger 