TheTruth
-
Posts
76 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Events
Profiles
Forums
Posts posted by TheTruth
-
-
Step 1: Throw those suckers away NOW!
Step 2: Buy new boots NOW! Your long term health may depend upon it.
Step 3: If in doubt, refer to Step 1.
-
Not to get into this pissing match, but I've often wondered just how steep Eastern resorts are. This guy has gone around measuring a few. According to him, Beardown and Worldcup at Stratton are around 21 degrees average, which is a typical intermediate run where I come from. You can get a world of steam up straightlining a 21 degree slope but in the grand scheme of things, that is pretty flat.
YEP, the entire mountain is terminal intermediate heaven. Just a bunch of bulldozed and blasted cruisers. But that can still be fun if you want to cruise around. But, it is in no way a challenging mountain.
To be honest, I believe Flattons only FIS homologation is for USSA Masters level (for us old timers LOL) GS and SL events. That means the place isn't qualified to hold a true World Cup ski event, even something as short as a SL. IIRC, there are only 2 trails in the east homologated for FIS speed events: The downhill run at White Face, and Narrow Guage at Sugarloaf. Even those two trail are considered very tame by FIS ski racing standards.
-
Reread the posts: I'm referring to 1980s DH events.
they were NOT set differently then.
I competed in those.
They were not FIS ski downhill sets. I don't know how many times I need to state this. It is clear you have never competed in a ski racing speed event.
-
I guess Andy Coughlin, Shannon Melhuse and the rest of us who found the 1980s US Open DH courses to be steep and gnarly just aren't up to your level yet.
Dude, if you consider anything at Flatton "steep and gnarly" for racing you have absolutely no clue what "steep and gnarly" means for a ski racer. :lol:
-
I snb. raced in the '80s as I stated earlier, and I ran downhills and trained on downhill courses that were FIS std.
Evidently in your storied career you missed the iron mountain DH and the wengen DH & Kitzbuhel events, which were full FIS DH rated courses.
LOL. I'm actually more fond remembering of what happened after the races in my career. Especially after the U.S. Opens, but that is another story.
Snowboard "Downhills" may have been held on FIS downhill runs, but the course set was nothing like a FIS ski downhill. What you consider being a snowboard downhill is at best a fast open set FIS GS for ski racers. Like I said, been there, seen it and done it.
Like I said, if you want to restart that type of snowboard racing, I'm all for it. Personally, I prefer the traditional GS/Super G format to the PGS stuff we see now. But equating a Snowboard "Downhill" to a FIS ski Downhill is just plain silly.
-
boy, watch out, the stratton crew gets upset when you say it's not a challenging hill. I had a wagon load of villagers at my door with pitchforks and torches when I called the place flatton.
anyway, yeah, I'm pretty sure most people here have never been over 50 MPH, if you've been clocked on radar then I buy it but otherwise not so much. perceived speed and actual speed are MUCH different.
LOL Bob, I guess I better keep looking over my shoulder for the irate Flatton Village People.
I don't know what's more comical; People getting mad when somebody calls Flatton non-challenging, or calling any race held at Flatton a "Downhill". I've seen WalMart parking lots with steeper gradients than that place.
-
We see skiers seriously hurt on those courses all the time. Snowboarders could only be worse with their limited ability to recover from error compared to skiers.
Exactly right.
Hey guys, I'm not trying to be a prick about this. I love to snowboard race. I also love to ski race. I've done both for years. I got the injuries to prove it. Like I said earlier, if you haven't run a ski Downhill, you simply can not imagine what it is like at those speeds, on those courses. When things go wrong, they go very wrong, very quickly.
-
Trained snb. racers routinely raced dh events in the 1980s and 1990s.
I know of none that sustained "serious injury" as a result.
The removal of the DH, and then the SG from the US Open spelled the beginning of the end for snb. competition in the US. It's a shame because these were excellent events that sucked even the skiers off of the trails and assembled them along the course to watch.
What you seem to miss is the fact that having "both feet strapped to one board" reduces the risk of knee trauma, and higher speed events on hard surfaces allow for less blunt-force trauma, as DNF "sitters" simply slide, as opposed to have their forces stopped at the expense of bones and ligaments.
Snowboard DH was and is an exceptional sport.
What you seem to miss is that I have been racing a LONG time, both skis and snowboards. As far as the the snowboard side of things, I was a regular in the Green Mountain Series back in the late 80's through the late 90's, did the U.S. Open 7 times, and hit a number of the so called snowboard "speed events" my friend Gilmore spoke about earlier. I've also raced in 4 World Cup GS events back in the day when we used the two run traditional GS format.
A snowboard "Super G" or "Downhill" is set like a open FIS skiing GS at best with similar overall speeds. I've "been there and done it" and the overall speed we carried is nowhere near the overall speed you carry in a skiing Super G or Downhill (been there and done that too... have you?). Hey, if you want to restart those type of races, I'm all for it. I actually don't like the PGS and PS format anyway.
What I'm talking about being dangerous on a board is a real FIS skiing downhill set, on a water injected course, with the same distance between gates, the same blind turns where the only way of knowing where the gate is located is from memory, the same insane fall aways, and the same 80-90 mph speeds. Start running those for snowboards, and I guarantee you will see people seriously hurt.
-
...I wonder if anyone on the World Cup is trying Kessler skis.
No.
Gotta admit I'm tempted by Head skis after watching the Olympics!
Head race skis are really nice. A good combination of power and forgiveness. Of course, at the World Cup level the brand of skis the big name players use is based on sponsorship money. Racer's skis are all hand built, custom made to what they like and are fast on, so the brand name is meaningless. At that level they all are on great skis.
-
ok, so again, what's up with the minimal or non-existant sub-binding plates in the skiing dh?
watching women's super combined slalom portion now, and again I don't see much there?
Jack, all the race skis have plates under the bindings. The 2 reasons they may not seem as prominent as in the past:
1. FIS has reduced the total stack height to protect racer's knees.
2. Ski waists are now wider across all disciplines, therefore binding plates don't need to be as high to prevent boot-out. Visually, the wider skis make the plates look even shorter.
-
A boarder could absolutely do that course. How fast and how safe is a different matter entirely. My last speed race was almost 20 years ago, so no way am I throwing myself down that pitch.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on that.
-
I'm confused by these terms. Really there is only ever one fall line, although it may change as you go along. I've heard "double fall line" used to describe a run where the overall direction of the run is not parallel to the fall line so that in order to keep on course you are consistently edging in one direction. What's a "triple fall line"?
Picture a trail that is uneven in contour both down the hill, and left to right. As you are making a high speed turn through this contour at first you may get pulled both downward and to the right, but at some point (while making the same direction turn around the gate) the contour may suddenly change and you get pulled downward and to the left. These gates are difficult to set up for correctly at speed because in a fraction of a second you are getting pulled 3 different ways. In this day and age, it is actually difficult to find these trails at resorts in the U.S. because management has bulldozed and blasted these features flat into one fall line (downward) to accommodate the teaming masses of terminal intermediate skiers and boarders (Think Flattton Vt.).
-
I think you're missing the point here - I and a few others who have spoken up KNOW it is doable because we DID it...
Apparently none the racing organizations agree with you regarding the safety of speed events for snowboards. :rolleyes:
Look, I'm not missing the point here. I think many of us have made insanely fast runs on our board and walked away to tell the tale about it. But that is different than an organized season long schedule of speed events, that I honestly believe that most people WOULDN'T end up walking away from without serious injury due to the inherent diminished stability characteristics of having both feet strapped to one board at that speed.
Like it or not, the current PGS and PS structure is not going away in snowboard racing.
-
I bet this guy could do it...
http://www.worldsfastestsnowboarder.com/uploads/DarrenPowell_2007_Final.mov
Big difference in going fast on a perfectly straight run, and in going fast in a Downhill with 4 to 5 G force blind turns, fall-aways where you are off the ground the length of a football field, and "straight aways" that have double and triple fall lines.
No doubt a person can slide fast on a board. The problem with running a board in a true Downhill is the transitions you must make to stay balanced at 80 to 90+ MPH. It is just so freaking hard to do that with both feet strapped to one board. Having a "perfectly groomed" slope as some have suggested won't help that much when you are dealing with the turns, fall-aways, and multiple fall lines at a speed that covers the length of a football field in 2.2 seconds.
Honestly, do you guys really want to try this on a board?
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVkPG7KnbgQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVkPG7KnbgQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
-
I'm going to have to disagree with Truth and Rob here, though. I think any world cup level PGS racer could make it down that course very efficiently (or at least with the finishing percentages that the skiers had).
Sorry guy, I have to disagree. I have run Super G and Downhill on skis many times. I also have a box full of medals from snowboard racing, so I can appreciate the skill set needed for both.
Nobody, I mean nobody, can even remotely imagine what it is like to run a Downhill course at 80+ mph unless you have done it, and more importantly extensively trained for it. You get scared, very scared. Like I'm going to soil my pants scared. Bode still gets scared. All the World Cup guys do. Once you start the run, you have no choice but to charge it as hard as you can. The second you back off, you will get injured. When you get to the bottom, you are totally exhausted, your legs are like rubber bands. You swear to yourself that you are never going to do that again, but you know you will. The insanity of the Downhill draws you back like some illegal drug.
PGS racers will not make it down that course in one piece if they try to charge it. PGS races top out at 35 mph. They are used to making tight turns at moderate speed. They are always on edge, and never tuck (except the finish) They have no training on a course that icy and that fast. Their equipment is simply all wrong for the that type of speed. The reason they stopped Snowboard Super G, was because so many racers were getting hurt.
-
Watching the Olympics- can snowboards do something like the downhill course? What would the time comparison be? I'm asking because I wonder why there aren't more alpine events for snowboards. I think I remember there being a GS at Nagano?
Sure you could if you want to die or seriously hurt yourself. First, Downhill courses are insane. They are salted and/or water injected to the point of being pure ice. You can't put a dent in them with hockey skates. Second, they are full of fall-aways and bind turns. Those turns may look big on TV, but from personal experience I can tell you they come up fast at 60-90 mph. Third, the key to having as fast Downhill time is having the balls to run your skis as flat as possible, and being in a tuck as long as possible--two things that are difficult to do on a board.
A few years ago, I was doing a USSA speed camp, and I talked the coaches into allowing me to take one training run on a prepared Downhill course on my board. I scared the living crap out of myself and will NEVER do that again. I agree with Softbootsailor that boards are best suited for technical events such as PGS and Slalom.
-
Do you guys actually wear this stuff to snowboard on groomed trails? Christ, NFL linebackers don't even wear that much padding. In my younger days I raced Downhills at 90 mph in nothing but an unpadded speed suit. I don't mean to offend, but isn't this a tad bit excessive?
-
First let me say that I appreciate the info in your posts, and I am always ready to learn more. I am a little confused though, by this post. The feedback from people on NSR boards, is that they are, if anything easier to ride (with the right technique) and tolerate poor/mixed conditions better than older boards. This seems at odds with what you are saying about the same technology in race skis.
BobD
That's because race stock is designed for one thing: to let highly gifted racers, who are in superb physical condition, travel at insane speeds through an ice hardened race course. Race stock skis are designed for narrow, specific conditions. To the average skier, a modern GS ski would be "easier" to control than say a long, "straight" GS ski from Tomba's era. But compared to what most consumers like, even a modern GS ski would be considered much harder to ski well than what most people buy. But take the construction/shaping of a modern GS ski, and modify it for all mountain use, and now you have a ski that many good skiers can appreciate (if they are willing to pay the $$$ for the technology, which is another story). To be honest, I love the performance of race skis, but I find my Stockli XXL Stormrider, which is a modified GS ski, much more enjoyable for most conditions.
-
Didn't know this...but glad to hear it, it might be time to try some "modern" stuff :)
True race stock can be an absolute blast to ski as long as one knows how to ski it properly.
Most recreational skiers absolutely hate skiing on race stock. They can manage somewhat on slalom skis, which are short and turny, but they are so reactive, you have to be on your "A" game at all times. No mindless cruising on these babies.
Many recreational skiers find new GS skis frustrating to ski. New GS skis turn by strong tip pressure. Release the tip pressure, and they drift and go straight (this is by design). Since most recreational skiers ski from their back seat, they find it very hard to turn the ski. GS skis (in the longer men's lengths) can be a bear in mixed conditions. They require a lot of strength to muscle their way through slop.
On the days I do race training, I always bring 2 sets of skis (or my race skis, and my board) Once I am done running gates, the race skis get put back in the car, and the mid fat skis or the board comes out. That way I can relax somewhat and enjoy the rest of the day on the snow. My mid fat skis, Stockli XXL, are based on a modern GS design, but are way more forgiving and give up little in carving ability.
-
Do modern race skis have rocker? Because I thought most were simple sidecuts and no rocker.
The sidecuts are no longer simple due to the companies trying to please the racing community with fast turn initiation, while trying to adhere to FIS rules designed to prevent skis from getting locked into the turns, endangering the racer's health and safety.
The latest GS skis have far less camber than older versions, with a small amount of reverse camber the tip and tail. This enhances fast, modern GS technique, which is far removed from how the general public likes to ski.
-
didn't want to sound mean, just think they should handle what i throw at em', I need that direct interface to the board. and my setup delivers:).
Might be expecting too much from the equipment with a such solid interface. Flying down a mountain induces huge forces into any equipment. I have broken, by far, more equipment in alpine boarding than any other snowsport. Softboot equipment has a built in shock damping (e.g. slop). Ski bindings, while they look extremely rigid, have mechanical damping designed into the system to avoid sheer forces than may damage either the binding or boot.
-
That is exactly my point. Consumers were denied carvable skis for years because of the cost of new (wide enough) presses. If as so many are saying, the NSR boards are like having an instant 50% boost in your riding skills, why are ski companies not passing these designs on to consumers when it will make so many skiers happy ? It does not make sense, unless there is some production problem, as there was with skis with carvable sidecuts, or the ski design people have no idea what's going on in the race depts.
This sounds very like the ski BS that snowboards did not introduce carvable sidecuts. Sure, the ski industry had invented, and had the oppertunity to produce carvable skis. BUT THEY DIDN'T. It was snowboards that first made carving possible for most people. So it seems that snowboards will again lead the way in innovation for the consumer.
BobD
This stuff is available to anybody! Check out sites such as raceskis.com or racestocksports.com. Many skishops that cater to race programs have this stuff in stock. Just plop your money down, and you can walk out the door with a real race ski with the latest technology/shape.
What really is going on here is not that ski companies are not making this available to the general public (they have been for years) it it the general public does not want such high performance in their skis! The average skier wants some wet noodle that is soft and forgiving, a lets them ski around at ease. This is exactly why hardboot /alpine snowboarding is, and will be a nitch sport. They typical consumer snowboarder wants the same thing as the typical consumer skier: a forgiving noodle that takes little effort to get down the hill.
The ski and snowboard companies are giving the typical consumer exactly what they want. What ski racers and alpine boarders want in their equipment simply does not register with the general public.
-
I would be interested to know of any skis that I could actually buy, that are like a kessler, or NSR board (aside from kessler, and palmer).
BobD
Any current FIS compliant GS race ski (not the consumer stuff). These are what Kessler bases his snowboard designs on.
-
So it's the same crap as shaped skis in the 90s ? - too expensive to change production, and offer to the masses. In a way we are lucky to be reliant on small manufacturers for alpine boards, I guess.
BobD
I'm not sure if I understand this comment. Many of the high end ($$$) all mountain skis have the same technology (modified for their intended use) as the FIS race stock. Are you asking does the same technology/construction/shaping get into the mass volume entry level skis found in the big box sports stores? Most likely not, due to the price point and the fact that the type of skier that buys these skis couldn't tell the difference anyway while the are skidding down the hill in a flying wedge! The same for the snowboards sold for the masses. The stuff they sell at Dick's Sporting Goods isn't top grade stuff either. You won't find a top of the line Palmer, not alone a Kessler, Donek, or Prior soft boot board in these type of stores.
Mondo question
in Carving Central
Posted
Dude, if your foot measures 27.3 cm, and you are buying an 11 street shoe, you are buying your shoes a size to a size and a half too big!
27 cm approx. equals an US size 9 mens shoe.
Regardless, the important thing to remember is that ski or hardboot sizing has ***nothing*** to do with street shoe sizing.
The most importing thing is sizing your foot to the internal shell of the boot. The easiest way to do that is to pull the liner and slide your foot into the shell. With your toes just touching the front, you should only have 1 to 1 1/2 fingers space from your heel to the back of the shell. Anything more is too big.
Shells are generally made only on the 1/2 size, so a size 26 boot and 26.5 boot use the same shell (26.5)
Here's why many people who have a US 9 or 9 1/2 foot (27 cm length) use a 26.5 shell. The stated shell size has ***nothing*** to do with the actual ***internal** shell measurement!!. Just about every "26.5" shell made measures internally 27.5 cm!! So people with a 27cm size foot fit inside with a nice, firm performance fit. They can even go down another shell size (25.5 shells measure 26.5 internally) if they have a good bootfitter who can grind and stretch the shell. Racers often do this to get the highest performance fit, but for most people downsizing that small, with all the related boot streching and grinding may be overkill.
I know this is confusing to many people, so the best bet is to have a good bootfitter. If that is not possible, then the 1 to 1 1/2 finger rule I stated earlier works pretty well for a performance fit.