Does the new ski technology reduce the risk of injury - is it safer?

Go out and try some, demo one or two types and see if you like it. As with any moving thing such as car, motorcycle, bicycle, roller blades, riding a horse etc,  find out how it handles under the easiest of conditions 1st. Start off on some easy green groomers and check out the handling characteristics. Can you turn them, can you tip them and carve/ arc? Can you do a hockey stop quickly, can you side slip? Find some hardpack or even ice what do they feel like in that stuff. Those 2 conditions would probably be the worst thing you could ski them on and if they handle decent enough for you on that then you might enjoy them for what they really excel in. Everything else, powder, tracked off crud, bumps.

Work your way up your difficulty scale and see if you like them enough in the worst conditions then maybe buy if they feel good to you. I have been on the Blizzard ONE and the Rossi S3 this year. We have been getting fantastic conditions in Vt this year, new snow every week. The big difference I have felt between those 2 skis has been the performance on groomers. The ONE  is a more stabler carver over the S3. I like the float capabilities in powder of the S3 with the more pronounced tip rocker over the ONE. I have not given up any groomer carving performance especially on the ONE. I have not had the chance to get on them in real boilerplate conditions, we have not had any since I've had them from Jan 1st on.

The handling characteristics are a bit different with these skis, there is  some lag with turn initiation but they are capable of making very small and quick turns if you work them. Best bet is to really go out and demo them, put them through the stuff you like to do.

In my view skiing has definatley gotten more dangerous with new gear.  Just look at the all the people with helmets today...never saw that before.

New skis have more people skiing faster, with less control on "higher consequence" terrain then ever before. 

Sure the gear itself is not inherently dangerous, neither is a muscle car...but muscle car + inexperience + peer pressure = trouble.

Soft skis that don't signal your going too fast can easily fold up on you at inopportune times.  Previous generation skis either wouldn't let you get going that fast, or would not fold up on you. Other than that, I see no difference.  I had absolutely no difficulty getting into situations beyond my skill level with old straight skis. 

Going back even further, releasable bindings can pre-release, but overall I think the # of broken legs is lower with the "modern" bindings.

This has as much to do with better understanding of head injury risk as it does with skiing actually being more dangerous.  Although there is also sensationalization of incidents like Natasha Richardson's death.  (It's unclear if a helmet would have helped her, but stories like that do make it apparent that you can get hurt even on 'easy' terrain.)  Also, skiing or riding with a helmet is no longer seen as terminally uncool.

I don't believe there were significant changes in death rates per skier-day in the last few decades; I'm not sure about injuries (though I would guess the severity of leg/knee injuries has gone down with better bindings).  I'll try to dig up some numbers later.

I've seen it posited that grooming is more dangerous than newer skis.  Personally, I think grooming is a wash.  It does let you go faster, but it also provides a much more consistent surface, and it's easier to turn on packed/groomed snow than in chopped-up crud or moguls.

I read somewhere (reliable) that one of the key reasons that the FIS and USSA increased the minimum sidecut for GS was to prevent knee injuries.  I've also noticed that hooking an edge on a ski with a deep sidecut sends a skier out of control on an arc where hooking an edge on a old straight ski sends a skier out of control going in the same direction.  I've seen at least two people that appeared to be very good skiers carving arcs along the side of a trail get hung and suddenly be in the woods.  Both were hurt bad enough to require transport, one was still unconscious on the sled.  So, the deeper sideuts do appear more dangerous to experienced skiers in my opinion.

As for inexperienced, the shortening of the learning curve created by new equipment puts people on more difficult and unusual terrain faster, and results in more one year wonders on black and double black terrain.  Of course there will be more casualties.

One thing that new equipment does do to reduce injuries is that skiing is less physically demanding so I don't burn out so quickly.  Ask any ski patrol and they will tell you that most injuries happen near the end of the day when a tired skier is trying to get in "just one more run".  And, that one more run is a charging run.  Add some compression near the end where the trial flattens out and BOOM!  I embrace the new gear for the most part.  But fair warning, with increased mobility comes increased mobility!

Well, I believe the answer can go two ways. As stated above, the improvements and gear has perhaps made people take more chances, and hit up terrain they might not have before. On the other hand, when people recognize their limitations, and ski within their means, I do believe the gear can seriously be to their benefit.

For me, the biggest improvement in skiing has been when I made the switch (no pun intended) to twin-tips. That one thing alone has helped me out of many a tight spot. So easy to back up, turn, and get headed in the right direction. When I over-rotate while turning, it's nice not to have the skis catch, and throw me over. One could argue that these advances have allowed me to continue skiing with bad habits, which would be true had it not been for multiple lessons to help me fight those bad habits. So yes, these skis perhaps did allow me to ski in poorer form, but at the same time, they helped me ski down the mountain much more safely. Thank God for good instruction, though. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skidude72 

In my view skiing has definatley gotten more dangerous with new gear.  Just look at the all the people with helmets today...never saw that before.

 

New skis have more people skiing faster, with less control on "higher consequence" terrain then ever before. 

 

Sure the gear itself is not inherently dangerous, neither is a muscle car...but muscle car + inexperience + peer pressure = trouble.

eh Id argue its much more control on higher consequence terrain. Did you watch my most recent helmet cam video? 20-30mph in tight trees is pretty high consequence.

BTW I live my new helmet cam its finally proving my points about rockered skis I have been saying for a couple years now, that they truly are better.

grooming is the most dangerous place to be on any mountain, I hope int he near future we start to see less and less of it as the ski technoolgy lets people be able ski with out faster. The thing is off grooming you can only go as fast as your skill truly allow ands it nearly impossible to be hit by someone else. easier to turn is bad, mattias when's the last time you heard of someone dieing  from skiing on a moguls/glades run anywhere? and I dont mean someone who lost control on a groomer and ended up in the trees. People dieing skiing groomers all the time, moguls and glades you might get bumped and bruised but death isnt really something that happens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexzn 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA 
mattias when's the last time you heard of someone dieing  from skiing on a moguls/glades run anywhere?

CR Johnson... Light Towers is not exactly a mogul run or a glade, but it is certainly off-piste...

 

I do get your point, I sometimes question the wisdom of grooming long steep slopes, when the snow is icy, if you fall on that slope, you are going all the way. I'd rather have moguls on that run- it is safer...   
 

so one pro skier dies hucking, do you have any idea how many members of the public die skiing groomers each year.

Modern carving skis hook up more readily than older, straight skis. This causes forces on the body, generally your skis going one direction and you the other with nasty twisting involved. Like in Lindsey's crash training GS. First her left ski got away, then it hooked up and she was launched 6 feet in the air. Not to say this wouldn't have happened on an old ski, but less likely. Additionally, skiers that are carving are often trying to push the envelope of edge angles. When their strength to hold the angles fails or the structure of the snow collapses, they are left without an edge to stand on and either fall and slide or the skis start chattering which creates a control problem for the inexperienced.

Grooming is certainly a factor as has been pointed out. People with less skill feel comfortable going faster on the smooth piste and realize too late they can't control the speed. Self destruction and unfortunately collisions result.

Advances in bindings make falls more likely to be survived without injury, but only fractionally. You can still tear an ACL. Releases from forward twisting falls, though, seem a lot safer than the old days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexzn 

This is all hogwash!  BWPA is most likely deluding himself that rockered skis made him ski high consequence runs, I bet he would have skied those runs in 200cm pencil skis, on 160cm crvers or on whatever rockers he chooses today.    Just look at the old films of Plake and Scot Schmidt skiing gnarly terrain at Squaw on 205 pencil skis- those runs are every bit as dangerous and impressive as they were at that time.  People also get injured on new and old gear alike, and it does not mean that they are taking more risks.  Yes, new gear makes certain aspects of the sport easier, safer, and more enjoyable; at the same time people compensate right away by pushing the envelope further.   You still need technique, balance, and strength (and some luck) to stay in control, the fundamentals have not changed.   

dude I cant ski those runs at those speeds on my mid fat twin tips. The rockeres didnt make me skis anything, they let me ski everything though.

I couldnt ski those runs in that much control on my mid fat twins, let alone a 205 straight ski. I would argue that glen or scmitt while I have full confinidence in being able to ski the chutes, in the trees they or anyone else would have lots of problems on the old stuff or even cambered fatter skis. its not that it cant be done well, its that it cant be done as well and as fast.  Really this is why I would love to see a Epic gathering at stowe, to erase every misconception ever posted on this site.

to masterracer I couldnt ski those run at that speed on the skis you are posting, I really wish I was that good, but I am not. I doubt anyone could post a tree skiing video, that tight and that fast on anything but the type of skis I am talking about. The internet is large place if someone out there truly believe that the old tech is better let see some POV video. I personally have not seen it yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexzn 

This is all hogwash!  BWPA is most likely deluding himself that rockered skis made him ski high consequence runs, I bet he would have skied those runs in 200cm pencil skis, on 160cm crvers or on whatever rockers he chooses today.    Just look at the old films of Plake and Scot Schmidt skiing gnarly terrain at Squaw on 205 pencil skis- those runs are every bit as dangerous and impressive as they were at that time.  People also get injured on new and old gear alike, and it does not mean that they are taking more risks.  Yes, new gear makes certain aspects of the sport easier, safer, and more enjoyable; at the same time people compensate right away by pushing the envelope further.   You still need technique, balance, and strength (and some luck) to stay in control, the fundamentals have not changed.   

there is no such thing as luck.

Luck is when preparation meets opportunity and nothing more,

Quote:

Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA 

 

to masterracer I couldnt ski those run at that speed on the skis you are posting, I really wish I was that good, but I am not. I doubt anyone could post a tree skiing video, that tight and that fast on anything but the type of skis I am talking about. The internet is large place if someone out there truly believe that the old tech is better let see some POV video. I personally have not seen it yet.

 

I don't think the old tech is better. I do know from experience that the terrain in your video is doable on rocker, classic fat or straight. Been there. Done it. You'll have to take my word on it as I don't have a POV camera or carry a camera when I ski the resort.

Send me a POV cam and I'll post video.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA 

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexzn 

This is all hogwash!  BWPA is most likely deluding himself that rockered skis made him ski high consequence runs, I bet he would have skied those runs in 200cm pencil skis, on 160cm crvers or on whatever rockers he chooses today.    Just look at the old films of Plake and Scot Schmidt skiing gnarly terrain at Squaw on 205 pencil skis- those runs are every bit as dangerous and impressive as they were at that time.  People also get injured on new and old gear alike, and it does not mean that they are taking more risks.  Yes, new gear makes certain aspects of the sport easier, safer, and more enjoyable; at the same time people compensate right away by pushing the envelope further.   You still need technique, balance, and strength (and some luck) to stay in control, the fundamentals have not changed.   

there is no such thing as luck.

 

Luck is when preparation meets opportunity and nothing more,

hey bush....nice.....way to quote....but wait, you didn't even do that.....

tremendous GNAR points on that one....    

"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."Lucius Annaeus Seneca     

 Roman dramatist, philosopher and politician, 5 BC - 65 AD 

Actually, the tip rocker tends to make going over the handlebars less likely, and consequently makes turn initiation less risky. Tail rocker does the same for releasing turns, which when lacking can also pose a risk for injury. In this respect, I think the hypothesis that the new ski technology can reduce the risk of injury is a fair bet.  

Master Racer,

I believe you could make a run like that at that speed on say Fisher RX8s.  I also believe that BW could not.  We all know that skinny skis provide their own speed control in deep snow, and it's not too hard to make quick turns at 30 mph.  However here's the thing, we can't see under the snow.  That particular run may not have sufficient cover, and the RX8s could sink down enough to catch on the underbrush. 

I love skinny racing skis as much as the next guy (maybe more), but if I were given a choice, I would take the fat tip-rockered ski for that run.

Deeper sidecut skis, SLs in particular are squirrely going really fast unless they are on edge.  That is one of the things that the base grooves helped with.  I'd like to see base grooves return, but I suspect the production costs outweigh perceived utility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost 

Master Racer,

I believe you could make a run like that at that speed on say Fisher RX8s.  I also believe that BW could not.  We all know that skinny skis provide their own speed control in deep snow, and it's not too hard to make quick turns at 30 mph.  However here's the thing, we can't see under the snow.  That particular run may not have sufficient cover, and the RX8s could sink down enough to catch on the underbrush. 

 

I love skinny racing skis as much as the next guy (maybe more), but if I were given a choice, I would take the fat tip-rockered ski for that run.

Growing up in NH, I was introduced to BC on trails like that. All we had were long skinny skis. I'd rather do it on a fat ski vs a straight long, but back in the day we did it with what we had. We had underbrush to deal with then, too. My BC was all over the Presidentials, Wildcat and the like. Quite like Bush's videos.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolo 

Actually, the tip rocker tends to make going over the handlebars less likely, and consequently makes turn initiation less risky. Tail rocker does the same for releasing turns, which when lacking can also pose a risk for injury. In this respect, I think the hypothesis that the new ski technology can reduce the risk of injury is a fair bet.  

Are you referring to all snow, deep snow or groomed conditions? 

Seems like we completely lost base grooves with the advent of the "shaped ski"......not sure that it matters but....are there any mfg's putting base grooves in anymore?...i haven't seen any in years [decades?].....

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

Deeper sidecut skis, SLs in particular are squirrely going really fast unless they are on edge.  That is one of the things that the base grooves helped with.  I'd like to see base grooves return, but I suspect the production costs outweigh perceived utility.

Oh, I'm very familiar with what SLs do at speed, and what they do when it gets a little deep too.  It's not something that can't be overcome with a modicum of skill however. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost 

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

Deeper sidecut skis, SLs in particular are squirrely going really fast unless they are on edge.  That is one of the things that the base grooves helped with.  I'd like to see base grooves return, but I suspect the production costs outweigh perceived utility.

Oh, I'm very familiar with what SLs do at speed, and what they do when it gets a little deep too.  It's not something that can't be overcome with a modicum of skill however. 

We are off topic. We veered into possible vs. safer. Although fatter would be safer than skinny in any off-piste scenario with deep snow. (back on topic)
 

you could make your own groove with a router. let me know how that goes. the swimming is still going to be there, as the sidecut is the cause. For example, the Legend Pro Rider does NOT swim when run flat at speed.

new ski technology, by now, means more skis available that do NOT have extreme side cut, more choices for large radius skis and skis that release and smear smoothly.

so, by type of fall: cross tips, over rotate, catch downhill edge, lose edge grip, tip dive and stop, etc you could analyze the effect of the ski.

Seems the skis are safer, as most people use them to ski in a more fun, relaxed way with more sliding / less carving.

True, the most dangerous condition is obstacles hidden under soft, deep snow, like rocks and stumps and horizontal fallen trees and branches. With a new very fat ski you can get the tips up out of the snow for an instant if you think there may be dangers lurking under the surface. At least you won't run your tips under a tree or into a rock. However, if you're willing to dice it up often with those factors present, like early season or sketch coverage, your skiing days are numbered. That is where luck does or doesn't come in. And luck always runs out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost 

Master Racer,

I believe you could make a run like that at that speed on say Fisher RX8s.  I also believe that BW could not.  We all know that skinny skis provide their own speed control in deep snow, and it's not too hard to make quick turns at 30 mph.  However here's the thing, we can't see under the snow.  That particular run may not have sufficient cover, and the RX8s could sink down enough to catch on the underbrush. 

 

I love skinny racing skis as much as the next guy (maybe more), but if I were given a choice, I would take the fat tip-rockered ski for that run.

you also cant see how deep the snow really is because its bottomless...the rockers stay on top.

you guys are a bunch of posers posting a forum at this time. You sit their and talk shit while you have nothing to back it up with, Sorry I know what I skied and I also know how good I am. There is not a soul on this planet that can do what I have posted in the last video on skinny carver at the speed it was done.

I would lay it all the line, because I know I am right. Free lift tickets guided tours as long as you guys do it on sub 90mm skis with rockers. My only reasoning is so stupid shit stops getting posted on the internet anymore. going out west to ski with masterracers is not enough as the terrain is simply to easy out there and nowhere near as thick as it here.

I HAVE NOT SEEN A SINLGE VIDEO OF ANYONE SKIING TREES ON SKINNY CARVERS WELL(OR AT ALL) LET ALONE AT THE SPEEDS/TIGHTNESS I HAVE POSTED, lets see one. If someone is promises to post one I ll even send them a helmet cam. really. I just want the people who are clueless on this site to forever shut their mouths or get with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rossi Smash 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA 

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexzn 

This is all hogwash!  BWPA is most likely deluding himself that rockered skis made him ski high consequence runs, I bet he would have skied those runs in 200cm pencil skis, on 160cm crvers or on whatever rockers he chooses today.    Just look at the old films of Plake and Scot Schmidt skiing gnarly terrain at Squaw on 205 pencil skis- those runs are every bit as dangerous and impressive as they were at that time.  People also get injured on new and old gear alike, and it does not mean that they are taking more risks.  Yes, new gear makes certain aspects of the sport easier, safer, and more enjoyable; at the same time people compensate right away by pushing the envelope further.   You still need technique, balance, and strength (and some luck) to stay in control, the fundamentals have not changed.   

there is no such thing as luck.

 

Luck is when preparation meets opportunity and nothing more,

hey bush....nice.....way to quote....but wait, you didn't even do that.....

 

tremendous GNAR points on that one....    

 

"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."Lucius Annaeus Seneca     

 Roman dramatist, philosopher and politician, 5 BC - 65 AD 

 

that is something I made up long time ago...but apparently some poet I never heard of beat me to it.