or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My friends ski 50-60MPH+ - Page 6

post #151 of 490
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

This troll needs more meat on its bones, so I'll feed it.  :D


Many years ago, I was clocked on radar at a citizen's race as a last minute entry at 60 mph.  I was wearing a parka and jeans.  I stood straight up out of my tuck to kill speed before the radar spot because some curious spectator didn't believe there was a last minute entry and stepped into the course to look uphill and see for himself that I was on the way down.  I had to slow to a level where I felt confident in dodging moving gates.  I had a lot of confidence back then.   60 mph did indeed feel to me at the time very slow compared to speeds I had reached skiing cliffs on the back side of Mt. Washington BC.


Clink83 is right.  If anyone really doesn't think a skier can ski faster if they don't have to make the gates, I have to wonder if they have a clue what they are talking about.


Data from Garmin GPSMap76CS track logs with 1 second recording:


First a typical day at Blue Mountain Collingwood, a relatively small vertical and no real steep runs, not really trying to do anything special, just put the GPS in my pocket and forgot about it and looked at the tracks later.








Next,a little experiment I did to see if the skis made much difference, comparing SG skis to SCs, trying to ski as fast as possible.  No real difference in top speed, but speeds felt slow on the SGs and very fast on the SCs. I think the 82 mph is an aberation (it occurred immediately after landing some air and almost falling off the back side when the skis shot forwards), but fairly confident top speeds were over 60 mph.  Mostly top speed is governed by air friction.



Another day at blue.




I have the both the Garmin 3 and Garmin 76 and have used both for mapping so I am going to draw from its experience starting over 30 years ago doing survey work in University.


Some of the tracks are straight lines (not talking about the lift lines which are consistent, but those which traverse the hill), which at Blue is not possible.  This error is caused by Signal loss and depending on when the signal is locked again can lead to false speed readings.  Secondly, with all GPS's partial signal can cause problems as well as they can move you 100ft in any given direction with just a few feet of actual movement.  This is interesting to watch when you are doing real time plotting and comparison with Survey Equipment.  Another thing that is interesting to watch is drift (when you are stationary) when the signals are intentional being scrambled,  DGPS takes care of this within reason, but corrections can be made manually on a closed loop (similar to survey practices) as the drift is usually constant in one direction changing every few hours (learned through lots of field experience).


As to most of your speed I would suggest that they are likely accurate +/- a mile or 2 as I suspect I know which runs you have done this on and have achieved similar results (though not as fast on GS skis, likely on more crowded days) given the right day when no one is around at BLUE which can happen on week days.





It is important to understand what and how the GPS does what it does to correctly interpret the data.


Ghost :beercheer: nice plot, hope you don't mind the analysis and making points describing what is happening.

Those really long straight lines off to the northeast in the first Blue Mountain tracks were me getting bord and trying to see how far I could make it before my built up momentum was diminished to zero.  I made it all the way to what looked like some condos.  You can see I don't skate very fast on the way back to the lift :o.


If you look at your track logs, it's easier to weed out faulty data.  I also noticed from the track logs, that the reported speed is just horizontal distance travelled divided by time taken between two reporting points; it totally ignores any vertical speed and takes chord length, not arc length, so is an underestimate (if you have weeded out the dubious points).  The max speed feature uses a doppler algorithm on the sat. signals, but there is no way to check it for reliability.

post #152 of 490

Isn't this discussion pointless?  Sure a recreational skier can go 60+mph if you put her on a steep enough slope that is long enough and groomed semi-well.  Whether the said skier can manage a turn at that speed, or manage the moment when the ski hits an imperfection in the snow is a very different question that no one cares to discuss.  IMO, its stupidly dangerous to go on a  recreational skis at 60mph on a regular trail on a regular day.  If you are a good skier, you will have the presence of mind not to do that.  I know some good skiers who like to run fast, but they tend to do it first thing in the morning on an empty run and they tend to be on race skis.  Thats why they can do it often enough and don't end up in the hospital or behind bars for injuring someone.    Going fast for a guy with a radar gun is OK, I am sure they do some crowd control measures for those runs.  Gunning it down a crowded slope is stupid.  


Take a look at the slow-mo replay of some world cut downhill runs, you will see these skis flopping around like mad noodles, and those are triple metal race room layups that are stiffer that a railroad rail.  There is no way in hell that a recreational skier (and certainly a skier who likes a ski speed app) can manage those forces with confidence.    Going that fast on a shared trail on recreational skis is stupid, bragging about it on the internet is stupid as well.  

post #153 of 490

.We do a radar run every spring.  We had a park rat do it switch and he hit 56.  And that's in Michigan.  I wouldn't doubt in the LEAST bit that anyone could hit 60 plus on a groomed run at a mountain without much effort. 

post #154 of 490
Where's the OP? No, really, what page did we lose him on?
post #155 of 490

50-60:?????   were you still on the bunny hill??? :D





and that was with coat and warm up pants on.....still believe Ski Trax is accurate!!!????

post #156 of 490

^^^Bah that 49 degree slope is flat compared to the last screen shot. 56 degrees! At Okemo. lol

post #157 of 490

You pussy!  You could not get 85?  Nut up.

post #158 of 490

Actually that 83.5mph was probably the wind speed at Mt. Rose...

post #159 of 490

60 mph on skis certainly isn't unheard of.  Ski Tracks is one of the less accurate apps for max speed, but still gets you in the ball park.  If you are consistently seeing speeds in the 60s, you are probably in that neighborhood.  Alpine Replay does a better job with max speed.  It fact checks the data points around your max to rule out anomalies.  So if at point 1 you are doing 20mph, point 2 you are going 85 mph, and at point 3 you are at 20 mph, it will recognize the 85 as an anomaly.  I've tested them out in my car, and they both seem to underestimate speed.  They might not give a very accurate reading because you are zig zagging down the mountain, and they are approximating a straight line, but that would underestimate speed if anything.  So if your app is saying 50-60 mph, its probably not too far off.  Of course if you are seeing odd ball numbers like 100mph on a green, its safe to assume there might have been poor satellite coverage leading to reduced accuracy.  


In my personal experience, I have gone 63.8 mph according to Alpine Replay. I have been able to consistently repeat high 50s and low 60s on the same trail in similar conditions.  I have also had my speed measured by a gun on the same trail, but in a GS course.  The gun measured 36 mph, but that was crossing the finish which is where the trail flattens out significantly.  When I get numbers like 63 mph, I am in a full tuck on about a 23 degree slope for a few hundred yards.  Comparing it to what I remember 36 feeling like, it seems pretty realistic.  


Is this responsible skiing?  I take precautions.  I only do this on one trail that is wide and straight, and I only do it when there is nobody else to get in the way.  To try it in a less controlled situation would be bordering on reckless.  


When i'm free skiing, its typical to see speeds in the mid 40s if I'm letting my skis run with wide open carved turns.  


In the bumps, its much slower.  I don't know exactly how fast I'm going in the bumps, but on a bump run from a few days ago, the max speed was right around 30 mph.  This was most likely on the groomed section of the trail coming down to the lift, where I tend to cruise.  I was moving way slower while in the bumps.  If I were to guess, it was under 15 mph. 


As for the OP, if your friends are seeing speeds of 50-60 mph without tucking or taking a straight line down the fall line, I have my doubts.  If they are tucking down the fall line, its very possible.  Don't feel bad that you aren't skiing as fast.  It only means you are smart enough to realize that fast is dangerous.  As many others have said, take your time and enjoy the ride.  

post #160 of 490
Originally Posted by pat View Post

You pussy!  You could not get 85?  Nut up.
Yeah, if only I had waxed...... biggrin.gif
post #161 of 490

SG skis, the first morning run at Rose?




Originally Posted by ScotsSkier View Post

50-60:?????   were you still on the bunny hill??? :D





and that was with coat and warm up pants on.....still believe Ski Trax is accurate!!!????

post #162 of 490
please explain trolling I do not know what that means
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post

For those keeping score of the troll factor, and simultaneously claiming this is an "Epic" thread...I am here to post in this important thread.
Who's trolling who?  th_dunno-1%5B1%5D.gif  (Hint, it's not the original thread starter "folkfan" with 2-posts)

Total Posts: 148

User Name


post #163 of 490

Wouldn't it be cool if there was some kind of worldwide communications device that allowed you to type in questions like "trolling; definition" and get the answer? Goddamn, with all the technology they have these days, you'd think they would have thunk of that. 

post #164 of 490

On the responsibility front, I hit my top speeds at Solitude on a non-powder weekday.  Fresh corduroy and not a soul to hit.

post #165 of 490
Originally Posted by JoeUT View Post

Wouldn't it be cool if there was some kind of worldwide communications device that allowed you to type in questions like "trolling; definition" and get the answer? Goddamn, with all the technology they have these days, you'd think they would have thunk of that. 

OK, found it, sorry for asking

post #166 of 490

Don't be sorry, just messing with ya :p

post #167 of 490

Maine Flavors. (Ice-out is coming. Some day. Not yet.)




post #168 of 490

I ski in straight lines and I have Lines. Looks like I gots problems. 

post #169 of 490
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

Originally Posted by JoeUT View Post

Don't be sorry, just messing with ya tongue.gif

Fish,barrel smile.gif
post #170 of 490
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier View Post

Yeah, if only I had waxed...... biggrin.gif


What does body hair have to do with it? Putting the skin in skinsuit? Is it faster?

post #171 of 490
Having body hair stick out of spandex/ect is gross.
post #172 of 490
Originally Posted by Vcize View Post


Let's use a real world example along with your own experiences for how much time is added to a run without a coat.


Bode Miller's average speed in this year's olympic downhill race, which took just over 2 minutes, was 62mph.  If we add 4 seconds to his time as per your experiences, that brings his average speed down to 60.1mph.  That leaves him with an AVERAGE speed that's still greater than the MAX speed you're claiming is doable with a coat, on a course that's designed to have more turns than what someone would be trying to max their speed out on casually.


In order for Bode's average to drop by the order of magnitude you suggested (20mph), we'd have to add a full minute to his time.  Obviously we don't expect the effect of that drag to be linear (IE if it reduces his top speed from 80 to 60 it's not also going to reduce his medium speed from 60 to 40), but it is going to have an effect across the whole range of his run (not just the parts where he's maxing out).  With that said, I think a fair estimate is about ~30 seconds added to his time if the effect of drag has anywhere near the impact on MPH as you originally implied.  I think we can both agree that Bode wouldn't have finished at 2:36 or over in this year's olympic downhill if he were wearing a coat.


That's where the disconnect is here, though.  In the skiing world where everyone is finishing within milliseconds of each other, that extra second you clocked (4 seconds on a 2 minute run) is an eternity.  You see an extra second and think "holy cow that's sooooooooooooooo much slower".  In the real world, one bound by physics, that extra second doesn't equate to NEARLY the change in MPH as your millisecond biased brain has led you to believe. 


On a 1 minute course with average speeds about 60 mph (the course is just a mile long), clothing vs speed suit equates to about 1 to 2 seconds. This is information from actual timed runs on a real DH course. Slower racers experience larger differentials.  


Edit: apologies for interrupting the current flow of this thread. It was growing at such a rate that I responded as I read, rather than read all the posts then respond. :rolleyes

Edited by MastersRacer - 4/9/14 at 7:56am
post #173 of 490


Originally Posted by jzamp View Post

the only way to measure this is having the same guy take two straight runs with and without the speed suit.
I have raced in my training gear and beaten speed suits and raced in my speed suits and lost to jacket and pants. Unless you are racing WC where everybody makes very little mistakes, and the difference is minimal, speed suit vs jacket is only a feel good ski good thing.
Mind that the people I've beaten and got beaten by are all under 100 FIS point Masters


For timed runs, this is not true. For general skiing, sure. Your max speed might vary a little, but it will have more to do with your skiing ability than your clothing's aerodynamics.


post #174 of 490
Originally Posted by ZeroGravity View Post

What does body hair have to do with it? Putting the skin in skinsuit? Is it faster?

A swimmer told me it was! You mean I went through that pain for nothing?..smile.gif
post #175 of 490
Chuck Noris can ski 60 switch on one ski.
post #176 of 490
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier View Post

A swimmer told me it was! You mean I went through that pain for nothing?..smile.gif


On the bright side, you are ready for the pond-skipping speedo run. :eek

post #177 of 490
Originally Posted by tomfifield View Post

Chuck Noris can ski 60 switch on one ski.


So wrong. Chuck Norris stands still, switch on one ski. The mountain moves 60mph underneath him.

post #178 of 490

Know what Chuck Norris has under his beard (besides another fist)?  Josh Motta.


And a ski trax app.  Which he ignores because it is is bull$hit.


Are you going to argue with Chuck Norris?

post #179 of 490
Originally Posted by pat View Post

The errors that an average racer can make in a course can easily add up to the benefit of a speed suit. If you have trained with timers you know that each run you can be about 2-4 tenths faster or slower than the previous.


This is very true.  But let's assume AJ (who SET that course btw) is pretty darn consistent (He is the National NASTAR pacesetter).


From a pure aero perspective, operator error aside, suit wins big time.


The differences would be even more pronounced at SG and DH speeds which are the 55-75 mph speeds being casually bandied about by the phone app users.

Pat, these guys are full of BS. 


As i posted earlier,  just having your elbows outside of your knees on a DH race run will make about 1/10 of second difference for each 10 seconds on the course. On a 2 minute DH course the aerodynmics of your tuck just in regard to your elbows would make a 1.2 second difference. 

NOw......................Where did I get this info? From a US SKI Team downhiller who had been training with the team in a wind tunnel.


The argument that making mistakes is the equalizer is faulty. If the same skier made the same errors on 2 runs with and without a suit, they would still be faster with the speedsuit. 


Saying a particular racer with with full coat and pants beat a particular racer in a speedsuit is a totally meaningless comparison and proves not an f_ _king thing!

post #180 of 490

But the issue is speed, not time. 3 seconds over a 60 second course is 5%. 6 Seconds is 10%

So let's say the racer averages 60mph. Then 6 seconds slower would be 54mph. 3 seconds 57mph

You're also talking something with turns, which is where the speed would be lost.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion