or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# My friends ski 50-60MPH+ - Page 7

To address the OPs post, regardless of what their app says or what they are wearing, it would be certainly possible for his friends to go 60 mph straightlining a steep pitch.

Nobody is trying to say that a rider in skin tight suit isn't usually faster than the same rider in a puffy coat.  What is being argued initially was.. "is it possible to break 60 MPH without a speed suit".  Most say DEFINITELY possible.  Some seem to believe it can't be done.  Also very debatable just how much faster is the suit?  Depends in which way the wind is blowing and how hard right?  A 40 MPH wind at your back is going to favor the puffy coat where one in the face favors the suit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart

Nobody is trying to say that a rider in skin tight suit isn't faster than the same rider in a puffy coat.  What is being argued initially was.. "is it possible to break 60 MPH without a speed suit".  Most say DEFINITELY possible.  Some seem to believe it can't be done.

It can be done no doubt. What I think is more at issue is the ease and the frequency that is being proclaimed and the accuracy of the phone GPS's

THE OP'S friends are NOT tooling around the mountain regularly at 50-60 MPH!

When my older son raced J1 FIS Downhill at Mammoth, the final pitch is steep, has NO TURNS and they are already hauling ass along a straight cat road before coming into it, so not starting from a stop) these were 17 -19 year old boys in the 180 -240 lbs. range on totally prepped (212cm Atomic DH's, at least that is what my kid was on)

They hit about 70 MPH on the final pitch. So think what you will!

Tog, your math is also assuming that wind resistance does not increase with velocity.  It does.  A lot.

http://formulas.tutorvista.com/physics/air-resistance-formula.html

I am feeling like this thread is coming to a point where an iresistable force (math and logic and experience) is meeting an immovable object (people who love their phones and themselves - which is ok).  :)

Seacrest out.

I think 99% of the 'I ski 60' crowd would be crumpled into a ball of goo trying to get down ANY men's or women's WC DH if they attempted to ski within 10 sec of the top finishing time. That said, a straight run down a steepish groomed slope, sure, they could go 60 so long as there's nothing vaguely technical or involving controlled turns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pat

Tog, your math is also assuming that wind resistance does not increase with velocity.  It does.  A lot.

http://formulas.tutorvista.com/physics/air-resistance-formula.html

I am feeling like this thread is coming to a point where an iresistable force (math and logic and experience) is meeting an immovable object (people who love their phones and themselves - which is ok).  :)

Seacrest out.

Irrelevant. Just considering total time. All resistances come out in the wash that way.

Fact is, it's quite possible to go 60mph in a jacket. Why people are arguing this is beyond me after presenting evidence of radar at snowbird, swiss timing at the Lauberhorn public speed trap, etc. No doubt the phone apps are way off, but that's not the point.

When someone does 66mph by radar on K2 Pontoons and regular jacket and pants, that should say something. At least that they were lucky nothing happened.

I think people are way too dismissive of the phone apps.  Yes its possible to get inaccurate readings, but as long as you have decent satellite coverage, which is most places most of the time, they tend to be pretty close.  Try it out in your car.  Its going to be pretty close to what your speedometer says.

I have to say the difference between doing 50 and 60 is significant.  While several in this group on occasion may break the 50mph barrier momentarily and even fewer still may break the 60mph momentarily.   Those that are capable of hitting these speeds are doing it because they have the skill and more importantly the skis that can be controlled in these conditions.

The ski app while I like it, you have to use it correctly, carefully and if the numbers don't sound right they likely aren't.

A-man has it right getting into the 50's can be done, getting into 60's requires right conditions and into 70 and above range, well everything has to be right.

Baggy Parachute clothing need not apply

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn

SG skis, the first morning run at Rose?

Close Alex!  I was actually on a 210 DH  My buddy and I decided that since we hadn't had them out all year and as it was a quiet morning we would make a few runs on them.  We ended up making 6   runs, all in the 70+ range.  For the 83.5 I straight lined the last couple of hundred yards of Northwest.  And for those who believe that a speed suit makes no difference I can vouch for the fact that you could feel a LOT of extra resistance tearing at you.  A good speed suit, such as my USST DH suit, would have provided a significant boost to it!.

As to the outright accuracy of the speed recorded, i have my doubts but it was certainly well into the 70s.  For reference, after we took the DH boards off, we switched to GS skis and made a mother 6 runs, all showing in the 60s .

While I am not convinced of the absolute accuracy, where the app is of some value is for adding (some) data for comparative purposes such as testing skis, wax etc.  It can help provide some objectivity around what is normally semi subjective.  Where people are getting carried away though is in translating an instantaneous top speed reading to consistent speed

Edited by ScotsSkier - 4/9/14 at 4:44pm
The apps aren't that far off, it seems to me, although people are believing aberrant readings which, as has been pointed out, can easily be spotted if you look at the data, not just the app's 'dashboard' view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier

Close Alex!  I was actually on a 210 DH  My buddy and I decided that since we hadn't had them out all year and as it was a quiet morning we would make a few runs on them.  We ended up making 6   runs, all in the 70+ range.  For the 83.5 I straight lined the last couple of hundred yards of Northwest.  And for those who believe that a speed suit makes no difference I can vouch for the fact that you could feel a LOT of extra resistance tearing at you.  A good speed suit, such as my USST DH suit, would have provided a significant boost to it!.

As to the outright accuracy of the speed recorded, i have my doubts but it was certainly well into the 70s.  For reference, after we took the DH boards off, we switched to GS skis and made a mother 6 runs, all showing in the 60s .

While I am not convinced of the absolute accuracy, where the app is of some value is for adding (some) data for comparative purposes such as testing skis, wax etc.  It can help provide some objectivity around what is normally semi subjective.  Where people are getting carried away though is in translating an instantaneous top speed reading to consistent speed

Totally reasonable!

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier

I have to say the difference between doing 50 and 60 is significant.  While several in this group on occasion may break the 50mph barrier momentarily and even fewer still may break the 60mph momentarily.   Those that are capable of hitting these speeds are doing it because they have the skill and more importantly the skis that can be controlled in these conditions.

The ski app while I like it, you have to use it correctly, carefully and if the numbers don't sound right they likely aren't.

A-man has it right getting into the 50's can be done, getting into 60's requires right conditions and into 70 and above range, well everything has to be right.

Baggy Parachute clothing need not apply

I used to think that but the evidence is overwhelming that view is incorrect. We're not talking running gates, or making turns, just Schmoes going straight.

Quote: From 2010:
Originally Posted by endlessseason

Just another day on the hill. Ho-hum. If you've ever been clocked at high speed you knew it was just a matter of time before someone would be able to quantify what you've known all along; It's possible to friggin ski fast.
...

I was aiming the gun at him and watching the reading go up and up. I had seen a 78 and we were stoked enough about that, but when I later checked the memory for highest speed attained it displayed 80 !! Stroup had finally proven what 7 previous years of ANNUAL RADAR SPEED TRAP DAY has been sorta trying to achieve (well, as an incidental bonus to the real purpose of just having fun anyways).

We did try another run to see if he could do better and got a reading of 79 (127kph), which reaffirmed the gun was working fine but also told us the snow surface had slowed slightly with the sun exposure.

So, boys and girls, the next time you're in a discussion about whether or not a weekend warrior ever comes close to experiencing Olympic speeds, the answer is a resounding, verified, witnessed, inarguable, unequivocal, and documented; YES.

Endlessseason does it every year. Look for a May announcement and one could go to Snowbird and get gunned.

From 2013 speed runs:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMc

Every year TGR member Endlessseason puts on a "speed trap day" at Snowbird in the spring.  He owns a radar gun and clocks whomever shows up and wants to point it.  Last year the fastest speed clocked was 80mph.  This was with a radar gun, not a phone app.

Every time this subject comes up someone here references this day, and every time people still don't believe it, heh.

Quote: endlessseason
Yeah, that was fun! Nicely done, you guys.
[Deep Helmet] hit 80MPH on stock Bro's on our last run (which is prolly the biggest reason it became the last run). Claymond achieved the highest snowboarder speed I've ever clocked in these 11 years: 73MPH! And Coldsmoke came out of anonymity hibernation to give us a new benchmark for spitoons. Er, I guess most people call em Pontoons. Way to ride 66 miles an hour on those lunch trays, Coldsmoke!

Thanks, you guys, for showing up and making a MACH-ery of perceived limitations.

So, 80mph on Bro skis, (probably 190's), 73mph on a snowboard, and the craziest, 66mph on the floppy dog ear like K2 Pontoons

Finally, public skiing on the Lauberhorn DH course at Wengen:

Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog

I've skied on the Lauberhorn course quite a bit.   The part where  Carlo Janka hit 98.66 mph (a record for WC DH) is not steep at all, it is just a straight shot on an easy slope.

The last steep has a speed trap for the public.  From a standing start, on 180's wearing overpants and a small pack, I hit 100 kph  (62 mph).  Certified by Swiss timing.  Speeds of 60 are not that hard to reach.  The wind resistance increases at the square of the speed, so at 100 mph it is almost three times what it is at 60.

A GPS can record max speed very well.  You need some familiarity to spot the occasional anomaly, but if someone regularly hits a certain speed, it is most likely correct.

Edited by Tog - 4/9/14 at 10:18pm
40s typical speed for some. 50s still no problem on open runs. 60s not everyday. I have never seen 70 and don't plan too.

Thank you Tog.

I've heard from the disbelievers for years, explaining why GPS and all laws of physics stop at the ski area boundary.  It looks like a realistic view is finally emerging.  I have been able to get to 73, in regular clothes (and a safety spotter!).   I don't think I can go much faster without special equipment, but I'm pretty confident of the data----I've used two separate GPS units and been given the same numbers, and then they both agree with the car on the drive home.

FWIW, the buddies iphon said he/we topped out at 67.3mph last Saturday at Okemo. That was late morning. We ski there all the time and know every roller and what to expect over the next drop. We kept trying to better that but didn't. One of the other friends has been 70mph on the early morning run down Chief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier

And for those who believe that a speed suit makes no difference I can vouch for the fact that you could feel a LOT of extra resistance tearing at you.  A good speed suit, such as my USST DH suit, would have provided a significant boost to it!.

That's for sure when I used to race our town SG in regular close, I'd have to rezip all my zippers at the bottom of the hill because the wind would pull the tabs hard enough to unzip anything that zipped up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by epic

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier

And for those who believe that a speed suit makes no difference I can vouch for the fact that you could feel a LOT of extra resistance tearing at you.  A good speed suit, such as my USST DH suit, would have provided a significant boost to it!.

That's for sure when I used to race our town SG in regular close, I'd have to rezip all my zippers at the bottom of the hill because the wind would pull the tabs hard enough to unzip anything that zipped up.

Never noticed the zippers, but have noticed the drag; standing up is like putting on air brakes.  Your post reminded me that my Honda Interceptor would always get it's mirrors folded back every time I went over a buck twenty.

I can atest to the speed suit. At age 9 my son was about 1.2 to 1.4 seconds faster then the other boy's in the Hopeful's program at Okemo. The day of the finals, the coach's son, Chris Kinner show's up with a GS suit. He beat my son by .14 seconds on the same course they raced all season. That was back in 1997.
Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by tball

I believe it calculates the change in position every second then the speed based on that distance (velocity = distance/time).  So, yeah, it's going to round off your turns every second, but I don't think we generally turn sharp enough that is usually significant over one second.

The more advanced devices like my watch also use the change in elevation from a barometric altimeter to calculate the distance.  GPS elevation is rather inaccurate by itself, so that's not possible without the barometric altimeter.

Does your Garmin GPS do 1 second recording?  Do you have it turned on?   I had to turn it on, as my watch didn't come that way by default because it can't store as much data.

Here's a test where someone went to a lot of trouble to check the accuracy of garmin gps watches: http://fellrnr.com/wiki/GPS_Accuracy

From that, it sounds like some are better than others.   He hasn't tested mine yet since it's so new.
I think most gps watches are only accurate position-wise to about 40 feet with good satellite coverage. At 30-40mph even with 1 sec samples I bet that would have a big effect.

Yes, consumer-grade GPS is accurate to about 15 meters, but that's a systemic error that is fairly consistent over time.  While the absolute position is only accurate to 15 meters, the relative position of two recent points is highly accurate.   If that were not that case, gps accuracy would be so bad none of these devices (phone, garmin, whatever) would be giving any useful data

Quote:

Originally Posted by TreeFiter

I think people are way too dismissive of the phone apps.  Yes its possible to get inaccurate readings, but as long as you have decent satellite coverage, which is most places most of the time, they tend to be pretty close.  Try it out in your car.  Its going to be pretty close to what your speedometer says.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MastersRacer

The apps aren't that far off, it seems to me, although people are believing aberrant readings which, as has been pointed out, can easily be spotted if you look at the data, not just the app's 'dashboard' view.

Agreed the phone apps are pretty darn good and the problem is with the occasional aberrant readings.  It seems they are not doing a very good job filtering those out.  As a result, the maximum speed is the most suspect of all the data displayed by the apps (the spurious reading get averaged out elsewhere).  Unfortunately the maximum speed is displayed so prominently it seems like that is the primary goal of every run

A little geeky background: the apps are not likely to ever be as accurate as a dedicated device like my watch.   The problem is the tradeoff between accuracy and battery usage.  The more often an app checks the gps, the more it drains the battery.   If the phone were polling the gps every second like my watch it would kill the battery and nobody would use the app.  A dedicated GPS device has optimized hardware and software for this, and has it's very own fairly large battery to burn though, so it can optimize for accuracy.

GPS devices have to walk a fine line between accuracy and battery usage.   I stopped using ski apps after a few days because I wanted to save my battery for more important things (like emergencies.... and posting powder shots on epic from the lift ).

Today while skiing, I was thinking about this thread a little bit, and the conditions were good enough early this morning to do a few speed runs.

I turned on Alpine Replay and Ski Tracks so I could compare them.  Alpine Replay said I maxed out at 58.2, which is fairly typical for the run, and felt about right.  Fast, but not quite scary.

Ski Tracks on the other hand, told me I was going 62.1.  Still not completely out of the ball park, but I'm more inclined to trust the lower number.  I've heard quite a bit about how Ski Tracks has issues with top speed, and from what I'm seeing, its confirmed.

On other days, I have seen them off by significantly more.  One day Alpine Replay told me 61 and Ski Tracks told me 68.  Again, I would trust the lower number.

I tested Ski Tracks again on the way home, and it did pretty good for most of the ride, but there was a stretch where it jumped up to 80, and I'm pretty sure I kept things under 70 the whole way.

So if people are out there claiming to hit 50-60 while free skiing on a regular basis, chances are they are using Ski Tracks and believing whatever high number it throws out.  You aren't likely to break 50 without tucking straight down the fall line.

To all the people out there that have been clocked at over 70 mph, my hat is off to you.  Low 60s was fast enough for me.  I can't imagine 80 and still having to stay on course like a WC downhill racer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeFiter

So if people are out there claiming to hit 50-60 while free skiing on a regular basis, chances are they are using Ski Tracks and believing whatever high number it throws out.  You aren't likely to break 50 without tucking straight down the fall line.

I'll agree with this.  Thirty-five is chugging a long pretty well, many folks can cruise this fast on semi deserted slopes.  Forty-five to fifty is going pretty damn fast for standing up and making long radius turns.  It's pretty tough to break sixty standing up, but if you tuck on a decent blue with some pitch it isn't that difficult.  Standing up will usually slow you back down so terminal velocity for an average sized person standing up seems to be mid fifties on the pitch of decent blues and average blacks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeFiter

Today while skiing, I was thinking about this thread a little bit, and the conditions were good enough early this morning to do a few speed runs.

I turned on Alpine Replay and Ski Tracks so I could compare them.  Alpine Replay said I maxed out at 58.2, which is fairly typical for the run, and felt about right.  Fast, but not quite scary.

Ski Tracks on the other hand, told me I was going 62.1.  Still not completely out of the ball park, but I'm more inclined to trust the lower number.  I've heard quite a bit about how Ski Tracks has issues with top speed, and from what I'm seeing, its confirmed.

On other days, I have seen them off by significantly more.  One day Alpine Replay told me 61 and Ski Tracks told me 68.  Again, I would trust the lower number.

I tested Ski Tracks again on the way home, and it did pretty good for most of the ride, but there was a stretch where it jumped up to 80, and I'm pretty sure I kept things under 70 the whole way.

So if people are out there claiming to hit 50-60 while free skiing on a regular basis, chances are they are using Ski Tracks and believing whatever high number it throws out.  You aren't likely to break 50 without tucking straight down the fall line.

To all the people out there that have been clocked at over 70 mph, my hat is off to you.  Low 60s was fast enough for me.  I can't imagine 80 and still having to stay on course like a WC downhill racer.

This is really my feeling. Its entirely possible to hit 60+ mph on skis in ski clothing. Under the correct conditions, you can go significantly faster. But you have to work for it, and there is just no way people are hitting these speeds without deliberately intending to reach terminal velocity in a full tuck. People are just not standing up and recreationally skiing and hitting 50-60-70-80mph.

I see screenshots of skitracks and other programs all the time where people are claiming the maximum speed listed in indicative of their cruising speed or even remotely accurate. I've had this happen all the time where I get an aberrationally high skitracks number that sees no justification if I actually look at the plot. If your max speed says 70 mph, and you can't see tons of 50 and 60 mph datapoints around it, it is BS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MastersRacer

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.

Now you just need to take the next step and realize those 2 seconds equate to less than 2mph, not 20+ mph as was being claimed.

Again, separate yourself out of the ski racing mindset and back into real world physics.  Those 1-2 seconds in terms of your finish in a ski run is an eternity.  Those 1-2 seconds in terms of actual mph is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pat

Tog, your math is also assuming that wind resistance does not increase with velocity.  It does.  A lot.

http://formulas.tutorvista.com/physics/air-resistance-formula.html

I am feeling like this thread is coming to a point where an iresistable force (math and logic and experience) is meeting an immovable object (people who love their phones and themselves - which is ok).  :)

Seacrest out.

Math is certainly the irresistible force here, but it's resisting the side making the RIDICULOUS claim that a 4 second difference over the course of a 2 minute race equates to anywhere NEAR 20+ mph.

Let's put it this way.  Marco Sullivan finished 4 seconds off the leader in Sochi with a max speed of 81mph (just over 1 mph below the leader).  Yet you somehow seem to think that someone that was limited to 60mph would finish with the same time.

I don't know how else this can be explained to you.  Let's try a breakdown.

1) You say that a coat can make up to a 4 second difference over a 2 minute race based on your real world experience.  I accept this premise.

2) You say that a coat limits skiers to the 50mph range of speeds.

3) Math says that someone limited to the 50mph range of speeds loses 35+ seconds over the course of a 2 minute race.

4) You stick to your claims of #1 (4 second difference over 2 minutes) and #2 (speeds limited by 20-30mph) even though #3 (math) says it's impossible.

Either those skiers are losing a LOT more time then you claim, or a lot LESS mph than you believe are being lost when those guys go down the same run in a coat as they did in a ski suit.  Those skiers that you watched finish 4 seconds slower with a coat on weren't going 20mph slower when they did it.  Not even close.

I have absolutely no doubt that I have never even come close to approaching 60mph on skis personally, nor do I believe I've approached the upper end of the numbers my phone app tells me I have.  My only point here is that the notion that a coat and pants affect your speed by 20+ mph is absolutely absurd, as is the notion that it has any non-negligible impact on the large range of numbers we're talking about here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity

I can atest to the speed suit. At age 9 my son was about 1.2 to 1.4 seconds faster then the other boy's in the Hopeful's program at Okemo. The day of the finals, the coach's son, Chris Kinner show's up with a GS suit. He beat my son by .14 seconds on the same course they raced all season. That was back in 1997.

Was this course 10 feet long?  Since I'm assuming it wasn't, this just leaves you as yet another who is incapable of separating himself from the ski racing mindset that the eternity of 1.2 seconds in a race setting is a small difference in the physics of MPH calculations.

Here's a hint.  Chris Kinner wasn't going anywhere close to 20mph faster on the day of the finals than he had previously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vcize

Now you just need to take the next step and realize those 2 seconds equate to less than 2mph, not 20+ mph as was being claimed.

Again, separate yourself out of the ski racing mindset and back into real world physics.  Those 1-2 seconds in terms of your finish in a ski run is an eternity.  Those 1-2 seconds in terms of actual mph is not.

Math is certainly the irresistible force here, but it's resisting the side making the RIDICULOUS claim that a 4 second difference over the course of a 2 minute race equates to anywhere NEAR 20+ mph.

Let's put it this way.  Marco Sullivan finished 4 seconds off the leader in Sochi with a max speed of 81mph (just over 1 mph below the leader).  Yet you somehow seem to think that someone that was limited to 60mph would finish with the same time.

I don't know how else this can be explained to you.  Let's try a breakdown.

1) You say that a coat can make up to a 4 second difference over a 2 minute race based on your real world experience.  I accept this premise.

2) You say that a coat limits skiers to the 50mph range of speeds.

3) Math says that someone limited to the 50mph range of speeds loses 35+ seconds over the course of a 2 minute race.

4) You stick to your claims of #1 (4 second difference over 2 minutes) and #2 (speeds limited by 20-30mph) even though #3 (math) says it's impossible.

Either those skiers are losing a LOT more time then you claim, or a lot LESS mph than you believe are being lost when those guys go down the same run in a coat as they did in a ski suit.  Those skiers that you watched finish 4 seconds slower with a coat on weren't going 20mph slower when they did it.  Not even close.

I have absolutely no doubt that I have never even come close to approaching 60mph on skis personally, nor do I believe I've approached the upper end of the numbers my phone app tells me I have.  My only point here is that the notion that a coat and pants affect your speed by 20+ mph is absolutely absurd, as is the notion that it has any non-negligible impact on the large range of numbers we're talking about here.

Was this course 10 feet long?  Since I'm assuming it wasn't, this just leaves you as yet another who is incapable of separating himself from the ski racing mindset that the eternity of 1.2 seconds in a race setting is a small difference in the physics of MPH calculations.

Here's a hint.  Chris Kinner wasn't going anywhere close to 20mph faster on the day of the finals than he had previously.

The course was on Bullrun at Okemo. The times were 1st run 26.89 and 2nd run 25.78 seconds, total 52.67, second place total time was 53.75, on Jan 11 1997, remember these are 9 y/o's.

On Mar 8 1997 Kinners total time was 55.66 GS suit, my sons 55.80 no GS suit. I still have the results here in my desk.

Anyway's, its all about going fast.
But Max, you're missing his point. Do the math, translate that all into MPH, and get back to us. Presumably you have course length.

So riddle me this EpicSkiers... Who is faster in a straightline tuck... heavy person (220 pounds) in a jacket or a featherweight (110 pounds) in a suit? Gear and ability even other than the suit.

Talk amongst yourselves..

They would have the same speed. 30mph is 30mph. They would accelate differently though. The heavier skier would accelerate faster than the light skier because weight is a bigger factor than the coefficent of drag.
The difference between speed and acceleration is a concept lost on many though.

Friend of mine, woman, 90 pounds soaking wet, grew up skiing alta since a toddler. A 220# guy we worked with didn't believe the rumors about how good she was and challenged her to a race--trouble was, he wanted to race the Squaw Mountain Run--a low angle groomer you can easily straightline if no one is in the way,  and she wanted to race West Face of KT in full bump conditions (a beginner run for her--she just skied the troughs down the fall line--no speed check at all.) Needless to say, the race never happened.

Quote:

They would have the same speed. 30mph is 30mph. They would accelate differently though. The heavier skier would accelerate faster than the light skier because weight is a bigger factor than the coefficent of drag.
The difference between speed and acceleration is a concept lost on many though.

Apparently so is gravitational theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeFiter

Quote:

They would have the same speed. 30mph is 30mph. They would accelate differently though. The heavier skier would accelerate faster than the light skier because weight is a bigger factor than the coefficent of drag.
The difference between speed and acceleration is a concept lost on many though.

Apparently so is gravitational theory.

David Scott, Commander Apollo 15, conducts gravitational demonstration on the Moon. August 1971.

(Joe Allen on radio at Mission Control. Jim Irwin is the other astronaut on Moon)

http://youtu.be/KDp1tiUsZw8

Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky

But Max, you're missing his point. Do the math, translate that all into MPH, and get back to us. Presumably you have course length.

No. Course length is not measured. Vertical drop is, number of gates. Even in FIS there's no course length. How would one measure course length? Average line taken, line by winner, line by mid finisher?

In the future we may see this stat as some sort of extrapolated measurement from straight lines between turning gates. It would be fairly easy to measure with a laser between gates, then have a program calculate it out.

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