EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Racing Gurus - I request your assistance
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Racing Gurus - I request your assistance - Page 2

post #31 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier
Just to make sure I have followed this thread correctly -

there are no length rules for USSA Masters races, only FIS Masters?
Exactly.....8 meter skis, here y'all come.
post #32 of 53
Actually, there have never been minimum radius restrictions on slalom skis, so...

Take an Atomic Big Daddy tip and tail, and put them on 165-cm ski with a 60 mm waist, and you've got a pair of skis with about a 7 3/4 meter sidecut radius:

133 - 60 - 123

Shorten them to 150 cm, and you get the radius down to about 6 1/2 meters.
post #33 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjjohnston
Actually, there have never been minimum radius restrictions on slalom skis, so...

Take an Atomic Big Daddy tip and tail, and put them on 165-cm ski with a 60 mm waist, and you've got a pair of skis with about a 7 3/4 meter sidecut radius:

133 - 60 - 123

Shorten them to 150 cm, and you get the radius down to about 6 1/2 meters.
I know there have never been radius restrictions. I'm talking specifically about one kickass 8 meter ski from last year...that Masters are still free to use this year.

A 6 meter ski....if you could ski it...would be fast. The leg strength required would be unbelievable.
-Garrett
post #34 of 53
No one at the asra race will check your skis, or masters either... theonly place I heard of people running into trouble with FIS was when some of the masters when to europe to compete. If you have time to go to europe as a master, you more than likley have time to work on a fis legal setup
post #35 of 53
Thanks for posting this. Three q's:

1. Any speculation (and yes, I know it's just speculation) on whether these rules will be enforced at entry-level USSA JI/II/Sr races for middle and back of the pack racers?

2. The Ski mag review (okay, not exactly a definitive race info source, but wanted to confirm my understanding) refers to the Rossi 9S Oversize (i.e., their second-level sorta race ski for SL) as noncompliant with FIS regs. But since the SL rules still don’t have a minimum radius, the 9S Oversize in its longer lengths would be FIS-compliant (if not all that FIS-fast), correct?

3. The spread between the min SL & GS sizes is 15cm. I recall an Atomic race letter last year that suggested a 20cm SL/GS differential. Is 15-20cm a reasonable rule-of-thumb spread, and not just for compliant skis, but also for Master’s setups?
post #36 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Shefftz
Thanks for posting this. Three q's:

1. Any speculation (and yes, I know it's just speculation) on whether these rules will be enforced at entry-level USSA JI/II/Sr races for middle and back of the pack racers?
I suspect (this is just a guess) that it may vary from region to region. I guess one clue might be how vigilant the people in your region were last year about height restrictions. That's only a rough clue, though, since the length is a lot easier to check than stand-height, as it's typically written on the ski (unless people start "forging" their skis!).

I suppose someone could always protest, too. Though I tend to think you'd just be making a putz of yourself if you went around DSQing middle and back of the pack kids.

Quote:
2. The Ski mag review (okay, not exactly a definitive race info source, but wanted to confirm my understanding) refers to the Rossi 9S Oversize (i.e., their second-level sorta race ski for SL) as noncompliant with FIS regs. But since the SL rules still don’t have a minimum radius, the 9S Oversize in its longer lengths would be FIS-compliant (if not all that FIS-fast), correct?
That makes sense. Unless it's under the minimum width (60 mm), which seems unlikely.

Quote:
3. The spread between the min SL & GS sizes is 15cm. I recall an Atomic race letter last year that suggested a 20cm SL/GS differential. Is 15-20cm a reasonable rule-of-thumb spread, and not just for compliant skis, but also for Master’s setups?
Now you're getting over my head (with the question, if not the skis). I would've tended to thing the spread could be even more than 20 cm.

One observation: the length restrictions might force you into a narrower than ideal spread. Put another way: if what you really want is a 160 SL and 180 GS, the fact that rules force you to use a 165 SL doesn't magically make a 185 GS ideal.
post #37 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Shefftz
Thanks for posting this. Three q's:

1. Any speculation (and yes, I know it's just speculation) on whether these rules will be enforced at entry-level USSA JI/II/Sr races for middle and back of the pack racers?
Very highly unlikely. Unless someone hates you.
Quote:
2. The Ski mag review (okay, not exactly a definitive race info source, but wanted to confirm my understanding) refers to the Rossi 9S Oversize (i.e., their second-level sorta race ski for SL) as noncompliant with FIS regs. But since the SL rules still don’t have a minimum radius, the 9S Oversize in its longer lengths would be FIS-compliant (if not all that FIS-fast), correct?
Correct...with a caveat. I haven't checked, but it is possible that the 9S oversize mounted with one of the "recommended" Power bindings (which also has a lift) may exceed standheight regs. No one is going to check your standheight if you aren't pissing people off by winning, and any good shop can swap that lifter out for something called the WC spacer. The spacer is also referred to as a "just enough" lift.

55mm standheight for J1/2/SR.

And good call on distrusting SKI on race info.
Quote:
3. The spread between the min SL & GS sizes is 15cm. I recall an Atomic race letter last year that suggested a 20cm SL/GS differential. Is 15-20cm a reasonable rule-of-thumb spread, and not just for compliant skis, but also for Master’s setups?
Very reasonable. It really depends more on your local terrain and coursesetters than anything else.
-Garrett
post #38 of 53
I may be missing something here.....but when you enter any form of competition you normally expect to comply with the rules....so why would you purposely use an illegal equipment set-up just because you know you will not win or be placed in the top 10?.

Would you play a competitive golf match with more than the max 14 clubs in your bag just because you don't expect to win....??

Inadvertently breaking the rules is one thing, but starting out knowing you are breaking them is another. Where does that leave the middle of the pack guy who finishes just behind but is using legal euipment??

Just a thought....
post #39 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier
I may be missing something here.....but when you enter any form of competition you normally expect to comply with the rules....so why would you purposely use an illegal equipment set-up just because you know you will not win or be placed in the top 10?.

Would you play a competitive golf match with more than the max 14 clubs in your bag just because you don't expect to win....??

Inadvertently breaking the rules is one thing, but starting out knowing you are breaking them is another. Where does that leave the middle of the pack guy who finishes just behind but is using legal euipment??

Just a thought....
In any form of racing, people will/should use any advantage they can possibly get, whether or not it is morally sound.

In reality, they aren't going to screw over all the kids that had legal skis last year and suddenly aren't eligible for competition because they can't afford new equipment.

The guy in the middle of the pack with letter of the law legal equipment obviously isn't leveraging all his options. Its the same in any type of racing. If a rule isn't enforced, it isn't a rule.

My state USSA association openly solicits donations. What for? To help convince low points racers to race in NY, to help everyone achieve lower points. They pay for race entries/memberships for elite racers. They could use the money to finance membership/race entries for disadvantaged kids....but then the poor kids might beat the rich kids. That would be bad. Ski racing in the US hates that.
-Garrett
post #40 of 53
I agree with Scotskier. All of us could spend money other places besides buying our kids new gear. But the rules are the rules and everyone should follow them. It is not fair to those of us who do comply, to let any kids whether they come in 1st last or in the middle ski on illegtal equipment.

My guess is since this whole equipment issue has been settled with USSA you will see a much higher incidence of enforcement at all level of USSA racing. And it should be enforced.

One additional point, like it or not Ski Racing in the US is an elitist sport.

How can kids who only train one or 2 days a week compete with with the kids that live at say Squaw Valley & train 7 days a week. I can't afford that, but my kids have to race against them. So the rules are the rules !!! FOLLOW THEM!!! and I don't give a damn where you finish in the races. Barry bonds has to play by the same baseball rules as any other rookie or veteran. You don't change the rules based on the competitors ability or ability to pay!

A few years back when the 50mm boot rule first came out and Atomic's first generation 10.50 Race Boot was know to be too high with footbed and all I saw racers get out kicked out of the start schack before they ran if they had that boot on.

We had already bought that boot and ended up spending another $400or $500 on a legal boot, because I had a feeling my son would do well at JO's that year.

Guess what? All kinds of racers were on illegal gear at JO's that year and on the very boot they had been kicked of the hill for wearing in the earlier race. There has to be some consistency!

If you can't afford to pay you can't play!!!

I mean how far can you take it? Give samll kids a handicap so they can compete with big kids on a flatter downhill course?

Give big kids a handicap so they can compete with small kids on a steep technical slalom?

There has to be some consistency and rules in any sport. Are they all gonna be fair all the time , probably not but the playing field can never be made perfectly level. One kid races in a blizzard with flat light & 2 racers later it is sunny with perfect visibility!

The saying goes: "That's Ski Racing"

One more thing!! I hate the idea of great racers sandbagging to give their points away. I view it absolutely as cheating and it is absolute BS!
post #41 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman
I agree with Scotskier. All of us could spend money other places besides buying our kids new gear. But the rules are the rules and everyone should follow them. It is not fair to those of us who do comply, to let any kids whether they come in 1st last or in the middle ski on illegtal equipment.

My guess is since this whole equipment issue has been settled with USSA you will see a much higher incidence of enforcement at all level of USSA racing. And it should be enforced.
Right. I'll believe it when I see it.

Meanwhile, I'll stick by this. If it isn't enforced, it isn't a rule. And anyone that follows a nonexistent rule that puts them at a disadvantage isn't very much of a competitor.

Thats how it is, how it always has been, and likely how it always will be. In all sports, especially forms of racing.
Quote:
One additional point, like it or not Ski Racing in the US is an elitist sport.
No wonder we suck so hard at it, as a whole, most of the time. We have more recreational skiers than Austria has residents.

How do you explain the lack of results from your USSA?
Quote:
How can kids who only train one or 2 days a week compete with with the kids that live at say Squaw Valley & train 7 days a week. I can't afford that, but my kids have to race against them. So the rules are the rules !!! FOLLOW THEM!!! and I don't give a damn where you finish in the races. Barry bonds has to play by the same baseball rules as any other rookie or veteran. You don't change the rules based on the competitors ability or ability to pay!
Actually, you do. Lots of racing organizations give poorer teams/individuals a break. From F1 (the pinnacle form of racing, period) on down.

Thats right, the pinnacle form of racing sport in the world gives the poor teams a break. NASCAR is trying desperately to do the same thing, and already do in some ways.
Quote:
Guess what? All kinds of racers were on illegal gear at JO's that year and on the very boot they had been kicked of the hill for wearing in the earlier race. There has to be some consistency!
Nothing about USSA is consistent. I've been to more races that haven't been run by the book than ones that have.
Quote:
If you can't afford to pay you can't play!!!
Meanwhile, our best athletes aren't wealthy kids. I welcome you to show me otherwise.

Considering the tiny number of financially disadvantaged kids ski-racing, its nothing short of amazing how many of them have done so well at the WC level.
Quote:
I mean how far can you take it? Give samll kids a handicap so they can compete with big kids on a flatter downhill course?
Give big kids a handicap so they can compete with small kids on a steep technical slalom?
Trite, and completely unrelated to the concept of allowing more people to compete at all. Lets stay on topic.
Quote:
There has to be some consistency and rules in any sport. Are they all gonna be fair all the time , probably not but the playing field can never be made perfectly level. One kid races in a blizzard with flat light & 2 racers later it is sunny with perfect visibility!

The saying goes: "That's Ski Racing"

One more thing!! I hate the idea of great racers sandbagging to give their points away. I view it absolutely as cheating and it is absolute BS!
Yes, and yet it is how the majority of racers in the country get their season best points races.

On the finance topic; the shortsightedness of the ski-racing community is what dooms the US ski team to mediocrity. Get more people involved in ski racing, and perhaps you'll find some real athletes.
-Garrett

EDIT: Just to make this abundantly clear. We are disputing the use of "illegal" skis by J1/2/SRs. USSA Masters are completely free to use the good stuff, like 155 Fischer WC SCs and the like.

Oh, and my skis are all legal. I bought 165s for SL last year, primarily so I could sell them this year easily.
post #42 of 53
You didn't mention random enforcement now did you?
How would you feel if you busted out the best run of your life and are usually in the middle of the pack and you actually podiumed and got DQ'd becaase at the last race they didn't check. But on your day in the "SUNSHINE' someone decides to check. That is no way to run an organzation of any kind.

Just follow and enforce the rules! Is that so hard? And you know it is more fair, admit it!



May be the best points of the season, but those kids will probably never ski those points ever again. We had a slaom race like that here last season! it was a joke. J3 with 70 slalom points and their points are lower than the damn penalty at the J3 races. I see no point other than to grease the egos of stupid parents who think their little J3 was really only a couple seconds behind the NCAA Slalom champ! It is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Everyone should ski their absolute best and let the chips fall where they may. Obviously you have no conscience and think cheating is perfectly acceptable. I call Bullshit on that!

Trite? Hardly! And right on point!

I also respectfully disagree with just about everything else you said. You apparantly are one who has no respect for rules or authority! Guys like you are the problem.

You trying to tell me European Ski teams aren't government sponsored at least partially! So don't try to put some stupid guilt trip on the masses for not embracing this sport.
post #43 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman
May be the best points of the season, but those kids will probably never ski those points ever again. We had a slaom race like that here last season! it was a joke. J3 with 70 slalom points and their points are lower than the damn penalty at the J3 races. I see no point other than to grease the egos of stupid parents who think their little J3 was really only a couple seconds behind the NCAA Slalom champ! It is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Wholeheartedly agreed. Its a really stupid phenomenon.
Quote:
Everyone should ski their absolute best and let the chips fall where they may. Obviously you have no conscience and think cheating is perfectly acceptable. I call Bullshit on that!
No conscience? You've determined this from a couple posts on a brand new ski racing rule? Wow. Talk about premature judgement.

I don't think it is acceptable. The kids that were kicking ass last year were on 155s. The kids that can't afford new skis this year will likely be on 155s. Very few organizers are going to have the heart to tell those kids to go home.

I never said it was acceptable. I merely stated the reality. It is like to be loosely enforced at best, and if many kids are skiing on illicit skis, its a quite large disadvantage to have a kid on 165s. If you are buying new skis for a J1, by all means, buy 165s. No prudent shop would sell you anything else.

How bout instead of personal attacks, you discuss the issues at hand? Thanks.

Quote:
Trite? Hardly! And right on point!
The rule argument isn't trite. The finance argument isn't trite. Your random "example" that doesn't pertain to any real world situation, is IMHO trite.
Quote:
I also respectfully disagree with just about everything else you said. You apparantly are one who has no respect for rules or authority! Guys like you are the problem.
Right. I think you need to look up "respectful" and redefine "respectful disagreement" in your mind.
Quote:
You trying to tell me European Ski teams aren't government sponsored at least partially! So don't try to put some stupid guilt trip on the masses for not embracing this sport.
What the heck is that? Seriously, where are you going with that argument? Plenty of sports are "at least partially" government sponsored in the US. What is your point?

Someone want to give me a good reason why the US Ski Team doesn't dominate?
-Garrett
post #44 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman
You didn't mention random enforcement now did you?
How would you feel if you busted out the best run of your life and are usually in the middle of the pack and you actually podiumed and got DQ'd becaase at the last race they didn't check. But on your day in the "SUNSHINE' someone decides to check. That is no way to run an organzation of any kind.
Personally, I've never skied on anything illegal. I'm too much of a gear geek to do it.

How many times have you seen standheight actually measured? How bout USSA fairly enforces the rules that already exist? When they adopt new rules, but don't fix the broken enforcement system, they just make the whole thing an even bigger joke.
-Garrett

EDIT: Again, in the interest of abundant clarity. I have no problem with the new rules. In fact, I think they have important and worthwhile safety implications. I just have a big problem with the way that they are likely to be enforced, since past USSA practice is a fairly good indicator of future practice.
post #45 of 53
Wow!

We agree now!

Cool!

And i didn't say you personally skied on illegal equipment.


Lots of kids ski much better on 165. they have the same turn radius but are much less sensitve to fore/aft balance. i didn't se nearly as many ass over tea kettle crashes on the longer skis.

I train Masters on a 164 and like much bettter than my 157. They have near the same turn radius but are much more stable!

And I have seen standheight measured.
post #46 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman
Wow!

We agree now!

Cool!

And i didn't say you personally skied on illegal equipment.


Lots of kids ski much better on 165. they have the same turn radius but are much less sensitve to fore/aft balance. i didn't se nearly as many ass over tea kettle crashes on the longer skis.

I train Masters on a 164 and like much bettter than my 157. They have near the same turn radius but are much more stable!

And I have seen standheight measured.
Glad we can agree. I really do think it is a good rule. I just hope they do a consistent, thorough job of enforcing it. My sarcasm comes from past experience, particularly in this region.

Nothing is more frustrating then following rules and seeing others break them, flaunt that they are breaking them, and somehow completely escape accountability.
-Garrett
post #47 of 53
My prediction is you're going to see pretty consistent enforcement on ski length requirements at the USSA level this year. Stand height is difficult to enforce because it involves time consuming measurement sessions to discover infractions. Ski length is not; you just have to look at the ski. Most races are used for various higher level competition quota selections, and those quotas can be based on results quite deep into the finish order. Coaches looking to pack as many kids into those quota spots as possible will be on the lookout for violators if their kids are playing by the rules.

And Garrett, I too find it disturbing that so many kids can't afford to participate in competitive skiing on a serious level. Not because we might as a nation make a better showing on the international stage, but because so many kids are restricted from the great personal benefits derived from going through the striving for excellence process in this great life sport.
post #48 of 53
Thread Starter 
Good Lord! What has become of my thread? :
post #49 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by carvemeister
Good Lord! What has become of my thread? :
It went the way of all good threads!
post #50 of 53
To continue the thread highjack...

The parents of junior racers were informed a couple years ago that this was the wave of the future, so they were warned and by now the kids should have upgraded their equipment. The financial argument doesn't quite play here. Sure there are a lot of cheap 155cm slaloms available now (which is great for female racers), but I'm seeing a lot more 165cm skis available as well. We still haven't seen the apex of slalom ski development, as a lot of flex and sidecut isses still need to be worked out.

I do believe that younger athletes (and old ones too) should continue to be able to "run what they brung". The fast kids always seem to rise to the top at that level, no matter what they ski on. Training is more important than gear, and that should be driven home at a young age- lest they end up a gear whore like me. I'd rather have them comfortably gaining skills on appropriate equipment than trying to muscle around a 166cm Fischer Slalom just because an arbitrary length number was picked by some European skiing organization. Let the coaches decide what length to put them on and what progression to go through to bring them to FIS compliance.
post #51 of 53
Okay, just to throw in a potential real-world example:

Suppose a not-great J2 shows up at a slalom on last year's Atomic SL11s in last year's 164 cm length (marked right there on the ski). Would they disqualify him?

I don't mean that as rhetorical question -- I'm actually sort of curious (and yes, it's supposed to be a close case). (It's not a real-world question either, at least not for me).
post #52 of 53
Thanks for the answers to my questions.

As to the controversy I unintentionally sparked:

Throughout the 1990s I coached professionally part-time at the NCAA intercollegiate level. Now I am much more interested in various forms of self-propelled skiing (i.e., ski mountaineering, backcountry skiing, xc skate skiing).

But I still compete in a local night league gs race nine weeks out of the year, do some masters-level training (last yr at Gunstock, probably this year at Mt Snow & Killington w/ the cheapo ASC pass), enter a few masters races, and even enter some JI/II/Sr races when they are close to Boston.

I weigh only 145 lbs: my SL skis are 158cm, GS are 174 w/ a 18m radius. I’ve been thinking about getting new skis, though with so many other pairs in the quiver for self-propelled skiing, probably going to hold off another season. But if I do get new skis, I believe that my skiing will be worse off (both from my own personal perspective, and for my results in the night league, plus occasional masters races) by being forced onto a 165cm sl ski and a 180cm gs ski with a 21m radius. (Oh, plus when I got Dobies last yr from racestocksports.com PJ installed canted lifters that put me over the boot limit.)

Now if I enter a JI/II/Sr race, I suppose it is possible that my “illegal” gear will mean that maybe 5 or so teenagers will be starting after me instead of before me. Doesn’t make me feel like much of a scofflaw though...
post #53 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjjohnston
Okay, just to throw in a potential real-world example:

Suppose a not-great J2 shows up at a slalom on last year's Atomic SL11s in last year's 164 cm length (marked right there on the ski). Would they disqualify him?

I don't mean that as rhetorical question -- I'm actually sort of curious (and yes, it's supposed to be a close case). (It's not a real-world question either, at least not for me).
164cm I believe are still legal, they give you -1 cm leeway in length!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Racing Gurus - I request your assistance