or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How fast do you ski? - Page 11

post #301 of 472
From my perspective as a older intermediate skier 60mph is the upper limits on a 170cm ski. To reach 70mph or higher a 180cm ski would be advised. Perhaps a world class skier would surpass my expectations.
post #302 of 472

Definitely. I Strongly advise against exceeding 40 mph on 13 m radius skis; if you hook in you're in for a long recovery at the very least.  That's what long radius skis are made for.  However inquiring minds want to know.  It's for science.;) 

post #303 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by slider View Post

You are not really going even close to 82.4 mph. More like under 60 mph and that's being generous.

 

I'm the first to admit that I don't believe Ski Tracks is 100% accurate.  But off by 25%?  Not a chance.

post #304 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alta Dude View Post
 

 

I'm the first to admit that I don't believe Ski Tracks is 100% accurate.  But off by 25%?  Not a chance.

My Garmin on my MTB said I held 120mph for 35 seconds on a ride last week. Doesn't mean I believe it. Probably off by 50%.:bs:

post #305 of 472

60 on a MTB sounds fun!

post #306 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowfan View Post
 

60 on a MTB sounds fun!


Reality was it was tight twisty singletrack and probably closer to 6 mph. But hey, my Garmin can't be wrong.

post #307 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by RatherPlayThanWork View Post
 


Reality was it was tight twisty singletrack and probably closer to 6 mph. But hey, my Garmin can't be wrong.

 

Eh.. I think everyone's seen these things get fooled occasionally. Single data points aren't really to be trusted on any GPS or app I don't think. But usually those kinds of outliers are pretty obvious, as in your case.

 

But given more data points (in time, or runs, or whatever it is you're doing) I still think the accuracy is pretty good.

post #308 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by slider View Post

From my perspective as a older intermediate skier 60mph is the upper limits on a 170cm ski. To reach 70mph or higher a 180cm ski would be ILL-advised. Perhaps a world class skier would surpass my expectations.

 

I think you'd be better served by an SG or DH ski.

post #309 of 472

70mph on a 16m turn radius ski is best described at twitchy which is why I think on nice 35m radius skis it would feel pretty sold/stable on a billiard smooth piste.

 

I think it's a combo of getting over the "this is going to hurt hard if I stack it" + "I'm now committed so I will ride it out rather than stick my arms out and panic" plus skier skill not to catch an edge, hold a good tuck and deal with any little terrain undulations that suddenly come up.

 

Eventually I guess you just reach a terminal velocity depending upon slope angle, piste friction and wind resistance.

post #310 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hrstrat57
Oh man Kevinf what a great post....wish you had chimed in before. We got a couple of clowns who regularly post about their 60mph recreational skiing expoits. I have wasted my time on several occasions...(check my posts) trying to refute their silly claims. You have done a much better job of it.

To sum it up skierxman's instructor friend is spot on.....

Tho I have skied quite a bit faster myself...

on rare occasions

I have been clocked with a radar gun. 65 is not all that hard with a steep hard slope and no turns. I'm not saying that i go that fast all the time but you make it sound impossible.


Were you in a speed suit?  If not that speed is almost impossible, if you were looking at it with a calibrated speed gun. (Even the best guns aren't accurate enough for speed skiing, they use traps, and time the travel between 2 broken beams.)

 

We are lucky to see many of the top racers in the world hit those speeds outside of the Down Hill, Super G race winners on the world cup averaged 60.1 mph for the winners.

 

It's not impossible, but without the right set up equipment, tune, body positioning, and clothing it would be almost impossible, and be far beyond 99.9% (1 in 1000) of skiers ability.

post #311 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by S J View Post
 

70mph on a 16m turn radius ski is best described at twitchy which is why I think on nice 35m radius skis it would feel pretty sold/stable on a billiard smooth piste.

 

I think it's a combo of getting over the "this is going to hurt hard if I stack it" + "I'm now committed so I will ride it out rather than stick my arms out and panic" plus skier skill not to catch an edge, hold a good tuck and deal with any little terrain undulations that suddenly come up.

 

Eventually I guess you just reach a terminal velocity depending upon slope angle, piste friction and wind resistance.

What does radius have to do with it?

 

I think you have confused radius of the ski shape to other attributes on the ski that make it unstable or twitchy at high speeds.  You can have a 16m ski that doesn't transition from one turn to the next very easy, has a very stiff construction, and would hold up rather well.

post #312 of 472

Old school Super-G skis feel solid and composed doing 60 mph.  13 m side cut radius slalom skis...not so much, although they will turn where you direct them (provided you don't hook them up).

post #313 of 472

Radius and length matter in how comfy the run is and what can be done at speed, but not so much in limiting terminal velocity; wind resistance trumps all at higher speeds.  In case you missed it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alta Dude View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by slider View Post

170cm skis @ 82.4 mph. Ok a little common sense here.

 

Just sharing my experience.  Note that's also why I said it would be nice to have a radar gun to see how fast one is really going.  BTW, AC40s all waxed and tuned up are very fast skis.  You don't have to be on 207s to go fast.


Or 2008s

http://www.epicski.com/t/67243/a-flawed-experiment-v-f-long-and-short-skis

 

Chart posted above (Talisman) the data error 84 (not 64).

post #314 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by msprace View Post
 


Were you in a speed suit?  If not that speed is almost impossible, if you were looking at it with a calibrated speed gun. (Even the best guns aren't accurate enough for speed skiing, they use traps, and time the travel between 2 broken beams.)

 

A trap would certainly be more accurate, but even a poorly calibrated radar gun should be within a few miles an hour. Even an awful one would be within 10 I'd guess.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by msprace View Post
 

We are lucky to see many of the top racers in the world hit those speeds outside of the Down Hill, Super G race winners on the world cup averaged 60.1 mph for the winners.

 

 

Average speed includes time in the flats and slowing down to for turning. I think I've seen some crazy numbers early in races - like 60 MPH almost before the first turn - straight-lining the start. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by msprace View Post
 

It's not impossible, but without the right set up equipment, tune, body positioning, and clothing it would be almost impossible, and be far beyond 99.9% (1 in 1000) of skiers ability.

 

 

I'm not sure why you think it's so hard to get to 60 MPH. It certainly wouldn't need a speed suit. This point might have been made earlier in this thread... but anyway...

 

Given a long and steep run to straight-line (i.e. long enough to accelerate) the only things slowing you down are friction between the snow and skis, and air resistance. Thinking about this in relation to sky diving (and hopefully I've got my physics right) :

 

-- Air resistance equals your weight (force of gravity) at about 120 MPH in the spread skydiving position. But air resistance changes as the square of speed. So at 60 MPH, air resistance would be 1/4 of that - assuming a skier has an equivalent area hitting the wind as a sky diver. 

-- You're on a slope, so the force pulling you down the hill isn't as much as skydiving. On a 30 degree slope, it would be half the force of freefall (given by the sine of the slope).

-- The coefficient of friction from a few sources looks to be 0.1 or less. And the perpendicular force to a 30 degree slope is 0.86  (cosine of the slope) compared to gravity. Assuming 0.1 CoF, that gives a friction force of 0.086 (coefficient of friction x force into the slope).

 

So compared to skydiving, you've got 1/2 the force of gravity down the hill, and 1/4 the air resistance. The friction component is small, and I think it can be ignored for this rough calculation. You should be able to reach 60 MPH pretty easily. You'd hit air resistance equal to the downhill force of a 30 degree slope around 85 MPH. Adding friction with skis back in, the max speed would be about 77.

 

Both of those values (85 and 77) could be higher if the profile presented to the air is less than a sky diver - which I'd guess it typically is when skiing. 

post #315 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbostedo View Post
 

 

A trap would certainly be more accurate, but even a poorly calibrated radar gun should be within a few miles an hour. Even an awful one would be within 10 I'd guess.

 

 

Average speed includes time in the flats and slowing down to for turning. I think I've seen some crazy numbers early in races - like 60 MPH almost before the first turn - straight-lining the start. 

 

 

I'm not sure why you think it's so hard to get to 60 MPH. It certainly wouldn't need a speed suit. This point might have been made earlier in this thread... but anyway...

 

Given a long and steep run to straight-line (i.e. long enough to accelerate) the only things slowing you down are friction between the snow and skis, and air resistance. Thinking about this in relation to sky diving (and hopefully I've got my physics right) :

 

-- Air resistance equals your weight (force of gravity) at about 120 MPH in the spread skydiving position. But air resistance changes as the square of speed. So at 60 MPH, air resistance would be 1/4 of that - assuming a skier has an equivalent area hitting the wind as a sky diver. 

-- You're on a slope, so the force pulling you down the hill isn't as much as skydiving. On a 30 degree slope, it would be half the force of freefall (given by the sine of the slope).

-- The coefficient of friction from a few sources looks to be 0.1 or less. And the perpendicular force to a 30 degree slope is 0.86  (cosine of the slope) compared to gravity. Assuming 0.1 CoF, that gives a friction force of 0.086 (coefficient of friction x force into the slope).

 

So compared to skydiving, you've got 1/2 the force of gravity down the hill, and 1/4 the air resistance. The friction component is small, and I think it can be ignored for this rough calculation. You should be able to reach 60 MPH pretty easily. You'd hit air resistance equal to the downhill force of a 30 degree slope around 85 MPH. Adding friction with skis back in, the max speed would be about 77.

 

Both of those values (85 and 77) could be higher if the profile presented to the air is less than a sky diver - which I'd guess it typically is when skiing. 


I don't know to many people that can handle straight lining a 30 degree slope, that would be a 57.7% grade, and not a lot of public areas that have that steep in a groomed environment.

 

Steepest area on Birds of Prey World Cup course is 24.4 degrees with a length of 1000 feet or more, other than 29 feet on the talon turn which hits 32.3 degrees no other part of the course breaks 30 for even 10 feet  (this area has bumps on it 5-6 out of every 7 days, good luck straight lining it).  Even so 29 feet of that pitch isn't enough to get you that speed.

 

Skydiving Air Density plays an issue as well, with most jumps at 12,500 feet or more.  Average altitude skiing is about 8000 (in the mountains).  It's colder when you are skiing than for the average sky diver.  Skydiving has an average Air Density of: 0.0473 lm3/ft3, while skiing has an average of 0.0611lbm/ft3  So the air resistance is already 23% more skiing at the same speed in the same clothes as skydiving.  The volume of your body with ski pants, and jacket on is about 1.5 inches more on both sides, front and back.  So if you are 69"x 19" (average of waist and chest measurements across) in a speed suit, now you are 69" by 22", that increased that surface area on the front by 3x69 when you put on the jacket and pants.  Plus all of the drag along the surface of your skiing position, granted your height will be reduced to about 32" (if you are in a really good position, strong enough to hold that position, and flexible enough), but the running length of drag gets increased while in your tuck, unless you have a tuck as good as Miller or Vonn (who have spent thousands of dollars working on that alone).

 

A World Cup suit is more than a second faster than a standard speed suit in a WC downhill course, where the winners are usually around 100 seconds, so that would be a 1% in time due to super advanced surfaces on a speed suit.  Body position known by even people that were great racers as kids isn't going to be that great.  Vonn improved her tuck position 5 years ago, and reduced drag in the wind tunnel by 8% (She and her ex-husband/coach spent over $10k on that week in the tunnel).  You also aren't buying those suits for $500-$600 dollars either.  Beer league skiers save 1-2 seconds on a 30 second course, and they aren't going anywhere near 60mph.  The new suit tech that came out in 2010 reduced drag for the average tester by 3% according to Spyder!  That's one suit over the previous WC level suit, not the cheap suits.

 

The average ski jacket alone provides so much more drag, let alone the ski pants than what a skydiver will wear.

 

Your force of gravity on your speed needs to be dropped by almost 20%, the lesser grade will increase friction as well, and the friction you read about is on a properly tuned ski (world cuppers are getting .05 coefficient, while the average USSA kid racing is getting about .18, and average skier is .25 huge difference from the Swix study).  I don't think these people claiming to hit 60 plus are putting Cera-F on their skis, besides it would be gone by the time they ski over to the lift and to the top of the run.

 

60mph before the first turn in a Super G????  I was quoting top speed not average speed for the Super G FYI, so flats and turns aren't in play.  I've worked 37 WC events in my life, as referee and all the way up to Chief of Race.  I've never seen anyone skiing any of the WC runs at half the speed I see the real racers, and I ski with a lot of former World Cup racers, Nor-Am (including myself) racers, and current FIS Masters racers.  Even when we are letting it really rip, we are no were near the speeds they get.  40mph is moving really fast on water, whether it is liquid or crystalized into snow or ice.

 

I've spoken my piece.  Agree or disagree, but get out the equipment, and make a video with a calibrated speed gun if you want to prove me wrong.  I know Spyder, Phenix, etc... would not be happy about all the speed suit sales they would lose though.  (If I were still at my old job I would have access to that information from studies done by Spyder).

post #316 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by msprace View Post
 


I don't know to many people that can handle straight lining a 30 degree slope, that would be a 57.7% grade, and not a lot of public areas that have that steep in a groomed environment.

 

Steepest area on Birds of Prey World Cup course is 24.4 degrees with a length of 1000 feet or more, other than 29 feet on the talon turn which hits 32.3 degrees no other part of the course breaks 30 for even 10 feet  (this area has bumps on it 5-6 out of every 7 days, good luck straight lining it).  Even so 29 feet of that pitch isn't enough to get you that speed.

 

Skydiving Air Density plays an issue as well, with most jumps at 12,500 feet or more.  Average altitude skiing is about 8000 (in the mountains).  It's colder when you are skiing than for the average sky diver.  Skydiving has an average Air Density of: 0.0473 lm3/ft3, while skiing has an average of 0.0611lbm/ft3  So the air resistance is already 23% more skiing at the same speed in the same clothes as skydiving.  The volume of your body with ski pants, and jacket on is about 1.5 inches more on both sides, front and back.  So if you are 69"x 19" (average of waist and chest measurements across) in a speed suit, now you are 69" by 22", that increased that surface area on the front by 3x69 when you put on the jacket and pants.  Plus all of the drag along the surface of your skiing position, granted your height will be reduced to about 32" (if you are in a really good position, strong enough to hold that position, and flexible enough), but the running length of drag gets increased while in your tuck, unless you have a tuck as good as Miller or Vonn (who have spent thousands of dollars working on that alone).

 

A World Cup suit is more than a second faster than a standard speed suit in a WC downhill course, where the winners are usually around 100 seconds, so that would be a 1% in time due to super advanced surfaces on a speed suit.  Body position known by even people that were great racers as kids isn't going to be that great.  Vonn improved her tuck position 5 years ago, and reduced drag in the wind tunnel by 8% (She and her ex-husband/coach spent over $10k on that week in the tunnel).  You also aren't buying those suits for $500-$600 dollars either.  Beer league skiers save 1-2 seconds on a 30 second course, and they aren't going anywhere near 60mph.  The new suit tech that came out in 2010 reduced drag for the average tester by 3% according to Spyder!  That's one suit over the previous WC level suit, not the cheap suits.

 

The average ski jacket alone provides so much more drag, let alone the ski pants than what a skydiver will wear.

 

Your force of gravity on your speed needs to be dropped by almost 20%, the lesser grade will increase friction as well, and the friction you read about is on a properly tuned ski (world cuppers are getting .05 coefficient, while the average USSA kid racing is getting about .18, and average skier is .25 huge difference from the Swix study).  I don't think these people claiming to hit 60 plus are putting Cera-F on their skis, besides it would be gone by the time they ski over to the lift and to the top of the run.

 

60mph before the first turn in a Super G????  I was quoting top speed not average speed for the Super G FYI, so flats and turns aren't in play.  I've worked 37 WC events in my life, as referee and all the way up to Chief of Race.  I've never seen anyone skiing any of the WC runs at half the speed I see the real racers, and I ski with a lot of former World Cup racers, Nor-Am (including myself) racers, and current FIS Masters racers.  Even when we are letting it really rip, we are no were near the speeds they get.  40mph is moving really fast on water, whether it is liquid or crystalized into snow or ice.

 

I've spoken my piece.  Agree or disagree, but get out the equipment, and make a video with a calibrated speed gun if you want to prove me wrong.  I know Spyder, Phenix, etc... would not be happy about all the speed suit sales they would lose though.  (If I were still at my old job I would have access to that information from studies done by Spyder).

 

Thanks for the detailed response! Good data there... a few thoughts :

 

-- I was actually thinking downhill, not Super G - mea culpa there for not pointing that out. And I believe it was the last Olympics where they showed speeds into the first big turn at Rosa Khotur was up in that range. I could be mis-remembering though. 

 

-- 0.25 for a CoF, calculating the rough way I did, would give a top speed of 64 MPH wind-resistance limited

 

-- I know it was a bit tongue-in-cheek perhaps, but I don't think being able to go fast in regular clothes would do anything to speed suit sales... those suits would still let people accelerate quicker and hit higher speeds, right?

 

-- I'm still thinking that a sky diver's surface area presented to the wind (arms out, legs spread, also generally wearing a jump suit of some kind) is still quite a bit more than a skier straight-lining a run... I couldn't find any real comparison online though.

 

I did find this though, in a Wall Street Journal article from the 2010 Olympics where they went around radar gunning various winter olympians at various events (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704479404575087542656588862) :

 

"When Christopher Del Bosco of Canada qualified for the semifinals in men's ski cross, he was going faster than 54 miles per hour as he came over the final jump of the course. "

 

54 miles an hour in ski cross with normal clothes on the straight of a generally twisty course?

post #317 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbostedo View Post
 

 

Thanks for the detailed response! Good data there... a few thoughts :

 

-- I was actually thinking downhill, not Super G - mea culpa there for not pointing that out. And I believe it was the last Olympics where they showed speeds into the first big turn at Rosa Khotur was up in that range. I could be mis-remembering though. 

 

-- 0.25 for a CoF, calculating the rough way I did, would give a top speed of 64 MPH wind-resistance limited

 

-- I know it was a bit tongue-in-cheek perhaps, but I don't think being able to go fast in regular clothes would do anything to speed suit sales... those suits would still let people accelerate quicker and hit higher speeds, right?

 

-- I'm still thinking that a sky diver's surface area presented to the wind (arms out, legs spread, also generally wearing a jump suit of some kind) is still quite a bit more than a skier straight-lining a run... I couldn't find any real comparison online though.

 

I did find this though, in a Wall Street Journal article from the 2010 Olympics where they went around radar gunning various winter olympians at various events (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704479404575087542656588862) :

 

"When Christopher Del Bosco of Canada qualified for the semifinals in men's ski cross, he was going faster than 54 miles per hour as he came over the final jump of the course. "

 

54 miles an hour in ski cross with normal clothes on the straight of a generally twisty course?


Good points, and yes the downhill they can get a lot of speed before the first turn, but the turns are generally designed for a WC downhill to make the course the fastest they can, over that distance nothing is straight.  54 in a twisty course, yeah but they are pros, putting everything on the line, train more in a month than most do in a lifetime.  WC ski running, and Super High Floro Waxes with not putting them on until they are going to run.  Things to keep in mind, but 50mph I will believe a lot of skiers could achieve, 60 is really another barrier though.  

post #318 of 472

I've only been skiing since the beginning of February 2015 and got roughly 10 ski days in this season. My planks of choice are the Blizzard Peacemakers, which aren't race skis by any means, but they are pretty long at 186cm(considering I'm only 5'9" 165 lbs). I can carve pretty comfortably through crud going 40+ mph and hit some pretty decent sized jumps going 25 mph for probably 30 ft gaps(GPS had me clocked at 35mph in the air/landing). I'm also an adrenaline junky who lives for the speed and also hit jumps I have no business being on, because hey, what's the worse that can happen? :) I bomb down hills on a long board going 40 mph(without a helmet like an idiot) and a lot can go wrong there, so skiing fast doesn't really intimidate me(hit 60 mph already).  I'm also pretty athletic though being an NCAA wrestler and having strong legs, which helps for being stable at high speed. I'm sure my form is pretty sloppy, but I'm just having fun(being aware of other skiers obviously). Most of my runs unless I'm in the park, I'm going at least 30 mph+. I ski alone needless to say..

post #319 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by msprace View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbostedo View Post
 

 

A trap would certainly be more accurate, but even a poorly calibrated radar gun should be within a few miles an hour. Even an awful one would be within 10 I'd guess.

 

 

Average speed includes time in the flats and slowing down to for turning. I think I've seen some crazy numbers early in races - like 60 MPH almost before the first turn - straight-lining the start. 

 

 

I'm not sure why you think it's so hard to get to 60 MPH. It certainly wouldn't need a speed suit. This point might have been made earlier in this thread... but anyway...

 

Given a long and steep run to straight-line (i.e. long enough to accelerate) the only things slowing you down are friction between the snow and skis, and air resistance. Thinking about this in relation to sky diving (and hopefully I've got my physics right) :

 

-- Air resistance equals your weight (force of gravity) at about 120 MPH in the spread skydiving position. But air resistance changes as the square of speed. So at 60 MPH, air resistance would be 1/4 of that - assuming a skier has an equivalent area hitting the wind as a sky diver. 

-- You're on a slope, so the force pulling you down the hill isn't as much as skydiving. On a 30 degree slope, it would be half the force of freefall (given by the sine of the slope).

-- The coefficient of friction from a few sources looks to be 0.1 or less. And the perpendicular force to a 30 degree slope is 0.86  (cosine of the slope) compared to gravity. Assuming 0.1 CoF, that gives a friction force of 0.086 (coefficient of friction x force into the slope).

 

So compared to skydiving, you've got 1/2 the force of gravity down the hill, and 1/4 the air resistance. The friction component is small, and I think it can be ignored for this rough calculation. You should be able to reach 60 MPH pretty easily. You'd hit air resistance equal to the downhill force of a 30 degree slope around 85 MPH. Adding friction with skis back in, the max speed would be about 77.

 

Both of those values (85 and 77) could be higher if the profile presented to the air is less than a sky diver - which I'd guess it typically is when skiing. 


I don't know to many people that can handle straight lining a 30 degree slope, that would be a 57.7% grade, and not a lot of public areas that have that steep in a groomed environment.

 

Steepest area on Birds of Prey World Cup course is 24.4 degrees with a length of 1000 feet or more, other than 29 feet on the talon turn which hits 32.3 degrees no other part of the course breaks 30 for even 10 feet  (this area has bumps on it 5-6 out of every 7 days, good luck straight lining it).  Even so 29 feet of that pitch isn't enough to get you that speed.

 

Skydiving Air Density plays an issue as well, with most jumps at 12,500 feet or more.  Average altitude skiing is about 8000 (in the mountains).  It's colder when you are skiing than for the average sky diver.  Skydiving has an average Air Density of: 0.0473 lm3/ft3, while skiing has an average of 0.0611lbm/ft3  So the air resistance is already 23% more skiing at the same speed in the same clothes as skydiving.  The volume of your body with ski pants, and jacket on is about 1.5 inches more on both sides, front and back.  So if you are 69"x 19" (average of waist and chest measurements across) in a speed suit, now you are 69" by 22", that increased that surface area on the front by 3x69 when you put on the jacket and pants.  Plus all of the drag along the surface of your skiing position, granted your height will be reduced to about 32" (if you are in a really good position, strong enough to hold that position, and flexible enough), but the running length of drag gets increased while in your tuck, unless you have a tuck as good as Miller or Vonn (who have spent thousands of dollars working on that alone).

 

A World Cup suit is more than a second faster than a standard speed suit in a WC downhill course, where the winners are usually around 100 seconds, so that would be a 1% in time due to super advanced surfaces on a speed suit.  Body position known by even people that were great racers as kids isn't going to be that great.  Vonn improved her tuck position 5 years ago, and reduced drag in the wind tunnel by 8% (She and her ex-husband/coach spent over $10k on that week in the tunnel).  You also aren't buying those suits for $500-$600 dollars either.  Beer league skiers save 1-2 seconds on a 30 second course, and they aren't going anywhere near 60mph.  The new suit tech that came out in 2010 reduced drag for the average tester by 3% according to Spyder!  That's one suit over the previous WC level suit, not the cheap suits.

 

The average ski jacket alone provides so much more drag, let alone the ski pants than what a skydiver will wear.

 

Your force of gravity on your speed needs to be dropped by almost 20%, the lesser grade will increase friction as well, and the friction you read about is on a properly tuned ski (world cuppers are getting .05 coefficient, while the average USSA kid racing is getting about .18, and average skier is .25 huge difference from the Swix study).  I don't think these people claiming to hit 60 plus are putting Cera-F on their skis, besides it would be gone by the time they ski over to the lift and to the top of the run.

 

60mph before the first turn in a Super G????  I was quoting top speed not average speed for the Super G FYI, so flats and turns aren't in play.  I've worked 37 WC events in my life, as referee and all the way up to Chief of Race.  I've never seen anyone skiing any of the WC runs at half the speed I see the real racers, and I ski with a lot of former World Cup racers, Nor-Am (including myself) racers, and current FIS Masters racers.  Even when we are letting it really rip, we are no were near the speeds they get.  40mph is moving really fast on water, whether it is liquid or crystalized into snow or ice.

 

I've spoken my piece.  Agree or disagree, but get out the equipment, and make a video with a calibrated speed gun if you want to prove me wrong.  I know Spyder, Phenix, etc... would not be happy about all the speed suit sales they would lose though.  (If I were still at my old job I would have access to that information from studies done by Spyder).

Just in case you missed it.  http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php/190820-8th-Annual-Radar-Speed-Trap-Day/page2

They have been consistintly above a mile a minute for years. 20 mph above 60 mph that year.

 

EDIt: you can go a lot faster on a SG or DH course run if you don't have to make the gates.  Of course, if you go off the course and get a DNF, you're dead.


Edited by Ghost - 3/27/15 at 6:03am
post #320 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibroni View Post

I've only been skiing since the beginning of February 2015 and got roughly 10 ski days in this season. My planks of choice are the Blizzard Peacemakers, which aren't race skis by any means, but they are pretty long at 186cm(considering I'm only 5'9" 165 lbs). I can carve pretty comfortably through crud going 40+ mph and hit some pretty decent sized jumps going 25 mph for probably 30 ft gaps(GPS had me clocked at 35mph in the air/landing). I'm also an adrenaline junky who lives for the speed and also hit jumps I have no business being on, because hey, what's the worse that can happen? smile.gif I bomb down hills on a long board going 40 mph(without a helmet like an idiot) and a lot can go wrong there, so skiing fast doesn't really intimidate me(hit 60 mph already).  I'm also pretty athletic though being an NCAA wrestler and having strong legs, which helps for being stable at high speed. I'm sure my form is pretty sloppy, but I'm just having fun(being aware of other skiers obviously). Most of my runs unless I'm in the park, I'm going at least 30 mph+. I ski alone needless to say..

popcorn.gif.
post #321 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by msprace View Post
 

What does radius have to do with it?

 

I think you have confused radius of the ski shape to other attributes on the ski that make it unstable or twitchy at high speeds.  You can have a 16m ski that doesn't transition from one turn to the next very easy, has a very stiff construction, and would hold up rather well.

 

I'm not saying that Radius is the only factor affecting a skis twitchiness, torsional and longtitudinual stiffness obviously play their part but my point is by it shape alone, a 16M radius ski is going to try and carve a much tighter turn if placed even on a slight edge versus says a 35M ski which will contribute to a feeling of being grabby for the shorter ski at high speed.

 

The Skis I'm on are Head XRC1200 sandwich construction, nothing like as stiff as a proper GS skis but still stiffer than my Rossi factory SL skis and not too bad at speed.

 

I have no way of knowing for sure if Ski tracks is accurate but it does measure up in the car driving down the mountains so yeah maybe it is 5-10mph out but certainly not more.

post #322 of 472


This is only my 3rd time ever skiing, I know the GPS isn't 100% accurate but I definitely get at least going 45 mph here.. This seemed fast to me at the time but now I carve these speeds easily.

 

The GPS has some latency takes awhile to slow down so at the end of the run it says I'm going way faster than I actually am.

post #323 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibroni View Post
 


This is only my 3rd time ever skiing, I know the GPS isn't 100% accurate but I definitely get at least going 45 mph here.. This seemed fast to me at the time but now I carve these speeds easily.

 

The GPS has some latency takes awhile to slow down so at the end of the run it says I'm going way faster than I actually am.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrjh3AKOzf0

post #324 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by RatherPlayThanWork View Post
 

My Garmin on my MTB said I held 120mph for 35 seconds on a ride last week. Doesn't mean I believe it. Probably off by 50%.:bs:

 

HA!  Amateur.  :p  According to my bike computer, I held 75mph for over  400 miles on a road bike ride one time.  (Ok, in reality, I probably averaged my usual 16, 17mph for about 90 miles, but the computer said I was doing 75mph for over five hours, so it has to be right!).  That computer wasn't GPS based though. 

post #325 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibroni View Post


This is only my 3rd time ever skiing, I know the GPS isn't 100% accurate but I definitely get at least going 45 mph here.. This seemed fast to me at the time but now I carve these speeds easily.

The GPS has some latency takes awhile to slow down so at the end of the run it says I'm going way faster than I actually am.

popcorn.gif.
post #326 of 472
...
Edited by markojp - 3/27/15 at 10:05am
post #327 of 472

speed really has nothing to do with how good of a skier you are anyways, all you need is a steep hill that is straight.. Just take some balls that

Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


popcorn.gif.


speed really isn't a hard thing to do and doesn't have anything to do with how good of a skier you are. all you need is a steep vertical and for it to be straight. Assuming you're not retarded and know how to be stable in a tuck. Oh yeah, and some balls which you probably don't have :rotflmao:

post #328 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibroni View Post
 

speed really has nothing to do with how good of a skier you are anyways, all you need is a steep hill that is straight.. Just take some balls that


speed really isn't a hard thing to do and doesn't have anything to do with how good of a skier you are. all you need is a steep vertical and for it to be straight. Assuming you're not retarded and know how to be stable in a tuck. Oh yeah, and some balls which you probably don't have :rotflmao:

 

 

You let me know when you get your first Downhill starts. 

:beercheer:   (beer's good with popcorn)  

 

(Going 45 is completely reasonable. Carving in three days isn't. Nor is going fast and carving in your time frame. Carry on! ) 

post #329 of 472
Going fast and not being a good skier. Hack.
post #330 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

 

(Going 45 is completely reasonable. Carving in three days isn't. Nor is going fast and carving in your time frame. Carry on! ) 

 

Why do you say that?  It's not impossible, particularly for someone who already plays ice hockey or figure skates, to learn to carve within an hour of first putting on skis.  Technique probably won't be very good, but certainly a useful practical level of skill is achievable.  When I learned I found the movement very natural, the main adjustments were around getting used to gravity, uneven terrain, and the speed.  I don't think too many beginners would have the balls to try going at 45 mph (I still feel uncomfortable above 40 mph), but it seems quite plausible to me that a reckless adrenaline junkie would do so.

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