or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Speeds

My friends and I were always having a discussion at to how quickly we ski so I thought that the enlightened folk on the forum might be able to put it into a ball park.
How fast do I go?
How fast do pros go?

Thank you for your time and inevitable wisdom!
In the olden days (saw this 8 years ago)...
Slalom...20 to 30 mph
Giant Slalom...40 to 50 mph
Downhill... 60 to 80 mph

Things may have changed with the shaped skiis.
Quote:
 Originally posted by Loke:How fast do I go? Thank you for your time and inevitable wisdom!
Loke,
Much as your crawling to me by mentioning my "inevitable wisdom", I would have to say you have asked a very difficult to answer question, difficult to the point of being stupid
How do I know how fast YOU go?
I've never seen you ski.
I've never even seen you walk.
For all I know you could be a monopodic elephant with halitosis trying to brush his tusks with Oboe's Bandits.
Alternatively you could be an amoeba with dysentery on rocket skis.
But, in an effort to pass on some of my "inevitable wisdom", here's something from my 'O' level Physics...

v=u+a*t

v^2=u^2 + 2*a*s

Where:
a = acceleration (m/s^2)
s = distance (m)
t = time (s)
u = initial velocity (m/s)
v = final velocity (m/s)

Now, it is fairly straight forward to calculate your acceleration, all you need to do is work out the resultant of all the forces acting on you (gravity, friction, etc) in Newtons, and if you know your mass (kg), then simply by using:
F=m*a,
We have a=F/m.

If you are starting from stationary, and travelling in a straight line, assuming uniform forces, then we can reduce the equation to:

v=F*t/m

Which should be fairly easy to calculate, even for a "Warthog Faced Buffoon" like yourself.

S

P.S. Of course everything I said above is garbage, because when skiing, one is rarely travelling in a uniform direction, or under uniform conditions & forces, so angular velocity would be more appropriate, and that is dependent on the sidecut of your skis, how much edge you have, how good a skier you are, local conditions, the amount of alcohol you've consumed, etc.
So, to summarise, probably the easiest way to find out is to "borrow" one of the Gatsos from the M25, hook it up to a chair lift pylon, and let it take your photo. If you then return the Gatso to Her Majesty's Constabulary, they will process the photo for you, and even post it out to your house for free, provided you put you car number plate on your back.

[ September 02, 2002, 06:06 AM: Message edited by: Wear the fox hat ? ]
Free skiing in a lift served area probably sees most os us topping out at 30 mph with 40 being on the high side. I bet most recreational skiers move at a high end of 20 mph. These are just wild ass guesses, but I'd bet a few bucks on their accuracy.

Of course, these guesses do not factor in the impact of tusks brushing on my Bandits, and halitosis was not even considered.

[ September 02, 2002, 06:10 AM: Message edited by: oboe ]
I have a friend who skis with a Garmin gps. He tells me he frequently reaches 40 mph, and occasionally 60 mph. He thinks the 60 mph is not accurate, because it only happens when he crashes on a steep drop somehow (maybe he sometimes rotates or bounces the unit somehow that adds to the true speed), but he thinks 40 mph is pretty common. From my experience with road bikes, I'd say I often ski 40 mph. I intend to do more researh on this topic when the season opens (9 weeks and one day to go).
I was just thinking there...
The fastest I have travelled with my skis under me was probably around 575mph. The temperature was somewhere between cold and the devil selling tickets to skate on hell. It was around 38,000ft up. Yes, you guessed it. I was in cattle class on a Boeing 777, and my skis were in the hold (with probably more legroom than I had).

S
Tend to agree with oboe. I doubt our speeds are as high as we'd like to think.

In 1985 when I ski-bummed for a season in Aspen / Snowmass, they used to run amateur speed events. Many of the local top skiers would participate (including my neighbor, who was a terrible skier but that is a different story). They used speed skis, suits with aero attachements, and the aero helmets. The top speeds were only 55-60 mph.

Although the course was obviously shorter / less steep than one would find at the elite speed skiing events, it was very humbling to know that the area's best hotshoes, with speed equipment, were only reaching 55-60. My roommates and I sadly had to lower our assessment of our own speeds on our frequent top-to-bottom blitz runs once we learned of these results.

I skied a few years ago with a battery powered Stalker brand Radar Gun in my hand, which I was able to borrow.

The radar gun will give you a pretty accurate reading on your angular velocity if you point it in the direction your skis are going in the turn, and your linear velocity (which will be slower unless you're straightlining it)if you keep it pointed straight down the hill while turning.

How does that work? It picks up the mass of the ground as you're moving across it, and thus gives you your ground speed.

I used it at Okemo on several different runs and found that my average speed (angular velocity) for my usual moderate to fast cruising on open slopes was 38-40 mph.

If I pointed them down and went into a tuck, I got up to about 55-60 mph. before I decided I might kill somebody and let up.

I know that I've gone faster than this by a bit when conditions were just right, but not for long.

The way it looks to me is that the average recreational skier is usually going about 25-30 mph. when he feels like he's really cranking. Better skiers obviously feel more comfortable at higher speeds. But of course, it all depends on a great number of factors.
I did some digging and found it!!

NYS Ski Racing Association

What is also interesting is what happens when you fall and immediately hit something...like skiing the edge of a trail and...
Last year, using a GPS, my son and I topped out straight lining some June Mt intermediate runs at at about 42 MPH.
Its been studied a bunch actually, and an insurance company friend (who does ski area business) said that the average hard core expert skier - somebody who skis an average of 2-4 days a week every winter - will generally never exceed 50 mph, with rare and isolated exceptions. Most recreational 'experts' top out at more like 35-40 mph. Obviously there are exceptions on boths sides which as my friend points out are related to "luck, skill, and stupidity".
Quote:
 Originally posted by MammothCruzer:Last year, using a GPS, my son and I topped out straight lining some June Mt intermediate runs at at about 42 MPH.
Mammoth, I believe that the GPS will give you a slower speed than you are actually going (how much, I don't know) because it doesn't take into account your angle of descent. It will indicate a slower speed, the same way that a car travelling 50 mph will indicate less on a radar gun as it travels at an angle toward you as opposed to straight on, even though it is going 50 mph.
Ok, now everyone, your "speed" task for this season, is to see how fast you go on ice! It seems to me that anything much above 40 mph on snow means a fairly steep slope. Ice would change a lot of the dynamics: Such as sanity vs. guts !
I'd have to say that GravityGuru (Todd) is right on here. I've had a speedo on my Mt Bike for years and have hit 40 a couple times on dirt but never broken 50 even on pavement so I've got an idea what these open air speeds feel like.
I figure I usually hit about 40, +/- when I'm really hauling. I may have hit 50 when tucking a pair of 210s but probably not.
Aah yes the speed including the descent, I believe that you are measuring velocity with a GPS and not speed which would explain the differences noted here.
Thank you very much for the info, very interesting and might even answer the question.

WTFH - sorry can't think of anything to write the pressure is just to much! Maybe later. It turns out however that almost everyone else that has posted on this thread has helped me with almost the exact answers I was looking for so who is the fool now boyo? I think you need to sharpen your fox cunning to get in line with the God's!
No, Loke,
What you have here is a difference of interpretation: I answered the question you asked., when you said
Quote:
 How fast do I go?
, I answered that, whereas most of the other answers have been based on the question "How fast do YOU go?". It is easier to answer a skiing question about yourself, who you know, than it is to answer one about someone with whom you have never skiied. While their answers may have be what you were looking for, and was your intention in the question (thus, the question was badly worded), I used my engineering mind, and gave an accurate answer to the words of the question.
It reminds me of the story of the hot-air balloonist who got lost, and landed in the middle of a field. An engineer was walking past, so the balloonist shouted over to him "Can you give me an idea of where I am".
The engineer replied "I can tell you exactly
where you are"
"Oh, thank you," said the ballonist, "where am I, exactly"
To which the reply came "You are in the basket of a hot-air balloon in the middle of a field of corn".
As the engineer walked away, the ballonist now knew the answer to his question, but he was still lost. So, the next time you ask a question, make sure that there isn't a lot of hot air above your mouth.

S
The point I was making is that everyone else used their congnitive capability to rearrange the question in their own minds in order to be able to give me suitable information and answer the question that I was trying to ask.
Had I asked how fast do you go I would have got all sorts of fools saying how fast they go in a plane or when they are on a helicopter or something equally ridiculous! I did chose my wording very carefully for the most part unfortunately I can't take into account all the different interpretations in the world however bloody good I am!

WTFH - r u coming down for the Flip thing on the 11th?
Quote:
 Originally posted by Loke:rearrange the question in their own minds
So, I could ask the question:
"Is Loke a big girl's blouse?"
"How big a big girl's blouse is Loke?"

As for the Flip thing - if it's 11/09, then no, but if it was 11/10, then I probably could make it.

S
Quote:
 Originally posted by Wear the fox hat ?:As for the Flip thing - if it's 11/09, then no, but if it was 11/10, then I probably could make it.
D'oh!

D'oh

S
The prosecution rests!
Quote:
 So, I could ask the question: "Is Loke a big girl's blouse?" And most would read it: "How big a big girl's blouse is Loke?"
Well no it actually wouldn't read like that as I said that people would interpret, you can't read something as something else however you can interpret it into something else.

Do you see the difference?

[ September 03, 2002, 03:33 AM: Message edited by: Loke ]
So, now we're getting down to the differences between reading the written words, and reading the perceived words, i.e. when someone sees a series of words, do they just read what is written, or when reading, actually interpret the words experientially?
Well surely everyone knows that when faced with words people don't just read what is written and then store that exactly in their heads. They think about what they are reading and use past experiences to be able to make sense of the words and put them into context.
The most obvious example (which I feel I must use for your sake WTFH) is that of sarcasm. We are always writing something other than our meaning and it is interpreted by the recipient to read as humour otherwise it would be a very scary and dangerous world for you and me my friend. Next time you have such a flimsy argument you might think about diversionery tactics to try and throw people off the scent that your argument is so weak it would fall over in a breath of wind.
Quote:
 Originally posted by Loke:...otherwise it would be a very scary and dangerous world for you and me my friend...
Sir, obviously you live on a different planet to me if you seriously believe that it is not a scary & dangerous world we live in. Personally speaking, as an inhabitant of earth and a longer time member of the human race than you, I believe you have proved your argument wrong with your own words. Thank you for making my job so easy.

S
Quote:
 inhabitant of earth and a longer time member of the human race than you

Ok I might well give you the first part that you are an inhabitant of earth but there is no way in the world that you are allowed to be considered a member of the human race. Your membership was revoked a whole long time ago. My grandad remembers your disgrace during the infamous period that shall not be named.
No way are you getting away with that and it only shows that I am a lot braver than you that I can look at the same world as you and not be scared by it or maybe it has something to do with interpretation and using my brain and previous experience to put a context on it by knowing that I am so good that I can cope with this world whereas your context is obviously that you can't. My argument is not flawed my friend and I have been proved right by YOUR words. Thanks.
I assume you are referring to the time when you were still a twinkle in the milkman's eye, and when the only thing your postman ever seemed to bring was French letters?
Ah, yes, back in the good old days, before I'd even posted 100 times here, when little boys respected there elders, back then there was the incident where a little blue muppet caused me a lot of grief and some of my vulpine characteristics shone through, yes, back then some evn questioned my identity, or my existence, but none can doubt it now.
Yes, go and ask your father about that time on the Hangar Lane Giratory System when he proved beyond all doubt that it was a mistake to release him from Regent's Park Zoo, then come back here and talk about "that incident"

S
Quote:
 Originally posted by Wear the fox hat ?:when little boys respected there elders, back then there was the incident where a little blue muppet caused me a lot of grief and some of my vulpine characteristics shone through, yes, back then some evn questioned my identity, or my existence, but none can doubt it now. S
Right well it is obvious that if you had a slight grasp of the English language then I might well respect you but seeing as you can't get the difference between there and their (see there elders) and haven't even bothered to put the second e in even. So you misspelt 25% of that word is this the ongoing trend for employed people. I hope not as I won't be able to get a job if it is!

I think you're right about the incident on the Hangar Lane Giratory but we have sold it now so we don't talk about it and that woman had it coming. Honestly, fancy letting your Mum not shave for that long. My father was just upset that your Mum had more hair on her chin than he does on his head, it's perfectly normal to be upset about these things. To be fair it was your father there with a big sign trying to sell her that brought my father's attention to it!
Quote:
 Originally posted by Loke:...my father's attention...
Don't talk to me about the attention span of your father. Goldfish show Socratic levels of thought in comparison to him. Blondes look down on him. GWB has called him a dimwit. I can see his genetic make up in you. Let's face it, he's a couple of molecules short of being a single helix of D'oh-Oxyribo-moronic acid.

[ September 03, 2002, 06:02 AM: Message edited by: Wear the fox hat ? ]
There's a drag lift on the face of the Signal peak in Alpe D'Huez that's 982m long. Directly adjacent to the draglift is a piste that, in good conditions, can be straightlined from top to bottom. In the interests of seeing how fast we went we timed ourselves along this run. I clocked a time of 28 seconds on an ancient pair of 210cm Dynastar Course GS skis. This worked out at an average of 78.9mph. Towards the bottom I came up out of the tuck and bricked it somewhat but managed to stop before I made a permanent indentation in the front of the waffle shop.

[ September 03, 2002, 06:07 AM: Message edited by: bad_roo ]