New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Thousand (the game). - Page 2

post #31 of 59

Well--I don't know what happened to cause those triple posts. I'll try again....

 

---

 

For what it's worth, a typical World Cup men's slalom course might have 60-75 turns over 600-700 feet  of vertical or so. Those turns (other than flushes, which would not carry the skier across the hill as much) would fit my descriptions well. But, while slalom turns are quite short radius, a slalom race is hardly an attempt to make as many turns as possible.

 

Best regards,

Bob

post #32 of 59

Where is Ott with a good wedel when we need him? 

post #33 of 59

Right here, Yuki! Three turns a second:

 

 

Best regards,

Bob

 

PS--I've also updated the links to this animation in several older threads. They've been broken, along with links to many other images I've posted over the years, since CompuServe unceremoniously dropped its "Ourworld" server a few months back. If anyone comes across any of these broken links, don't hesitate to send me a PM. I'll try to find the image and repair the link.

post #34 of 59

 Thank you!

post #35 of 59

I'm guessing these turns do not go 3' across the fall line and are therefore not eligible for thousand? And yet by Comprex's guidelines, this is the kind of turn he is looking for. It is the proper turn for, noodle, the turn game (the relaxed, de-turned version of thousand
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes View Post

 

Right here, Yuki! Three turns a second:

 

 

Bob

 

.


 

post #36 of 59

I agree with all points, Davluri.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, think of tiny, linked railroad tracks on a two-mile long green run like Keystone's Schoolmarm (top to midway). Good skiers can tip their skis by just wiggling both ankles left and right, making extremely quick (but not very complete) arc-to-arc carved turns. These wouldn't qualify under my guidelines either, but they'd fit Comprex's rules--and you could make a whole bunch of them!

 

Best regards,

Bob

post #37 of 59

We would wedel across the fall line quite nicely thank you.  There was no other way to do it.   

 

Nothing in the parameters to say you had to change direction "X" degrees and with wedeln, you certainly never left the surface of the snow.  It was mostly done with the ankles.

 

To get more bang for the buck on our PA hills, I was quite happy .... very happy .... with my Stockli 156 SL's that had about an 11.5 radius.  Now, given the right conditions like a firm surface, you can jam a whole lot of turns on short skis like that.

 

This was a "general" thing without a lot of specifics but on ... lawdy, lawdy, keep it simple and ... yeah, it's tough to wedel on skis with a lot of shape ... real tough.

post #38 of 59

well---it'll have to wait til next year now!

 

got a late start saturday, had stuff to take care of when I did arrive---taking down fencing, poles and generally having to work for a change

 

anyway, by the time I was free to play, the temp had dropped enough to leave the spring conditions really nasty--- hard---rutted---frozen not - so - fun stuff.

 

so I bagged any attempts for this season

 

 

post #39 of 59

Meh, I think I wouldn't last much more than 10 or so turns before stopping. Maybe less.

post #40 of 59
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skier_j View Post

 

well---it'll have to wait til next year now!

 

got a late start saturday, had stuff to take care of when I did arrive---taking down fencing, poles and generally having to work for a change

 

anyway, by the time I was free to play, the temp had dropped enough to leave the spring conditions really nasty--- hard---rutted---frozen not - so - fun stuff.

 

so I bagged any attempts for this season

 

 

 

LHC and I played over at Timberline WV: 

 

162 for me, 163* for him over 850 feet on really soft granular snow, this would correspond to a corrected score of  190 and 191 over 1000ft.

 

I lost a lot of vertical by sitting on the tails too much at turn exit, the skis would shoot out and recovery to get them back under took *time*=vertical.    

 

Funny how this was not a problem when the snow was harder, because the great fat SL tails had nothing to work against even at moderate edging angles.    On granular, even a slight 2 cm of sinking into the surface would make them springboard forward.

 

 

*stinker managed to find 7-8 extra verts.

 

post #41 of 59

I thought about this during the short amount of time I had free skiing Saturday.. specically how mych harder the game is on very very soft soggy snow.  I only had about 400' vert where I was so I didn't even try it.

post #42 of 59

We finally got some good snow at Keystone today--especially on North Peak and The Outback. So I wasn't too much concerned with counting turns!

 

However, I did a few of the little quick carved railroad track squiggles I described above, on the last leg of my first run into the base of Montezuma lift. It's probably only 150 yards long or so, with maybe 8-10 feet of elevation drop--basically a road. The number was 85, and I suspect I could do 150 if I really wanted to.

 

So, on a cat-track-flat road over a thousand feet of vertical, that extrapolates to roughly 15,000 "turns." So there! (Note again that these "turns" do fit Comprex's parameters, but they would not fit the ones I suggested, that require at least 3 feet of movement across the hill with each turn.)

 

 

Best regards,

Bob

post #43 of 59

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post

 

 

 

LHC and I played over at Timberline WV: 

 

162 for me, 163* for him over 850 feet on really soft granular snow, this would correspond to a corrected score of  190 and 191 over 1000ft.

 

I lost a lot of vertical by sitting on the tails too much at turn exit, the skis would shoot out and recovery to get them back under took *time*=vertical.    

 

Funny how this was not a problem when the snow was harder, because the great fat SL tails had nothing to work against even at moderate edging angles.    On granular, even a slight 2 cm of sinking into the surface would make them springboard forward.

 

 

*stinker managed to find 7-8 extra verts.

 

 

Salamander?

post #44 of 59
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15 View Post

  

Salamander?

 

 White Lightning, from trail entry to chair.  

 

 

post #45 of 59

Well I tried out this game today at Killington. Did Superstar which is about 1200 vert. I would say the top part is black diamond, middle high blue sqaure, bottom section back to black diamond for steepness. Conditions 9:00 am packed powder groomed hero snow. skis Volkl AC-4 170 cm

1st run no warm up ,boots unbuckled, my goal was to ski first groomer track width on edge of skiers right next to woods.short round turns no stops total 143 turns which works out to about 119 turns at 1000 vert.

 

2nd run immediately after 1st this time buckled down boots and was nice and warmed up or out of breath from 1st run not sure which.198 turns translates to 165 in 1000 vert, skied same track.

Noticed my tracks while going back up lift 1st run was using about 3/4 width of the track . 2nd run was using about 1/2 the width. I was hurting towards the bottom of that 2nd run, kind of felt like running a 440 yard race back in high school. I hated distances over 100 yard dash. enough of that went and skied.

 

Just for laughs tried it one more time at end of day for me around 2:30, conditions had degraded to what I call sugar snow probably loose granular with boiler plate on the top of the headwall, some marbles in the lower steep section. Got 181 turns which figures out to be 150 in 1000 vert. I was really sloppy and tired on this run but stayed in same track as previous runs.

I do like making short round turns but not at this amount non stop, fun for what it was.

post #46 of 59

Comprex talked me into it but it wasn't hard to convince me. I was curious how I would hold up. I thought it more important to count the number of smiles over the course of tens of thousands of vertical. I really was surprised I was able to do so many considering we did it about 2:30 or so in soft, thick snow. Did I make pure carved turns? No. I started out in comprex's tracks but after about 1/3 of the way down when the trail steepen a bit I was close to crossing his tails. I knew I was braking so I bailed on his line and traversed away for a clear slope. I told comprex I was being lazy and didn't want to count so I dropped behind him. Really I wanted to abide by his rules and make proper turns. I think our turns would meet Bob's criteria of about a meter across the hill, my intent was to always be on edge. As I tired and as the slope flattened the turns became longer. I don't know the intent of the game but to satisfy curiosity and test ones fitness level.

 

post #47 of 59

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes View Post

 

However, I did a few of the little quick carved railroad track squiggles I described above, on the last leg of my first run into the base of Montezuma lift. It's probably only 150 yards long or so, with maybe 8-10 feet of elevation drop--basically a road. The number was 85, and I suspect I could do 150 if I really wanted to.

 

 

What the heck was on your feet???  Snowblades?  85 turns in 150 yards???  That's just showing off!

 

post #48 of 59

Well, I didn't say that they were good turns, Kevin. But they were pure-carved!

 

 

Best, regards,

Bob

post #49 of 59
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes View Post

 

Well, I didn't say that they were good turns, Kevin. But they were pure-carved!

 

 

Best, regards,

Bob

 

I see no reason to disallow them.    

 

Score disparity and turn shape disparity were givens from the outset. 

 

I'm also thinking not everyone has the good glide and the ankle carving skills to get that many on a road. 

 

There is no one overriding point to the game as I see it, more of 'each person finds their best [ fill in the blank ] without it being about speed'.

post #50 of 59

OK, I've tried to figure out the maximum number of real turns you could carve in 1000 ft vert.

 

Assumption 1: 2.5% slope. Rationale: Kid's hill slope. Hard to find less than that and you'd grind to a halt anyway from friction. Assumption 2: Each turn is 1/8 of the circumference of your ski's radius. Rationale: These are just carved wiggles. Less then 1/8 and you'll pick up too much speed unless you skid, in which case you eat up distance. As it is, you'll have to really dig in after a while, which will bend the ski, don't go there cuz I don't want to factor in bend. Assumption 3: Head SS, with a 11.5 radius. Smallest adult radius currently made far as I know. 

 

So if I just ride my radius back and forth, 9 m of arc each way, I can do 681 turns. 

 

You guys in the 160's better pick it up. 

 

  

post #51 of 59

sounds like the type of extrapolation GM uses to calculate gas mileage.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

 

OK, I've tried to figure out the maximum number of real turns you could carve in 1000 ft vert.

 

Assumption 1: 2.5% slope. Rationale: Kid's hill slope. Hard to find less than that and you'd grind to a halt anyway from friction. Assumption 2: Each turn is 1/8 of the circumference of your ski's radius. Rationale: These are just carved wiggles. Less then 1/8 and you'll pick up too much speed unless you skid, in which case you eat up distance. As it is, you'll have to really dig in after a while, which will bend the ski, don't go there cuz I don't want to factor in bend. Assumption 3: Head SS, with a 11.5 radius. Smallest adult radius currently made far as I know. 

 

So if I just ride my radius back and forth, 9 m of arc each way, I can do 681 turns. 

 

You guys in the 160's better pick it up. 

 

  


 

post #52 of 59

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinF View Post

 

This is a funny coincidence...  I was at Okemo on Sunday and I actually counted my turns down Limelight trail.  I set a goal to myself of cranking out 100 short radius retraction turns, so that's what I did.  I have no idea how much vertical that covered, but it was most of Lower Limelight, so it was probably right around 1,000 vertical.  I was exhausted at the bottom...  I'm not sure how high-quality the last 10 or so were.  But that's my answer -- I could crank out 100.

 

I was at Okemo again today with Mr. Hazmat, so we tried this again.  I'm up to 136 for the entire way down Lower Limelight.  Sitting down in the chair at the bottom felt awfully good! 

post #53 of 59

Tried it last week on Miracle Mile at Snow Summit.  1,150 vert, managed 214, so it's 186 normalized.  Yes, it's true, it's an endurance contest - the bottom third was about making it to the finish - no fun involved.

post #54 of 59

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post

 

 

 

LHC and I played over at Timberline WV:

 

162 for me, 163* for him over 850 feet on really soft granular snow, this would correspond to a corrected score of 190 and 191 over 1000ft.

 

I lost a lot of vertical by sitting on the tails too much at turn exit, the skis would shoot out and recovery to get them back under took *time*=vertical.

 

Funny how this was not a problem when the snow was harder, because the great fat SL tails had nothing to work against even at moderate edging angles. On granular, even a slight 2 cm of sinking into the surface would make them springboard forward.

 

 

*stinker managed to find 7-8 extra verts.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15 View Post

 

 

 

Salamander?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post

 

 

 

White Lightning, from trail entry to chair.

 

 

 

Would you say White Lightning averaged low to mid 20 degrees over about 850 ft. vertical?

post #55 of 59
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laurel Hill Crazie View Post

 

Would you say White Lightning averaged low to mid 20 degrees over about 850 ft. vertical?

 

Seems reasonable for the top section.    I think it flattens out with about 200 verts to go.

post #56 of 59
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by incognito View Post

 

Yes, it's true, it's an endurance contest - the bottom third was about making it to the finish - no fun involved.

 

At that point I think it becomes an adaptation game.  

 

The more fatigued you are, the more direct is the feedback you can over what is and isn't an -efficient- turn.        The energy sucking ones just plain hurt more.

 

More fatigue-> more direct results from experimentation.

post #57 of 59

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post

 

 

 

At that point I think it becomes an adaptation game.  

 

The more fatigued you are, the more direct is the feedback you can over what is and isn't an -efficient- turn.        The energy sucking ones just plain hurt more.

 

More fatigue-> more direct results from experimentation.

 

Good point, but is the fatigue a good source of feedback in skiing?  For example, in rock climbing, a move which requires less energy is almost always a better move, so endurance sessions improve technique, in addition to physiological adaption.  In skiing, I can make crappy turns that require very little energy, so skiing tired promotes bad movement.  If you could quantify the loss of speed and change of direction and hold that constant, than the turn which sucks the least amount of energy would be the most efficient.

post #58 of 59
Thread Starter 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by incognito View Post

  

Good point, but is the fatigue a good source of feedback in skiing? 


In general I reckon not.   

 

In this specific instance, with some rules and with self-scoring that demands paying attention to each turn,  there is a possibility that it might be -a- source of real-time feedback.   

 

We have few enough as it is, most of them revolving around what we tend to call "bad" ski conditions.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by incognito View Post

 

  In skiing, I can make crappy turns that require very little energy, so skiing tired promotes bad movement.  If you could quantify the loss of speed and change of direction and hold that constant, than the turn which sucks the least amount of energy would be the most efficient.

 

Loss of speed I'm intentionally leaving free of any rules.

 

Quantifying change of direction brings us back to Bob B.'s points.

 

I am still not -exactly- convinced that one can make /more/ "crappy turns that require very little energy" per vertical foot.

 

Question: did you notice a change in your freeskiing after you tried the 1000?

post #59 of 59

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post

 

 

 

Loss of speed I'm intentionally leaving free of any rules.

 

Quantifying change of direction brings us back to Bob B.'s points.

 

This also ties into the point Bob B made in another post, specifically the difference about aggressive and defensive skiing.  I like to ski aggressively, imagining a gate to go around every turn I make.  I understand that you don't want to bring the speed into the rules.  It would only make it more complicated and subjective.  I'd say though that, the in skiing the feedback I'm looking for is how close I can get to the line imposed on me, either by gates or terrain, and what g-forces I'm generating in those turns.

 

I am still not -exactly- convinced that one can make /more/ "crappy turns that require very little energy" per vertical foot.

 

I guess I was not clear, but I did not try to imply that I could make MORE crappy turns per vertical foot.  Only, that I could skid/pivot to control speed with very little energy, but the turns were getting crappier.  Without a doubt, the turn radius kept increasing as I kept going.  Definitely a lot more turns in the first, than in the last, quarter of the run.

 

Question: did you notice a change in your freeskiing after you tried the 1000?

Interesting question, but I honestly don't know.  I did the test mid-morning, as the snow was getting softer, and each run was different around that time.  I will definitely try again, and I'll try to focus on this.  In fact, the conditions were still very icy corduroy during this run.  The snow was definitely softer on the next run.

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