EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Ski Technology (big pow skis in general use) affects Skier interactions, heightens colision danger
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski Technology (big pow skis in general use) affects Skier interactions, heightens colision danger - Page 2

post #31 of 58

You see something like this in motorcycling where technology has made it possible for people with little experience to obtain what amounts to MotoGP style race bikes.  The difference is that they are usually only a risk to themselves, not others.  They are the bug, not the windshield.  One answer to this in motorcycling has been the advent of track days, where young hotshots can take their s**t to the closed circuit racetracks, where they can ride as fast as they like.  On the track there is a different code of conduct than on the street.

 

In the past, ski terrain acted as a selection tool and so the ski code applied universally across the mountain.  Traversers rarely went down expert slopes and as such didn't bother straightliners.  Technology has now made it possible for skiers of all skill levels to mix all across the entire mountain, thus giving rise to this discussion.  Maybe the answer is to have two codes, one in which the downhill skier has the right of way and another in which responsibility is shared.  The mountain itself would be divided into different regions, in which different codes would apply.  So instead of just terrain markers, we would also have code markers as well.  These could be combined into a single marker.  For instance, blue for intermediate under the exisiting code, orange for intermediate under a code in which the right of way is "negotiated."  In other words, part of the mountain would be like a race track where responsibility is shared.  The remainder of the mountain would use the current code in which the downhill skier has the right of way.

post #32 of 58
Thread Starter 

It's like the avalanche safety premise: you've got the gear; you've read the reports; you can ski; but if you use poor judgement about when and where, you're still righteously f'd. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger View Post

Is always a good idea to use the most important piece of equipment, your head. 

 

If there is 3' between the rocks, go straight, but look befor you go.  If you are traversing below some chutes look befor you cross em, don't screw up somebody elses line, and both of your day. 

 

We can all get along, 'do onto others...... & you know the rest. 



 

markers? we don't need no stinkink markers (accent included)! just kidding, love to quote that film when the issue is controls or officialdom. 

 

Probably a little complicated, considering the disregard most  skiers have for structure when their testoserone and adrenaline gang up on their logic. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianfairchild View Post

.....One answer to this in motorcycling has been the advent of track days, where young hotshots can take their s**t to the closed circuit racetracks, where they can ride as fast as they like.  On the track there is a different code of conduct than on the street.

 

......So instead of just terrain markers, we would also have code markers as well.  These could be combined into a single marker.  ......



 

post #33 of 58

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger View Post

Is always a good idea to use the most important piece of equipment, your head. 

 

If there is 3' between the rocks, go straight, but look befor you go.  If you are traversing below some chutes look befor you cross em, don't screw up somebody elses line, and both of your day. 

 

We can all get along, 'do onto others...... & you know the rest. 


One thing I would add to that, when starting a line like that yell "dropping", hopefully anyone below will hear and stay out the way.

 

 

The best solution is just not traversing in stupid/dangerous places, ski the line to the bottom

post #34 of 58
$.01..
Most collisions or close calls that I notice involve overly aggressive 20-30somethings taking mid-fats, some of which are nothing but a widened race ski...to speeds they can't control...while in the backseat.  Add to that the huge fact that they lack the ability to scrub off speed..  Of course many cases exist but I wouldn't really fault the gear...it's more of the skier's inability to handle the particular ski.  They're being sold the [i]hottest[/i] ski they can afford...imho.
post #35 of 58
A lot of 20 and early 30somethings, via something...movies or whatever, seem to get this idea that in zipping by someone within an inch or two, whether it be on skis or in a car they'll somehow gain this huge amount of respect from the person they practically plastered...of being so awesomely fast...   The "I'm faster than you" syndrome...
$.01
post #36 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by karpiel View Post

 

 

 

 Downhill skiers/ riders have the right of way, however they should not shoot across the hill without warning, or cut off other skiers/riders.  Always be in control.  If you have stopped on a slope, always check uphill before starting again to avoid interfering with others.

 

 

 

Makes sense.  Just because you have the right of way (skiing, driving, biking) shouldn't give you license to just close your eyes and plow blindly ahead.  This is not rocket science, it's just simple courtesy. 
post #37 of 58
So what the hell does any of this "not-paying-attention" BS have to do with fat skis??? 

Idiots are idiots no matter what skis they're on so STFU already. 

I've only hit one person in all the time I've been skiing because riding motorcycles has taught me much about anticipation and accident avoidance.  The guy I hit was standing in front of a very small exit to a very large trail (at you guessed it- Strappon), talking on the phone, looking off into the woods.  He slid backwards and right into me as I straightlined the exit.  Don't be that guy.  It's all about being aware of what's going on all around you.        
Edited by Do Work - 10/14/09 at 9:34am
post #38 of 58
Aggorant/Stupid ppl can take some of the fun out of it. I observe/avoid these types with either skill or brains. One of the 2 usually work.
post #39 of 58
Thread Starter 
steering this back on track. People skiing powder used (6+years ago) to be fairly harmonious in line and speed. They all had similar gear. No more. Gear, line, skill level and attitude differ sharply. Serious adjustments to how/what it is now are in order, and the rules of conduct may not cover what's going on in the real world, IMO. I will have some 120mm's soon enough to not have to watch my back.
post #40 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

steering this back on track. People skiing powder used (6+years ago) to be fairly harmonious in line and speed. They all had similar gear. No more. Gear, line, skill level and attitude differ sharply. Serious adjustments to how/what it is now are in order, and the rules of conduct may not cover what's going on in the real world, IMO. I will have some 120mm's soon enough to not have to watch my back.


This is so far out there it's like a caricature of a stereotype of a figment of an imagination from another planet.  120s to watch your back???  If you aren't buying them to slay the pow, you are getting them for the wrong reason.  You are on drugs, or maybe you should be.  I can't tell which. 

People need to pay attention.  This is beyond important- it is the golden rule, and will ensure safety no matter what gear you have.  You're blaming the wand.  It's the wizard, dude. 

The same "dangerous" argument could be had back when the put metal edges on skis, and it's just as dumb now as it was then.  Advancement is good, yet there are- and always will be- idiots who will hurt themselves or others with said advancements.  This is simple human fact.  So what's the big deal?  I think you're getting all huffy for no reason.  Your friend is an ass who was skiing out of control.  The other guy was an idiot who wasn't paying attention.  It was a match made in heaven. 
post #41 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Work View Post





This is so far out there it's like a caricature of a stereotype of a figment of an imagination from another planet.  120s to watch your back???  If you aren't buying them to slay the pow, you are getting them for the wrong reason.  You are on drugs, or maybe you should be.  I can't tell which. 

 
just saying, with 120's there won't be anyone blowing by my blind side, back in harmony but at higher speeds. And you can be sure I have the right reasons, to the right reasons for big ass skis 

like your run-away charicature hyperbole, though
post #42 of 58
Equipment and the related ski technique has been changing continually pretty much from the 30's. The rockers, reversed sidecut, reverse cambers are the new IT.   Equipment pretty like everything else is changing at a more accelerated rate today, it is not done yet and probably never will be.  With each technique or technological change  came a new wave of skiers using it.  Each new advancement probably getting the old guard mad because those darned kids were faster with their new fangled stuff (DEVIL SKIS I tell you).  I was one of those danged kids, a couple of times, pissing off the old guard.  Age, ability level, and skiing technique have created their own communities on the ski hill since ski hills were invented.

Look at this evolution sort of like the cars of young people.  Cars went from the hot rods, to big block sedan, to muscle cars, Nascar directed muscle cars, rice rockets, drifters, with rolling boom boxes tossed in the middle somewhere.  Everybody who has been irritated by at least one of those evolutions in cars or skiing, raise your eyebrows, (you don't have to publicly admit it) you are officially an old foggie now. 

Just get over it, it may or may not be a better idea, but it is a new idea.
post #43 of 58
to those of you who keep referring to the skier's code of conduct and/or saying that the downhill skier always has the right of way, i don't think you understand the terrain we're talking about.

here's a picture of the chutes that dav is talking about...




if you're traversing below those chutes blindly, you're asking to get destroyed.  if you're traversing under the light towers when there's fresh snow, then you better look up first and be real careful. 

it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to put up a few bamboos or a caution sign right before the light towers for those who aren't familiar with the area.

if the snow is good enough for straighlining, you really shouldn't be traversing anyways... you should be enjoying the fall line and the sick runout under the slot.
post #44 of 58
What a bunch of nerds.

When I'm hauling ass in powder, I Iook way ahead of me. If there are a bunch of gaping Z skiers below me, I don't haul ass.

When I'm about to traverse beneath a chute or something, I look up before starting and continue to watch whats going on above me. I got this mostly from backcountry skiing.

Just use your brain and your eyes and you'll be fine.

Or continue to argue about who actually has the right of way. Having the right of way doesn't matter if you are dead or a parapelegic. Geeks.
post #45 of 58
News Flash!
Looking at the chutes shown above, you can ski fast straight down the fall line AND still be able to pick your line.  Visibility in those chutes is not impeded.  Now if you're going 80 mph in the fog....
post #46 of 58
Jer FTW.
post #47 of 58
I think there is an uspoken corralary between this and the snowtire thread. Snow tires are supposed to be safer than all moutain tires in powder since they let you drive in deeper snow with out losing conrtrol. It seems obvious that snow tires are basicly powder skis for cars. This increased control would highten collision danger since it will give people a false sense of security to strightline roads they normally would avoid.
post #48 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

News Flash!
Looking at the chutes shown above, you can ski fast straight down the fall line AND still be able to pick your line.  Visibility in those chutes is not impeded.  Now if you're going 80 mph in the fog....
 

easy to say when you're looking at it on a computer. 

if you were doing sun chute (directly below the arrow on looker's left) you would have almost no chance to prepare for a skier traversing below. 

the traverse in question comes from the slot (far looker's right) and goes directly beneath the rocks that form the chutes.  people use it to get over to C2 without losing any vert and stay as high as possible.

if you've actually skied these lines (or even looked at them from above) then i stand corrected... based on your comment i'm concluding you have not.
Edited by jahroy - 10/14/09 at 8:45pm
post #49 of 58
If this is a particular trouble spot, then patrol should recognize a traffic control problem and do something about it.  Generalized whining about tourists or bro-brahs is not going to fix the problem.  Maybe a control gate with a "look up" sign?  If that is not enough, they should close the chute or close the traverse.  We all hate this kind of rule, but if the reality is that skier density is high enough, then it is a necessary evil.
post #50 of 58
this area is not a trouble spot and none of that is necessarily needed.... we're talking about an isolated incident that is unlikely to be repeated.  i just wanted to clarify that you can't just quote the skier code and say "uphill skier at fault" in this situation.

really, people are only nuking out of those chutes for a few minutes at the beginning of a bottomless, epic pow day.  very few people are going to consider traversing above hundreds of acres of fresh pow at a time like that. 

yes, people rock those chutes when the snow is less than ideal, but not as often, not as fast, and it wouldn't be a mad rush for pow at times like that so everybody would get more of a chance to look around.

closing the light towers would be the most un-squaw thing that has ever happened.  let the rad-dogs rule!
post #51 of 58
Actually, one could argue that it would be the ur-Squaw (Corp) thing to do.  See, e.g., the boundary policy.  Don't put it past Nancy.
post #52 of 58
not really.... i would say squaw does a pretty phenomenal job of letting people get at the gnar. 

in my opinion they have the best patrol in the world and get more gnar open quicker than anywhere i've ever seen.

like dav said, when the incident in question occurred squaw valley responded by closing the traverse, not the chutes.

like dav also mentioned, there aren't too many other places where terrain like this even exists. 

hell, you could even go ski the light towers on april 19th this year if you want ;)

i also see no connection between a boundary policy and the light towers, which are in bounds and under a chairlift.

squaw's reputation is hilarious to me....
post #53 of 58
No knock on the patrol.  They're a great bunch.  The management, however, can't decide if they want to be EXTREEEEEME!!! or Vail/Whistler Lite.  Totally schizo.

That said, Light Towers is such a marquee run that closing it would prompt an uproar among people that management actually listens to.  So I probably was hasty.

On a related note, it's now a little over three years since Alex Cushing died.  I remember rumors to the effect that the will should be sorted out in five years, and those in the know suggested that the resort would be sold once that happened.  Wonder where that stands.

[/thread drift]
post #54 of 58
People have skied fast for a long time.  There have been occasional collisions for a long time.  The gear people were on 6 years ago on powder days probably had greater difference between old and new-er shapes than now, because many more people have now accepted that the new shapes and skis are not just a crutch for beginners, etc.  There's zero evidence that I've seen or heard that there's any noted uptick in "high speed pow" collisions...basically there's no problem here. 
post #55 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDad View Post

Jer FTW.
 

Jer shocks them with a sudden safety bar slam to the top of the head!!!
DOH!!!!
post #56 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Work View Post

So what the hell does any of this "not-paying-attention" BS have to do with fat skis??? 



 

If you're asking me -- nothing.  My post was simply in answer to Karpiel's question about Canadian skiing rules.  Yes, not on the main point of the thread.  But, hey, I'm spending most of my prime brain cell time watching for snow to arrive in the mid-Atlantic....

 
post #57 of 58
Also - I've noticed (at least with Praxis Powders) it's way easier to stop or change direction super quick with fat-ass freakskis. I'm surprised I haven't juked myself right outta my boots yet. So blaming this on fat skis is way off base.
post #58 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post

Also - I've noticed (at least with Praxis Powders) it's way easier to stop or change direction super quick with fat-ass freakskis. I'm surprised I haven't juked myself right outta my boots yet. So blaming this on fat skis is way off base.

Quoted for truth.

Also, bear in mind that the amount of speed required to get conventional skis to plane is significantly greater than that needed for most contemporary powder specialty skis.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Ski Technology (big pow skis in general use) affects Skier interactions, heightens colision danger