|
Post by Divebitch on Feb 8, 2014 15:31:50 GMT -5
1) Okay, learning to downhill ski, was always taught to lean forward although it went against my natural inclination to lean back cuz I was scared. If I'm not mistaken, leaning back was always faster (which made matters worse for a beginner, cuz you were more outta control). Was watching the womens x-country, If you're that good, you'd think you could lean back on the downhillish straightaway portions and maintain control.
2) Seemed pretty weird that for the first couple miles, there were 4 lanes with the worst ranked gals in the back of course. They all started out in 1 lane, no one wanted to be the 1st to start a lane - okay, I get that, I guess (??). Once that 2nd lane was started, they ALL followed there. Seriously, was the previous lane trashed by a few seconds of inactivity? Even towards the mid-end, no cut-out lanes, they all seemed to be drafting, even when they were not on a turn (like race-horses hugging the inside). Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by Juggs on Feb 8, 2014 15:36:50 GMT -5
I am a competitive skier and I've grown up in Vermont skiing my whole life. There is zero advantage, no matter your skill level to leaning backwards. Leaning forwards makes you much faster, so if you truly lack control, lean forward at a small angle to vertical The trouble is that the slope is actually downward slanting 15 degrees is a rough average for a "blue" trail. That means that if you feel like you're perpindicular, you're actually leaning 15 degrees backwards. Leaning back moves your center of mass farther from your core muscles which makes it much harder to turn, while also slowing you down.
I have never cross country skied and I don't watch those olympic events so your guess is as good as mine there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 15:50:59 GMT -5
I never saw the fun in cross country. To much work. I like riding the gondola to the top and go straight (almost)down the hill. Kind of like giant slalom. I have 210 ski's and love the speed. I see no reason to turn much. I don't do well in moguls though. I guess that's why I broke both my tibia and fibia in a fast crash long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by Divebitch on Feb 8, 2014 16:14:32 GMT -5
You're right Juggs, it probably only feels faster when you're new and outta control. I eventually became a decent skier, not competitive, but it took a lot to lean forward until it finally 'clicked' - which in my case happened instantly after a lunch with beer and and wine on the hill. lol So I totally believe you 1000% leaning back slows you down. And of course on a turn, you'd have no control, that was where you wipe out. lol Naturally, the lower you get, the less wind resistance and faster you'd be. Getting low is only intuitive once you get the hang of leaning forward. haha
Yeah, on the x-country, couldn't figure out what the drafting might be about, unless if was not really drafting at all, but some other strategy. Thanks!!
|
|
|
Post by Divebitch on Feb 8, 2014 16:25:46 GMT -5
I never saw the fun in cross country. To much work. I like riding the gondola to the top and go straight (almost)down the hill. Kind of like giant slalom. I have 210 ski's and love the speed. I see no reason to turn much. I don't do well in moguls though. I guess that's why I broke both my tibia and fibia in a fast crash long time ago. You don't strike me as all that tall. And with the newer generation skis (talking maybe 12 years ago), you would shave 10 mm off. I went from 170mms to 160mms (the newer slim wasted skis) and some thought that was still a bit long. Longer skis, generally speaking, you gain speed but lose control and stability. If you're under 6'0'", you should be on 170mms or 180mm's, racing 190mm's tops. Juggs, tell me if I'm wrong. I haven't skied in about 8 years, so not sure. LOL @ "no reason to turn much"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 16:39:51 GMT -5
I haven't skied in about 8 years also. But I started young and broke my leg in 1971. Junior in high school and borrowed some ski's for the day. Back when they had CABLE bindings. My mom and step dad had a house in Mammoth for years in my twenty and thirties. I skied a lot. All different length skis. I like the longer ones better because you do go much faster with less sharp turning ability. I would use shorter skis if is was going moguling. I'm 6 ft tall. Or I was. haha probably 5'11 1/2" now.
Remember I was a good athlete when younger. I surfed big waves, champion wrestler, and skied pretty good. I was a REAL good water skier and jet skier. Dang I miss those days.
|
|
|
Post by Juggs on Feb 8, 2014 16:41:56 GMT -5
I never saw the fun in cross country. To much work. I like riding the gondola to the top and go straight (almost)down the hill. Kind of like giant slalom. I have 210 ski's and love the speed. I see no reason to turn much. I don't do well in moguls though. I guess that's why I broke both my tibia and fibia in a fast crash long time ago. You don't strike me as all that tall. And with the newer generation skis (talking maybe 12 years ago), you would shave 10 mm off. I went from 170mms to 160mms (the newer slim wasted skis) and some thought that was still a bit long. Longer skis, generally speaking, you gain speed but lose control and stability. If you're under 6'0'", you should be on 170mms or 180mm's, racing 190mm's tops. Juggs, tell me if I'm wrong. I haven't skied in about 8 years, so not sure. LOL @ "no reason to turn much" Yeah. I'm 188cms (6'2'') on 240s, but I'm on the upper end of my spectrum. There isn't really a "correct" length, beceause it depends on the type of terrain you like to ski. If Craig is skiing out west on wide bowls then 200 sounds about right. Flat, steep terrain lets you afford extra length basically. Vermont is covered in moguls, ice, rocks, trees etc so my skis are a bit too long for my style but I need them that long for alpine. Weight also factors in. I'm right on healthy BMI at 188/79, but if I weighed an extra 5kgs I would need shorter skis to decrease my speed and make turns easier at high speeds. It basically works like this. 1. Tall = long skis, short = short skis 2. Speed = long skis, mixed terrain = short skis 3. Fat (BMI+) = short skis, skinny (BMI-) = long skis
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 16:54:37 GMT -5
Nice Juggs. I skied at Mammoth mostly. It is central California in the Sierras and one of the best mountains west of the Mississippi. They have everything from wide open slopes to double diamond steep. Trees and moguls everywhere if you want them. I liked going thru the trails and trees also.
I have also skied all of Tahoe and Alta the other slope in Utah. Forget the name. Broke my leg at Big Bear, which is about a two hour drive form here.
Snow bird, that's the other place in Utah. They are almost side by side.
|
|
|
Post by Divebitch on Feb 8, 2014 17:04:38 GMT -5
Yeah. I'm 188cms (6'2'') on 240s, but I'm on the upper end of my spectrum. There isn't really a "correct" length, beceause it depends on the type of terrain you like to ski. If Craig is skiing out west on wide bowls then 200 sounds about right. Flat, steep terrain lets you afford extra length basically. Vermont is covered in moguls, ice, rocks, trees etc so my skis are a bit too long for my style but I need them that long for alpine. Weight also factors in. I'm right on healthy BMI at 188/79, but if I weighed an extra 5kgs I would need shorter skis to decrease my speed and make turns easier at high speeds. It basically works like this. 1. Tall = long skis, short = short skis 2. Speed = long skis, mixed terrain = short skis 3. Fat (BMI+) = short skis, skinny (BMI-) = long skis Oops, kept saying 'mm' instead of 'cm'? Yeah, Craig said he was doing moguls, which with 210s is pretty much asking for it. lol Even still, IDK how tall he he is, only seen a pic with no real frame of reference, but I took him to be avg height (5'8" - 5'11"). Most people get the 'shaped skis' for all terrain, and it's usually around 180s for that height if you're a decent skier. Surprised that extra weight would indicate shorter skis, always thought the opposite. But I miss skiing to death. Hasn't worked out for me here. Seattle was great! Crystal, Baker, Snoqualimie local, and then the mecca, Whistler/Blackcomb in BC CA, maybe a 3 - 4 hour drive. I've heard some nasty things about Vermont, crowded, and the conditions are endless, often icy. Also that skiers from there are often excellent for those reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Divebitch on Feb 8, 2014 17:09:57 GMT -5
Nice Juggs. I skied at Mammoth mostly. It is central California in the Sierras and one of the best mountains west of the Mississippi. They have everything from wide open slopes to double diamond steep. Trees and moguls everywhere if you want them. I liked going thru the trails and trees also. I have also skied all of Tahoe and Alta the other slope in Utah. Forget the name. Broke my leg at Big Bear, which is about a two hour drive form here. I've done Alta and Solitude in Utah (ah that world famous Champagne powder). Heavenly, Squaw, Sierra-At-Tahoe at Tahoe. Yikes, Cardschat tourney just opened. Hasta!!!
|
|