If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"Lisa Horton" wrote in message As pretty much a beginner, this idea initially had a lot of appeal for me. As I approach an unknown run my main concerns are if I can get down safely, and without endangering, inconveniencing, or ruining the snow for other, better, skiers. Don't be concerned about endangering other skiers by attempting a trail that will be a challenge for you. If they can't get around you, they shouldn't be there. In that situation, just take it in sections at a time, a turn at a time or a few turns at a time, and wait till the run is clear to proceed. That way you won't run the risk of running into someone or being hit if you cut across their path (even though you, as the downhill skier have the right of way, sometimes it's nearly impossible to avoid hitting a skier or boarder who cuts *way* across the hill, suddenly and without warning, right into your path ). If you *really* get in above your head, you could simply walk down to where you can ski again. No shame in that surely. You, at least had the guts to try. Ice would be the exception. Avoid trying stuff above your head on an icy day. Then you might *not* be able to walk down. In fact, be darned careful in every way on an icy day. To heck with inconveniencing someone. Anyone that would feel inconvenienced by a skier learning that terrain deserves to be inconvenienced. Big time. As far as ruining the snow, that doesn't matter unless it's *deep* powder. A few inches is irrelevant. And even then, you'll never learn it unless you try. You paid just like everyone else. In that case I'd suggest someone that can't really ski pow yet stay off the more difficult slopes on a powder day. At least trying to turn is ok. Heel edging and sideslipping aren't. Lame. Extremely lame. If it's pow, and you can't turn on it, stay off it. That would *surely* be the limit of concern on "ruining the snow". But through this thread I've seen why the idea is basically unworkable, for a number of reasons. The legal liability in a litigious country makes a standard rating system across resorts untenable. Nah, this is more of their sky is falling make it complicated find a million reasons why it won't work cause we're all basically bitter negative afraid types rhetoric. They're actually afraid to seriously look at anything new or different. It threatens that comfy status quo, and their group reality. If that suing thing were true, attorneys would *already* be suing because the trail was rated blue and should have been rated black. It's a group creation of their minds. It's just more crap from the "regulars". They feel their grip slipping, and it terrifies them. And with the variability of conditions, it would be impossible to keep the signage accurate unless it was like a display screen or something, dynamically updated. You have to assess conditions yourself, and by asking about them, of the ski patrol especially, of other guests and checking resort info. I never suggested that conditions be on some trail sign or trail map. Only the slope in degrees of the very steepest part that the skier or boarder *must* pass through to get down. All I'm saying is that the trail ratings should be a realistic, not subjective, a representation of the actual steepness of the slope. And that you could use the colors in addition to real information. More info should be there than is. I wish it could work, but it doesn't seem workable. Lisa Sure it is. It "kind of" works now. They have green, black blue, etc. But one place's idea of blue is another place's idea of black, etc. If the actual steepness of the run in degrees was represented, the skier or boarder would actually *know* what they are about to get into, because they've been on that slope before, or have up to that time avoided one that steep. Even if you had never been to that resort, you'd know exactly what to try, and what to avoid. No guesswork. |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Lee" wrote in message foot2foot wrote: Bob Lee wrote: More of your hyperbole, those designations aren't completely meaningless or inaccurate. I trust you've skied enough, or at least followed this thread enough. that you understand the color system represents the relative difficulty of trails within a given ski area. Which tells the skier next to nothing the first time they ski the area, which is basically the only time they need the ratings. There is nothing to go on or compare to. Incidentally, have you tipped to how inaccurate your suggestion for a single degree rating for a trail would be? Woefully inaccurate. I like this "my". I'm not the first to suggest this or feel this way. Only the steepest part. That's all that is needed. Plus most of the runs at most of the places I ski don't have signage that would easily support the information you're suggesting. Two numbers and a percent? With an "esimated" qualification? Yes on the numbers, but that's mostly at Taos and nearby resorts where the signs are small. But what is this "estimated" qualification that you speak of? I recall seeing that before - would it be something like, oh say, easiest, more difficult, most difficult? I don't even know what that first sentence means. Estimated? Not within the millionth of a degree. Maybe not even withing two or three degrees. Just the slope of the steepest part that you *must* pass through to get down. Within a few degrees. As you so neatly remembered to mention below, but didn't mention the rest of the logic behind it, that is all the guest needs to know, because the guest only needs the info the first time they descend that run. One number, that's *close* to the actual pitch, that is the same regardless of what resort you travel to. Another thing you guys do. "Us" guys? You have a tendency to come up with ten thousand reasons why something *won't* work. That, instead of finding ways to *make* things work. Well, speaking strictly for myself, I've tried to make a case that there's no reason to find a way to make it work. In fact, I find it to be a bad idea, and I'm trying to show you why. I don't share your premise that there is a reason to make it work - I'm happy with the current system. Clear enough? You only care about yourself. Strictly. Oh, trust me on that one - or any of the people here that I've skied with - Us guys? I manage to enjoy myself. I notice you get a little ****y when called on some of your goofier idea - is that what's going on here? You think that's how I come off? Funny, I don't feel that way. What I do feel is that you may be close to going off on one of those strange accusatory fits that you're becoming infamous for here. If you're concerned about how I seem, you might consider that I just think you're wrong on this topic and I'm taking issue with that. You're the one that took this thread to a personal level Bob. Now your holier than though? |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Lee" wrote in message And one other point that I forgot to make earlier - the info on a given slope is only unknown *one* time. After you've been down a slope once, you have seen what it's like. The whole idea of percent slope info being listed is irrelevant after your first run down the slope. A great deal of effort for that one time, eh, even if the other problems didn't exist? That's interesting Bob, I wonder what brought that point to mind? Perhaps reading it in my post in answer to rosco, posted yesterday? Yup. You forgot to make it alright. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Jeff wrote: We all know about single black and double black difficulty ratings. Occasionally rumors surface as to the existence of some nefarious triple blacks. Rarely, if ever, do I see beginner and intermediate trails with intercolor distinctions. My local ski area contains single and double greens, single and double blues and single and double blacks. I always thought this was quite useful. The double difficulty hills offer a nice introduction to the next level. A double green might have some intermediate levels of steep at short intervals. A double blue might be a cruiser with a short but steep drop at the top of the hill. Jeff I don't know about all that, I just wish they were more accurate. For example, at Northstar, there's a section of Logger's Run that is steep enough to be a black. It's just a tad shorter than Delight, which is a black. I do both runs with the same effort, but I think in the interest of marketing and selling the run to intermediate skiers, they kept the entire length of logger's run on blue. Martha |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
foot2foot wrote:
"Bob Lee" wrote in message news:rlee- You might consider that you're the one making it more complicated than it needs to be. Green, blue, black - easier, more difficult, most difficult. What could be more simple? Well, since you care to continue, Simple yes. In many cases completely meaningless and useless "information". Useful? no. Accurate at all? Well, hardly. I think you misunderstand the difference between "accurate" and "precise". I mean, once again, an eight year old could understand that 40 degrees is pretty steep, and 20 should be a breeze. Oh, big deja vu (what, two whole weeks?) to a confusion between "degrees" and "percent". Another thing you guys do. You have a tendency to come up with ten thousand reasons why something *won't* work. "You people" statements are almost always bogus, and really, this is no exception. I don't think anyone's "coming up with" reasons why this slope-whatsis signage wouldn't work for the fun of it, but even if they are, so what? If they can come up with a thousand reasons why it won't work, their motivation for doing so doesn't matter; a thousand reasons say it won't work. That, instead of finding ways to *make* things work. Why force a fit? Or, here's another question: what's the massive deficiency in the current system? What big harm is it causing? -- Mary Malmros Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
foot2foot wrote:
"Armin" wrote in message oups.com... foot2foot wrote: You know Walt, I hate to say it, but you guys really do tend to make things more complicated than they need be. I think my irony alarm just blew a fuse!!!!!!!!!! And that figures. The mechanics of skiing are so simple a child can fully comprehend them. Yet Armin can't. They're too complicated. Oh. *I* make them too complicated. Like this: Steering is twisting the legs, either from the two lower leg bones, or from twisting the whole leg/s in the hip socket, in the direction you want the skis to go. So, Armin, is or is not the above simple? Children don't know they _have_ two lower leg bones. -- Mary Malmros Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
foot2foot wrote:
"Bob Lee" wrote in message foot2foot wrote: Bob Lee wrote: More of your hyperbole, those designations aren't completely meaningless or inaccurate. I trust you've skied enough, or at least followed this thread enough. that you understand the color system represents the relative difficulty of trails within a given ski area. Which tells the skier next to nothing the first time they ski the area, which is basically the only time they need the ratings. There is nothing to go on or compare to. Whatever happened to talking to other skiers? "If you liked x, you'll love y" is pretty much a staple of chairlift conversations in these parts. -- Mary Malmros Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Mary Malmros wrote: foot2foot wrote: "Bob Lee" wrote in message foot2foot wrote: Bob Lee wrote: More of your hyperbole, those designations aren't completely meaningless or inaccurate. I trust you've skied enough, or at least followed this thread enough. that you understand the color system represents the relative difficulty of trails within a given ski area. Which tells the skier next to nothing the first time they ski the area, which is basically the only time they need the ratings. There is nothing to go on or compare to. Whatever happened to talking to other skiers? "If you liked x, you'll love y" is pretty much a staple of chairlift conversations in these parts. Ah Hah! I knew there was something missing in this chat. Duh. Only problem is there is less conversation now with so many detachables. I even use chair time to get the skinny on what's skiing well at resorts I know well. RAC |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"foot2foot" wrote
sometimes it's nearly impossible to avoid hitting a skier or boarder who cuts *way* across the hill, suddenly and without warning, right into your path ?!!!! ant |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
ant wrote: "foot2foot" wrote sometimes it's nearly impossible to avoid hitting a skier or boarder who cuts *way* across the hill, suddenly and without warning, right into your path ?!!!! I was wondering that as well. If you cannot move before hitting them, you are going too fast. The person in front of you has the right of way. Martha |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
prettiest view in the world? | Ken Roberts | Nordic Skiing | 20 | April 26th 04 09:40 AM |
Near fatal ski incident | Me | Nordic Skiing | 22 | February 27th 04 01:47 PM |
Updated Stowe trail maps | Lew Lasher | Nordic Skiing | 0 | February 16th 04 03:10 PM |
Pre BIrkie/Birkie trail conditions | Bruce Fiedler | Nordic Skiing | 0 | February 7th 04 09:59 PM |
Has anyone ever skied the WB trail in Underhill, Vermont? | Lew Lasher | Nordic Skiing | 8 | September 22nd 03 01:38 AM |