slower+faster skiers climbing in tandem

Sharon and I have started trying a new way to climb up together on skis with
skins -- by connecting ourselves together with a bungee cord.

Anybody else tried something like that?

We've been skiing in the backcountry together for lots of years, and I'm
much faster than Sharon, and that's not likely to change (though she puts a
lots of serious work into training). In our bicycle touring we found a
technological solution to this by purchasing a tandem bicycle -- and we've
been happy with that for years now. Then we were skiing a couple of years
ago with Sam D, and said he sometimes went cross-country skiing with his
daugher by connecting to her with a bungee cord.

So we purchased 15 meters (50 feet) of 8mm stretchy "shock" cord or bungee
cord. Each of us put on a climbing harness, and we clipped one end of cord
to each of our harnesses with a Figure-8 knot and a carabiner -- and started
climbing on skins on an April morning ski tour. It worked OK, so we tried it
for two more days of spring touring above tree-line.

It was a definite plus for both of us:
* we stayed together on skis much longer.
* the variable stretching of the cord gave us some freedom to move
differently sometimes.
* we got further up the mountain together.
* it was an interesting technical climbing challenge for me.
* it was an interesting communication challenge for both of us.

Surprise: We took very different lines up the hill. I took wider gentler
zig-zags, because I simply could not hold the grip of my skins if I climbed
as steeply as normal -- not enough friction to handle the extra pull down
the hill. Sharon took a much steeper line than ever before -- tended to
follow the line of the bungee, instead of my climbing track. For the firm
snow of a spring tour in the morning, this was not the problem, since
trail-breaking was insignificant.

Situations where I'd guess the bungee might not work so well:
* soft, deep snow on a slope greater than 25-degrees, where both us
following the same zig-zag trail-breaking path would be important
* going thru many obstacles like trees, rocks, frozen debris -- there was
one time when the cord got stuck on a protruding rock -- when I was glad I
had clipped a carabiner instead tying the cord into my harness.
* steeper slopes like 35-degrees, where the leader holding balance against
changing side-pull forces could get tricky.

Ken

Ken Roberts wrote:

Situations where I'd guess the bungee might not work so well:
* soft, deep snow on a slope greater than 25-degrees, where both us
following the same zig-zag trail-breaking path would be important
* going thru many obstacles like trees, rocks, frozen debris -- there was
one time when the cord got stuck on a protruding rock -- when I was glad I
had clipped a carabiner instead tying the cord into my harness.
* steeper slopes like 35-degrees, where the leader holding balance against
changing side-pull forces could get tricky.

You will be too close together for safe avi terrain travel. And "steeper
slopes like 35-degrees" are certainly avi terrain so presumably you are
not avoiding avi terrain.

lal_truckee wrote
You will be too close together for safe avi terrain travel.

Good point. Terrain and conditions with significant avalanche danger would
be another situation where the bungee connection idea wouldn't work.

Ken

In message
"Ken Roberts" wrote:

Sharon and I have started trying a new way to climb up together on
skis with skins -- by connecting ourselves together with a bungee
cord.

Anybody else tried something like that?

No


We've been skiing in the backcountry together for lots of years, and
I'm much faster than Sharon, and that's not likely to change (though
she puts a lots of serious work into training). In our bicycle touring
we found a technological solution to this by purchasing a tandem
bicycle -- and we've been happy with that for years now.
[snip]

It was a definite plus for both of us:
* we stayed together on skis much longer.

The question I ask, is why does it matter that you climb at different
rates and thus don't stay a fixed distance apart?

In my experience of ski-touring you rarely find that all members of a
party climb at exactly the same rate. What tends to happen is that the
group order tends to sort itself out according to individual pace. You
often find that over a long day or a long climb that the order starts to
vary. Some people manage to maintain their steadier pace for longer,
whilst others have a tendancy to slow down as the day goes on.

In addition it pays to vary the spacing according to objective dangers
such as avalanche conditions.

What is obvious is that if one member of a party is much faster, or
much slower than the average, you have to stop every now and then in a
safe location to allow the party to regroup.


Mike http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
" || _`\,_ |__\ \ | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

Mike Clark wrote
why does it matter that you climb at different
rates and thus don't stay a fixed distance apart?

I guess . . . because Sharon and I like each other a lot? So our time
together is kind of precious. So we want to have more of our time together,
really together -- like within talking range.
I guess . . . because we really like working together as a team. Sounds so
old-fashioned to get those words out.

obvious . . . you have to stop every now and
then in a safe location to allow the party to regroup.

Yes that's a rational strategy.
Sharon and I both own single bicycles, and we could ride them together
individually (or should I say individually together?) and regroup every so
often, like Mike says. That's how we did our bicycle touring for a long
time.

Then we bought a tandem bicycle. Each of us still rides our individual
single bike if the other person is not available. But if we're both riding
at the same time, we _always_ ride together on the tandem. Which is slower
than I would ride on my own. My irrational strategy.

Some people manage to maintain their steadier pace
for longer, whilst others have a tendancy to slow down as the day goes on.

There's a sort of justice when that happens. But that's not how it works
with Sharon and me. I'm 50% faster for the first ten minutes, 50% faster for
the first hour, 50% faster for six hours.

No justice. Instead we've decided to try teamwork.

Ken

Ken Roberts wrote:

There's a sort of justice when that happens. But that's not how it works
with Sharon and me. I'm 50% faster for the first ten minutes, 50% faster for
the first hour, 50% faster for six hours.

No justice. Instead we've decided to try teamwork.

I'm usually quicker than Roos on skis, not because I'm fitter overall
but just because I've been doing it for longer. I work not to let
myself get too far ahead if I'm out in front because I know she finds it
disheartening, I don't get too close if I'm behind because I know she
feels pushed. I just set position and speed to keep us both as happy as
possible, except when she sees I'm too tired and she takes over.

If you're normally 50% faster, go 33% slower and enjoy the scenery a bit
more!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/