Snow blades in powder?

foot2foot wrote:

"MoonMan" wrote in message



Foot, I am getting very bored with your antagonism about snowblades, I

have

examined the evidence you gave last year, 1 inconclusive study and have

kept

quiet until now. The reason most 'blades do not have release bindings, as
stated by salomon when they first introduced them was that because

standard

bindings would be useless on a ski this short.



A ski that short is also useless. You need at least a 120.

You need at least a 120 to do what? Maybe that's the miscommunication:
the two of you are trying to do two different things.


--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

"MoonMan" wrote in message
...
foot2foot wrote:
"MoonMan" wrote in message

snip (my own stuff)

A ski that short is also useless. You need at least a 120.

Why? my blades are 89cm I have even raced slalom on them (before the
minimum
ski length rules where introduced) They slowed me down less than 1%

Because 120's *can* be used in all conditions, powder included,
although depending on a modification of technique. This isn't true
of anything shorter. Anything else can only be a toy for the
groom. You can do anything on a 120 you can on an 80, 90, or
100.

There were statistics cited last yeat that showed "blades"
had a somewhat slightly higher rate of injury above
snowboards, then skis, skis being the lowest. The outstanding
difference was, a huge percentage of blade injuries were
catastrophic, whereas many of the board and ski injuries were
trivial. Destroyed knees, broken bones, etc, from snowblade
use. Lots of them. The things *are* much more dangerous
than short skis with real bindings.

as I said before, One inconclusive study!

Not a study. A recitation of all the reported injuries for
boards, skis and blades. You do the math.

Who the heck cited that thing anyway?

Besides that, Moon, it's just common sense.

I do not know if blades are as
popular in the states as they are in europe, but here they seem to be
taking
over from snowboards as the cool snowsport.

That's just great. The one snowsport that's more dangerous is
taking over from the one that presently is the most dangerous.

and apart from on RSA no one has ever suggested to me that they where more
dangerous than skis



As salomon are not renowned
for cheap products and had a monopoly on snowblades for several
years, I am sure that as one of the biggest binding manufacturers in
the world they would have specified release bindings if they could
have justified them.

Please. You're living in a dream world. The stats are out there.
I personally have met people who have broken legs and torn
up kness on snowblades. Especially the 100 cm blades.

as I stated last year I only know personnaly of two injuries on blades.
1) myself, I twisted my knee, stopped me sking for three days, luckily on
the last day of my holiday, so I missed one Training session when I got
home


2) a Loony Friend of mine, broke both legs, but The fact he was on blades
was irrelavent, he would have probably done the same damage on ski's. mind
you he ski's with more care now



So, according to your *own* experience, fifty percent of the people
who are injured on snowblades break both legs. Please. They
*are* more dangerous, and there's no reason at all to use them
when short skis with release bindings are available.

I seem to recall that there *have* been lawsuits over snowblade
injuries. One I recall was against the rental shop for not fully
warning the customer about the non releasing nature of the
blades. I believe it was settled.

"foot2foot" wrote in message ...
A ski that short is also useless. You need at least a 120.
There were statistics cited last yeat that showed "blades"
had a somewhat slightly higher rate of injury above
snowboards, then skis, skis being the lowest. The outstanding
difference was, a huge percentage of blade injuries were
catastrophic, whereas many of the board and ski injuries were
trivial. Destroyed knees, broken bones, etc, from snowblade
use. Lots of them. The things *are* much more dangerous
than short skis with real bindings.

Well Foot, looks like your bias is showing. You sound like a lot of
skiers when snowboards first started coming on the scene. We hear a
lot of noise from you but you really haven't provided anything useful.
Just a lot of hearsay. So how about some cites and real statical
studies. You can't just keep making this stuff up.

I've tried snowblades and while personally I think they are just toys,
on my first day I was able to handle all green and blue trails both
groomed and ungroomed. I borrowed my friends pair who is very good
and can pretty much handle anything on the mountain with them. So how
about either backing up you claims or stop making claims you can't
back up.

snoig

MoonMan wrote:

As salomon are not renowned
for cheap products and had a monopoly on snowblades for several years...

Monopoly? How so? Prior art would preclude any patenting, etc. Folks
around here were making these things back in the 70s to goof around on -
mostly the race team kids - so how do you figure Salomon had a monopoly?

BTW, Foot2Foot is correct, in essence. They are dangerous, basically
useless (as in there are better tools available for sliding on snow),
and way over priced in the extreme.

in a similar vein, I asked last year whether the "indemnification list" was
a purely North American phenominum, as the shops I use over here have never
heard of it.

I imagine it's a NA solution, since it's based on North American product
liability law. Europe has different product liability law.

foot2foot wrote:
"MoonMan" wrote in message
...
foot2foot wrote:
"MoonMan" wrote in message

snip (my own stuff)

A ski that short is also useless. You need at least a 120.

Why? my blades are 89cm I have even raced slalom on them (before the
minimum ski length rules where introduced) They slowed me down less
than 1%

Because 120's *can* be used in all conditions, powder included,
although depending on a modification of technique. This isn't true
of anything shorter. Anything else can only be a toy for the
groom.

For You 'merkans with your endless powder every day of the year, this may be
the case, but here in europe almost anywhere that is skiable and lift served
gets bashed into submision either by Piste bashers or just by skiers. So
unless we have just had a dump, you can usually go anywhere on a pair of
blades. In fact I sugest you try a very short pair (with release bindings if
it makes you feel safer) on a black (sorry, double black diamond) run, they
really are great fun especialy as you pirouette past other skiers.



You can do anything on a 120 you can on an 80, 90, or
100.

You may be able to, I'm 6'1" , 16 st 9 lb (233lb) and a 120 is too short to
be a ski and too long to act like a blade. and of course the rules state 165
minimum for slalom and 185 minimum for gs

you obviousely haven't tried blades, or you wouldn't think they where the
same as 120's

There were statistics cited last yeat that showed "blades"
had a somewhat slightly higher rate of injury above
snowboards, then skis, skis being the lowest. The outstanding
difference was, a huge percentage of blade injuries were
catastrophic, whereas many of the board and ski injuries were
trivial. Destroyed knees, broken bones, etc, from snowblade
use. Lots of them. The things *are* much more dangerous
than short skis with real bindings.

as I said before, One inconclusive study!

Not a study. A recitation of all the reported injuries for
boards, skis and blades. You do the math.

Who the heck cited that thing anyway?

Besides that, Moon, it's just common sense.

Sorry but it isn't, it's just bad physics



I do not know if blades are as
popular in the states as they are in europe, but here they seem to
be taking over from snowboards as the cool snowsport.

That's just great. The one snowsport that's more dangerous is
taking over from the one that presently is the most dangerous.

and apart from on RSA no one has ever suggested to me that they
where more dangerous than skis



As salomon are not renowned
for cheap products and had a monopoly on snowblades for several
years, I am sure that as one of the biggest binding manufacturers
in the world they would have specified release bindings if they
could have justified them.

Please. You're living in a dream world. The stats are out there.
I personally have met people who have broken legs and torn
up kness on snowblades. Especially the 100 cm blades.

as I stated last year I only know personnaly of two injuries on
blades. 1) myself, I twisted my knee, stopped me sking for three
days, luckily on the last day of my holiday, so I missed one
Training session when I got home

2) a Loony Friend of mine, broke both legs, but The fact he was on
blades was irrelavent, he would have probably done the same damage
on ski's. mind you he ski's with more care now



So, according to your *own* experience, fifty percent of the people
who are injured on snowblades break both legs.

the way he used to ski, be it on skis or blades, he was lucky it wasn't his
(or worse someone elses) neck

Please. They
*are* more dangerous, and there's no reason at all to use them
when short skis with release bindings are available.

In fact the evidence actually points to carving skis being the most
dangerous to your knees, they exert far more force on your knees than the
old straight skis used to and do it progressivly, so as not to trigger the
bindings to release.




I seem to recall that there *have* been lawsuits over snowblade
injuries. One I recall was against the rental shop for not fully
warning the customer about the non releasing nature of the
blades. I believe it was settled.

there have been lawsuits about "release bindings" not releasing too. That's
why ski shops now have to have notices saying that such bindings may not
release in all circumstances.....


--
Chris *:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

"foot2foot" wrote in message ...
Not a study. A recitation of all the reported injuries for
boards, skis and blades. You do the math.

I'd be glad to do the math. Please provide some numbers.


I seem to recall that there *have* been lawsuits over snowblade
injuries. One I recall was against the rental shop for not fully
warning the customer about the non releasing nature of the
blades. I believe it was settled.

How about a cite? I really find this hard to believe because they
would make them sign the same release as a snowboard which is a non
releaseable binding.

Come on Foot, if you are going to bad mouth blades, please provide
some real data. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean people
shouldn't use them. You sound just like instructors did when
snowboards came on the scene. Now that PSIA has a snowboard
instruction you don't hear them bad mouthing boards any more. How
long until they have a PSIA blade certification program?

snoig

Hi,
I'm a journalist in Logan, Utah, who is interested in doing a story on
the growing popularity of snow blades. I'd love to hear why you snow
blade, what are the safety hazards (it sounds like there are quite a
few), the start-up cost, etc. Thanks!

"snoig" wrote in message


I'd be glad to do the math. Please provide some numbers.

Do a google for snowblade injuries. Or skiboard injuries. Or
google for last years thread, same subject.

"foot2foot" wrote in message
...

"snoig" wrote in message


I'd be glad to do the math. Please provide some numbers.

Do a google for snowblade injuries. Or skiboard injuries. Or
google for last years thread, same subject.

This always irritates me when someone says "Do a google..."

Don't you already have a url saved up from when you did a google?

Richard Henry wrote:
"foot2foot" wrote

Do a google for snowblade injuries. Or skiboard injuries. Or
google for last years thread, same subject.

This always irritates me when someone says "Do a google..."

Don't you already have a url saved up from when you did a google?

Here's 100 results from Google:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X6F0215C9

99 of which take you (indirectly) to
http://www.ski-injury.com/snowblade.htm

According to that study, snowwblades increase the probability of lower
limb fracture - 35% of skiblade injuries are fractures, and 60% of those
are leg fractures.

I'm inclined to agree with foot, but keep in mind that it's just one
study (anybody know of any others? I'd like to see more), and I don't
think they're quite as dangerous and extreme as foot2foot seems to
think. But I'm not putting them on my feet. Eveyrbody else can do
whatever they want to.


--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Volkl Conspiracy