Risks of skiing

"Mike Clark" wrote in message
.uk...
After doing some searching on Google Scholar I've come up with the
following two links that provide good summaries of European skiing
accident data.

"Risks of certain sports and recreational activities in the EU"

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_s...k_sport_en.pdf

and also http://ww.ski-injury.com/

It appears that the overall general reported rates of accident are
pretty similar for all countries at about 2-4 accidents per thousand
skier days.

Based on my casual observations I would say that the injury rate has reduced
considerably over the past 30-35 years.

I remember the days when the Inghams return flights were full of people in
plaster.

I find that I am much more stable on modern 160-165cm skis rather than the old
185-190cm ones.

There was a man in our hotel with three stitches in his eyebrow. - Caused by a
collision with another skiers helmet!


--

Michael Chare

Felly sgrifennodd Michael Chare :
I find that I am much more stable on modern 160-165cm skis rather than the old
185-190cm ones.

Really? That's interesting. I find I am less stable on my 168s than I
was on my old 190s, especially at speed. They're more manoeuvrable, yes,
and a wobble is easier to overcome. But I don't like to go the same
speed as I used to on the easier pistes.

Of course, I'll get down a steep slope, or a mogul field, quicker
because of the improved manoeuvrability.

Adrian
--
Adrian Shaw ais@
Adran Cyfrifiadureg, Prifysgol Cymru, aber.
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Cymru ac.
http://users.aber.ac.uk/ais/weather/ uk

In message
(Adrian D. Shaw) wrote:

Felly sgrifennodd Michael Chare :
I find that I am much more stable on modern 160-165cm skis rather than the old
185-190cm ones.

Really? That's interesting. I find I am less stable on my 168s than I
was on my old 190s, especially at speed. They're more manoeuvrable, yes,
and a wobble is easier to overcome. But I don't like to go the same
speed as I used to on the easier pistes.

Of course, I'll get down a steep slope, or a mogul field, quicker
because of the improved manoeuvrability.

Adrian

Isn't this confusing what is more stable under different types of
skiing? Carving skis tend to be easier to ski if you are on a firm
piste and always making a turn, even if it is a series of shallow turns.
However if you're into speed events then longer skis with a longer
radius of turn are going to be better. For off-piste in deeper snow
floatation and thus surface area may also be important.

Different skis work best for different snow and skiing conditions. Some
skis compromise so that they are good all round skis but not absolute
masters of any particular type of condition.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
" || _`\,_ |__\ \ | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

In message , Adrian D. Shaw
writes
Felly sgrifennodd Michael Chare :
I find that I am much more stable on modern 160-165cm skis rather than the old
185-190cm ones.

Really? That's interesting. I find I am less stable on my 168s than I
was on my old 190s, especially at speed. They're more manoeuvrable, yes,
and a wobble is easier to overcome. But I don't like to go the same
speed as I used to on the easier pistes.

Of course, I'll get down a steep slope, or a mogul field, quicker
because of the improved manoeuvrability.

I agree. Nothing goes over slushy moguls like my old 205s. Even my 185
pocket rockets, which are a vast improvement over anything else I tried
in recent years, aren't in the same class. The older skis were
definitely better for high speed cruising. The fun to be had carving
makes up for it though.
--
Devs
"Punchdown Pete the old Kroner"

"Adrian D. Shaw" wrote in message
...
Felly sgrifennodd Michael Chare :
I find that I am much more stable on modern 160-165cm skis rather than the
old
185-190cm ones.

Really? That's interesting. I find I am less stable on my 168s than I
was on my old 190s, especially at speed. They're more manoeuvrable, yes,
and a wobble is easier to overcome. But I don't like to go the same
speed as I used to on the easier pistes.

Of course, I'll get down a steep slope, or a mogul field, quicker
because of the improved manoeuvrability.


Well maybe I will rephrase that. Bearing in mind that sadly I do very little off
piste skiing, what I mean is that I can go (i.e. turn) where I want, stay
upright, recover from mistakes, and avoid crossing the skis. i.e. I am that
much more under control. I usually avoid eye watering speeds (wearing glasses)

This year I did see a few pairs of old long skis, they have started to look
quite odd!

--

Michael Chare

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:00:17 GMT, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message
(Adrian D. Shaw) wrote:

Felly sgrifennodd Michael Chare :
I find that I am much more stable on modern 160-165cm skis rather than the old
185-190cm ones.

Really? That's interesting. I find I am less stable on my 168s than I
was on my old 190s, especially at speed.

Isn't this confusing what is more stable under different types of
skiing?

I think it's more that they're confusing the use of shaped skis, which
allow, and demand, a different technique, with the use of shorter skis
which has been enabled by the revolution in manufacturing processes
and materials allowing much more torsionally-rigid skis which don't
need the length for stability, as much more of the control surface
(the edge) is in contact with the snow at any point in time.

Sure, the two are intrinsically related, as without the new
manufacturing, the extra width required for carving skis couldn't be
built in, but it's worth noting that quite a few modern, shorter, skis
actually don't have that much more of a sidecut than the old ones did.
My Pocket Rockets are a prime example of this - wide they are, but the
edge shape, and therefore the turn radius, is no more pronounced that
some of the much older kit still kicking around in my garage.

Carving skis tend to be easier to ski if you are on a firm
piste and always making a turn, even if it is a series of shallow turns.
However if you're into speed events then longer skis with a longer
radius of turn are going to be better.

I don't agree. It's all about technique - I've been very happy at high
speed downhill- or GS-type skiing on my wife's 165cm 1080 foils, which
are clearly "too" short for me (at 188cm and ~185kg) and very
radically shaped. As long as you never let them run flat they're
absolutely fine.

For off-piste in deeper snow
floatation and thus surface area may also be important.

That's where the width comes into play, but yes, for blasting
'freeride' skiing a longer ski is still often preferred for the extra
lift.

Different skis work best for different snow and skiing conditions. Some
skis compromise so that they are good all round skis but not absolute
masters of any particular type of condition.

And some skis seem to have no discernable weaknesses. I honestly can't
fault the (short, at 174cm) 1080 Foils I used for the latter part of
last season, after I lost one of the PRs (now recovered). They even
grip on sheet ice, but are still great for floating through powder and
blasting through crud, as well as being manoueverable in the bumps and
stable on the high speed stuff.

Sorry, I'm raving :-) And I'm sure that this year, or next, there will
be something even better. But I likes them. A lot.

--
Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.

Ace wrote:


I don't agree. It's all about technique - I've been very happy at high
speed downhill- or GS-type skiing on my wife's 165cm 1080 foils, which
are clearly "too" short for me (at 188cm and ~185kg) and very
radically shaped. As long as you never let them run flat they're
absolutely fine.


At 185 kg I imagine any floatation must be miraculous.

John

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:25:19 +0000, john elgy
wrote:

Ace wrote:


I don't agree. It's all about technique - I've been very happy at high
speed downhill- or GS-type skiing on my wife's 165cm 1080 foils, which
are clearly "too" short for me (at 188cm and ~185kg) and very
radically shaped. As long as you never let them run flat they're
absolutely fine.


At 185 kg I imagine any floatation must be miraculous.

Heh. Yes, you're right. I meant 85kg, of course.

--
Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.