Zermatt Grooming Problem

Ace wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:12:28 +0100, "Simon Brown"
wrote:


"Nick Hounsome" wrote in message
.uk...


But why? I can't be the only person who thinks that it is easier to turn
on
the bumps rather than around them (at least when they are small and
especially on flatter pistes).

The 'correct' procedure - requires less energy and is easier to control.


Rubbish. There's no single 'correct' procedure.

Too right. I finally cracked bumps [1] when I took a lesson with an
instructor who told us just to make GS turns, and make them where you
want, not where the bumps want you to. Initially it was terrifying
trying to keep up a fast and constant pace from piste to crud and
through bumps, but after a bit of practise it did kick in. It doesn't
always work out, you sometimes have to pick your spot if there is
particularly steep sided bump, but the general idea of turning on one
particular part of a mogul just doesn't work for me.

Steve

[1] if you saw me skiing them you'd probably question that claim!

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:27:15 +0000, Steve Haigh
wrote:

Ace wrote:

There's no single 'correct' procedure.

Too right. I finally cracked bumps [1] when I took a lesson with an
instructor who told us just to make GS turns, and make them where you
want, not where the bumps want you to. Initially it was terrifying
trying to keep up a fast and constant pace from piste to crud and
through bumps, but after a bit of practise it did kick in.

Can be fun like that, but beware falling into the trap of thinking you
can always do so. I tried it on a steep, hard packed competition slope
last year and soon found I was unable to lose enough speed and my
knees were taking a right hammering; I baled out onto the piste about
halfway down, then skiied the bottom section in a more traditional
stylee :-}

It doesn't always work out, you sometimes have to pick your spot if there is
particularly steep sided bump,

Hoyuss

but the general idea of turning on one
particular part of a mogul just doesn't work for me.

Nor me, hence the need to vary each turn accordingly.

--
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.

Sue wrote:
funkraum writes
Sue wrote:

Pistebumps are the urban wildlife of landforms, I love 'em so much that
one day I'll learn how to ski them properly!


I might have misunderstood your description but .... moguls are
formed by the depression which the ski edge digs in the snow when you
turn, not by the build-up of carved-out snow.

To a first approximation, the difference is academic since the
carved-out snow has to go somewhere. Probably onto the uphill face of
the next mogul diagonally down.
[...]

I am quite sure that some of it does but it just stays as mush and
runs down the gulley. To return to snow it would have be compacted by
some force, and since no-one skis on the upside compression slope of
the mogul, that does not happen. Hang around below some soft bumps
and watch.

In message , funkraum
writes

I am quite sure that some of it does but it just stays as mush and
runs down the gulley. To return to snow it would have be compacted by
some force, and since no-one skis on the upside compression slope of
the mogul, that does not happen.

But if it didn't rejoin the bumps somehow, the spaces between the bumps
would fill up with scrapings, which doesn't happen either.

Hang around below some soft bumps
and watch.

That's a good idea.
Now, where in the Alps can I find some soft bumps just now?

--
Sue ];(

Sue wrote:

In message , funkraum
writes

I am quite sure that some of it does but it just stays as mush and
runs down the gulley. To return to snow it would have be compacted by
some force, and since no-one skis on the upside compression slope of
the mogul, that does not happen.

But if it didn't rejoin the bumps somehow, the spaces between the bumps
would fill up with scrapings, which doesn't happen either.
[...]

Uu.... I think most ski-slopes are on inclines - you know - like a
hill. Gravity makes the mush run downwards, much in the same way water
does.

In message , funkraum
writes
Sue wrote:

In message , funkraum
writes

I am quite sure that some of it does but it just stays as mush and
runs down the gulley. To return to snow it would have be compacted by
some force, and since no-one skis on the upside compression slope of
the mogul, that does not happen.

But if it didn't rejoin the bumps somehow, the spaces between the bumps
would fill up with scrapings, which doesn't happen either.
[...]

Uu.... I think most ski-slopes are on inclines - you know - like a
hill. Gravity makes the mush run downwards, much in the same way water
does.


I'm unconvinced.
Firstly, the scrapings off moguls are recycled snow, normally below
freezing point. The snow recycled by skiers doesn't normally flow off
the slope, though on a groomed slope it's gradually carried downhill as
skiers push against it.
If scrapings did flow off the slope, the effect should be most obvious
on a smooth hard "sheet metal" piste, but on a still day the little
patches of shavings don't move.

Secondly, even if it's a warm day, slush is a thick sloppy fluid which
can actually stand up in the form of moguls - until you ski through them
and send it flying in all directions.

Thirdly, it isn't true that nobody skis onto the foreheads of the bumps:
I've often seen people standing on them, and natural bumps always have
scars there from being skied over.
I think the scrapings off moguls get added to the next mogul down,
unless the weather's windy enough to sweep them away, but I'll try to
make some observations on this when I get a chance.

--
Sue ]

I think the scrapings off moguls get added to the next mogul down, unless
the weather's windy enough to sweep them away, but I'll try to make some
observations on this when I get a chance.

I tend to agree, which in turn makes the moguls themselves effectively move
gradually uphill!

--
kitemap
http://ugcc.co.uk