Pet Peeve

VtSkier wrote:
TCS wrote:

Vertigo is interesting and of interest to you
western folks. We had an avalanche on it. The top
section is around 45 degrees and the mountain
decided to REALLY pound it with snowmaking since
we've had a pitiful amount of snow here in the East.



45 degrees? I hope you meant 45 per cent.

Still a funny story.

TCS (The Colorado Skier)
Colorado Springs - Gateway to Colorado Ski Country


I can't imagine getting much of an avalanche
going on 24 degrees.

According to this guy, nine out of ten avalanches occur on 25-45
degree hills: http://www.mroutdoors.com/columns/2000/0109out.html

I suppose on hills less than 25 degrees, there is not enough pitch
to force an avalanche and on hills greater than 45 degrees, it slides
off as soon as it falls. Unfortunately, 25 to 45 degree grades are
*exactly* the kinds of hills most skiers like to run.

Here in Pennsylvania, Denton Hill has a 66 degree slope. They have a
hard time keeping snow on that thing....

Jeff

Jay Levitt wrote:
In article OpLNd.10221$ya6.9978@trndny01, says...

I'm
not talking about wide radius turns on a steep hill, I'm talking about
TRAVERSING the trail from left to right


Dumb question - what's the difference between traversing and wide-radius
turns? Just how many times you do it?


It's not a dumb question. I pulled the term "traversing" out of the air
for lack of ski jargon to describe it. Wide-radius implies an ess-like
turn; the behavior I tried to describe is more like a zig zag. The skier
zigs to the far right of the trail, stops, then zags back to the left
side of the trail, stops, and continues the pattern. It looks more like
mountaineering than skiing. If there's a term for it, I'd love to know
it.

Cheers,
Jeff

Jay Levitt wrote:
In article ,
says...

In a turn, the legs are always actively turning the ski.
In a traverse, you are going straight across the hill, and only when the
next turn happens do the feet become active again.


OK.. so why is traversing more annoying/disruptive than wide-radius
turns? I can see the biomechanical distinction, but it seems both will
put you back and forth across the hill in roughly the same manner.


To me it's less annoying, but the person is applying technique, albeit
in a tentative manner. I was a rookie at one point - heck, I'm still
learning - and it's hard for me to be annoyed with people who are
pushing the envelope and trying to get better. You can time a pass by
a wide=radius turner. Who knows what the hell a traverser is going to
do?

Jay Levitt wrote:
In article ,
says...

In a turn, the legs are always actively turning the ski.
In a traverse, you are going straight across the hill, and only when the
next turn happens do the feet become active again.


OK.. so why is traversing more annoying/disruptive than wide-radius
turns? I can see the biomechanical distinction, but it seems both will
put you back and forth across the hill in roughly the same manner.

I think the answer is a matter of degree.

You look more like you know what you are doing if you
are linking big "C" shaped turns than if you are ambling
back and forth and connecting traverses with a sharp,
often initiated with a wedge, turn to get back to going
the other direction.

It is possible to link traverses at a fairly high speed
with short radius turns at the end of every traverse.
But the act of traversing has the connotation of skiing
very slowly and with a great amount of trepidation.

Before skis became so turny and enjoyable to turn, what
I described was the norm. Only short turns down the fall
line were described as anything other than linked traverses.

Boy am I dating myself.

The skis weren't turning going across the slope at a small
to moderate angle to the fall line, they were traversing,
and your next move was to initiate a turn and go back the
opposite way, in another traverse. We've changed. Remember
an earlier thread that described stem christies as always
beginning from a traverse? Well that was the progression.

Stem christies to parallel turns from traverse to traverse,
and then for fun, just linking turns down the fall line,
with a definite start and finish to the turn to just
brushing your skis back and forth across the fall line
(wedeln).

Or if you really wanted to show off, exaggerate your upper
body reverse shoulder, counter-rotation without much more
than brushing your skis back and forth slowly in a Stein
inspired Mambo. You used a bit of edge so you wouldn't
fall to the inside of the turn and look like a total dufuss.

ant wrote:


"I can get down anything"! How often have you heard that one?


Most often said by people who can't rappel, and who are not worth a belay.

Jeff wrote:

Here in Pennsylvania, Denton Hill has a 66 degree slope. They have a
hard time keeping snow on that thing....

Why would they bother? 66deg is something you jump, not ski. And in Penn
it's likely to be short enough to jump. If it was long enough to ski,
you'd have Vallencant's ghost oveer there trying to ski it.

Possibly you misspoke?

lal_truckee wrote:
Jeff wrote:


Here in Pennsylvania, Denton Hill has a 66 degree slope. They have a
hard time keeping snow on that thing....


Why would they bother? 66deg is something you jump, not ski. And in Penn
it's likely to be short enough to jump. If it was long enough to ski,
you'd have Vallencant's ghost oveer there trying to ski it.

Possibly you misspoke?

Well if it's 66%, that's only slightly over 30 degrees and,
except for weather, I can't see any problem keeping snow
on that.

VtSkier wrote:
lal_truckee wrote:
Jeff wrote:

Here in Pennsylvania, Denton Hill has a 66 degree slope. They have a
hard time keeping snow on that thing....

Well if it's 66%, that's only slightly over 30 degrees and,
except for weather, I can't see any problem keeping snow
on that.

Richard, you're not paying attention.
It's in Pennsylvania.
*Of course* they have trouble keeping snow on the slopes.
(c:


--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Völkl Conspiracy

Walt wrote:
VtSkier wrote:

lal_truckee wrote:

Jeff wrote:

Here in Pennsylvania, Denton Hill has a 66 degree slope. They have a
hard time keeping snow on that thing....


Well if it's 66%, that's only slightly over 30 degrees and,
except for weather, I can't see any problem keeping snow
on that.


Richard, you're not paying attention.
It's in Pennsylvania.
*Of course* they have trouble keeping snow on the slopes.
(c:


I am paying attention, that's why I said "except for weather".

VtSkier wrote:
Walt wrote:

Richard, you're not paying attention.
It's in Pennsylvania.
*Of course* they have trouble keeping snow on the slopes.
(c:

I am paying attention, that's why I said "except for weather".

This reminds me of a famous quote:

"So, Mrs. Lincoln, except for that, how did you enjoy the play?"

--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Völkl Conspiracy