Speed: Boards vs. Skis??

VtSkier wrote:
On 11/26/2010 03:46 PM, Bob F wrote:
lal_truckee wrote:
On 11/26/10 10:58 AM, downhill wrote:
VtSkier wrote:

boarder.


I don't doubt that.

There have been speed skiers since about 1860. There
has been a lot of development since then. I still think
you'll see the gap narrow. Will a boarder ever beat a
a skier in timed trials? I don't know, but it will be
interesting to watch them try. and you know they will
try.

As for aerodynamics and the testing of skiers in a
wind tunnel, I'm sure, if it hasn't been done yet, it
will be done with boarders.

the tear drop shape is most aerodynamic the tuck gets close to
that, at least a lot closer than any shape I have seen a boarder
in.

Also the speed trial boarders (riffing from posted video) seem to be
mounting hard shell bindings nearly parallel to the board but
slightly offset to avoid being taken for a monoskier. Convergence.
I think a modified tele binding for the rear boot would allow a
tuck. Equipment evolution is obviously still very young.

Snowboarders need the connection to the edge on both feet. A loose
heel won't cut it. Maybe with a wedge under the rear binding.

Bob,
Are you familiar with tele-boarding?
http://www.teleboardusa.com/teleboarding.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in1c6bB4b5M

These guys are facing pretty much forward, getting a lot
of leg bend and the rear heel is coming up nicely.
Reconsider LAL's suggestion.

It seems to me that a mono-ski set up would be less
maneuverable than a tele-board set up. With both
feet together fore and aft, it becomes difficult to
weight front or rear without putting yourself off-
balance while it seems easy to weight one foot and
you are weighting the back and weight the other,
you are weighting the front.

This tele-boarding thing might be something I'd try.

One more comment. These people make Itchie's teleboarder videos look like rank
amateurs. What's that you say?

Bob F wrote:


This tele-boarding thing might be something I'd try.

One more comment. These people make Itchie's teleboarder videos look like rank
amateurs. What's that you say?


I think that has been the whole complaint with him, posts a comment or
video of a proclaimed great ski concept or ski video. And it misses the
mark by a lot. Instead of learning from his mistakes he compounds the
issue by calling everybody who questions his statements names. He has
very trollish behavior but I think it goes further than just that. He
seems to believe the erroneous science he spouts.

On 11/26/2010 10:00 PM, Bob F wrote:
VtSkier wrote:
On 11/26/2010 03:46 PM, Bob F wrote:
lal_truckee wrote:
On 11/26/10 10:58 AM, downhill wrote:
VtSkier wrote:

boarder.


I don't doubt that.

There have been speed skiers since about 1860. There
has been a lot of development since then. I still think
you'll see the gap narrow. Will a boarder ever beat a
a skier in timed trials? I don't know, but it will be
interesting to watch them try. and you know they will
try.

As for aerodynamics and the testing of skiers in a
wind tunnel, I'm sure, if it hasn't been done yet, it
will be done with boarders.

the tear drop shape is most aerodynamic the tuck gets close to
that, at least a lot closer than any shape I have seen a boarder
in.

Also the speed trial boarders (riffing from posted video) seem to be
mounting hard shell bindings nearly parallel to the board but
slightly offset to avoid being taken for a monoskier. Convergence.
I think a modified tele binding for the rear boot would allow a
tuck. Equipment evolution is obviously still very young.

Snowboarders need the connection to the edge on both feet. A loose
heel won't cut it. Maybe with a wedge under the rear binding.

Bob,
Are you familiar with tele-boarding?
http://www.teleboardusa.com/teleboarding.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in1c6bB4b5M

These guys are facing pretty much forward, getting a lot
of leg bend and the rear heel is coming up nicely.
Reconsider LAL's suggestion.

It seems to me that a mono-ski set up would be less
maneuverable than a tele-board set up. With both
feet together fore and aft, it becomes difficult to
weight front or rear without putting yourself off-
balance while it seems easy to weight one foot and
you are weighting the back and weight the other,
you are weighting the front.

This tele-boarding thing might be something I'd try.

One more comment. These people make Itchie's teleboarder videos look like rank
amateurs. What's that you say?

Compared to the videos I posted, I'd say
they haven't been doing it very long. A little
unsteady, motions don't translate to board
as apparently the rider wants them to, seem
to have the technique OK but lack "mileage".

On Nov 26, 8:22*pm, "Bob F" wrote:
downhill wrote:
Evojeesus wrote:
On Nov 26, 4:51 pm, VtSkier wrote:

I think the question is still up in the air.

Well, the question is still, have snowboarders ever beat skiers on
the same course? Case in point, Derby de la Meije 2008 (total
vertical depends on the year but can be over 1800m):

Fastest skier: 06:02
Fastest monoskier: 07:33
Fastest telemarker: 07:33
Fastest snowboarder: 08:52

These guys are all certifiably insane, to get the idea of the madness
involved, check out the winning run from 2009:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erc3yLswnWk

=:-O

nice clip

snowfake the troll notice position of hands?

CErtainly, a snowboarder is at a distinct disadvantage in this race, since
polling and skating are used a lot. Which is not to say I think snowboarders are
faster than skiers.

True, they must lost time in the beginning. Did you watch it to the
end, the guy is schussing down mogulfields at 100kph!?

On Nov 26, 7:51 am, VtSkier wrote:
On 11/26/2010 09:54 AM, snowbender wrote:

That's what you say; nevertheless, the one I've read was another
person's saying, blah, blah, blah, same as you are. Really, they are
just people saying, I don't think either is true. But I think that as
snowboards can carve a fairly straight line (and skis have to turn to
carve), snowboards would be faster than skis.

cough cough bull**** See Lindsey Vonn and a description
of her downhill technique. Her extreme speed is, in part,
due to her ability to 'float', to use as little edge as
possible/needed.

Yup, that's what I've been saying all along, Flatboarding(tm).

I can go across a slope on my edges without turning.
Can't you?

Slipping, skidding, or carving? Yah, I think I can do all of them.

As for the argument at hand.
I once said to a snowboard instructor friend of mine
that skis were always faster than snowboard. We then
did a run from the top of one lift to the bottom of
another on a slope that goes from moderate to fairly
gentle.

He smoked me.

The conditions we
Fresh tune for him
He was 20 years old (I was 60 at the time)
and he was used to going very fast on a board.

Yup, I used to chase those guys on flatboarding, they are too fast
than I would like to ski in a ski resort.

I think the question is still up in the air.

Yes, I think the answer is up to individuals' skills, but the question
is too crude/simple to be meaningful.

I think someone can build a board (say 200cm long)
with other features, like very little sidecut
and a fairly forward stance and carving board
binding with stiff boots and then he might be
able to keep up with task oriented speed skis.
IOW, I think it may be the equipment. 'course
big cojones help too.

I think for speed skiing/riding, skis go faster, but for Chinese
downhill, snowboards are faster.

snowbender

I think for speed skiing/riding, skis go faster, but for Chinese
downhill, snowboards are faster.

snowbender

That's not true at all. I don't think you could get closer to Chinese
downhill than skier/boarder X and I've already posted the times from
the Vancouver Olympics which prove that skiers are faster. Once again
you are wrong.

On Nov 26, 11:38 am, snoig wrote:

That's what you say; nevertheless, the one I've read was another
person's saying, blah, blah, blah, same as you are. Really, they are
just people saying, I don't think either is true. But I think that as
snowboards can carve a fairly straight line (and skis have to turn to
carve), snowboards would be faster than skis.

Yes, that's what I say and that's what my co-worker who actually
competed in boarder x in the X-games says. We've had this
conversation before. As opposed to what you say, a known troll who
has frequently been proved wrong. Just like when you claimed that
Olympic downhill courses were mainly set on blue runs. Do you still
claim that b.s.?

Yes, and no, don't know where's your "mainly" comes from,
nevertheless, Olympic Downhill of Heavenly, where the first World Cup
Downhill event was held, is a blue run. And I doubt that many entirely
two miles long black hills exist in many of the Olympic sites.

This is just another example of how little you know about skiing and
snowboarding.

It's only in your little knowledge's denial, and I don't do "trivial
pursue."

Same as the misinformation you're spewing, are you not a troll?

And what misinformation is that? That skis are faster than
snowboards? The world ski/snowboard speed records prove my point
without a doubt. You can argue all you want but once again, you are
wrong.

On our mountains, we mainly do Chinese downhill, and snowboarders bomb
down the grooms always go faster than skiers.

On the mountains you'd occasional see people bomb down the groomed
runs, snowboarders were almost always faster.

No, they are not. You are misinformed as usual.

Yes, they are; I've chased them on my flatboarding.

Just try doing this google search: skis vs snowboards speed

Just point out to me one example where someone even claims snowboards
are faster.

I think all the hot shot snowboarders would tell you that.

And here's an interesting link that compares skier X times vs boarder
X times at the Vancouver Olympics. So this is a comparison of similar
levels of skiers and snowboarders.http://wiki.fisski.com/index.php/Ski...rd_Cross_times,...

Men's boarder X times are about 90% of skier X times.
Women's boarder X times are about 85% of skier X times.

So, you have been proven wrong! You can either admit it or just keep
spewing your bull**** and look like an idiot. I think we all know the
path you will take.

That's only a partial proof, and you've forgot to read the following,

"Temperature and light conditions effect the quality (hardness) of the
snow and this can effect the times even during the race.

Given the different days, with different sets of competitors, can
perhaps account for some of the differences in the times. However this
course provided a unique opportunity to look into the differences and
see in a general way what they are."

That's the article's cautionary note at the beginning. So your
"proven" was incomplete, and your conclusion "wrong."

snowbender

snowbender wrote:


On the mountains you'd occasional see people bomb down the groomed
runs, snowboarders were almost always faster.
No, they are not. You are misinformed as usual.

Yes, they are; I've chased them on my flatboarding.


So by your own admission you are slower than a snowboarder. So with that
on your resume it makes you an expert on speed and everything skiing.

you are a snowfake

On Nov 26, 5:04*pm, VtSkier wrote:

Thanks.
I don't think Ovation is that long. The picture
Pigo sent looked to be about a mile. Say the
length top to bottom of Cascade/Flume at K but
with a consistent pitch.

The consistent pitch part of Ovation is only
about a 1/2 mile. The middle section is very mellow
unless they don't groom, then it's a mine field.
The top drop is called a cliff. It's a drop of
maybe 8 feet to another mine field of bumps which
is almost never groomed and almost never open.

My "allusion" was to the length and pitch. I don't know precisely what
those numbers are for HR, but it's what came to mind. There are even a
few turns that did not fit into the frame at the bottom. The upper
part about the road is rather high alpine, hard to get to kind of
skiing. Below the road is bump city as the road is an easier way down
from the funnel to the bottom.

When it's good? It's the best "run" I've ever skied. It can be stomach/
rib cage deep, bottomless and deserted. There are some very steep
approaches off of the sides and some good shots that parallel it.

On Nov 26, 7:51*pm, downhill wrote:
Bob F wrote:

This tele-boarding thing might be something I'd try.

One more comment. These people make Itchie's teleboarder videos look like rank
amateurs. What's that you say?

I think that has been the whole complaint with him, posts a comment or
video of a proclaimed great ski concept or ski video. And it misses the
mark by a lot. Instead of learning from his mistakes he compounds the
issue by calling everybody who questions his statements names. He has
very trollish behavior but I think it goes further than just that. He
seems to believe the erroneous science he spouts.

Holy ****. Are you so stupid, so hypocritical, so out of touch with
reality that you will criticize Ichie when YOU are guilty of some
pretty disgusting namecalling anytime I point out the lies,
defamations, and vile behavior of you and your friends? You really
seem to believe this bull****. Are you insane, or just a pathological
liar?