If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
funkraum wrote in
: "Edi" wrote: [...] My dodgy generalisation is that the US resorts probably have shorter runs, lower vertical drops but at least do have more of the white stuff which is always useful if you want to slide down it. Alps were glaciated. Rockies were not. I think you'll find they were. Further north, they still are. Gives different terrain. The slopes of the Rockies are wider, hence US skiers express surprise at the number of catwalks in European resorts (which are bulldozed into the mountain to enable easy transit). I'm not sure where you're thinking of, but I wonder if some of these aren't actually roads, or at least forestry tracks. Many of these become pistes in winter. In other places short sections have been leveled to cross steep areas, some of which are the sides of U-shaped valleys - certainly the result of glaciation. Are there no U-shaped valleys in the Rockies? Jeremy |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Felly sgrifennodd Marinus :
Edi wrote: Why the difference and is there any way of comparing US and Euro resorts on size ? Divide the area by the average piste width and you're done. You're dividing values with different units. You can't do that! At least, if you do, you won't get a meaningful answer. Adrian -- Adrian Shaw ais@ Adran Cyfrifiadureg, Prifysgol Cymru, aber. Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Cymru ac. http://users.aber.ac.uk/ais uk |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Jeremy Mortimer wrote:
funkraum wrote in "Edi" wrote: [...] My dodgy generalisation is that the US resorts probably have shorter runs, lower vertical drops but at least do have more of the white stuff which is always useful if you want to slide down it. Alps were glaciated. Rockies were not. I think you'll find they were. Further north, they still are. You don't say ! I think the ice sheet descended as far as a latitude something like the lower border of Ohio - I was very young at the time. Hence the obtuse piles-of-rubble look of the lower Rockies, with the absence of hanging valleys and the omission of the evil-looking scalloped flanks in the fashion of the Weisshorn. Gives different terrain. The slopes of the Rockies are wider, hence US skiers express surprise at the number of catwalks in European resorts (which are bulldozed into the mountain to enable easy transit). I'm not sure where you're thinking of, but I wonder if some of these aren't actually roads, or at least forestry tracks. Many of these become pistes in winter. Various. Many were/are tracks/roads, many have been bulldozed. I came up behind the bulldozing-in-progress once below Lac des Vaux at Verbier. In other places short sections have been leveled to cross steep areas, some of which are the sides of U-shaped valleys - certainly the result of glaciation. Are there no U-shaped valleys in the Rockies? They tend to look like this top photo: http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame...ocky/rocky.htm Nice enough, but not the sci-fi book cover vertigineity of something like the Lauterbrunnen valley (Wengen-Mürren) up at Gimmelwald. http://images.google.de/images?q=lau...r=&sa=N&tab=wi Since the Rockies run from Alaska to New Mexico and so you could find whatever you are looking for, somewhere. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Why the difference and is there any way of comparing US and Euro
resorts on size ? Divide the area by the average piste width and you're done. You're dividing values with different units. You can't do that! At least, if you do, you won't get a meaningful answer. No way! If you divide an area (m^2) with a width (m) you get a length (m). Meter is quite meaningfull here on this side of the Nordsea ;-)) Marinus |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Felly sgrifennodd Marinus :
No way! If you divide an area (m^2) with a width (m) you get a length (m). Meter is quite meaningfull here on this side of the Nordsea ;-)) Unless I misunderstood something, we were comparing area of resort as quoted in the US with piste miles as quoted in Europe. It's meaningless to divide the area of a European resort by the average width of a piste: what does that tell you? In the extreme, imagine an average piste width of 1 metre, and a resort of area 2 km^2. Does that mean it has 4,000 kilometres [1] of piste? You need to MULTIPLY the average width of a piste by the total length of the pistes to get a skiable pisted area. Or have I assumed wrong, and US resorts' area means pisted area, not total area within the bounds of the resort? By the way, "Meter" is something which is used to measure stuff like electricity or water. I'm talking metres here. Adrian [1] 2km^2 = 4 sq km[2]. 1 metre = 0.001 km. [2] note km^2 and sq km are not the same thing -- Adrian Shaw ais@ Adran Cyfrifiadureg, Prifysgol Cymru, aber. Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Cymru ac. http://users.aber.ac.uk/ais uk |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
I can't let this one go: km^2 is just another way of writing sq km,
they are very much the same thing. I hope you're not in real estate And while I'm at it, I think it is a bit harsh to "correct" our European friend's written English: meter is a valid synonym for metre in most of the world and it might just have been a typo. Now where's that thread on helmets... |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On 11 Jan 2005 17:29:02 -0800, "Sammy" wrote:
I can't let this one go: km^2 is just another way of writing sq km, they are very much the same thing. No they aren't. 3 sq Km is an area that would fit in a rectangle 1000m by 3000m. 3Km^2 is 9 Sq Km, which would need a 3000m by 3000m rectangle (square) to enclose it. And while I'm at it, I think it is a bit harsh to "correct" our European friend's written English: meter is a valid synonym for metre in most of the world and it might just have been a typo. Yes, I agree that "correction" was uncalled for. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager A man needs a good memory after he has lied. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:01:45 +0000, Alex Heney
wrote: On 11 Jan 2005 17:29:02 -0800, "Sammy" wrote: I can't let this one go: km^2 is just another way of writing sq km, they are very much the same thing. No they aren't. 3 sq Km is an area that would fit in a rectangle 1000m by 3000m. 3Km^2 is 9 Sq Km, which would need a 3000m by 3000m rectangle (square) to enclose it. No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. km^2 is the standard form of writing what we'd normally say as 'square kilometre', in the same way as other measures are used, e.g. lb/in^2 is spoken as 'pounds per square inch'. The misleading term is the rarely-used 'kilometres square' which would indeed indicate a 3*3km square, with an area of 9 km^2. -- 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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:20:22 +0100, Ace wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:01:45 +0000, Alex Heney wrote: On 11 Jan 2005 17:29:02 -0800, "Sammy" wrote: I can't let this one go: km^2 is just another way of writing sq km, they are very much the same thing. No they aren't. 3 sq Km is an area that would fit in a rectangle 1000m by 3000m. 3Km^2 is 9 Sq Km, which would need a 3000m by 3000m rectangle (square) to enclose it. No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. km^2 is the standard form of writing what we'd normally say as 'square kilometre', in the same way as other measures are used, e.g. lb/in^2 is spoken as 'pounds per square inch'. The misleading term is the rarely-used 'kilometres square' which would indeed indicate a 3*3km square, with an area of 9 km^2. I would read km^2 as being kilometres square. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Oxymoron: Safe Sex. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Champ wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:12:41 +0100, Ace wrote: On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:09:19 +0000, Champ wrote: On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 00:31:12 +0100, "Marinus" wrote: Edi wrote: Why the difference and is there any way of comparing US and Euro resorts on size ? Divide the area by the average piste width and you're done. Never go off piste, eh? So, the off-piste is counted in a resort's quoted 'km of piste' is it? Dunno, but a typical US lift opens up a lot of terrain, which might only have two marked routes down it. My experience of Canada is that every possible variation from the lift is marked and signposted as a seperate run. We even found one in Whistler that was only 2m long (a drop off a cornice that then rejoined the main route). My experience of skiing in the US is very limited. FWIW I see some value in both descriptions, but like Edi I'm frustrated by the lack of comparibility. Just means I have to ski them all myself :-) Yeah, that works. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Off Piste Holidays | Neil Walker | European Ski Resorts | 8 | July 1st 04 06:51 PM |
OFF PISTE FOR BEGGINERS | k | European Ski Resorts | 37 | March 21st 04 09:45 AM |
On-line piste maps | Clive Perry | European Ski Resorts | 5 | January 17th 04 02:58 PM |
Hors Piste Heroes | David Off | European Ski Resorts | 0 | January 17th 04 12:25 PM |
Zermatt off piste? | tomi pesonen | European Ski Resorts | 4 | October 31st 03 06:26 PM |