J2Ski Forum Posts and Replies by Jan I Stenmark

Not going to get sucked into the "My place is better than yours" debate but I will add this.

I haven't been to Bansko or Borovets but I have been to Pamporovo (2001) and my experiance was of gentle people trying hard to provide a happy experiance for guests. Some of the skiing was novice but some was quite challenging however the overall experiance was a good one.

What has happened in the last 7 yrs I don't know and probably shouldn't guess but my memories are sweet :)

Jan

Hi Ollie and welcome!

Which ones did you get? 10' or 12' with / wo switch?

As for boots you're gonna have to give us some more info ;) we're all friendly here so go on, tell us everything!

Jan

Thanks Dave :) - What did you think of the new four-man chair whilst you were here?? If only it went right to the top of the Rosskopf ;)

Oh and thanks for offering to wait for me - what a Gent :D

Jan

I'm trying to get the lowdown on exactly what's happening and should be able to report later this week.

Naturally, any guests that would like to visit Niederau but can't get into the V. know will know where to go ;)

Jan

Well Pavel I cannot wait any longer or spend any more time lying awake at night trying to work out your fiendish clues so here is my submission ...

1. For some time I was fairly sure that this was one of a number of “flex control inserts” for Salomon boots. I was sure I remembered seeing this type of thing on the market – You bought the standard boot and then installed the appropriate insert whose “squishiness” met your personal requirement. But then I thought no. I then spent sometime thinking it was a binding hold drilling guide (again for Salomon) but however I looked at it I couldn’t work out why the top surface would need to be inclined if this was it’s purpose. I have now settled on an answer which I am convinced in wrong because I can’t make your clue work with my answer (never a good start!) So my answer is: A device to prevent ski tips from crossing. I am sure there was a trade name for them but advancing age prevents me from recalling it! I think the holes are both to allow fitment on a range of different ski tops and makes and also to reduce weight. I suspect that they are no longer needed because the introduction of shorter skis has reduced the tendency of skis to cross.

2. Ok, now we enter the realm of “The Sleep Deprivation” question … Again I don’t immediately know the answer but hopefully like my old maths master used to tell me, “Show your workings and then even if you get the answer wrong you will get some for method!”. Firstly, my observations:
• The device appears to be made from metal – Is this for strength of to dissipate heat or perhaps for both?
• There is an area between to two raised sides that looks to have less white powder deposit on it – Could this be because this is where a ski is located?
• The two raised areas have semicircular holes – Is this for attaching some other element of the process?
• The overall impression of the metal is that it has been exposed to some kind of heat process and we see the flux residue. Equally the white powder could be wax, although it looks too dense.
• The two ends are reduced in thickness – Why would this be important to the function of the device? At one point I thought that this was an old version of a “Ski service boot” that allows the person servicing the ski to insert this into the binding and then invert the ski and mount it on a bench to work on the base – This doesn’t really make sense because you would need a different plate for every different boot sole length and anyway the ends are the wrong shape to fit a binding properly. So why are the ends thinner?
• Reviewing your clue I am more and more convinced that those teeth are not intended to be used to remove any material from the ski. They certainly aren’t sharp enough to remove edge metal so that leaves them as some form of clamp / retainer, but the distance between them cannot be varied so they must be designed for a specific ski / binding configuration.
• So my final answer is that this is the worlds most over engineered device to support a ski whilst at the same time clamping the (Tyrolia) brakes out of the way to allow base servicing. For an extra point I suggest that there are additional elements required to make this item fully functional.

3. I think this must come down to shape (as mentioned by others) but more specifically their shape to out-do the opposition, respectively, Other cars, The Enemy and Other ski manufacturers. It is the adoption of this “new” shape before the “opposition” can find an answer that allows success.

4. I think that this answer boils down to one of the phrases “monocoque” or “composite” but my automotive history isn’t strong enough to explain my reasoning. What I do know is that Porsche is one of the very few sports car manufacturers that employ the monocoque construction technique (the tooling costs are prohibitively high I understand). As for ski manufacturers, presumably the concept of manufacturing skis from a range of different layers rather than a single strong core (like a chassis in a Model T Ford and later) was prompted by Ferdinand’s designs although this is conjecture.

5. Cervinia & Heavenly – Although if Ski Areas are allowed either “The Porte du Soleil” or “Espace San Bernardo” would both qualify.

6. Pass.

7. Now this might be a little controversial but I believe this is a question about weight distribution both in a fore-aft direction and a left-right direction. My only hesitation about this answer is that not all skiers are bipods, which would discount the left-right aspect but here is the thinking: Assuming that the total of all forces acting on the snow is X then dividing these forces equally between both feet gives Y, an optimal force distribution for efficient carving. Equally, if the total force applied to the ski is X then to achieve a neutral and optimal stance the forces should be applied equally to the front and rear of the ski or X/2 = Y where Y is the force applied to each half of the ski. Gaussian theory is intimately involved with distribution involving symmetry which would perhaps explain the clue.

8. These are all pieces of information required by ski hire / ski shops in order to provide you with the best match of equipment to your individual requirements.
a. 3 – Self Assessed Ability rating. Many systems exist where 1 = Total Novice, 6 = Expert or possibly I = Novice, II = Intermediate & III = Expert
b. 68 - Mass in Kg
c. 48 - Age in years
d. 255 - Boot Sole Length
e. 7 - DIN setting (although in many cases the shop should probably calculate this for you!)

9.
a. Probably not strictly classed as “equipment” but the introduction of the hinged slalom pole has probably had more influence on that particular discipline than any worn by the racer – It allowed the development of the “cross lead” where the racer can take the pole at ankle height using the outside hand to “clear” the pole and so with a fanfare of trumpets we unveil the need for your legendary “Racing Gloves”! Prior to this, heavily ribbed tops were worn to clear the gate by extending the inside arm forward thus allowing the pole to slide past, bearing in mind the pole was solid and did not flex on impact.
b. Cat-suit material has a huge effect on the performance of downhill racers, so much so that exacting limits are set for the porosity of the material – Who can forget Ken Read having to hand over 1st place to his team mate Steve Podborski in Morzine, France in 1979 when Ken’s suit failed the porosity test!
c. Finally it has to be that topic that is never far from our thoughts – Wax. Probably the subject of more conjecture, discussion, pseudo-science and confusion than any other topic in skiing. However, with continued development modern waxes play an extremely important role in Alpine racing, probably contributing at least as much to ultimate winning times as any other single piece of equipment.

10. I just don’t know enough about North American Ski history to be able to answer this with any real confidence but just to give an answer I’m going to say “The day Mount Saint Helen exploded” …

And now for a good nights sleep :)

Jan

Hi Karen,

I thought you might like some photos of Niederau so I posted some for your enjoyment :)

Jan

Hi Karen,

I think the phrase “lost in translation” could be used here!

I agree that the Ski School is far better at teaching than presenting its prices ) but a summary of the deals are:

• Any person (3.5yrs – 103yrs) 6 days (10:00 – Noon + 13:30 – 15:30) = €138,-

• Any person (3.5yrs – 103yrs) 6 days (10:00 – Noon OR 13:30 – 15:30) = €120,-

Note that children aged 3.5 – 6/7 will be taught separately from adults (and in a different way!) but this shouldn't affect you :)

Additionally, Children can be accompanied during the lunch period for an extra €8,-

If this totally misses your point :oops: PM me with your contact details and I’ll talk you through it (or find out if I can’t)

Jan

Ok, it’s not possible for me to refrain from joining in any more ;)

Here’s the thing, you (as a sentient adult) should “almost certainly” wear a helmet when doing any of the following:

• Ski Racing – From Slalom to Downhill, Skiercross or any other form of closed course alpine event.
• Skiing Off Piste – From full on backcountry to just down the edge of the piste and everywhere in-between.
• Any kind of aerials (inverted or not).
• Skiing in a resort new to you.

It takes no imagination to realise that impact with hard objects on (in my case) soft skulls will always result in high volumes of Claret!

But here’s the sting in the tale …

Here are some times when I suggest wearing a helmet could be real liability:

• ALL Children aged about 3yrs – 15yrs whilst in Ski School.
• Children aged about 3yrs – 15yrs whilst not in Ski School, depending on ability, activity and supervision level.
• When skiing with friends / family on piste in a resort known to you.
• In a nightclub!

Now I know that poor Mr Admin will have to invest in some more disk space to deal with the arguments that this post will inevitably bring but here is my reasoning:

Point 1. - Young children have heads that are disproportionately larger than their bodies which means that in simple maths terms their helmets weigh more in proportion to their body weight than is true for adults.

Point 2. – Young childrens’s muscles and neck structures are proportionally weaker and softer than that of an adult. (1)

Point 3. – “Standard” helmets are great at protecting skulls from impact collisions with hard objects.

Point 4 – “Standard” helmets are poor at protecting faces against full frontal abrasion.

Point 5 – Most helmets limit vision and spatial awareness.

Point 6 – Most helmets limit auditory awareness.

Point 7 – Most children (people) adopt an attitude of immortality and demonstrate a reduced ability to accurately access danger when provided with enhanced safety equipment. (2)

I’m not going to join the dots for you but what I would suggest is that there are a substantial number of situations where real consideration should be given to the balance between the benefits to be gained from wearing a helmet and the problems that their use may bring. Ok, ok, I will just join a few dots to illustrate my point. Let’s start by considering a child of 4 in “Ski School” or “Ski Kindergarten”. If we think about points 1 & 2, mix in some point 4 and then blend points 5 & 6 to a smooth consistency – What do we end up with? A child who is potentially at an elevated risk of neck injury, who may not be able to hear and see instructions from their instructor and who is more likely to fall flat on their face than hit a hard object at high speed.

Like everything in life there are very few times when you get something for nothing. The compensation culture has driven a move towards “protection” at all costs and the Pavlovian (not our Pavel but the Classical Learning Theorist) response of wearing helmets in all situations! I suggest that this response needs to be tempered with a good old fashioned dollop of parental juggling. Educate yourselves about the risk and act in whatever way you feel most appropriate.

In case this is all getting a little boring - Just for fun try to help me understand why there is no requirement to wear helmets at (most) ice rinks? Today, I rang “The Worlds Largest Ice Rink” in Blaine, MN, USA (www.superrink.org) and was told that there was no requirement to wear helmets for adults or children. When I asked if I could hire (rent) a helmet they put me on hold “to check” and after some time they told me I could “maybe rent something for kids but, for sure, not for grown-ups!” … Kinda odd hu? Especially considering that you are far more likely to sustain a head injury ice skating than skateboarding (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/114/1/124) where helmet use is almost universally observed … Go figure!

Finally, I can introduce one interesting piece of “evidence” for your consideration. In ESY 2003-4 there was at least one LEA in the UK that explicitly prohibited the use of helmets for school children whilst abroad on snow in “ski schools” whilst under the responsibility of the LEA. The Chief Physical Education Officer for that county submitted a detailed paper to the governing body of skiing in England stating many of the issues I raise above.

Having re-read the above paragraph it does sound rather officious, sorry :oops: but I’ll leave it in just to add some gravitas to this thread )

I look forward to all discussion from here on in!

Jan

(1) - http://www.smf.org/articles/pdf/choptrauma.pdf
(2) - http://www.lidsonkids.org/ski-or-snowboard-as-if-youre-not-wearing-one.asp

Further Reading:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/02/04/ski-helmets050204.html

http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/News/Helmets-for-injury-prevention.aspx?articleID=8084&categoryID=news-poh6