J2Ski Forum Posts and Replies by ise

Dshenberger wrote:Obviously, the most common form of assigning length is in relation to height. The problem is: If you are a little bit out of proportion (weight - height) that concept can lead to issues.

That's basically correct, older skis were fairly standard so a rough rule of height would yield a general relation to build and hence ski length. The reason that matters is that the ski is essentially turned by bending it and arcing the edge around. That's also the reason the rule has some wrinkles now, with a radical sidecut it's not so hard to arc a ski so you ski it shorter and stiffer.

For powder you'd look at something like 180 or above and you'll see guys now on 200 skis again, even my current touring skis (which we ski short) are 185. For DH or GS boards it's the same 180-190 lenghts. While slalom are skied very short, just watching the Wengen slalom you see guys on 155 - 160 or so but they're very stiff and brutal (fun) skis for most people.

Most vendors have different size charts and they'll be telling you something about flex while the side cut of course you can just read off.

So, in answer to the original question, yes there's a formula but it's a function of weight/height/ability/style along with ski characteristics like flex and side cut with terrain factored in, too complex for a simple rule of thumb.

ski lifts are one of the overlays in Google Earth, at least for Switzerland they are. Slightly out of date for this area though.

bennyboy wrote:
I'd heard that some rescue helicopters had them in, but they only work at a max of 50m above the snow. So im bad weather conditions thats pretty much impossible!!

Rather more than 50m I think, that would be fairly impractical from a helicopter of course. It's 200m in the air and 30m through snow which is more than enough.

I've just watched the RECCO "White Book" DVD, which is a avalanche awareness resource, and they make it pretty plain that you can't rely on RECCO's.

Trencher wrote:I've read a couple of times that recco is really only meant effective for inbounds use. Inbound avalanches are becomming more common in the US and are claiming lives. Does that make more sense for this tool, where Ski Patrol can be on the scene in minutes and people were not expecting to need transcievers ?

Trencher

eekk ! :D I was kind of hoping someone wouldn't mention that :D

What does inbound mean? different things in the US and here in Europe for sure. If all gear suppliers stuck Reccos in the gear in the US and US skiers continue not to carry equipment when skiing those inbound areas and there's a rise in inbound avalanches then maybe we start to see some increase favourable outcomes.

But is that true? Are there more inbound avalanches in the US than previously? I wasn't aware of it in statistical terms, I've seen a couple of incident reports, like this one :

http://www.telemarktips.com/FSneverSame.html

The writer doesn't mention Recco and I'm not sure I can see what the response time of the local piste services was, but the clock's ticking and any response over a couple of min's isn't much good.

For Europe it's pretty simple, anyone that ventures off-piste relying on Recco's would be foolhardy in the extreme.

Another corner case would be heli operations, I've read some are equipped and can obviously be on scene pretty quick for their clients.

pavelski wrote:Ise,
Sorry, but after contacting the inventor of Recco, Magnus Granhed I am sure the following do not agree with your opinion of the quality of the Recco;
Jeff Grella - Vans
Matt Sharkey - Sessions
Tom Routh - Snow sport
Dave Rosenberg - Quicksilver
Letitia Ferrier - North Face
Bruno Jelk - Rescue Zermatt Patrol

Pavel

I doubt that very, very much, no rescue professional will have told you that they're an effective device for an off-piste skier or that anything other than carrying transceiver, shovel and probe is recommended or that anyone relying on solely using a Recco is anything other extremely foolish. That's my opinion, it's the consensus opinion held by everyone with any knowledge on the matter and anyone that says different is dangerously wrong.

If you're refuting that then say so, then people will be able to judge what you're saying. And if you are then I suggest you produce some figures for live recoveries.

pavelski wrote:I also am a "neophyte" in the technical aspects of this unit.

I'm sorry, but this is actually important, it's life or death in fact and there's no room for guesswork no matter how well intentioned. There's no significant number of recorded live recoveries using Reccos sadly and that's because of the simple maths of the situation, 92% of people will survive burial if recovered in 15 minutes and Recco can't be deployed that quick. Recco just can't beat those numbers.

njw wrote:Thanks for your reply. The reason I picked Mont Dore is that I'm going to be staying a couple of hours away so this was the nearest resort to spend a few dys skiing. I realise it's probably not ideal, but it's convenient. Are there any places you'd recommend I went to or avoided. Also thanks for the tip about Le Lioran, I'll read up on it.

Certainly if it's close it's worth going, I used to live in Clermont Ferrand and it was close but I had a place in St Gervais so it made more sense to just go there for the weekend.

Definitely try Le Lioran though, much more "alpine" in feel I always though.

Sadly, my time there pre-dates small digital cameras so I don't have many pictures :D

njw wrote:Has anyone been to this resort. Planning to go with 3 young kids. Looking to have lessons. Is it a dcent resort for beginners and does anyone have any helpful advice on the resort.

Thanks for any help

I used to live near there and I enjoyed skiing there but I'd not really recommend it unless you live there as well. It's small and the weather is very unpredictable, at times it can be brutally cold and gets a harsh wind. Nearby Le Lioran was somewhere I preferred but it's still very small.

If you want services like English language group lessons then I doubt they're available.

What led you to pick Mt Dore?

Admin wrote:Anyone skiing today and care to give us our first on-the-spot report for the year?

A fairly quiet day and a later start, we took the ski bus over to Grimentz and did a couple of runs before taking the itinerary from the Avoin run down to St-Jean. I'd joined this run the other day when we skied down from the Orxival after climbing La Brinta. In truth it's not much of an itinerary and more of a prepared piste and pretty hard pack at the moment. Actually, it was awkward, I've been using my Garmont MegaRides recently on the new Black Diamond Voodoos and but today, to satisfy my curiosity, switched to my Garmont Endorphins to see how they worked.

The result seems to be that the Endorphins over power the Voodoos somewhat, that's just not the case with the Endorphins and the Stormrider XL's I was using last season. Both skis are mounted with Fritschi Freeride Plus touring bindings but Voodoos are longer, fatter and have a little more flex than the Stormriders and it really makes a difference. I'd have to try some other combinations but my instinct is that the Endorphin, and consequently boots like the Axon, really only work with actual downhill skis like my Stormriders for example. The Endorphins paired with the Voodoos, which are basically a fat back country ski, just didn't seem to work at least for the hard pack we were on today.