Print

Print


Hey Ben, 
In your races, how much equipment inspection was there?


On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:03:31 -0400, Ben Peters <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Here's my take on it as an Eastern Cup level FIS racer... among
>people I know personally, at my level, this past season was the worst
>for injuries I've ever seen (almost all ACL, MCL, miniscus, or some
>combination thereof). While i think this might have been in part due
>to snow conditions (bumpy tracks, bare spots, etc.), there is also a
>lot to suggest modern equipment. from (endless) talks about world cup/
>high level racing with coaches and other athletes, i think that there
>is a pretty substantial correlation between equipment and injuries. I
>don't have any hard numbers to back it up, but according to my coach
>(who has been coaching for 20-some years, and been a ski racer
>himself for most of his life):
>
>knee injuries have increased dramatically at virtually every FIS
>level since the advent of shaped skis, especially in speed events,
>and especially among women. One of the most common ways to tear an
>ACL these days is in a speed event (super g/downhill) when coming
>into air "late" (behind teh course). I know from experience that this
>is not a good situation... you generally are not as well prepared to
>absorb the air as best you can when you enter in late, and then
>(worse) you can have to land on edge just to make the next gate. The
>problem is, with shaped skis & speeds approaching 90+ (world cuppers,
>the fastest i've been clocked is 76) if that ski lands on edge the
>right way it can carve way too quickly to control and you could have
>a torn ACL before you can do anything about it. In slalom this can
>happen when you get late & get "launched" the your ski, especially
>when you're in the back seat. According to my coach, several years
>ago, before FIS started raising minimum sidecuts & lengths, so many
>women world cuppers where injured in speed races as the result of
>shaped skis that they didn't even fill the quotas for some of the
>races towards the end of the season.
>
>So again, I don't have any specific research to back up those claims,
>but both emperical evidence that i've seen and heard about, as well
>as my own experiences/sensations while skiing agree that more sidecut
>& more lift increase the chance of knee injury. Still shaped skis
>have definitely helped the sport too. the hard  part for FIS is to
>find the "middle" ground between injuries & performance.
>
>that's my take at least
>-ben
>On Jun 6, 2006, at 11:37, Kevin Broderick wrote:
>
>> On 6 Jun 2006, at 1:22 AM, John Crowley, Jr. wrote:
>>> [CHOMP]
>>> Guenther Hujara, the men's World Cup race director, said the changes
>>> have to be made due to the rapid increase in lower leg injuries,
>>> primarily knees.
>>
>> Are there any studies demonstrating that the increase in injuries
>> is due to equipment design?  Or, for that matter, is the increase
>> in injuries statistically significant?  I've heard lots of
>> anecdotal evidence suggesting that knee injuries became more common
>> in the mid-to-late nineties, but I've never seen a study that
>> actually considered injury patterns in ski racing as specific
>> subject.  (I may just have not seen them, but I do read /Ski
>> Racing/ regularly and would expect significant and related findings
>> to merit a note there.)
>>
>>> "We feel that these changes will have a positive effect on reducing
>>> the number of injuries we are experiencing, he said.
>>
>> <rhetorical>Did the previous changes (i.e. the initial limits on
>> standheight and sidecut put into place a few years ago) make any
>> difference?  What about the drop from 60mm to 55mm?  Why do you
>> feel that way?</rhetorical>
>>
>>> The new maximum standheight of ski, plate and binding will be 50
>>> millimeters, reduced from 55 mm. In addition, boot height will be
>>> restricted to 43 mm from the current 45 mm.
>>
>> For those who don't bother measuring their skis, I've actually got
>> one setup that comes to 55mm (well, 54.5mm, actually) single-
>> stacked--Rossi DH boards, EPB plates, and a set of Salomon Comp
>> springs.  50mm is pretty dang low, and I would expect to be less
>> standheight than many upper-end recreational setups provide.
>>
>>> Ski widths will be expanded as well. Currently the minimum width for
>>> all skis is 60 mm. Under the new rules, ski-width minimums will be as
>>> follows: for slalom, 63 mm; GS and SG skis, 65 mm; and downhill skis,
>>> 67 mm.
>>
>> Is this going to result in a material change in ski shapes, or are
>> skis already at or above these minimums?  The published Rossignol
>> and Volkl ski dimensions (on their websites) indicate that their
>> current (i.e. 05-06) skis already meet the minimum-waist
>> requirements.  I recognize that World Cup athletes may or may not
>> be skiing on different gear profiles, but for some reason "World
>> Cup Stock Tech Details" isn't listed on either site.  (Atomic
>> doesn't even list retail-stock dimensions, for that matter.)
>>
>>> Giant slalom ski radiuses will be regulated as well. For men, the GS
>>> ski minimum radius will be 27 m and the women's 23 m.
>>
>> Well, it's a good thing those rules don't apply in reeb league--
>> we'd all have to go out and buy new equipment.
>>
>> Speaking of which, at what level are FIS equipment requirements
>> actually enforced these days?  I know that my gear was never
>> measured racing in MARA USSA-sanctioned events (and I know that
>> some of the other skiers were definitely over 55mm of standheight),
>> and I've read about regular Continental Cup-level tests.  However,
>> I don't recall hearing about any Eastern Cup-level equipment DQs or
>> regular testing (although I'd expect that it does happen), never
>> mind state-level races.
>>
>> Kevin T. Broderick
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.
>>
>> To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.
>
>To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html
>=========================================================================

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html