Print

Print


Matt, I agree with the speed being faster with a suit, but I think it makes
the racers into something that most people can't relate with.    FIS
already has rules in place to make suits slower than what the speed skiers
use.    Slowing the racers down could reduce the need for so much netting.


EO,  you can buy skis very close to what they are racing on but who would
want to ski a ski 195 cm ski with a 35m turning radius?  I can't get a 27m
turning radius ski to turn on the courses I run.     Now manufacturers are
making skis  ski bum racers, I love how they market them.

https://www.volkl.com/skis/race/racetiger/racetiger-speedwall-gs-uvo.html


Skip, I think if they could downsize the courses, it could make it easier
and cheaper for a resort to host a race.  The current requirements are such
that very few places in the US could even qualify.    I would love to see a
dual paneled SL at Fenway Park.



On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Skip King <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> On 5/12/2016 12:12 PM, Get Skied wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Iski Stowe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> http://www.skiracing.com/premium/the-top-10-ways-to-save-the-world-cup
>>
>> Some interesting proposals.  I think doing away with speed suits is a
>> great idea.
>>
>
> Some good ideas, I agree, though one is a non-starter: the idea of moving
> more events out of Europe.
>
> Several reasons why. Let's start with an economic reality: there is really
> no way for American ski areas to re-coup the costs of running a World Cup
> event. Yes, they can bring status and buzz, but realistically, there are
> only two ways to regard doing so: as a marketing expense, or as something
> the resort owes the sport. The second is more noble, but having worked at
> resorts that hosted World Cups I can say that they're really expensive to
> produce, require a LOT of manpower (including temporary workers) and can be
> extremely disruptive to the experience of the paying customers. For many
> resorts, the trade-off simply isn't worth it in terms of out-of-pocket
> costs and lost revenues. In Europe, the entire resort operating model is
> significantly different from the one used here, and the costs may well be
> worth the expense.
>
> Meantime, Europe hosts the largest number of fans (same deal with
> competitive sailing, btw - it's a big-money sport in Europe, for some
> reason, but not so much here - France is the big dog in the sport, England
> probably #2. New Zealand and Australia both put a lot of attention to it,
> but more on the team events than the single- and double-hand stuff). Europe
> also has a reasonable degree of concentration with regard to geographic
> space with the venues. It's a lot cheaper and easier for the teams,
> athletes and crews to drive a few hours to the next venue than it is to
> criss-cross oceans in pursuit of broadening the number of venues.
>
> Bottom line is that I don't see this changing soon.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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