What is the rationale behind NASTAR's "modified GS"???

[norskiruns]

Imagine going to the Olympic club for the US Open this summer, and having the best players in the world competing from the Ladies' tees! Ooops

Well, the people who show up to compete at Nastar Nationals are not the best skiers in the world. Many of them are under 5 years old - and some of them are over 90. Many of them are bronze and silver skiers - the gold skiers aren't really "elite" either, and many, if not most, of the platinum skiers are not world class athletes or super-elite ski racers.

A good reason for not setting FIS-style GS sets is that many courses where they have Nastar courses are not large enough to accommodate the gates. Another good reason is that it is recreational - for all comers - and they make a set that anyone can try and have fun with.

A good reason for not having FIS-style GS sets at Nationals is that they set up what, six or eight race courses, and they need room enough to accommodate the courses - and still have regular customers ski. People who show up are at least presumed to be used to skiing a certain style of course and they get a decent facsimile or that at Nationals.

I understand that you may not agree - but I score this discussion at about 10 fer and 1 agin, which might mean something to someone.

Would I complain if they set up a so-called real GS course? No. I would ski it - and see how I did. I don't complain when the course is set on the tight end of the spectrum either. But I can understand why they might set the courses the way they do.

And in any case, skiing is not four separate disciplines - sl, gs, sg, and dh - it is all skiing. Keep your weight forward, initiate the turns, carve if you can, turn high, keep a good line, go as fast as you can without being thrown from the course. Nastar is just another race within the spectrum of race sets.

[hga1976]

Yes, you are. Things such as: the economic hardship that tight courses place on racers who race on wider courses, apparently having coursesetters who don't even know Nastar's regulations, choosing the lower end (at best) of the 18-22 meters (and as such, in some capacity, violating the rules by not going to 22 meters ever), and some other things.

I dunno, one might have to actually read my posts in their entirety instead of stopping prematurely to post a reply that doesn't address the totality of what I am communicating.

Why do you always assume things when you have no basis of fact. I actually read your posts in their entirety and many times more than once. The one thing I am guilty of is being pulled into your sometimes ridiculous discussions that really are a waste of time.

[hga1976]

Imagine going to the Olympic club for the US Open this summer, and having the best players in the world competing from the Ladies' tees! Ooops

I will bow out of this discussion with one last post. This quote is an example of your sometimes ridiculous comments. How can you compare a group of 1,100 recreational racers, in which most have never raced competitively at any level besides Nastar, to the best in the world? This group, which includes myself, is so far from the best in the world that to think we need a venue that compares to a World Cup level race course is just asinine. Give it up and go race Masters if you feel the want to race in FIS level courses.

[liltiger]

Villaski - cannot speak for the other courses but we measured the snowboard course on day 2 at the tightest gate(vertically)... like I said it was spot on the minimum... Day one was tighter - but only a bit...

[patmoore]

Pat, Perfect! You are a point of reference for me... So, I am primarily talking about vertical distance. The distance DOWN the hill between gates. I would say with about a one meter give or take accuracy that the vertical distance at Southington the night I was there was 24 meters. With that in mind, what would you estimate that Nationals was?

In the videos, it didn't look that tight. (for reference, when a course is characterized as "tight" that normally means less vertical distance, as opposed to "turny" which usually refers to large offset.)

I would say that Nationals was about 20-22ish? If so, I really wouldn't think that should be considered too tight.

(my opinion of course)

Sorry Jamie, I missed this post earlier. The vertical offset on the two Cranmer courses I raced were tighter than Southington by a fair margin. With very warm temps, the strategy was to keep speeds down and as a result there were fewer injuries than in years past. The offsets eased off a bit on Saturday but were still tight.

I can't speak for Lower Hughes except for Sunday. This was the third straight year I've done the ROC on that course and I can't recall if it was any tighter this year than prior years. When you're on a 178 cm snowboard, it seems steep and tight. You can get a pretty good idea yourself by watching this video my wife shot of the pacesetters.

[Black Dog]

Looks like SL to me.

[villaski]

Looks like SL to me.

Thank you, and thanks Pat for the video. I think that video speaks for itself.

[villaski]

I will bow out of this discussion with one last post. This quote is an example of your sometimes ridiculous comments. How can you compare a group of 1,100 recreational racers, in which most have never raced competitively at any level besides Nastar, to the best in the world? This group, which includes myself, is so far from the best in the world that to think we need a venue that compares to a World Cup level race course is just asinine. Give it up and go race Masters if you feel the want to race in FIS level courses.

All I can say is that the argument FOR having steep Nationals hills like Lower Hughes and the argument AGAINST having FIS GS sets contradict themselves completely.

If you're gonna have the first based on all the reasons people like yourself think they should, then complementing the incredible challenge of Lower Hughes with an equally-challenging and genuine GS set is a must.

I mean, if 1092 of the participants are truly at the core just recreational racers, then perhaps that calls into question the rationale for having hills like Lower Hughes for the Gold/Platinum races. But if that is OK, there is no reason FIS GS sets aren't OK.

[cinciracer]

I don't think they set slalom that way anywhere, but then again, I have never taken the time to ski / race at B Milly or B WHINEEEEEEEEEEE.

The video says what ever you want it to say to support your argument.

To me it's a fairly typical Nastar course, if on the shorter side of the 18-22. But it also looked very rhythmic and it was set accommodate racers ages 4 to 90.

I will support my thesis with math.

23 turn gates in 30.59 seconds (for Doug Lewis) is a gate every 1.33 seconds
At my home hill 12 turn gates in 17 seconds is a gate every 1.41 seconds or 6% slower per gate (8/100ths per gate) than Lewis' time.

Maybe it the speed that's makes the course feel the interval is shorter. If your skiing clean, the gates are coming at you +/- 6% faster then your used to, if your on a ski you are still getting used to, your really going to be overwhelmed..........

[villaski]

but then again, I have never taken the time to ski / race at B Milly or B WHINEEEEEEEEEEE.

Uh oh, person number two on the board who has previously lied about skiing at b mill/b-wine.

To me it's a fairly typical Nastar course, if on the shorter side of the 18-22

In that video there is not a single gate that is vertically-displaced 56 feet away from another one. It is well UNDER 18-22 meters.


If they are compressing their courses to accommodate a hill or conditions and are violating their own stated rules, it might be time for them to go back to the drawing board.