There has been a fair amount of uproar about the proposed FIS equipment changes for the 2012/13 WC/Continental Cup season. I’ve stayed out of the online discussion so far, linking to other credible sources when they come about. But for the severity of the changes and how drastically they will affect the sport, there have been far too few top athletes speak out on the issue. I was with a large number of top racers and coaches for a few weeks in Zermatt, and not one person I spoke to was happy about the change, nor understood why these changes were being made, or how they would help to decrease injuries.
The change with by far the most discussion around it is the change in GS skis from 185cm/27m radius (both minimum) to 195cm/40m radius. Yes you read that correctly, a 13 meter radius jump in the core event that ski racing is based around. Think that will change style/tactics much? Bye bye carving. To put things in perspective, the current DH skis are 215cm/45m radius, SG are 210/33m.
Full table of changes here: http://www.fis-ski.com/data/document/specifications-ski-length-radius-profile-width-standing-height-final.pdf
UPDATE: FIS has removed the table from their website. Presumably to update it with the new 35m change instead of 40m. Cached copy here.
The FIS have not presented one shred of data on their testing of the new equipment, or anything explaining how these changes will reduce injuries. The SRS (Ski Racing Suppliers Association) presented FIS with a ‘protestschrieben’ (google translated to written protest) on the changes, in which they demonstrate their ‘reservations to the process which led to these new specifications, certain aspects of their content, and issues which will arise in connection with their implementation. Obviously the ski companies are not pleased with the changes and do not feel they will be entirely beneficial. They continue to say that they feel the testing was not conducted properly and on a wide enough scale to produce proper conclusions. The words ‘rushed’ and ‘haste’ are thrown around a fair amount. It is a fantastic read which brings up many points you wouldn’t otherwise know about the changes, so I highly recommend reading it.
There are many things the FIS should be focusing their efforts on. Safety is quite obviously at the top of the list, but needs to be gone about in a much more constructive way. Another is the attraction of skiing to the general public. I won’t lie, skiing is not the most fun sport to watch on TV. Mainly due to the fact that we still watch it the exact same way people did back in 1970. Coverage hasn’t evolved like almost every other successful mainstream sport has. On-board cameras have been around in F1 since the late 80s! We have the technology to make some pretty amazing things happen for spectators and viewers, and yet none of it is being utilized. Get some smart marketing/TV people on it and make the sport fun and interesting to watch for everyone, not just the die hards. (@MADMattPrice is a good one to talk to on this issue.)
The most disturbing part about the whole thing is that (to my knowledge) not one athlete was asked how they felt about the changes, or what they think might help prevent injuries. When you have Ted Ligety, 3-time World Cup GS Crystal Globe winner, publicly ridicule the FIS, something might be wrong. What needs to happen for the FIS to realize that we the racers are the ones skiing, the ones feeling the speed, danger and adrenaline? We ski two thirds of every year, you’d think they would realize we have some valuable input on what could make the sport safer, while at the same time maintaining its beauty. For instance, regulate speed suits, or bases. You can’t tell the difference between 110km/h and 130km/h on TV. Slow the bases down, we slow down, things are safer and still look good, everybody wins.
Obviously I’m not happy about the changes and don’t think for one second that they will help to decrease injuries. I am someone who abides by the mantra that skiing is an inherently dangerous sport. No matter what you do, it’s dangerous to huck yourself down an icy chute with the intention of trying to get to the bottom as fast as you possibly can. Nothing will ever change that. Arbitrarily making changes to equipment every 3 or 4 years and hoping something will stick is clearly not the way to go, and I hope the FIS comes to their senses soon, or they may have more problems on their hands than blog posts by a few people who care.
UPDATE: Helmets. Helmets have been the single most overlooked safety aspect in ski racing in the past 20 years. Head injuries are just as common as knee injuries, but can be way more detrimental to a career, and to life after skiing. Way more research needs to be done for ski helmets to get up to par (don’t get me wrong, some companies are going in a good direction) but the FIS needs to step in and regulate things for the better. This could make a monumental difference in safety in comparison to the proposed changes.
Some other good blogs on the subject:
Warner Nickerson tries out the new skis
http://nymansworld.blogspot.com/2011/07/reality-check-fis.html
http://www.alpineraceconsulting.com/blog/2011/7/24/fis-equipment-changes.html
Loading tweets...
Hey Dusty – as you know I completely agree with you – Bio-mechanically these changes make absolutely no sense. They will force the skier to be less smooth, carve less and torque even more – potentially causing even more injury, unless the course sets are changed by increasing distance down hill between gates and decreasing distance across hill, sounds a bit like SG. ( setting ski racing back 20 yrs )
I think that this current FIS change is more of a knee jerk reaction in order to appear that they are on top of things and they really aren’t sure of what to do short of admitting they made a mistake a few years ago when they changed from 24 to 27m radius. ( god forbid this all knowing old boys club would admit to making a mistake )
I agree with Bode that the ski companies should be able to engineer their own race skis, they’re not going to produce something that will injure their valuable athletes, this will let the cream float to the top and the crap will sink.
I also agree with your example of F1 going further – F1 regulates the tires and fuel that are used – so lets equate bases to tires and wax to fuel. If all “racestock” skis have exactly the same bases and tuners have to use the exact same wax – chosen based on conditions of the day, then, as you said speed can be controlled to certain degree without having to change the physics of the turn. Altering the ski and thus the physics of the turn will effect each athlete differently based on body morphology, this will be unpredictable and force athletes to use equipment that may not suit them, meanwhile giving other athletes, with differing body morphology, effectively a legislated “unfair ” advantage.
I think the best approach here is to get the athletes organized with one voice and refuse the change, I’m sure it would not be hard to get the manufacturers to stand behind you, as they have a lot to lose financially if this goes thru. I f the “players” and suppliers won’t adopt the new rules then FIS will have to take note and listen or stand aside and be replaced with a body that will. That’s how CHANGE is made.
Use twitter for a good cause to organize all the Athletes and make a change, change is good
In the end the old addage of keep it simple stupid seems to apply here – but when has FIS ever been able to do that.
Just my not so humble two cents – getting off the soapbox now.
Gord Pranschke, D.Ch.
Chiropodist / Podiatrist
Thanks for the comment Gord.
“unless the course sets are changed by increasing distance down hill between gates and decreasing distance across hill”
That means we’ll be going even faster! No matter what way you look at it the changes don’t make any logical sense.
I agree to a certain extent, wax would be an immensely difficult thing to regulate, but bases can be managed much easier. Still a lot of work for the ski companies, but much less than the ridiculous strain they will be under to throw out ALL of the old reg skis, and replace them with new ones. Not to mention the R&D to find the best combinations of flex/construction.
That was the point of this. To *try* to get the ball rolling and get the big names to step up and actually say something. Ted on FB was good but we need a unified front to protest this, and someone of my rank speaking out is not enough to spearhead it, but hopefully might be enough to get the ball rolling. Pass this around to anyone and everyone, average ski fans need to be informed on what is happening to the sport.
Hi… i’m Riccardo (italian’s alpine ski trainer… and technical engineer…) sorry for my english, i don’t believe that this way from 27 radius to 40 radius is the right way to prevent injuries, because the racers develop the best carving technic with slalom’s ski 165 cm R 13 mt. and then they go to find the same sensation (carving on edges… binary… ) with all the ski type (GS… SG… DH… ). So i think that with ski carving, we started same years ago a new way and now is impossible to come back. This trail is for introduce our proposal (my and of Cabra Engineering) where we developed a new patented device where we set the tuning on the ski boot starting by the athlets morfology, measuring the shape of the lower leg, using two laser spot and a digital goniometer, so when you know your angle’s leg you can to set the canting on the cuff very well, and with the same angle of your leg (or more parallel as you can). We just did several test ( more than 300 people..)
all level from WC to fis, fis junior, master, ski trainer, ski instructor, normal good skiers, ect.ect. and the results are incredible. Less stress on knees, on back, less energy for skiing, no more two different turns, less timing during the race. So we think that another good way to prevent injuries is also this : set the canting on ski boot wih your natural angle’s leg. At last we spoke with the FIS representative (meeting of Porto Roz) for to introduce an advise note on the rules for alpine ski equipment : par. 3, point 3.1, where
the canting setting on ski boot must be done following the natural morfology of the lower legs.
Thanks at all Riccardo Paganini
That is very interesting Riccardo. When did you start developing this device/technique? Are any guys on the Italian WC team currently using boots set with the angles from your device? Would love to learn more about that and see how it works and feel how it changes the stance and skiing position.
When you talked to the FIS representative what was their response?
Now that the FIS has “stepped in to regulate” ski length and radius, are you sure you want them stepping in and regulating helmet construction. Maybe the companies should be left alone on that one too?
And further on your point about the lesser of two evils. You can rehab a knee relatively easily. Its much tougher to rehab a brain.
I was going to mention something of the sort but I wanted to keep the tone of the post fairly diplomatic.. But I agree, they might (probably) not be the best to regulate helmets, but the helmet companies are doing a pretty crap job of it themselves. Some companies are doing a way better job than others, but I don’t think any company is doing a good enough job to protect us. Way more R&D needs to be done.
That was my point exactly on the lesser of two evils. Pretty extreme case but the Hermanator came back from all but a missing leg…
You wrote: “For instance, regulate speed suits, or bases. You can’t tell the difference between 110km/h and 130km/h on TV. Slow the bases down, we slow down, things are safer and still look good, everybody wins.”
How could base regulation actually be operationalized in way that does not potentially give some racers a competitive advantage?
I am interested in hearing other ways (not increasing radius and length requirements) of making the sport safer that do not jeopardize fairness.
I don’t have any methods or the technical knowledge off of the top of my head. I do know that it would be possible to do, definitely.
As for fairness, skiing is already the most unfair sport I can think of. On top of weather changes, light changes, snow changes from 1st to last racer, among others. Regulating bases would only make things more fair. As it stands the fastest guys get the best service and fastest skis, so the base idea couldn’t hurt the ‘fairness’ of the sport.
Hi Dustin,
There is another side that is being forgotten but happens to be the most important one:
Economic impact.
What will happen to this fantastic evolution (shaped skis) that allows everyone to feel as if they were skiing like pros when they carve?
GS being the reference in skiing, imagine the message that it will communicate:
“Let’s go back on long and straight skis, it’s the thing to do”. No one will ever want to go back and this will eventually kill a good portion of the ski market.
I do not know how the FIS people think but it looks to me that they should go back to school and learn some Marketing 101.
Take care!
If the ski industry is buffaloed into implementing these changes, through the FIS insistence that we revisit the past. This years GS skis will be the last that I purchase. And my GS racing days will be a thing of the past. I refuse to take part in buying GS race skis in the future if they revert to what they used to be like, 20 years ago.
I enjoyed racing back then. But, that was back then. Since then the Ski industry has found a way to make skis carve with a fluidity and ease that is amazing. As cited by others in this blog, many have come back to skiing because of these shaped skis. It is absurd for the FIS to think they should just force the Industry to stop producing product that has revitalized the sport. The proposed change would force ski racers to have to adopt two distinctly different styles of skiing if they want to compete in SL and GS. The FIS is being irresponsible, just because they can. The only way for the racers, the Industry to respond to this, is to Strike. Refuse to step into their bindings at the first races this season, unless the FIS proposal is shelved. And the next set of changes come to the negotiating table, for all parties to consider. There has to be a better way to address the “safety” issue. All I see is failure, of the FIS solutions.
it is interesting how there has been no attempt to change FIS rules, like a simple gate count change to change course radii. the F1 analogy is there is now a chicane at virtually all F1 track where the speed due to length of straightaways allow over 200MPH, they changed the tracks. FIS blames others for their issues.
one idea I have been thinking about is regulating edge angles. quite easy to measure , and a huge factor in grip levels and hook-up speed. minumum base bevel? max side angle? the angles we routinely use today will make a 20 year old ski just as grippy/grabby as a new one!
my2sense
wow, great post. I agree completely and think a non-emotive, factual argument will win out in the end.
The new changes will not be safer although it’s already apparent that speeds will decrease as was shown earlier this week in training. The new lengths and sidecuts will be especially dangerous to J2 and J1 level athletes who will simply be on unworkable skis. Their injuries won’t be counted by FIS. I find it very difficult to believe that going sideways at 50 mph is somehow safer than carving at 55 mph. There are already videos available that show the difference in line and and in particular how close the ski tips come to the gates. It certainly doesn’t look safer. It is somewhat surprising to me that no one from FIS can even be bothered to address the furor being raised by the athletes, ski manufacturers, and fans.
I can’t think of another sport that has deliberately gone backwards in this fashion. In addition it should be pointed out that there is no other sport that discrimination against smaller athletes is mandated. In many sports size is unquestionably an advantage. Just look at a basketball or football roster. The difference is that it’s a natural advantage that isn’t written into the rules
I must say that I completely disagree with you, and agree entirely with the F.I.S. on this matter. The core issue at hand here is this: In what direction should the sport of skiing go for the future, not just in racing but skiing in general? The ski manufacturers forced the “shaped ski” revolution on the sport 15 years ago in desperation, desperation because snowboarding had become more attractive for a certain percentage of the potential snowsports market, a demographic that was never involved with racing, or mogul skiing.
Racers who adopted “shaped skis” earlier than their peers (i.e. Bode Miller) experienced early success, especially in disciplines like slalom and giant slalom, where a carving ski can take an amature to a competitor, simply with the change in sidecut. Most people agree that this is a good thing. It is not.
What the F.I.S. knew then, and still knows now, is that the allowance of carving skis in the race course was a temporary situation. It had to be done to save the sport. The sport is now healthy again, not because the racers are on carving skis, but because the exodus from skiing to snowboarding is over. I repeat, the danger to the sport is over. It is time for the ski manufacturers to realize that fact, to realize that skiers come in many different styles. The weekend warrior may require a fat ski for powder, or a carving ski to turn well on groomed snow. A true expert skier, which hopefully our racers are (having grown up at the same two mountains as Bode Miller, and being very near the same age I can say that outside the race course the man’s technique is dreadful), will choose a more versatile pair of skis upon which to ski. A ski with a short turning radius imposes that turning radius upon the skier. A true expert finds this to be very undesireable, to interfere with the spirit of freedom that draws us to the hills in the first place.
What will happen with the new (old) requirements from the F.I.S.? Nothing at all. It’s only effect will be that racers will have to learn how to ski properly again, as they always did until the mid 1990’s. People like Miller, who rely upon bodybuilding and technical specifications, will cease to be relevent in the sport, and will be replaced by those of us who actually know how to angulate our bodies properly, how to drive our shins into the tongue of the boots until they bleed, like a real man, those of us who actually know how to ski. Finally after 15 years of being stuck with broken gear from the 70’s and 80’s, I will be able to buy new skis again. That is what these changes mean to me. It means I can actually buy skis from the major manufacturers again, instead of custom ordering my skis at great cost to me, or hunting bargin bins for pure treasures that are falling apart.
This means the manufactuers will be gaining customers, not losing them.
Best comment ever.
Dear Alastair,
I can’t make heads and tails out of your argument. Seems to me that the shaped ski brought the sport back into popularity, especially for amateurs like myself. As all young skiers start out as amateurs, they too start on shaped skis nowadays. If you mandate straight skis for racers, how do you figure a kid brought up on shaped skis will miraculously adopt a straight ski and become an expert on it?
One of the earlier replies mentioned the disconnect between the current SL technique and the effectively mandated new slip turn GS technique. To use a simple analogy, if you teach your child to drive an automatic, you can’t put her/him in a car with a stick shift and expect safe arrival home. In my view, if you mandate effectively straight skis for faster disciplines, you fundamentaly change the basic learning techniques and remove the attractiveness of the sport to newbies and kill the industry again, in that order.
Straight skis might work for you great, since you grew up on them, but they will dampen the enthusiasm of many kids wanting to switch from amateur weekenders to potential racers, or even worse, introduce a new risk element inherent in any SL enthusiast strapping on a pair of GS skis. Bad deal all around, me thinks.