What would you change about park design?

90% of what I would change in parks (for the medium and smaller hills at least) is the lazy assholes who run them. So many parks with so much potential are bogged down by lazy incompetent morons with no clue on how to build a rideable feature, and no motivation to do so if they did

The one person a crap resort gets who may be intelligent and motivated enough to turn things around is usually abused and underpaid to the point of quitting, and the cycle renews

These aren't any personal complaints as I don't work in ski resorts, but just trends I've noticed over many years

Basically, resorts should stop treating their few decent employees like shit and fire the idiots
 
Thanks for the great questions Jibberino, happy to clarify (though a lot of your questions would be answered watching my video). Def not trying to bash park designer's skills in designing or imply that anyone opens unsafe jumps for people to use.

But we do believe that the status quo can be improved by answering several questions that basic physics cannot account for.

For example most people design park jumps using basic ballistic physics equations. While it's the best that's out there right now, it assumes the rider is a point mass (read cannon ball) rolling off the jump. Riders have a center of mass that's at least 1 m off the ground, have legs that may or may not be centered under that center of mass, and their legs can move to absorb or pop of the jump.

So we are trying to measure the following things are effected by carrying ramp angle and curvature:

1. How are forces and torques at the snowboarded transmitted to the feet of a rider as they ride through the takeoff?

2. How to those forces/torques effect the rider's body motion and where their center of mass moves as they take off? Do they cause their center of mass to become unstable and they become unintentionally inverted?

3. How many G's is acceptable in a take off?

4. How can you minimize landing impact force?

5. How can a rider change where they land if the pop or absorb on take off?

Simple ballistics equations cannot account for these variables. It has nothing to do with how good of a designer someone is.

We want to be able to give designers improved, real-world scientific data that can hopefully reduce bad outcomes. Hopefully this work can also be used to train new jumpers on better technique so there's a less painful learning curve.

And to clarify, we are NOT out to regulate parks.

 
Definitely flow, variety and a lot of options. I don't like a park where you are forced to hit a certain feature. And also a park should be built in order to be fun, not in order to look big and scary or to look good when people watch it from the chair.
 
If your primary goal is to reduce park injuries, which it seems to be, I think honestly the best thing to do is expand the progression parks. As a long time skiier, but new to the park game, I can say that even my mountain, which is a pretty small place feels the need to put in a huge jump line with 40 foot booters and most of the rails are way too hard for anyone to learn on. That stuffs great, but over my years at the mountain, you might see 4 or 5 dudes a day who are able to hit everything in the park. I feel like most of the injury's are likely coming from people like me, who are learning, and end up going bigger than we are comfortable with for the sole reason that the jumps go from small 5-10 foot jumps and 8 foot long flat bars to 40 foot kickers and 30 foot long DFDs. I had this problem this season when I decided to learn how to hit rails. I hit the 8 foot flat bar over and over till I was comfortable, and the next easiest rail in the park was either a 25 foot long flat bar with a 6 foot gap up to it, or a side entry down rail over a stair gap. Neither of those are good options when I am simply looking for something like a 15 foot down rail a foot off the ground so I dont kill myself.
 
The park at Brighton is great for advanced park skiers but for people just starting out its a shitfest. I've met kids wanting to learn park but all Brighton offers is 3 flat boxes and a 2 foot jump. Not to mention that their park crew are douchebags. They hardly keep up the lips rails and jumps and close features for no reason. Not to mention the upkeep of the halfpipe is a joke.
 
Step ups and step overs, creative parks, and basically what Saga said will all improve parks. I think park safety/park passes are important as well in making parks better.

I really think it's cool what you're doing and that video was interesting. Keep up the good work!
 
Oh do you mean like, you have to have a specific pass to get into the park? That would probably help alot! Keep dem gapers da fuq out.
 
To build a safer and better park will take the power of people with creative minds and a background in physics and engineering, I'm talking at least a masters degree. They can calculate the speed a rider can achive based on weight and the slope of the run,making it easier to judge the distance between jumps to keep speed consistent. Yes it will vary based on the riders mass. With these factors heavily weighed into the parks design along with the approach angle/ trajectory of the jump and landing the jumps will be smooth as butter. We can create jumps that will ride like invisible hills from take off to landing. We will also need engineers ( park builders)who understand the physicist and both will need to work together using laser targets to space out the jumps. The same lasers they use to build roads and other construction. They typically are on a tripod sort of deal. We can make this happen but it may take longer to set the park up over the winter do to the Change in snow conditions. All you need is some people to calculate the slope, mass and speed to find the velocity to carry over a distance(ft) and create and take off angle that will marry with the landing to make it soft when we do fall. Just my two cents.
 
Are you an idiot?

Calculating speed based on slope and weight anyone with a fucken high school diploma can do (basically maybe not the idiots) you don't need a master's degree. Also park crew's already use Newtonian physics mostly kinematics (projectile motion and friction and that stuff) to calculate speed angles trajectory and set up the right landing. The problem comes from the fact that a rider is not simply a point mass and there are numerous other factors that have to be considered. Examples of such other factors: Snow Condition (slow, fast), Wind speed/direction, how the skier takes off the jump (pop), dynamics to analyze the motion of the skier etc.

OP is in the right direction but OP maybe you should also consider outside factors such as wind and snow conditions (first to come to mind but i'm sure there are more). These are much more unpredictable and can have great negative effects especially on big jumps. Analyzing how to make a jump safer to compensate for those would be pretty awesome.
 
ya i think mountains these days r obsessed with having the biggest and the hardest features.Now im not saying having sick kink rails or huge ass jumps is bad but mountains should focus just as much on making features that are small but still set up well and then also have a separate park with the bigger features
 
i didn't have time to read all the reply's here, so apologies up front if i'm repeating something. But the toughest thing to do is evenly space features apart to take the guessing game of speed ouf of the equation. If you can come up with a basic algorithm or fomula to get a ball park of how far apart your features need to be based on the projectile motion equations listed above - you can physically mark these out on the hill using some kind of marker and then ride the terrain yourself to get a feel for the reality portion of it. Once you've got the speed or flow dialed in - regardless of feature size, this greatly eliminates the overshoot portion of the injury. Next step is the endless pursuit of the smooth transition - i don't care if its a 3 foot beginner booter, or a 90 foot triple channel step-up-down-sideways - nothing, and i mean nothing - beats a well hand shaped transition. I'm not talking about cutting the top wedge, or the last 3 feet of take off, i mean hand cut from the top and do this for the next 50 - 100 feet to ensure that you got what you wanted.

predictability in take off and consistency across your progression eliminates the guess work you see so much in parks across the nation - particularly icy east coast ones.

I worked in terrain parks for years and the more love people put into things - the better everyone got.

and planning...lots and lots of planning. I hate to say it, but most of the ski industry is not full of the brightest bulbs in the bunch, and motivation can be lacking in instances - but if you combine a bit of passion, hard work, rider talent/experience, good feel for speed (this is the toughest one, hence the bench mark with numbers) and some more hard work and persistence - you can turn any molehill into a mountain.

there is also the technology side of things... which in its current state, shovel and groomers are just about all you have. Groomers and excellent tools if used properly - but can do more harm that good with the wrong operator. The tracks are an excellent way to dispell ice to at least a few feet deep, and a good winch cat operator will get your landings dialed (though this comes at an operational premium generally).

through proper monitoring and continual maintenance you can get your park dialed in for as risk free as you are able to make it.

Feature selection is always up to the crew riding/taking care of thing - so its hard to say specifics of what's best.

Ride what you build and build what you ride. Be picky and if it seems sketchy - fix it so its not.

just a few words from a former nobody...
 
As I definitely agree that this might be interesting questions to answer scientifically, and for the sake of science, I still fail to see how it will be implemented into park designing. There is one main reason for this, which is the fact that all good park designers already know the answers to these questions. I am fully capable of building an 80 foot jump that is safe and does not have too much pop, too little, too short a landing etc. I know this simply from experience, and because I continually test the jump as I perfect it. Also the terrain will have a lot to say in the design of jumps, how does you work take this into consideration?

I feel like a lot of the questions you are trying to answer more relates to rider skill than to the design of the jump. How much force/torque that is applied by a skier on any given jump, will greatly vary according to the skiers skill, weight, skis and so on. So what is a safe and well build jump for an experienced/expert skier, is, logically, not necessarily so for an intermediate skier.

Another issue is the fact that most injuries, in my experience, is caused by bad judgment, inexperience, stupidity or a combination of all those. Answering the questions you are out to answer will not affect this in any way. Any jump, regardless of how scientific an approach you have taken to building it, can be overshot or undershot.

I'm coming off very negative, which is definitely not my intention. I guess as someone who does this for a living, it seems like a good idea to play the Devils advocate. I welcome all ideas that offer a new approach to park design and safety, I just have a lot of questions.
 
What really grinds my gears at my resort, a midwest hill, is that they seem to set up all of the rails so that to come off them perfectly, you have to be going so fucking slow on the rail. Like all of the landings are immediately after the rail. They're catering to the gapers. They even did this on a giant cannon they set out and it was the absolute worst. Get any boost at all off of it and you would send it to the flat because the landing was so retardedly close to the end of the cannon.

I feel like the majority of the people building these features here never even ride them or ride them enough to notice these inconsistencies.
 
Oh I just thought of something else! A clearly marked drop in spot at the beginning of any jump-line would be super useful. Obviously you cant have the speed dialed in for every type of condition, but a good starting place would be helpful. I saw a few kids at my mountain get stretchered off the mountain because they had no idea where to start for the main jump line, and bombed into the first kicker (A 15-20 foot jump) at full fucking speed from the very top of the park. Needless to say these kids massively overshot and just completely fucked themselves.
 
How do you account for the fact that every skier and rider is different in terms of size, weight, ability, etc?

The cannonball method you explained isn't necessarily the most accurate representation of a person hitting the jump - the cannonball is a constant. It would be pretty hard to compile enough data to figure out how the park-skiing community (as a whole) hits features.

A 5'4", 120 lb kid would have a different trajectory than a 6'2", 200 lb guy. Someone who has been riding park for a long time will know how to pop differently than someone who shows up to the mountain on winter vacation. Skiers and riders hitting park features is all relative. People with stronger legs can pop harder, people who can spin fast and easily will generate more torque on the lip of the jump.

Like other people have mentioned, step ups and step overs are less impact than step downs because the sweet spot is a broader area. Building more of these types of features couldn't hurt. They require the right terrain and/or a lot of snow, which can deter mountain ops/park crews everywhere.

I wouldn't know where to begin the process of making parks safer. Every mountain pushes, maintains, and structures their features differently - not to mention that the vast array of skiers and riders you see in the park on a regular basis are all of different levels of ability. Good luck with the project.
 
All very valid points, the human element is by far the hardest to control for. I also think that the number of variables that many people have emphasized, and that Nurban just brought up, only underlines the reason of why relying on simple ballistics to design jumps, at least for beginner/novice riders, is not sufficient.

I'll be the first to admit we won't be able to control for every variable.The safest car driven by a jack-ass can still kill someone, but that doesn't mean car safety shouldn't constantly be improved. Yes every jump can be over or undershot, but you can make it a lot harder to do so while reducing the injury risk, or at least the severity, significantly.

I also believe we'll be able to design jump curvatures that minimize the risk of riders becoming inverted and landing on their heads. Now of course they may do that through their own lack of skill, but at least we've minimized the risk of that happening and will understand what is within our control and what part of that is controlled by the rider.

There've been several accidents where it appeared as if the rider's inexperience or poor judgement causes a catastrophic injury. Because this data doesn't exist, there was no way for the ski resort to defend itself in the resulting lawsuit by proving the jump was designed properly.

I def appreciate the good discussion, I don't see it as negative at all. It's good to have people playing devils advocate to flush out the how/why. Thanks for all the feedback!

 
thisI hate how parks in Austria are built. They all have the same bought standart rails and boxes and they are all put up just as a single feature and never combined. Those parks built by QParks are so boring and I heared they even tell their shapers how they are allowed to set up the rails which means not combining anything because of safty issues. At my home resort (Steinplatte) there are some good shapers, but they just don't have the chance to make a cool and creative park simply because they are'nt allowed to. And that sucks really bad
 
I like the car analogy - people are going to get hurt anyway, but designing safer parks will definitely help minimize injury.

The sad thing is that - with or without this research - there will always be some park builders who make sure that the stuff they build is the best it can be, and there will always be others who settle for "good enough".
 
I agree with what you are saying to a certain extent. I work for Qparks, so I know what you are talking about. Part of Qparks great success is that they can provide a whole package to a resort, including a promise to minimize injuries and focus on safety. This appeals greatly to especially resorts that have never had a park before, and are somewhat weary to venture into unknown territory. So the way most Qparks are set up has more to do with the wishes/perceived wishes of the resorts, than it has to do with an unwillingness to be creative on the part of Qparks. If you take for example a place like Mayrhofen, this is a good example of what Qparks can also do, if they are given full freedom to pursue the different trends in freeskiing and snowboarding.

I try to bring my own creative ideas into my jób for Qparks, and I think that in order to get more creative parks in Austria we need to undergo a process where we gradually convince the resorts that more creativity equals a better park that is just as safe. I'm personally very motivated to bring about this change and be on the forefront of this process, and a lot of my friends who work for Qparks, and are very talented shapers and park designers, feel the same way. So give it some time, and I'm sure that Qparks will start producing much more creative parks.

In relation the OP subject, a way of calculating and minimizing risk in jump building in a more scientific way, might be a very good selling point when trying to get more funding or greater freedom when it comes to building parks for individual resorts. It will be a much more tangible way of showing the resort a commitment to safety than for example just your word and experience as a park designer.
 
the park at my mtn is huge in in size, but has a total of only like 3 or 4 rails and u can usually only hit 2 of them in one run. i wanna see more tubes, tables, step ups, and rails and boxes that arnt 40 plus feet long
 
You bring up some really good points. OP should take note because these are questions that will probably be asked in a conference or your thesis proposal/defence.

You know based on experience but that is not scientific at all. Im really looking forward to seeing the results to this experiment because this applies to so many other sports as well such as wakeboarding on kickers etc.

OP please post any papers you get published here; I would like to read them.
 
Also are you paying yourself or are you paying another another grad student (UW student) to carry out the tests?
 
First talking about terrain park safety, there are already speed models for terrain park jumps. I personally think that such models of flight trajectory are absolutely nice to build beter jumps, but I think the question is if measuring G-forces and stuff like that really helps improve safety. First of all to make this sport more safe people should go out and buy themselves a helmet and back protector. I see people doing crazy stuff every day without even a helmet, if they get hurt, sorry its their own responsibility.Second I think that without any need of people with any grades at university it is easy to say that the bigger and higher the jump, the higher the speed - the higher the risk. I do not think it is nescessary to tell somebody what the G-forces are. Doing a 15 ft. jump will always be safer than doing a 45 ft. jump.

The same I think is about builing the kicker, it seems to be logical that a steep kicker angle will more easy bring a skier backseat than a rather flat angle. So when it gets to building terrain park jumps there is no need to know specific data to tell what kind of feature might be more dangerous.

Apart from that doing spins, grabs and tricks totally changes the flight curve resulting in a different impact. So I think risks can be managed, but never be exactly calculated.

The second thing I read about is a lot of discussion about european snowpark design. When it comes to that let me put some ideas behind that (even if some guys might not want to hear that)

1. Companies like qparks are using safety issues as an excuse for lack of design or flexibility. A ski resort which lets people ski through their parks without helmet or back protectors, even if they do not have any experience, can not be really interested in peoples safety. A park like that on the feldberg does not even have safety signs. So safety can not be the reason why the design looks like that.

It seems more a question of bussiness. There is one market leader in southern germany which is rather interested in selling much too expensive snowpark boxes and rails than making people setting up parks more creative with existing obstacles. They are not even interested that the ski resort crew gets more experienced because otherwise they might decide to do it on their own.

Those two big companies are really not helping to bring the snowpark development further in europe. Thinking out of the box would make them maybe sell less.

I have seen the feldberg park in a terrible shape, where boxes stood loose on the ground with unusable kickers in front of it. They invested more time in making marketing on their facebook page for some bootwarming stuff than investing time in the park.

2. The big problem on some european places is that ski lift companies are often quite old fashioned. In europe what counts is still downhill and slalom skiing they think. It takes a lot to convince them on the positive effect of a snowpark.

Some resorts having a park like kitzbuehel, position their park at the farest point away in the ski area to make sure their "normal guests" are not disturbed. So making space for parks or even creating all mountain parks is still something which is not realized so easy.

3. Freestyle skiing is quite small in europe. Ski schools nearly have no lessons to teach people on how to make use of a park. This results in the fact that most parks in europe are snowboard oriented. At the same time it causes the problem that people not knowing any snowpark rules are often creating dangerous situations in snowparks. The knowledge about the sport is too small.

4. I am european myself, but it seems that europeans are too arrogant to look at parks like bear mountain, seven springs, northstar or keystone (echo mountain until 2010 as well), just to name a few and try to take their creativity out of those examples. They always think that here in europe everything is different. Basically I think we need to look at american parks to build beter parks here!!

It might be somebody says now that giving critics is always easy, but I am actually working on projects trying to bring freestyle skiing further in europe developping nicer more creative snowparks. Hope this might give european freestyle skiing more popularity resulting in more good parks.

(by the way you will find some creative really good parks in europe as well, I am talking more about some of those commercial parks here)
 
Thanks 4-Front. These are great questions to be able to answer. Also great to hear thoughts from the general public since as you point out, I'm sure there will be more during my defense.

There are def the possibilities to apply this methodology to other sports, wake boarding, bike parks, etc (assuming you measure the appropriate recreational equipment). I'm planning on posting results in some sort of format at the end of the project that makes it available to the public.

To answer your next post, about who is being paid; I am the only graduate student working on it. The portion of the funding designated to the UW student is going to cover my tuition/stipend for the next few quarters which allows me to continue this at an R1 research university rather than a private company which will keep the results as un-biased as possible.

 
These are all valid points, and I do agree with you to a certain extent.

As I work for Qparks, I am of course not interested in being overly critical towards them, but I see what you mean with some of your points. The way I look at it is that the alternative to Qparks would be no park, and that is in no ones interest. I try to push Qparks in the direction you're talking about by giving my ideas and input while I work for them. But it is true that Qparks is a business, and a business need to make money.

Regarding the safety issue, it has never been and never will be an option in Europe to make helmets mandatory. With that being said I do think that Qparks and the resorts are committed to safety, and that this to a certain extent holds them back. This comes in part from the fact that they perceive bigger, creative, technical features to be more dangerous, and therefore shy away from building those. I personally believe that is completely untrue, as most accidents, including serious ones, actually tend to be on beginner or intermediate obstacles. But this is something that will hopefully change with time as Qparks and the resorts learn more and more.

What you say about ski resorts being quite old fashioned is very true. And this is where a company like Qparks, however much you may dislike them, can be very beneficial. They are capable of convincing conservative resorts that having a park is a good idea, and therefore breaking new ground. With that being said, I do believe that Qparks needs some competition in order to up their game, and think outside the box a little bit. We are definitely starting to see more creative parks pop up, and a place like Serfaus for example is bound to make Qparks think about their way of approaching parks.

I would very much like to hear more about the project that you are working on, it sounds like a good idea!

 
regarding the helmet thing: at least livigno has it (as u know) and it works perfectly imo! it's def. something other resort could and should try to copy!

i totally agree with the fact that small features cause more accidents! the beginners or unexperienced parkskiers will obviously (hopefully) try smaller stuff first. so not being able to judge the speed there can already lead to stupid over- or undershoots. Also on these small features the landings can't be too big/long.

for big features like 18m booters the fear/respect to hit it is often too big to just go without thinking! of course 1/100 is hitting it anyway :/

about qparks: what they dont realize: with that super low salary they pay to shapers, you can't expect that the shapers are willing to go super creative and invest extra (mostly unpaid) hours into the park.

actually answered for /threads!

 
back to the mini park cat idea. i think this would be way more manuverable than a snowmobile.

images
 
very interesting study!

i'm doing my master in Innsbruck, Austria and for my masterthesis i discussed similar measurings with my professor! it kinda ended in being way too big, and they didn't have all the equipement for it, so i went for something else now.

about the actual study: it has never been really measured yet, so u have to start somewhere (refering to the discussion with jibberinho). ur project is gonna be a base for many other studies! hope u keep that thread alive! i'm totally interested in what comes out, or what ur currently doing!

and if ur interested, my biomechanic professor gave me 5 papers to read about this subject, probably you already have them all, maybe it gives u anothere reference, so feel free to pm me ur email, so i can send them to u.

(sry i think my english is on an all time low right now haha)
 
I agree that most of the time, when someone gets hurt, they are the ones who chose to jump, and they bare the responsibility. We aren't trying to prove that bigger jumps can be built to be as risky or less risky than smaller ones, just trying to minimize how risky they are. We aren't promising to eliminate that risk all-together.

But I totally disagree that G-forces aren't important, especially for novice/beginner riders. Knowing the specifics of how that profile transfers the G's to the rider has everything to do with whether they go into the back seat or not.
 
Small cat are just useless, can't push or climb. (built for clearing side walks and tight cross country trails.

To build unique features best to use a snow blower on tracks or use the blower attachment for the snow cat. Then stake down some form boards and set overnight to allow to snow to form before de-boarding and shaping.

View attachment 643856

 
As a park builder and designer, the last thing we need is another study about how to make parks "safer". In this land of lawsuits and litigation, these types of "studies" will only give lawyers and plaintiffs ammunition to kill terrain parks. While your intentions may be good, you will not like the end result. We will lose all creativity and end up with a cookie cutter design for all resorts to avoid lawsuits.

Please reconsider your project and realize that park designers always have safety at the top of their checklist.
 
What you're saying makes a lot of sense and is definitely something to consider. I think the goal a lot of people are trying to accomplish is getting their parks on the same level as some of the professional park builds that have big, fun, and relatively safe jumps.

It's no secret that there is a certain style and shape of jump that is generally accepted as the safest and most fun. I understand each mountain and park faces unique challenges but I believe if the standard style of jump became similar to that of Breckenridge and Keystone park enthusiasts would be much happier.
 
Totally understand your concern about over regulation and cookie cutter jumps. Our goal isn't to certify parks or regulate them like other groups in the industry (that I won't name here...). But the reality is that without this data several resorts have already had to settle multi-million dollar lawsuits because there wasn't a way to prove their jump was built safely, or not. These types of lawsuits ARE close to killing parks but this data is crucial for the resort to be able to defend itself.

Some of our initial body motion capture studies were used to help defend a few parks in lawsuits, but you can't expect to just not collect the data and think you'll be more safe from lawsuits. Showing a pro-active approach to improving safety will help you a lot more than not doing anything for fear of giving the other side ammo.

I'll reiterate that I've never claimed that park designers are negligently designing jumps or doing so without safety in mind. I know it's the total opposite, but the tools being used now aren't sufficient parks from lawsuits. Parks nearly always pay some sort of settlement.

 
Very good points.

In Europe this is not really a problem, I am not aware of any lawsuits being brought against resorts with parks. I am not a lawyer, and I prob know more about the American judicial system than European ones. But I guess something in most European systems prevent people from bringing stupid ass lawsuits to court. I'd love to hear from someone who knows about European law.
 
The problem is these studies always try to have a solution to having injuries in the park. When in fact, there is no solution because there are too many wide variables within a chaotic environment. You cannot control the user, snow condition, wind, etc.

Any safety parameters givin to an environment of this nature will take away from creativity, variety and eventually any freedom in design. Plus, the smaller programs that cannot conform/afford to guidelines, will just not build parks anymore.

I'm sure you mean well, but any study that claims to find a solution to park injuries must be proven false. We need more studies to prove that the user is always in control of their own destiny and liability lawsuits are frivolous.

My point is that safer parks will always be in the hand of the user. If a feature looks unsafe, don't use it. If nobody uses it, the resort will change it. The resort will learn that the safest features are ussually the most popular features and thats where it wants to invest its money. It's always in the resorts interest to not hurt its user, so it can get return buisness. These studies always put the resort at fault, when the resort is always trying to keep its guests safe in a chaotic mountain environment that should never be considered "safe". If people would just take responsibility for themselves, why would we need to study this? Parks are already naturally conforming to the best features through natural selection. You can see this today in almost every program out there.
 
With all due respect this is NOT true. Several private groups have done studies which do have some sort of bias but we are doing this through the University of Washington, an R1 Research Institute, to avoid that sort of bias. I wouldn't get my degree if it was shitty research.

I have personally worked on several cases on the side of the resorts but the reason the resort is often found at fault is because they don't have the data they need to protect themselves. Without this data, you don't KNOW what the rider can control and what they can't. We all THINK we know but in a court of law they want science and facts.

There are a ton of variables as you said. It very well could be that my study proves that you can't control all those variables. There may be some we can control and some we can't. If that's the case, it's one more piece of data the resort can use to protect itself, not the other way around. If the science is truly unbiased, it will always win; don't be so scared of it.

You are also playing with words a bit. We aren't claiming parks will be 'safe' but that injury risk will be minimized. READ: We will have measured everything and identified what can be improved. This doesn't mean the chance of getting injured is gone. Personal responsibility by riders also goes a long way towards helping with this.

 
Just to give an example of how the ballistic equations used to design parks right now are too simple; here's a study that compared how accurate the equations were at calculating the jumping distance of riders.

http://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/JOURNALS/JAI/PAGES/JAI102885.htm

They used video to measure take off speed and distance traveled on 280 jumps.They compared how well the ballistic equations could actually predict how far the rider would have jumped with the same take off speed.

They found that there was no correlation to take off speed and distance-traveled, which is exactly what ballistic equations are supposed to be able to calculate. This is obviously due to the fact that the situation is a lot more complicated than the equations can handle, but we can definitely improve on them with the data we are trying to collect.

 
Unfortunately no matter how noble your intentions may be, it will be twisted by litigators to fit within a lawsuit. Even though your intentions may be in the right place.

The industry will always be weary of an outside entity that thinks it "knows better"
 
Laax is a copy of Killington and Bear a year behind, It's not creative or technical, It's a good park but is very copied from others
 
Mt St Louis Moonstone had quarter pipes everywhere one year, on the sides of jumps, rails, in the middle of the park, etc. It was fucking sick. I would like to see more of that elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top