Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Roll your own rollerskis
56 views
Skip to first unread message
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Apr 26, 2013, 1:21:18 PM4/26/13
to
I would like to try rollerskiing, but absolutely cannot handle the
off-the-shelf ones. For various reasons, I need ones a couple of
metres long, with ratchet wheels on the front and a REAR braking
system operated by moving my calves. There doesn't seem to be
any easy way of getting components (affordably) to build my own.
I would probably use wood for the bearing member, or possibly
aluminium section - very light weight and elegance aren't needed.
Has anyone done this, or got any useful information?
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
ge...@none.net
Apr 26, 2013, 6:44:33 PM4/26/13
to
I doubt that a couple of meters will be workable. It will be very
long and bulky. Remember, this is ski boots with only a binding pin or
two for connection. You're talking nearly three times longer than the
existing classical rollerskis, two and a half for the longest (Marwe
combi with wire wheel extension). Even the old ones back in the 1980s
were not more than about half that, as I recall from photos. You're not
going to be skiing but walking, if you're lucky. Think this needs
serious rethinking.
As for materials, I don't think wheels, including ratcheted wheels and
bindings should be a problem getting. Use wood or an old ski section or
shape some metal. Check online for instructions, as I recall seeing
them somewhere. Perhaps one of the Jenex braking systems would work
for you, or it could be modified.
Gene
long and bulky. Remember, this is ski boots with only a binding pin or
two for connection. You're talking nearly three times longer than the
existing classical rollerskis, two and a half for the longest (Marwe
combi with wire wheel extension). Even the old ones back in the 1980s
were not more than about half that, as I recall from photos. You're not
going to be skiing but walking, if you're lucky. Think this needs
serious rethinking.
As for materials, I don't think wheels, including ratcheted wheels and
bindings should be a problem getting. Use wood or an old ski section or
shape some metal. Check online for instructions, as I recall seeing
them somewhere. Perhaps one of the Jenex braking systems would work
for you, or it could be modified.
Gene
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Apr 27, 2013, 3:22:30 AM4/27/13
to
In article <20130426164433.e94c...@none.net>,
(shorter, in fact), which have the original Nordic Norm bindings,
and no bulkier than the even earlier ones (which used Telemark
bindings, admittedly). And I really do mean that I really, but
REALLY, need that length and those properties. There is just
no chance of me handling things as short as even a metre.
>As for materials, I don't think wheels, including ratcheted wheels and
>bindings should be a problem getting. Use wood or an old ski section or
>shape some metal. Check online for instructions, as I recall seeing
>them somewhere. Perhaps one of the Jenex braking systems would work
>for you, or it could be modified.
That's what I thought, but I failed to get much further. I did
check online and failed to find anything very useful, but the
problem nowadays is fighting one's way through the jungle of
marketing bullshit and plain irrelevance.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
<ge...@none.net> wrote:
>
>I doubt that a couple of meters will be workable. It will be very
>long and bulky. Remember, this is ski boots with only a binding pin or
>two for connection. You're talking nearly three times longer than the
>existing classical rollerskis, two and a half for the longest (Marwe
>combi with wire wheel extension). Even the old ones back in the 1980s
>were not more than about half that, as I recall from photos. You're not
>going to be skiing but walking, if you're lucky. Think this needs
>serious rethinking.
On the other hand, it is no longer than my cross-country skis
>
>I doubt that a couple of meters will be workable. It will be very
>long and bulky. Remember, this is ski boots with only a binding pin or
>two for connection. You're talking nearly three times longer than the
>existing classical rollerskis, two and a half for the longest (Marwe
>combi with wire wheel extension). Even the old ones back in the 1980s
>were not more than about half that, as I recall from photos. You're not
>going to be skiing but walking, if you're lucky. Think this needs
>serious rethinking.
(shorter, in fact), which have the original Nordic Norm bindings,
and no bulkier than the even earlier ones (which used Telemark
bindings, admittedly). And I really do mean that I really, but
REALLY, need that length and those properties. There is just
no chance of me handling things as short as even a metre.
>As for materials, I don't think wheels, including ratcheted wheels and
>bindings should be a problem getting. Use wood or an old ski section or
>shape some metal. Check online for instructions, as I recall seeing
>them somewhere. Perhaps one of the Jenex braking systems would work
>for you, or it could be modified.
check online and failed to find anything very useful, but the
problem nowadays is fighting one's way through the jungle of
marketing bullshit and plain irrelevance.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Terje Mathisen
Apr 27, 2013, 9:43:39 AM4/27/13
to
nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <20130426164433.e94c...@none.net>,
> <ge...@none.net> wrote:
>>
>> I doubt that a couple of meters will be workable. It will be very
>> long and bulky. Remember, this is ski boots with only a binding pin or
>> two for connection. You're talking nearly three times longer than the
>> existing classical rollerskis, two and a half for the longest (Marwe
>> combi with wire wheel extension). Even the old ones back in the 1980s
>> were not more than about half that, as I recall from photos. You're not
>> going to be skiing but walking, if you're lucky. Think this needs
>> serious rethinking.
>
> On the other hand, it is no longer than my cross-country skis
> (shorter, in fact), which have the original Nordic Norm bindings,
> and no bulkier than the even earlier ones (which used Telemark
> bindings, admittedly). And I really do mean that I really, but
> REALLY, need that length and those properties. There is just
> no chance of me handling things as short as even a metre.
Hello Nick, fancy seeing you here! :-)
> In article <20130426164433.e94c...@none.net>,
> <ge...@none.net> wrote:
>>
>> I doubt that a couple of meters will be workable. It will be very
>> long and bulky. Remember, this is ski boots with only a binding pin or
>> two for connection. You're talking nearly three times longer than the
>> existing classical rollerskis, two and a half for the longest (Marwe
>> combi with wire wheel extension). Even the old ones back in the 1980s
>> were not more than about half that, as I recall from photos. You're not
>> going to be skiing but walking, if you're lucky. Think this needs
>> serious rethinking.
>
> On the other hand, it is no longer than my cross-country skis
> (shorter, in fact), which have the original Nordic Norm bindings,
> and no bulkier than the even earlier ones (which used Telemark
> bindings, admittedly). And I really do mean that I really, but
> REALLY, need that length and those properties. There is just
> no chance of me handling things as short as even a metre.
With my ~53 years (I'm 56) of xc skiing behind me, I have to agree
completely with Gene:
You do not understand what you are asking for!
The fact is that a 205 cm xc ski has an effective length (for stability
purposes) which is just a fraction of that: It is designed to bend in
order to absorb bumps and to distribute your weight over a large area in
various (soft/hard) snow conditions, but it is really only the central
meter or so which provides you with stability.
Besides, a roller ski is end-weighted (due to the wheels) while a xc ski
is strongly center-weighted, so the roller ski needs to be much shorter
in order to be steerable at all.
Terje
--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
dardruba
Apr 28, 2013, 7:13:03 AM4/28/13
to
On 26/04/2013 18:21, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> For various reasons, I need ones a couple of
> metres long, with ratchet wheels on the front and a REAR braking
> system operated by moving my calves.
Hi Nick, you seem reluctant to tell us why you Really Really need this
> For various reasons, I need ones a couple of
> metres long, with ratchet wheels on the front and a REAR braking
> system operated by moving my calves.
item, who would be using it and on what terrain.
If you could give us some clues as to its potential usage I'm sure the
skiers on here could help.
I believe that length will not get you round any of the sharp corners on
the tracks used for our roller ski events and as for going up inclines
you will need those forward roll wheels to stop you from glissading
backwards.
As for the long road in Hyde Park or on Blackpool Promenade you will not
have the ability to skip around the gawpers who stop in front of you as
we do on roller blades or roller skis.
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Apr 28, 2013, 7:57:45 AM4/28/13
to
In article <au4ehv...@mid.individual.net>,
>If you could give us some clues as to its potential usage I'm sure the
>skiers on here could help.
I doubt it :-)
>I believe that length will not get you round any of the sharp corners on
>the tracks used for our roller ski events and as for going up inclines
>you will need those forward roll wheels to stop you from glissading
>backwards.
I have a strong negative interest in such tracks.
>As for the long road in Hyde Park or on Blackpool Promenade you will not
>have the ability to skip around the gawpers who stop in front of you as
>we do on roller blades or roller skis.
I have a Very, Very Strong negative interest in such locations.
Now, as to why:
I am 65 (and hence vulnerable to crashes) with no vestibular
(semi-circular canal) balance at all. None whatsoever. I balance
almost entirely by touch, and have done for almost all of my life,
so I can ride a stable bicycle and ski (to some extent). In
particular:
I want to be able to use this to get fit for real cross-country
skiing (which I might take up again, after 40+ years), and am
talking about travelling at 10-15 MPH. I need to be able to stop
in an emergency, and therefore need brakes.
If I catch my feet when leaning forward, I WILL crash onto
my face. That was why I couldn't learn to skate in my youth,
because they required us to use figure-skating skates. Therefore
I must have rear brakes.
Short rollerskis and (effectively) a J-stop WILL cause me to
crash. I can do that on snow, because I can (just) control the
side-slip. That is not available with wheels.
Work that lot through, and you will see that I have two options:
to abandon this altogether, and to take the approach I am planning.
If you think that you have another approach that might work, you
are 99% certain to have misunderstood the constraints caused by
my balance.
On that matter, it is a myth that balance is controlled by one
sense. 70% of the semi-circular canal data controls eye tracking
(which I don't do - I predict), and it is the primary balancing
method in people with no handicaps. But is disappears as they
get older, and needs to be replaced by touch, which is why old
people need sticks and to hold onto things - it's NOT primarily
for support.
Vision is the third method, but is useful only to tell you which
way is up, because it is too slow (a 0.2 second delay in the
visual cortex). So I am back to solely touch. That is slower
than vestibular (tolerably so), but its real gotcha is that any
uncertainty in sensations through the feet takes nearly half
a second to reequilibrate. Oops. CRASH!
So I need to be able to stop in an emergency without having any
functioning organ of balance. With long skis and rear brakes,
it would be feasible (just) - I am not going to explain how I
know, but it's experience with similar activities. With short
rollerskis, no chance.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
dardruba <dard...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> For various reasons, I need ones a couple of
>> metres long, with ratchet wheels on the front and a REAR braking
>> system operated by moving my calves.
>
>Hi Nick, you seem reluctant to tell us why you Really Really need this
>item, who would be using it and on what terrain.
Not really, but I was trying to keep it simple :-(
>>
>> For various reasons, I need ones a couple of
>> metres long, with ratchet wheels on the front and a REAR braking
>> system operated by moving my calves.
>
>Hi Nick, you seem reluctant to tell us why you Really Really need this
>item, who would be using it and on what terrain.
>If you could give us some clues as to its potential usage I'm sure the
>skiers on here could help.
>I believe that length will not get you round any of the sharp corners on
>the tracks used for our roller ski events and as for going up inclines
>you will need those forward roll wheels to stop you from glissading
>backwards.
>As for the long road in Hyde Park or on Blackpool Promenade you will not
>have the ability to skip around the gawpers who stop in front of you as
>we do on roller blades or roller skis.
Now, as to why:
I am 65 (and hence vulnerable to crashes) with no vestibular
(semi-circular canal) balance at all. None whatsoever. I balance
almost entirely by touch, and have done for almost all of my life,
so I can ride a stable bicycle and ski (to some extent). In
particular:
I want to be able to use this to get fit for real cross-country
skiing (which I might take up again, after 40+ years), and am
talking about travelling at 10-15 MPH. I need to be able to stop
in an emergency, and therefore need brakes.
If I catch my feet when leaning forward, I WILL crash onto
my face. That was why I couldn't learn to skate in my youth,
because they required us to use figure-skating skates. Therefore
I must have rear brakes.
Short rollerskis and (effectively) a J-stop WILL cause me to
crash. I can do that on snow, because I can (just) control the
side-slip. That is not available with wheels.
Work that lot through, and you will see that I have two options:
to abandon this altogether, and to take the approach I am planning.
If you think that you have another approach that might work, you
are 99% certain to have misunderstood the constraints caused by
my balance.
On that matter, it is a myth that balance is controlled by one
sense. 70% of the semi-circular canal data controls eye tracking
(which I don't do - I predict), and it is the primary balancing
method in people with no handicaps. But is disappears as they
get older, and needs to be replaced by touch, which is why old
people need sticks and to hold onto things - it's NOT primarily
for support.
Vision is the third method, but is useful only to tell you which
way is up, because it is too slow (a 0.2 second delay in the
visual cortex). So I am back to solely touch. That is slower
than vestibular (tolerably so), but its real gotcha is that any
uncertainty in sensations through the feet takes nearly half
a second to reequilibrate. Oops. CRASH!
So I need to be able to stop in an emergency without having any
functioning organ of balance. With long skis and rear brakes,
it would be feasible (just) - I am not going to explain how I
know, but it's experience with similar activities. With short
rollerskis, no chance.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
dardruba
Apr 28, 2013, 3:02:40 PM4/28/13
to
Wow, such an interesting response. Thank You. I wish you well in your
enterprise.
I have one final question, should things work out for you and you get
that build up of skills and the opportunity to ski on snow, where would
you aim for and what sort of terrain would offer you fulfillment?
Since you have knowledge of skiing would you like to be out along the
canal towpath, around the city park or on machine prepared forest trails?
enterprise.
I have one final question, should things work out for you and you get
that build up of skills and the opportunity to ski on snow, where would
you aim for and what sort of terrain would offer you fulfillment?
Since you have knowledge of skiing would you like to be out along the
canal towpath, around the city park or on machine prepared forest trails?
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Apr 28, 2013, 3:45:36 PM4/28/13
to
In article <au5a2h...@mid.individual.net>,
>I have one final question, should things work out for you and you get
>that build up of skills and the opportunity to ski on snow, where would
>you aim for and what sort of terrain would offer you fulfillment?
>Since you have knowledge of skiing would you like to be out along the
>canal towpath, around the city park or on machine prepared forest trails?
Probably none of those :-) 35 years ago, I used to be a fairly
good cross-country skier by UK standards of the time (i.e. dire),
and did up to 30 km a day on the Hardangervidda. I would like
to do some of that again, though probably less vigorous, and
probably elsewhere.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
dardruba <dard...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Wow, such an interesting response. Thank You. I wish you well in your
>enterprise.
No problem.
>
>Wow, such an interesting response. Thank You. I wish you well in your
>enterprise.
>I have one final question, should things work out for you and you get
>that build up of skills and the opportunity to ski on snow, where would
>you aim for and what sort of terrain would offer you fulfillment?
>Since you have knowledge of skiing would you like to be out along the
>canal towpath, around the city park or on machine prepared forest trails?
good cross-country skier by UK standards of the time (i.e. dire),
and did up to 30 km a day on the Hardangervidda. I would like
to do some of that again, though probably less vigorous, and
probably elsewhere.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Terje Mathisen
Apr 29, 2013, 1:47:47 AM4/29/13
to
nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <au5a2h...@mid.individual.net>,
> dardruba <dard...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Wow, such an interesting response. Thank You. I wish you well in your
>> enterprise.
>
> No problem.
Indeed. I still think you _will_ have to reduce your length though, 2 m
> In article <au5a2h...@mid.individual.net>,
> dardruba <dard...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Wow, such an interesting response. Thank You. I wish you well in your
>> enterprise.
>
> No problem.
with fixed end-points (wheels) will make steering extremely hard,
besides adding a lot of weight.
>
>> I have one final question, should things work out for you and you get
>> that build up of skills and the opportunity to ski on snow, where would
>> you aim for and what sort of terrain would offer you fulfillment?
>> Since you have knowledge of skiing would you like to be out along the
>> canal towpath, around the city park or on machine prepared forest trails?
>
> Probably none of those :-) 35 years ago, I used to be a fairly
> good cross-country skier by UK standards of the time (i.e. dire),
> and did up to 30 km a day on the Hardangervidda. I would like
> to do some of that again, though probably less vigorous, and
> probably elsewhere.
Hmmm, I wonder how close we ever came to meeting at that time:
>> I have one final question, should things work out for you and you get
>> that build up of skills and the opportunity to ski on snow, where would
>> you aim for and what sort of terrain would offer you fulfillment?
>> Since you have knowledge of skiing would you like to be out along the
>> canal towpath, around the city park or on machine prepared forest trails?
>
> Probably none of those :-) 35 years ago, I used to be a fairly
> good cross-country skier by UK standards of the time (i.e. dire),
> and did up to 30 km a day on the Hardangervidda. I would like
> to do some of that again, though probably less vigorous, and
> probably elsewhere.
My family has had (a) mountain cabin(s) near the SE end of
Hardangervidda since 1967, I have done a _lot_ of skiing in these areas. :-)
(The longest single trip was the 8-day/300 km trailbreaking we did just
before the Lillehammer olympics in 1994, where we skied from Morgedal to
Lillehammer via Møsvatn, Kalhovd, Solheimsstulen/Vasstulan, Tunhovd,
Smedsgården (between Nesbyen and Gol), Strandefjorden (near Fagernes)
and Synnhovd.)
Ben Kaufman
Apr 29, 2013, 9:40:41 AM4/29/13
to
based upon your balance issues, I think that getting the best protective gear
is a big issue.
Ben
ge...@none.net
Apr 29, 2013, 1:18:57 PM4/29/13
to
Nick, you're very brave to give this a try again given longstanding
balance issues (at 66, I've found my balance is much better than when
younger, in good part due to the demands of x-c skiing and
rollerskiing).
If you pursue this, then I think it's a choice of picking your poison:
get the longest commercially available rollerskis (Marwe combi
+ wirewheel at about 825mm for classic; maybe the longer Jenex for
skating?); or you can build something that will be too unwieldy for the
physical conditioning you desire. For the first choice especially, I'll
suggest Crash Pads (for snowboarders and skaters), lightweight knee and
elbow pads and, of course, a helmet. Crash Pads:
http://www.crash-pads.com/. I used to use the mesh-underwear style and
they're very effective. Once lost my balance going downhill on
rollerskis and took a ten foot slide on my hip/butt. No scratches, just
shook it off, got up and carried on.
Btw, another way to employ rollerskis would be just to use them for
double poling. Very effective workout, perhaps the most effective on
rollerskis, and much safer; can build up to 1.5 to 2 hour sessions.
It could be done on skate rollerskis with longer poles or on
something like the long Marwe I suggested above with classical
poles.
The third choice is to skip it and do lots of other long and short
distance exercising (bike, row, hike/run), plus gym work (strength,
elliptical machine, etc.). There are people I've known over the years
who choose not to rollerski and do just fine racing, getting back what
they need at the beginning of snow season.
Gene
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:57:45 +0100 (BST)
balance issues (at 66, I've found my balance is much better than when
younger, in good part due to the demands of x-c skiing and
rollerskiing).
If you pursue this, then I think it's a choice of picking your poison:
get the longest commercially available rollerskis (Marwe combi
+ wirewheel at about 825mm for classic; maybe the longer Jenex for
skating?); or you can build something that will be too unwieldy for the
physical conditioning you desire. For the first choice especially, I'll
suggest Crash Pads (for snowboarders and skaters), lightweight knee and
elbow pads and, of course, a helmet. Crash Pads:
http://www.crash-pads.com/. I used to use the mesh-underwear style and
they're very effective. Once lost my balance going downhill on
rollerskis and took a ten foot slide on my hip/butt. No scratches, just
shook it off, got up and carried on.
Btw, another way to employ rollerskis would be just to use them for
double poling. Very effective workout, perhaps the most effective on
rollerskis, and much safer; can build up to 1.5 to 2 hour sessions.
It could be done on skate rollerskis with longer poles or on
something like the long Marwe I suggested above with classical
poles.
The third choice is to skip it and do lots of other long and short
distance exercising (bike, row, hike/run), plus gym work (strength,
elliptical machine, etc.). There are people I've known over the years
who choose not to rollerski and do just fine racing, getting back what
they need at the beginning of snow season.
Gene
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:57:45 +0100 (BST)
ge...@none.net
Apr 29, 2013, 1:35:13 PM4/29/13
to
P.S. Your estimate of 10-15 mph seems way high, assuming we're
using the same system. Ten mph is a mile every six minutes, which
translates to ~3:45/kilometer, if my calculation is correct. At any
age, it's unlikely balance is a serious issue at that speed. My hunch
is something more in the 7-9 min/mile range, which if you're having
balance problems is fast enough to be quite scary at times.
Gene
using the same system. Ten mph is a mile every six minutes, which
translates to ~3:45/kilometer, if my calculation is correct. At any
age, it's unlikely balance is a serious issue at that speed. My hunch
is something more in the 7-9 min/mile range, which if you're having
balance problems is fast enough to be quite scary at times.
Gene
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Apr 30, 2013, 1:10:06 PM4/30/13
to
In article <20130429111857.05cf...@none.net>,
At 64, I decided to try downhill skiing, on the grounds that it was
then or never. Half of my friends said I was a total loon, and
the other half said "Go for it". Well, 150 hours of practice (and
I mean that) later, I can handle blue and the easier red, but I
have to concentrate 100% for that, so it's VERY tiring. I am OK
on green. That's all parallel turning.
>If you pursue this, then I think it's a choice of picking your poison:
>get the longest commercially available rollerskis (Marwe combi
>+ wirewheel at about 825mm for classic; maybe the longer Jenex for
>skating?); or you can build something that will be too unwieldy for the
>physical conditioning you desire. ...
I am not quite sure about the latter. It's really the muscles at
the front of the thigh and hip that I am thinking of, and the
length of the ski doesn't matter. I would be using a very long,
straightish stretch of tarmac, so turning isn't an issue.
I take the points about protective kit on tarmac - I don't mind
falling on snow or moorland, but rock and tarmac can break things.
The problem about other exercise is that it wouldn't help much
for the muscles and ligaments that I remember suffering. It took
me a week to be free of pain when I was 30, so only the second
week was entirely pleasurable!
>P.S. Your estimate of 10-15 mph seems way high, assuming we're
>using the same system. Ten mph is a mile every six minutes, which
>translates to ~3:45/kilometer, if my calculation is correct. At any
>age, it's unlikely balance is a serious issue at that speed. My hunch
>is something more in the 7-9 min/mile range, which if you're having
>balance problems is fast enough to be quite scary at times.
That could well be. I failed to find any reasonable indicative
speeds of rollerskis, and was guessing from my cycling and old
skiing speeds. 6-10 MPH might be more plausible, but it doesn't
really help, as the real damage comes from the falling down from
a standing height.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
<ge...@none.net> wrote:
>
>Nick, you're very brave to give this a try again given longstanding
>balance issues (at 66, I've found my balance is much better than when
>younger, in good part due to the demands of x-c skiing and
>rollerskiing).
Or a complete loon :-)
>
>Nick, you're very brave to give this a try again given longstanding
>balance issues (at 66, I've found my balance is much better than when
>younger, in good part due to the demands of x-c skiing and
>rollerskiing).
At 64, I decided to try downhill skiing, on the grounds that it was
then or never. Half of my friends said I was a total loon, and
the other half said "Go for it". Well, 150 hours of practice (and
I mean that) later, I can handle blue and the easier red, but I
have to concentrate 100% for that, so it's VERY tiring. I am OK
on green. That's all parallel turning.
>If you pursue this, then I think it's a choice of picking your poison:
>get the longest commercially available rollerskis (Marwe combi
>+ wirewheel at about 825mm for classic; maybe the longer Jenex for
>skating?); or you can build something that will be too unwieldy for the
I am not quite sure about the latter. It's really the muscles at
the front of the thigh and hip that I am thinking of, and the
length of the ski doesn't matter. I would be using a very long,
straightish stretch of tarmac, so turning isn't an issue.
I take the points about protective kit on tarmac - I don't mind
falling on snow or moorland, but rock and tarmac can break things.
The problem about other exercise is that it wouldn't help much
for the muscles and ligaments that I remember suffering. It took
me a week to be free of pain when I was 30, so only the second
week was entirely pleasurable!
>P.S. Your estimate of 10-15 mph seems way high, assuming we're
>using the same system. Ten mph is a mile every six minutes, which
>translates to ~3:45/kilometer, if my calculation is correct. At any
>age, it's unlikely balance is a serious issue at that speed. My hunch
>is something more in the 7-9 min/mile range, which if you're having
>balance problems is fast enough to be quite scary at times.
speeds of rollerskis, and was guessing from my cycling and old
skiing speeds. 6-10 MPH might be more plausible, but it doesn't
really help, as the real damage comes from the falling down from
a standing height.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Alan Braggins
Apr 30, 2013, 1:39:21 PM4/30/13
to
longer than most of the ones showing up on Google images, but have no
idea what fittings they had. (It was on holiday in France, so not
somewhere I can look out for him again and ask....)
He seemed to be using his poles for propulsion rather than skating
or ratchet wheels (fishscale/skin equivalent?), and it looked like
XC ski bindings for his shoes. But that was from just casually
seeing him pass, not detailed study. (But having now Googled the calf
activated braking systems for roller skis, I'm pretty sure he didn't
have them.)
I noticed there were used skis at Milton recycling centre the last
couple of times I've been dropping stuff off. You would have to be
slightly cautious they had been thrown out because of surface/edges
being beaten up and not structural damage, but would they be any use
as the bearing member? Or would they be much too flexible when supported
by wheels at the end rather than along their whole length?
ge...@none.net
Apr 30, 2013, 1:42:38 PM4/30/13
to
I would think you could get much of the muscle development you're
looking for with an elliptical machine (arms, legs), the kind where the
foot pieces can go forward and back, and the forward position allows
being upright or forward leaning. Pedalling backward is really good for
the quads and anyone with a bad knee. Forward gives all around legs
and conditioning. It's not nearly x-c skiing in aerobic demand, and
there won't many long distance like sessions, but it does help a lot.
I use one regularly at the gym, such as for getting race pace intervals
from 3 to 30 mins on the cheap.
Gene
looking for with an elliptical machine (arms, legs), the kind where the
foot pieces can go forward and back, and the forward position allows
being upright or forward leaning. Pedalling backward is really good for
the quads and anyone with a bad knee. Forward gives all around legs
and conditioning. It's not nearly x-c skiing in aerobic demand, and
there won't many long distance like sessions, but it does help a lot.
I use one regularly at the gym, such as for getting race pace intervals
from 3 to 30 mins on the cheap.
Gene
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Apr 30, 2013, 3:02:23 PM4/30/13
to
In article <slrnko00e...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
in pre-monocoque aircraft) should be fine.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>I noticed there were used skis at Milton recycling centre the last
>couple of times I've been dropping stuff off. You would have to be
>slightly cautious they had been thrown out because of surface/edges
>being beaten up and not structural damage, but would they be any use
>as the bearing member? Or would they be much too flexible when supported
>by wheels at the end rather than along their whole length?
Too flexible, I am afraid. But spruce or aluminium section (as
>
>I noticed there were used skis at Milton recycling centre the last
>couple of times I've been dropping stuff off. You would have to be
>slightly cautious they had been thrown out because of surface/edges
>being beaten up and not structural damage, but would they be any use
>as the bearing member? Or would they be much too flexible when supported
>by wheels at the end rather than along their whole length?
in pre-monocoque aircraft) should be fine.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Apr 30, 2013, 3:04:23 PM4/30/13
to
In article <20130430114238.0894...@none.net>,
reasons, including having to hold on fairly hard for balance.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
<ge...@none.net> wrote:
>I would think you could get much of the muscle development you're
>looking for with an elliptical machine (arms, legs), the kind where the
>foot pieces can go forward and back, and the forward position allows
>being upright or forward leaning. Pedalling backward is really good for
>the quads and anyone with a bad knee. Forward gives all around legs
>and conditioning. It's not nearly x-c skiing in aerobic demand, and
>there won't many long distance like sessions, but it does help a lot.
>I use one regularly at the gym, such as for getting race pace intervals
>from 3 to 30 mins on the cheap.
Some. I have tried them, but don't like them much for a good many
>I would think you could get much of the muscle development you're
>looking for with an elliptical machine (arms, legs), the kind where the
>foot pieces can go forward and back, and the forward position allows
>being upright or forward leaning. Pedalling backward is really good for
>the quads and anyone with a bad knee. Forward gives all around legs
>and conditioning. It's not nearly x-c skiing in aerobic demand, and
>there won't many long distance like sessions, but it does help a lot.
>I use one regularly at the gym, such as for getting race pace intervals
>from 3 to 30 mins on the cheap.
reasons, including having to hold on fairly hard for balance.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
delltodd
May 6, 2013, 9:40:59 AM5/6/13
to
I would encourage you to bail on the rollerski project given your constraints. Instead, pick up some ski poles and walk / hike / perhaps run with them. Your ski fitness will be greatly jacked up for skiing next season. It's far more enjoyable. Rollerskis are hazardous contraptions under optimal circumstances, and are generally a lot less fun after about the first 10 hours maybe less.
DT
runcyclexcski
May 18, 2013, 12:39:49 AM5/18/13
to
On Friday, April 26, 2013 1:21:18 PM UTC-4, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
A google search in Russian produced the publication with a surprising ease. Not sure this is exactly what you want though, they don't use poles.
http://zhurnalko.net/=sam/junyj-tehnik/1986-08--num72
0 new messages