Talk:Cross-country skiing/Archive 2

Direction of translation

@Erik den yngre:, The article states: "Kirkeby translates "cross-country skiing" as turgåing på ski (literally "hiking on skis"), whereas "cross-country (skiing) race" as langrenn. (Reference: Kirkeby, Willy A. (1998). English-Norwegian Dictionary. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget..) This strikes me as awkward. Is there an entry on the English side for "cross-country (skiing) race"? It would seem to be cleaner to cite the translation from Norwegian to English for "cross-country skiing", which might have the two variants of turgåing på ski and langrenn. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean from Norwegian to English? I will see if I find the right dictionary in office tomorrow. This kind of translation is awkward because words are used differently in Norwegian. Still Kirkeby is the best. Please remind me if I forget. --— Erik Jr. 22:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever way (Nor => Eng vs. Eng => Nor) gives the clearest result. E.g. "cross-country skiing" in English might give gå på ski, turgåing på ski and langrenn, whereas turgåing på ski might give only cross-country skiing in the back-country sense and langrenn in the racing arena, leaving out the most common version of recreational skiing, which might be the more generic gå på ski. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 22:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkeby (1986) norsk-engelsk ordbok:

"skitur" = skiing trip, skiing tour/trek
"dra på skitur" = make a skiing trip, go skiing
"gå på skitur" = cross-country skiing
"gå på ski" = skiing
"langrenn" = cross-country (racing), cross-country (skiing) race
"langrennski" = racing skis

--— Erik Jr. 09:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kunnskapsforlaget (2015) store norsk-engelsk:

"gå på ski" (actually "ski hiking" or "ski walking") = ski
"hoppe på ski" = ski jump
"løpe på ski" (ski running) = ski
"stå på ski" (ski standing) = ski

— Erik Jr. 10:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Erik Jr., I can do something with those translations. However, it would be interesting to know what the English => Norwegian translation of "cross-country skiing" is in both sources. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 14:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Kirkeby (Engelsk-norsk ordbok, Oslo: Kunnskapsforlaget, 1996) translates

"cross-country skiing" = turgåing (på ski) = ski-touring
"cross-country (skiing) race" = langrenn

These translations are a bit awkward. "Turgåing" or "gå tur" in Norwegian translates as "strolling", "hiking" or "trekking" ("ski" is not a verb in Norwegian and Swedish so the action is described with other words). If necessary we specify "on skis" (or "skitur" rather than merely "tur"), but that is often implied by the context. --— Erik Jr. 16:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was very helpful, Erik Jr.. Now I can see where the awkward, "cross-country (skiing) race", came from. Langrenn appears to pertain to a cross-country foot race, as well. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 19:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Langrenn only refers to skiing only. In Norwegian we compound words like in German. So there is also "hopprenn" (ski jumping competiton), and previously also "bakkerenn" (ski hill race). "Bakkerenn" has been replaced by "alpine skiing competitin" because the hill races were further developed in the Alpine region. — Erik Jr. 23:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

Yann di Caprona defines Norwegian "ski" as "tool to glide on snow". Welsh: "sgi", Italian: "sci", Spanish: "esqui". Original Norse (old Norwegian) "skið" = cleft or split wood. Laurentius Urdahl (1893) wrote about the sport "skiløbning" (literally "ski running") including what is now called "back-country" (ski hiking), downhill/alpine and ski jumping. — Erik Jr. 10:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poles—two versus one

Erik den yngre, thank you for your interesting historical background on one vs. two poles, both here and at Cross-country skiing (sport). Unfortunately, the citation that you give is unverifiable, i.e. Aftenposten 20 December 2015, p. 14. Could you please provide a citation that has the title, author, and weblink to the article, so that others may see it, as well? With my thanks, User:HopsonRoad 23:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aftenposten is a newspaper, accurate citation from paper version, found the online version http://www.aftenposten.no/fakta/innsikt/Skistavens-historie-Hjelpemiddel-og-brakmaker-8288452.html. --— Erik Jr. 00:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Erik den yngre, that was really helpful and informative. I use the same expanded citation here and at Cross-country skiing (sport). That is: Brugge, Mette (December 20, 2015). "Skistavens historie: Hjelpemiddel og bråkmaker". Aftenposten (in Norwegian). Oslo. p. 14. Retrieved 2015-12-22. Please check that I did it correctly. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 02:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I edit on iPad now in the xmas holidya, iPad is a bit cumbersom. WIll do properly when back in office. I usually dont cite name of author (journalist9 for newspaper reports. Best --— Erik Jr. 13:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting in, Erik Jr.. I feel that the more complete the reference, the better. Authorship allows for searching on other work by the same journalist. Here's wishing you a great holiday season. In Vermont, where I am, we are having temperatures near 15°C. The nearest snow, including on mountain tops, is 200 km away. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 14:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commented out candidate for deletion

In the Backcountry skis bulleted section, I have commented out: "Appropriate length of skis depends height of user and purpose of skis. For instance skis for forest are shorter than skis for open range. Skis up to 280 cm have been produced in Finland, and the longest recorded ski in Norway is 373 cm.<ref name=Berg>Berg, Karin: ''Ski i Norge''. Oslo: Aventura/Skiforeningen, 1993 </ref>." I felt that there was no probable reason, nor reference given for back country ski length being a function of forestation density. Also, I felt that the reported extreme lengths for skis didn't add value to the background nature of the article, unless there was a good explanation regarding why such skis were made. What do others think? Absent any dissent, I'll delete the subject material in a few days. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 15:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, both these claims need to be explained or they really aren't much more than WP:TRIVIA. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I dont think it is trivia. Type of skis is important at least from historical perspective. There has been a wide variation in the type of skis for various terrains and snow conditions. We should avoid a recency bias. Perhaps should explain a bit more, so please wait until after new years eve when I back in office. --— Erik Jr. 21:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Erik Jr.. The material can quietly await development and elucidation, hiding in the commented out space. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erik Jr., when you are able, you might want to make your case on this question. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 17:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, busy. I will try to do this properly to give the big picture regarding variation in equipment. Happy new year. --— Erik Jr. 22:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added some material for precision, will add more, checking sources now. If too much historical stuff can be moved to history article. But types of skis for back country is still an important issue. I have 4-5 pairs of skis of different type at home, for back country, than some 3 pairs for groomed tracks. --— Erik Jr. 13:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting material, Erik Jr.. My feeling is that it makes the "Back country skis" paragraph overly long and detailed, compared with the others. I propose keeping the material that you supplied, but moving some of it into notes, to avoid changing the flow and general nature of the paragraph. Cheers and Happy New Year, User:HopsonRoad 14:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have instead re-organized the material into paragraphs—one on ski geometry, the other on ski history. For now, I don't feel the need to move the material to notes. Erik Jr., could you check that the paragraph on ski geometry is properly referenced? Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 15:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your copy edit. One thing to note: The notion "Telemark ski" is perhaps a bit ambiguous as it may refer to specific type of ski used for modern Telemark skiing on alpine slopes, but more generally (or traditionally) refers to the type of skis that are widest in the front and with a notable sidecut. --— Erik Jr. 16:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speed

How fast can one get with cross-country skiing? Compare to walking, running, cycling, skating. Casual vs. sport. Stephanwehner (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in this topic, Stephanwehner. Typically, "Talk" pages are for discussing the article, itself, not so much the topic that it covers. So, it's possible that you won't receive an answer to your query, here. On the other hand, someone may choose to work the topic of your query into the substance of the article. User:HopsonRoad 16:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. - Ahunt (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 4x10 km relay is done in less than 2 hours. You do the maths. --— Erik Jr. 21:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to answer the question within the article. I mentioned it here just as such a prompt Stephanwehner (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Stephanwehner. This article is general. The question of speed perhaps belongs in Cross-country skiing (sport). Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 01:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like HopsonRoad I think XC skiing is too varied to say anything general about speed (uphill I can sometimes be faster walking, but otherwise XC is certainly faster than walking). For competitive XC there are no official world records as conditions vary too much. --— Erik Jr. 17:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kick zone and mechanics

Seems like the article does not explain how the kick zone results from ski mechanics. The Norwegian word for this is "spenn" (gap, span or tension). For classic cross-country skiing (not back-country) this depends on weight and strength of the person. An athlete at high speed has a more powerful kick (down and back) and should use skis with more tension/gap, while an amateur should use slightly softer skis for better traction. --— Erik Jr. 17:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it is adequately covered for an encyclopedia article with, "Traction comes from a “kick zone” underfoot that when bearing the skier’s weight engages either a textured gripping surface or a kick wax. When the skier’s weight is distributed on both skis, the ski’s camber diminishes the pressure of the kick zone on the snow and promotes bearing on the remaining area of the ski, which has the best glide." In fact, the stiffness of the ski is not just matched with the weight of the skier, but with the conditions, as well—the same skier may have skis with different stiffnesses for hard-packed vs. packed powder snow. Such an arcane distinction may more properly belong at Cross-country skiing (sport). User:HopsonRoad 17:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did not explain clearly. What I tried to say is that the paragraph describes the kick (technique) very well, but not the mechanics of the ski itself. The section is called "equipment" and should describe the general features of XC skis. The geometry and mechanics of the camber ("spenn") is essential, but is not well described. The difference between strong and weak skier is a detail in this wider picture, but should be mentioned in this article as it also relates to the difference between classic skis for groomed tracks and general touring skis. Perhaps we should also mention that classic skis for groomed tracks are more difficult to control outside tracks as they are softer (and often have less sidecut). --— Erik Jr. 10:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Erik. I feel that this idea, while of interest to you and me, goes too technically deep for an encyclopedia article. It would be equally appropriate to talk about the van der Waals forces that cause wax to interact with snow and the moisture content and grain morphology that causes snow to interact with wax both for static and sliding friction. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 14:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree. I think it is essential to describe design of skis with camber and the function of the camber. I dont think we need to go into details about how wax interacts with snow. All this can be described in everyday language. The paragraph only describes the kick and the kick-zone, it does not describe how this kick-zone is created by designing skis with camber (or more what is also known as double-camber). In short: What is (double-)camber on cross-country skis? I think the appropriate stiffness of the camber should be discussed, again non-technical: Primarily depends on the weight of the skier (this can even be described with the common "paper test"). --— Erik Jr. 18:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I believe that I misunderstood the depth of description that you were after—the paper test level works for me.. This works for me. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Jr., see what you think of this edit. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 18:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very nice. This function of the camber applies to touring/BC skis also, so perhaps use the paragraph as a general introduction to the principle of traction (waxable and waxless skis)? Even if less pronounced in outside groomed tracks, the dynamics of alternating traction and gliding is also relevant in the back country. This can perhaps be contrasted with the old system with one traction (short) ski and one longer gliding ski? --— Erik Jr. 21:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Climbing skins image—Suggestion for a better one

Hi Erik, thanks for providing an image of climbing skins. Unfortunately, I feel that it doesn't illustrate well what its function is and therefore, doesn't contribute to the article. I looked at alternative images in the same category—they're not too good, either.

May I suggest working with a friend to photograph someone attaching a climbing skin, next to a ski that has one already installed—preferably in a snowy landscape under overcast skies to avoid harsh shadows and with a fairly tight shot (a close-up viewpoint that just shows hands and the skins)?

Alternatively, you can provide side-by-side skis with one fully installed and one partially installed with a background of snow under an overcast sky to avoid harsh shadow, as I have done for the other equipment images. It would be great to look at snow, not flooring as a background! Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 14:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good. I was looking for a good photo, but could not find a better one at commons. Have to bring the camera for the next ski trip with skins. --— Erik Jr. 18:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General images

I was also looking for good photos of various types of XC and BC skis/bindings. This one mostly shows older wooden skis. --— Erik Jr. 18:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Jr., I suggest a more organized approach: lay a collection of skis in the snow on a cloudy day and show the contrast in bindings. The ski hut picture, to my mind, doesn't have a topic—it shows a clutter of skis, which even if cropped to show the skis and not the surroundings wouldn't be very informative. I encourage you to get out your camera! I suggest posting trial pictures here, first. The available ones at Wikimedia Commons aren't very good. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 18:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is always like that, there loads of photos on Commons, but when you look for the right one it is not there. --— Erik Jr. 18:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I often used the photo I find even if not perfect, then replace later if something better turns up. Some things are much easier to show on photo or drawing, than with words. What I miss are at least two type of images: One that shows the function of the camber, and one that compares some basic types (light XC skis, sturdy BC skis, Telemark, alpine) of skis in the same photo (with regard to width and sidecut). --— Erik Jr. 18:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your cropping the new image of skis at the lodge. However, it remains a jumble of skis to me, not something that instructs me on what each kind of ski looks like. I feel that it doesn't rise to the current quality of the rest of the article in explaining the topic. I would prefer no picture to the one that I see. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great, if you arrayed your own collection of skis, boots and poles on the snow, starting with in-track, skate, touring, back country and nor-pine skis to demonstrate the variety of lengths and widths for the same skier (you). Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about substituting "Sami hunter using asymmetrical skis and single pole." for "'Samis traveling in a snowstorm' by John Bauer"?

I think the picture of the Sami hunter is good as it is a clear image that shows the system with one long and one short ski, a single pole, and it also shows the long history of skiing among the Sami people. --— Erik Jr. 21:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images under consideration

Climbing skins can be used instead of wax in back country skiing.
A selection of cross-country and back-country skis at a Hardangervidda lodge
Mix of old wooden skis, some new plastic.
XC compared to Telemark and Alpine skis, but no "mountain skis".
Sami hunter using asymmetrical skis and single pole.

General statement about ski design

Perhaps it would be appropriate to add some general principles about ski design to the Cross-country skiing#Skis section, as suggested, below in italics:

Skis used in cross-country are lighter and narrower than those used in alpine skiing. Ski bottoms are designed to provide a gliding surface and, for classic skis, a traction zone under foot. The base of the gliding surface is a plastic material that is designed both to minimize friction and, in many cases, to accept waxes.^[1] Glide wax may be used on the tails and tips of classic skis and across the length of skate skis.^[2]

Each type of ski is sized and designed differently: Length affects maneuverability; camber affects pressure on the snow beneath the feet of the skier; side-cut affects the ease of turning; width affects forward friction; overall area on the snow affects bearing capacity; and tip geometry affects the ability to penetrate new snow or to stay in a track.^[3] Each of the following ski types has a different combination of these attributes:

With this, each of these attributes might be discussed for each type of ski. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 15:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I think there should be something about ski design in general, most important are the aspects that are specific to XC skiing (the camber and the traction surface that allows the classical XC kick). Sideways stability/stiffness should also mentioned (XC skis designed for groomed tracks are not very stable outside the tracks or in loose snow). --— Erik Jr. 18:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's needed next is a good reference on X-C ski design that is available to English speakers. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 18:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This reference, Snow Country, Jan 1995, 160 pages, Vol. 8, No. 1 ISSN 0896-758X, is from 1995 but it may have appropriate basics on ski design. User:HopsonRoad 03:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This reference is probably better:

Hindman, Steve (2005). Cross-Country Skiing: Building Skills for Fun and Fitness. Seattle: The Mountaineers Books. p. 264. ISBN 978-0-89886-862-3.

—User:HopsonRoad 04:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References from this section

^ "Cross Country Skiing Equipment and History". International Olympic Committee. Retrieved 2014-10-11.
^ "Cross Country Skis (Nordic Skis)". MEC. Mountain Equipment Coop. Retrieved 2014-10-19.
^ Woodward, Bob (January 1995), "Cross Country's Short Story", Snow Country, 8 (1): 127–132, ISSN 0896-758X, retrieved 2016-01-05

Skating technique

German Wikipedia has an article on [skating technique], which has extensive material, properly referenced (in German) with illustrative videos. Perhaps a topic for future development in English? It's seldom that I see another language have better development of a topic than EN:WP. User:HopsonRoad 02:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can make a comparison and see if some stuff can be translated and used here. --— Erik Jr. 21:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My German is sufficient that we could consider translating and adapting the article into an equivalent one in English. —User:HopsonRoad 21:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grip vs kick

Hindman uses "grip" instead of "kick" before "zone" and "wax" as the preferred alternative antecedent. I feel that this is more descriptive and authoritative than the term that I grew up with. So, I've substituted it throughout. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 18:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grip sounds better. In Norwegian we use the general word "smørning" for anything that is added to the skis. "Festesmørning" (grip or attachment) and "glidevoks" (gliding wax). Wax (voks) we use only for the hard stuff, klister (simply means "sticky stuff") is a different category (I have one pair of skis for wax and one for klister as they are difficult to mix). Under very difficult conditions such as icy tracks we also use "klistervoks" (klister wax) - softer and more sticky than wax, but not part liquid like klister, dont know if you are familiar with this type in America. --— Erik Jr. 21:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I have my klister skis, too. Although, there are now some pretty good waxless skis that work well in warm klister (purple and red) conditions and save one the inconvenience of cleanup. For cold conditions with a mixture of powder and granular snow, klister under a hard wax can be a very durable and effective combination. Performance-wise klister is my favorite kind of wax! It's probably too arcane a topic for the general-interest reader of this article, however. User:HopsonRoad 21:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cross-country skiing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cross-country skiing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fish scales

(Transferred from User talk:HopsonRoad#Fish scales)

I'm a nordic journalist in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and I don't have any primary sources, but I can tell you that you can call any nordic shop in the world and ask for fish scale skis and they'll know exactly what you're talking about.

This isn't exactly a well documented thing, it's largely tied to the nordic skiing cultural scene. Just google nordic fishscales and you'll see hundreds or thousands of results.

Feel free to put it wherever you like, but it should be SOMEWHERE in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.167.32.225 (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Salomon is one of the largest nordic ski producers in the world, and on their website, they refer to them FIRST as fishscales, and second as waxless. Nowhere are they called 'textured'. https://www.salomon.com/en-us/nordic/nordic-advice/how-choose-classic-cross-country-skis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.167.32.225 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm very familiar with fish-scale textured skis. My first ones date from the 1970s. They might even have been Fischer, which means "fisher" in German. Nonetheless, a manufacturer's website does not qualify as a WP:RELIABLE source in Wikipedia. I have found the following that should suffice:

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[oly-1] "Cross Country Skiing Equipment and History". International Olympic Committee. Retrieved 2014-10-11.

[mec-2] "Cross Country Skis (Nordic Skis)". MEC. Mountain Equipment Coop. Retrieved 2014-10-19.

[SnowCountry-3] Woodward, Bob (January 1995), "Cross Country's Short Story", Snow Country, 8 (1): 127–132, ISSN 0896-758X, retrieved 2016-01-05

[1]

[2]

[3]