Wanted: Help for the ASTM Terrain Park Jumping Task Force
I imagine that by this point pretty much everyone is aware of the movement toward consideration of possible ASTM standards that would relate to jumping features at ski resorts. At the January 2012 ASTM F27 meeting in Denver, I gave a presentation about the above task force. I cannot overstress the point that this task force needs input from what I refer to as “subject matter experts,” that is to say, the people who actually build, test, maintain, and use jumping features at ski resorts.

This is your chance to have a significant impact on what the task force will consider in its deliberations. In particular, we are seeking your input as to what you think can be done practically to help make the sport of jumping safer. Keep in mind we are specifically addressing jumping features for the general public. We are not addressing other features such as boxes, rails, halfpipes and the like. We are not addressing jumping features for high-level competition. The goal is to make the sport of jumping safer for the general public, not to eliminate jumping.

It is readily acknowledged that the bulk of jumping accidents are likely due to some sort of jumper error, but to the extent that the act of jumping might be made safer by design, testing, maintenance, training, education, or any other means you can think of, we would really like your input.

Let me give you some examples: It has been discussed that for the open public, it would not be a good idea to have excessive curvature at the end of the takeoff ramp. Also discussed was that the old-style gap jumps are not a good idea for the general public; that features should be tested before they are opened to the public; and that the landing area should be at least as steep as the takeoff ramp.
And this is where you come in so we can discuss these issues. What can you do? Send me, via e-mail (jeseie@rit.edu):

• What you think the problems are?

• Specific issues you think need to be addressed, and how you think we should go about addressing them.

Your assistance is vital in this open-ended opportunity to participate in the potential future of terrain parks. And if any of you would like to become active members of the task force, just let me know by e-mail and you will be added to the roster. You do not need to be a member of ASTM to be a member of the task force. This is your chance to be heard.

—Jasper Shealy
—Chair of ASTM F27 Terrain Park Jumping Task Force

[Ed. Note: Mr. Shealy, along with associate Irving Scher, will be presenting preliminary studies and discussing the future of ASTM involvement in terrain parks at both Cutter’s Camp East and Cutter’s Camp West.]


What is “Green?”
I have some thoughts and comments about the Eco Tip articles that are in each month’s issue of SAM. First, I want to give SAM big props for featuring a segment on environmentally-conscientious operations. I feel that this is very important and these pieces raise awareness and provoke thinking.

However, I do have a problem with the latest installment of Eco Tip (January 2012 issue). This issue featured a piece on snowmobiles; two strokes vs. four strokes. Again, I applaud the effort and focus, but there were way too many technical errors, absent data, and it ended up reading like a piece of marketing literature from any one of the four snowmobile manufacturers. I feel that ski area operators need more and better information than that.

Statements like “significantly reduced emissions” mean little, and I wonder if they are even accurate, or simply passed on rhetoric. Certainly they have become “eco jingles” at resorts; “Why aren’t we using all 4-stroke snowmobiles? They have less emissions!” is something that I hear frequently from folks who really don’t know one way or the other. I suspect that a carbureted 4-stroke (which does exist, contrary to a statement in the article) produces less emissions than a carbureted 2-stroke… but I have never seen proof of that and, having a mechanic’s background, I understand that it’s possible for the opposite to be true—in some circumstances.

I feel that there has been enough marketing in recent years that most people already believe that 4-strokes and direct injection 2-strokes are less polluting than older carbureted 2-stroke designs. What we really need is an article that puts things into perspective—an article that truly educates, and therefore, compels the ski area operator to ask even more from the manufacturer. Because even the latest technology snowmobiles produce horrendous pollution, when compared to say, a full-sized SUV.

What does “horrendous pollution” mean? On the order of four to eight times more pollution, depending on how you measure it, and precisely which pollutant you are measuring. A document put together by University of Maine students shows the level of emissions produced by even a modified (for cleaner emissions) 4-stroke snowmobile—check out www.umaine.edu/mecheng/peterson/Classes/Design/2009_10/Projects/snowmobile/index.htm. Depending on the operating mode, the modified 4-stroke’s emissions were still as much as 13 times greater than what is allowable for an SUV/pickup truck. Yikes. What we need from the manufacturers are snowmobiles with EFI (electronic fuel injection) and catalytic converters to get us into the realm of responsible operation.

My point is that what is being reported as being “green” isn’t, and until we apply some objective data rather than relying on rhetoric, it is hard for people to see that. The most recent Eco Tip (#3) would lead someone to believe that by using 4-strokes or DI 2-strokes (apparently the author is from Aspen?), then they are being “green.”

—Tom Kendrick
—Dir. of Slope Services, Telluride, Colo.

[Ed. Note: Thanks for your thoughtful letter. We agree that snowmobile companies can do more; we were pointing out the best options currently available. But we will look into the issue further. With your help, of course!]