Thread: New world record cliff drop

Originally Posted by babel

There is sooo much fundamental misunderstanding of physics in this thread it is blowing my mind. Go public schools.

Ooooh yeah... my mind is blown.

This thread makes baby pechelman cry.

Originally Posted by philippeR

I loled.

You're quite the little douchebag off the board too aren't you?

you guys are all way off... terminal velocity is reached when charlie sheen kicks your communist hammer and sickle asses...

Terminal Velocity is a 1994 action movie starring Charlie Sheen as a daredevil skydiver who becomes mixed up with Russian spies. It was written by David Twohy and directed by Deran Sarafian. Originally, Sheen's role was written for Tom Cruise, although William Baldwin was also considered. The script itself sold for US $500,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_Velocity_(film)

Allright...according to my calculations, assuming that Fred weighs about 80kg, and his surface area is about 1-1.2 square meters, the density of air is around 1.2kg/cubic meter, and using a drag coefficient of 1.1 (which is the drag coefficient of a skijumper, from wikipedia), the terminal velocity of a skier falling of a cliff is around 34m/s. Considering that the terminal velocity of a skydiver is about 55m/s, this seams to me to be an appropriate value. However there are a lot of assumptions in my calculations.
Feel free to piss all over this

omg that's epic!
Charlie Sheen in the answer to this physics question! i knew it!

hello all. I just spoke with Fred and he is doing great. doc told him to take a few weeks off. he will be skiing again soon. no injuries at all except for some minor internal bruising.

re: facts

1) yes he did jump the 100+ meters. the exact number i am not sure, but is verified by several sources on the scene, including Helicopter altimeter.

2) Fred was only buried a meter or so under the snow. he was found with his hand sticking out of snow, still holding his pole!

3) He did his best to land on his side, horizontally, knowing a vertical impact would kill him. He said his skis flipped up due to air pressure but he managed to land more or less on his side.

4) due to confusing terrain features, Fred launched accidentally off a point close to his intended "smaller" air. When he realized how big it was, it was too late and he was already airborne. After an initial thought of "this is it" he went instantly into survival mode and said "I am going to try to land this"

5) Fred sounded good on the phone and looks forward to getting back on his skis after a short r&r up north with his woman.

Cheers
C

get fred some viking horns. and somebody post pix/vid asap.

ideally, before one needs a propellor beanie to understand this thread.

Originally Posted by TyWebb

You're quite the little douchebag off the board too aren't you?

Who's the other one ?

Seriously, re read your question. It makes no sense.

Originally Posted by TyWebb

correct...but considering that those things were consistent between..I.e...you wore the same gear, on the same day, in the same location, fell in the same manner etc...what difference does the height of the fall make...providing that you had reached relative terminal velocity in both situations?

If you crash your car in a tree at 60mph, does it make any difference if you reached that speed 1 minute or one hour ago ?
Terminal velocity is... TERMINAL. Once you reach it, acceleration stops. With more height, you'll fall longer. You'll not hit the ground with more energy.

"sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"
Sigmund Freud

did his skis stay on, cause thats jamies deffinition of landing a drop.

Originally Posted by gamma

only a norwegian could do that.. they dont tend to have any fear!

I'll confirm that after working for one on a crab boat for three years...not sure it was lack of fear or simply lack any risk reward calculator upstairs.

He was going 80km/h sideways. His vertical speed also started at 0, just like JP's.

Originally Posted by colinsamuels@yahoo.com

4) due to confusing terrain features, Fred launched accidentally off a point close to his intended "smaller" air. When he realized how big it was, it was too late and he was already airborne. After an initial thought of "this is it" he went instantly into survival mode and said "I am going to try to land this"

Brings new meaning to "sending it".........wow.....

I bet that was the suprise of his life......

"Oh....I'm 300 ft off the ground.....ooops.........!!!!........"

This is stupid-
The Calculation that counts is how fast do you go from terminal velocity to stopped.

Whos going to whip out the full equation? We need a coefficient for gore-tex, snow type, moisture content, How about elevation-you fall faster at a higher elevation.

Originally Posted by philippeR

Who's the other one ?

Seriously, re read your question. It makes no sense.



If you crash your car in a tree at 60mph, does it make any difference if you reached that speed 1 minute or one hour ago ?
Terminal velocity is... TERMINAL. Once you reach it, acceleration stops. With more height, you'll fall longer. You'll not hit the ground with more energy.

Maybe I mis-wrote, or maybe you mis-read, either way, we are ironically in agreement.

I feel like it's time for videos and pictures of this now

Originally Posted by colinsamuels@yahoo.com

hello all. I just spoke with Fred and he is doing great. doc told him to take a few weeks off. he will be skiing again soon. no injuries at all except for some minor internal bruising.

re: facts

1) yes he did jump the 100+ meters. the exact number i am not sure, but is verified by several sources on the scene, including Helicopter altimeter.

2) Fred was only buried a meter or so under the snow. he was found with his hand sticking out of snow, still holding his pole!

3) He did his best to land on his side, horizontally, knowing a vertical impact would kill him. He said his skis flipped up due to air pressure but he managed to land more or less on his side.

4) due to confusing terrain features, Fred launched accidentally off a point close to his intended "smaller" air. When he realized how big it was, it was too late and he was already airborne. After an initial thought of "this is it" he went instantly into survival mode and said "I am going to try to land this"

5) Fred sounded good on the phone and looks forward to getting back on his skis after a short r&r up north with his woman.

Cheers
C

huge props for not landing on his head! jamie is out...never should have been in to begin with

Originally Posted by gregb2212

This isn't a record, jamie jumped off. this dumbass fell off.

not much difference IMO. considering this wasn't a planned event, the other guy should get way more points for being aware enough in the air to land it on his side rather than his head.

Okay, maybe this fred guy went off by accident. But at least he SKIED off, with (apparently) some speed. He sure didn't "fall" off anything, like somebody suggested. I've seen the pierre video (ya, I know, who hasn't) and, frankly, the skis were irrevelevant. He could've taken a ten foot run and jumped off that cliff in Sorel winter boots and landed on his coconut and it wouldn't have looked much different.

So I propose the following hierarchy (note, all are good, just some things are more better)

1) take off skiing (really skiing, on a line and making turns and all that other shit we do on skis) and land skiing (upright, ski away and all that) (3 points)
2) take off skiing, land like an anvil (norway dude) (2 points)
3) jump off like a sack of potatoes, land like an anvil (pierre) (1 point)

Norway dude wins, 2 to 1, moves into next round against slovakia.

Oh, and for us science dweebs, his VERTICAL velocity will be as calculated above by many, but his TOTAL velocity (vector combined) when he landed would be his initial horizontal velocity (80km/h) PLUS his vertical velocity. So he would have been travelling at a combined SPEED (direction be damned) far in excess of jamie-boys. And he didn't have jesus on his side either.

Originally Posted by colinsamuels@yahoo.com

"sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"
Sigmund Freud

"Other times it is a delicious huge cock."
Colin Samuels

Originally Posted by srsosbso

Okay, maybe this fred guy went off by accident. But at least he SKIED off, with (apparently) some speed. He sure didn't "fall" off anything, like somebody suggested. I've seen the pierre video (ya, I know, who hasn't) and, frankly, the skis were irrevelevant. He could've taken a ten foot run and jumped off that cliff in Sorel winter boots and landed on his coconut and it wouldn't have looked much different.

So I propose the following hierarchy (note, all are good, just some things are more better)

1) take off skiing (really skiing, on a line and making turns and all that other shit we do on skis) and land skiing (upright, ski away and all that) (3 points)
2) take off skiing, land like an anvil (norway dude) (2 points)
3) jump off like a sack of potatoes, land like an anvil (pierre) (1 point)

Norway dude wins, 2 to 1, moves into next round against slovakia.

Oh, and for us science dweebs, his VERTICAL velocity will be as calculated above by many, but his TOTAL velocity (vector combined) when he landed would be his initial horizontal velocity (80km/h) PLUS his vertical velocity. So he would have been travelling at a combined SPEED (direction be damned) far in excess of jamie-boys. And he didn't have jesus on his side either.

BWA!

but if jamie really hadn't used skis, he probably wouldn't have landed on his melon - ironic, really.

Originally Posted by srsosbso

Oh, and for us science dweebs, his VERTICAL velocity will be as calculated above by many, but his TOTAL velocity (vector combined) when he landed would be his initial horizontal velocity (80km/h) PLUS his vertical velocity. So he would have been travelling at a combined SPEED (direction be damned) far in excess of jamie-boys. And he didn't have jesus on his side either.

But the horizontal velocity helps since it makes the angle between his velocity and landing smaller.

I'm calling this a world record in any case.

Originally Posted by runethechamp

But the horizontal velocity helps since it makes the angle between his velocity and landing smaller.

I'm not convinced that this is true. As others have pointed out, what really matters is the rate of deceleration. Steep trannys (transitions, not transexuals) help because the vertical deceleration occurs more slowly. Same reason a pow landing beats a bulletproof one. Though norway boy might have been travelling at an angle to the ground, his vertical velocity would still go from whatever it was to zero at the same rate contingent only on the slope of the landing and the snowpack at the landing. If he also happened to decelerate horizontally (because he, well, stopped) that just adds to the decel, and the trauma. 120km/h to zero in 2 meters still sucks more than 80km/h to zero in 2 meters. That is, if you ask, say, your ribs or your femur.

Originally Posted by srsosbso

I'm not convinced that this is true. As others have pointed out, what really matters is the rate of deceleration. Steep trannys (transitions, not transexuals) help because the vertical deceleration occurs more slowly. Same reason a pow landing beats a bulletproof one. Though norway boy might have been travelling at an angle to the ground, his vertical velocity would still go from whatever it was to zero at the same rate contingent only on the slope of the landing and the snowpack at the landing. If he also happened to decelerate horizontally (because he, well, stopped) that just adds to the decel, and the trauma. 120km/h to zero in 2 meters still sucks more than 80km/h to zero in 2 meters. That is, if you ask, say, your ribs or your femur.

I guess there's no clear cut answer to this, but even though the speed is higher, the horizontal velocity will still keep him (somewhat) from going straight down into the snow, and can keep him closer to the surface longer, giving him more distance to decelerate.

I am very impressed he was actually able to have some kind of thought process through the flight though.