Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Future of the Nansen Jump

  1. #1
    Senior Member ChrisB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    NH Seacoast
    Posts
    677

    Future of the Nansen Jump

    Looks as if the Nansen ski jump is getting more improvements to make it a viable jump hill on the eastern circuit.

    Great news!

    But I thought it was the hill itself that was inadequate as a landing zone for modern jumpers.

    cb
    Last edited by ChrisB; 02-13-2019 at 07:35 AM.
    Nobody told me there'd be days like these
    Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama
    .

  2. #2
    Senior Member Hillwalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    N44.55162 W70.32107
    Posts
    734
    Do you know what the jump was rated at? Distance I mean. The Toger Tokle jump at Belknap Recreation Area (Now Gunstock) was rated at 60 to 65 meters. With 40 meter, 20 meter, & 10 meter jumps all lined up on the hillside beside the big jump. Are they still jumping at Gunstock? I jumped there when I was in high school. Go LHS!

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Gorham NH
    Posts
    5,760
    The comments by the Red Bull jumpers was that the curvature of the jump was different then the international standards in effect. They had to do training runs to get used to it. I think the resulting trajectory of the jumper is vertically higher but the horizonal distance traveled is reduced. If I look up the scoring for ski jumping its based on horizontal distance traveled modified by style points. Therefore perhaps back in 1988 they considered the jump obsolete for competition unless modified and given the location extending the horizontal run out would definitely push it into Rt 116. The Red Bull folks and other have mentioned that there was more curvature to the slope. I couldn't quickly find a good profile of Nansen versus other ski jumps but it does appear that the Nansen has more curvature. This would reduce its value as training slope for major competitions. I would speculate that a hard landing off of Nansen may be harder than one on conventional ski jump due to the higher potential vertical drop. The offset is the vertical and horizontal distance a skier can obtain is function of the speed they leave the lip of the platform. Therefore the lower net elevation of the ski jump means that the drop is no worse than taller faster jump.

    Note interviews with locals who actually were involved with the annual event up until closure cited the reason for stopping was not enough volunteers and resources to keep it going as it took a lot of work to get it ready. The timing lines up somewhat with James Rivers purchase of the local mills. Brown Company was known to support local efforts with resources from the mill including mill labor and equipment. James River was less so and perhaps that impacted available staffing.

    I have seen in past various skiing demo shows that are set up with a jump ramp for the jumper to do stunts in the air. They are used during non winter season and tour the country to public venues and definitely are optimized for vertical lift versus horizontal travel. Perhaps Nansen is set up more

  4. #4
    Senior Member kltilton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    North Conway, NH Avatar: Skiing on Ethan Pond Trail
    Posts
    384
    I know they are looking at revising the take off and landing to bring it closer to the standards of other jumps.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •