Steep and far
Lowell Skoog
makes an adventurous ski trip. I sketched out the following
ideas, but I don't know if anyone else will find them
interesting. Comments welcome.
--
Steep and Far
Ski mountaineering is an activity defined by two dimensions:
steep and far. These days steep skiing gets most of the press
because it is dramatic. But "far skiing," covering significant
distance across the countryside, is an equally valid dimension of
the sport that may in fact be more popular. Thinking about these
two aspects separately and then putting them back together may
help us think more clearly about the sport.
- Tools
The optimal tools for a steep descent are obviously different
from those for a cross country trip. For steep skiing, skis are
primarily edging tools. For far skiing, they are primarily
gliding tools. So a steep skier may choose short edged skis,
stiff boots and locked heels while a far skier chooses long
edgeless skis, soft boots and free heels.
For really extreme descents, the best tool may not be a pair of
skis at all, but a snowboard. In a few years we may regard
extremely steep skiing as a curiosity, after deciding that
snowboarding works better for that purpose. Yet a snowboard
suitable for the steeps is almost useless for cross country
travel.
In the middle ground where most ski mountaineers play we choose
tools that are a compromise. A single pair of skis can do most
jobs fairly well. The tougher compromise is choosing the right
boots. We each make a personal decision according to our taste
in steep versus far and our ability to compensate for the
shortcomings of our gear through skill.
- Risks
Barring avalanches, the risk of steep skiing is simple: you may
fall. The risks of far skiing take many forms but they all boil
down to one thing: exhaustion. You may exhaust your energy, your
supplies, your time or your good weather before reaching your
goal. It's important to note that far skiing doesn't need to
involve long distances or extended times. "Far" is relative to
the resources you have available. An ambitious one-day trip with
a light pack can be as adventurous as a one-month expedition.
The much-abused word "extreme" has traditionally been applied to
steep skiing. But there's no reason it couldn't be applied to
far skiing as well. Extreme means that you have minimal backup
and the consequences of failure are severe.
- Aids
In steep skiing, ropes and belays are aids. In far skiing,
support and resupply are aids. That may include huts, caches or
air drops. The users of aids argue that they reduce the risks
and make the skiing more enjoyable. Critics argue that they
diminish the commitment and the level of accomplishment. As long
as using aids doesn't affect anyone else, average skiers will do
whatever makes their trips more fun and elite skiers will argue
about them in order to one-up each other.
- Rewards
Steep skiers speak of the aesthetics of a dramatic line and the
challenge of solving technical problems. Far skiers speak of a
feeling of flow across the landscape and a heightened
appreciation of the mountain environment. Skeptics complain that
extremely steep skiing is applying skis where they don't make
sense--like wearing roller skates on El Capitan. Critics of
extremely far skiing view it as glorified slogging and
dangerously like work.
An outing that achieves a balance between steep and far can
provide both kinds of rewards. But striking such a balance
requires compromises. One is unlikely to tackle the extremely
steep or extremely far on a single trip, because the tools
required for these two extremes are different. Yet for some
skiers, trips that require such compromises, that are "kinda
steep" and "pretty far," are the most rewarding of all.
Thinking steep and far may help us predict the sort of exploits
that will amaze us in the future. Steep skiing enchainments, ski
traverses over Himalayan summits, light and fast crossings of
major ranges are all part of a logical progression.
For the average ski mountaineer, thinking steep and far may help
clarify your taste in adventure or highlight a dimension that
you've overlooked before. It may help you see old trips in a new
light or consider new possibilities. If you're like me, you
probably do just one or two trips a year that you consider
adventurous. Thinking steep and far may kindle a whole new set
of daydreams.
--Lowell Skoog
Seattle
david mann
: On a long mountain drive recently, I got to thinking about what
: makes an adventurous ski trip. I sketched out the following
: ideas, but I don't know if anyone else will find them
: interesting. Comments welcome.
Lowell, great piece. You should submit this to one
of the mags.
: --
: Steep and Far
: Ski mountaineering is an activity defined by two dimensions:
: steep and far. These days steep skiing gets most of the press
: because it is dramatic. But "far skiing," covering significant
: distance across the countryside, is an equally valid dimension of
: the sport that may in fact be more popular. Thinking about these
: two aspects separately and then putting them back together may
: help us think more clearly about the sport.
For me, this tension is captured in the older term that
was used in Barnett's book and in Gillette and Dostal's
book. That term is cross-country downhill or XCD. I find
the balance between the 2 goals that seem in ooposition to
be particularly rewarding. Admittedly, to pursue XCD is to
live with comprimise. The term pure comprimis is an oxymoron.
Purists, of sorts, will seek purer disciplines. Issue #16 of
Backcountry displays purists at either end of the spectrum
highlighting the far cross-country exploits of those who
are taking light skatig gear into the bc on the one hand
while also highlighting the steep downhill exploits of
our very own Andrew McLean on the other.
: - Rewards
I think of the differing rewards in terms of the
physiolical effects. Adrenalin versus endorphins.
This is going to come off sounding like I'm some sort of
endorphin snob but is seems to me that adrenelin is
an easy rush to get (ok, the harder part here is staying
alive or safe...). Endorphins on the other hand take
time and patience. IT is not as immediate but for those
of us who have tasted that nearly out of body experience
of floating effortlessly over terrain, for thos of us
who have falen in love with finding the groove, the
rewards of "far" are as intoxicating as the rewards of
"steep". It sells fewer skis though.
: An outing that achieves a balance between steep and far can
: provide both kinds of rewards. But striking such a balance
: requires compromises. One is unlikely to tackle the extremely
: steep or extremely far on a single trip, because the tools
: required for these two extremes are different. Yet for some
: skiers, trips that require such compromises, that are "kinda
: steep" and "pretty far," are the most rewarding of all.
Yes, yes, yes. Part of the appeal of XCD for me is a decidedly
retro-grouch reaction. Ok, I'm now down (yes, down) to 4
pairs of skis on my rack with 3 pairs of boots -- 4 pairs of
boots if you count my leather hikers that I *could* use
if I mount up another pair of ski with those old Berwyns...
Maybe that old pair of Rossis that are kicking around down
stairs? Did I say 4 pairs of skis, make that 5.... ugg...
What is most sad is that I can justify to myself exactly
why I NEED each pair. Yikes.
"It seems you need an arsenal of nordic ski equipment
these days to be a cross-country skier these days.
Don't get me wrong; I own them all. In fact, that's
about all I own. They definitely augment the ski
experience and they're durable, but they aren't
quite as versatile as the single pair of old wooden
Landsems I once skied."
"Before we were tele skiers or backcountry skiers
we had one pair of skis that did it all. With the
lightest and least substantial of all skis we skied
all terrain, all snow. Does anybody remember that?
... Well, remember this my friends: We're nordic
skiers, not telemark skiers."
-- Allan Bard from "Telemarking is NOT a Sport"
and essay from the March '95 issue of Backcountry
My wife and I are orking to simplify our lives. For me,
there is a tremendous aesthetic appeal to get my equipage
down to a minimalist amount. This will mean giving up
some things, something I am not quite willing to do.
But it is a goal.
Dave Mann
ar...@my-dejanews.com
I find your comment regarding snowboards being more suited to steep descents
interesting but don't quite see the rationale, nor is it supported by what I
have observed.
What makes you think that they are more suited to this then a pair of
mountaineering skis?
Armin
low...@halcyon.com (Lowell Skoog) wrote:
> For really extreme descents, the best tool may not be a pair of
> skis at all, but a snowboard. In a few years we may regard
> extremely steep skiing as a curiosity, after deciding that
> snowboarding works better for that purpose.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Lowell Skoog
>I find your comment regarding snowboards being more suited to
>steep descents interesting but don't quite see the rationale, nor
>is it supported by what I have observed. What makes you think
>that they are more suited to this then a pair of mountaineering
>skis?
Pure speculation. Plus I hoped to get a rise out of the steep
skiers out there. ;-)
In terms of biomechanics and physics, it it seems possible that a
single plank with a single edge may be more powerful on steep
terrain than a pair of skis. I don't have any proof of this, but
there may be some anecdotal evidence, for example Stephen Koch's
descent of the Messner Couloir, 5000 vertical feet in (what was
it?) something like 15 minutes.
Certainly snowboards have proven more effective than skis in
difficult snow. Also, having a real ice tool in your hands may
be a better safeguard against a slip than a pair of spindly ski
poles, even with the best self arrest grips.
--Lowell Skoog
Seattle
Ken Roberts
Your ideas resonate a lot for me. As I dream of a big challenge for the
springtime, I find it's not a famous descent any more, but a long one-day
traverse over several high passes. And week-and-a-half ago in the Wasatch I
was stable downhill in any snow on my splitboard in the morning, and then in
the afternoon quick on light cross-country sticks.
And even though I've always gone on the light side for backcountry downhill,
I find myself thinking after years on my Snowfield leather boots, that I
want something still lighter -- like maybe the Salomon BC Greenlands. Then
I go looking for light skinny skis in the Couloir and Backcountry magazine
reviews -- and discover that there _aren't_ any.
Does this mean that I'm dropping out of the "real" backcountry skiing
community?
Instead of overpowering steep slopes with specialized gear, I would focus on
enjoyable exploration and quick movement through beautiful high-mountain
terrain. Call it "alpine touring"? whoops, that's already taken -- how
about "cross-mountain skiing"? Or I could wear my viking helmet and call it
"nordic ski mountaineering".
Ken
Ken Roberts
>The much-abused word "extreme" has traditionally been applied to
>steep skiing. But there's no reason it couldn't be applied to
>far skiing as well. Extreme means that you have minimal backup
>and the consequences of failure are severe.
Going out on some "far" trips has made me think that way too. But I think I
would divide the types of failure into three: Navigation, Exhaustion,
Injury.
1) Navigation -- You can't reach the goal if you can't find it. Doing a
long route in one day when you've never been there before is a way to take
it to the edge.
2) Exhaustion is finding out that you physically don't have what it takes to
finish the planned route -- which might include getting caught in a cold
night or storm because you weren't fast enough.
3) Injury is the scariest -- like tearing your ACL 15 miles out. Could also
put equipment failure here.
This leads to a reconsideration of "aids":
1) Navigation: For me, using a GPS is "aid" -- and so is using a compass
(for me). I love the problem-solving challenge of visual reckoning -- to me
that's an integral part of the mountain game. But does using a _map_ count
as "aid"?
2) I agree that caches are aid. Is having another party break trail for you
aid on a "far" trip? What about hiring a snowmobile to break trail part of
the way?
3) Injury: Does carrying a cel phone or radio count as "aid"? I don't
think so. But using it to "check in" with a support team every 2 hours
definitely would change the feel of the trip.
>An outing that achieves a balance between steep and far can
>provide both kinds of rewards.
Actually I don't like to go extreme in either way. I just like to have some
steep passes as a way to make the terrain more interesting -- even if I
choose not to ski the downhill side. I've encountered several steep passes
on the traverses in the Sierra which required some puzzle-solving to get up
and down even without trying to ski them.
Ken
Lowell Skoog
>
>Purists, of sorts, will seek purer disciplines. Issue #16 of
>Backcountry displays purists at either end of the spectrum
>highlighting the far cross-country exploits of those who
>are taking light skatig gear into the bc on the one hand
>while also highlighting the steep downhill exploits of
>our very own Andrew McLean on the other.
Issue #17 has a long article on last year's Wasatch ski traverse,
which was a classic example of a trip that struck a balance between
steep and far. Not "extreme" in either dimension (which is the
nature of such trips) but very impressive and well executed.
The author, Doug Byerly, describes the impression that the trip
made on him:
"Never again would I look at skiing the same way. It
had become something larger than life, something sacred
and eternally magic."
Strong stuff, that.
--Lowell Skoog
Seattle
Hugh Grierson
>Armin <ar...@my-dejanews.com> writes:
>
>>I find your comment regarding snowboards being more suited to
>>steep descents interesting but don't quite see the rationale, nor
>>is it supported by what I have observed. What makes you think
>>that they are more suited to this then a pair of mountaineering
>>skis?
>
>Pure speculation. Plus I hoped to get a rise out of the steep
>skiers out there. ;-)
Heh. Many would agree with you, and the state of ski extrem in France
seems to confirm it. Most if not all of the big ski descents have
been boarded, and some of the newer ones have been established by
snowboard (eg North face of the Triolet!).
>Also, having a real ice tool in your hands may
>be a better safeguard against a slip than a pair of spindly ski
>poles, even with the best self arrest grips.
Not just one ice tool either. You can sideslip-downclimb extremely
steep sections on the toe edge of a snowboard with a pair of ice tools in
your hands. If you're that way inclined :-)
-H
Lowell Skoog
> This leads to a reconsideration of "aids":
I defined aids for far skiing as "support and resupply." Support
means getting help from someone outside your party. Resupply
means gathering provisions (not counting roots and berries :-)
along the way.
> 1) Navigation: For me, using a GPS is "aid" -- and so is using a
> compass (for me). I love the problem-solving challenge of visual
> reckoning -- to me that's an integral part of the mountain game.
> But does using a _map_ count as "aid"?
We're definitely splitting hairs here. The distinction between
aerial surveys required for map making and satellite overflights
required to support GPS is very fine. One is support before the
fact and the other is real-time support during your trip. As an
arbitrary distinction, I consider the latter to be aid, but not
the former. I'm not saying that GPS is bad, just clarifying how
I think about it.
> 2) I agree that caches are aid. Is having another party break
> trail for you aid on a "far" trip? What about hiring a
> snowmobile to break trail part of the way?
Having another party break trail would be "support" so I'd
classify that as aid. Same with using a snowmobile.
> 3) Injury: Does carrying a cel phone or radio count as "aid"? I
> don't think so. But using it to "check in" with a support team
> every 2 hours definitely would change the feel of the trip.
Carrying a cell phone or radio on a ski trip is like carrying a
bolt kit on a climbing trip. If you use it, that's aid. If you
don't, it's an insurance policy. I sympathize with both sides of
the personal responsibility argument, so I won't add any more
arguments here.
>>An outing that achieves a balance between steep and far can
>>provide both kinds of rewards.
>
> Actually I don't like to go extreme in either way.
Me neither. Combining these aspects can increase the rewards of
a trip without requiring you to get into extreme skiing, either
steep or far. And I'm not arguing against aids, just suggesting
that the concept of aids applies to far skiing just as it does to
steep skiing.
My point in writing "Steep and Far" was to place our current
fascination with steep skiing in a larger perspective. I think
steep skiing is great, it's cool, but it's only one dimension of
a multidimensional sport.
--Lowell Skoog
Seattle
david mann
: Ken Roberts <K...@Roberts-1.com> writes:
: > 1) Navigation: For me, using a GPS is "aid" -- and so is using a
: > compass (for me). I love the problem-solving challenge of visual
: > reckoning -- to me that's an integral part of the mountain game.
: > But does using a _map_ count as "aid"?
: We're definitely splitting hairs here. The distinction between
: aerial surveys required for map making and satellite overflights
: required to support GPS is very fine. One is support before the
: fact and the other is real-time support during your trip. As an
: arbitrary distinction, I consider the latter to be aid, but not
: the former. I'm not saying that GPS is bad, just clarifying how
: I think about it.
Dave Foreman (of EF! fame and currently from the SC) wrote
an essay that appeared, I think, in Backpacker a few years
ago. In it, Foreman argued for places to be set aside as
un-mapped. Now, clearly the military won't stand for this.
I believe the old USGS standard for marking terrain as
wooded was wheter or not there was enough tree cover to
hide a platoon in an acre of land when viewd from
the air (probably irrelvant today with our more sophisticated
satalite imagery). Anyway, the point is, there ARE folks
who will map the wilderness regardless of Foreman's call.
But, on the other hand, Foreman raised a lot of good
points. One point was that true wilderness should be
approached with no exteranl aid and on its own merit
and he pointed out that maps where clearly an external
aid. They give the holder of the map a power over the
wilderness. Foreman recounts a wilderness trip in which
he and his wife faced real danger with river crossing
because they choose to go without a map and he noted
that a mpa would have removed much of the danger.
Interesting parallels to this obervation are made
in Krakouer's "Into The Wild" in which he recounts the
tale of a romantic who dies in AK for want of a map
(among other things). Also, see the Waterman's "Wilderness
Ethics" for a nice discussion on the loss of a
wilderness experience in terms of winter mountaineersing
due to better equipment and more traffic in the mountains.
Of course, the problem with any of these arguements is
that they are slippery slopes. To truely confront the
wildernss on its own terms requires something akin to
the old Maine guide's challange of being dropped off
on a remote lake shore in Oct, naked with nothing but a
knife. One guide that I read about apperhently
paddled back to town in a birch bark canoe, wearing
leather and fur. Talk about creds.
I'm sure we all fall short of this level of commitment.
So the diescussion is not do we use aids or not so much
as it is, which aid do we use?
Powerrp
To get in sync with 'far as extreme', one need go no farther than the closest
bookstore.
Buy the book called Undaunted Courage, a popular-history treatment of the Lewis
and Clark expedition. It's very well done, and speaks right to the issue.
Yes, 'far' can be extreme indeed.
Bob Power
Andrew McLean
1) I think they are both excellent, especially when combined. A long,
committing approach, capped by a similarly committing steep descent is my
idea of the ultimate outing.
2) The reason I don't do more far skiing is that it takes too much time. A
classic example (which someone mentioned) is the Wasatch Traverse which took
something like 22 days, plus many days of gear stashing beforehand. It just
doesn't seem like people have that kind of time nowadays.
3) I really like the idea of Endro skiing, enchainments, 24 hour ski-a-thons
or just doing something really light and fast.
4) Media attention.... I think far skiing (or almost any distance event) is
too abstract. Unless you've been there, it's hard to relate to a long
traverse.
Andrew
1999 American Ski Expedition
http://www.bdel.com/Shishapangma/SPIntro.htm
Ken Roberts
> The reason I don't do more far skiing is that it takes too much time.
I think you can have a serious "far" challenge in under 24 hours.
Because the "far" is relative to what nutrition and equipment and support
you bring.
Here's one way:
Choose a point-to-point traverse where there are no bail-out points in the
middle, and where your expected time for the distance and terrain is almost
as much as the hours of daylight (how close to play it is up to you). Do it
on a sunny spring day, and here's the key: Only bring enough clothing so
that you can stay warm with the help of sunlight (the kilos you save will
enable you to finish faster). Make it a route you've never done before, and
don't bring a GPS or a compass or a radio. And go solo.
Under these conditions, one significant navigation mistake, or an injury --
and you're still out there after the sun goes down -- and in big trouble.
Why would anyone try that? I don't know -- but then I don't know why people
ski the left Mendel couloir.
Ken