Here we go again

[Phil]

To maintain the tradition, Nov. 15 this year, as in the previous two, marks the start of my ski history ramblings. The theme this year is  The History of Uphill Skiing. I reflected on this idea quite a bit during the off-season and that reflection resulted in a 5,000 word opus on the subject.

I would like to use the HRS platform to selectively highlight some of the pivot points that arose as I thought my way through this project.

By way of a word to those who've been following my previous history ramblings, there are few, to no, new nuggets of ski history to initially be expected as part of sharing this. In fact, as I reread what I've assembled, it is mostly a collection of the things I've already shared, in somewhat haphazard fashion before, now gathered together in a more organized way (or with as few digressions as my mind allows).

The hope would be that subsequent back and forth discussion provides an opportunity to discover something new.

I am looking for help arriving at a finished product. Does this or that statement agree with other peoples' experience and understanding of how the sport has evolved? What regional biases have crept into it and does someone else, with the perspective gained from being more widely-travelled, have a suggestion for making the observation more universal? Think of it as a peer-review process for an, as yet, unsubmitted manuscript.  

So, to start us off, I will take the first statement made in the document and ask everyone, how true is it? 

Since skiing once included both skiing up, as well as skiing down; was the  invention of the ski lift the reason that people came to see the "up" part of that equation as gone forever, or was that only one of the ingredients for that view? 

Please comment if you can.

[Sam Bartlett]

Phil says:

Since skiing once included both skiing up, as well as skiing down; was the invention of the ski lift the reason that people came to see the "up" part of that equation as gone forever, or was that only one of the ingredients for that view?

I would agree. I expect most people climbing in pre-lift-service-days, (and many people accessing the backcountry today) think, at least some of time "There must be a quicker/easier way to get to the top of this mountain. I'm here to ski down, so why do I spend most of my time climbing up?"

For contrast, consider lift-served rock climbing. No special gear needed, just jump on a lift and you are at the top of the cliff. Nobody does that, because the climbing is the point. People do take lifts to the tops of mountains instead of hiking or biking up, because they want to be at the top, they don't care about the climb. Other people, bikers and hikers and skiers, do enjoy and appreciate the climb, or at least know that it is good for their health. Indeed some places you can only bike up, like Mount Washington Auto Road Race, where you have to get driven down.

All that said, some skiers do skin up-ski down more for the aerobic workout of the climb, the return down is just a way to get back to the car.

Lifts did also allow for the advance of ski equipment technology, since it could be focused solely on the downhill performance, without all the expensive, clunky add-ons that AT has since developed. Tenth Mountain Division era wooden skis, with cable bindings and hiking boots, were a compromise quickly dropped as flexibility became a downside of gear design once lifts were ubiquitous.

--

Robert "Sam"Bartlett  Bartlett Technologies

44 Ashfield Road   413-834-0274

Shelburne Falls, MA 01370 www.bart-tech.com

>--

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

> Groups "hoosac range skiing" group. To unsubscribe from this group and

> stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

>hoosac-range-sk...@googlegroups.com. To view this

> discussion visit

>https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hoosac-range-skiing/0115fa71-d68c-4a

> 0 f-b586-d6f433554115n%40googlegroups.com .

>

[Phil]

I agree with all these points, though I would nuance it by saying that it was an evolutionary process. The lift became a logical addition to the sport when the focus of the activity shifted from being up and down to largely up and DOWN. I think that shift started when Zdarsky arrived on the scene and started messing with the Nordic formula. I would love to have a Norwegian weigh in on this, but my perception is that in Norway the up and down never disappeared. When lifts started sprouting up in that country the average skier, who had interest in doing more downhill skiing, got a set of skis and boots that were adapted to only going down, but never put away the other ski equipment they'd grown up on and continued to use it where it was at its best. In America we'd been "Alpinized" by Hannes Schneider and his Arlberg approach. Riding lifts was just the natural next step in the evolution. The equipment had moved in that direction already, with more emphasis on the down and less on the up.

I  think of the story surrounding the birth of the Stowe Derby as a good example of this split. Sepp Ruschp and Erling Strom got into a "which is best" argument over equipment. That was in 1944 so the differences in the two types of equipment, Nordic and Alpine, were slight, compared with today. But the fact that they could get into this argument is evidence that the split had already occurred and was noticeable enough to provoke the question they debated.

What this brings up is the need for me to research when the first pure downhill ski boots were produced, i.e. the kind that have no flex across the forefoot and are solely for use being locked down flat onto the ski. I would guess it wasn't until after lifts were in widespread use. I would also bet that Ruschp was not skiing in those kinds of boots when he raced Strom down the Mt. Mansfield Auto Road and along the valley floor to Stowe. It's unlikely he could have won a race against more flat land friendly equipment. In 1944 my money is that he was on the 10th Mt. Division style of equipment you mention Sam. That was convertible between running up and down and relied on a cable for its action. 

Strom was probably using leather straps that didn't provide any resistance to raising the heel. He may also have been using skis that lacked metal edges. Other than that the two set ups probably were very similar though perhaps the Alpine skis lacked as much camber as the Nordic ones. The leather straps probably allowed better kick and glide on the flats but the cable probably gave more control on the downhill. I'm guessing that both boots were able to flex, though the Nordic boots likely more so. The differences would have been very subtle to our modern eyes. 

[Neal Chamberlain]

Wonderfully said Sam. 

Neal Chamberlain 

860 671 0494

On Nov 15, 2024, at 8:02 PM, Phil <philipk...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with all these points, though I would nuance it by saying that it was an evolutionary process. The lift became a logical addition to the sport when the focus of the activity shifted from being up and down to largely up and DOWN. I think that shift started when Zdarsky arrived on the scene and started messing with the Nordic formula. I would love to have a Norwegian weigh in on this, but my perception is that in Norway the up and down never disappeared. When lifts started sprouting up in that country the average skier, who had interest in doing more downhill skiing, got a set of skis and boots that were adapted to only going down, but never put away the other ski equipment they'd grown up on and continued to use it where it was at its best. In America we'd been "Alpinized" by Hannes Schneider and his Arlberg approach. Riding lifts was just the natural next step in the evolution. The equipment had moved in that direction already, with more emphasis on the down and less on the up.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hoosac-range-skiing/b662aca7-048b-4ea8-a5ff-fca2755e990dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Phil]

Thanks Neal for the archival footage. Leather boots and cable bindings may not be something the youngsters in the group have used but they certainly bring back memories for the oldtimers.

[Phil]

My contribution. Three pin & leather. 

[Phil]

Found this and excerpted it from Skiing History mag. Guess the date for beginning use of the rigid, flat sole boot was "after WW II." It certainly was an incremental process and largely driven by the needs of racers. 

Then, in 1928, the Swiss ski racer Guido Reuge invented a cable binding designed to hold the heel down for alpine skiing. He named the binding after the Kandahar series of alpine ski races.

Mass-produced boot with instep strap.

The powerful steel cable and front-throw adjuster cranked hard on the boot sole, which had to be stiffened considerably. At this point, alpine ski boot design diverged from nordic boots. Boots for cross-country racing and ski jumping needed a flexible sole. But because alpine racing didn’t require the boot to flex at the ball of the foot, the sole could be built with a stiff full-length shank. And because alpine skiers wanted the foot held firmly down on the ski, bootmakers created an instep strap. Coincidentally, 1928 was the year the mountaineer Rudolf Lettner invented the segmented steel edge for alpine skis. Suddenly, skis could be controlled on steep and icy faces—if your boots were stiff enough to drive the edges.

Most skiers used inexpensive mass-produced ski boots, but racers, instructors and wealthier sportsmen ordered their boots custom-made, from ski-town cobblers in the Alps. A few of these craftsmen, like Peter Limmer Sr., set up shop in America.

Eriksen double boot

After World War II, custom bootmakers developed the double boot, with a soft and comfy lace-up inner boot protected and stiffened by a thick bull-hide outer casing laced with heavy-duty corset hooks. The complex design was difficult to reproduce with machines, and the European cottage industry adapted to mass production of hand-stitched leather boots. Companies like Henke in Switzerland, Le Trappeur in France and Nordica in Italy employed hundreds of workers to export hand-stitched boots.

[Phil]

The "Eriksen double boot," was produced by Henke. Here's a 1957 ad for it: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/25/c5/df/25c5dfd08db5546b4fbfabd6f97af054--ski-wear-ski-boots.jpg

[Andy Mathey]

Great question.

The answer, to me, circles back upon itself like the chicken/egg conondrum. 

Did a newly emergent ski industry ----mid century----manufacture lift-served 'downhill' skiing due to a public demand for 'less uphill work, more downhill play'?  Or did it 'create' an audience to embrace the new technology attached to a social status hierarchy----that it would also benefit financially from? 

Historically, rural people living near the mountains have had less wealth than their urban counterparts.  Their quality of life increased from sliding on snow in the forest out their back door.   They climbed up and skied down---nobody made any money.  Their neighbor cut some trails in the hillside.  Maybe they left a tractor at the top all winter---attached a rope to the flywheel and charged pocket change to the local kids.  Searching Jeremy Davis' NELSAP,  this seems like the history of skiing in New England.  A graveyard of lost neighborhood ski slopes with barely a couple hundred vertical feet on gently angled returns.  My dad learned to ski at Wydlich's farm in Millers Falls, basically skiing down a cornfield... 

Skiing defined as 'folks local to rural/mountainous areas staving off the winter doldrums for cheap' changed when a consumer market emerged mid-century that promised more affluent urban dwellers ways to spend their money and attain class status:  weekend get-aways, European-style luxury and adventure, etc.  Would it be a reach to imagine that the social staus of upward mobility---having a chauffer or domestic 'staff' (or wanting these things) could also connect uphill skiing to manual labor done by poor (rural) people, in contrast?  Aerial lifts especially would signify 'modern', hip and cool, whereas surface lifts would quickly become the flip phone of the day, and those fools climbing uphill were either too dumb to know better or too poor to pay....

Charging for lift service---and now with a wealthier demographic to afford it---- the real industry begins?  Upgrades like snowmaking, machine grooming, night skiing, comfortable base lodges and slope side accommodations, of course, are not principally marketed to locals (who is going to work there?).  Advertising campaigns create a country club aesthetic---carefully curated and aspirational.   or crazy aprés party town.  Actual skiing is only just one part of the Idea of SKIING.  Enter Les Otten, and the 'ski industry' becomes the 'real estate' industry;  Not only lift tickets and high priced burgers now, but will condos save the sport?   Who is driving 3 hours north to their slopeside condo and not taking the summit gondie all day until they have to go back to work Monday morning?  Who would drive 3 hours north to physically (manual labor) climb the mountain when there is a machine that does it for you?  That is nuts.....

I like Sam's analogy of lift-served rock climbing.  Climbing is the point, not sitting at the summit.  Maybe driving the shuttle to the put-in, rather than walking 5 miles carrying a kayak on one's shoulder is closer?  I don't feel like I'd be gaining much joy over that 5 miles, when I really just want to run the Dryway...

I wonder how many current backcountry skiers have a background first in cross-country skiing?  Because AT and Tele technology has improved so much recently, it seems that folks (like me) who used to tour neighborhood trails on low-tech (3 pin) nordic equipment can continue this pursuit but now with much better downhill control.