new Fritschi telemark binding
r...@xmission.com
Nudnik wrote:
> For anyone who is interested. Here's a picture of the new releasable
> Fritschi 'SKYHOEY' telemark binding.
>
> [Image]
Peter Krystad
says Fritschi was not showing a single real model of this device.
To me this suggests they are at least two seasons away from getting
it on the market, and three seasons before I would ever consider
buying one.
Something about a mousetrap comes to mind....
Peter.
--
//-----------------------------------------------------------//
// Peter Krystad Inroad, Inc. //
// pet...@inroad.com Seattle, WA USA 206.374.7150 //
//-----------------------------------------------------------//
Gordon Addison
bike. But how do you keep the snow out? After having broken four different
bindings, I think there has to be a better solution for the problem that
the plastic boots are giving bindings.
Derrick
Louis Dawson
ski, step in step out, perfect lateral stability, and the possiblity
of being both an AT and free-heel binding in one package! What's not
to love <g>?
--
'best, Louis Dawson, Carbondale, Colorado
--
http://www.couloir-mag.com
http://www.couloir-mag.com/sponsors/lou_dawson/books_by.htm
--
Access is the key.
--
Powerrp
The Skyhoy website's picture of the new binding is, uh, fascinating. The
accompanying text is so strange that I concluded that this may be an elaborate
troll. If so, it's terrific! That would be the ultimate revenge for some
engineer who is frustrated by the demands that tele skiers make on a binding...
Bob Power
Bob Power
-Geriatric Tele Society mother hen-
RPARSAVAND
>The accompanying text is so strange that I concluded that this may be an
elaborate troll. If so, it's terrific!
I wouldn't mind if Bob were right, though I don't really care if this is just
another 75mm binding system. If this is what is possible with a new format, I
hope the venture loses like the Silvretta SL. It looks ridiculously
complicated and heavy. Sounds like from the comment about the show in SLC that
somebody is serious though.
People have worked on this, but my thoughts are any attachment should be done
on the sidewall in a way similar to the Dynafit standard, but further back, and
with much deeper sockets. I simply do not want the hassle of having to cover a
cleat to hike in my boots. I go back and forth on whether it makes more sense
to release directly from the sockets (Rainey did some research on this with
Lange I believe), or just have a very solid connection and let those that want
release use a plate system like Voile or Rottefella. After meeting enough
telemarkers that say they don't even want a release even with plastic boots,
I'm inclined to think the latter solution makes more sense. I've played with
different locations for the sockets and I like the position of about 2-3 cm in
front of the flex point.
- dara < pars...@yahoo.com>, not aol.com
- FS: Asolo Extremes US9 a bit used $40, 2 Voile release kits w/ brakes $25,
$22 (missing some screws), 2 Ramer Classics $90, $60 (missing heel clamp -
currently not available)
Clyde Soles
> A friend who was at the Outdoor Retailer show in Salt lake recently
> says Fritschi was not showing a single real model of this device.
False, it was available to people with high priority. Now whether you
want to spend $330 to be a guinea pig next season is a different matter.
But the concept looks good...unlike the lame website.
--
DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise indicated, this post is personal
opinion and NOT an official statement of my employer.
John Red-Horse
>
> Now whether you
>want to spend $330 to be a guinea pig next season is a different matter.
>
True enough, but I'd be willing to wager a six-pack of good brew that more
than a few of us around here have been guinea pigs already. It's just
that our prices are different.
cheers,
john
Peter Krystad
> Peter Krystad <pet...@inroad.com> wrote:
> > A friend who was at the Outdoor Retailer show in Salt lake recently
> > says Fritschi was not showing a single real model of this device.
> False, it was available to people with high priority. Now whether you
> want to spend $330 to be a guinea pig next season is a different matter.
> But the concept looks good...unlike the lame website.
I look forward to updating my friend with this new data point on his
priority standing in the world.
Did you happen to get one in your hands Clyde? How much would you guess
it weighed? Closer to a Superloop or an alpine binding?
Anders Marklund
the DIN Norm 75 mm and later on to fit the new norm that is being
introduced.
What does the new norm look like?
Since Fritschi is making AT gear, I asked if the binding will have the
option of a locked heel. It will not have this feature, it is in
free-heel mode all the time. However, they will have a heel lock in
future models, because several skiers have asked for this option. Those
future bindings will have the possiblity of being both an AT and a
free-heel binding in one package.
Ackording to Fritschi, the Skyhoy will be delivered in a limited quantity
to their distributors and to the market in autumn 1999. Price? Don't
know. Too much I assume (as with all gear ;-)
Blue skies,
-Anders Marklund
Shawn W. Baker
>
> I spoke with Fritshi about their new binding. The Skyhoy is made to fit
> the DIN Norm 75 mm and later on to fit the new norm that is being
> introduced.
>
> What does the new norm look like?
>
> Since Fritschi is making AT gear, I asked if the binding will have the
> option of a locked heel. It will not have this feature, it is in
> free-heel mode all the time. However, they will have a heel lock in
> future models, because several skiers have asked for this option. Those
> future bindings will have the possiblity of being both an AT and a
> free-heel binding in one package.
Kick butt!! I guess I'll have to start saving! Think of how many
different binding set-ups this would eliminate! (Of course, you'd have
to buy the Skyhoy for each set of skis in your quiver) Can you say big
bucks?!
Shawn
> Ackording to Fritschi, the Skyhoy will be delivered in a limited quantity
> to their distributors and to the market in autumn 1999. Price? Don't
> know. Too much I assume (as with all gear ;-)
>
> Blue skies,
>
> -Anders Marklund
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Baker Brothers
Brews & Boats <URL: http://www.montana.com/mslacon/shawn/ >
Shawn W. Baker ba...@montana.calm --Fix the obvious to send email
Shawn W. Baker
Shawn
John Red-Horse wrote:
> True enough, but I'd be willing to wager a six-pack of good brew that more
> than a few of us around here have been guinea pigs already. It's just
> that our prices are different.
>
> cheers,
> john
--
John Red-Horse
>So John, tell us about this guinea pig experience!
>
Shawn, surely you're joking; my tribulations as a gear guinea pig have
been well documented here.
My summary:
(1) There's no perfect boot: I've put holes at the bellows in the leading
plastic boots of two different manufacturers---one of them I did in a
fall on the very first time that I skied in them.
(2) There's no perfect binding: Aluminum or stainless steel, I've managed
to break every binding I've ever used.
My analysis:
Making gear knucklehead-proof is a difficult task. I'm doing my part to
help the manufacturers.
cheers,
john
dcr...@rain.org
wrote:
>I thought the Skyhoy looked great! Full realeasability, no right/left
>ski, step in step out, perfect lateral stability, and the possiblity
>of being both an AT and free-heel binding in one package! What's not
>to love <g>?
A. Weight.
B. Complexity - you can't fix one of those with bailing wire and duct
tape.
C. Cost. Am I the only one who thinks that 400$ boots and 600$ skis
don't belong in the backcountry? It's good gear, granted, but is this
disgusting increast in cost just a way for yuppies to co-opt the
backcountry and attempt to take it away from the leather booted alpaca
hatted b/c locals? Anyway, add 300$ for bindings and you have 1300$
worth of gear on your feet. When I first got into b/c skiing boots
were about 60$ and skis ~100$. Bindings were so cheap I don't
remember what they cost. For the price of these new bindings you
could have outfitted *2* b/c skiers with boots and skis and bindings
in '82, the year I decided that the closing of the ski area was not a
good enough reason for me to stop skiing for the season.
D. Lack of alternatives: why can't a reasonably priced, backcountry
simple, light weight safe and trustable releasable cable binding be
developed? I think it could, but you can't make megabucks off it so
it's not worth developing, therefore you get the Vallhalla binding:
Costs more than you can afford and weighs more than you can lift in
this life.
DCraig.
Hal Murray
> don't belong in the backcountry? It's good gear, granted, but is this
> disgusting increast in cost just a way for yuppies to co-opt the
> backcountry and attempt to take it away from the leather booted alpaca
> hatted b/c locals? Anyway, add 300$ for bindings and you have 1300$
> worth of gear on your feet. When I first got into b/c skiing boots
> were about 60$ and skis ~100$. Bindings were so cheap I don't
Have you corrected for inflation?
I generally hate spending big bucks for toys, but if I'm in the right
mood I just do it and go have fun. It's not really all that many
hours of work relative to how many hours of fun I can have with them.
--
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employers.
Sparks and Dr. Jules
> D. Lack of alternatives: why can't a reasonably priced, backcountry
> simple, light weight safe and trustable releasable cable binding be
> developed?
Voile releasables.
If you want more trust/weight/safety than this go with the Fitschi's.
Technology costs...get used to it.
David W Swain
: Anders Marklund wrote:
: >
: > Since Fritschi is making AT gear, I asked if the binding will have the
: > option of a locked heel. It will not have this feature, it is in
: > free-heel mode all the time. However, they will have a heel lock in
: > future models, because several skiers have asked for this option. Those
: > free-heel binding in one package.
:
: Kick butt!! I guess I'll have to start saving! Think of how many
: different binding set-ups this would eliminate! (Of course, you'd have
: to buy the Skyhoy for each set of skis in your quiver) Can you say big
: bucks?!
: > Ackording to Fritschi, the Skyhoy will be delivered in a limited quantity
: > to their distributors and to the market in autumn 1999. Price? Don't
: > know. Too much I assume (as with all gear ;-)
The Skyhooey (er, Skyhoy) will retail for $330. "If we build it they will
come, break it for us, return it, and then we can sell it to them all
over again." I expect to see it appear in the Sharper Image catalogue
within a season.
_______________________________________________________________________________
David W. Swain dsw...@english.umass.edu
Department of English
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
FAX (413) 545-3880
Tudor England Project
(413) 577-3603
FAX 577-3605
"There is a single root cause of nearly all the evils in the sciences,
namely, that while we wrongly admire and extol the powers of the human
mind, we fail to look for true ways of helping it."
-Francis Bacon, _Novum Organum_, I.9 (1620)
dcr...@rain.org
>> C. Cost. Am I the only one who thinks that 400$ boots and 600$ skis
>> don't belong in the backcountry? It's good gear, granted, but is this
>> disgusting increast in cost just a way for yuppies to co-opt the
>> backcountry and attempt to take it away from the leather booted alpaca
>> hatted b/c locals? Anyway, add 300$ for bindings and you have 1300$
>> worth of gear on your feet. When I first got into b/c skiing boots
>> were about 60$ and skis ~100$. Bindings were so cheap I don't
>
>Have you corrected for inflation?
>
Good point, this was in the mid 80's right after the big inflation
years so you could probably double the old prices and be in the ball
park. But still, you have to admit that $500 for state of the art
tele boots is gouging. My *downhill* boots cost less than that.
I'm really glad to see other manufacturers starting to pay attention
to the market so that competition will bring the prices down.
>I generally hate spending big bucks for toys, but if I'm in the right
>mood I just do it and go have fun. It's not really all that many
>hours of work relative to how many hours of fun I can have with them.
Stop that, I've been looking at windsurfing equipment.
DCraig
dcr...@rain.org
and Dr. Jules) wrote:
>If you want more trust/weight/safety than this go with the Fitschi's.
>Technology costs...get used to it.
The problem is that new products cost grossly more than they're worth
because of the initial cost of R&D, marketing, the risk involved in
financing something that might not sell. What pisses me off is when
companies extend the inflated price way beyond the cost recovery
period. There's no justification I can see for Terminators to still
cost $500 three, four and five years later, and at that point I think
they are taking advantage of an effective monopoly for their product.
If the product were not grossly overpriced then other competitors
would not be attracted to the market - I just think it takes too long
in the relatively small telemark equipment market for competing
products to come to market and bring the price down out of the bend
over range.
Skis that cost $600 are a joke: there's what, $20 or $30 worth of
materials in them? Maybe $100 if they use all kinds of specialized
stuff which is primarily there to justify the price. Sure they cost a
lot to produce but not *that* much.
When you've got $1300 worth of equipment on your feet and you can't
levitate, you've been robbed.
Fuck monopolies,
DCraig.
After all, they're fucking you.
John Corden
reason downhill (alpine) boots cost less than plastic tele boots is that
they sell a lot more of them. The cost to manufacture a plastic tele boot
is substantially the same as an alpine boot. A big component of this cost
are the molds for plastic injection. That cost is fixed, i.e. molds for all
size breaks, regardless of quanity of boots sold. Therefore tele boot
manufacturers must charge more for their boots to amortize tooling costs
(molds). The solution is to get more people pinning and buying the boots and
the prices will come down.
JC
Louis Dawson
and the participants didn't seem to care much about weight. And last
time I looked, all the telemarkers I was skiing in the backcountry
with had gear that weighed more than my AT gear, was just as complex,
broke more often, and cost just a small amount less because the
binding was a bit cheaper. Why would they no use a Skyhoy?
Indeed, much of the talk on this newsgroup, sadly, relates to
telemarking at ski areas... Because of the popularity of telemarking
at ski areas, I believe the Skyhoy will become the binding of choice.
But my crystal ball has been known to cloud up <grin>.
Also, what new tele technology have you guys _not_ embraced?
Everything that comes along: ("tele" skis that are re-packed alpine
skis, monster plastic boots, bindings that I could winch my jeep
with), everything seems to become imensly popular... That's okay with
me...and reality strikes!
dcr...@rain.org wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 22:49:15 GMT, daw...@sopris.net (Louis Dawson)
>wrote:
>
>>I thought the Skyhoy looked great! Full realeasability, no right/left
>>ski, step in step out, perfect lateral stability, and the possiblity
>>of being both an AT and free-heel binding in one package! What's not
>>to love <g>?
>A. Weight.
>B. Complexity - you can't fix one of those with bailing wire and duct
>tape.
>C. Cost. Am I the only one who thinks that 400$ boots and 600$ skis
>don't belong in the backcountry? It's good gear, granted, but is this
>disgusting increast in cost just a way for yuppies to co-opt the
>backcountry and attempt to take it away from the leather booted alpaca
>hatted b/c locals? Anyway, add 300$ for bindings and you have 1300$
>worth of gear on your feet. When I first got into b/c skiing boots
>were about 60$ and skis ~100$. Bindings were so cheap I don't
>remember what they cost. For the price of these new bindings you
>could have outfitted *2* b/c skiers with boots and skis and bindings
>in '82, the year I decided that the closing of the ski area was not a
>good enough reason for me to stop skiing for the season.
>
>D. Lack of alternatives: why can't a reasonably priced, backcountry
>simple, light weight safe and trustable releasable cable binding be
>developed? I think it could, but you can't make megabucks off it so
>it's not worth developing, therefore you get the Vallhalla binding:
>Costs more than you can afford and weighs more than you can lift in
>this life.
>
>DCraig.
--
dcr...@rain.org
<jlco...@pinnaclecomposite.com> wrote:
>The manufacturers are not "gouging", it comes down to simple business. The
>reason downhill (alpine) boots cost less than plastic tele boots is that
>they sell a lot more of them. The cost to manufacture a plastic tele boot
>is substantially the same as an alpine boot. A big component of this cost
>are the molds for plastic injection. That cost is fixed, i.e. molds for all
>size breaks, regardless of quanity of boots sold. Therefore tele boot
>manufacturers must charge more for their boots to amortize tooling costs
>(molds). The solution is to get more people pinning and buying the boots and
>the prices will come down.
>
A well considered rebuttal. However as I posted, the claim that you
are still recovering fixed costs 3, 4 and 5 years later is stretching
it IMO. When does the price drop to a reasonable amount? *Only* when
there are several manufacturers who are shaving their net profit down
to something approaching the market rate of 'return on investment' in
a desparate attempt to retain market share do you find out what the
products are really worth. As long as there are only a couple of
manufacturers this is unlikely.
DCraig.
Hugh Grierson
There are a dozen manufacturers of alpine ski boots who sell race boots
for more than the cost of the T1. The added competition doesn't always
bring the price down, if the market will bear the price. They also
introduce new models or make small design changes each year, and often
make significant design changes every few years so R&D costs continue. I
hear we should also look for a new T1 next season. I don't see any
indication of gouging.
-H
dcr...@rain.org
Grierson) wrote:
>
>There are a dozen manufacturers of alpine ski boots who sell race boots
>for more than the cost of the T1. The added competition doesn't always
>bring the price down, if the market will bear the price. They also
>introduce new models or make small design changes each year, and often
>make significant design changes every few years so R&D costs continue. I
>hear we should also look for a new T1 next season. I don't see any
>indication of gouging.
>
I can see we're not going to agree on this and I don't feel like
digging out my economic texts so lets just say we don't see things the
same way and call it a thread.
DCraig.
Clyde Soles
> I don't feel like
> digging out my economic texts
Perhaps you should. You clearly don't understand that which you rant
about.
david mann
: Last time I looked, most days of telemarking were done at ski areas,
: and the participants didn't seem to care much about weight. And last
: time I looked, all the telemarkers I was skiing in the backcountry
: with had gear that weighed more than my AT gear, was just as complex,
: broke more often, and cost just a small amount less because the
: binding was a bit cheaper. Why would they no use a Skyhoy?
Recently in another thread, I chided somebody who said that
they hadn't been out on theirSnowfields and skinny skis in ovr
4 years by suggesting that they had allowed their definition of
backcountry skiing to narrow. If all of the "telmarkers" you
are seeing are on heavy duty gear, maybe it is time to go
on a differetn kind of tour, if for no other reason than just
to shake things up a bit. Of course, if the "telemarkers" are
calling themselves "telemarkers" then maybe they are just as guilty
of tunnel vision.
"Well, remember this, my friends: We're nordic skiers,
not telemark skiers."
-- Allan Bard
Dave
john_le...@my-dejanews.com
dcr...@rain.org wrote:
> ...and I don't feel like
> digging out my economic texts so lets just say we don't see things the
> same way and call it a thread.
>
> DCraig.
>
"back off man, I'm a scientist!"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
john_le...@my-dejanews.com
daw...@sopris.net blathered:
> Last time I looked, most days of telemarking were done at ski areas,
> and the participants didn't seem to care much about weight. And last
> time I looked, all the telemarkers I was skiing in the backcountry
> broke more often, and cost just a small amount less because the
> binding was a bit cheaper. Why would they no use a Skyhoy?
>
> telemarking at ski areas... Because of the popularity of telemarking
> at ski areas, I believe the Skyhoy will become the binding of choice.
> But my crystal ball has been known to cloud up <grin>.
>
> Also, what new tele technology have you guys _not_ embraced?
> Everything that comes along: ("tele" skis that are re-packed alpine
> skis, monster plastic boots, bindings that I could winch my jeep
> with), everything seems to become imensly popular... That's okay with
> me...and reality strikes!
>
> --
biting the hand that feeds you Lou? All those lift riding, skyhoy demanding
gortex clad yuppie freeheel weenies are sleeping with their couloir mags
before they ever put skin to ski....
Rick Strimbeck
Louis Dawson wrote:
>
>
> Also, what new tele technology have you guys _not_ embraced?
> Everything that comes along: ("tele" skis that are re-packed alpine
> skis, monster plastic boots, bindings that I could winch my jeep
> with), everything seems to become imensly popular... That's okay with
> me...and reality strikes!
>
Unfortunately, IMO, most of "us guys" have not embraced NNN-BC or SNS-BC.
A light, simple, verstaile alternative to monster boots that highlights
the key _advantage_ of a free-heel rig: efficient movement over a wide
variety of types of terrain and snow conditions. For those of us who share
that goal (whether or not we are enamored of the newer binding systems),
the Skyhooey is about as intersting as standard-issue alpine equipment.
I'm not really retro or a leather purist, but only interested in advances
that _expand_ the overall possibilities...
Rick
Bob Lee
> Last time I looked, most days of telemarking were done at ski areas,
Aren't you a fixed-heel skier, Lou? Just about *all* the fixed-heel skiing
I see is done at ski areas. And when I get out to the b/c, most of the
people I see there are on free-heel gear. Anyway, someone that used to
post here in rsb had a .sig that said something like that it wasn't the
type of gear you used that was important, it was how much fun you had
making the turns.
> and the participants didn't seem to care much about weight. And last
> time I looked, all the telemarkers I was skiing in the backcountry
> with had gear that weighed more than my AT gear, was just as complex,
> broke more often, and cost just a small amount less because the
> binding was a bit cheaper. Why would they no use a Skyhoy?
Same reason you use Dynafit stuff - if the performance isn't better, why
carry around more weight than you need?
> Indeed, much of the talk on this newsgroup, sadly, relates to
> telemarking at ski areas... Because of the popularity of telemarking
> at ski areas, I believe the Skyhoy will become the binding of choice.
> But my crystal ball has been known to cloud up <grin>.
Remember when Lito Tejeda-Flores wrote that tlelemarking was the next big
thing and that he expected all expert skiers to be pinning exclusively
soon?
> Also, what new tele technology have you guys _not_ embraced?
NNN, NNBC, releasable bindings, heel locators.
> Everything that comes along: ("tele" skis that are re-packed alpine
> skis, monster plastic boots, bindings that I could winch my jeep
> with), everything seems to become imensly popular... That's okay with
> me
Hey, I bet I could winch your jeep *and* a suburban with my
bindings...unless they broke. Try that with those heavy ol' Fritschis or
Slivrettas. But glad to hear you're fine with it.
>...and reality strikes!
Reality? How's that? Are things more real for AT'ers? Or less?
Bob
David W Swain
more seductive in telemarking than the romantic image of light,
unfettered freeheeling is new, exotic equipment that claims a huge
breakthrough for the sport. Telemarkers, for all our philosophical
purism, love gear; we are all tinkerers trying to make something
primitive work a bit better while preserving its essential simplicity.
It's been noted here many times that we had roughly this discussion some
years ago with the introduction of the T-1, and look where we are now; we
can scarcely live without plastic. We thank BD for having the guts to
market something controversial and then stick with it through many
generations of fixes. The same will happen with the Skyhoy--if it even
works reasonably well, creates a market, and has a devoted following, it
will attract other manufacturers. I would love to see what Solomon could
do, or the smart folks at Marker. For the moment, though, this
discussion is exactly what BD wants--free publicity that generates
interest and develops a market for a product not even made yet.
Dave Smith
W Swain) wrote:
Re: Skyhøy
> I would love to see what Solomon could
> do, or the smart folks at Marker.
I think Fritschi AG has shown itself to be well able to come up with
innovative engineering solutions to AT and telemark binding design. These
are much more complicated than the alpine bindings made by Marker and
Saloman et al and I doubt they would be doing much better. Lets wait and
see though... and I suspect Fritschi will have other things in the
pipeline as well. There is some engineer in that company with a good brain
and the ability to look at binding design in a new way!
cheers
Dave
Turku, Finland
--
Remove 'nothanks' from email address to reply.
Louis Dawson
heavier and more beefy gear being used by telemarkers every season.
I'm just observing and trying to extrapolate. I'm betting the Skyhoy
or something similar will become immensely popular, but it's only a
crystal ball based on what I see.
Indeed, I'm into the skiing, not the gear. That's why I got so sick of
hearing the chanting accolytes saying and writing over and over again
"free your heel free your mind" as I launched from the summit of yet
another backcountry peak -- on my AT gear with latched heels and a
mind that was plenty free... I never chanted "latch your heels and
free your mind" though there was a time when I chanted "free your
heels and plant your face" <grin>>, but that was before telemark gear
became AT gear <grin>.
--
'best, Louis Dawson, Carbondale, Colorado
--
john_le...@my-dejanews.com
daw...@sopris.net wrote:
> Woops, I didn't mean to come on so strong.......That's why I got so sick of
> hearing the chanting accolytes saying and writing over and over again
>
Lou, you have to realize that for a lot of folk "discovering" telemark is akin
to a religeous conversion. All expansive experiences are. You can't fault
these young lions for being so zealous. Cut them some slack and let them
mellow by themselves without your cynical world wisened AT view. It's getting
pretty predictable and tiresome.
Or perhaps you are just one of those universal constants. Read Lou Dawson -
and yep! there's a dig at free heel skiers, all is right with the world...
ar...@my-dejanews.com
john_le...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <36cc78d9...@news.sopris.net>,
> daw...@sopris.net wrote:
> > Woops, I didn't mean to come on so strong.......That's why I got so sick of
> > hearing the chanting accolytes saying and writing over and over again
> > "free your heel free your mind" ....
> >
>
> Lou, you have to realize that for a lot of folk "discovering" telemark is akin
> to a religeous conversion. All expansive experiences are. You can't fault
> these young lions for being so zealous. Cut them some slack and let them
> mellow by themselves without your cynical world wisened AT view. It's getting
> pretty predictable and tiresome.
>
> Or perhaps you are just one of those universal constants. Read Lou Dawson -
> and yep! there's a dig at free heel skiers, all is right with the world...
John,
For what it's worth, I don't find Lou's views cynical nor tiresome; perhaps
predictable, but no more than yours. I think he is entitled to speak his
opinion just like you and all those "young lions". Perhaps it's you that needs
to learn to be a bit more tolerant and open-minded.
He's right, telemark gear is getting beefier and more like AT gear every
year. The over-zealous acolytes of the Holy Church of the Free Heel might not
want to hear it but that's reality.
Lou works for a magazine that does an excellent job of covering the
backcountry ski scene; it's worth the price just for the equipment reviews.
AT gear (and boards) is part of that scene, not just telemark gear. Lou
doesn't hide the fact that he's an AT skier and does a great job representing
that camp. Why rag on him for being honest?
Armin
Andrew McLean
>Lou, you have to realize that for a lot of folk "discovering" telemark is
akin
>to a religeous conversion. All expansive experiences are. You can't fault
>these young lions for being so zealous. Cut them some slack and let them
>mellow by themselves without your cynical world wisened AT view. It's
getting
>pretty predictable and tiresome.
>
>Or perhaps you are just one of those universal constants. Read Lou
Dawson -
>and yep! there's a dig at free heel skiers, all is right with the world...
Hang on Lou! Grab your heel pieces and Remember the Alamo!
It seems that modern day telemarking is kind of analogous to the original VW
Beetle vs the modern day one. What was once a cool, fringe, funky
alternative to the mainstream has now become not only mainstream itself, but
cutting edge mainstream. Twenty years ago, telemarking was a discipline
that required a long apprenticeship to master, which is hardly the case
nowadays.
The main thing that drove me away from telemarking was exactly what John
mentioned above-- a bunch of overly zealous young lions (who had been
tele'ing for about 2 years) religiously spraying about the long gone virtues
of the original free heel cult. The pressure to conform was immense.
Andrew McLean
john_le...@my-dejanews.com
ar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> John,
> For what it's worth, I don't find Lou's views cynical nor tiresome; perhaps
> predictable, but no more than yours. I think he is entitled to speak his
> opinion just like you and all those "young lions". Perhaps it's you that needs
> to learn to be a bit more tolerant and open-minded.
>
Gee- I didn't know that I was well known enough to be "predictable" - I'm
flattered. Or perhaps were you just pidgeonholing a predictable post a
pinhead. Wrongo. I just ski. I'm no televangelist.
>
> He's right, telemark gear is getting beefier and more like AT gear every
> year. The over-zealous acolytes of the Holy Church of the Free Heel might not
> want to hear it but that's reality.
>
> Lou works for a magazine that does an excellent job of covering the
> backcountry ski scene; it's worth the price just for the equipment reviews.
> AT gear (and boards) is part of that scene, not just telemark gear. Lou
> doesn't hide the fact that he's an AT skier and does a great job representing
> that camp. Why rag on him for being honest?
>
I guess AT versus telemark is tame with respect to the trad versus sport
climbers, but hey, if he rags on pinheads, don't I have the right to rag on
him right back again? Like Lou himself says, it doesn't have to be "versus"
at all, yet he just can't seem to restrain himself.
All this said, Lou's "recant" post noted that he was merely extapoating
current trends, and didn't really _mean_ to dis anyone by saying that tele
gear was likely to resemble battle armor in the future. C'mon, that's like
Calvin Klein saying "gee - we didn't think that anyone would mind 30 foot
tall billboards of unclothed 3 year olds!" Lou got the response he was
looking for, and then winked as he backed off. What Lou atually fails to
realize though is that there is a _convergance_ of AT and Tele. Rather than
constantly berate free heelers he should just welcome the new gear as a
validation of his own preference in equipment. If the Fritchi SkyHoy wasn't
the prime example of this convergance, hit me over the head with a Atomic
Tourcap "AT" ski. It's wonderful that the lightest AT setups are heavier
than the heaviest telemark setups. It gives everybody an oportunity for
choice. I bet SkyHoy bindings will be dropping out of skyships on peaks too
near to you. Radical tele X-game events, and Mountain Dew drinking free
heelers. They will all do their thing, and I'll still retreat to the
mountains to get away from it all.
John Red-Horse
>john_le...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>>Lou, you have to realize that for a lot of folk "discovering" telemark is
>akin
>>to a religeous conversion. All expansive experiences are. You can't fault
>>these young lions for being so zealous. Cut them some slack and let them
>>mellow by themselves without your cynical world wisened AT view. It's
>getting
>>pretty predictable and tiresome.
>>
I don't know, John, I don't think that Lou has displayed any cynicism. I
think that, in many ways he's just calling them like he sees them.
There's not a thing in the world that's wrong with that.
I also don't think that there is any mystery in the conclusion that, since
having a locked heel provides more stability on one's skis, AT gear makes
a great deal of sense in mountaineering---especially in situations where
falling is simply not an option. I've actually not been in that situation
often myself, because I do fall a lot on my tele boards. I'm sure Lou and
Andrew don't suffer from this and that they *do* look for those precisely
those types of situations.
Telemark skiing is not anything more than a different way to bag turns
down the mountain. When I meet fellow tele skiers, I immediately know
that: (a) They like to take the worst road to any location, even if it
adds significantly to their travel time; (b) They are stubborn as mules;
(c) They tend to draw parallels between on-mountain experiences and
religion; (d) They tend to have rock-solid lower bodies (I especially like
this on tele-babes); and (e) They are likely to include herb-derivatives
in their baked goods. The best part about (e) is they'll usually make
offers to the tele-brethern. <g>
>>Or perhaps you are just one of those universal constants. Read Lou
>Dawson -
>>and yep! there's a dig at free heel skiers, all is right with the world...
>
Maybe he's just tired of hearing about all of the broken equipment?
(FWIW, I'd be willing to bet that AT gear would break a lot more if it
were used in-area as well as in the BC the way a lot of tele gear is
now...)
>
> Twenty years ago, telemarking was a discipline
>that required a long apprenticeship to master, which is hardly the case
>nowadays.
>
It is for me <g>.
>The main thing that drove me away from telemarking was exactly what John
>mentioned above-- a bunch of overly zealous young lions (who had been
>tele'ing for about 2 years) religiously spraying about the long gone virtues
>of the original free heel cult. The pressure to conform was immense.
>
In what way were you pressured to conform? What are these long-gone
virtues? Egad I'm naive!
curiously,
john
Bob.P...@mci.com
"Andrew McLean" <and...@bdel.com> wrote:
> Hang on Lou! Grab your heel pieces and Remember the Alamo!
>
> It seems that modern day telemarking is kind of analogous to the original VW
> Beetle vs the modern day one. What was once a cool, fringe, funky
> alternative to the mainstream has now become not only mainstream itself, but
> cutting edge mainstream. Twenty years ago, telemarking was a discipline
> that required a long apprenticeship to master, which is hardly the case
> nowadays.
>
> The main thing that drove me away from telemarking was exactly what John
> mentioned above-- a bunch of overly zealous young lions (who had been
> tele'ing for about 2 years) religiously spraying about the long gone virtues
> of the original free heel cult. The pressure to conform was immense.
>
> Andrew McLean
The thing that drove me from telemarking to AT was a monitor screen showing
two holes in the cartilage covering the end of my femur when I had
arthroscopic surgery two years ago. Telemarking didn't *cause* that
cartilage to go away (I have many years of alpine skiing to thank for that),
but deeply flexing that knee on every other turn sure did aggravate it.
Anyway, my doc said that my telemark career was over so I went to AT. I still
think the telemark is the prettiest turn out there, but AT works fine for me.
Bob
Kay
> that: (a) They like to take the worst road to any location, even if it
> adds significantly to their travel time; (b) They are stubborn as mules;
> (c) They tend to draw parallels between on-mountain experiences and
> religion; (d) They tend to have rock-solid lower bodies (I especially like
> this on tele-babes); and (e) They are likely to include herb-derivatives
> in their baked goods. The best part about (e) is they'll usually make
> offers to the tele-brethern. <g>
Gosh - you do jump to conclusions and seem to like to put people in boxes.
A) The tele road is a GREAT road! But you keep saying it's the worst
and maybe that'll keep the people away....
B) OK, yes, I am stubborn. And determined and that's why I've gotten
to be a pretty decent skier! I admire this quality in people. AT/tele - doesn't
matter - It's all skiing.
C) A Sun. spent in the out-of-doors sure beats church! On my alpine boards, in
my kayak, on my tele boards....doesn't matter.
D) Hmm. Well, tele skiing will do that to you. :) One of the benefits.
E) Not me but I am tolerant. Of herbs, AT skiers, tele skiers - whatever! As long
as we're having fun. And not bitchin'.
And whoever that other guy is that got driven away from tele skiing because of
some
other folks' attitudes....too bad for you! You're missing out! Why let a few bad
attitudes
take away your fun? I wouldn't let myself be robbed of such a great sport.
See you out there!!
-Kay
John Red-Horse
>
>Gosh - you do jump to conclusions and seem to like to put people in boxes.
>
Gosh - it's funny how my tongue-in-cheek joke could be taken so seriously.
>
>And whoever that other guy is that got driven away from tele skiing because of
>some
>other folks' attitudes....too bad for you! You're missing out! Why let a few bad
>attitudes
>take away your fun? I wouldn't let myself be robbed of such a great sport.
>
Somehow, I think that Andrew will be able to muddle through...
cheers,
john
Sparks and Dr. Jules
> The main thing that drove me away from telemarking was exactly what John
> mentioned above-- a bunch of overly zealous young lions (who had been
> tele'ing for about 2 years) religiously spraying about the long gone virtues
> of the original free heel cult. The pressure to conform was immense.
>
> Andrew McLean
or maybe your expertise on pins wasn't up to the steep chutes that were
calling...
;-)
Rick Strimbeck
Andrew McLean wrote:
> The main thing that drove me away from telemarking was exactly what John
> mentioned above-- a bunch of overly zealous young lions (who had been
> tele'ing for about 2 years) religiously spraying about the long gone virtues
> of the original free heel cult. The pressure to conform was immense.
_Some_ of us are still out in the woods, cutting turns in (relatively) light
equipment. I personally experience zero pressure to conform out there...
Yesterday I was coming down a short (1000 vf) steep backcountry trail here in
VT, stopped to talk to a guy in full AT gear coming up. He commented that it
was a long climb. I neglected to mention that I was on my third run.
Tradeoffs...
Rick
Andrew McLean
>Yesterday I was coming down a short (1000 vf) steep backcountry trail here
in
>VT, stopped to talk to a guy in full AT gear coming up. He commented that
it
>was a long climb. I neglected to mention that I was on my third run.
>Tradeoffs...
Having skied and broken trail for over 12,000' this weekend in full AT gear,
I didn't notice any sort of tradeoff. By the above logic, I assume I could
have done 36,000' with telemark gear?
Andrew
Louis Dawson
Louis Dawson
I don't know how you missed it, but I've written about the convergence
of tele/AT for a long time. Indeed, in one of my early columns I
predicted a binding that would be both free-heel and latched-heel. One
thing I enjoy pointing out, then listening to replies about, is that
if telemarking is a religious experience, and so much better than
latched heel, then why does the gear get more and more like alpine
gear every year, and why do I see more and more free-heel skiers doing
parallel turns instead of telemarks? And why don't more people do it
instead of snowboarding?
But, my main point in this discussion is realism. I've always admired
and enjoyed the idealistic "I skied it on my pins" brag, such as Rick
Wyatt's descent of the Grand Teton on leather nordic boots and
aluminum edged skis, but I always felt that trying to make a sport out
of skiing on antique gear was somewhat of a reach. Perhaps fun,
perhaps a challenge, but not a viable sport... The evolution of
telemark gear proves my point, and I'm only sticking to what I've seen
validated by the rabid purchase of plastic tele boots, and use of skis
that are often re-packaged alpine skis or AT skis, or simply alpine
skis mounted with tele bindings.
When people diss a new tele product like the Skyhoy, which is simply
the binding part of a system that already uses the monster skis and
boots, it strikes me as somewhat ridiculous. The weak link in the
free-heel system is the binding. If Skyhoy is not the solution, I
predict you'll see other similar offerings within 18 months, and cable
bindings will become relics relegated to the reliquary of the tele
church.
Here is my criterion for the successful Skyhoy or clone:
)full release
)more durable than current cable bindings
)optional heel latch-down
)tunable flex under ball of foot
)price under $400.00
)no right/left ski trivia contest in the dark
)attractive and hip "core" industrial design
)sponsorship of hot "telemark" skiers
)easy adjustment for different size boots
)integral brake
)step-in step-out
Anyone care to add more? Built in Mpeg player?
Wilf LeBlanc
[...]
> But, my main point in this discussion is realism. I've always admired
> and enjoyed the idealistic "I skied it on my pins" brag, such as Rick
> Wyatt's descent of the Grand Teton on leather nordic boots and
> aluminum edged skis, but I always felt that trying to make a sport out
> of skiing on antique gear was somewhat of a reach. Perhaps fun,
> perhaps a challenge, but not a viable sport...
OK, I get it. Your delicate ego is bruised when someone
gets accolades for making an impressive descent on lightweight
tele gear. You'll get over it eventually.
--
wilf
PBridge130
>gets accolades for making an impressive descent on lightweight
>tele gear. You'll get over it eventually.
>--
> wilf
Yo, Wilf,
Hush up and put a fresh coat of pine tar on those Bonna 2000's, and snowseal
your Alfa's! <giggle>
My delicate ego's not bruised till someone gets accolades for making an
impressive descent on light tele gear...... naked.
A fun story -- couple years ago, high above Moffat Tunnel, above Forest Lakes,
I caught a middle-aged or older -- 60's? -- couple on LIGHT touring gear, with
low-top boots. I skiied along with them for a while, chatting, etc, and they
said, "there are good powder turns over this way." The three of us skiied down
nice glades, and the two of them made great, smooth, maybe even tight, powder
teles. They were both fully dressed, however, so I wasn't impressed or
threatened.
Peter
(who still prefers his light, comfy, ten year old Asolo extremes, at least when
the snow's soft)
Louis Dawson
in highschool I had a few friends on the nordic team who liked to ski
the ski resort on their nordic racing skis. They we're amazing, and I
never could have done it myself. But for some reason, their idea of
fun didn't become the norm <grin>.
Wilf LeBlanc <wi...@bulldog.org> wrote:
>Louis Dawson wrote:
>[...]
>> But, my main point in this discussion is realism. I've always admired
>> and enjoyed the idealistic "I skied it on my pins" brag, such as Rick
>> Wyatt's descent of the Grand Teton on leather nordic boots and
>> aluminum edged skis, but I always felt that trying to make a sport out
>> of skiing on antique gear was somewhat of a reach. Perhaps fun,
>> perhaps a challenge, but not a viable sport...
>
>OK, I get it. Your delicate ego is bruised when someone
>gets accolades for making an impressive descent on lightweight
>tele gear. You'll get over it eventually.
>
>--
> wilf
--
ar...@my-dejanews.com
> Gee- I didn't know that I was well known enough to be "predictable" - I'm
> flattered. Or perhaps were you just pidgeonholing a predictable post a
> pinhead. Wrongo. I just ski. I'm no televangelist.
I'd say your 95 postings to r.s.b. since 98/08/03 represents enough of a
message base to get a feel for what is "predictable". So, I'd say yes, you are
"well known"; so go ahead and feel flattered. ;-)
Armin
Louis Dawson
I'm indeed impressed by descents on lightweight tele gear, as I am by
Jon Waterman's trashbag descent of Mount Logan, or the Olympic
downhill. All are amazing feats of daring athleticism. On the other
hand, no one has told me I had to descend Logan on a trashbag to "free
my mind." Ditto for the Oly downhill (though it might do the trick
<grin>).
As far as my ego being bruised, I was humbled and broken a long time
ago in an avalanche far far away. Not much ego left after that
bone-head act. Not enough to get bruised, anyway... Then I got married
and had a kid. Ego was pulverized. Doing a decent job with a family is
harder and more humbling than any kind of skiing....
Go ahead and proceed with the personal psych analysis <grin>, but it
seems rather arrogant to do such via a few emails...especially without
a handwriting sample. To help out should I post my medical records
(sans 60 sheets of x-rays)?
Louis Dawson
back down all of it <grin>.
Bob Lee
Alamo:
> Hey John Lee,
Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in? ;^)
> One thing I enjoy pointing out, then listening to replies about, is
> that if telemarking is a religious experience,
Well, I don't pretend to speak for all telemarkers, but my feeling is that
it's just a turn, not a lifestyle.
> and so much better than latched heel,
I just feel that telemark gear is more versatile and fun (and prettier), but
not *better*.
> then why does the gear get more and more like alpine gear every year,
That's just at *one* end of the spectrum - the heavy-tele end. And if the
heavy stuff had existed years ago, people would have used it years ago. It's
relatively recent that it became become widely available. But lots of people
still use lighter gear to get out into the b/c, and use the turn 'cause
that's what works with their lighter gear. And at the heavy end, I know I
just enjoy the versatility and challenge of tele gear.
> and why do I see more and more free-heel skiers doing parallel turns
> instead of telemarks?
Because they can. It's that versatility thing. You have to admit that it's
easier to do p-turns with tele gear than it is to do tele turns with fixed
heel gear.
> And why don't more people do it instead of snowboarding?
Tha answer to that is probably similar to the one for why don't more people
ballet dance than country-line dance. And since more people tele than alpine
tour (I think) where would that put AT?
> But, my main point in this discussion is realism. I've always admired
> and enjoyed the idealistic "I skied it on my pins" brag, such as Rick
> Wyatt's descent of the Grand Teton on leather nordic boots and
> aluminum edged skis, but I always felt that trying to make a sport out
> of skiing on antique gear was somewhat of a reach. Perhaps fun,
> perhaps a challenge, but not a viable sport...
Valid sport? Like football? I'm not sure what makes a sport valid, but I
think Wyatt's a valid athlete (as is Bill Briggs et al).
> The evolution of telemark gear proves my point,
Which point - that Free Heel Zealots are...misguided? Or that fixed heel gear
is better?
> and I'm only sticking to what I've seen
> validated by the rabid purchase of plastic tele boots, and use of skis
> that are often re-packaged alpine skis or AT skis, or simply alpine
> skis mounted with tele bindings.
People have been using alpine skis free-heeled for years - the boots were the
weak point for a while. Now it's the bindings. But I think people would
have used heavy tele gear *when appropriate* years ago if it'd been widely
available and as dialed in as it is today. Y'know, AT/alpine gear has
evolved immensely over the years, and AT'ers are picking up on the
improvements. Everyone's evolving.
> When people diss a new tele product like the Skyhoy, which is simply
> the binding part of a system that already uses the monster skis and
> boots, it strikes me as somewhat ridiculous. The weak link in the
> free-heel system is the binding. If Skyhoy is not the solution, I
> predict you'll see other similar offerings within 18 months, and cable
> bindings will become relics relegated to the reliquary of the tele
> church.
If the Skyhoy is dissed, it should be only because it's not as good - whether
too heavy, low durability, or poor performance. I haven't followed the thread
closely enough to know if it was dissed for other reasons.
> Here is my criterion for the successful Skyhoy or clone:
> )full release
> )more durable than current cable bindings
> )optional heel latch-down
> )tunable flex under ball of foot
> )price under $400.00
> )no right/left ski trivia contest in the dark
> )attractive and hip "core" industrial design
> )sponsorship of hot "telemark" skiers
> )easy adjustment for different size boots
> )integral brake
> )step-in step-out
>
> Anyone care to add more? Built in Mpeg player?
Cup holders - definitely cup holders.
Bob
Vail - now *there's* a religion
Jim Voeller
older skier?
Chris Townsend
>bindings will become relics relegated to the reliquary of the tele
>church.
Or possibly left to those of use who prefer touring in order to explore
the wilderness rather than seek out steep descents and who still ski on
lightweight telemark gear because it's the best compromise for this type
of touring, combining reasonable kick and glide with reasonable turning
ability on moderate slopes.
Chris
PBridge130
>Or possibly left to those of use who prefer touring in order to explore
>the wilderness rather than seek out steep descents and who still ski on
>lightweight telemark gear because it's the best compromise for this type
>of touring, combining reasonable kick and glide with reasonable turning
>ability on moderate slopes.
>
>Chris
Now, THIS is a man who doesn't need the approval of others in order to enjoy
skiing.
Cheers and a tip o' the tam to Chris
Peter
Louis Dawson
cables for the lightweight end of things...
Chris Townsend <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> cable
>>bindings will become relics relegated to the reliquary of the tele
>>church.
>
>Or possibly left to those of use who prefer touring in order to explore
>the wilderness rather than seek out steep descents and who still ski on
>lightweight telemark gear because it's the best compromise for this type
>of touring, combining reasonable kick and glide with reasonable turning
>ability on moderate slopes.
>
>Chris
>
Louis Dawson
prettier) than something else, and is not better, that's too
post-modern for this old fart's mind to cope with <grin>.
From what the Skyhoy looked like, I believe the cup holder is already
built in. You know, those stag-horn cups that the Norse gods drink out
of while carousing in Valhalla with their worthy wenches.
Bob Lee <rl...@swcp.com> wrote:
>> predict you'll see other similar offerings within 18 months, and cable
>> bindings will become relics relegated to the reliquary of the tele
>> church.
>
>If the Skyhoy is dissed, it should be only because it's not as good - whether
>too heavy, low durability, or poor performance. I haven't followed the thread
>closely enough to know if it was dissed for other reasons.
>
>> Here is my criterion for the successful Skyhoy or clone:
>> )full release
>> )more durable than current cable bindings
>> )optional heel latch-down
>> )tunable flex under ball of foot
>> )price under $400.00
>> )no right/left ski trivia contest in the dark
>> )attractive and hip "core" industrial design
>> )sponsorship of hot "telemark" skiers
>> )easy adjustment for different size boots
>> )integral brake
>> )step-in step-out
>>
>> Anyone care to add more? Built in Mpeg player?
>
>Cup holders - definitely cup holders.
>
>Bob
>
>Vail - now *there's* a religion
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
Andrew McLean
>I just feel that telemark gear is more versatile and fun (and prettier),
Prettier? Well, I guess the Polka has its fans as well.
>Because they can. It's that versatility thing. You have to admit that
it's
>easier to do p-turns with tele gear than it is to do tele turns with fixed
>heel gear.
Speaking of poetry in motion, have you ever witnessed an AT skier operating
in the free heel mode?
Andrew
Wilf LeBlanc
[...]
> As far as my ego being bruised, I was humbled and broken a long time
> ago in an avalanche far far away. Not much ego left after that
> bone-head act. Not enough to get bruised, anyway... Then I got married
> and had a kid. Ego was pulverized. Doing a decent job with a family is
> harder and more humbling than any kind of skiing....
I got hit by a bus while riding home from work
on my bike. Does that count ? I learned a valuable
lesson though. I quit work.
So now on my mid-week days off I often ski by
myself. Taking AT gear out on gentle terrain
by myself would be just plain boring. Going
by myself on non-gentle terrain would be stupid.
Tele gives me the opportunity to learn something
new while being safe. I can have fun and get exercise.
After having alot of fun cat skiing in Revelstoke
in december, I went out and bought some AT gear.
It is heavier, but it isn't any slower (or if it
is, it is incremental). On some terrain the AT
gear would be dreadfully boring. On some terrain
I wouldn't feel comfortable in tele gear, although
I think that will change with time (to some extent).
In conclusion, and in true Jeopardy fashion, I offer
you the answer:
Free your heels and free your mind.
And of course the answer is:
What we'll find on Lou's headstone.
--
wilf
Rich Pawlowicz
> parallel turns instead of telemarks? And why don't more people do it
> instead of snowboarding?
> The evolution of
> telemark gear proves my point, and I'm only sticking to what I've seen
> validated by the rabid purchase of plastic tele boots, and use of skis
Um...it sounds like skiing "down there" is different than "up here".
When I started tele I bought plastic boots mainly because I'm tired of
having wet frozen feet after a day in the snow (not to mention the
next morning). The same reason I bought plastic mountaineering boots.
Almost everyone I ski with has plastic boots (mostly T2s, I'm surprised there
aren't more T3s). It's not an uncommon sentiment.
As for skis...I buy what people sell. It would be nice if they were
lighter (took my skating skis out last weekend - my feet felt weightless
and it was a *lot* easier to skate). But then, I sometimes feel it
would be nice if they were wider too.
In the backcountry here lots of people tele. About half, perhaps? Tele
skiers tend to make tele turns. I've only met one backcountry
snowboarder. Having little skis to slog along
up to the top after which you stick them on your pack to board down...well,
maybe next year. Or the year after.
Lift-served is, of course different.
It is definitely true that I fall a whole lot more than AT skiers (but
then, I'm still falling more than most tele skiers too).
Rich.
--
Remove XYZ from email address.
Bob Lee
> Bob Lee wrote
>
> >I just feel that telemark gear is more versatile and fun (and prettier),
>
> Prettier? Well, I guess the Polka has its fans as well.
Yeah, the people that most enjoy watching me ski are the ones that love the
visual poetry of a really good dog fight.
> Speaking of poetry in motion, have you ever witnessed an AT skier operating
> in the free heel mode?
Just that one picture in Couloir about a year ago of Lowell Skoog, taken by
his brother Carl. On AT gear, his knee was bent, his back heel was up and
it looked great. I asked Lowell about it (in r.s.b. I think) and he said
his brother had asked him to do it that way so that it would look better
for the picture.
Bob
Dingus Milktoast
smile a lot. But I had reached a plateau where incremental, "noticable in a day"
improvements were gone. Then a buddy of mine showed me the back country. Said it
could be mine too, but there was a compromise. I could plump a grand on real AT
gear (boots, skis and bindings) or I could give some old tele gear of his a try.
I didn't want to get into the back country after a couple of years saving. I
wanted to get into the back country ASAP. So I took him up on the offer of $50
skis, $35 boots and free skins. I began learning the telemark turn. I was in the
back country in 2 weeks.
I must have fallen a thousand times. I must have bruised every stitch of ego I
possessed. I must be a very stubborn man. Because I stuck with the turn and that
lousy gear all the way through double black terrain and a long fall down an icy
couloir in the Sierra.
But one day I was sking the lifts with a boarder buddy of mine, a fellow pow
hound and tree skier. It was a typical day of wet Sierra cement. There he was on
his nice fat board, floating on the muck. There I was down in the goop,
struggling mightily on my ancient gear. This snow really sucked for skis. I was
all but abandoned by my kindred spirits, regardless of binding and turn
preference. There was me and all those boarders... me and all those fat
boards... R-I-S-E a voice from above called! Primordial man didn't crawl out of
the ooze just for me to wallow in it for amusement!
So I decided there must be a better way. I bought a pair of 1st generation T1's
on sale. The jump in performance, pure raw performance, was astonishing. On my
old tele gear I had hit that same plateau where incremental change was gone. Now
suddenly new doors were open and I was eager to explore. Wow! I could do things
faster, harder and longer now that I had a pair of beefy boots to lean on. I also
found that those skinny skis were really too small for the boots. So I remounted
my old, long retired alpine boards with some Superloops. Wow again! Now I was
skiing even faster, steeper and deeper to boot.
But funny thing... when I went to the back country, I still used the old boots
and skinny skis. I found that I could still do the old dance. What kept me in the
game was the fact that I still skied tele at the resorts. Yes, my resort gear was
more alpine than nordic. But the turn was "almost" the same; enough so to keep me
in practice.
I also began experimenting with "mixed turns." Can't say I invented the concept.
But the notion of using the best turn for the job at hand and mixing many
techniques together into the flow of a descent is very attractive. Ice at the
top? Parallel for me. Spring corn down lower? It's tele time (after all, I was a
tele-tubbie long before the show came out). Sun cups? Tele works better for me
there. Pig slop at the bottom? Back to parallel. Late in the day for lift served,
I used whatever turn is physcially easiest.
This past year I have gone through further changes in my resort thinking. I
decided that it's OK to have fun while skiing at a resort. What a concept, huh? I
decided that it wasn't necessary to be ready to drop and puke after a day of
skiing. I also decided that it wasn't worth paying to ski unless there was fresh
powder. Otherwise, I'd be in the back country anyway. If I was going to spend all
my time at resorts dancing in poo, then I should just belly up to the bar and get
the appropriate gear for it, and to hell with the back country considerations! In
other words, I am heeding that voice I heard so long ago. I am going to RISE!
But I'm faced with that old dilema.... new skins, boots and bindings or continued
compromise?
Within the framework of that question is another dilema we skiers are faced
with... one ski, or three (or more)? I need a back country ski that is light
first but can still be used on steep terrain. But then again I also need a back
country ski that is good on steep terrain first and light second. And then I need
that powder ski I was telling you about. As far as I can tell, AT or tele skiers
are faced with the same problem; can one ski do it all and still be fun under all
circumstances. My conclusion is "no."
So, I can either continue to develop my investment in tele gear (the gear itself
is by far the cheapest part of the investment) or throw all that time and energy
out and start anew, albeit with the headstart of having originally skied alpine.
It's the time thing I can't get around. Truth be known, if I have to start all
over again, I'll be skiing a snow board by this time next year. Why? Because for
my chosen ground, snow boards seem to be the better tool for powder and steep
descents. They're no good at treking, but I wouldn't be asking them to anyway.
The learning curve to double black terrain is much shorter than any kind of ski.
I have seen this demonstrated over and over... 5 days out and most aggressive
boarders are tackling some pretty amazing stuff. Alpiners would still be learning
to bob and weave and pinners would still be slopping all over the place,
embarrasssing us all for laughing at them.
Ah, I do ramble on! But the points I wanted to make are buried in the text above.
I spent all this time and energy learning to use this gear and I'm not ready to
give it up. And even if I did, it wouldn't be for alpine gear anyway. The tele
turn has no religious component for me. Though I must admit, part of me likes
being one of the better pinheads on the hill. I wonder how much of the dedication
to tele gear centers around the desire to be noticed and a yuppie vision of
"eclectic." Besides Lou, none of us here are ever likely to be standouts on
alpine or snowboards (just that the odds are against us). By skiing tele, we are
automatically standouts. Doing it well just means more heads will swivel.
You don't expect me to give up that kind of head candy, do you?
One last thought... go out and look who uses tele gear; demographics, that kind
of thing. Notice any common traits? In the interest of continued debate, does
anyone care to do a profile of the average free-heeler?
DMT
David Taft
<crha...@midtown.net> wrote:
> I once skied alpine gear. I thought I was having a good time. I even used to
> smile a lot. But I had reached a plateau where incremental, "noticable
in a day"
> improvements were gone. Then a buddy of mine showed me the back country.
Said it
> could be mine too, but there was a compromise. I could plump a grand on
real AT
> gear (boots, skis and bindings) or I could give some old tele gear of
his a try.
> I didn't want to get into the back country after a couple of years saving. I
> wanted to get into the back country ASAP. So I took him up on the offer of $50
> skis, $35 boots and free skins. I began learning the telemark turn. I
was in the
> back country in 2 weeks.
>
> I must have fallen a thousand times. I must have bruised every stitch of ego I
> possessed. I must be a very stubborn man. Because I stuck with the turn
and that
> lousy gear all the way through double black terrain and a long fall down
an icy
> couloir in the Sierra.
<sorry to snip>
But isn't this just a thread about economics...I mean, if we could all
have every piece of gear imaginable in our quiver to play with, we
would... be it skinny with leather tie-ups, tele, at,
alpine.megaboot.technoid.rasta..........
blahblahblah......... Can you think of a piece of gear you would downright
refuse to use if you had the dough to buy it???
Mel Mann
serious about life. We aren't paying for you to ski anymore".
So I went down to the local ski shop and the devil says "here, these
cross country skiis are just the thing for you. They're only $35 and
skiing will be free. It's a good way to relax from your studies." And
it *was* good for a while but...
One day I was up on a mountain top with my cross country skiis and I was
getting ready to side step down this chute that was too steep to ski.
All of the sudden the guy with me bends his knee down in a funny way and
swoops down that chute like there's nothing to it!
So I go down to the local ski shop and the devil says "No problem. All
you need is these boots that are heavier and look, they have Velcro ™
closures so you can get them really tight. And you'll need these skis
with metal edges. It's only a couple hundred bucks and you'll be able to
do that turn and ski that chute." And I *could* do that turn and ski
that chute, kind of, but...
Some days the snow was heavy or there was breakable crust. And the
chutes kept getting steeper and longer and, oh yeah, I kept getting
older every year. So I wasn't swooping down those chutes like it was
nothing, in fact, there were days when I was flailing and failing!
So I go down to the local ski shop and the devil says " I've got just
what you need. Just look at these boots. They're plastic and stiff and
tall. They'r just as good as the downhiller's boots." And I say "but
they're over $400 bucks ." But the devil says "don't worry about that
you're making good money at you're job. It will be so cool and you'll
be better than those other guys because you're heel is free!" Then he
gave me a crooked smile and winked. I reached for my wallet. And it
*was* cool for a while but then everybody started carving their turns
and shreddin the bumps, getting big air and hanging out with
snowboarders half their age...
So I go back to the local ski shop again and the devil says "don't panic
man. Look at these skis. They've got all this sidecut and they're made
to carve, very stable at speed and quick edge to edge." And they were
very pretty but I said "those aren't cross country skiis. They are
single cambered. They're just a downhill ski that's repackaged for
telemark. Why, they are even made by a downhill ski company and they
cost nearly $500." But the devil said "look they have really cool
graphics - flames". I left the store carrying those skiis. And it
*was* good. I could carve and shred. But I felt something was still
missing.
So I went to rec.skiing.backcountry. I found out that the true hard
cores were doing "glisse alpinism" in the rockies or chuting in the
Wasatch. And I said "I want to be just like them". So I posted questions
to learn about this "glisse alpinism" in rsb. And the devil said "get
rid of that telemark gear. A/T is the way to go." And I said "but I'll
lose my nordic heritage." And the devil said "don't worry about it.
That tele gear is much too heavy and besides, the parallel is a much
better turn." And I said " Will I be able to ski the chutes on all of
the fourteeners in Colorado?" The devil said "no problem. I'll even
show you the routes." And I said "will I be able to ski the steep and
deep in Utah?" The devil said "I don't work there much (mormon's you
know) but one of my associates has a book." So I said " OK, but what's
the price this time?" There was a long pause and his piercing stare
seemed to cut right to the very center of my being. Then I heard myself
say "No problem, my soul it is then." There was a brief ceremony, the
reading of a contract with a lot of fine print concerning eternity, my
soul and the soul fo my first born child, a couple of signatures in
blood etc. Then the devil said I could pick up my A/T skiis anytime.
As I left he said "you'll see it's much easier and don't forget to get
the DIN settings on your bindings set."
All I said was "thanks Lou"
Mel
Louis Dawson
that all skiing comes from a nordic heritage. Also, let's not forget
that the "telemark" turns people do now on the beef gear are closer to
a modern alpine parallel turn than they are to the original telemark.
Also, AT gear is most appreciated by expert skiers who enjoy the
feeling of having your ski be an extension of your foot, and who look
to more interesting terrain as a way to keep skiing stimulating,
rather than being stimulated by the type of gear they use. And, let's
remember that AT gear is not a panacea that allows a mediocre skier
to suddenly ski the great North Couloir of Hoodiwa (the location is
secret). Snowboarding is the way to go if you want a short learning
curve, and by all accounts just as freeing as free heel.
Mel Mann <mm...@efn.org> wrote:
--
Louis Dawson
here...
Chris Ferguson <ferg...@taosnet.com> wrote:
>I think a picture is worth a thousand words...
>
>Enough said!
>
>Chris
>
>Andrew McLean wrote:
>
>> Dingus Milktoast wrote:
>>
>> >Tele skiing can be likened to sailing.
>>
>> <snip>
>> >I see many correlations to the arguments presented here. Your thoughts?
>>
>> I'd say telemarking is more analogous to being a vegetarian -- for some
>> reason (personal, spiritual, economical or otherwise), its followers have
>> decided to do without something that the rest of the world takes for
>> granted. In itself, this is fine by me. Where it gets annoying is when the
>> newcomers start using every meal as a launching platform for a two hour
>> diatribe on the virtues of their lifestyle and the horrors of the
>> slaughterhouse. After 5 minutes of this, all I can say is "Quarter pounder
>> with cheese, and supersize those fries."
>>
>> Andrew
Louis Dawson
>a question for this group:
>do you feel better about your car choice if your neighbor goes out and gets
>the same car that you just bought?
I'd feel better because they'd make me laugh, since they'd be trading
a Saab for my ugly truck (an 87 Suburban covered with road slime and
peeling paint) <grin>.
mur...@gemstone.com
skiing as a religious experience - skiing, yes, but telemarking, no :^). I
can't really comment on why it gets more like Alpine gear, except, that maybe
Alpine skiiers are the ones purchasing it - it's not a trend I care for, I
can no longer afford the new gear (tales of hardships and misery deleted :^)
) and it's getting hard to find lighter gear at all. I would guess that more
people are doing parallel turns because it's a lot of work to telemark all
day, most people aren't willing to work on their quads every day for years to
gain the strength necessary to tele all day. Why don't more people do it?
Image maybe, cost (with all the new heavy gear), too much work? Who knows, I
just love to ski (up or downhill). YMMV, Murray Zenk (a pinner, 'cause the
old gear is what I've got and what I can afford :^)
================================================================= In article
<36d49c6e....@news.sopris.net>, daw...@sopris.net wrote:
> Hey John Lee,
>
> I don't know how you missed it, but I've written about the convergence
> of tele/AT for a long time. Indeed, in one of my early columns I
> predicted a binding that would be both free-heel and latched-heel. One
> thing I enjoy pointing out, then listening to replies about, is that
> if telemarking is a religious experience, and so much better than
> latched heel, then why does the gear get more and more like alpine
> gear every year, and why do I see more and more free-heel skiers doing
> parallel turns instead of telemarks? And why don't more people do it
> instead of snowboarding?
>snip<
Hugh Grierson
>Speaking of poetry in motion, have you ever witnessed an AT skier operating
>in the free heel mode?
Before or after they bust the binding hinge?
-H
Rick Strimbeck
Andrew McLean wrote:
> Rick Strimbeck wrote:
>
> >Yesterday I was coming down a short (1000 vf) steep backcountry trail here
> in
> >VT, stopped to talk to a guy in full AT gear coming up. He commented that
> it
> >was a long climb. I neglected to mention that I was on my third run.
> >Tradeoffs...
>
> Having skied and broken trail for over 12,000' this weekend in full AT gear,
> I didn't notice any sort of tradeoff. By the above logic, I assume I could
> have done 36,000' with telemark gear?
>
> Andrew
Whoa! Who said anything about _logic_?
I'm sure I had a head start... and I have no clue about the other's skier's
ability or physical condition. but this partticular trail has a 5K
flat/rolling tour in, and my skis-boots-bingings probably weighed half of what
his did. You have to factor in the terrain - that's more what I mean by
tradeoffs.
Could I get to admit that there are some kinds of backcountry skiing where
light or midwieght free heel gear offers some advantages?
Rick
(who's going hut-to-hut in Norway in 2 weeks...)
Dingus Milktoast
David Taft wrote:
>
> <sorry to snip>
No problem. It needed snipping.
> <snip you right back>....... Can you think of a piece of gear you would downright
> refuse to use if you had the dough to buy it???
Yes, a leather hood, handcuffs and a chastity belt. I'd much rather have a pair of
fatties.
DMT
Dingus Milktoast
David Taft wrote:
>
> But isn't this just a thread about economics.. <snip>
>
Yes, for me there is a substantiual economic component to skiing. I calculated it
out the other day. My crack cocaine habit was actually less expensive in the long
run! I was born with a plastic spoon in my mouth. You're talking to a guy who has
never once owned a new pair of skis. I guess that's why I hand out with snowboarders
now. They don't seem so consumed with conspicuous spending. They wear crappy
clothes, eat crappy food and drive crappy cars. But those poor bastards can sure
shred the poo! (and they listen to good music too)
DMT
Dingus Milktoast
Tele skiing can be likened to sailing.
Originally, sailing was superior to power craft because, well, there was no power
available! But sailors had to learn many, many specialized techniques to survive. As
time passed, technology improved. Sails got bigger, hulls got stronger and sailors
explored the entire ocean blue on such primitive gear. Then along came power boats. At
first, these monstrosities were simply converted sailboats with steam engines. The
weight of their own fuel kept them close to shore. On the open seas, they reverted to
wind power whenever possible. But time marched on and so did technology. Before long,
power boats began to surpass sailboats in every conceivable way. Yet people continued to
sail. But their boats began to reflect the technology used on powered craft; steel
hulls, guidence systems, on-board electricity, emergency engines. The power boaters
might say, "So what's the point? The more you sail, the more you look like us. Why not
jettison that pesky sail and just install a big diesel engine?" I don't think I want to
be in Betty's Place when that bar fight breaks out!
The sail is the free heel. The tack is the telemark turn. It isn't better, not by a
mile. But just as a sailor gains pleasure from pursuing his ancient craft, so does the
telemarker. We are like modern day sailors. Recently my daughter and I watch a sailboat
race from a pier in San Francisco. It was very cool, exciting even (a surprise for old
Dingus, excited by a sailboat race). Of course, a bunch of cigarette racers or jet
powered hydroplanes could have finished the race in a 10th of the time, but so friggin
what? While the race went on, another boat went by. This thing was an ultramodern
sailboat designed to race around the world. The sail was computer controlled. The hull
was computer designed. The crew was college educated. The technology deployed on that
boat was as far removed from the ancient Phoeniciens as one can imagine. But it remains
a sailboat still. There is a direct link from those modern day sailors in SF Bay to the
primitive explorers in the depths of time. And strip the technology away, those modern
day sailors can (and on rare occasion do) match the skills of their ancestors.
I see many correlations to the arguments presented here. Your thoughts? Should sailors
give it up and quit preaching to the rest of us how spiritual, how invigorating, how
pure their sport is, when there are so many clearly superior methods to navigate the
seas. And why not just fly instead?
DMT
Clyde Soles
> It's the time thing I can't get around. Truth be known, if I have to start
> all over again, I'll be skiing a snow board by this time next year. Why?
> Because for my chosen ground, snow boards seem to be the better tool for
> powder and steep descents.
Have to disagree there. Fat, shaped skis (like Arc Angel and World
Piste) have equalized the advantage snowboards once held yet let you go
places the boarders can't. You are right that a quiver is the only real
solution for the serious skier (or boarder ftm), no matter how they make
the turns.
--
DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise indicated, this post is personal
opinion and NOT an official statement of my employer.
Paul Heinrich
Louis Dawson wrote:
> Seriously, I admire the athleticism of skiing in sandals. When I was
> in highschool I had a few friends on the nordic team who liked to ski
> the ski resort on their nordic racing skis. They we're amazing, and I
> never could have done it myself. But for some reason, their idea of
> fun didn't become the norm <grin>.
Hey Lou, just because something becomes the norm doesn't make it superior.
Some people are looking for a challenge (of one sort or another), others just
want to ski. Personally, I like to try to do things in "good style", but the
new fangled high tech gear can be really helpful. That's why I picked T3s
when I went to plastic boots. Light enough to go places, but stiff enough to
enjoy lift skiing. The nice thing about the current state of skiing is that
you can get very good gear for any sort of skiing you want to do; nordic
backcountry, light tele, heavy tele, AT, whatever. It's all skiing and it's
all fun. PS: I'm stuck here in Pennsylvania (land of no snow), and have come
to appreciate how short ski season can be. You guys who live in better
climes ought to quit BSing about skiing and go do some. At least I've got an
excuse.
Paul (who wishes he was back in California)
Andrew McLean
>Tele skiing can be likened to sailing.
<snip>
>I see many correlations to the arguments presented here. Your thoughts?
I'd say telemarking is more analogous to being a vegetarian -- for some
Michael Ballard
assumes that every telemarker just uses tele-turns to get down the mountain.
I'm sorry, but your very wrong about that. I'm on the board of our local
Nordic club and yes, many of our skiers are tele-hounds. But, they use
whatever turn is needed at the moment. Most, if not all, are not religious
about using the telemark turn. One of the older board members, and a
good friend of mine, does it all. As he puts it, "There's no cheating on
turns in the backcounty. Whatever gets you home safe and sound with the
most enjoyment to it."
I learned the telemark turn so I could have another turn in my quiver of
possibilties. Not so I good do only one turn. I've seen and skied past too
many people who think only one turn will cover all aspects of skiing and
have laughed as they've struggled down a difficult slope.
Yes, the telemark is a much more demanding turn, requiring more time
and effort to learn than the parallel, but so what. It gives me and those
like me more options to choose from. In the backcounty of the Sierra
Nevada's, I like options. Conditions can change from nice powder to
sticky gloop to rock hard, frozen crud in a single day and I want everything
I can to deal with the conditions of the moment. Whether is requires a
tele or a parallel, does it really matter as long as the person arrives back
at the car with cheeks that hurt from grinning so much?
By the way, since your placing an order for the grub, make that
two quarter pounders, but no cheese on mine <grin>.
Michael Ballard
mbal...@jps.net
TGREGAN
i think the car analogy works:
they make all kinds, because there are so many needs and expectations. there
is no one car that does it all...there are usually (always) some sacrifices
when you finally pick one (performance vs comfort vs economy...)....some people
can afford to have a couple ( hopefully they are not driving the convertible
when the chain control goes on)...to some it's a religion...to some it's a
fashion statement...to some its a way to get from A-B....some get a new one
every year and some keep the old clunker 'til they can't get parts...
a question for this group:
do you feel better about your car choice if your neighbor goes out and gets
the same car that you just bought?
have fun,
tony
p.s. as long as they use the turnouts, i don't care what other people drive?
Anders Marklund
> And the devil said "get
> rid of that telemark gear. A/T is the way to go." And I said "but I'll
> lose my nordic heritage." And the devil said "don't worry about it.
> That tele gear is much too heavy and besides, the parallel is a much
> better turn."
Nice story. I also find it amusing to hear all the quarrel in this thread.
What's the big deal? Here in Sweden we have seen a lot of changes in ski
equipment for the last 5000 years. Maybe that's why we're more relaxed
about new technologies? New technology is ususually for the better, isn't
it?
In the Swedish Ski Museum you can see 5200 year old skis:
http://gammlia.museet.umu.se/museum/svskm.html
Luckily we have come a long way since then ;-)
Just my 0.02 crowns worth.
-Anders Marklund
Hugh Grierson
>Can you think of a piece of gear you would downright
>refuse to use if you had the dough to buy it???
Yep. I haven't used my snowboard for four years, and I didn't use my AT
skis at all last year, and only twice the year before that. For the first
time in many years I'm going to sell some gear.
-H
franconiainn
Richard Morris
Rick Strimbeck wrote:
> Andrew McLean wrote:
>
> > The main thing that drove me away from telemarking was exactly what John
> > mentioned above-- a bunch of overly zealous young lions (who had been
> > tele'ing for about 2 years) religiously spraying about the long gone virtues
> > of the original free heel cult. The pressure to conform was immense.
>
> _Some_ of us are still out in the woods, cutting turns in (relatively) light
> equipment. I personally experience zero pressure to conform out there...
>
> Yesterday I was coming down a short (1000 vf) steep backcountry trail here in
> VT, stopped to talk to a guy in full AT gear coming up. He commented that it
> was a long climb. I neglected to mention that I was on my third run.
> Tradeoffs...
>
> Rick
David Blanchard,,,
>
>>I just feel that telemark gear is more versatile and fun (and prettier),
>
>Prettier? Well, I guess the Polka has its fans as well.
Some of us free-heelers like to polka, too (and waltz, and tango...). So
that really puts me in a minority class, eh?
(Actually, I do a lot of dance and I think that is why I like freeheeling.
I find that there are interesting similarities.)
-db-
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| David Blanchard NOAA/NSSL & OU/CIMMS Boulder, Colorado |
| bla...@ucar.edu http://mrd3.nssl.ucar.edu/~dob/www/ |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
David Blanchard,,,
Michael Ballard <mbal...@jps.net> wrote:
>I personally find this whole thread quite amusing. Andrew, your article
>assumes that every telemarker just uses tele-turns to get down the mountain.
>I'm sorry, but your very wrong about that. I'm on the board of our local
>Nordic club and yes, many of our skiers are tele-hounds. But, they use
>whatever turn is needed at the moment. Most, if not all, are not religious
>about using the telemark turn. One of the older board members, and a
>good friend of mine, does it all. As he puts it, "There's no cheating on
>turns in the backcounty. Whatever gets you home safe and sound with the
>most enjoyment to it."
I'm reminded of something said by Vic Bein in his book "Mountain Skiing".
He discusses the telemark turn, then finishes by calling it only the first
and easiest of the turns to be learned by freeheelers. Others include
parallel (of course), step, skate, reverse telemark, wedeln, and many, many
more. I've used many of these techniques over the years with great success
and much fun.
Bein, Vic, 1982: Mountain Skiing. The Mountaineers, Seattle, WA 98101.
ISBN 0-89886-034-2.
-db-
Free your heel, and get snow under your boot...
Louis Dawson
klaus <kl...@xmission.xmission.com> wrote:
>Louis Dawson <daw...@sopris.net> wrote:
>> I'd feel better because they'd make me laugh, since they'd be trading
>> a Saab for my ugly truck (an 87 Suburban covered with road slime and
>> peeling paint) <grin>.
>
>Lou, I had no idea you lived next door. ;>
>
>-klaus
mur...@gemstone.com
So now I'm being tainted with the stigma of being vegetarian? :^)
Some people seem to have a compulsion to show others the way, whatever
their way may be. But being an omnivore (I'll eat almost anything) and
a telemarker, I don't give a rip how other people enjoy the snow (as long
as I can get first tracks :^) ). I actually haven't tried snow boarding or
alpine skiing (not that I have an aversion to either), but enjoy what I'm
doing now. But please, no quarter pounder, even omnivores have some
standards (make it after I order, not before).
YMMV,
Murray Zenk
=========================================
In article <7auoac$qng$1...@spike.bdel.com>,
"Andrew McLean" <and...@bdel.com> wrote:
>
> I'd say telemarking is more analogous to being a vegetarian -- for some
> reason (personal, spiritual, economical or otherwise), its followers have
> decided to do without something that the rest of the world takes for
> granted. In itself, this is fine by me. Where it gets annoying is when the
> newcomers start using every meal as a launching platform for a two hour
> diatribe on the virtues of their lifestyle and the horrors of the
> slaughterhouse. After 5 minutes of this, all I can say is "Quarter pounder
> with cheese, and supersize those fries."
>
> Andrew
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
john_le...@my-dejanews.com
It's rude not to respond to a personal greeting, but I was skiing. The snow
in Summit County was great over the weekend, and into the week! I hit that
one right for once. I even used my tele gear for <gasp> back country skiing.
Hope you keep getting good snow to ski on.
In article <36d49c6e....@news.sopris.net>,
daw...@sopris.net wrote:
> Hey John Lee,
>
> I don't know how you missed it, but I've written about the convergence
> of tele/AT for a long time....
>
Yea, but for as many <g>s that you pepper you postings with, and even though
we are getting more and more alike, we keep reading between the lines that
you really don't like us free heelers <grin>, or the skis we rode in on
<grin>.
John Lee
Djmdmd
-H
>>
Got to agree with Hugh. Through the modern miracle of mass marketing I
actually can afford any kind of gear my heart desires (I used to be a rock star
-- no joke). I've tried it all (alpine racer through college, Haute Route ten
years ago on leathers and Tua Expressos, multi-day backcountry touring in the
Methow, conquered the noble art of snowbaording in about 2.75 seconds, etc.)
and I suppose I could fill my basement with snow sliding stuff if I wanted to
indulge all my fantasies. But I find I'm doing just the opposite. I've sold
or given away about half of my skis and boots in the last few years, and I'm
trying to pare down still further. More options don't mean more fun. Remember
how great rock climbing was when EVERYONE had EB's?
Probably the best skier I know, Mike Morrison, skis everything tele. For years
he did all of his skiing (and alpine climbing!!!!!) in an old, beat-to-shit
pair of low Merrell double boots (the ones with the velcro closures) on
whatever skis were cheap and available. He can ski anything, from steep (40
degrees plus) , exposed alpine terrain to lift-line bumps. Of course, it
doesn't hurt that he's built like a wolverine. Point being that, in a world of
endless options, we must impose limitations on ourselves to create meaning in
otherwise selfish and pointless activities such as skiing and climbing. It may
be a tired truism, but there is no freedom without discipline (not to mention
that it's rumored to be easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than
for a rich man to enter heaven).
I wish I were as strong as Mike. If I were, I'd sell my alpine gear. But I
just can't picture myself tele-skiing the traverse above the bergschrund just
below the summit of Mt. Hood, much less as I saw Mike ski it on a crappy pair
of Pre's with holes in the bases and dull edges on an icy day. So I'll find
my own way.
ALL PHILOSOPHICAL MUMBO-JUMBO ASIDE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPLURGE ON NEW GEAR,
GET SOME FAT SKIS. I DON'T CARE IF YOU ALPINE, AT, TELE, WHATEVER -- FAT IS
WHERE IT'S AT, ESPECIALLY HERE IN THE GREAT PACIFIC NORTHWEST. "DUAL-SNOWBOARD
TECHNOLOGY" IS THE WAY TO GO IN THE MANK. EVEN THE SUPERHUMAN MIKE BROKE DOWN
AND BOUGHT SOME MTN SURFS. A 35 DEGREE DAY WITH A FOOT OF NEW AT ALPENTAL OR
STEVENS WILL NO LONGER BE A CHORE BUT INSTEAD AN ORGASMIC REVELATION. THE
ENTIRE CASCADE BACKCOUNTRY BECOMES YOUR PLAYGROUND IN ALMOST ANY CONDITIONS.
ONCE YOU GO FAT YOU'LL NEVER GO BACK (at least until you're in Sun Valley and
it hasn't snowed in three weeks).
dave dederer