rollerski with no resistance?
Ken Roberts
talk to people about it, I get the idea that lots of folks are doing it with
rollerskis with very little frictional resistance.
My thought currently is that I wouldn't want to do that much, because I'd be
afraid of getting hurt in a crash. But there's lots of smart people who
know things I haven't thought of. So I have two questions:
a) About how many people in your area are rollerskiing with little
frictional resistance? Almost everybody? Almost nobody? 50/50?
b) What are the training advantages of using very little resistance?
Thanks for all the ideas,
Ken
Gary Jacobson
Less resistance vs. more resistance is a complicated subject. Generally I
think there are two camps. One camp(Proski folks)
generally say that roller skis should run fast, especially for overdistance
work, as work loads should be kept low, except when a training goal involves
high heart rates or specific strength development. Some folks who attend NEI
sponsored dry land camps have told me that glide training (balance) is
enhanced by using low resistance skis. Of course if it is dangerous to be
traveling at a high speed, then crank the resistance down when steeper
grades are ahead.
Another camp, relies on Italian research. They say that roller ski work
loads should duplicate snow work outs. I would say that the Jenex 920
classic vs the Proski C-2 exemplifies the differences. Also, it seems that
the Proski skate skis are faster than the Marwe skate ski, and the Marwe is
said to be much like blue wax snow.
One way to think about the issue of roller ski speed and resistance was
encapsulated last year when many roller skiers confirmed that it seems like
they can ski faster on high resistance roller skis than low resistance
roller skis. That is because of turn over rate. Nothing wrong with that, but
we also have to work on glide and relaxing, and getting low intensity in.
You can always hit the hills hard. Or you can do high resistance specific
workouts by cranking down speed reducers, or skiing up a long hill.
I speak as a person with a training log that has been critiqued as having
too much middle and high intensity roller ski efforts.
And I definitely have found that I have faster times with more resistance.
But, I think that I also am quite concerned with technique and tempo, though
unfortunately not enough to regularly do drills that could help both.
I think that you may have to go slow to go fast. But also, sometimes it
takes too much energy to try to ski in an energy efficient manner. I would
worry about that when on snow, and use this time of the year to work on
glide, maybe with a slower tempo than you might think is right. Sometimes
fast tempo is due to poor balance and weight transfer. Once glide is
mastered, then tempo can increase. Most studies show that fast skiers have
similar tempos but different glide lengths.
I hope other readers have some ideas, and I look forward to learning more
about this at our dryland camp in August.
Take care,
Gary
Ken Roberts <KenRob...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7xxQ6.3988$kh4.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Gene Goldenfeld
Mitchell. He climbs hills in the western Sierra and finds better balance with
the pneumatic tires at 90 psi than lower. I, on the other hand, find more
balance, a now feel and the ability to V2 at 65 psi (resistance up one notch)
than at 90 psi. Rick's a younger, faster and more experienced skier than I, so
maybe that accounts for the difference. So, in one respect, it's individual.
The main thing to avoid is the learner's tendency to go fast because it seems
easier to maintain balance that way. A good skier is one that can go slow with
good form (one element of the go-slow-to-go-fast).
People with roller skis w/o variable resistance primarily use choices of wheel
composition (rubber vs polyurethane) and of terrain to manage their workout
intensities. Note the Coulee hill that the 50k Club skiers mention in the Twin
Cities area. Ken Salzberg mentioned to me that on downhills the Marwes offer
some degree of speed control because the wheel speed tops out. The Aeros are
not really that different; finding the right combination of inflation,
resistance setting and terrain offers the best way to get a good workout. I
think it's in the choice of training regimen where you'll find the biggest
differences in this group.
Gene Goldenfeld
phof...@math.uwaterloo.ca
giving faster times very well. But I think that I was finding it a
bit hard to fathom, and probably came to the conclusion that the fast
rollerskis were well beyond the speed of the very fastest snow conditions.
Then I could see the possibility that people on these superfast rollerskis
couldn't use the good technique, but then could after slowing the skis
down, and so went faster.
So I guess I'm saying firstly that this counterintuitive finding by
other rollerskiers surely isn't happening in the range of wheel
resistances that corresponds to what youd ever find on snow; and secondly,
that I wonder whether there is any good point in using rollerskis
whose wheel-speed doesn't correspond to snow conditions. Does
anybody know whether WC skiers ever use superfast or superslow
rollerskis? Maybe Nathan or Primoz do?
My guess would be that superslow might mess up your technique, and you'd
be better with some strength training of a more conventional kind.
And superfast for glide training wouldn't be that good if you weren't
applying as much force as you would on snow, since the coordination
of applying force with balancing is a big part of it all.
If I'm misunderstanding, and slower is faster even within the usual
resistances you get with well waxed skis, why wouldn't the same
thing apply on snow? If I found that true (and I don't expect to),
I'd be annoyed to wake up on race day in the winter and find
really fast conditions, like freezing rain, because then I'd need
to slow my skis down to get a better time! If any WC skier in
history has ever decided against a pair of skis because they were
gliding too well, I'd be more than a little surprised!
Anyway, I'd be interested in opinions, and hope I'm not just going
over stuff that we discussed to death last year.
Best, Peter phof...@math.uwaterloo.ca
Gary Jacobson
<phof...@math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:9f1bvh$86p$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca...
> I don't remember the discussion last year about "slower" rollerskis
> giving faster times very well. But I think that I was finding it a
> bit hard to fathom,
I followed that thread, but never commented. But indeed I have found that my
classic times on 920's average a bit faster with the resistance increased,
than when there is no resistance. Could be improved technique and a greater
need to exert power, as well as tempo increase.
> If I'm misunderstanding, and slower is faster even within the usual
> resistances you get with well waxed skis, why wouldn't the same
> thing apply on snow? If I found that true (and I don't expect to),
> I'd be annoyed to wake up on race day in the winter and find
> really fast conditions, like freezing rain, because then I'd need
> to slow my skis down to get a better time>
Once again, try klister on your skate skis. Come next April I intend to
market a skate klister that should make skiers stop dead in their tracks in
wonderment.;)
To be sure I am not an expert on training, and have many more questions than
answers, but maybe Ken's original
question could be understood by examining bicycling training. Most cyclists
do a lot of easy spinning early in the season. Lance says that he avoids the
big chain ring until he has a couple of thousand miles in. He is probably
developing aerobic base, and some neuromuscular speed of movement, and
movement patterning. Lance doesn't go out in April to climb the cols in
France. He could, but he doesn't because it would not result in the desired
effect of riding fast when it counts.
But right around now I bet he is climbing in the big chain wheel for a
different training purpose, like perhaps muscular strength, power, lactate
tolerance, and muscular and aerobic endurance.
The goal, as I understand it, is to train systematically, and not focus
training on ones strengths, but ones weaknesses. If Ken has no trouble
skating with a fast tempo with high resistance at the same speed as I do
using lower resistance, slower tempo, and with cleaner technique, then maybe
he should try to do what he finds to be more difficult, as long as it is "in
the ball park" of reasonable. Have I mentioned that I have found my V-2
technique to be at fault for too quick a tempo? Well, by going slower I
hope to increase balance, and ultimately learn to ski faster.
I am really trying to change the way I approach training for upper mid pack
citizen racing. I am avoiding, for the time being,
long medium hard distances- like four hour 50 km classic rolls with slowish
skis. This year I will try to do more overdistance on a road bike, on foot
by hiking with poles, and in a canoe. I hope that I'll be hungrier to roller
ski at various intensities later in the roller ski season.
Also, and I think about this a lot....What top skiers, and I mean folks
like JT, JW, Frontrunner on up to WC skiers, do for training may have little
bearing on what I need to, or should do to improve. This may hold true not
only for training, but for technique too. There is a progression and
readiness to absorb based on ability that needs to be heeded.
At Drivers Ed Courses they teach how to drive well in regular circumstances
that drivers face daily.(mid pack Citizen marathon racing) Go to a race car
driver course, and a lot of the regular stuff goes out the window. (Top 15%
birkie up to WC). To some degree, this is probably true with skiing.
Time to get some sleep.
GJ
Jay Tegeder
Skating:
Marwe 610, Elpex F-1, ProSki Roadskater
Classic:
Marwe Classic, Marwe Combi, Elpex Wasa Classic, Elpex 610, ProSki Dual Technique
Marwes are available at Finn Sisu-651-645-2443 or www.finnsisu.com
Elpex can be purchased at Reliable Racing-800-223-4448-www.reliableracing.com
ProSki-Nordic Equipment Inc.-800-321-1671 or www.nordicequipment.com
I'd suggest these brands and models because they provide the most similar speed
to skiing on snow. Skis that are too fast will develop bad technique as will
skis that have too much resistance. The wrong ski speed will affect your stirde
length on snow.
Jay Tegeder
"Keep training, lycra never lies!" JT
Brian
Since I am a biathlete, the longest race I compete in is 20k, and that race
is in jeopardy of being non-spectator friendly. This year, I have limited
my skate rollerskis to an hour and fifteen minutes - maximum. Last year, I
was doing four hour rollerskis about once a month and the year before my
rollerskiing (due in part to the lack of snow) made up about 38% of my
training - not a good thing. Anyways, my rollerski sessions are now much
quicker with more race-like technique. My lactates are at lactate threshold
and I throw in some race pace sprints. Yes, even in the summer. I will
only be doing two sessions of rollerskiing (1 classic, 1 skate) per week up
until September, doing more mountain and road bicycling. The Germans and
Norwegians strongly stress the importance of mountain biking - Frode
Andresen and Ole Einar Bjorndalen, two top Norwegian biathletes, compete in
numerous mountain and road biking events.
To be more on topic, since I have sort of wandered off of it, I used Marwe
610s and I have loosened the screws a little bit (by accident), so I think
they are a bit faster. To go fast your muscles need to make the
neuromuscular connections in an environment close or at race speed, I have
been taught. I am not sure if the resistance of the ski matters that much,
it is the speed that you are rollerskiing at.
Brian
Ken Roberts
> The goal, as I understand it, is to train systematically, and not focus
> training on ones strengths, but ones weaknesses.
Right now I feel like I've got multiple weaknesses to address.
Since you pointed out that I needed more glide, I've been working on that.
I turned the resistance low enough so I could skate continuously for an hour
on Memorial Day.
My experience from the Lake Placid Loppet was that there were folks with a
lot more power to go up some of those hills -- so I want to work on that
too. So I say: Why not both? Low resistance for glide training and high
resistance for power training?
I see that another use for low-resistance rollerskis is "over-distance"
training (like "easy spinning"). I did more than 6 hours on the bicycle
with Sharon on Sunday. I've never come close to spending that much time on
rollerskis. I think it would be too boring to spend that much time going up
and down some rail trail, so I would need to get out on some interestingly
hilly roads, and I'd need more resistance to feel safe doing that.
Ken
Ken Roberts
> speed to skiing on snow.
This helps -- now I see the big point: The main purpose of rollerskis is to
simulate snow skiing on a cross-country race course. (And as a corollary,
since the resistance of snow on a race course does not vary much, there's no
need for the resistance of a rollerski to vary much).
Oddly, I hadn't thought of that reasoning -- and I think there are two
causes. First, I ski a lot of backcountry, where snow resistance varies
widely between wind crust and deep powder, and between glide wax and
climbing skins. Second is because of my special experience in the Lake
Placid Loppet 50K this year.
A special feature of the way the Lake Placid race is organized is that the
mid-pack classic 50K racers get to ski for a while with the best skaters. I
remember on the "Russian Ladies Hill", with the leaders going up like twice
as fast as me -- actually getting some glide on each stroke.
Now there's no doubt that part of the difference between me and them was
technique -- say it's 25%. But as I remember herringboning up that hill, I
think 75% was power. The training strategy that resonates with that memory
is _not_ "focus on simulating snow feel". Instead it is: Work on the 75%.
But now I see the other perspective -- and I like both.
Ken
Ken Roberts
> Skis that are too fast will develop bad technique as will
> skis that have too much resistance. The wrong ski speed
> will affect your stirde length on snow.
Thanks -- this puts the concern very plainly.
I like the _inverse_ of this point as an argument for using low-resistance
rollerskis for part of an overall training program: < Using rollerskis that
simulate snow well will help improve on-snow ski technique. >
But I'm interested to hear anecdotal (or other evidence) of this negative
claim: < Adding exercises with rollerski resistance that does not simulate
snow to an overall training program will harm on-snow ski technique. >
This claim contradicts the training approach lots of racers use for
swimming. For swim triathlon training we frequently used devices with
completely different water feel, resistance, and balance characteristics
from real competition: hand paddles, flippers, floats. And I think
competitive swimming technique is _way_ more complex and non-intuitive than
cross-country ski racing. I don't recall anyone refusing to train with hand
paddles because they would develop bad race technique.
Is there evidence that skiing technique is more fragile than competitive
swimming?
Stride length -- I see the argument on this, but I also have experience
which seems to contradict it. From my only race, at Lake Placid: I used
lots of different stride lengths . . . longer on the gentle hills, shorter
stride on the moderate, no glide at all on the steepest hills (and there
must have been some flat sections too). What's the harm of including some
practice with a shorter stride on rollerskis on the flats, if I'm going to
have to use the same stride length on snow skis in the hills?
Ken
Gene Goldenfeld
(800-2000' gains in 3-4 miles). When I used the beginning 20 minutes as warm
up and backed off a bit on the early ridges, I was able to maintain a faster
and more consistent pace on subsequent climbs and flats/downs. The result was
a faster time overall, plus being able to jog back down w/o feeling wasted.
This parallels what Lou Lasher spoke about here a couple of years ago in his
program for high school x-c runners. As I recall, he focused on the need to
find a pace that can be maintained for the bulk of the race (except start and
finish), with the HR climbing a bit overtime naturally.
Gene Goldenfeld
Janne G
>
> "Jay Tegeder" <jay_t...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > Skis that are too fast will develop bad technique as will
> > skis that have too much resistance. The wrong ski speed
> > will affect your stirde length on snow.
>
> Thanks -- this puts the concern very plainly.
>
> I like the _inverse_ of this point as an argument for using low-resistance
> rollerskis for part of an overall training program: < Using rollerskis that
> simulate snow well will help improve on-snow ski technique. >
>
> But I'm interested to hear anecdotal (or other evidence) of this negative
> claim: < Adding exercises with rollerski resistance that does not simulate
> snow to an overall training program will harm on-snow ski technique. >
>
> This claim contradicts the training approach lots of racers use for
> swimming. For swim triathlon training we frequently used devices with
> completely different water feel, resistance, and balance characteristics
> from real competition: hand paddles, flippers, floats. And I think
> competitive swimming technique is _way_ more complex and non-intuitive than
> cross-country ski racing. I don't recall anyone refusing to train with hand
> paddles because they would develop bad race technique.
>
> Is there evidence that skiing technique is more fragile than competitive
> swimming?
I don't think so but you gets the habbit of doing it wrong when your on
rollerskiis/inlines for 6month or more in a row. I don't think swimmers goes
so far away from swimming in a row. Thats the key point in this, there are only
snow to skii on for about 4-7month if you don't have the money to visit
some snow region or a memeber of tsome national team that does the rest of
the time you do other training.
But the discussion about the specific between inlines/rollerskiis versus
snowski is in the region off 0.9 (with 1.0 as the real thing) of the real thing,
when comparing this to running which i consider is in the region 0.6 compared
to skiing and cycling even worse somewhat 0.3-0.4. So if another sport is a
lookalike with say 0.9 and another is 0.85 should we argue about whats the
best to do?
--
Forward in all directions
Janne G
Jay Tegeder
1) Double-pole uphill on your rollerskis
2) Skate or stride uphill on your rollerskis without using your poles
3) Find a good hill and do bounding repeats with your poles
Those three things will build ski specific strength. If you use fast rollerskis
or slow rollerskis, your stride length will be affected as well as your pole
timing. Glide length and the ability to ride a flat ski are two of the easiest
ways to get faster. While many of the World Cup stars turn it over faster, most
citizen skiers would be better off improving their glide. RSN poster Jay Wenner
is an example of a guy who glides extremely well and as a result, is faster on
snow than many others with better engines.
Jay Tegeder
"Keep training, lycra never lies!" JT
Ken Roberts
You certainly have a gift for compressing lots of helpful ideas into a small
number of words.
"Jay Tegeder" <jay_t...@yahoo.com> wrote
> If strength is a problem, do some specific strength work. Some examples
include;
> 1) Double-pole uphill on your rollerskis
> 2) Skate or stride uphill on your rollerskis without using your poles
> . . .
I like these ideas, but I have one problem with them: The hills near where
I live are only about 300 vertical feet (and I have to drive almost half an
hour just to get to those). That means that I have to go up the hill
several times in order to get a full workout session. How do I get back
down to the bottom of the hill for the next repeat?
I find the hills of steepness at all comparable to the Lake Placid Loppet to
be extremely scary to descend on rollerskis without a high resistance
setting available -- I couldn't imagine trying it.
I tried going down one on the Jenex Aeros at the highest setting, and that
was tolerable but pretty slow -- so it left a long rest gap between
intervals which I suspect is far from optimal for training effect.
What are some ways to handle the "getting back down" part of repeated hill
intervals?
Ken
Ken Roberts
Is there more detail somewhere about the techniques for doing this? I'd be
interested in web or printed sources.
Last summer several times I tried this -- but it seemed to correlate with
pain in the back of my calf and hamstring muscles on my right leg. But the
pain usually didn't show up until next day, and then it stayed around for
awhile. At first I thought it was bicycling injury, but then I looked at my
exercise log and noticed that it appeared most strongly only on the day
after I had done hill bounding. The repeated injury definitely hindered my
training last year. I finally gave up on hill bounding for the season.
Two things I like about hill bounding:
- it felt powerful when I did it, and highly relevant to skiing. I used to
do a lot of hill running, but it had a lot less of those (but as a result of
trying bounding, I came to really enjoy trail running with poles).
- I have a clear idea about how to get back down to the bottom of the hill
for the next repeat -- I can simply jog or run.
I'd love to get back into doing it -- if I felt like I knew what caused my
problems last summer. Some theories:
- I didn't use the right hill-bounding technique
- I did my bounding on hills that were too steep (often greater than 10%,
all greater than 6%)
- I started with too much too fast
- it was just a freak combination of multiple training stresses from
bounding, bicycling, and weights
Thanks for any advice about this.
Ken
Tim Power
>hour just to get to those). That means that I have to go up the hill
>several times in order to get a full workout session. How do I get back
>down to the bottom of the hill for the next repeat
Ken -
After angioplasty at age 49, I used hill repeats on a hill of 300 vertical as
the backbone of my training program during recovery. By setting the upper
limit alarm of my HR monitor just below the highest my doctor would allow at
the time, I would climb with poles to that level and back off when the alarm
sounded.
This is a hill affectionately known to many of the 50K Club as "6-minute Hill"
at Afton State Park. When my limit was 120, my repeats would take about 8-9
minutes. As I got stronger and the limits were relaxed, my times dropped into
the 6's.
The point I wanted to make is that you need the recovery time between repeats
to get your heart rate back into a reasonable area. My max HR is 193. I now
set my upper limit alarm at 160 and try to stay just below the limit at the
crux of the hill. I walk the descents and am usually back around 100 when I
turn around and head up again. By the way, I start with 4 repeats and work up
to 7-8 just before snow flies. With a 10-15 minute jog to and from the hill,
it's a nice hour and a half to two-hour workout.
Tim Power
law...@aol.com at work
xc...@aol.com at home
Remove "nojunk" to e-mail
Ken Roberts
Thanks for sharing your approach for such a key training technique.
> you need the recovery time between repeats
> to get your heart rate back into a reasonable area.
I agree, but this sounds a lot longer time between intervals than I've heard
recommended for other sports.
What's the grade of this famous Afton hill? If it's less than 10%, then a
walk down of 300 vertical feet must be for more than half a mile, so it
would take more than five minutes to walk it.
Do you walk down in your ski boots? Or do you take them off at the top and
change into sneakers to go down? This extra time and hassle factor is a
turn-off for me, but I'd be afraid of wearing out my boots by
jogging/walking a couple of miles in them each workout session.
From bicycling and running, I've usually heard to keep recovery time under
two minutes.
> I walk the descents and am usually back around 100 when I
> turn around and head up again.
When I did hill running intervals, I remember I typically held a heart
rate around 165 bpm (back when I used a heart rate monitor). For recovery,
I thought it was enough to get it down to around 120 before starting the
next interval -- and I think for me it got there a lot faster than five
minutes.
So I like your hill repeats, and I can see why you get good results -- the
next step I'm looking for is some tips for how to decrease the time and
hassle, and get even better training benefit.
Ken
Jay Tegeder
Here are some specific ideas for you;
Back off on the rollerskiing hill repeats until you feel comfortable going back
down the hill or find a hill with less grade for the return back down. Instead
of hill bounding, start out by hiking up the hills with your poles. When your
legs get accustomed to the stress, you can start bounding. I'd defintiely
recommend stretching before and after your workout. It sounds like your muscles
might be tight. Just hang in there for awhile. Your body will get used to the
training with time. As for the Afton Hills, the Coulee is a ten to 12 minute
climb on rollerskis with a pretty steep grade. It's about 300 feet of climb in
one mile. The Afton Hills Tim Power talks about are climbs of 300 feet in the
State park just south of town. Yeah, the grades are pretty steep and it's one of
the best training areas for hill bounding/hiking with poles and trail running in
the Twin Cities. Tons of people have gotten faster by training there.
Jay Tegeder
"Keep training, lycra never lies!" JT
MikeR
. How do I get back
> down to the bottom of the hill for the next repeat?
(sort of soft rubber overshoes I used for gardening)
in my day pack which I slipped on and jogged back
down the hill and it protected the plastic bases of
the ski boots.
MikeR
cnl
Pilot or NNN galoshes?
Lee F.
Derry,NH
MikeR wrote:
--
MZ
Tim Power
>walk down of 300 vertical feet must be for more than half a mile, so it
>would take more than five minutes to walk it.
6-minute Hill must be greater than 10% grade, but only in spots. Steep, then
flatter in the middle, then steep again. I vary my pace to keep HR in the
140-160 range, and the "crux" point is about 80% toward the top. A fast walk
down, with a stop for a few dips in the middle, takes about 5-6 minutes.
>Do you walk down in your ski boots? Or do you take them off at the top and
>change into sneakers to go down?
Entire workout is in running shoes on hiking trails. It's an easier up than
the "bounding" Jay talks about, but I can't seem to do long intervals while
bounding and still keep my HR below anaerobic threshhold. To answer your
question on how to do repeats on roller skis on your 300-foot hill, I would try
to find a less-steep route back down and make it a loop. Not always easy to
find.
>From bicycling and running, I've usually heard to keep recovery time under
>two minutes.
My goal on these workouts is to keep recovery time about equal to interval
time. I think that is appropriate for off-season intervals at lesser intensity
than race pace. I would jack up speed and reduce recovery as race season
approaches. On this workout, I can do that by jogging the downs.
Brian
and
> change into sneakers to go down? This extra time and hassle factor is a
> turn-off for me, but I'd be afraid of wearing out my boots by
> jogging/walking a couple of miles in them each workout session.
I have never heard of doing hill bounding while wearing ski boots... Are
these done during the winter?? When I do hill bounding, I wear, well,
running shoes. Is someone thinking that wearing their ski boots while hill
bounding is going to simulate the feeling their ankle has during skiing? I
do not think that it would have much of an effect.
However, I do think that hill bounding is one of the most important workouts
a skier can do... it is one of the only workouts where I seem to max out my
lung capacity (if it is a long enough hill). If anyone has a thirty minute
hill/mountain near them, I envy them. In MN we only dream of such hills!
One of the workouts that I did in Norway -- one of my favorites-- was really
quite simple: get to the top of the hill as fast as you can without
collapsing. This hill was a mammoth of a hill... at first, I tried to run,
but five minutes later regretted doing so and had to resort to walking. It
was a cross between bounding and running for we added a sort of hop at the
end of each stride and used our upperbody extensively. Another equally FUN
workout we did was moose-hooves (of something like that) where we used a
complete kick and that end of each stride while using poles. We completed a
step ladder approach to the workout - 1 min, 2 min, 3 min, 4 min, 5 min...
down to 1 and then back up to five and then back down to 1, with walking
rest equal to the interval length. I definitely slept well that night!
Hilsen, Brian
"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only
the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to
teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived."
-- Henry David
Thoreau, "Walden" (1849)
Ken Roberts
> My technique was to carry a pair of rubber galoshes
> (sort of soft rubber overshoes I used for gardening)
> in my day pack which I slipped on and jogged back
> down the hill and it protected the plastic bases of
> the ski boots.
Now that's creative.
One of my hills has a grass shoulder by the road, so perhaps I could use the
galoshes on that, after skiing up the road -- especially for classic or
poling. I tighten things up for skating, so I'd at least want to loosed it
for running/walking the descent. And I'm concerned that all this jogging in
my ski boots could more rapidly degrade the support I want from them for
skiing.
Two other ideas I've thought of:
- for two or more people, share a car or van. One person drives to the top
and waits, the others ski up and hop into the car and drive back to the
bottom.
- get rollerskis with brakes.
Ken