|
vood00
Jun 28, 2003, 7:27 PM
Post #1 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 28
|
Ok, here's the deal.....I would like to get into ski mountaineering. My main focus here is going to be the climbing, not the skiing. I am not the greatest skier I would much prefer to ride a snowboard down. I'm just wondering what other people are using. I was thinking of getting a cheap set of skis and skins and mounting up the silverretta 500's so that I can use my current ice boots (leather). But then again I've also got a couple of hut--->hut trips in the works mixed in with some climbing, so I was thinking of getting the dynafit tourlite tech4 pro or mlt4 boots with the tristep binding. This would be a better touring set up but I wouldn't be able to use my ice boots and would have to climb in the touring boots. Just wondering if anyone had any suggestions/comments.
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Jun 30, 2003, 5:41 PM
Post #2 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
Skiing in leathers will royally suck! If you go with the AT setup, you will end up getting touring boots, or plastic climbing boots, which will still suck for skiing, but not royally. The silveratta 500's are sweet, that's what I use. Are you talking mostly non-technical stuff? If so, just get some touring boots, and the full AT setup, or go with a split snowboard. If you're going to do real technical stuff, you'll need plastic mountaineering boots which will force ytou to use Silveretta bindings. It will still be difficult to ski in, but it's better than snowshoeing or post holing.
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Jun 30, 2003, 5:47 PM
Post #3 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
Check out Sierratradingpost.com
I got my Randonee set up from them and bindings from Bittersweet. I would NEVER go back to regular. Tele is a bit tough with a climbing pack.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jun 30, 2003, 5:53 PM
Post #4 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Don't get sucked into tele. It's a waste of time and money for your stated goals. It's pretty much a waste of time and money, period, unless your goal is to waste several years and some serious money learning to master inferior equipment and unbalanced turns. And you eventually come back to where you started; parallel skis. Wouldn't go the split board route either, again, your goals.
Silverettes are a good way to go cause you can use your climbing boots to approach climbs, or you can crank on the AT boots when you need to focus on skiing.
Performance touring is fine on AT. Flat land touring on AT sucks and that's where tele begins to shine.
If it's mainly to approach climbs, I'd do the slow crawl search on eBay for a cheap pair of rock skis with some Silverette binding, releasable or not.
I picked up such a pair last year for 50 bucks plus shipping.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jun 30, 2003, 6:35 PM
Post #5 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
I would agree with the no tele beta unless you already do it.
Personally I went with Scarpa Denali’s and Fritschi Diamir’s.(emphasis on going down)
I also used the silvretta easy go which are compatible with mountaineering boots. (they broke on me when I pushed it skiing though)
A releasable binding is huge in Avy terrain.
|
|
|
|
|
chugach001
Jun 30, 2003, 6:50 PM
Post #6 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 21, 2002
Posts: 311
|
I started off with AT purely for the climbing part of it. I later switched to Tele for pure skiing. A good friend was such a fanatical skier that he skied everywhere with his downhill boots and even climbed in them (long slogs up Denali and WI-5 ice. Industry insiders say that the New Nordic Norm will be out in the next year or so. This is a tele boot without the duckbill and crampon ready. That's the real ticket. Until then you'll have to make a choice that's less than completely satisfying.
|
|
|
|
|
killclimbz
Jun 30, 2003, 6:55 PM
Post #7 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2000
Posts: 1964
|
If you are comfortable snowboarding then get a split board. I totally disagree with the comment Dingus made on the split board route. Last year I purchased a voile 166 split. What a difference. In touring mode it climbs well. In snowboard mode I could not tell the difference from a regular board. You could easily use mountaineering boots with your bindings. Anyone remember when koflach's were fairly popular as snowboarding boots? I had no problems with equipment failure last season on over 40 days in the backcountry. PM me if you have any questions regarding the set up and you are interested.
|
|
|
|
|
tobcapone
Jun 30, 2003, 6:59 PM
Post #8 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 20, 2003
Posts: 15
|
I agree w/ the split board idea. Having a good set of skins on them and you can climb up some really steep stuff where skis have a harder time - likewise, your split board will be a bit harder in the flats.
If you're more comfortable w/ snowboarding then stick w/ the snowboard.
|
|
|
|
|
mainline
Jun 30, 2003, 11:51 PM
Post #9 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 30, 2002
Posts: 161
|
I would go AT. I own Denalis and Fritschis, but they are more suited to serious downhill skiing because they weigh so much. I would highly suggest the Dynafit set up you mentioned. They are lighter than anything else, and the TLT 4 Pro boots are great for ice climbing and mountaineering. Mark Twight uses them and so does Stephen Koch. I would also stay away from the Tristep binding and go for the older, proven Tourlite Tech binding. Apparently the Tristep has some bugs and is heavier than the TLT. You can read about them here
http://www.wildsnow.com/articles/dynafit_faq/Tri-step_faq.html
There are several threads on this subject if you do a search in Alpine/Ice for telemark.
|
|
|
|
|
climber1
Jul 2, 2003, 4:50 AM
Post #10 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2000
Posts: 484
|
In reply to: Don't get sucked into tele. It's a waste of time and money for your stated goals. It's pretty much a waste of time and money, period, unless your goal is to waste several years and some serious money learning to master inferior equipment and unbalanced turns. DMT |
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 2, 2003, 5:14 AM
Post #11 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
[quote="climber1 why did you spend serious money on inferior equipment?
Because with tele it can't be helped. And I give lessons, not take them.
Cheers,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
deleted
Deleted
Jul 9, 2003, 7:22 PM
Post #12 of 44
(4532 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
[quote:5e7653e54d="dingus"]Don't get sucked into tele. It's a waste of time and money for your stated goals. It's pretty much a waste of time and money, period, unless your goal is to waste several years and some serious money learning to master inferior equipment and unbalanced turns.[/quote:5e7653e54d]
OUCH, dingus ... that smacks of elitism. that's not nice.
if you are already an alpine skier, then i would suggest you stick with that modality and go with the at setup, as the gear differs very little from what you already use.
the "problem" with going tele -- if you've not done it much -- is that it is more difficult to master than straight alpine. and if your goal is to get out there, why dink around for a few seasons trying to learn tele when you can strap on some at boards and be back on your game in short order?
as for the "inferior equipment" comment, it is getting more and more difficult to tell nordic from alpine equipment in terms of burliness.
dingus, i too teach tele -- in fact it's the only kind of skiing i do -- and i would dare say i can ski anything an alpine skier can. it's not the gear that's inferior ... it's your technique.
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Jul 9, 2003, 8:25 PM
Post #13 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
I think you guys took Dingus too seriously. Most of my friends Tele ski and when I was making the decision to go with AT or Tele, they said the same thing.
If you freakin' love skiing, you'll want to get into Tele. If you think it's okay, and you already know how to ski, AT is the way to go. Which way did I go, eh?
In some ways you could draw a comparison to trad. All these gym climbers are asking "Draws or cams?" If you LOVE back country skiing, then you'll eventually be into tele, I think. I like skiing, but I know how to do alpine, but I wanted to try backcountry. AT for me.
|
|
|
|
|
pirateclimber
Jul 9, 2003, 8:32 PM
Post #14 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2002
Posts: 114
|
Demo before you buy, period! Telemark, as stated, is too time consuming to become adept at. Randonee/Alpine Touring (AT) is the way to go.
Look for a binding with heel and toe releasability (I recommend Fristche) for safety, a DIN of 10 is all you'll need unless you are huge or don't value your knees. Built in heel elevators for climbing comfort are a must.
There are a million skis out there. AT models are lighter than alpine models (traditional downhill ski's), but tend to suffer in performance, i.e. softer and less stable. Not a problem in powder but sucky on hardpack. I would go with a shorter "shaped" ski (I recommend Atomic) that will make turn initiation a bit easier amongst other things.
I've only used the skins that Black Diamond puts out, Ascension I think it is. No complaints.
Take an avalanche course. They aren't cheap, but are vastly important! Get transcievers, shovel, probe.
With regards to Split Boards et al. Great for simple up and down descents, but they suck for true touring. Do not use the "do it yourself" kits that Voile puts out, they are horrible on the traverse! Burton splits have dual edges and much better, but retail for around $1000 for the board only. About a third more than a full AT rig if you shop around. Suffice it to say, I would not recommend a Board for touring, period.
|
|
|
|
|
dead_milkman
Jul 9, 2003, 8:46 PM
Post #15 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 241
|
In reply to: dingus, i too teach tele -- in fact it's the only kind of skiing i do -- and i would dare say i can ski anything an alpine skier can. it's not the gear that's inferior ... it's your technique.
Tele... no dice, man. The original poster wanted to emphasize the climbing, not the skiing. Front pointing with floppy toes is just plain dumb. People do it... I don't care... still dumb. The lack of a DIN standard for the majority of tele releasable bindings makes for an unwarrented safety hazard in avalanche terrain... having the front of your ski shovel into snow while ascending is a waste of energy... Want more? To paraphrase an article in Coulior "the reason you tele is the same reason a dog licks himself - because you can." You know it, I know it...
DM
|
|
|
|
|
vulgarian
Jul 9, 2003, 8:48 PM
Post #16 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 381
|
I have to agree with Dingus. Don't get sucked in. I do all types and my Tele boards are the last ones grabbed unless it is specifically to do some tele skiing (read, as not doing any DIFFICULT approuch, climbing, and usually under very good snow conditions) Tele is hard to master on mixed or marginal terrain. It is terribly hard in the crud. I know this from experience. I would, as well as others, consider myself a very advanced skier (I consider steep, icy, fvcked-up slopes neccessary practice) and Tele is still more difficult than easy for me to become even an immediate level skier at.
I like the AT set-up for its versitility. Don't get me wrong. Tele is fun, in a sort of suffering way. For me, tele is both an aesthetic and ascetic style, like ALWAYS pulling at your limit. After a while, its just no fun. That said, I like the Denali/Diamir set up on a versitle set of boards, because I prefer to be able to jump on the steeps when I get the chance. A softer boot would be recommended however if you don't ski too agressively.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Jul 9, 2003, 9:11 PM
Post #17 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
Here is another option.
http://www.backcountrystore.com/...6&product_id=BCA0001
Probably not what you're looking for voodoo, since you said you were more concerned with climbing, but I thought I'd post it here for others who might be interested.
This setup works if you've already got alpine gear and will only get to do some ski mountaineering a few times a year (like me, living in Texas and all).
A set of Trekkers and some skins on your normal alpine gear and your moving uphill. I use them on my X-Screams. Yeah, it's a heavy setup, but it works, and for downhill performance you can't beat it. You can wear your ski boots or climbing boots uphill, then take off the skins and trekkers and ski down in your normal ski boots.
And for you tele dorks (just kidding) who say you can ski anything we alpine freaks can, sure, you can ski the terrain, but you can't ski it LIKE we can. Pounding bumps, I mean REALLY pounding 'em? Screaming through the trees? Big air? I've yet to see any teles that can keep up. (I'll just duck now)
|
|
|
|
|
meataxe
Jul 9, 2003, 10:29 PM
Post #18 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1162
|
Another alternative I've heard of for straightforward climbing/descending is this: A pair of short skis for the ascent and snowboard for the descent.
I've only heard of this... not sure if many people actually practice this. Has anyone tried it?
Not much good for touring, I would guess.
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Jul 9, 2003, 10:48 PM
Post #19 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
That's a lot of carrying crap.
|
|
|
|
|
deleted
Deleted
Jul 9, 2003, 11:03 PM
Post #20 of 44
(4532 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
[quote:22470572c1="hugepedro"]And for you tele dorks (just kidding) who say you can ski anything we alpine freaks can, sure, you can ski the terrain, but you can't ski it LIKE we can. Pounding bumps, I mean REALLY pounding 'em? Screaming through the trees? Big air? I've yet to see any teles that can keep up. (I'll just duck now)[/quote:22470572c1]
yeah, you'd BETTER duck, pedro! :lol:
exept for the bumps -- which i've always eschewed, and quite possibly why my knees are wholy intact -- not only can i KEEP UP with most expert alpine skiers ... i look GOOD riding in STYYYYYLE, bay-bee! 8)
have you ever SEEN an expert pinhead negotiating bumps? poetry in motion ...
|
|
|
|
|
madturtle
Jul 9, 2003, 11:18 PM
Post #21 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2002
Posts: 165
|
how is it that there aren't more pinners on this site :?: I just started tele about a year ago and I'd say I ski 95% of the terrain I skied before (maybe 35 ski days). And just the fact that it's w/o training heels gives it mucho more style in my opinion. I never really got into freestyle but bumps, tree's, steeps even dropped a few cliffs, whatever conditions I wouldn't lock down my heel again if you paid me. If you are adement about not learning a new skill than I wouldn't bother, It takes some work and beats on your thighs. Like someone else said it's like climbing trad or leading for that matter; you don't do it because it's easier but once you do you'll never want to go back. BTW...I don't know anyone who used to alpine ski or used to snowboard. This is obviously not much of a suggestion to the original poster considering his personal goals I just couldn't believe how little support there is on this site for free heeling so I had to cast my vote.
Hey skibabeage how is it a badass mtn girl like you doesn't know how to tele yet? If you are ever in CA let me know I'd be glad to show you.
|
|
|
|
|
csoles
Jul 10, 2003, 3:43 AM
Post #22 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2002
Posts: 329
|
Skibabeage, you spent 2 seasons at WP and haven't learned to tele yet?? What's up with that! Please don't say you're a knuckle dragger.
I suspect a lot of the folks who talk about how hard telemark is haven't tried any good gear in the past couple of seasons. It's a whole different ballgame these days.
That said, tele makes little sense for mountaineering (until we get NTN). AT gear certainly gives more versatility and performance (depending on boots) than any other system.
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
Jul 10, 2003, 5:15 AM
Post #23 of 44
(4535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
In reply to: how is it that there aren't more pinners on this site
We're here dude. We just let Mtngeo handle the weak trolls cause he does it with such aplomb.
Personally I think sliding down a hill on old hunks of plywood is the only way you can descend a mountain. Anyone who tells you they are having fun doing something other than the plywood thing is lying. Cause plywood is where it's at... on this issue there can be no debate. (I hope everyone thinks I have a huge COCK now that I told em' teles are WAK.) :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
olympicmtnboy
Jul 10, 2003, 6:28 AM
Post #24 of 44
(4540 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 4, 2003
Posts: 270
|
Anbody tried those little short approach skis like the Rossignol Venture Free Trek or the Kong Grimper? They're like 100 cm skis that have kind of AT bindings (with heel lifters and skins for climbing) and fit crampon compatible boots. Maybe not the best ride down but if you're looking to ski to the climb they might be fun.
|
|
|
|
|
dead_milkman
Jul 10, 2003, 3:02 PM
Post #25 of 44
(4545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 241
|
In reply to: Clyde's right, though. Tele gear has come such a long way in the past few years - look particularly at K2's sidecuts (for women, She's Piste). As with alpine skis, the deep parabolics make turns easier and faster. Consider also buying a soft alpine ski with a deep sidecut and mount tele bindings - same same, folks, and less expensive.
I've been skiing Volkl Vertigos (CMH editions, of course) for the past couple of seasons -- a couple ski partners use the same ski with tele bindings. This is a great ski, albeit a bit heavy (metal top sheet, 118/90/110, all that jazz), but I honestly have no clue how those poor bastards push those things up hills. My skis, boots, and Diamirs weigh significantly less than their skis, T1s, and bindings... and I don't have to deal with a "race" spring shovelling the tips into the snow when I'm going up. Tele's cool, don't get me wrong, but if you want functional... then tele's just not it, nor will it ever be. More work, heavier, less safe, can't use crampons properly, slower... but cool. Your pick, I suppose...
|
|
|
|
|
deleted
Deleted
Jul 10, 2003, 4:03 PM
Post #26 of 44
(4003 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
[quote:fce671ce94="dead_milkman"]My skis, boots, and Diamirs weigh significantly less than their skis, T1s, and bindings... and I don't have to deal with a "race" spring shovelling the tips into the snow when I'm going up. Tele's cool, don't get me wrong, but if you want functional... then tele's just not it, nor will it ever be. More work, heavier, less safe, can't use crampons properly, slower... but cool. Your pick, I suppose...[/quote:fce671ce94]
*in chevy chase character* milkman, you ignorant slut. :lol:
i've been skiing the scarpa t-race boot in the backcountry (because i enjoy a burly boot), along with rainey superloop bindings on wide boards, and i've never had a problem with weight. i'm kind of a big guy, so that might have something to do with it, but it's pretty easy to adapt.
as far as my tips shovelling, i always wear my boots loosely on the climb. this allows more forward travel for my shins and thereby eliminates any tendency for my tips to dive. again, i simply adapt.
can't use crampons? there are some pretty good models out for tele right now, but personally i still prefer to go without. if it gets TOO steep, i simply don my boot crampons -- which fit VERY well -- and motor on.
i think it comes down to what one is comfortable with.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 10, 2003, 4:27 PM
Post #27 of 44
(4011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Clyde's right, though. Tele gear has come such a long way in the past few years - look particularly at K2's sidecuts (for women, She's Piste). As with alpine skis, the deep parabolics make turns easier and faster. Consider also buying a soft alpine ski with a deep sidecut and mount tele bindings - same same, folks, and less expensive.
Advances smanches, ya mon, sure. The real advance is just a year or two away... fixed heels. Tele gear is STILL inferior from a downhill performance standpoint. If a person is taking up tele just to take up tele, GO FOR IT! It's fun and demanding and difficult to learn. But if you want to be in demanding backcountry conditions ASAP or have even a smattering of alpine aspirations, you will be far ahead to go AT, especially if you already have fixed heel experience.
Cheers,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
deleted
Deleted
Jul 10, 2003, 4:33 PM
Post #28 of 44
(4003 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
dingus -- DOOD! where do you live? come on up to the colorado highcountry and let's go turn for turn. it's not about the gear.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 10, 2003, 4:45 PM
Post #29 of 44
(4011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: dingus -- DOOD! where do you live? come on up to the colorado highcountry and let's go turn for turn. it's not about the gear.
My man (?) I'm not dissing tele. I've done it for years. I am simply speaking the truth. Tele does not perform as well in down hill mode as fixed heel, it's more strenuous and takes longer to learn.
That said I'd be happy to link some turns! AT, tele, whatever, I agree, it's about the turns, not the gear.
But say, if it isn't about the gear... why the advances?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
deleted
Deleted
Jul 10, 2003, 5:01 PM
Post #30 of 44
(4003 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
[quote:2fc542d504="dingus"]But say, if it isn't about the gear... why the advances?[/quote:2fc542d504]
because, admittedly, telemark was left behind in the dark ages for far too long while alpine advanced. with more and more alpine skiers making the crossover, it was only logical that tele technology would have to close the gap or risk losing their interest.
alpine is popular, no doubt. but a large component of that popularity is due to the fact alpine has a very steep learning curve -- with today's forgiving gear, a raw beginner can go from falling to passably making his way down blue runs with a few day's worth of professional lessons.
the same is not true for telemark. with tele you have to be on your a-game the whole time or ullr will smite thee mightily!
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 10, 2003, 5:04 PM
Post #31 of 44
(4011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Right on Bro, I understand your point about the industry. But I agree with Clyde in that tele gear has gotten better; better boots, bindings, skis, the whole works. Not just cosmetic. Still doesn't match fixed heel performance though.
Oh, and ski industry numbers are and have been flat for a few years, or so I've read. They are fighting over a stagnant market share. And a lot of the new "skiers" don't ski at all.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
deleted
Deleted
Jul 10, 2003, 5:06 PM
Post #32 of 44
(4003 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
agreed, brother dingus.
now let's rail on those rat-b@astard snowboarders! :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 10, 2003, 5:07 PM
Post #33 of 44
(4011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: alpine is popular, no doubt. but a large component of that popularity is due to the fact alpine has a very steep learning curve -- with today's forgiving gear, a raw beginner can go from falling to passably making his way down blue runs with a few day's worth of professional lessons. the same is not true for telemark. with tele you have to be on your a-game the whole time or ullr will smite thee mightily!
Right on, exactly what I have been saying... fixed heel is easier to learn and easier to do. When you're on top of a peak looking down 1000 feet of boiler plate and wind slab, and you had a choice, which would you rather tackle that terrain on?
Since I always bring my B game to the mountains I need every edge the gear can give me.
Cheers,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
deleted
Deleted
Jul 10, 2003, 5:10 PM
Post #34 of 44
(4003 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
agreed again.
so it comes down to dancin' with the one what brung ya'.
i'm a rock-solid pinhead ... but i SUCK at alpine!
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 10, 2003, 5:18 PM
Post #35 of 44
(4011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Well we did it dude! We averted a potential flame war about ski gear on a rock climbing forum. Chalk one up for the good guys.
Cheers and happy turns
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Jul 10, 2003, 5:18 PM
Post #36 of 44
(4011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
Yeah! Bag on the knuckle-draggers!! :)
|
|
|
|
|
deleted
Deleted
Jul 10, 2003, 5:19 PM
Post #37 of 44
(4003 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Jul 10, 2003, 5:40 PM
Post #38 of 44
(4011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: now let's rail on those rat-b@astard snowboarders! :lol:
In reply to: Yeah! Bag on the knuckle-draggers!! :)
Exactly why I make most of my turns at Taos - wicked terrain and no punk-arse skateboarder wannabes.
* Pedro ducks from the room again *
:D
|
|
|
|
|
icculus
Jul 10, 2003, 5:42 PM
Post #39 of 44
(4011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 32
|
...and the reason people don't take up tele is because they are not good enough skiers to begin with. C'mon...if it were easy it would be called snowboarding. :P
I have alpine skied for over 30 years and recently converted (yes converted!) to tele last season and I will NEVER go back to a fixed heel. I agree, it is much easier to become proficient at tele skiing if you are a solid alpine skier. If you are an average alpine skier, AT is a great option...free heel for ascent, fixed heel for the descent, and the gear is as light as tele gear nowadays, so no worries strapping them to your pack.
As far as front-pointing in tele boots is concerned, that's what crampons are for! If I am climbing a steep, firm couloir where front-pointing is that tiring, I should have crampons anyway. When the snow is soft enough (timing is everything), front-pointing is tele boots is a breeze, and IMO tele boots are quite comfortable.
Enough tele bashing. Just because you can't do it, doesn't mean it ain't cool! It is.
|
|
|
|
|
meataxe
Jul 10, 2003, 5:51 PM
Post #40 of 44
(4011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1162
|
In reply to: Anbody tried those little short approach skis like the Rossignol Venture Free Trek or the Kong Grimper? They're like 100 cm skis that have kind of AT bindings (with heel lifters and skins for climbing) and fit crampon compatible boots. Maybe not the best ride down but if you're looking to ski to the climb they might be fun.
That's what I was talking about... I've heard of snowboarders using these as an alternative to snowshoes for their ascents. Anyone try this?
Presumably you can set it up to use the same boots for ski and board.
|
|
|
|
|
deleted
Deleted
Jul 10, 2003, 7:09 PM
Post #41 of 44
(4003 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
haven't seen the short approach skis, but i DID see this cat working out with his split board last season. we two-plankers had NOTHING on this guy!
pretty impressive.
|
|
|
|
|
madturtle
Jul 11, 2003, 5:50 PM
Post #42 of 44
(4011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2002
Posts: 165
|
In reply to: C'mon...if it were easy it would be called snowboarding.
http://www.yobeat.com/features/teleski.htm
I must be a #1 finally graduated from #4 :D .
I think DMT is a #3 :wink: . Hope we can get out and make some turns together this winter. Whatever gear you wanna slide on I won't give you any flack for it.
edited: to make link work
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 11, 2003, 6:04 PM
Post #43 of 44
(4011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
That hurt madturtle! A hypocrite pinner? Me?
The vast majority of people I ski with are boarders. I don't go to skis-only resorts (don't like the Yup crowd). In the BC it's all good if you can keep up.
In fact, I would go so far as to say I prefer to ski with boarders, by far. They have the best bob marley.
Nothing like a Safety Meeting in the Cave at Sugar Bowl, eh? EH?
Huh? You DO know what I'm talking about you crazy reptile, don't you?
Cheers!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
madturtle
Jul 11, 2003, 6:25 PM
Post #44 of 44
(4011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2002
Posts: 165
|
hypocrite...no, you definately speak your mind consistently just the jack of all trades, not an insult at all. I think with all the ball breaking you do around here you should have some pretty thick skin, so I'm sure nothing I could say would hurt too bad.
In the bc I agree boarders are a blast. In bounds those crazy guys never see the attraction to bumps so they're a drag. You'll have to introduce me to the cave crowd, I've only been behind sugarbowl once.
The only ski only resort I've been to is Mad river glen. Definately not a yup crowd. I think all the real yuppie places are the family resorts that wouldn't want to exclude the kids that board anyway.
-crazy reptile
edited-left out some text
|
|
|
|
|
|
