🚀 go-pugleaf

I have heard good things about the Glissade  boots from the  powderheads
in this  area.  It is really  hard to go wrong  with a Merrel  (sp?)  or
Asolo  boot.  For the type of skiing you would be doing,  the 350 sounds
like an excellent choice.

Around here, the ski of choice is the Fischer Europa 99.  It has a GREAT
wax pocket (much  better than the Karhus), and turns really well in soft
snow.  However,  it is not  very  stiff,  so it does not do well in hard
pack or crud.  I heard that  Fischer  modified it slightly  this year to
make it more of an all  around ski - that is, they made it  stiffer  and
more like the Karhus.

No feedback on the partial edges yet.  Sounds like a gimmick to me.

One of the best things you can buy are adjustable poles.  There are many
models  out now, and they are worth  every  cent you pay for.  It really
helps  having a short  pole when  trying  to  telemark,  and most of the
models can be put  together to form an  avalanche  probe or for using to
put air holes in your snow cave.

Don't get caught up in  tech-weeenie-itis.  A few solid  investments  in
boots,  skiis, poles, and clothing is all that is necessary.  Then start
backcountry  skiing with someone who can teach you all the essentials of
mountain travel, telemarking, etc.  and start enjoying the experience.


paul beiser
ft. collins, co

In article <1937@zehntel.UUCP> davel@zehntel.UUCP (David Longerbeam) writes:
>I am considering buying some backcountry equipment...  I have heard
>various arguments against some of the heavier touring bindings...
>
>My usage will be a lot of off trail, backcountry day-tripping,
>including a lot of screwing around on hills trying [:-)] to
>telemark...  Not sure about full-length edges -- hear they slow you down
>too much for touring, and I'm not LOOKING for ice.

Edges are no substitute for edging.  The narrower ski and more flexible
binding demand better technique.  Except for ice and hard-pack, plastic
does just as well as metal.  The important things to look for are flex
and side-cut.

Be sure to pick a ski with sufficient flex for a wax (or pattern) pocket.
Many of the high-priced telemark skis are useless for going uphill!  Look
for generous side-cut; it will make up for needing the stiffer flex.

For general back-country use, I think it is more important to save weight
then to have iron-maiden boots.  My Merrill/Saloman boots are torse enough
for telemarking, yet light enough to still have fun in tracks.

Generally speaking, you can get by with a lot of equipment and little
technique, or a lot of technique and very little equipment.  I hate to see
people go the easy route, getting expensive, heavy telemark equipment,
because the equipment covers a multitude of sins, and makes real learning
more difficult by masking the mechanics of skiing with hardware.

Sure, stick your feet in the high-tech plastic rear-entry quasi-downhill
boots, clamp them on the super-wide, reverse cambered downhill-by-any-other-
name boards, and you'll be able to telemark, but you won't know why, and
you'll feel pretty silly the first time someone on parallel-cut double
cambered racing skis passes you!

(Down!  Down!  Get off that soapbox!)  I've used the Karhus, they seem
like a good compromise ski, useful for both up and down.
-- 
:::::: Artificial   Intelligence   Machines   ---   Smalltalk   Project ::::::
:::::: Jan Steinman		Box 1000, MS 60-405	(w)503/685-2956 ::::::
:::::: tektronix!tekecs!jans	Wilsonville, OR 97070	(h)503/657-7703 ::::::

In article <1937@zehntel.UUCP> davel@zehntel.UUCP (David Longerbeam) writes:
>
>Does anyone have experience with the Asolo Glissade 350 boot?

  I'm not familiar w/Glissade model numbers (they refer to boot height, don't
they ?). I use Asolo Snowfields for telemarking, for which they're great.
I've skied the medium-height Glissades a few times and recommend them highly
for what you're describing. The front half of the sole is very stiff, which
turns what might otherwise be a decent TMing boot into a fairly good one.
Obviously it's noticably easier for trail work than the Snowfield. In my
limited equipment exposure, this would have to be the ideal general, non-
"expedition" backcountry boot.

>How about the Epoke 900, Fischer Touring Crown, or the new

  Skied Touring Crown's a couple of times, like most general purpose "wax-
less" ski, they kinda suck. Or, in nicer terms, as good as most. Am I be-
traying arrogance here :-? Personaly, I like my Bonna 2400's: meant to
be a general-use mountaineering ski, they're semi-light (2400 grams) with
a full metal edge, tough (well tough enough, I only weigh 155) and fast.
the full metal edge has not been an encurberance, but they're wider than
most track skis and often won't fit in a machine cut track (bummer, I
guess I'll go back to the boonies :-).
   As an aside, out of impatience I've
(un)developed a technique for waxing, particulary appropriate for California
where conditions change fairly quickly: don't. Since I TM at the lifts alot,
wax, esp klister can be a nuisance. By poling a little harder and/or a
firmer step-down on the near-flat, and herringboning or whatever up the
steep stuff one can get by fairly well. This would affect one's
route selections away from the steady ascent approach. Obviously, this 
can't always work, and will be inappropriate for most, but it saves me
waxing effort and keeps the skis (and my car,hands,hair,etc..) klister free.
Just throw on some hard/glide wax at the start of the season, and off
you go, especially downhill (real efficient there).
You off-track hacks "stuck" with wax-oriented skis might try this someday
if you're curious. (No I'm not kidding, I actually like this approach).
Anyway, A friend w/good experience likes Epoke's.

>Karhu Edge skiis (the ones with the partial metal edge)?

  I've liked both Kahru's and Kazama's. Sturdy, highperfomance. I've
skied my girlfriend's partial metal edge, and am impressed with that
design, too.

>Also bindings -- I have heard various arguments against 
>some of the heavier touring bindings -- especially that they
>can ruin the welts of your boots.  Anyone have any experience

  Not much experience here, though I might add that the standard binding
has put welts on my welts under heavy use. sorry, maybe I shouldn't have
said that :-(  Telemarkers note that there are now releasable 3-pin bin-
dings, w/beefier springs now so the big guys won't release so easily.

>Not sure about full-length edges -- hear they slow you down too much

  naw, they're fine... and macho, too! is that a plus ???
>
>So let's get discussing!  Eugene Miya, are you out there?
>

  Eugene, any tips for the novice on use of skins ? If you've had the
patience to read all this, you know how much I like wax, and waxless
skis. Thanx.

>This should keep me going until I can actually get to the 
>mountains!  :-)

  see ya there :-), tomp.

> 
>   Eugene, any tips for the novice on use of skins ? If you've had the
> patience to read all this, you know how much I like wax, and waxless
> skis. Thanx.
> 
>   see ya there :-), tomp.

Sure:
1) try to borrow a pair first.
My first pair were some 68 mm (?) Colltex synthetic jobs and first generation
Ramers borrowed from Dave Beck.  My glaciologists friends laughed at
the adhesive, they use strapped skins, I don't know the maker.  I've also
used, courtesy of Beck, real seal skins from the US Army (1940s).
The problems with the adhesive skins are two fold: a) don't get them
wet (keep them as dry as possible), not too hard to do, but can get to
be a pain if you put them on and take them off and b) every year or so,
you need to recoat them with Colltex adhesive.  Keeping the synthetic
skins clean is no problem, an occasional damp kerosene rag keeps the glide
reasonable.  You might be able to use Maxiglide.  Skiing in areas
of timber put a lot of muck into the hairs.  Skins should be as
durable as possible.  I've a few good but small tears in mine.
There is some downhill traction.
Traction: not as good as waxing, but better for up and down steep hills.

You should ask why you want skins.  I have them for steep uphills on
approaches to extreme slopes, and for load carrying when helping friends
work.  They are nice to have to emergencies when traction is an absolute
necessary: pulling a sled for instance.

Skins can be expensive.  With three-pin (generic), it's better to
get the slightly wider skins if you are edging or side-hill traversing
on steeper terrain: the farther the skin is away from your edges, the
less traction you get.  I've seen 1/2 skins: no experience with them,
they might be okay, I need full length for what I do.

2) my suggestion:
find a pair of skins with straps and put adhesive on them for bonding.

3) some X-C skis use Mohair for their no wax base:  I've heard the factory
will replace the Mohair when it gets pulled out in time.

Hope this is enough.

12/24-12/29
Joshua Tree: No significant snow (patches in the shade) lots of
people climbing rocks. Snow above Los Angeles 7-8000 ft North
exposures such as San Jacinto and Baldy, 9500 on Southern exposures.

Yosemite: just returned today: RAIN at 7000 ft. Red stick wax if
you want to ski. 38 F at dawn. 1(trees)-3(resort) feet of base with a
slight crust.  Visibility: 100 meters with medium drizzle.
No new snow yet.  Even the downhillers were retreating.

Next report will be either Crater Lake or Inyos.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA

> .... any tips for the novice on use of skins ? 

In the Cascades, most people start using skins as soon as they get off
the beaten trails and out of the flat valleys.  With the changeable 
snow around here and the generally rough terrain, skins perform much 
better than wax.  On most backcountry trips, you are either going up a 
big hill or coming down one, so the extra time needed to install and 
remove the skins is paid off by their increased efficiency.  If you 
aren't climbing much, they aren't necessary.

For nordic skis, the best skins available seem to be the adhesive kind.
Since they don't shift around, and snow can't build up between the 
skin and the ski, they offer the highest performance.  This is especially
noticeable when you are traversing on firm snow.  A strap-on skin can be
very tricky in these conditions.  Unfortunately, you run the risk of
having the adhesive fail, so most skiers carry some adhesive tape as a 
backup.  There are some flexible plastic strap-on skins (Snake-Skin 
brand?) which I think are much cheaper.  You get what you pay for,
though, and they don't glide or climb as well.

For alpine skis, adhesive skins are not such a clear winner, because
there are good strap-ons available.  These are the Vinersa type (European), 
which use a system of metal and rubber clips to strap around the ski.
Unfortunately, they are probably the most expensive skins around, and 
they are hard to find (in Seattle at least).  The thing I like about them
is that they are absolutely reliable--the metal clip cannot be cut by
your edges and they always work, no matter how wet or grimy your ski 
bases get.  They also go on and off faster than the adhesives, an 
advantage if you are yo-yoing up and down some hill to take ski runs.
They do shift a little, and can get snow build-up, but for me this is 
outweighed by the advantages already mentioned.

					Lowell Skoog
					Seattle, Washington