Serious reviews/discussion of Day Touring gear?

That's what I'm looking for.

True performance reviews and comparisons. Not just among new products
but with the best of the past in mind.

I would think that the vast majority of skiers might find such info to
be helpful and interesting, as it's the vast majority of skiing. (But
who knows, maybe the sport is shifting from ski-anywhere to
specialized destination-oriented---it would take a lot of shifting but
it could happen! I have gotten some feedback that reps were interested
in resorts/classes/rentals in terms of daytouring and personal tastes
in terms of tele. An interesting neglect of the backyard daytourist!
Maybe I need to find Woody. WOODYYYY!)

--JP

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:42:49 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of
OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:

I would think that the vast majority of skiers might find such info to
be helpful and interesting, as it's the vast majority of skiing.

You've got a logical problem if one one hand you talk about the vast
majority and on the other you've got idiosyncratic views of what is
right to use - views that don't agree with that people would buy now.

On Dec 19, 8:42 am, "Jeff Potter (of OutYourBackdoor.com)"
wrote:
That's what I'm looking for.

True performance reviews and comparisons. Not just among new products
but with the best of the past in mind.

I would think that the vast majority of skiers might find such info to
be helpful and interesting, as it's the vast majority of skiing. (But
who knows, maybe the sport is shifting from ski-anywhere to
specialized destination-oriented---it would take a lot of shifting but
it could happen! I have gotten some feedback that reps were interested
in resorts/classes/rentals in terms of daytouring and personal tastes
in terms of tele. An interesting neglect of the backyard daytourist!
Maybe I need to find Woody. WOODYYYY!)

--JP

I would be interested in this discussion too, but why waste time
talking about the best of the past? We want info for future
purchases. Nobody wants to know how excellent my 70's era Naronnas
were. I like modern boots better.

On Dec 19, 7:31 pm, Camilo wrote:
On Dec 19, 8:42 am, "Jeff Potter (of OutYourBackdoor.com)"



wrote:
That's what I'm looking for.

True performance reviews and comparisons. Not just among new products
but with the best of the past in mind.

I would think that the vast majority of skiers might find such info to
be helpful and interesting, as it's the vast majority of skiing. (But
who knows, maybe the sport is shifting from ski-anywhere to
specialized destination-oriented---it would take a lot of shifting but
it could happen! I have gotten some feedback that reps were interested
in resorts/classes/rentals in terms of daytouring and personal tastes
in terms of tele. An interesting neglect of the backyard daytourist!
Maybe I need to find Woody. WOODYYYY!)

--JP

I would be interested in this discussion too, but why waste time
talking about the best of the past? We want info for future
purchases.

It's good to keep a running baseline. For instance, the new midlength
skis might will all glide and float with various abilities relative to
each other. I'll then want to know how those figures compare to the
best of full-length skis from a few years ago. See why old is
important?

It may be that ski building skill of awhile ago was more advanced than
it is today. Maybe highest quality isn't cost effective. Why was my
top of line touring ski lighter 17 years ago than the comparable ski
today? It was very strong and performed perfectly. Maybe the new
midlength skis have measurable benefits. Let's evaluate them...in
light of previous best art, as the innovators say.

Cycling right now is going thru a phase where they're reclaiming
higher quality from previous eras. Especially in terms of versatility
and allround geometries. Road bikes that had clearance for plump tires
or broken spokes were gone for a few years. They're coming back now.
Maybe they're not TdF bikes but they're better for most day-riders.

Nobody wants to know how excellent my 70's era Naronnas
were. I like modern boots better.

We'd want to know about your Naronnas if they were excellent in the
sense of being better than modern boots.

To appreciate the new-style tour boots with cuffs we'd want to compare
them to each other...and to one of the best prior-era boots, to use as
a baseline.

--JP

On Dec 19, 7:08 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:42:49 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of

OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:
I would think that the vast majority of skiers might find such info to
be helpful and interesting, as it's the vast majority of skiing.

You've got a logical problem if one one hand you talk about the vast
majority and on the other you've got idiosyncratic views of what is
right to use - views that don't agree with that people would buy now.

Why are you so contrary?

Point out an idiosyncratic view that I have.

My stated standards for skis a glide, flotation, stability,
control, weight, reliability, versatility. I'll add price i there just
to be safe. And graphic design, too.

The Fischer Touring Light Aircore fulllength woodcore ski of 1990
*ROCKED* those values---being good both in and out of track. And
basically perfect for homestyle skied-in trails in mellow terrain. I
allege this to be the most common ski situation. (It fell back only
slightly on graphic design, thankfully just missing out on the 80's
Miami Vice green/pink era. Their more recent all-red Country ski seems
like a winner with rock-solid graphics. Their new dark blue plus
computerized chunks seems an *almost* dull step back, but still semi-
OK for design.)

That ski is my personal bar to compare other daytour skis to. Others
can describe their own.

A very UN-idiosyncratic approach.

The only "weird" thing it assumes is skier enthusiasm and competence.
It assumes the pursuit of a high-end daytour ski.

I note that corporate ski values might include mine, but they also
include cost of manufacture (and shipping) and market size realities
and market ease of service. In the case of daytouring skis this MIGHT
put a beginner ski-school ski in a small (?) faraway market ahead of a
individualized market for a performance daytouring ski. It might also
put a heavy cap ski ahead of a hand made ski. Etc.

I *DID* just get word from on high that midlength skis aren't bad.
With the caveat to DEMO TIL YA DROP. ...We need more data, obviously.
I will gladly demo a midlength! ...And will appreciate other folks'
midlength reports.

--JP

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:13:10 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of
OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:

On Dec 19, 7:08 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:42:49 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of

OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:
I would think that the vast majority of skiers might find such info to
be helpful and interesting, as it's the vast majority of skiing.

You've got a logical problem if one one hand you talk about the vast
majority and on the other you've got idiosyncratic views of what is
right to use - views that don't agree with that people would buy now.

Why are you so contrary?

Why are you so sloppy with your thinking.

Point out an idiosyncratic view that I have.

My stated standards for skis a glide, flotation, stability,
control, weight, reliability, versatility. I'll add price i there just
to be safe. And graphic design, too.

The Fischer Touring Light Aircore fulllength woodcore ski of 1990
*ROCKED* those values---being good both in and out of track.

Ask yourself a simple question. If they "rocked" in general, why are
they not sold today?

I'm not saying newer is always better, or the "latest and greatest"
stuff is necessarily the best, but ask yourself why is it that you
long for stuff that most other people wouldn't use anymore if they
have a choice.

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:39:06 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of
OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:

It's good to keep a running baseline. For instance, the new midlength
skis might will all glide and float with various abilities relative to
each other. I'll then want to know how those figures compare to the
best of full-length skis from a few years ago. See why old is
important?

It may be that ski building skill of awhile ago was more advanced than
it is today. Maybe highest quality isn't cost effective. Why was my
top of line touring ski lighter 17 years ago than the comparable ski
today? It was very strong and performed perfectly. Maybe the new
midlength skis have measurable benefits. Let's evaluate them...in
light of previous best art, as the innovators say.

They don't make em like they used to, the good old days, real
craftsmanship is dead, blah, blah blah.

On Dec 19, 11:49 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:39:06 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of

OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:
It's good to keep a running baseline. For instance, the new midlength
skis might will all glide and float with various abilities relative to
each other. I'll then want to know how those figures compare to the
best of full-length skis from a few years ago. See why old is
important?

It may be that ski building skill of awhile ago was more advanced than
it is today. Maybe highest quality isn't cost effective. Why was my
top of line touring ski lighter 17 years ago than the comparable ski
today? It was very strong and performed perfectly. Maybe the new
midlength skis have measurable benefits. Let's evaluate them...in
light of previous best art, as the innovators say.

They don't make em like they used to, the good old days, real
craftsmanship is dead, blah, blah blah.

I'm being specific. You're acting weird. I'm perfectly happy when
improvements come along: NNN is better than 75. Carbon poles are
better than bamboo.)

JFT: If you would post CIVILLY then RSN would be a better place.

--JP

"Jeff Potter (of OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote in
message
...


The Fischer Touring Light Aircore fulllength woodcore ski of 1990
*ROCKED* those values---being good both in and out of track. And
basically perfect for homestyle skied-in trails in mellow terrain. I
allege this to be the most common ski situation. (It fell back only
slightly on graphic design, thankfully just missing out on the 80's
Miami Vice green/pink era. Their more recent all-red Country ski seems
like a winner with rock-solid graphics. Their new dark blue plus
computerized chunks seems an *almost* dull step back, but still semi-
OK for design.)


I had to laugh at your "Miami Vice green/pink era" comment. That was
definitely one of the low points in sports gear graphic design. Remember
mountain bikes with psychadelic random-paint-spattering schemes? Or
those Kastle skating skis with the day-glo green bases?


I *DID* just get word from on high that midlength skis aren't bad.
With the caveat to DEMO TIL YA DROP. ...We need more data, obviously.
I will gladly demo a midlength! ...And will appreciate other folks'
midlength reports.

--JP

I view all this "short" or "mid-length" stuff as just another marketing
ploy. I learned
to ski, as did many from my generation, on traditional length light touring
gear.
Everything is a trade-off, and one thing you sacrifice with shorter skis is
fore-aft
stability (and perhaps some glide). As for quality - well, there were some
great
skis produced back in the day, and there were some dogs. Nordic skiing
and mountain biking both went through boom phases, and a lot of junk got
manufactured.

To answer your original question, JP: My first skis, I think (that was
long time
ago), were Fischer Royales (waxable). Then I skied a pair of Fiber Crowns
into the
ground. I've got a pair of Country Crowns that I've always thought were
heavy
and slow (compared to the other Fischer skis I owned). Finally, in a vain
attempt to re-capture my youth, I've purchased a pair of Fischer Sport Glass
(waxable) light touring skis, which I'm going to install some 3-pin bindings
on.

I'm with you, I would happily demo a shorter ski, but it would have to glide
as well as a full length ski for me to get very excited about it. This is
supposed
to be a gliding sport. If I didn't want to glide, I'd take up snow-shoeing.

-JJ

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 05:36:01 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of
OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:

On Dec 19, 11:49 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:39:06 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of

OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:
It's good to keep a running baseline. For instance, the new midlength
skis might will all glide and float with various abilities relative to
each other. I'll then want to know how those figures compare to the
best of full-length skis from a few years ago. See why old is
important?

It may be that ski building skill of awhile ago was more advanced than
it is today. Maybe highest quality isn't cost effective. Why was my
top of line touring ski lighter 17 years ago than the comparable ski
today? It was very strong and performed perfectly. Maybe the new
midlength skis have measurable benefits. Let's evaluate them...in
light of previous best art, as the innovators say.

They don't make em like they used to, the good old days, real
craftsmanship is dead, blah, blah blah.

I'm being specific. You're acting weird. I'm perfectly happy when
improvements come along: NNN is better than 75. Carbon poles are
better than bamboo.)

JFT: If you would post CIVILLY then RSN would be a better place.

If people would not say SILLY things like "performed perfectly" about
something and set that up as a reference to judge newer stuffl RSN
would be a better place.

If people would not say such subjective and BIZARRE things as black
clothes don't work RSN would be a better place.