Alpine bindings on Telemark skis?

Ron - NY wrote:
...

Ron - NY wrote:

I just looked at my Salomon 1080's and they have replaceable sol pieces .
Mine aren't too worn but I guess i'll replace them soon . These are only
my 3rd pair of boots but I couldn't be happier with the comfort of these
boots . They always feel comfortable , never gave me an ounce of foot
pain anywhere . I can ski in them all day without having to loosen the
buckles to rest my feet . Your mileage may vary
Ron

I wouldn't replace them out of hand. I'd have the shop measure
the amount of wear when doing a release check, and if the wear
is in parameters, don't replace until they begin to show
"excessive" wear. Also, if you walk a lot in your boots consider
investing in a pair of "cat tracks". Your shop will know the name.



Yep , I've heard of those . I always ski midweek so I guess another fringe
benefit is closer parking . Even though I love my boots I might consider
replacing them by the time those heel pieces wear out , but then again maybe
not . But this leads me to thinking about something else , what the longest
( or maybe I should say oldest ) you kept a pair of boots ? I don't mean in
the closet , I mean still using ?
Ron

Heh, I skied a lot in the 60's. New boots every year, sometimes
more often and I had a line on warranty returns that the warehouse
just threw out for want of a buckle, etc. so it was easy. Then I
got married. Then I had kids. Then I was poor. My last pair of
boots from that era was a pair of Hanson Riva Softs with the waxed
liner. I skied those from about 1972, one to 5 times a year until
1991. The liner had rotted in the meantime which I replaced with
liners from a pair of Raichle rear entry boots. That's my record.

In 1990 I got back into skiing by getting a PT job at a local area.
Got a job at Killington the next year and for three years after
and then went to my volunteer job which I've had for 10 years with
LOTS more skiing. This past winter was a year for experiment. I
bought and sold 4 pair of boots along with my alpine boots and
AT boots which I've had for a couple of years. At present I have
my Salomon XWave 10's as stiff alpine boots (2yo), My Lowa
AT boots (1yo) and a pair of Rossignol Soft (new this year but
previous season model) and I have a pair of light tele boots for
the back yard. The back yard btw is several thousand acres of
the Chateauguay/No Town Conservation area. Trouble was there
wasn't much snow out there last year.

VtSkier

VtSkier wrote:
ant wrote:
If you remember your Mt.Snow days, release function check is an
ASC policy requirement. I *know* my AT boots won't check properly
so I get checks done with alpine gear, submit the paperwork and
merrily ski on what I want to ski on.

No, Mt Snow didn't do a check on our stuff. Stowe did, and some australian
places do, but by no means all. Current place didn't, but a 1 season pair of
boots ought to have passed. I knew they were wearing down amazingly fast (I
had cat tracks but one dropped off, I felt it go and went back to look for
it and it was GOONE!) but 2 seasons is pretty damn fast.

ant

Sven Golly wrote:
VtSkier wrote :

To lessen this effect, I'm a FIRM believer in active AFD
devices. So far, only Marker and Tyrolia (and maybe Atomic)
have devices that I feel comfortable with. Every body else
cheaps out with teflon devices which can accumulate dirt
and not work as advertised, but plenty good enough for
newish alpine boots.

Active AFD's are much better than static ones. Atomic bindings have sort
of an active AFD as well.L

Look/Rossi bindings use an active AFD. But I don't think it's as well
designed as Marker or Tyrollia.

Salomon uses a passive AFD. I won't ski on Salomons.

--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Völkl Conspiracy

Bill Tuthill wrote:
My principal gripe is that my skis are heavier than I'd like
for carrying from my car to the lift.

If weight is your principal concern, check out the line of Goode skis:
http://www.goode.com/snowskis.html

They even have some "close-out" models for sale with bindings.

Note, I've never even seen these on the slopes, much less skied on
them. However, I'm really curious as to how they perform (but not
curious enough to pay to find out).

Sven Golly wrote:
"ant" wrote in
:

Jeez I hope my Atomics soles are replaceable, as they are completely
rooted.

They are replaceable but good luck getting parts from Atomic. I
finally gave up waiting and bought a new pair --- of Salomons.

I will never wear salomons again, I should have paid closer attention to an
apsi examiner asking if my achilles were still OK. Well they sure aren't
now, maybe never again.

If Atomic don't do replacments, I'll fibreglass some, and watch out atomic!

ant

Walt wrote:
Sven Golly wrote:
VtSkier wrote :

To lessen this effect, I'm a FIRM believer in active AFD
devices. So far, only Marker and Tyrolia (and maybe Atomic)
have devices that I feel comfortable with. Every body else
cheaps out with teflon devices which can accumulate dirt
and not work as advertised, but plenty good enough for
newish alpine boots.

Active AFD's are much better than static ones. Atomic bindings have
sort of an active AFD as well.L

Look/Rossi bindings use an active AFD. But I don't think it's as well
designed as Marker or Tyrollia.

Salomon uses a passive AFD. I won't ski on Salomons.

I've always thought the passive ones where better, they can't jam up like
the active ones.

Then again, I won't ski on Markers.


--
Chris *:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

lal_truckee wrote:

Silly. How much time do you spend walking with skis compared to skiing?

When I go to Northstar with my non-Ben-Franklinesqeu friends, about 1:1.
I swear that resort was designed in cahoots with boot manufacturers!
That's where my old Lange boots fell apart as I walked. Maybe I was
supposed to buy a new pair in one of the many shops I passed on my
5 mile walk to the gondola, but instead I switch to cross country.

(You should be more worried about your boot soles wearing on pavement
than your ski weight - sole wear will prematurely wreck your boots.)

I always try to stay in the hard-pack. The Dalbello heel plates
are replaceable, although I'm not sure I'd be able to find replacements.
Thanks everyone else for the opinions.

What exactly are heavy skis good for? Let's analyze this.

.. On groomers, everything is easy, so it doesn't matter.
.. In steep powder, light skis turn more easily (faster) than heavy.
.. Light skis are easier to uncross than heavy skis.
.. In crud, light skis (and wide blades) surface instead of diving.
.. Light skis are easier on the knees when sitting on a chairlift.
.. On a long traverse to uncut, light skis move uphill more easily.

So exactly why, can anyone tell me, are downhill skis so heavy?
It's almost impossible to get information about ski and binding weight,
indicating the industry doesn't want us to think about it.

Sven Golly wrote:
VtSkier wrote in :


I'm even more retro than that (how retro are you?).


Let's see, I started skiing in 1966 and my first skis were a pair of
mismatched (new) wood skis I got on sale for $10. One was a 200, the
other was a 195. I cut the 200 down to match. :-)


The original Marker Simplex toe had a sheet of aluminum (ok aluminium)
in back of the toe which was fastened with a single screw at the
back of the sheet and allowed to "float" up near the toe.


The thing that looked like a pie wedge right? That predates the Lipe
Slider by a few years.

What I'm remembering was pretty much a rectangle but certainly would
have worked(!) as a pie slice.

TexasSkiNut wrote:

If weight is your principal concern, check out the line of Goode skis:
http://www.goode.com/snowskis.html
They even have some "close-out" models for sale with bindings.

I am a bit amazed that prices for Goode carbon-fiber skis
are about the same as for traditionally constructed skis
(wood/metal/plastic with fancy marketing names).

Most of Goode's carbon-fiber skis are significantly lighter
than even the K2 Shuksan. Comparing similar dimensions
(Goode models are more severely sidecut than the Shuksan)
the weight comparison is 975 versus 1400 grams per ski.

Bill Tuthill wrote:

What exactly are heavy skis good for? Let's analyze this.

. On groomers, everything is easy, so it doesn't matter.

agreed, assuming that the groomer has been groomed recently.

. In steep powder, light skis turn more easily (faster) than heavy.

I guess, if you're twisting them to turn. But if you're edging and
letting the sidecut do the work, I don't think light skis turn any
faster. Note that you can't really do the former once the powder gets
deep or heavy.

. Light skis are easier to uncross than heavy skis.

Ok. But you shouldn't be crossing them in the first place.

. In crud, light skis (and wide blades) surface instead of diving.

Strongly disagree here. In crud, light skis and wide blades get knocked
around like crazy. This is where a heavier ski really shines - it
powers through the crud where a light ski gets bounced all over the place.

. Light skis are easier on the knees when sitting on a chairlift.

Ok.

. On a long traverse to uncut, light skis move uphill more easily.

I guess.

So exactly why, can anyone tell me, are downhill skis so heavy?

Stability at speed, especially in crud, junk, cut-up, etc. More mass at
your feet means more momentum down there, which means that the ski
doesn't deflect from it's path quite so easily when it hits an irregularity.

I've owned light skis, I've owned heavy skis, and I'll take the heavier
ones anytime I'm going off the corduroy (which means anytime I'm skiing
after 11am). Light, turny skis can be a lot of fun on the groomed, but
they'll let you down in the crud. Ballet slippers have their place;
hiking boots have their place, too.


It's almost impossible to get information about ski and binding weight,
indicating the industry doesn't want us to think about it.

Not quite true - Atomic markets their binding as the lightest available.
(I've never understood this as a selling point.) Völkl's Gamma series
for women is marketed as 20% lighter. There are other examples.


--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Völkl Conspiracy