approaching the dark side

A recent thread in rec.climbing (you guys know who you are) has spurred
me to write: I've hated downhill skiing since sometime in the 70s, when
all I could get at was ice-covered crap in the midwest and northeast. I
gave up. I got to the bottom of my last run, parked my skis, and walked
away, swearing I'd never return.

Since then I've moved to California (a long while back), learned a thing
or three about skinny skis on and off track here and in Wyoming, but
mostly play on snowshoes for a number of reasons.

Now, I find myself wanting to ski again. I don't particularly care at
all about out of bounds downhill skiing; I am interested in ski touring
and mild ski mountaineering in the backcountry. I think this means I
want to learn about telemark, not randonnee ("Means 'cannot tele' in
French" :-)?

The kind of trips I have in mind: out to Glacier Point and back in a day
(gee, that sounds like skinny track skis), similar trip carrying gear
for a weekend trip, going up and over Lassen with a pack for a long
weekend of camping. Those are trips that are mostly out of reach for me
on snowshoes (I have dragged a sled to Sentinel Dome in a day).

Does this seem right? Have tele skis changed as much in the last 10
years as downhill? Where do I begin? I have a pair of Invernos, but a
little private discussion with Booker seems to indicate that I shouldn't
really bother trying to use them to ski with more than once.

My current skiing skills do not extend beyond the snowplow turn, so I'm
not at all wedded to tele vs AT....

Thanks,
chris

Hmmm you didn't succeed to get the fun out downhill skiing thats a real
pitty.
You probably had bad luck or hadn't learned it very well.
But i could not judge that from here.

I think the best way is to contact a telemark or ski school and take
lessons!
(they can also advice you about different type of materials and trends)
At the school you end up in a class with people that want to learn the
same thing as you. It is fun. Don't push too hard!





"Christopher A. Kantarjiev" wrote in message
...

A recent thread in rec.climbing (you guys know who you are) has spurred
me to write: I've hated downhill skiing since sometime in the 70s, when
all I could get at was ice-covered crap in the midwest and northeast. I
gave up. I got to the bottom of my last run, parked my skis, and walked
away, swearing I'd never return.

Since then I've moved to California (a long while back), learned a thing
or three about skinny skis on and off track here and in Wyoming, but
mostly play on snowshoes for a number of reasons.

Now, I find myself wanting to ski again. I don't particularly care at
all about out of bounds downhill skiing; I am interested in ski touring
and mild ski mountaineering in the backcountry. I think this means I
want to learn about telemark, not randonnee ("Means 'cannot tele' in
French" :-)?

The kind of trips I have in mind: out to Glacier Point and back in a day
(gee, that sounds like skinny track skis), similar trip carrying gear
for a weekend trip, going up and over Lassen with a pack for a long
weekend of camping. Those are trips that are mostly out of reach for me
on snowshoes (I have dragged a sled to Sentinel Dome in a day).

Does this seem right? Have tele skis changed as much in the last 10
years as downhill? Where do I begin? I have a pair of Invernos, but a
little private discussion with Booker seems to indicate that I shouldn't
really bother trying to use them to ski with more than once.

My current skiing skills do not extend beyond the snowplow turn, so I'm
not at all wedded to tele vs AT....

Thanks,
chris

Jim Bolinger wrote:

IMHO, the telemark turn is more difficult than with locked heels. With
modern AT (randonee) gear, there is little or no difference in
capabilities while in walk mode and a significant advantage in downhill
mode.

Particularly with a largish pack.

"Christopher A. Kantarjiev" wrote in message ...


Does this seem right? Have tele skis changed as much in the last 10
years as downhill? Where do I begin? I have a pair of Invernos, but a
little private discussion with Booker seems to indicate that I shouldn't
really bother trying to use them to ski with more than once.

My current skiing skills do not extend beyond the snowplow turn, so I'm
not at all wedded to tele vs AT....

The big change is the range of backcountry skis that are available.

You can go classic skinny xskis. Wax or waxless.

You can go heavier setup, like Fischer S-Bound (rebound outtabounds)
on 3 pins (or cables) with Garmont Excursions (plastic boots to replace
heavy leather boots.) Wax or waxless, more or less chamber. Lots of
choices in boots, bindings, and skis from various manufacturers.

Or you can go with full plastic telemark boots and equipment that
is a free heel version of alpine gear. There are even lighter
weight setups for touring, at the expense of downhill performance.
K2, Tua was the prime example, but they are bankrupt but their
web page is still up www.tuaski.net.

You might want to poke around the talk forum on www.telemarktips.com
to read about both heavy side and the lighter side.

Just remember that any setup is a compromise, and the better you
can target the intended use, the more successful you will be.

Personally I would get a setup suitable for a resort, practice practice
practice, then start thinking backcountry come spring consolidation
and corn Backcountry, unless you know of some sweet places, is not
the place to practice, it is a place to ski, though some powder or corn
in the backcountry can make for some fine practice

And practice both parallel turns and telemark turns on that tele-gear.
Both are just different ways of dealing with that "other ski"

-Rich Auletta

Jim Bolinger wrote:

IMHO, the telemark turn is more difficult than with locked heels. With
modern AT (randonee) gear, there is little or no difference in
capabilities while in walk mode and a significant advantage in downhill
mode. YMMV. IANAT. (Cue usual arguments.)

I'll agree about the advantage in downhill, but as for parity in
walk-mode, forget all about it. Free heel gear with a flexing boot is a
natural walk motion, rigid boots on a rigid bar isn't. Add in the fact
that for lighter free heel mountain gear there's still plenty of options
for much lighter boots, including many leather ones.

There is little difference in skis save for specialized asymetric tele
skis. Telemark gear can be lighter than AT however a setup using Dynafit
bindings is probably just as light as any TM setup.

No. A NNN BC boot and binding on a double camber ski will be much
lighter than even a Dynafit, or a basic 3 pin binding and light tele
plastic like Garmont Excursions will still save you weight. It won't be
nearly as good downhill, but there's plenty of terrain where eating up
the miles is a far more significant part of the equation (classic
Norwegian hut to hut, for example).

Note that to use telemark gear does not require learning the (difficult)
telemark turn. Stems and ploughs are far more useful on something like
a hut to hut tour with a heavy pack. You'll only have a few to do on a
lot of terrain that still classes as mountains.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[ Jim Bolinger ]

IMHO, the telemark turn is more difficult than with locked heels. With
modern AT (randonee) gear, there is little or no difference in
capabilities while in walk mode and a significant advantage in downhill
mode. YMMV. IANAT. (Cue usual arguments.)

This might be right for heavy tele, but definitely not for the light
side. There's an almost continous spectrum of gear from XC racing to
heavy tele. If you fall somewhere in the middle of this (i.e. touring
skis, not primarily downhill, and leather boots) tele is definitely
the way to go.

AT/randonee might be the thing for skiing in the Alps and similar
places where most terrain is on the steep side -- fixed heel does give
more control, so it's probably right for very steep survival skiing.
In mellower terrain however, when the goal is the touring and not the
steep hillsides, tele is the way to go.


Martin
--
"An ideal world is left as an exercise to the reader."
-Paul Graham, On Lisp

Jim Bolinger wrote:

IMHO, the telemark turn is more difficult than with locked heels. With =

modern AT (randonee) gear, there is little or no difference in=20
capabilities while in walk mode and a significant advantage in downhill=
=20
mode. YMMV. IANAT. (Cue usual arguments.)

I don't think tele is more difficult to learn. It's just different (and=20
may be difficult for those coming from alpine, fixed heel experience).=20
Fixed heel OTOH gives more control in skiing down steep faces [1]
=20
There is little difference in skis save for specialized asymetric tele =

skis. Telemark gear can be lighter than AT however a setup using Dynafi=
t=20
bindings is probably just as light as any TM setup.

Marching flats, tele is better. Ascending steep faces alpine randonee=20
equipment was better (but now, there is the easy-go tele adapter).=20
Sincerly, on mixed terrains with mostly smooth up and downs and long=20
flat nearing to the mountains like, for example, in the swedish fj=E4ll=20
tele is more versatile.

Greetings,

Ulrich

[1] Aside of this reasoning tele or alpine is all about a question of=20
style and approach to sliding sports on snow.
--=20
reply to: uhausmannATbluemailDOTch

Ulrich Hausmann wrote:

I don't think tele is more difficult to learn. It's just different (and
may be difficult for those coming from alpine, fixed heel experience).

I do, and wasn't coming from Alpine. My friendly neighbourhood BASI
tele instructor says it's far more difficult too: there's far more to
get right before the turn works. OTOH this isn't necessarily a problem
as parallels, stems and ploughs still work with free heels. Going round
the Hardanger last year on my free heel tourers I used zero tele turns,
but plenty of wedges and stems.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Hi Peter

OTOH this isn't necessarily a problem
as parallels, stems and ploughs still work with free heels.
This is the most underestimated circumstance, when people talk about the
difficulty of telemarking.

Another argument thing is always forgotten by the telemarkers:
If you start learning telemark, the first thing you learn is to keep the
right balance: "your body stays above the center of your binding". You
learn it by face plants on regular basis ;-).
Only a few Alpine skiiers who start on piste will ever learn this, and
they will always get in real trouble they touch off piste snow. As a
telemark newbee you won't have trouble skiing offpiste after one week.

I think I am a really good piste skiier (I started 38 years ago), but I
had only minor fun skiing offpiste areas (though I do 90% of my skiing
days are alpine randoee tours). When I started telemarking, it was an
"epiphany" to me that it is so easy to handle difficult snow, if you
control the balanced position of your body related to the ski.

Florian
--
fuer email bitte "fanwander at mnet minus online punkt de" nutzen
for email replies please use "fanwander at mnet minus online dot de"

Peter Clinch wrote:

I do, and wasn't coming from Alpine. My friendly neighbourhood BASI
tele instructor says it's far more difficult too: there's far more to
get right before the turn works.

I disagree. Teleskiing is difficult for those (us, me, 50 years of fixed
heel skiing in the past) coming from alpine skiing - because you're
staying way way too aggressively (compared to what is the correct
position on teleski) on the skis. And you have to learn to stay more
backward to have weight enough on the inner ski. Once, you learned this,
all is easy. And, i'm pretty sure, initiating the turns by making a step
is even easier.

See the posting of Florian. But: I disagree with him about offpist
skiing with fixed heel. If you're well centered (for alpine skiing) over
the ski and using the correct technique (using the pressure and
resistance coming from the snow) you're decisively more powerful than
with teleskiing - especially with mixed, wind-pressed and frozen snow,
as we use to have pretty much often in the Alps. But the fun of
teleskiing in powder is uncompareable - because your stance is lower
and, practically, your nose is touching the snowline ... ;-)


OTOH this isn't necessarily a problem
as parallels, stems and ploughs still work with free heels. Going round
the Hardanger last year on my free heel tourers I used zero tele turns,
but plenty of wedges and stems.

Sure, you can do that. But you can also do kind of "tele-stems" (a
swedish told them "famer's turns"), i.e. stems with the outer ski
advanced. Which would be a subspecies of teleturns - in my
understanding. As for functionality, given you're free heel, i don't see
any difference.

Greetings,

Ulrich


--
reply to: uhausmannATbluemailDOTch