Great NNN light touring boots?

On Dec 17, 9:21 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:06:25 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of

OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:

Those are lame remarks, JFT, as usual. Why can't you be specific about
my non-questions?

Why can't you phrase your statements as statements rather than
starting as questions that devolve into rants?

Duh, because I am interesting in any discussion or answers to my
questions. I'm not interested in your view of my posting style. That's
true pointlessness. Why not discuss the subject?

(There's a question, not a statement---but it
probably has an obvious answer: you're not specific because you like
to make inconsequent flames.)
And, no, I haven't found good gloves yet. I do notice that weird water-
absorbing faux-leather is on most gloves these days. My kid borrowed
mine the other day and gave em back---"These are terrible! One
snowball and they're drenched!" It seems like its their loss compared
to gloves of 10 years ago.

Glad to hear you're teaching your kid well -- he can look forward to
complaining about how the modern world doesnt' suit them and that so
many products suck worse than what they and you used back in the day.
Great. He'll thank you for that.

His hands got wet. He found some other gloves that worked better.

These new gloves by a major maker also have the "lovely" feature of
having plastic clips on the backs of the hands, right where ski straps
go. I was wondering what was HURTING my hands as I skied. I was able
to adjust the straps to ride exactly under the nubbins, but those
things will have to be cut off. SMART DESIGN, huh?

My brand new tour boots have a front cover zip that unzips when
skiing. GREAT DESIGN.

I note that my old tour package, which was new in 1990, weighed 6
lbs---boots, bindings, skis---and worked perfectly for over a decade
of very hard use (jumping, icy tele and such).

My new package for the same kind of skiing (same ski width) and same
TOP place in the market weighs EIGHT POUNDS. What did I gain for all
that extra weight? I've used it a few times so far and I can't notice
any benefit.

I do notice the weight. It's bad.

I do notice that the stiff, heavy boots are trying to mess with my
good technique. I grant that I may well be able to do tele turns and
such better with this rig. Day-tourists rarely have such a desire---I
would never chose a tour rig for such reasons. But the US market is
small and thus quite limited. The stiffer boots might make handling
easier for some people---but the extra weight offsets that. I have
noticed that handling is definitely a bit awkward! I'm just not used
to such heavy stuff. And my goals are to do several DAY-LONG
challenging ski outings this winter. Will this weight be a problem? (I
do pare down every ounce in my daybag on such outings. I use a 10-lb
pack...and feel it! I'm going to go for using only a 6 lb fanny pack
this year.) Should I just trust that the improvements in today's gear
will show themselves somewhere along the way? I bought what I was told
was the best stuff and what was available at my local pro shop. I
picked NNN years ago. I'll keep giving this new gear a try. But I'll
keep my eyes peeled on eBay for my old skis!

Trends in XC ski stuff for sale in the USA are infamous for being
awkward. (Like all the black clothing.)

What is awkward about all black? Worry about getting hit by a car
while skiing?

Black works in NYC but not on ski trails. Take a look at how Scandi
people dress when they ski. Of course black is fine on occasion. But
the clarity of light and air in winter and the white background and
green evergreens and nice warming huts and such beg for a wide range
of color.

--JP

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:30:31 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of
OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:

Black works in NYC but not on ski trails.

This is an idiotic statement. What is "works" or not works?

Take a look at how Scandi
people dress when they ski.

Do you think they're better skiers or something because of the color
of their clothes?

Bizarre.

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:30:31 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of
OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:

On Dec 17, 9:21 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:06:25 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of

OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:

Those are lame remarks, JFT, as usual. Why can't you be specific about
my non-questions?

Why can't you phrase your statements as statements rather than
starting as questions that devolve into rants?

Duh, because I am interesting in any discussion or answers to my
questions. I'm not interested in your view of my posting style. That's
true pointlessness. Why not discuss the subject?

(There's a question, not a statement---but it
probably has an obvious answer: you're not specific because you like
to make inconsequent flames.)
And, no, I haven't found good gloves yet. I do notice that weird water-
absorbing faux-leather is on most gloves these days. My kid borrowed
mine the other day and gave em back---"These are terrible! One
snowball and they're drenched!" It seems like its their loss compared
to gloves of 10 years ago.

Glad to hear you're teaching your kid well -- he can look forward to
complaining about how the modern world doesnt' suit them and that so
many products suck worse than what they and you used back in the day.
Great. He'll thank you for that.

His hands got wet. He found some other gloves that worked better.

These new gloves by a major maker also have the "lovely" feature of
having plastic clips on the backs of the hands, right where ski straps
go. I was wondering what was HURTING my hands as I skied. I was able
to adjust the straps to ride exactly under the nubbins, but those
things will have to be cut off. SMART DESIGN, huh?

My brand new tour boots have a front cover zip that unzips when
skiing. GREAT DESIGN.

I note that my old tour package, which was new in 1990, weighed 6
lbs---boots, bindings, skis---and worked perfectly for over a decade
of very hard use (jumping, icy tele and such).

My new package for the same kind of skiing (same ski width) and same
TOP place in the market weighs EIGHT POUNDS. What did I gain for all
that extra weight? I've used it a few times so far and I can't notice

There are some great products on the market at the moment using
artficial leather. Lots of people use them and like them. I had a
pair of really high-end ski gloves in the 1980s that were real leather
on the palms and, though decent, they're worse than stuff on the
market now.

But that sort of detail is besides the point. The bigger issue is
your general point of view that newer stuff is lame, and fancier stuff
is lame, and more "natural stuff" is better, which is often not true.

And even if it is "true" in some strange way for you, it's simply
silly to make the sort of blanket statements about X nowadays is bad.
It simply cannot be that manufacturers are selling stuff that is so
generally worse and people are buying it all. It's just not true.

How about good quality, maybe even top of the line, combi boots?
Based on all of the 1000's of touring I've done on my full-on racing
weight striding gear, I believe the combi boots and a slightly wider,
but light weight, ski would be the ticket.

As for color: black is an excellent default. I'm even an old codger
who has been backcountry and groomed skiing for almost 40 years. Yes,
I've skied in Norge and didn't feel one tiny iota of self
consciousness in my black pants (I have 3 or 4 different types/
weights). I have black and other color tops and vests, but they all
look good with the black pants. Nobody in Norway gave me a second
look.

A friend of mine said the same thing (as you) about cycling shorts
after returning from a European trip this summer - the Americans were
the only ones wearing black shorts. But the colored shorts were
generally parts of full, (and I say butt ugly) "kits" which don't
appeal to me at all. Give me black shorts and a bunch of generic and
a few "team" style jerseys any day. Plus there's nothing uglier than
stained and worn colored shorts.

On Dec 19, 7:02 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:30:31 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of

OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:
Black works in NYC but not on ski trails.

This is an idiotic statement. What is "works" or not works?

It's fashion idiom, idiot.

Take a look at how Scandi
people dress when they ski.

Do you think they're better skiers or something because of the color
of their clothes?

Ah no. I think they don't look ugly.

Bizarre.

???

--JP

On Dec 19, 7:06 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:30:31 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of



OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:21 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:06:25 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of

OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:

Those are lame remarks, JFT, as usual. Why can't you be specific about
my non-questions?

Why can't you phrase your statements as statements rather than
starting as questions that devolve into rants?

Duh, because I am interesting in any discussion or answers to my
questions. I'm not interested in your view of my posting style. That's
true pointlessness. Why not discuss the subject?

(There's a question, not a statement---but it
probably has an obvious answer: you're not specific because you like
to make inconsequent flames.)
And, no, I haven't found good gloves yet. I do notice that weird water-
absorbing faux-leather is on most gloves these days. My kid borrowed
mine the other day and gave em back---"These are terrible! One
snowball and they're drenched!" It seems like its their loss compared
to gloves of 10 years ago.

Glad to hear you're teaching your kid well -- he can look forward to
complaining about how the modern world doesnt' suit them and that so
many products suck worse than what they and you used back in the day.
Great. He'll thank you for that.

His hands got wet. He found some other gloves that worked better.

These new gloves by a major maker also have the "lovely" feature of
having plastic clips on the backs of the hands, right where ski straps
go. I was wondering what was HURTING my hands as I skied. I was able
to adjust the straps to ride exactly under the nubbins, but those
things will have to be cut off. SMART DESIGN, huh?

My brand new tour boots have a front cover zip that unzips when
skiing. GREAT DESIGN.

I note that my old tour package, which was new in 1990, weighed 6
lbs---boots, bindings, skis---and worked perfectly for over a decade
of very hard use (jumping, icy tele and such).

My new package for the same kind of skiing (same ski width) and same
TOP place in the market weighs EIGHT POUNDS. What did I gain for all
that extra weight? I've used it a few times so far and I can't notice

There are some great products on the market at the moment using
artficial leather. Lots of people use them and like them. I had a
pair of really high-end ski gloves in the 1980s that were real leather
on the palms and, though decent, they're worse than stuff on the
market now.

But that sort of detail is besides the point. The bigger issue is
your general point of view that newer stuff is lame, and fancier stuff
is lame, and more "natural stuff" is better, which is often not true.

Ah, no. This has never been my view.

And even if it is "true" in some strange way for you, it's simply
silly to make the sort of blanket statements about X nowadays is bad.

I specifically said that the fake-leather of my ski gloves absorbed
water quickly. It's among the most absorbent materials I've seen---the
opposite of water repellent. No blanket statement. My statements have
been specific.

--JP

On Dec 19, 7:24 pm, Camilo wrote:
How about good quality, maybe even top of the line, combi boots?
Based on all of the 1000's of touring I've done on my full-on racing
weight striding gear, I believe the combi boots and a slightly wider,
but light weight, ski would be the ticket.

I can see improving support in tour boots but when touring with 60mm
skis one will rarely skate. Combi support is different from touring
support for control. The new bindings and plastic heel pockets plus a
boot that goes to just over the ankle is probably all that's needed.
Anything else will give you more weight than will be comfy for most
multi-hour outings. Unless you're skating. (With 60mm skis?)

As for color: black is an excellent default. I'm even an old codger
who has been backcountry and groomed skiing for almost 40 years. Yes,
I've skied in Norge and didn't feel one tiny iota of self
consciousness in my black pants (I have 3 or 4 different types/
weights). I have black and other color tops and vests, but they all
look good with the black pants. Nobody in Norway gave me a second
look.

Sure. Black disappears. It's a fine default. But most of an enthusiast
market appreciates more than a default.

A friend of mine said the same thing (as you) about cycling shorts
after returning from a European trip this summer - the Americans were
the only ones wearing black shorts. But the colored shorts were
generally parts of full, (and I say butt ugly) "kits" which don't
appeal to me at all. Give me black shorts and a bunch of generic and
a few "team" style jerseys any day. Plus there's nothing uglier than
stained and worn colored shorts.

Cycling clothes are different. Shorts get dirty. But cycling gives
lots of room to a variety of looks. The retro look is strong, too. The
"just ride in regular clothes" look for casual day riding is pretty
popular. This approach should continue on into XC skiing---with the
difference being that rain and dirt aren't part of the equation.

Black is awkwardly ubiquitous in US XC apparel.

--JP

PS:

Alpina seems to make a couple nice NNN tour boots.

http://www.backcountry.com/store/gro...Ski-Boots.html



Madshus has a nice moderate NNN boot available at webskis.com.

http://webskis.com/product.php?produ...&cat=21&page=1



What's up with Rossi's thermal fit stuff? I'm having a hard time
finding details.


--JP

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:35:52 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of
OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:

On Dec 19, 7:02 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:30:31 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of

OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:
Black works in NYC but not on ski trails.

This is an idiotic statement. What is "works" or not works?

It's fashion idiom, idiot.

Take a look at how Scandi
people dress when they ski.

Do you think they're better skiers or something because of the color
of their clothes?

Ah no. I think they don't look ugly.

So "works" means looking good, to you. Very sloppy use of language.

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:38:17 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of
OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:

I specifically said that the fake-leather of my ski gloves absorbed
water quickly. It's among the most absorbent materials I've seen---the
opposite of water repellent. No blanket statement. My statements have
been specific.
In that discussion I asked you why that mattered, if your hands are
comftable. Rubber repels water too, you know.