Talk:Ski touring
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Ski, an attempt at building a useful skiing resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information). |
[edit] External links
I added a couple external links to what are generally accepted in the backcountry community as valuable ski-touring information resources like Lou Dawson's Wild Snow page. They were deleted twice even though they are not spam & offer real information that is a valuable supplement to this article. What's the problem, exactly? Can I put them back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.154.154 (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with Ski Mountaineering and Backcountry Skiing?
I think ski touring and ski mountaineering should be merged under backcountry skiing. I am not sure when touring ends and ski mountaineering begins. This weekend we skied from the summit of a mountain, but it was really just a tour to some nice powder (the only powder we have gotten this year). I am trying to ski the 10 highest peaks in Nevada, none of which are technical, but I think that is ski mountaineering because of the effort required to get to the summit. All of that falls under backcountry skiing though.SierraSkier 20:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with a merger. Backcountry skiing, off-piste skiing, etc. are terms which specify where the skiing occurs, while ski touring, ski mountaineering, and extreme skiing are terms which describe what type of skiing is being done. For example, you could take a ski tour across the gentle lower slopes of a ski area, or do a ski mountaineering trip up and down a steep peak within a ski area boundary (as actually happens during randonee rally races). Obviously, neither activity qualifies as backcountry skiing. I think the distinction between where and what which is implicit in the various terms is important to maintain. The articles here on Wikipedia were all muddied and unclear, just as most skiers are also unclear about the distinctions, but I have been trying to clarify the language in each article. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 20:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I had never thought of it that way. I see your point and it is a worthwhile distinction. I can't imagine taking a tour or ski mountaineering inbounds, but I guess it is possible. I always thought of touring as general backcountry skiing, yoyoing a slope or going out with my very pregnant wife. I think of ski mountaineering as skiing a mountain, preferably from the summit, and most preferably down an elegant line. I do a lot of hiking inbounds but is it really ski mountaineering if ski patrol is there to pick up any broken pieces? SierraSkier 01:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- We actually have quite a few people up here (WA) who go ski touring inbounds. Sometimes, when the bc conditions are just awful (trap crust, deep concrete, etc.), but you still want to get some excercise and turns without spending any $, the best place to go is the groomers at a ski area. Most ski areas up here tolerate skinning up the edges of trails, although a couple of them don't. I don't do it much myself, I prefer either real bc skiing on big wilderness mountains or else pay the money to ride the lifts. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 06:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Weasel words
Please just state facts about the equipment not your personal opinion of each type. Shogun 05:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I took out the part about AT gear being lighter than tele gear. I dont know where that editor is skiing, but in the U.S. most folks, me included, are using Fritchi binding or Fritchi knockoffs. Tele folks in the U.S. are using some form of cable binding. Both are comparable in weight. I see Tourlite gear at resorts at Rando rallies, but few people are taking those bindings into the big mountains. If an AT skier is using Tourlite gear, his or her tele friend would probably be 3-pinning. The funny part is that 20 years ago the arguement for tele was the weight advantage. SierraSkier 07:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Look, AT gear IS lighter than comparable tele gear that performs similarly. And Doug Coombs, Andrew Maclean, Brad Barlage, & other hard-guy Dynafit users do/did not ski with partners in 3-pins: there's no comparison. This lightweight stuff ain't new--it's what people have been using for the big stuff since the early nineties.
Thats strange, when I skied Mt Shasta with Andrew a couple years ago he was on Fritchis. SierraSkier 04:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Fritschis are awesome. Andrew doesn't use them for racing...probably not for hard multi-day expeditions, either, but I don't know that for certain. The point was simply that Dynafits are powerful tools for skilled people undertaking difficult ventures. They also appear to be the binding of choice around Chamonix where there is not much easy touring. Regardless, they are not flimsy toys for flopping around with your buddy on antiquated 3-pins [and I'm sure there is at least one guy out there on the wee margin of the bell curve, dropping the Col de Cristaux on 3-pins and leathers].
So, I'd really like to provide a place on this page for inexperienced people to find real information about what gear is desirable for various backcountry skiing/ski touring goals and why; I'm losing track of the number of times I've ended up on a tour with a poor guy flailing about on tele gear who hasn't even heard of AT because the evangelist weed who sold him the gear couldn't be bothered to mention that there is any other option. I've toured hundreds of days in various mountain ranges in the US and the Alps [on tele and rando, Fritschi and Dynafit]. Where you apparently live, in the Sierras, everyone plays pretty well together but there are many places in the states [especially in the intermountain west] where a significant number of telemarkers are really aggressive, supercilious, misinformed or even dishonest about the relative benefits of their gear choice. Its like a religion. Add to that the facts that euro companies don't generally import their entire AT lines and that some major retailers in major markets near good mountains don't stock ANY rando gear, i.e. SF Bay area REIs. This adds up to a dearth of accurate info about rando gear: how is a beginner supposed to figure all this out and make an informed choice?
Tele is hard. Sure, some people can do everything on tele that can be done on AT or alpine gear; it is impressive & aesthetic, but it's a blatant lie to suggest it doesn't cost them anything in effort: check out a rando race result to see just how significant an energy penalty tele gear is. Tele's not for everyone--especially not for people who can't dedicate 100 days in a season to learning it, or for people who want to optimize the steep-terrain up parts rather than the down, like in rando racing, or hard multi-day expeditions, or tough mountaineering goals. Why is this so controversial? Can I post a discussion of this without you automatically deleting it because you feel I didn't give proper credit to your tele bros & your Fritschis? Or maybe you would prefer to write it, since there's something about my style that seems to antagonize you.
I don't know where you are skiing, but I can attest that in Utah and in the Sierras Dynafit bindings are just as unusual as my bud who drops nasty chutes in his leathers and pins. Yes my ski mate is a freak, but Dynafit bindings are not what people are using for difficult descents out here. I ski 50-70 days a year (getting old) and I have seen exactly one set of Dynafits on top of a proper mountain worthy of skiing. The turn from hike to ski on Dynafits is clunky at best, Dynafits are not as bomber as Fritchis or modern cable bindings and Dynafits do not have a quality toe release mechanism. For beginners interested in trying some out-of-bounds but mostly interested in resorts, Fritchis and Naxos are definitely the recommendation. If a person is park trained and looking for backcountry shots with mandatory air, Fritchi and Naxo are again the recommendation. That is why people are in general using Fritchis and Naxo bindings in the West. Most people interested in huge multi-day tours with minimal downhill and mostly horizontal of course benefit from the light weight of a Dynafit. But, is that really what beginners are doing? Probably not, they shouldn't be either; beginners should stay out of the big mountains until their avi skills equal their skiing skills.
You are making the same mistake you are complaining about with the tele evangelists. My roommate has learned to tele in a year, he skied about 60 days this year, he is from Georgia and had no skiing skills at all. He hits the largest jumps at Heavenly and tosses 360's on his tele gear in a single season. Modern tele gear is highly functional and is bomb proof on the resort and in the backcountry. Fritchis and Naxos provide a nice option for hucksters and people looking for one ski for the backcountry and resort (me and most of my friends). Dynafits are best for people who want to tour more than ski and who are willing to use heavy downhill gear at the resort. Mandatory two sets of skis in the quiver. Dynafits are not quality gear for the resort. Your weight arguement truly goes out the window when a person considers skis. Most people in the Sierra and Wasatch are using bomber downhill skis with their touring bindings. I just picked up a pair of Dynastar 8000's, because I wanted to shed some weight from my Rossignol XX's. Yes Atomic makes a lighter option but they get tossed in breakable crusts, and if you ski the backcountry often you know that there is an awful lot of challenging snow out there. If I saw a bunch of people out and about on Dynafits I would think you were right, but Dynafits are just as unusual as three pinning on leather.
The point is this. You are putting in a lot of stuff about tele that just isn't true. Tele gear is comparable in weight to rando gear when the whole set up and a couple of beers are thrown in. Physical fitness is really the question. After fitness, the terraine the person wants to ski determines what the best set up is. I like to get some air, but mostly ski deep powder and I want a single ski for the resort and backcountry. Fritchi Explorers are definitely the best binding for me. I have a bro who is into huge single day mountain odyseys, he is perfect for Dynafits or three pins - he uses leather and three pins, but Dynafits would be a great choice for him. SierraSkier 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You make some good points and I think you clarified a point of departure that is the source of much of this controversy. People come at this sport from 2 very different approaches: skiing vs. mountaineering, up vs. down. Your basic assumption appears to be that the average ski-tourer is crossing over from resort skiing and is bringing resort-style skiing approaches and goals along, that is to say: jumping, short distances and steep slopes, high speed, park style, more down than up, both in resort and out. I agree that heavier, more supportive equipment--whether tele, rando or alpine modified--is the choice for this. But if you can get a lightweight ski that performs as well as something twice the weight--a BD Crossbow or Verdict, for example--why on earth would you choose the heavier option as many do?
However, you really do underplay the fact that there are many, many folks out there who use skiing as an extension of mountaineering, maybe because you aren't often running into them in Cardiac or Jake's :) In this case, then, I really have to stick to my guns--light is right and dragging heavy, stiff gear that is optimized for power-downs is really a pointless exercise, else why not just use your alpine gear? I really don't know where you get the idea that Dynafits are toys for the flats; maybe because you just haven't been around them much. Fussy? Maybe, until you get used to them, but transitions are generally quicker than tele cable fussing. There's nothing to fatigue and snap, so they really never break or wear out. And in addition to the previously mentioned hard-core skiers, Kit & Rob DesLaurier and their cameraman used them on their Everest descent [which they called the hardest skiing they'd ever done]. Most Euros doing big stuff are on them, too.
I also think your insistence on the equivalence of tele & AT gear is nice politics and while probably true for resort-crossover, it is simply just not accurate when hard mountaineering is the emphasis. Of course you're right about factoring in the weight of beers, but if your goal is to go light and fast through tough terrain, there is no tele option that can compete on weight while offering the same degree of performance you get with a number of AT options. This is not mythology or evangelism--you've got to compare apples to apples. I am in particular thinking of free toe swing, releasability, front-pointing/cramponing performance, stability while descending or traversing, especially in funky, steep snow. If you want as much of this as it's possible to get in a tele set-up, add 5 pounds [at least]. While that may not kill you on a mellow day tour, it will wear you down to a nub over time and distance. Of course if you're really tough, none of this matters as much ;)
At any rate, thanks for your great input--I think this discussion serves as a good source of perspective for newbies.
I also took out the rando evangelism stuff. I am a rando guy, but my tele bros would probably outclimb and outski that editor any day of the week. They aren't looking for a softer way in the mountains, quite the opposite as a matter of fact. They are perfectly comfortable launching cornices on their tele gear.SierraSkier 07:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
sorry you felt threatened, but there is an immense amount of misinformation floating around as fact about telemark skiing. the tone of my comments was intended to address this mythology head on for what it is--a fascination with an athletic turn that is generally camouflaged as rational evaluation of gear advantages & disadvantages. you deleted a number of these facts, including the safety issues surrounding non-releasable telemark bindings, the persistent fragility & weight of tele gear, the absence of ski crampons for telemark bindings & the equipment's primary use in the us for powder skiing. you also maintain the persistent misperception that lightweight at gear is somehow a new thing--the dynafit binding has been around for 20 years now & randonee skiers have been using short skis & light plastic boots for decades.
are you sure you're being as objective as you think you are? i'll let others decide if these relevant facts should be put back into the text.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:69.71.154.154 (talk • contribs) .
I'm trying to make this article concise and accurate. A lengthy discussion of the merits of particular equipment belong in their own articles not here. I should note that a lot of what you said is very dependent on particular bindings (ie releasable bindings and weight) also there are more places in the world than US and Europe. Feel free to reinsert the deleted information but keep the tone neutral, if you can't find a way to do so it doesn't belong in here. Shogun 06:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
if you know something about the rest of the world, write it. i don't so I didn't. it's bizarre to suggest that comparisons of ski touring in the us vs europe are out of place since they don't encompass kenya. and the weight & releasability issues are not as variable as you prefer to think--this is disingenuous. there is no din-releasable telemark binding, there are a number of din-releasable at bindings. ditto weight issues--yes, a 3-pin, cable-less binding is light, but that's not what telemarkers are using in steep terrain. if you truly want to make the article accurate, i support you, but please stop with the thinly veiled tele-evangelism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:69.71.154.154 (talk • contribs) .
I'm attempting to make this article fit wikipedia standard, at the moment it includes too much POV information (in all directions). If both of us (and the myriad other people who contribute to wikipedia) keep editing it we should end up with a compromise eventually. I've done with changes today so if you can review it now it can only improve. I have no wish to make this article a 'televagnelist' piece, just to cover all the basic information. Points about the relative merits of the various equipment types is probably not encyclopediac anyway and it might be best to just shorten the equipment section down to a list of links to the various equipment types). Shogun 07:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
if we move the equipment out of here, we'll just end up with a bunch of stubs where the various proponents advance their preference. i think its better to leave it all here & hash out a compromise that will be valid & useful to people looking for real information.
I don't think ski mountaineering implies glacier travel, or we don't have any ski mountaineering in the Sierra Nevada. Ski mountaineering implies climbing a mountain and skiing it really pretty. The line preferably will extend from the summit and be an elegant descent.SierraSkier 06:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
