the-soul-of-skiing02fbd196

Do what you love, the money will follow... maybe.

Tue, 24 Mar 2026 17:31:51 GMT

Some say that working in the ski industry is a labor of love... the truth is, it's mostly labor.

I have been in the ski industry, in some capacity, for 43 years, with a 20 year foray into I.T., somewhere in the middle of that range.

Ok, I can hear many of you saying. "Dude, you were in I.T.? Could-a fooled me... this web page design sucks".

Firstly, I can't argue with that.

Secondly, I was a back-end engineer/project manager/strategist. Most code I worked with was in the ether of the netherworld most people never see. My true specialty was process design and refinement, high-end troubleshooting and system design. I didn't build web pages for end-users to see.

Thankfully.

With that out of the way, I'll continue.

A good friend recently said to me, "Why are you working in this industry? Everyone knows you don't work in the ski industry if you want to ski!"

Well, he's not wrong.

The hours I work, during the winter, are inhuman. Even considering the ski industry as a younger man's game, studies show that human efficiency tapers off severely after 30 hours- never mind 4, 12 to 14 hour days and a 10 hour 5th day (in the slower weeks). Add a 6th or 7th day of, at least, 10 hours, and it's well beyond untenable.

With expectations set, I'll keep on continuing.

Now that you know the hours are long, the next point is, the pay is bad.

Having worked in a more lucrative field (even though it was non-profit), the hours and the pay just don't compare.

For far too long I have undervalued my skills and experience by continuing to be taken advantage of in this field, for the simple reason that I love it, and I'm really, really good at it.

I've done just about everything in this industry that can be considered work; I've taught skiing, worked as a lifty, sat in a groomer, tuned skis at a very high level, fit boots at a very high level, sold high-end clothing, merchandised, snowboards/snowbaorded, sold and used tele and back country gear and X/C gear, tested all of it. sold all of it, trained staff, trained the trainer, worked as an independent rep, sat in the snowmaking control room (though, I never dragged hoses around at 3AM in below freezing temperatures), I've contributed to ski shows, run departements and shows themselves, consulted on buys for buyers, written orders, managed budgets, planned events.... it's a looooooong list and this doesn't scratch that iceberg.

All that aside, I'm not here to blow my own horn. The point I'm making is this- even with that resume, my annual pay is about half a first year I.T. person would make, fresh out of college.

You read that right.

Half.

Now, I'm not trying to discourage you. This industry needs good people- especially since it seems that people are not staying in it for any significant length of time.

Part of that, is our fault.

Many retailers hire kids in high school, with no expertise, on the cheap, to fit rentals and season leases, and restock the sales floor.

***WASH THE BOOTS!!!***

Once the rental/lease season is over they're laid off.

Very few people are kept for anything more than a few weeks, and those that last any longer than that, are considered "easily replaceable", and aren't trained to any capacity beyond basic labor so management doesn't have to pay them anything worth while. On top of that, the discounts they get are a pittance, and there hasn't been free skiing for shop employeres since before covid.

Your mountain shops are a different animal. Many give you minimal training then throw you into the fire with the expectation that you'll keep up. If you can't someone else will. You have to rely upon instinct and your ability to ask questions and absorb large amounts of tecnical information in a short time to be able to keep up- not to mention a huge proclivity for common sense, in knowing how not to screw up, and minimize problems. In other words, if you mis-drill a ski, in many cases, that can cost you your job, or, at least, that level of work in the store/shop.

That sounds like a crappy thing for shop owners to do.

Well, it may sound cold, but life isn't easy for them, either. A quick Google search will tell you that margin on skis is 30-40%. Ok, that's true... but only on lower end products (beginner skis and snowbords, package gear, etc). As you move up the "quality ladder', so to speak, the cost of those skis goes higher, and margin goes down fast.

On top of that, because we've gotten so good at leveraging technology to improve ski products every year, we've shot ourselves in the foot, so to speak. Ski models are only good for 2 years, max. The consumer has come to expect big and fancy changes in that short of a time period. So, we're forced to have to move out remaining stock in really short order. You think having new iPhone models every year is out of hand? Planned obsolescence for hand-held phones doesn't hold a candle to what happens in the ski industry.

Long story short, end of season sales.

That, in and of itself, is Catch-22, because we've, in effect, trained the customer to wait for end of season sales to buy gear, or to attend Ski Expos and tent sales for "bargain basement" deals. Sure, there are a few who truly ski, and want something because they enjoy skiing on it, but the majority of people do not have the skill set to tell the difference, so they buy the prettiest thing they can find on the cheap.

In effect, that's the perfect circular formula for self destruction.

Now, add to that the simple fact that the industry is ENTIRELY dependent upon the weather, and mega corporations are pricing skiing and ski products out of reach for the common folk, and here we are.

The ski industry, for most people looking for long-term employment, is economically unfeasible.

That does not mean that there aren't some niches to be found, or aome innovative ways to make it work. But, for the majority of people, it's untenable.

I, myself, after such a long period of time doing what I love, have the ability to consult to retailers and industry people as a "train the trainer", or as a business planning strategist (there's aren't many people who can design relevant reports and teach people how to read them like I can), but the number of people willing to pay for those services are very few and far in between. Not to mention the fact that most shop owners are old school and do most of their "thing" in their head. Very few have real inventory management processes, or understand trending on buys and sales other than a simple report generated by an expensive POS system that gets more expensive when you add the modules to do the better reporting for you (getting the picture yet?).

"Ok, so retail isn't the smart play. What about corporate or being a rep?

Well, good luck getting a territory. The current stock or sales reps have been embedded for decades, and the only way in is as a very low-level tech... for which you need to have been either a very high end (and well known) NCAA/FIS racer, or a park kid at an academy that's well known to the reps. In other words, if you can't "walk the walk", don't even think about it.

Oh, wait! you think you're good? Guess again. You're not "Olympic hopeful" good. Even then, there aren't many opportunities for you.

As for the corporate angle? Maybe. But, you need to live in proximity to cororate enclaves for a ski company and you shouldn't expect to ski much. Remember, your busy season is ski season.

So I, with an accounting degree, double-whammied myself by picking two careers that require me to work long hours during the ski season.

So, why am I trying to discourage you?

I'm really not.

Consider this a love letter to my kids (22 and 18- one graduating college and the other graduating high-school and off to a very good university in the fall). My son has worked in the industry now since he was 14, where I trained him in basic boot-fitting and threw him into the fire, fitting boots at the very high volume BEWI Boston Ski Expo. He's become a great skier, and is pretty darn smart. I'm sure he thinks he can make it work.

I hope he continues to ski, and enjoy a life that makes him happy.

I also hope he understands that finding that while working in the ski industry is as rare as finding diamonds in your back yard.

Much love to them and all of you. I hope you find your niche. If you can find it in the ski industry, god bless you. Otherwise, find something else you love to do and make real go of it. If you love it, it's not work. If you don't, you'll be finding new ways to buy beer and liquor on the cheap, or get a prescription to your local pot shop.

God Bless, ski often and long, and remember... there are NO FRIENDS ON A POWDER DAY.

A Love Letter to All You Ski Flexers Out There.

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 06:38:43 GMT

Caution: Rant post.

Let me start by saying,

WHAT THE ACTUAL F***CK?

WHY do you feel the need to seriously jeopardize the structural integrity of a brand new ski...?

...or any ski for that matter.

Ok, here's where the influencers and the wannabes say;

" Are you serious? it doesn't hurt the skis in the least. All it does is break in the layers a bit- it's nothing that your first run of skiing wouldn't do ".

Allow me to answer your question with a question-

Are you telling me you flex a ski to the point where the tip and tail are pointing almost 90 degrees from the original centerline on your first run, or on ANY run?

FFS, world cup skiers don't get that much flex out of their skis, and they're the strongest skiers in the world.

Shoutout to NBC Sports for this Photo of Michaela Shiffren. This ia n EPIC shot.

Moving on...

Suggesting that bending the bejeezus out of a ski, waaaay beyond its design parameters, just to satisfy some oddly perverted need to hear it crack, isn't just harming the ski, it's hubris.

-likely with some ignorance blended in-

...but if you insist that hearing a ski crackling as you hyper flex it is ok, stay the f*ck away from my skis.

I'm not kidding.

I'll fight you,

...and I'll win.

Ok, for you non ski flexers...

Let me lay out this scenario for you-

You've just watched Joey Ski Flexer standing at the ski wall, flexing the snot out of the ski you walked into the store to buy...

Are you buying that ski, or are you grabbing the one behind it?

Even if we are captain extreme skier and we put that ski through the most evil stresses imaginable, do we think that doesn't shorten the life of a ski, potentially damaging it, even to the point of breaking it?

Let me point this out- ski cores aren't usually full length, single slabs of ancient growth tree wood any more- they haven't been for a really, REALLY long time. Ski cores are different pieces of wood, like ash or poplar, cut thinly into strips, which are then laid on their sides and stuck together vertically like the wood in a bowling alley, then held together with glue . Proper length is attained by joining sections of these with finger joints.

Yes...

You read that right.

Glued.

There are several pieces of different types of wood, pressed together with some heat and some glue to make full length cores.
Then, other stuff is added (fiberglass, rubber, carbon, titanal, etc.) to get the desired performance out of the skis.

Ok, maybe you landed badly off a jump, or skied straight into the front of a mogul or a feature... or maybe you stand with your skis bridged between the tips of two moguls.

-Well, if you do that last one, youre a moron-

Anyway, that amount of flex is unnatural.

Maybe you're a park skier and you float mile long butters off the tips and tails.

...Even THAT isn't flexing a ski as much as the all-knowing ski-flexers.

On top of that, do you know which skis break the MOST?

You guessed it. I see more broken park skis come through my shops than any other skis, by a factor of twenty.

Are we really so naive to think that hyper-flexing these skis doesn't do ANYTHING to the skis?

Do you think the fiberglass isn't cracking?

-Or the wood?

-Or that the carbon isn't weakening?

-Or the glued seams?

-Or that the Titanal isn't being deformed or separated from the layers it's attached to?

It ain't rocket science.

Let's take that a step further...

Are you actually doing anything constructive by assaulting that poor, defenseless ski?

Please don't tell me you can interpret how that ski will perform by flexing it alone....
You can't.
I don't care if you've skied 20 previous versions of that ski and everything is the same except that it flexes differently.
You.
Cannot.
Read.
A.
Ski.
By.
Standing.
In.
A.
Shop.
And.
Flexing.
It.

Hard Stop.

Yes- some skis flex differently- a Park ski will be softer than an all mountain ski, which will be softer than a race ski.

But if you tell me you can get a legitimate read on a ski based upon its flex and a casual look at it on the ski wall, you're delusional.

Seek help.

Skis perform based off a combination of overall flex, including how it flexes over different sections of the ski (tip, tail, and midbody), sidecut, camber and sweet spot, what's in the core (be it carbon, fiberglass, pieces of wood or rubber, the types and blends of glue, etc.), which bindings we put on it, the size, skill, and style of the pilot, the pilots height, weight, and weight distribution, conditions, and a host of other things.

So, until you ski it, you're wrong.

Please, stop.

You look ridiculous.

...and you're commiting first degree assault and battery on a product you likely haven't paid for.

Just stop.

Mount Snow has a new general manager, and she's the real deal.

Fri, 22 Aug 2025 19:30:25 GMT

Lea Gabrielle Potts, aka Wonder Woman, has been VP and General Manager of Mount Snow since 12/19/24.

I had the pleasure of riding on the lift with Ms Potts several times last year, having been formally introduced by our mutual friend, the infamous Cowboy Larry; local celebrity and ski bum extraordinaire. (Larry is the cool guy on the right, sitting next to some loser in the K1 gondola)

Firstly, let me put it out there... not only did she work for the US State Department, and fly fighter aircraft off carriers for the US f*cking Navy, she's a certified ripper and complete badass. Although, you'd never know it sitting next to her on the chair; she's as unassuming as they come. Don't let that fool ya though, she can turn and burn with some of the best skiers on the hill.

Last I had the pleasure of sharing a lift ride with her, she was having a one-on-one meeting with a staff leader while on the bubble chair, multi-tasking an afternoon of skiing, while I was spring skiing with Cowboy Larry and part of his rat pack.

That, my friends, is what The SOUL OF SKIING is all about.

Walk the walk.

Talk the talk.

Staff meetings on the lift.

Doing the ski report on the socials.

Actually getting out on the hill and vibing with the masses while getting a read on conditions, and talking to Joe and Jane Everyday Skier to get a feel for things.

Anyway, here are a few links so you can read up on her:

WIKIPEDIA

SAM (Ski Area Management online magazine )

Vermont Business Magazine

Brattleboro Reformer (local newspaper)

...and for you facebookers:

Mount Snow FaceBook Reel

What do you mean you can't adjust my bindings to my new boots? (Part 3: What is Backcountry Skiing?)

Fri, 22 Aug 2025 06:55:03 GMT

Backcountry Skiing looks cool- What is it and what do I need to start doing it?

There's evidence that skiing has been around since as early as 6300 BC. Most likely for moving quickly and carrying supplies efficiently across snowy terrain.

Skiing began out of necessity.

Since then, pleasure skiing has grown to approximately 370 million skier days per year. Who could've imagined that skiing would've grown into the multi-dimensional sport it has become?

In a previous post I mentioned different genres of skiing- Among those, I spoke of cross country and telemark skiing. I would consider those to be the forerunners to backcountry skiing.

Let's look at cross country first-

Skiing's most ancient roots resemble cross country (X/C) skiing.

X/C skiing evolved to use long, skinny skis, wearing warm boots which resemble modern hiking boots. The boot originally attached to the skis with leather straps, then later, metal cables, and then more sophisticated bindings. X/C bindings, generally, do not release. The toe of the boot remains attached to the ski, and hinges while the heel lifts and sets down on the ski again.

Locomotion occurs in such a way that the hips, knees and ankles flex, in a motion similar to running. The weight bearing foot provides traction and propulsion, along with the poles (which are approximately armpit height). The other foot slides the ski forward, and the opposing arm pushes with the pole. Once the hips pass over the forefoot of the weight bearing foot, the heel lifts as the skier pushes off the forefoot, and weight transfers to the other ski. The unweighted foot glides the ski forward, and the cycle repeats with the opposite foot. For the most part, the motion is linear. Turning requires lifting the inside ski and moving it in the direction of the turn while pushing with the outside foot. The wider the step, the tighter the turn. Sometimes, animal skis were used to provide traction for moving uphill.

Modern cross-country skis remain long and skinny- they glide very well and allow for fast travel over snow. For climbing uphill, today’s cross-country skiers use different waxes and, in some cases, a base with directional textures underfoot (fish scales, etc.) vs. being smooth at the ends of the skis.

Some of them have a full or partial metal edge, and they’re a little wider- though, not much. Those so equipped are better for controlling the speed of descending pitches. However cross-country skis aren't a very stable platform for skiing downhill- especially for prolonged periods.

Their design, long and thin with deep camber, excels at propelling skiers forward across the tundra (essentially, groomed, flat trails).

Within the last century, the evolution of X/C gear has accelerated drastically. X/C gear has become quite efficient at moving people from place to place, quickly, over snowy ground, primarily having evolved into two styles (skate and kick), requiring different gear for each.

Below are photos of a cross country skier and gear. As you can see, the long skis, with a the heels free, would be quite awkward while descending a relatively steep slope at speeds much faster than one could propel themselves forward.

X/C Gear:

Telemark skiing is a similar concept. The Telemark style was born out of the necessity to move through the mountainous terrain of central Europe.

Modern telemark skis are wider, with a flat base and metal edge like alpine skis. In fact, many telemark skiers use a traditional alpine ski to telemark with. The wider, shorter, platform is better in descents than cross country skis, but that makes them travel more slowly over flat ground. Additionally, because the base is meant to glide better downhill, they don't travel uphill very well. So, telemark skiers attach climbing skins to their skis to make them able to travel uphill without the effort it takes to use techniques, like the herringbone, to go uphill.

The downside is that Telemark skiing has a long learning curve, and it takes a lot of strength and dedication to become accomplished.

Telemark skiing, undeniably, is hard work; it’s very demanding upon one’s balance, strength, and endurance.

Again, the boot is attached at the toe, and hinges such that the heel is free to move up and down.

The motion traversing flat ground, and climbing, is the same as X/C skiing. Descending a hill requires a body motion similar to doing lunges in the gym. It requires the skier to drop down in the lunge position, allowing one ski to trail the other, with the tip of the trailing ski, resting near the tail of the leading ski, creating a modified "C" shape over the length of both skis to affect turning. To change direction, you unweight by popping up out of the lunge position, slide the trailing ski forward and then rinse-repeat. It requires significant athleticism, where timing and strength are paramount. Three runs of telemark skiing on a groomed intermediate run are like doing ten runs (or more) on alpine skis.

The upside is that telemark skiers aren't tied to a lift all day long. With some understanding of the weather and snowpack, the only thing holding them back is how much endurance they have, and, if necessary, how much food and gear they can carry. They can go anywhere, anytime, if the snow cover is safe and they're skilled enough to handle the terrain.

All these things work together to satisfy the telemark skiers’ penchant for the backcountry.

In that regard, backcountry skiing is more about the expedition as a whole- a holistic approach, if you will.

Somewhere in Utah:

For east coast skiers, backcountry is decidedly different. The telemark movement is a small minority of overall skier numbers. In fact, they prefer their community to remain small- They enjoy getting away from people, specifically preferring to avoid. the droves of people who swarm ski areas on weekends. People are a turn-off to them, so they strive to find places people don't go to enjoy their sport. The social aspect of tele skiing isn't tied to ski houses because the lifestyle is more about healthy living and enjoying the comradery of a tighter knit, smaller fellowship.

Case in point- there has always been a group or two of hardcore telemark skiers at Killington who get together one or two days a week to ski lift serviced terrain, then, often, pack up and around to Cooper's Cabin for a meal and a couple beers. They've been known to pack up at night (or early morning) with headlamps- sometimes skinning up groomed trails to ski all around the mountain. Their entire lifestyle is based around healthy living, living within their means, being one with nature and their relatively tight community.

For the most part, the rest of the eastern skiing community skis traditional alpine equipment in-resort, with perhaps a small subset of them making an annual hike to Tuckerman's ravine in the spring, lugging their gear within and attached to backpacks.

Additionally, a small minority of skilled skiers may make the effort to boot pack to the top of Sugarloaf’s snowfields, or Castlerock at Sugarbush… even make the foray to Octopus’ Garden at Mad River Glen (which, of course, is NOT a ski trail -IYKYK ��).

As far as actually living a lifestyle where a significant part of the day is spent touring to out of the way places to ski, that has yet to catch on as well as it has out west.

A quick blurb about Tuckerman’s Ravine :

Tuckerman's ravine is a bowl shaped feature on Mount Washington, New Hampshire- the highest mountain in the east. Mount Washington is known for its extreme weather, being greatly affected by the jet stream, having recorded the highest speed winds on the planet, at its peak.

Mount Washington is part of the Presidential range, a subset of the White Mountains, which are much older, geologically, than the Rockies, or the Himalayas, for that matter. At one time, that range was significantly higher, and grander- like the mountain range at the US continental divide, ranging as high as 15,000 feet at one time.

Over time, glaciation and weather eroded that range, leaving Mount Washington at its current peak of 6,288 feet. The ravine itself was formed by that same glacial erosion, during the Pleistocene Epoch, about 2 million years ago. Its natural shape (a glacial cirque- like an amphitheater) is excellent for holding snow into the spring, where with its varying pitches, moderately skilled and expert skiers alike, can enjoy a day of skiing and outdoor activities.

Tuck's is where the most (in)famous back country experience for New Englanders exists.

Tuckerman's Ravine (lower left- considered the birthplace of extreme skiing in the USA), The Raymond Cataract, (lower right) The Snowfields and Peak of Mount Washington:

Ease of access s a key element. Anyone who’s willing to make a not-so difficult hike to start their day, can access Tuckerman’s, without much specialty gear to get there. Once there, boot packing to the top of the trail you intend to ski is a workout, varying in difficulty with pitch. The steepest may require mountaineering equipment, like crampons and ice axes, but you don’t need to ski those runs to have a great day at Tuck’s. Mount Washington is, for the most part, open terrain with clear views of the mountain.

To access off-piste terrain at ski areas- most notably, at the infamous Mad River Glen, one would take a lift to the top, then make a relatively short traverse, through forest, over to the magical terrain that ski area is renowned for.

Few people outside the telemark community trekked outside of ski areas- and those who did found that it can be very difficult to map and manage the tree covered terrain. So, only the most hardcore skiers made ski touring a regular ski experience. Given its ease of access, Tuckerman's became a springtime destination, where most could boot pack, or easily snowshoe, the 3.8 miles from the trailhead.

Other genres of skiing spun off the idea of accessing back country terrain.

Over the years extreme skiing movies have glorified the thrill and excitement of skiing more extreme terrain, both inside and outside of lift service, along with the athleticism of performing tricks in that terrain. Hucking off rocks to land 40 feet, or more, from the take off point became old hat- so People began doing backflips, multiple revolution spins, landing switch, and continued to attempt more complicated stuff- all because people learned that such things were possible in the park- so why not do that in natural terrain too?

More and more people began searching out terrain beyond lift service, ducking ropes to ski outside defined ski areas. Thus, the idea of sidecountry skiing was born.

However, skiers soon discovered that there were reasons that terrain is not lift serviced; be it avalanche danger, difficulty of rescue, or just the risk associated with the more extreme terrain.

Stories of people dying in this "sidecountry" territory became more and more common in the news and in ski publications around the country.

In January 2000, a husband and wife- Greg and Loren Mackay- both experienced skiers; strong, healthy people (they owned a scuba diving business), dropped their child at day care, then ventured outside the gate at the top of 9990 (in the area formerly known as the Canyons- now part of Park City Ski Resort).

They never showed up to pick their child at the end of the day.
They perished in an avalanche, just outside the area boundary.

Once you leave an established set of trails, especially a ski area boundary, you are in the back country. There is no ski patrol, no frequent hikers, and no one to help you. You are on your own, and in real danger, no matter how experienced you are. In fact, you can easily get lost in-bounds, at many ski areas.

The message here is that proximity to civilization or a ski resort is meaningless. In that vein, don't kid yourselves- there is no sidecountry- everything outside of lift service is backcountry, and the proper precautions, along with knowledge of that kind of terrain and how to manage it. is the difference between life and death.

From that, an industry was born.

Still, you needed to access those places which lifts did not reach, to have those experiences.

Overall, the attraction to back country skiing is obvious. The beauty of the backcountry, tied to the allure of more extreme terrain and untracked snow, along with the appeal to multi-sport athletes, has come to define the sport.

But how to do this in the east?

Necessity is, of course, the mother of invention.

Over time an entire industry grew around backcountry skiing; avalanche training classes began popping up all over the Rockies.

With those classes, the list of gear grew quickly; specialty items like backpacks with inflatable airbags, sometimes costing $2,000 or more, ice axes, crampons for trekking on icy terrain, snow-saws, beepers, radio gear, packable shovels and probes to assist in finding and digging out people buried by avalanches, clothing layers specific for the better management of body temperature in back country conditions, and a host of other things became required for survival of a day of skiing.

For east coast skiers, that's a bit much for most of us to swallow. Mount Washington is one of the few places with avalanche risks, and the most accessible terrain existed at or near existing ski areas.

popularity of the sport.

the allure of backcountry skiing skiers continued to search out virgin terrain, claiming first turns on never-before skied slopes. Every year

Everyday working stiffs wanted access to big mountain, aggressive skiing, without the costs of helicopters, snowcats, and the budget a film production team provides.

Yet, that terrain remains close, and available, existing as territory outside the lift service of ski areas. Much of it is a short hike away from the lifts.

So, your heels attached. There are obvious issues, not the least of which are trying to land a 40 ft jump with out a solid landing platform.

"Ok dude, enough- get to the point about my boots now working with my bindings.:

Here are some AT binding examples:

Some of the differences are obvious- The top binding requires special slots in the heels of your boots to hold your boots down for using them like a traditional binding.

If you go back to the first picture in this post with the orange Scarpa boot, you can see that the heel piece of the binding does not clamp down over the boot's heel lug, like this one. Once you step down, you're locked in. It's not really meant to release (it will, but not easily).

standardThe advantage is that it's very light. If you spend the majority of your time touring, as opposed to downhilling, this rig makes sense.

The binding in the lower photo allows you to use a more traditional boot to binding interface, but the boot still needs to have some way to hinge freely at the ankle. It's a heavier rig, and the thought is that it allows an easy transition to back country skiing, and that you can use a heavier (tougher) boot. Touring boots, while much lighter, they're a bit more flimsy, and not as stiff.

Anyway, you defintiely can't use traditional alpine ski boost in the top photo, at least, without having the proper inserts installed. But that doesn't solve how the boot will flex freely at the ankle.

It's also not recommended for the one in the lower photo. You'd have a much lower range of motion and your foot is more likely to slip in the boot, creating excessive wear, blisters, and worse.

So, referring back to part 1 (The GripWalk thing), there are standards.

The different standards and boot sole shapes (ISO 5355 for alpine, ISO 9523 for touring, ISO 23223 for GripWalk) mean that it's crucial to verify boot and binding compatibility, and AT bindings are not universally compatible with all boot standards.

Additionally, ISO 13992 ski boots may LOOK like they';; work in traditional alpine bindings, and you may be able to click into them, the toe and heel lug shapes Do not conform to the ISO 9462 standard for alpine bindings, and they don't hold or release properly. Additionally, they don't have a flat anti-friction surface at the bottom to interface with the AFD on the binding:

So, there you have it.

Some vendors think it's ok to use the ISO 13992 boots with alpine bindings, and will try to sell them to you under those auspices.

This happens because the standards can be confusing, allong with the labelling on the boxes and the descriptions on the product websites.

Know your products and their compatibility- especially if you're buying something you can't return.

That's it for this topic...

For now, at least.

Good luck!

PFAS, SCHMEEFAS!

Wed, 20 Aug 2025 09:45:02 GMT

What tf is PFAS, and why do I care?

PFAS (per and polyfluoroalkyl substances), are a group of man-made chemicals that have been used in various industrial and consumer products since the 1940s. They are often referred to as "forever chemicals" because they don't break down easily in the environment. They are found in many everyday items, including non-stick cookware, food packaging, firefighting foam, water-repellent clothing, and (you guessed it) ski wax.

Odds are, if you own a ski shell or parka that's more than a couple years old, it was treated with a PFAS based product.

If you have used a high-end wax, odds are it has a PFAS based chemicals added into a hydrocarbon* base.

Have you ever heard of F-4, or some other rub on paste? You know, the stuff that reeks of chemicals, rubs onto your ski base and dries quickly...?

Well, F4 (and other pastes) are (were?) the penultimate source of PFAS in the ski industry. It increases the hydrophobic properties of wax such that glide and water repellency are vastly improved. The world cup circuit has been using it for decades.

Hydrophobic?

Isn't snow frozen?

Why is this a thing?

As a ski glides over snow, the friction melts the snow surface where it makes contact with the ski, for an instant. If the water can't be kept away from the base of the ski, it bonds to the ski base and creates "stiction"; a situation where the water creates a seal, like a vacuum, that slows down gliding skis.

Have you ever seen the science experiement where a drop or two of water is placed onto a clean pane of glass, then another pane is pressed to it, then some poor soul is forced to try and seaparate the two panes of glass?

It's darn near impossible.

The surface tension of the water, combined with atmospheric pressure and the principle of adhesion (a bond between the water and the molecules of glass) makes the two panes of glass stick together.

With your skis, the layer of wax helps prevent the adhesion, and the hydrophobic properties of the PFAS enhanced chemical causes the water to be (more or less) repelled from the waxed ski surface

That's the principle we're discussing.

This principle explains why skis are sticky in spring mank , or why it is that passing over puddles sitting on top of the snow pack are like slamming on the brakes.

This is why we use a yellow wax in warm, spring weather. A good, silicone based, yellow wax, will stop the water from bonding, and help the ski glide over the wet surface.

Add a PFAS based chemical to your hydrocarbon wax, and it's a bazillion times more water repellent than an infusion of silicone.

Science is everywhere- including the ski industry.

Wax mavens have known this forever. In a sport where races can be won or lost based upon thousandths of a second, the science of ski waxing plays a huge role.

That's not all...

Add a PFAS-based treatment to the outermost layer of your ski clothes, and ~POOF!~ You're warm and dry, instead of succumbing to hypothermia.

"Whoa dude, that sounds so important...

Why do we care about the stuff in the environment?"

Exposure to PFAS has been linked to a variety of health problems, including liver damage, immune system issues, and certain types of cancer. Once it's in your system, it's there forever. Hence, the moniker "forever chemical".

It can take over 1,000 years to break down in the environment.

There are over 4,700 PFAS chemicals in widespread use. Some get cleared out of the body in our urine in a matter of days, but others with a longer molecular structure can hang around in the body for years. It accumulates in the liver, kidneys, lungs, bones, and bloodstream.

It has been linked to liver cancer, along with kidney, bladder, testicular, prostate, breast cancer and leukemia. It's also been linked to changes in fetal and child development, liver damage, increased risk of thyroid disease, and lymphoma.

Well, f*ck.

We all thought the only harm skiing could do was blow out a few knees, break a few bones and leave you with some bumps and bruises (unless your last name is Kennedy, or Sonny Bono, of course).

I guess we screwed the pooch on that one.

On top of that, many of us old-timers in the ski industry have heard some scary stories related to it.

We used to add a layer of F-4 after we dripped on the appropriate hydrocarbon wax, then iron it in together. That was guaranteed to make your skis glide faster.

We all heard warnings that said never smoke a cigarette while ironing in F-4 or the resulting combination of expelled gasses from the wax and F-4, combined with whatever was in cigarette smoke, would kill you instantly.

...I guess that shoud've been a hint.

Urban legend or not, there's a reason that story circulated. Google couldn't find a specific article (most likely because this happened before the internet became a thing), but it does warn against it, citing health and safety hazards.

Shoot, SWIX (and other wax vendors) have entire lines of products dedicated to protecting yourself from wax fumes and the dust created while brushing your skis, post waxing.

Anyway, I digress.

For you chemist wannabe-geeks out there, PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a large group of man-made chemicals characterized by their carbon-fluorine bonds. These bonds are extremely strong, making PFAS highly resistant to degradation in the environment and in the human body. The general chemical structure of PFAS involves an alkyl chain, typically with 2 to 16 carbon atoms, where fluorine atoms are bonded to the carbon atoms.

Basic chemistry told us that fluorine (F2) is pretty harmful stuff.

So, hey... why not bond it to carbon and make it indestructible?

Whodathunkit that such chemicals could be dangerous?

I mean, we're all carbon based life forms, right? So, carbon must be OK...

Shoot, my dad, the auto and truck mechanic, used to hunt around for old fire extinguishers so we could wash our tools and car parts in carbon tetrachoride (another great cleaning chemical and fire retardant) and we never wore gloves to wash parts.

-Want to know a cool snippet about carbon tet? The instant you touch it, you taste it.

...and it's foul.

...and it lingers for days.

Who knew?

I guess we should've figured... We knew that carbon tetrachloride can eventually break down in the environment, but it does so through various complex chemical and photochemical reactions.

Looking a little deeper-

Carbon tet is a much simpler molecule:

"Dude. Who cares about the sh*t you used to do to wash your car parts?"

Well, you read where I said we used F4 paste , a couple paragraphs ago, right?

Here's the molecure of PF4 ...

Replace the choride in CCL4 (carbon tet) wth fluorine and you get....

You guessed it; PF4.

-A carbon-fluorine molecule.

Shorter-chain molecules have a greater vapor pressure and are more easily vaporized, making them more accessible for combustion reactions.

Now we know why it's really dangerous to heat up then inhale-

In terms of how long it lasts in the environment-

In essence, it is generally considered easier to break down a long carbon chain molecule into smaller molecules, particularly through processes like cracking, which strategically target and cleave multiple C-C bonds to produce smaller hydrocarbons. Breaking down a single carbon atom molecule would involve overcoming the relatively stronger C-F bonds.

Soooooooo....

Long story short, now we understand why it's called a forever chemical.

Carbon chains are very strong, because they form stable covalent bonds with each other (the carbon atoms share electrons, which is wicked strong, and wicked stable bruh).

Case in point; water (H2O) molecules are formed with covalent bonding, and you can heat and freeze that shit forever , and when it returns to room temperature, it becomes water again.

Get it?

While my understanding of organic chemistry is limited to high school chem, from more than 40 years ago, and I may have skipped a couple pieces of the scientific flotsam, the point remains; forever chemicals with a carcinogenic nature are bad.

PFAS, in general:

Unlike many other chemicals, there aren't natural biological or chemical processes that effectively break down PFAS in the environment.
It's also persistent in Water and Soil; Due to their stability, PFAS can persist in water and soil for long periods, potentially contaminating drinking water sources and accumulating in ecosystems.

So, FIS has banned the stuff.

Here's a summary of the restrictions:

Initial Ban: In 2019, FIS announced a ban on the use of PFAS in waxes, which was planned to be enforced starting in the 2020-2021 season.
Targeted Ban: From the 2021-2022 season onwards, FIS prohibited the use of products containing C8 fluorocarbons, including Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), at all FIS events.
Full Fluorine Ban: A total ban on fluorine in competitive skiing, including all types of fluorinated compounds and additives in ski waxes, took effect at the beginning of the 2023-2024 season.

Now what? I've got a huge can of F-4, hidden in my [I'll never tell] that I can't use anymore.

Wanna buy some stuff that will make your skis REALLY fast?

I mean, it's not illegal to sell it....

Selling PFAS-based chemicals is not outright illegal in the United States, but regulations are increasingly restricting their sale and use, both at the federal and state level .

Here's a breakdown of the current situation:

Federal regulations:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been working to regulate PFAS under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Recent actions include requiring reporting on PFAS manufacturing and use, establishing drinking water standards, and classifying certain PFAS as hazardous substances.
State regulations:
Many states have implemented bans or restrictions on PFAS in various consumer products, like food packaging, textiles, and firefighting foam.
For example, California's AB-1817 will prohibit the manufacture, distribution, and sale of new textile articles containing regulated PFAS starting January 1, 2025. Minnesota's Amara's Law prohibits intentionally added PFAS in products like carpets, cleaning products, cookware, and cosmetics, also starting in 2025.

Key takeaways:

It's a complex and evolving landscape: Regulations vary significantly by state and type of product.
Focus on "intentionally added PFAS": Many regulations target products where PFAS are deliberately included for a functional purpose, such as water or stain resistance.
Watch for "currently unavoidable use" exemptions: Some regulations include exemptions for situations where PFAS are currently essential and no viable alternatives exist.
Disclosure requirements are becoming common: In some cases, even when a ban isn't yet in effect, products containing PFAS may require labeling or disclosure statements.

So, you can buy it, but you can't really use it.

It's kinda like THC and abortion... it ain't illegal, but it kinda is.

Anyway, I'm not goin' there.

That's my PSA for today.

I kinda hoped to avoid a long and drawn out mansplain of how PFAS is in the waterproofing for ski clothes and also in ski waxes...

...just a, you know, a "heads up".

I kinda failed.

I hope it makes a little more sense now.

Anyway, the price of high end ski wax has jumped significantly these days, and I can't buy a can of spray on wax and have it shipped to Massachusetts anymore.

Why do I care?

Well, the yellow spray-on is a magic cure for spring mank.

It ain't perfect, but it's a quick fix.

I guess I'll have to find whats left of my old block of rub-on silver wax (IYKYK).

Next, we'll talk about micro-plastics and fleece clothing.

...sigh...

* A hydrocarbon is an organic chemical compound made up entirely of hydrogen and carbon atoms. These compounds are the primary components of fossil fuels like crude oil, natural gas, and coal. They are important for energy and serve as raw materials for countless products, including fuels (gasoline, propane), plastics, solvents, and synthetic materials. Hydrocarbons vary in complexity, from simple gases like methane to large polymers and complex structures.

Killington has left the building... Sort of.

Wed, 20 Aug 2025 08:23:01 GMT

Killington remains on the IKON pass.

...for the foreseeable future.

Killington skiers get a maximum of 7 days of skiing on the IKON pass.

Killington is still included in the session passes, as well.

If you want to ski Killington or Pico for more than 7 days, you have to go to the Killington website and purchase a different pass. Pricing is a bit complicated... not to mention, just a tad expensive.

If you just want a day pass, it becomes more complicated.

ATTENTION K-MART SHOPPERS....

Here's a breakdown for day passes. It features prorated pricing:

The projected start date is November 8th.

The first two Saturdays (11/8 and 11/15) are $72 per day.

The first two Sundays (11/9 and 11/16) are $80 per day.

The first two Mondays (11/10 and 11/17) are $74 per day (yes, you read that right. Mondays are more expensive than Saturdays).

The remainder of those weeks, including Fridays, are $68 per day.

As of November 22, everything goes up.

Saturday the 22nd is $99, and Saturday the 28th (Thanksgiving weekend) is $130 for the day.

Sunday the 23rd is $92 and the 29th is $130.

Thanksgiving week 11/24, 11/25, and 11/26 (M-W) is $85 per day. Thursday (Thanksgiving day) and Friday 11/27 and 11/28 are both $111 per day.

...and that's just November.

Here's the calendar as published on the Killington website as of 8/20/25:

So, for May and June, the days that don't list prices aren't available for pre-purchase. As far as I understand it, that doesn't mean they wont be open, it just means you can't pre-purchase. Which is, of course, dependent upon the weather.

Now, for season passes , There are 13 (yes, you read that right, THIRTEEN) options, NOT including the separate pricing by age.

The highest end pass is the Beast 365 pass at $2,069. It includes unlimited Killington/Pico access, 50+ Ikon Base Pass destinations, and "summer fun". Basically, it's an IKON base pass with full season access to K-Mart and Pico.

By comparison, an IKON unlimited pass (up to 7 days at any IKON location) is $1,429.

The Killington only pass is the Killington Unlimited pass at $1,469 which includes unlimted skiing at Killington and Pico with "perks". That comes with a free child pass for children 6 and under.

Next is the Killington Midweek Pass at $829, which is good Monday through Friday, and excludes select restricted dates: Dec. 29, 2025-Jan. 2, 2026 and Feb. 16, 2026.

Pass number 4 is the Vermont Student Pass at $569. It's for all vermont students from levels K-12 and it includes perks. It requires proof of residency and has no blackout days.

From here, you can purchase add-ons. In other words, you need some level of season pass to puchase the following options:

The Fast Tracks Season Pass allows you to skip the lines for an additional $699, and it's valid from 12/20 to 4/5. You can use it with any lift ticket/season pass.

There's also the Fast Tracks 4 Day Pack for $239, which gives you express lane access on any 4 days, Dec 20–Apr 5. You can use it with any lift ticket/season pass.

Now we move on to parking- my pet peeve.

You can purchase the K-1 Preferred Parking Pass for $729, which allows you to park in the preferred lot next to the K-1 Gondola. For the Killington faithful, this sucks, because we used to park at the edge of the trail there, put our boots on in the car, then step right up to the trail and ski down to the Snowdon Quad to head up the hill. It was especially advantageous on warmer days because you could throw your lunch and a lawn chair in the trunk, and avoid the lodge entirely.

Paid.

Parking.

Sucks.

So much for being rewarded for getting to the ski area early. Now the Maseratis and Porche Cayennes can park together, where the elite only have each other to yell at.

You can rent a 7' tall, 15" wide, and 18" deep seasonal locker at Snowshed , which starts AFTER FEBRUARY 9th for $499.

Lesson packages :

The 4241' Club gets purchasers over the age of 18, 12 Saturday lessons, starting February 1st for $939.

The Beast Kids Pass is group lessons for ages 4-15 and costs $2,569. It's on Saturdays and Sundays from January 3-March 15, 2026 and holidays January 19 and February 16, 2026 (A total of 24 sessions). Otherwse known as the "dump off the kids so mommy and daddy can go drink in the lodge" pass.

Drop off/ Pick up: Drop off by 8:45a.m. at the Drop t's Zone located slopeside outside of the Ramshead Lodge and pick up at 3:00p.m. in the same location

Lunch : Includes lunch.

Adult Tuesday Ski Sessions are open to intermediate and advanced skiers. There are 8 sessions on Tuesdays (January 6, 13, 20, 27 February 3, 10, 24 and March 3.) from10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m at Snowshed Base Area and cost $349. This is a GREAT deal. I recommend it for everyone.

Women's Midweek Sessions meet on Thursdays for 8 sessions on January 8, 15, 22, 29, February 5, 12, 26 and March 5 from 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. at Snowshed Base Area for $349. ANother great deal...

Also, formerly known as the "Women's Ski Scrapers" (Women's ski Escape).

Then, last but not least, you can get a Season Tune for $229 at Snowshed.

So, that's how things have shaken out at the Beast of the East.

Remember, the World Cup race normally scheduled at Killington will be in Colorado this year, because of the Superstar chair upgrade.

Lastly, for what it's worth, end of season skiing on Dipper was really good last season. While the tradition for the past few decades has been to end the season on Superstar, skiing up in the canyon wasn't a bad option, and it reminded me of years past, before Superstar became the end of season party place.

So far, Killington seems to be enjoying it's freedom, and I think they're making the "beast" of it.

Does size really matter?

Wed, 20 Aug 2025 04:30:20 GMT

What size ski should I really be on?

So here it is, my take on the question "Does size really matter?"

Vis-a-vis, "What length ski should I be on?"

I started out writing this trying to not over-complicate things, but, by now, y'all know me...

There's no one more verbose.

By saying I don't want to over-complicate things, that's a sure sign that I'm about to mansplain the hell out of something.

So buckle up, I'm about to bore the hell out of you.

In the most basic terms. ski size is, mostly, related to the weight of the skier.

At least, that's the starting point.

That's contrary to what we learned a generation ago.

From there, other factors weigh in...

How tall are you?

How aggressive are you?

What "kind" of skiing do you do?

What terrain do you like to ski?

How stiff is the ski?

How wide is the ski?

Etc.

Pick a manufacturer's website, and they are sure to have some kind of sizing tool; just find a link that says, "Find my size", "Size Chart", etc.

For reference, I chose the " Size Chart " on the Rossignol site, because it describes, in the simplest terms, the "rules of thumb" most retail sales people use to help you find your size.

In the simplest terms, those rules start with a ski used on groomed trails , and recommends:

Beginners: your height -10 cm

Intermediate: Your height -7 cm

Experienced: Your height -5 cm

Expert: Your height

The first thing to notice is that there's a fourth category called "Experienced"- That thumbs it's nose a bit at the old classifications of beginner/intermediate/advanced/race.

There are lots of reasons for that.

Firstly, race skis have changed significantly since the old norms of 208-210 cm for GS skis and 203-205 for slalom skis. Each race ski has become highly specific within it's design parameters such that there will be manufacturers recommendations for each model and each "U" classification (U12, U16, etc).

So, we don't really talk about them anymore, because the expectation is that if you're racing, you damn well know what size you need. If you have to ask a salesperson then you probably shouldn't be on an FIS-specific ski.

Which, leads me to point out that there are separate classifications under the racing genre, as well (FIS, NON-FIS, "detuned" racing, Multi-event, etc.).

So, for our discussion, race is out of the picture.

At least, for now.

Racing aside, let's talk about modern descriptions as they relate to ski size.

First and foremost, we need to start thinking about this in terms of time on the hill. Actual skills come into play later.

At the end of the day, you will have to make a value judgement as it relates to yourself, once you have some idea of what it means to be a skier.

Beginner:

A beginner is someone who has never-ever skied, to 5 or 6 days maximum, of total skiing. The rationale here is that as someone who has never had long sticks attached to their feet on a snowy, icy, hill, it's easier to get your bearings on something that's really easy to push into a wedge (pizza) and transfer back to parallel (french fries).

Once you have your bearings (understand the basics of those two concepts and, also, a basic understanding related to balance on skis) you should immediately move to something longer.

According to Google AI:

A beginner skier is typically defined as someone who is either new to skiing or still primarily uses a snowplow (wedge) to control their turns and slow down. They may be limited to green runs (easiest slopes) and may need assistance navigating the slopes.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

New to skiing:

This includes individuals who have never skied before or have only a few very limited experiences on the slopes.

Snowplow turning:

Beginner skiers rely heavily on the snowplow (wedge) position to control their speed and direction, often making it difficult to maintain parallel skis during turns.

Green run preference:

Beginners often stick to the easiest slopes (marked green) due to limited skills and confidence.

Need for assistance:

Beginners may require guidance or instruction to navigate the slopes safely and effectively.

Beginner-friendly skis:

Beginner skis are typically designed to be easier to maneuver, with a softer flex and a narrower width, making them more forgiving for new skiers.

Once you've reached this point, you need to go up 5 cm in ski length.

"Why?" You may ask...

Short skis start out easier to control, but after a short time, there's diminishing return to using them. We rely upon how much edge is in contact with the snow for control; managing speed, turning, stopping, and traversing around. We refer to that as "effective edge". Long story short, if you don't have enough effective edge, you can't stop as the pitches get steeper and firmer, and as relative speeds increase.

Anyway, a beginner, on their first day, probably gets to somewhere around 5-10 mph, max. In the very beginning, that 5 mph feels fast. After a day, sometimes even just an hour or two if you're reasonably athletic, new skiers, naturally, start to push that closer to 10 mph as their confidence level increases and they realize it's easier to turn a ski when you're moving a bit faster (simple phsysics; force increases on skis, it becomes easier to flex ino the shape of a turn).

SIDEBAR:

The reality of beginner skis is a little bit more complicated than a simple length discussion. To turn a ski at very slow speeds, it's advantageous to use a short, soft ski. The downside to that is those skis have a speed limit of 10-15 mph. So, you need to increase length and stiffness of skis to be able to improve.

The math is pretty simple, really.

Additionally, a true beginner ski is going to be soft, both lengthwise, and torsionally (twisting). A ski that's torsionally soft allows a beginner to slide in and out of turns easily, without the ski feeliing too "catchy". They're also a bit easier to use the wedge with.

These factors affect the ski's overall skiability.

Long story short, a beginner ski will be easier for a new skier to get their bearings with, but it will be unstable at moderate speeds and have poor overall edgegrip.

For a ski to have good edgegrip, you need both torsional rigidity and effective edge (overall ski length).

If you take that a bit further, you realize that given the fact that a person shouldn't be on a beginner ski for more than 5-6 days, it makes little sense to buy a true beginner ski. In my mind, skiers are best served by renting their first year, getting their bearings, then buying a ski they can use for a couple seasons .

For a beginner ski purchase to really make sense, you'd need to pass it on to others once the current skier has outgrown it.

That said, don't expect to get more than a season or two out of an intermediate ski, either.

At this point, there will always be that person who says, "Oh, I don't know- I'm really afraid that I'll go too fast and wont be able to turn because my skis are too long. I like my short skis."

Ok, that argument only works in the extremes. In other words, if you're 184 cm tall, and you are in your first 5 days of skiing, yes- a 165-170 is ok for your first few days. But after that, as you start to build the skills necessary to maneuver on a ski hill, you have to remember that the short ski doesn't have enough effective edge to hold at the (naturally) higher speeds you will be going, nor does it have the edge grip for you to be able to maneuver, and stop, especially while skiing on steeper pitches than a bunny slope.

That does not mean that you should jump right up to a 184 cm ski, because that will feel like you just strapped 2X4s onto your feet and you wont be able to make them do anything you want them to do.

So, we talk about the next increment; usually 5 cm longer.

All things being equal, an instructor should have you move up to an incrementally longer ski once you have a solid understanding of using a wedge to stop and turn, and move to parallel skis to move forward.

Notice I said "solid understanding", not "mastered".

That's an important distiction. Mastering wedge turns should not be your goal; they're both exhausting and inefficient.

That said, knowing when to use the wedge, or, at least, knowing when to fall back on it, should be all you need to move on the the next thing, which involves adding a step to get in and out of the wedge, from having the skis parallel for bit during the turn, This helps you understand the effects of weight transfer, and what an inside and outside ski are for when skiing parrallel turns.

For that, you need to move right up to the "intermediate" length skis. Reason being, you've immediately increased the physical forces the ski has to interact with, and the beginner length skis don't have enough material (we'll call it surface area, for simplicity) to handle those forces.

Long story short, as the forces increase, the ski feels like a wet noodle and actually becomes less versatile. There's also a risk of breakage or damage to the skis.

This is where people need to get over their initial fear of a longer ski. It's a bit of a leap of faith, but it's necessary.

So, let's address that point now.

INTERMEDIATE:

According to Google AI, An intermediate skier can confidently ski on groomed slopes of moderate difficulty, such as blue runs, and can link parallel turns while controlling their speed and direction. They are comfortable skiing most on-piste terrain at their own pace and may start to explore ungroomed areas like moguls or powder, though they might still struggle with technique and balance in these conditions.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Comfortable on Blue Runs:

Intermediate skiers can handle groomed blue runs with confidence, demonstrating the ability to control their speed and turn effectively.

Parallel Turns:

They can link parallel turns, indicating a good foundation in basic skiing technique.

Terrain Adaptation:

While they are comfortable on groomed slopes, they may start to explore other terrain like moguls or powder, though they may not be as skilled in these conditions.

Speed and Direction Control:

They can generally control their speed and direction, making adjustments based on the terrain and snow conditions.

Starting to Carve:

Some intermediate skiers might begin to experience the feeling of carving turns, adding a new dimension to their skiing. This ag.dds a whole new dimention to skiing- especially since being able to carve turns in multiple shapes, sizes, and speeds is a pretty advanced thing. People often claim they can carve a turn, but what they really mean is they can point a pair of skis down a hill, roll them up on edge, and let the ski track on its edge. While that's technically carving the skis, it's a limited perspective as to what carving turns really maeans.

Confidence Level:

They may still lack some confidence, particularly in low visibility or on challenging terrain, and might revert to a more basic wedge or wider stance when feeling uncertain.

Weight Distribution:

A common issue for intermediates is having their weight too far back on their heels instead of distributed evenly on the balls of their feet.

So, long story short, an intermediate skier can use a wedge, a stem christie, and can link multiple turns where their skis are pointing in relatively the same direction. Those parallel turns can be skidded, and in the spirit of the definition, not every turn has to be parallel. The skier just needs to link more than one parallel turn over the course of a run.

In terms of speed, an intermediate skier can ski consistently at 10-20 mph, with bursts up to somewhere around 25-30 mph.

In a nutshell, this skier requires a ski that's a bit stiffer torsionally, yet soft enough lengthwise such that it's fairly easy to bend the ski into the shape of the turn.

Bear in mind here (again, according to Google AI), the average recreational skier moves along between 20 and 30 mph. I think that's a good assessment. Although, with continued improvements in technology, I believe we will see the averages creep up as skis become inherently more stable at speed and easier to ski on.

Keep in mind that the average recreational skier is somewhere between intermediate and experienced. Most people just don't carve turns with both skis on the ground. They're lifting the inside ski and/or skidding a significant part of the turn.

To sum it up- once you have that weight/unweight thing figured out well enough that step turns (otherwise referred to as "stem christies")* are boring, it's time to move up to the next size.

Which brings us to...

EXPERIENCED:

An "experienced skier" generally refers to someone who has a high level of skill and comfort on the slopes, capable of handling a variety of conditions and terrains. While there's no single, universally accepted definition, an experienced skier typically possesses the following characteristics:

Key Characteristics of an Experienced Skier:

Comfort on Diverse Terrain:

They can ski confidently on black diamond runs and expert-only terrain, including moguls, powder, and icy patches.

Control and Agility:

They can maintain control at higher speeds and navigate challenging terrain with ease and precision.

Proficiency in Advanced Techniques:

They can execute advanced techniques like carving, parallel turns, and jump turns, and can adapt their skiing style to different snow conditions.

Versatility:

They are not limited to groomed runs and can ski comfortably in off-piste and backcountry areas.

Experience and Confidence:

They have accumulated significant time on the slopes and possess the confidence to tackle various challenges.

In essence, an experienced skier is someone who can handle most, if not all, of what a ski resort has to offer, with skill, control, and confidence.

"How long until I go from an Intermediate length ski to an "Experienced" length?"

A great indicator is when you feel that you're consistently going too fast on a pair of skis. If the ski is "nervous", vis-a-vis, making YOU nervous, it's not enough ski for you. This would also indicate it's time for a ski upgrade. Another factor might be that you feel you're in control, and your skis are well maintained, but they just don't have enough edge grip for you.

So, once you've become aggressive enough (or bored with going so slow it takes -what feels like- forever to get down a trail), you should consider going longer.

At that point, adding to your skill set is a necessity.

Yes, that means take a lesson or two.

Many will make the argument (my daughter included) that they're good skiers because they have the balance to handle more speed and steeper slopes, and/or that they're always in control.

Modern skis, with exponentially easier balance points (sweet spots) and more stable construction, make it easy for us to have the confidence to believe our skill set is better than it really is.

One sign that this is true is related to how you feel about mogul fields. Are you confident in them? Are you exhausted after half a run through them? Do you feel like you're not in control of your skis, or that they run away from you (accelerate too quickly to control)? If any of those are true, you're just not as good as you think you are.

"Oh. I don't care about moguls, I hate them. I hate skiing in the spring and heavier, wet snow, too".

Yeah.... those are the signs that you aren't as good as you think you are. Especially if your mantra is to get out really early on a spring day, while the snow is still fairly firm and well groomed, then call it a day once the snow softens up/gets tracked up.

In a nutshell, this is about as far as a simple understanding of weight transfer and edge control gets you. You may ski steep, advanced trails, but if you can't vary your turn shape intuitively, or handle varied conditions without a care in the world, it's time to increase your quiver of skills and knowledge. For that, you need someone who cna help you get over that hump. This is where most people stagnate in their growth as a skier.

I can't say I blame them... they can maneuver just fine, have fun on hte hill, and lessons are just so darn expensive. All I can say is, if you have a season pass, odds are, you get some kind of reduced price perks for lessons, that go with it.

I get it, skiing is expensive. That's why it has always been considered a sport for the rich and famous. All I can say is that as your skills get better, skiing gets more fun. The rest is up to you.

Besides, if you want to ski those really cool skis you see in the SKi Magazine annual review, that EVERYONE is skiing on this season, you're gonna need to know how to handle them.

So, from here, when discussing ski length, things can get a little fuzzy.

"I'm a good skier but I ski a lot of trees and bumps so I like a shorter ski for maneuverability".

Ok, that's a good argument, but only to a point.

My question is, have you mastered an "advanced" length ski on groomed snow such that you understand the advantages and disadvanges of skiing a ski that's shorter than recommended?

Not the least of which being the energy expenditure?

That's your Catch-22.

This is also when you ask yourself, "Do I need more than one pair of skis?"

Let's table that discussion and get back to talking about ski lengths as they relate to you and your skiing. For now, it's enough to plant the seed in your mind that you may need to improve your skill set, and there may be a need for more than one pair of skis.

Let's talk about what happens when you ski a ski that's shorter, a ski that's longer, and one that's at the "recommended" length.

In the most basic language, a ski that's shorter is, generally, easier to turn- especially at slower speeds. Longer skis are more stable as your speed increases, and generally need to be moving a bit faster before you can start turning them.

That's the rule of thumb- and that rule of thumb relates to a mostly carved turn. Anyone can slide a ski back and forth like windshield wipers on your car, but most skis aren't designed to be skid around all the time. They're designed to glide forward, being flexed by the skier to create a modified "C" shape to make the ski track through a turn, then trasitioning into the next turn using the energy stored in the flexed ski while you roll over to the other edges.

That's not to say that a skid isn't a legitimate tactic for managing turn shape and velocity. However, skidding is a tactic, not a great methodology overall. It's inefficient, and wears out the skis (along with the snow on the hill) much faster.

"What happens if I ski a ski that's the wrong size?"

Speaking from my own experience, when I ski on a pair of skis that's 5 cm too short, they feel more demanding on my need to stay well centered over the sweet spot of the ski, because that sweet spot is smaller on a shorter ski. That means I'm holding my core tighter and lowering my stance over the skis. If I don't, I find that the ski can "buck", or kick me out of the turn if I'm not in perfect balance. For those of you who are experienced skiers, think about what happens when your weight gets thrown back over the tails of your skis.

There is also a stability sacrifice as I increase speed, and the turn shape is a shorter.

When I ski on a ski that's 5 (or more) cm longer, I find that I need to be moving as a higher speed before I can start turning them. I also find that the movements I need to make related to making them turn have to be more exaggerated; more weighting and unweighting, more pressure from big to little toe, and back again, along with a more pronounced fore-aft weight shift. Let me point out that this is all relative. Those movements are fairly subtle, but they require more wattage, overall, to do that work.

Is it possible to get used to a shorter or longer ski? Yes. In fact, some people never get on a ski that's the proper length because they've grown accustomed it.

So, with that, I offer this chart. For the purposes of this example, the skier's height is 175 cm.

The chart also lists different models in The Rossignol line, which pertain to different genres. Remember, length also applies to the kind of skiing (genre of skiing).

With the listed genres, you can apply the same sizing logic this chart uses for any ski brand.

So, for someone who is 175 cm tall (5' 9"), using a traditional "on piste" ski, a beginner would start out on a 163 to a 165.

After 5 days, that skier would move up to a 167 or 168.

Once they decide to challenge themselves beyond an intermediate skill set, they should move up to a 170/172.

Once they're an expert, they should ski a 175-177.

Well, wait a minute, the chart is in 5s and increments of 5- why are you wavering between 5 and 7 cm?

Well, not every manufacturer makes a ski in 0 and 5 cm increments. On top of that, some models within a manufacturer's product lines may also vary a couple centimeters, between skis.

How crucial is it to stay to that exact 5 cm sizing? it's not. Remember, 2 cm is less than .8 inches (.787 inches). Split the difference in length overall, and that's .39 inches added to the length of the ski at the tip, and at the tail.

Long story short, a new skier isn't going to know the difference.

So, just to round out the list, what defines an expert skier?

An expert skier is generally defined as someone who possesses a high degree of skill and can confidently navigate a wide range of terrain and conditions. They have mastered fundamental techniques and can adapt their skiing to challenging slopes, varying snow conditions, and even off-piste terrain. Expert skiers often demonstrate efficient carving, strong mogul skiing skills, and the ability to handle challenging runs like steep slopes, backcountry areas, and icy patches.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Technical Proficiency:

Expert skiers have a strong grasp of fundamental skiing techniques, including carving, and can execute them effectively in varied conditions.

Terrain Versatility:

They can ski comfortably on all types of terrain, from groomed runs to steep slopes and challenging off-piste areas like moguls and backcountry.

Adaptability:

Expert skiers can adjust their technique and equipment to changing snow conditions, including powder, icy patches, and variable snow.

Experience:

Expert skiers have typically logged many hours on the slopes and may have experience in competitive skiing, backcountry guiding, or ski instruction.

Confidence and Control:

They ski with confidence and control, demonstrating fluidity and precision in their movements.

Beyond the Basics:

Expert skiers often have a deeper understanding of the sport and may make adjustments to their gear or skiing style based on their experience and preferences.

In a nutshell, an expert skier has a quiver full of skills that they can call upon at anytime, which helps them navigate any terrain, in any situation, and set of conditions.

They also have the strength and muscle training to apply those skills.

So, that's when you kinow it's time to move up to expert ski lengths.

Is it ever appropriate to vary from the chart?

Yes.

Again, I bring up what kind of skiing (genre) the ski is made for.

In other words, what are you doing with your skis?

What will you using them for most of the time , and what's the most efficient size for the amount of work (energy) you need to put into skiing them.

Are you looking to go fast and you don;t like to make a lot of short turns? Go longer.
Do you like to ski in the woods all the time, never making long turns on groomed trails? You can get away with going 5 cm shorter.
Are you, primarily, going to ski with, and teach, your young kids? It might make sense to go 5cm shorter so you can turn them easily at the slower speeds.
Are you looking to ski hard in big mountain terrain, where it's steep, and the snow is generally deeper and softer? Here is where you consider going 5 cm longer AND on a wider ski.
Are you planning to spend most of your day doing tricks in the park? Here's where you look to ski a twin tip, with maximum legth of head height. The real concern with length here, is that a longer ski gives you more amplitude (power to launch you off the ground). A ski that's too short doesn't allow you get enough height, and one that's too long can either launch you too much, or keep you from staying centered so that you can make the ski pop you into the air.

Additionally, if you're 15 or more pounds overweight, add 5 cm to the recommended length.

if you're 15 or more pounds underweight, go 5 cm shorter than recommended.

The important determinant here is that the forces created on the ski have to be distributed over the entire surface area of the ski. To reiterate; If there's not enough suface area, the risk of damage or breakage increases, along with the risk that there will be a loss of control.

Other considerations:

Did you test a ski in multiple lengths to see what difference that makes? Ski performace can vary greatly over a 5 cm difference

Did you ski a ski in multiple widths? Manufacturers can change ski design significantly, within the same model name, over different widths.

Is there something about the region you're in?

-That sounds like a weird point, but how the skiers ski can affect the snow. For instance, if you ski glaciers in Europe, you will find that there is almost no off-piste skiing, and the the trails are meticulously groomed every night. No one straight-lines there; they all ski shorter slalom or GS skis to accomodate the particulars of the local style (which is, generally, a feet together stance, with tight carved turns) which descends directly from old school Austrian and French methodology. The Europeans will also give you some wicked side-eye if you're on a very long ski, or, especially, any ski that's not narrow waisted or designated a carving ski. Bring a Rossignol Sender Free 115 to Sölden in Austria or Tignes in France, and you'll see what I mean. Not to mention the fact that you aren't likely to have much fun on them.

In the converse, if you ski off-piste in the American Rockies, longer skis are preferred. Once deeper snow gets tracked up, natural moguls start to form, and longer skis create wider spaced bumps. These skiers, for the most part, don't like to turn much, and their mantra is that "turning is overrated". Make a bunch of short radius turns when everyone is flying by you and someone is going to "suggest" you go somewhere else so that you;re not a "hazard"...

They're likely to offer some kind advice, such as, "Go back to Killington you f*#king Gaper!"

Lastly, how do I know that I need more than one pair of skis?

In the simplest terms, if you're buring a lot of watts skiing your one pair of skis in terrain you spend a significant amount of your day in, you may want to have a model that's tailored more to that terrain. For example- you ski an all-mountain ski but spend half your day in the park on warmer days. In that case, you may want a freestyle ski for those days.

At the end of the day, ski length is a personal choice. Using the recommended lengths will help you be a better skier, in the long run.

*Google AI says A stem christie is a skiing technique that bridges the gap between a beginner's wedge (snowplow) turn and a more advanced parallel turn. It involves starting a turn with a snowplow-like wedge, then bringing the skis parallel to each other to complete the turn. This technique provides more control and maneuverability than a simple wedge turn, making it a useful stepping stone for learning to ski parallel.

Snowbound Boston 2024

Sat, 23 Nov 2024 03:55:52 GMT

Snowbound Expo 2024

Once upon a time there was a ski show in Boston sponsored by BEWI, where one could buy cheap ski goods, visit booths sponsored by ski product manufacturers and ski resorts around the country, then grab a beer at any number of local micro-brew booths. In the late 1990s,/early 2000s, the retailer at that show was Ski Market. The old Ski Market had somewhere on the order of 28 stores in MA, CT, NH, RI and NY.

Ski market was the dominant player on the east coast for ski retailers.

Ski Market was your classic "down country" ski shop; it existed in urban/suburban areas, and the only store at a legitimate ski area was in Nashoba Valley... For a time.

Ski Market grew to be a hydra of epic proportions. During the Clinton administration, while the economy was booming (mostly because of the dot net bubble), The company opened stores willy-nilly. Expansion/growth was the business tactic of the day, and the company was bathing in money. Then, in 2001, and again in 2007, recession hit, and hit the ski industry hard. The dot net bubble burst and profits fell to earth. Tighter wallets made 2007-2009 brutal years, and after 39 years of existence, Ski Market went under in 2010. It had a long run, but it became unsustainable after expanding too big for it's britches, and making some poor financial, shall we say, "moves" after 2001.

The Ski Market was a bit of a conundrum- without The Ski Market, the east coast ski industry would've been a completely different animal. The dollars generated there created health in an industry that had no where to grow. Aside from Ski Market, the only truly healthy shops existed at or near ski areas, with a few mom and pop stores off the hill, so to speak. Those mom and pop's established strong reputations based upon one thing; the ability to fit ski boots. Sure, they could sell skis, and do it with some volume. But, if you couldn't fit ski boots properly, you were doomed to fail.

With the exception of the Boston store for a time in the late 1990s/early 2000s, the Ski Market couldn't fit boots to save their lives. Mountain shops laughed at what they were seeing as fitting problems coming into their shops.

You see, fitting ski boots the right way, isn't easy. For most customers, it means establishing a relationship with a good bootfitter, in a good shop, because boot fits must be maintained over the life of the boot. There are, of course, the odd few skiers who can put on a boot and have it fit right out of the box, but that's rare. So, the natural inclination is to get ski boots too big (thank you mom for buying us all sneakers way too big in our formative years). Modern ski boots have come a long way in that regard, offering different widths and lasts throughout their lines, but that was not the case until a relatively short time ago. The Ski Market was king of the oversized ski boots. The oversized boots felt great out of the box, but 5-7 days in, there were loose and sloppy, which created unforeseen pain-points for customers.

In retrospect, I think that was a valuable lesson for the industry to learn. At some point, as a retailer that sells ski boots, you have to decide that the customer ISN'T always right, and teach them what it means to have a properly fitting ski boot (sorry Johnny and Janey skier, your toes are supposed to be against the front when you buy a new ski boot).

In defense of The Ski Market, at the end of their reign at the ski show, they were doing so much volume that the boot fitting area was a separate room at the expo center, and had no less than 20 people selling boots at any one time, each fitting 5-6 people at a time during the busiest times at that show.

Was Ski Market the first to do something like this?

Nope.

The Meadowlands in New Jersey had a HUGE sale every year, and they set the stage for others- including places like the Jai Alai fronton in New Haven (My first expo sale).

Moving on, after The Ski Market fell out as the retailer at the show, along came came East Coast Alpine.

East coast Alpine was a smaller retailer, run by a husband and wife team. That lasted a few years until the husband and wife divorced (badly). She took her business prowess elsewhere, and the husband partied his business away. That was a bad scene altogether- once you get a reputation in the industry for not paying your bills, your time in it is over.

By this time, the owner of BEWI was aging, and looking to enjoy retirement. Bernie Weichsel was an icon in the industry, having learned to ski in the Catskills, and then cut his chops in NYC working for the infamous Harry Leonard promoting ski shows. After that Bernie carried on his pioneering efforts in the ski industry by becoming executive director of the groundbreaking International Freestyle Skiers Association in 1974. Then, in 1979 he created SKIUSA, promoting US skiing to 14 different countries around the world, where, currently, about 20% of all domestic ski business comes from abroad. In that same year, Bernie started BEWI productions, where, at one point, he was sponsoring ski shows in 31 cities, finally ending up consolidating into two shows; Boston and Denver.

The BEWI Boston ski show, in it's heyday, was thing to behold, eventually having nearly 60,000 people walk through it's doors, with the last retailer in it's iterations as a BEWI show, grossing an ungodly amount of money and turning more than 200 pairs of ski boots in a single weekend, not to mention astronomical numbers related to skis, goggles, helmets, and clothing.

That was the year before Covid hit.

Then, Bernie sold the ski show to SIA/Snowbound (Snowsports Industry America).

With the buy-in for that being a ridiculous sum, Country Ski and Sports pulled out of the ski show, and set up it's own mini-show on the south shore, in Hanover, MA.

That separate event grew a life of its own, but fell back to earth a bit this year, having seen a lower gross steadily since its second year.

At the same time, Ski Essentials moved into the Snowbound show, and last year, wasn't set up for success.

This year, Colorado Ski Shop moved in and breathed new life into the retail section, with a refreshingly well set up operation and plenty of options for the bargain hunter and hardcore skier alike.

This years show featured 212 exhibitors ,7 sponsors, and speakers like Dan Egan, Donnie Pelletier, and Hannah Teter.

-Not to mention a bar, drop dead center of the show ,so you can get good and lit while you peruse the booths and buy your ski gear.

In the end, the Snowbound Expo is bouncing back, and doing so with aplomb.

Next year, expect more discounted ski passes, more deals in the retail section, and a ton of fun events for adults and kids alike.

Get your stoke on before the ski season has its traditional start, a week or so before Thanksgiving.

How Do I Mount My Own Bindings?

Mon, 04 Nov 2024 19:19:28 GMT

We take this time to step away from our regularly scheduled programming for a moment.

Let's talk about installing your own bindings.
Firstly, I've been trained and certified to install bindings for decades, and I've installed thousands of them, including alpine bindings, cross country bindings, telemark bindings, and touring bindings.

I've installed bindings based upon toe placement, boot center placement, balance point of the ski (how steady handed are you balancing a ski on a screwdriver?), customer requested mounting points, pre-drilled mounting points, system tracks, and just about every location method used in modern times.

I've installed bindings that go back as far as The Salomon 727 and the Look 99.

I've installed bindings from brands that no longer exist (can you say Geze and Ess V.A.R. anyone?) on skis that no longer exist (Pre, Hexcel, Olin) with boots that no longer exist (Caber, Hanson)- all to name a few.

I've used paper templates, manufacturer supplied jigs, and no jig at all.

In all the years, and all the bindings, the most important thing I've learned is DON'T install your own bindings.

Let me step away from that comment for a second...

It is entirely my intent to keep the content herein positive, and to avoid using words like "don't", "no", "stop"... even words like "safe".

Case in point- We all know there's risk in skiing, and taking risks is fun. I've taken plenty of them myself... Having been pulled behind a pickup on RTE 100 in central VT, wearing skis (and no helmet) at more than 80 MPH on a snowy night, I can tell you risk is definitely fun (and the sparks rooster tailing up behind your skis, in the dark, are amazing- even hypnotic).

DISCLAIMER- doing stupid things isn't smart- and that was a stupid thing- please don't do that.

...Look, you've made me do it again!

In that vein, someone once said to me, "I never tell people to ski safe- skiing requires a level of aggression, so skiing safe can be more risky than skiing aggressively". With that, I say, "Ski smart".

So, in this case too- be smart.

I realize that the bohemians (and libertines) amongst us are rolling their eyes at this, thinking things like "Ski shops have us over a barrel- I'm not paying $80 to have someone else do something I can do myself with a few common tools and a YouTube video".

Well, you're right.

They kinda do have you over a barrel. My advice; get over it. Pay the money.

Here are a few reasons-

If you, being a non-certified technician, (try to) install your own bindings, you increase the risk of:

Voiding the warranty.
Relieving the manufacturers of the ski and the binding of their responsibility to indemnify you and their products.
Increasing your actual level of risk (to your gear AND yourself) exponentially.

"Blah-blah, that's just broiler plate- that's what shops tell people so they can make more money".

My response; Shops provide services. They need to get paid to provide those services, or they can't continue to provide those services. They pay to maintain their employee

certifications as well as their shop(s), and to train and certify their technicians, buy the tools, use the power to run them....

In the end, if they charge too much (a non-competitive rate), customers will go elsewhere.

That's obvious- business 101.

Ironically, if you read the comments and/or taglines associated with these videos, you will see something to the effect of: "DISCLAIMER: Improper mounting of ski bindings can lead to injury or death. Please consider leaving this one to the pros." That's quoted directly from one of the "How to..." videos.

So, let' talk about what's less obvious-

Starting with " I saw how to do it in a YouTube video "-

The video was really cool- it really appears to have great advice.
How do you know? Do you have the expertise to REALLY know it has the correct and comprehensive information?

No matter how well done the video is, how specific the instructions are, or how correct it is, any mistake in following their instructions (again, even if they are comprehensive and correct), on the order of as little as 1mm, can be catastrophic.

Just getting the basics right is incredibly hard- no matter how good you are with a tape measure, getting the skis mapped out correctly for center/center (centerline horizontally and center line laterally) is a daunting task. You could follow the same instructions, on the same skis, a dozen times, and never end up marking the skis in the correct (or intended) places.

Then, aligning your boot to those measurements is also quite difficult. Once aligned, keeping it aligned while you mark it out is arduous.

After that, aligning the bindings, then marking out where to drill, is exponentially harder.

The odds of getting both skis marked out the same, for the center/center, the boots, AND the bindings, not to mention drilling it correctly, are pretty slim- even if you've done it before.

Doing the actual drilling can be extremely difficult- even using a jig with very precise drill guides, and using a drill bit that has the depth preset, doesn't guarantee you wont misalign the drill holes, ovalize the holes, or drill through the ski entirely... never mind the unforeseen issues you may encounter from metal mounting plates and overheated drill bits while trying to drill through them.

Any mistake along the way magnifies issues on subsequent steps.

It's like the accounting exam you had as a business requirement in school- if you have a multi-part problem and make a mistake deciding which numbers to use, make a mistake in the actual math, or transpose figures in step one, all the subsequent answers are incorrect, even if all the formulas you use are correct. Only, there's no partial credit for installing your bindings wrong.

On top of that, some manufacturers supply paper jigs that you can attach to the topsheet of the ski to make the process easier.

Well, that's not easier.

You still have to figure out the position of the jig on the skis, using the same steps as you would without a jig. THEN you have to make sure the jig is attached properly and doesn't move during the process (and it will- I guarantee it). The only difference is that you're not physically placing the binding on the ski to mark out where to drill. All a paper jig tells you is where to drill (hopefully you've lined up the bindings to the jig to make sure THAT is correct, before you start the process, but I digress).

All this requires incredible skill and patience.

No matter how many gummies you've swallowed to improve your patience and calm, the odds of getting it right are very, very slim.

Let's talk about some of the things that can happen when you make a mistake-

Alignment-

The single most important part of installing bindings is making sure the boots are in the right place. If they aren't that very expensive ski you have suddenly does not do what you thought it would do.

In the case of misaligned boots/bindings, the result could be something as simple as it sucks to ski on that ski, or as extreme as you've caused tendonitis, or worse, an injury, because the binding didn't line up correctly on the ski.

If the drill holes aren't in precisely the right place, and you screw on the binding anyway, you create a situation where there's uneven pressure on the screws to where the binding rips out, or it cracks/fails (or both), or doesn't release/hold you in properly. The uneven wear on a boot that can't center/recenter or sit in the binding as it was designed to do can cause boot damage and injury.

What about binding parts ?

What are all these extra screws for? Which ones am I supposed to use?

What about the pile of different screws sitting loosely in the box? Do they go in the toe or the heel?

What's that plate leftover in the box when I thought I was done?

What are those dimples in the base of my ski after I screwed the bindings on?

Where do I get replacement screws and what kind are they?

Should I clean off the dirt/rust/glue off the screws before I reuse them?

How tight should the screws be?

Why is there a gap between the bindings and the topsheet of the ski?

Should I use glue (hint: if you don't, you're wrong).

What kind of glue do I use?

I got an after-market kit to make my bindings do something other than what it was originally designed for (for example; change a purely alpine binding to a hybrid binding). How do I install the new parts? Which of the old parts do I need to keep/re-use? What happens to the warranty and indemnification (Hint: those are voided)?

What about adjustments ?

How many places are there to adjust the release settings? Two? Three? Four? More?

Is there a toe height adjustment? How do you set it?

Is there a heel height adjustment?

Is there a toe/heel width adjustment?

Does the AFD slide fore/aft to line up with the boot AFD? Does it function correctly with the boot in the binding? Do you have the proper gauge to set that interface?

Is the forward pressure set correctly?

Are the all length adjustments equal and within tolerances?

Do you know what those release settings are supposed to be?

Let's pause here for a second - for all the heros who turn their bindings up (or down) because they didn't stay on/come off when you expected them to, you should have them tested FIRST to make sure they're functioning properly. Then, if you do end up turning them up (You're a racer or extreme/park skier) you void warranty and indemnification (yes, anything you do outside of a certified technician voids warranty and indemnification). In that case, a shop will likely have to sign a separate release form, or will make a note on your work ticket that you asked for a setting outside what the manufacturer recommends- therefore releasing them from liability.

...moving on-

Do you have a testing device to make sure the binding is releasing properly and at the correct pressure(s)?

Do you know how much readjustment range there is for that manufacturer if it doesn't test quite right?

Do you need special devices to do any of the adjustments?

Is there any damage or are there any missing/damaged parts on the bindings?

Do you have the correct brake length and width?

Manufacturers supply jigs with very precise drill guides, which clamp securely on a ski, and adjust for each individual ski boot used (There are several hanging on the wall, in the photo at the beginning of this post).

They help speed up the process and increase accuracy, but using those can cause problems too (when done incorrectly).

Does it fit correctly on your ski width?

Is it seated correctly on the ski?

Are the clamps secure?

Are you using the right feet on the clamps and are they all installed properly?

Does anything about the ski's construction interfere with the jig or it's alignment?

Do you know which hole set to use for that specific model binding?

Did you set it correctly for your boot size?

What about your tools ?

Are the bits new and sharp?

Are the holes drilled to the right depth so the holes don't volcano and/or the screws don't pull out or dimple the bottom of the ski?

Is the clutch on the screw gun set correctly?

What do I do if I strip out a screw hole?

Are you using the correct drill bit for the ski?

Let me say that again... ARE YOU USING THE RIGHT DRILL BIT FOR THE SKI? Because using a standard craftsman drill bit, with a little tape wrapped around it to mark what depth to go to, ain't gettin' the job done.

Are you using the right glue?

Do you have the correct screwdrivers and adjustment tools?

-Do you know what a posi-drive is? (HINT: It's not something you find on a 1969 El Camino.)

Then, if things don't go correctly, do you have the right inserts and the right tools to install them?

Are THOSE drill bits set to the correct depth?

Do you have the correct epoxy?

Is your heat gun working properly and do you know which situations you might need it?

Are the boots ok? Are they in spec and undamaged?

*Boot wear is the most common issue with boot to binding interfaces- do you have the training to do a proper boot inspection?

Do you have the gauges to test specs for all types of boots?

Are they compatible with the bindings and the situation intended for use?

Do you know the difference between junior boots/bindings?

Are they made of the correct material? Are they thermo-plast or soft rubber?

Are you intending to use your touring (ISO 9523) boots for alpine skiing?

-If so, I recommend that you don't . These boots (typically) don't have a flat, hard spot designed to interface with the binding AFD (if they did they'd be hybrid or GripWalk). They're also made of Vibram (TM) or soft rubbers which are more temperature sensitive, and can get caught during the release/recentering process. So, while the charts will tell you that you can use ISO 9523 boots with WTR/.ID/MNC bindings, you shouldn't. I've never had a single ISO 9523 boot pass every phase of the inspection process with alpine bindings. You read that correctly; NEVER ... and I've tested a lot of such interfaces.

Did you test everything?

Do your boots return to center correctly, and to the CORRECT center?

Did you set them to the correct release values and did they test ok to those values?

Do you know how much you are allowed to readjust if they aren't testing on spec?

It's a long list of things that can go wrong, and the above is a small subset of potential problems- most of which can't be fixed without starting over, replacing parts, filling holes and redrilling, using inserts/heli coils, or, in most cases, not able to be fixed at all.

Scared yet?

Seriously, you'd better be.

No ski manufacturer is replacing the ski you paid $900 for because you made a mistake installing the binding, and no binding manufacturer is standing behind the binding or the installation in that case either- never mind replacing it.

Not to mention, standing behind warranty/indemnification to any subsequent damage done to your boots.

For the cost of installing the binding, the shop carries the risk of installing it correctly. If they screw it up, they're responsible.

It's as plain as that.

They replace/pay for the ski/boot/binding if they mess it up. They may even have to reimburse you for lost ski days waiting for replacements, etc.

Isn't that worth 80 bucks?

Make the right choice here people- it's not like your DIY garden project, or even changing the oil in your car. It's too easy to make a mistake, and not realize that you've made a mistake.

...and don't guess at your release settings or use an aged-out chart you found on the internet, that isn't correct- especially if you don't know how to properly use that chart/aren't certified to do so. The instant a non-certified person makes an adjustment to bindings, warranty and indemnification are kaput.

Go to a certified professional.

And, if they take good care of you, do their job well and often, then a six pack of beer, a case of YooHoo, a box of cookies , or even a cup of coffee (not to mention a few bucks), goes a long way. Because, as expensive as you feel shop services and ski products may be, those employees don't get paid a lot, and they only work 5 months out of the year. Whatever discounts they may get on gear doesn't come close to proper reimbursement for what they do.

Oh, by the way, few to no employers supply ski passes any more. Employees end up buying their own these days- with no industry discounts. So working in a ski shop is not, in any way, lucrative.

It's a labor of love.

FOLLOW UP:

After writing this piece, I emailed the customer service address of the 4 major players in the alpine binding market (Look, Marker, Salomon, and Tyrolia). In the message I sent, I asked the same question; If I mount my own bindings, as a non-certified person, do I void the warranty and indemnification of myself as the skier, and the equipment?

All four said I void indemnification. Three of the four said I would void the warranty, and the fourth would not address the warranty.

At the end of the day, warranty is at the discretion of the vendor, so they can deny that as well.

All four strongly recommended I have the bindings installed by a certified professional.

What Do You Mean You Can't Adjust My Bindings To My New Boots? (Part 2- What's the "indemnification list"?)

Thu, 31 Oct 2024 08:44:27 GMT

"If it's not on the list, we can't work on it."

You just bought new boots-

You brought in your skis to have the bindings adjusted and the shop employee informed you that they can't work on your bindings.

...you're puzzled.

You don't think they're that old, and they really don't look old.

You used them last year and there weren't any issues- You had them adjusted and tested, skied them all season, and now, this year, they're not indemnified.

Why?

What's that all about?

Binding manufacturers keep track of every binding they make-

Every model, every color, every screw, every spring... every detail for every year they've ,manufactured bindings.

Every one of those bindings, like all manufactured objects, have a lifecycle.

Some lifecycles are very long, some are not.

Many things can affect the lifecycle; the quality of materials in the supply chain, design, engineering, changes in standards, how they're stored, damage, age...

I'm sure you see where this is going.

Those same manufacturers guarantee that a particular binding model meets industry safety standards. If a binding is indemnified, that means the manufacturer will back its product in terms of both performance and safety. That goes for the skier and the shops that work on those bindings. That's why manufacturers certify the shops who sell and work on their bindings- there's a lot at stake, and they need to maintain due diligence to protect themselves.

THE INDEMNIFICATION LIST:

Every year those same manufacturers send a manual (or securely post it electronically) to the certified shops. Those manuals contain instructions for working on their new models, and any legacy models still certified (indemnified). The manuals have template forms, instructions how to maintain rental fleets using that manufacturers bindings, and a host of other information, including the current list of bindings they still allow shops to work on (the indemnification list). The manufacturers decide (for various reasons) when to remove bindings from the list.

So, there's a list from each manufacturer.

Once a binding is no longer on the list, most shops will stop working on them, because the manufacturers no longer guarantee them (insure them).

Some shops may still work on them if you sign a release form, but those shops assume some level of risk if they do. Even if that risk is minimal, they may need to pay attorneys to defend them, in the case of a lawsuit. Given the litigious nature of our society, less shops decide to allow their staff to work on non-indemnified bindings, every year.

As new standards arise (enter GripWalk), that can complicate things.

In the case of current bindings, that may shorten the lifecycle of bindings/binding standards that existed before the introduction of the new standard.

Long story short you may have a binding that's only a few years old, still works great, and still passes every test for the ISO standard it was created for. Yet, a manufacturer may decide the risk of maintaining indemnification is too great, and remove it from the list.

So, in the case of the newer GripWalk standard, using a boot equipped with GripWalk soles with a binding that isn't compatible with them, creates situations that manufacturers don't want to carry the risk for.

So, those used skis you bought that look like they're in great shape, may very well be worthless, along with the skis you've had, and used, for years.

Once those bindings are off the list, even if you use the correct boots with them, there's no turning back.

Are all boot to binding combinations indemnifiable?

Sure- to different degrees.

But not all boot to binding combinations are compatible, and not all release like alpine bindings do.

One of those combinations, which is growing in popularity, is for ski touring- Ski touring is a hybrid of cross country and alpine skiing, with some combinations being primarily like cross country, and others being a bit more like alpine skiing.

More about that in part 3.

What Do You Mean You Can't Adjust My Bindings To My New Boots? (Part 1- The Advent of GripWalk)

Tue, 29 Oct 2024 06:11:32 GMT

What is GripWalk and why does it matter?

First, a primer:

Over the years, different ways to attach boots to skis evolved.

In terms of bindings, you may have heard language like bear trap bindings or cable bindings (which were non releasable), then Cubco, Spademan, Nava, and a host of others.

Along the way, boot technology evolved, as well. Boots changed form leather hiking style boots, to the stiffer, hard plastic boots we are familiar with now.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) adopted standards for ski boots and bindings to ensure compatibility between different brands and models. The priority became skier safety by guaranteeing consistent release mechanisms, minimizing the risk of injury from bindings not releasing properly when needed, especially in situations where a skier might fall at high speed. This standardization helps to prevent confusion for consumers and promote safer skiing practices, by ensuring proper boot-to-binding interaction across various equipment combinations.

-End of Primer-

Today, there are many boot to binding combinations; combinations for multiple types/genres of skiing-

Alpine

Touring

Telemark

Cross Country

...among others.

With that, we find ourselves confused again.

Within Alpine skiing (the most common type of skiing in the Northeastern USA), there are several standards.

The newest one is GripWalk .

Many of us who have purchased new boots since 2016 know what GripWalk is.

Odds are, if you haven't purchased new boots or read any of the magazines that do product reviews, you still may not.

The traditional alpine boot to binding standard (many refer to it as the DIN standard), has been in place for over 50 years.

The relatively new GripWalk standard is significantly different, and bringing it into the mix has led to some issues-

Here's an example-

It's Wednesday.

The boot fit appointment you've waited two weeks for, finally came to pass.

The experience was great- you tried on 3 boots and the third one was the charm!

They fit great, you love them.

You can't wait to go skiing in boots that finally feel good.

You also can't believe you thought ahead- you brought your skis with you...

You've paid for the boots, paid for the adjustment, there's even enough time to get the skis tuned up.

You can pick them up the day after tomorrow, which is just in time for you to leave for a weekend of skiing.

You've had such a great experience, you slipped the fitter a $20.

You deserve a pat on the back for the great day you've had. The stress of worrying about another day of skiing in old, painful boots, isn't a thing anymore.

Sweet relief!

The next day, Thursday, you get a call from the ski shop informing you that the boots aren't compatible with your bindings. They're talking about something called "GripWalk".

What the heck is GripWalk?

In 2016 Marker, working with Dalbello boots, created a new standard for ski boot to binding interfaces.

This arose out of a need for people to do more walking in their ski boots.

Early on, snowboarders realized that they could hike to the pipe or the park, and not pay for a lift ticket. They had it easy- their soft, comfortable boots with grippy walking soles made walking up a no-brainer.

With the migration of lift ticket sales moving away from snow boarders to skiers, this created an inevitable rise in skiers playing in the park and the pipe- also hiking up rather than riding lifts. Even if they needed the lift ticket, they found that hiking was quicker than the lift, and it allowed them to inspect their "course" and spend more time working on tricks, rather than riding lifts and traversing to the run. This wasn't easy in the old school, flat and slippery soles ski boots had.

In another scenario, western skiers often booted up in the car- The Snowbird faithful understand-

Killington people parking on the road to Killington Lodge also know what I mean.

With paid parking nearest the lifts popping up all over the place, hiking to the lifts is growing more and more common-

Not to mention, the rise in popularity of ski touring has also brought on the need for something better than a flat, smooth sole.

With necessity being the mother of invention, The GripWalk standard was born.

The boot on top, with the turquoise soles, has traditional alpine boot soles.

The boot on the bottom, with the red highlighted sections, has GripWalk soles; the most obvious differences being in the toes, where it's ramped instead of flat. Additionally, they have more aggressive lugs, which grip better in the snow.

Because of these changes, along with a few others, a redesign to the way bindings function was in order.

With traditional bindings, GripWalk soles can bind during the release process.

Therein lies the reason for the phone call from the shop.

What's the solution?

For the first few years after the release of GripWalk ski boots, many boot manufacturers began including a spare set of traditional alpine soles in the box.

That helped make the transition a bit smoother- boot and binding techs could easily swap them out, prior to any binding adjustment.

As of this writing, many manufacturers still make replacement soles, which you can order directly from them for $30 to $60.

In the case that the soles are not replaceable, or none are available from the manufacturer, you will have to replace the bindings.

In the case that the bindings are on a system ski, you will need to replace both the skis and bindings.

We now know that the boot manufacturers provided a means to ease the transition to/addition of the new standard.

What about the binding manufacturers?

That's a different story- replacing binding toes, or altering them to make them compatible with GripWalk soles is a whole other level of complication.

So, the best answer (from the perspective of the binding manufacturers), is to age them out, vis-a-vis, remove them from the indemnification list.

See part two for what that means.

In the meantime, how can you make sure everything is meant to work together?

The answer is simple; look for the GripWalk logo on both the boots and the bindings.

More and more bindings are being designed such that they are GripWalk compatible, so the GripWalk logo appears on more binding models every year.

But what about my older boots with the traditional alpine soles?

Fear not- the newer GripWalk compatible bindings are backward compatible with traditional alpine soles.

Is that it?

Is that all I need to know?

Well, almost.

There are 3 standards to talk about.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) specifies the standards for the ski industry.

ISO 5355 (otherwise known as the DIN standard), it the original standard for alpine boot soles. The standard has provisions for both A (adult) and C (child) bindings (ISO 5355-A and ISO 5355-C).

ISO 23233 is The GripWalk Standard. These are marked with the GripWalk logo. This standard has provisions for both for both A and C bindings. See the Glossary for a definition of GripWalk ).

ISO 9523 is The Touring boot sole Standard (More about this standard can be found HERE ). Multi-norm compatible bindings ( definition here ) will be marked with:

MNC or MN

WTR is Walk to Ride- similar standard to MNC.

I.D. / Sole I.D. That's Marker's answer to multi-norm compatibility.

AT stands for All-Terrain. Frame bindings under this category may or may not be multi-norm compatible. Tech or "Pin" bindings under this category have their own standard, and are function differently (see below). The toes, technically, don't release. The heels, however, do.

Lastly, there are HYBRID boots, which work in hybrid bindings. Those boots generally have GripWalk soles and tech inserts for compatibility with the pins built into hybrid/touring bindings.

More on that in part 3, along with touring and the different standards associated with it.

Credit to https://www.grip-walk.com/ for the logos and graphics.

Stay Out of My Line! (part 3: "It's the Snowboarders Fault")

Fri, 25 Oct 2024 04:23:12 GMT

According to polls taken from multiple skier blogs and posts, snowboarders are always to blame.

...for everything.

If you read a lot of ski blogs, the inside joke is that accidents are always the fault of a snowboarder, even it there are no snowboarders around... but who's fault is it, really?

If you read a lot of Instagram or FaceBook posts, you will see a pattern in discussions around collisions and who's fault it was-

The running joke is that it's always the snowboarders fault.

The perception being that most of the accidents we hear about, involve snowboarders.

Snowboarders, of course, maintain that just as many skiers cause accidents as snowboarders

Which is really true?

Studies have been conducted over the years, with the most revealing study taking place over a 13 year period.

Articles speaking to this, by ScienceDIrect, The NIH, injuryjournal.com, and multiple law firms, can be found all over the internet.

All of these agree that the majority of the snowboarding population is younger and male, and are less likely to be injured than a skier.

Snowboarders were more frequently wearing helmets and involved in a hit and run accident- with head injuries being the most common injury-

90% of those injured were males under 30 on intermediate slopes.

The rate of fatality is about .69 per one million participants (this roughly comes out to 31 people per year)-

As for who is more likely to be responsible (skiers or snowboarders), that remains unclear. The only numbers I can quote are that the injury rate for skiing is 2.5 per 1,000 skier visits, while the injury rate for snowboarding is 3.9 per 1,000 visits.

SOURCES:

ScienceDIrect:

Zinda Law Group:

FHV Law:

The National Institute for Health:

So, depending upon who you talk to, it's always the other guy's fault. I've discussed this ad nauseum with people form all walks of life, and various parts of the world.

Interestingly enough, amongst my discussions with ski patrollers, the following point was raised to me:

A person's blind spot is behind them.

A snowboarders blind spot is different than that of a skier, as it pertains to the position of their body while engaging in their sport.

"Behind" for a skier is uphill, and it's "impossible" for a skier to look directly behind them while skiing down the fall line.

"Behind" for a snowboarder is to their heel side. Ironically, they can look uphill with a glance over their shoulder.

That fact alone makes it harder for the snowboarder to win the argument, even if the skier was in their blind spot and they turned into them.

That adds fodder for debate.

Pressing them further, and asking, "Who's really at fault in an accident", there's a common theme; the prevailing opinion is that you must obey The Skiers Responsibility Code as that's the blueprint for every ski resort in The USA, and is the roadmap for pulling people's passes after collisions.

According to the NSAA (The National Ski Areas Association)

-Good lord, there's an association for everything-

The skiers responsibility code is:

Always stay in control. You must be able to stop or avoid people or objects.
People ahead or downhill of you have the right-of-way. You must avoid them.
Stop only where you are visible from above and do not restrict traffic.
Look uphill and avoid others before starting downhill or entering a trail.
You must prevent runaway equipment.
Read and obey all signs, warnings, and hazard markings.
Keep off closed trails and out of closed areas.
You must know how and be able to load, ride and unload lifts safely. If you need assistance, ask the lift attendant.
Do not use lifts or terrain when impaired by alcohol or drugs.
If you are involved in a collision or incident, share your contact information with each other and a ski area employee.

(https://www.nsaa.org/NSAA/Safety/Your_Responsibility_Code.aspx)

Given the above, people involved in collisions tend to claim, most often:

They were in control.
Someone cut them off after not looking uphill while entering a trail or crossing a trail.
Someone stopped in front of them and they didn't have time to avoid them.

-All three being attempts to deny fault.

Well, of course,... no one wants to take the blame for an injury or damage to equipment, either of which they may have to pay for, in one way or another.

Those patrollers all agreed that the most common excuses were:

"I was not skiing too fast because I was in control."

"They came into my line."

"They stopped right in front of me".

They also say that the person below them on the trail never looked up when entering the trail or skiing across it.

Ok, that last one is a valid argument- to a point. But it's usually not enough to keep you from having your pass pulled.

The others, not so much, and here's why-

Firstly, there's no such thing as a lane or line. The consensus being that response is ridiculous. One said (to the nods and agreement of the others) It's self-serving, and downright childish. No one owns any particular "line" of travel, and you can't define what that is. That one also got a bit of a snicker and a sneer from the patrollers.

Their overall opinion was that there's no more lame shirking of responsibility than claiming you were in control when you you hit someone, thereby making it the other person's fault.

Ok- don't get bent out of shape yet- There's logic (or precedent) to that, and I'll explain why in a minute.

Next, "They stopped right in front of me!"

The response; "Why were you following so closely that you couldn't stop or turn to avoid them? If you're in a car accident, you get a ticket for too much speed, following too closely, or both. How is that different from following too closely when skiing?

Why were you approaching them so fast that you couldn't avoid them?"

Their rationale is that people stop, fall, have people fall in front of them, turn to avoid an obstacle, or catch an edge, all the time. You are responsible to NOT hit people in front of you- They don't have eyes in the back of their heads, but you have eyes facing in your direction of travel.

It's common sense.

You may very well have your pass pulled for that too.

They also mentioned that if you hit someone, you may also be subject to the laws of the state you are skiing in.

That one brought a moment of silence from the group.

The discussion did not stop there- Making the argument that, "It's common sense to not stop in the middle of a trail" may be reasonable in your mind, and it may be common sense in some situations with all things being equal, but it's nowhere near as common sensical to ski in such a way that you can avoid people and things in front of you. People have the right to stop anywhere- skiers can't dictate how other skiers ski.

"They came out of nowhere and entered the trail without looking uphill".

The response; was straightforward; "You'd better have witnesses or that one wont fly- you have to be able to prove it."

Here's the big one-

"I was in control the whole time".

THIS one, is by far, the most revealing response of all because the situation was black and white to them.

As it was explained to me, control is not determined by how comfortable you felt at the speed you were travelling, or how much "in balance" you were, or how you couldn't avoid them because they turned right in front of you.

To the people making the decision about pulling your pass, how you felt is not relevant, what IS relevant is.:

Control is determined by that fact that you did, or did not, hit someone .

So, control is determined AFTER THE FACT.

If you hit someone, for any reason, you WERE NOT in control. According the them, that's true in every situation, to some degree or other, even if some level of blame can be doled upon the other person. They went on to say it doesn't matter whether that loss of control is due to your own skiing, or if something else caused you to lose control.

The logic being you are responsible for yourself, therefore, if you hit someone, you're responsible.

Once you make contact with someone, the precedents are, for the most part, that you were moving too fast, following too closely, skiing inappropriately for conditions and/or the place the collision occurred, impaired, or not paying attention (practicing due diligence).

So, for example, if a sign says "SLOW", you need to slow down and merge safely into traffic, not ski through it.

Also, It doesn't matter how good or experienced of a skier you are vs. the other skier. "It's your responsibility to adhere to rule number 1- that's why it's at the top of the list. Every skier has just as much right as another to ski any open trail. Your "right to ski" somewhere is not determined by your ability."

After doing more research, I found that in many cases where it's possible to consider "shared responsibility" when two skiers collide, that doesn't necessarily lessen your responsibility if you hit someone.

Here's an example: It's quite possible, that if you hit someone and that causes no injury but $200.00 of damage to their equipment, that doesn't lessen your responsibility- even they have some responsibility for the impact and/or some damage was done to your equipment, UNLESS a court says so. In other words, in some cases, responsibility isn't shared, it's separate to the individual(s) and/or group(s).

By this example, the amount of responsibility may be determined by the total damage you did,. So, you would still be responsible for, using the example above, $200.00, even if you don't end up paying $200.00. Further, while they would owe you for whatever damage they were responsible for, and the net difference ends up being what's actually paid, your responsibility remains the amount of $200, unless the court decides otherwise.

That is important because it could apply to a law where a certain dollar amount of damage results in different levels of charges (say, misdemeanor vs. felony and/or some other legal/civil charge).

A police officer told me that if the collision is determined to be a felony because of the circumstances, or the dollar amount, no amount of damage by the other person lessons the crime you may or may not have committed.

Obviously, laws vary by state. That said, it should bring you pause when you consider that there may be more involved than simply having your pass pulled.

Further, if you are in a collision with another skier, most states require that you exchange information with them. If you leave the scene of an accident on the hill, there are also laws around your responsibilities therein.

So, who's fault was it?

I don't know... I'm not a lawyer/judge/jury/witness/legal counsel/college professor/or any other kind of expert on it. Don't ski recklessly. You, certainly, don't want a court to determine that you were " reckless ".

Please don't hit me and mine.

Ski smart, stay in control, and have fun!

What are your thoughts on the skiers responsibility code/collisions on the hill?

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer.

Nothing in this post is legal advice, or binding law.

It's just a post about some conversations.

Don't get your panties in a bunch.

Stay Out of My Line! (Part 2: The Technological Explosion)

Thu, 24 Oct 2024 20:42:11 GMT

What in the F*ck is a Parabola?

In the early to mid 1990's, advancements in ski technology shattered the status quo. As technology was developed for the world cup ski circuit, the ones that made sense began to trickle into the customer ski market- Of course, that was nothing new- Race rooms have been the breeding ground for fast technological evolution of ski design since metal edges were first added to them in 1928.

For the most part, up to that point, skis were long and thin. Unlike today, it was common to see skis over 195cm long in lift lines all over the world.

They had to be that way- In the 1970s, ski manufacturers experimented with shorter skis. They helped a bit as a tool for ski instruction, but the limited technology of the day meant that they were stiff, which predetermined that learning to flex them into a modified "C" shape (necessary to turn them), was darn near impossible.

Making them longer allowed for lengthwise flex, and provided enough surface area and effective edge to make them stable at higher speeds and to hold an edge on hard snow- not to mention adding a little flotation in deeper snow.

Conversely, If they were too wide, they returned to their "plank" status, or were too thin and soft to have the torsional rigidity to hold an edge.

Given that ski design came solely out of the race camp, long and thin was "the way".

As time crawled on, race designers, always looking for an edge, so to speak, started experimenting with new materials; metal alloys, foams and polymers out of the construction and aerospace industries, fiberglass, carbon fiber, and Kevlar our of the defense industry, and piezo chips and rubbers from the technology, construction, and recycling sectors.

These "space age" materials permitted ski designers to allow for wider tips and tails on their race skis, which made them easier to turn and set tighter courses between gates in races- giving racers a clear advantage.

Soon thereafter, FIS began cracking down on ski shapes, etc. to reduce any unfair advantages some skis might provide to one racer over another.

Those rule changes, however, had no bearing on the consumer ski market.

So, the Rossignol Cut 10.4 "Super Sidecut Ski", and the Elan SCX "Parabolic Sidecut Ski" were born.

Those skis broke new ground related to shortening the learning curve for beginner and intermediate skiers, and brought more fun into the sport.

From there, ski manufacturers, learning more from each previous permutation of ski going out into the consumer market (the successes were many, but there were flops too), began expanding the shaped ski evolution into higher-end skis. Within a year of the release of those two skis, I retired my 207cm GS race skis, which I used for everyday skiing, and immediately began skiing on something 10cm shorter. Three years later, I was on something that was another 10cm shorter, which became the ski length I still ski today (generally between 182 and 188cm, depending upon the ski).

Ski technology began evolving even faster when manufacturers began expanding their ski lines to include models which were more fun in different conditions and situations, instead of just applying technology bred for the race course. My first foray into "new genres" of skiing was in acquiring a Volkl Snow Ranger, which was wider (marginally, by today's standards), and floated better in softer snow.

Along with the idea of a wider ski, some guy named McConkey worked with Volant to create a very wide, anti-cambered ski (the Spatula) for deep snow, which lead to the development of rocker in ski design and ushered in the wide ski revolution.

With Shane leading the way with K2 and Volant, manufacturers began employing and sponsoring more skiers from outside the race and instructional arenas. That led to the creation of new "genres" within the overall ski realm.

Genres, such as, Racing, All-Mountain, Powder, Carving, Park, Big Mountain, (along with several more) became everyday phrases used by salespeople and magazine reviewers alike.

Add to that the popularity of exciting, documentary-type, stoke-inducing ski movies, pioneered by Greg Stump, and later picked up on by Warren Miller and Teton Gravity Research, the popularity of extreme and big mountain skiing grew quickly.

With the influx of money from expanded ski lines, and the kids who found new heroes in skiers like Scott Schmidt, Glen Plake, Seth Morrison, Shane McConkey, and more recently, Chris Benchetler and Candide Thovex, ski manufacturers began investing more in research and development, and ski technology began to improve the skiing experience exponentially, for a wider range of people.

That brought about developments in ski construction and design leading to bigger sweet spots, which allowed skis to be skied more easily, with easier balance, and in more situations/conditions.

It also led to using materials which made skis last longer, and to be more stable at speed and in varying conditions.

Those bigger sweet spot, wider, more stable skis first appeared on skis thought only viable for west coast/deep snow skiing. However, with professional sponsorship, and expanded ski magazine reviews, the popularity of those skis grew, and people from the east coast started skiing on them too.

The ease of balance and added stability at speed allowed new skiers to bypass years of lessons, and ski fast with less demands upon skiers to find a relatively small balance point and train muscle memory.

From this, I describe the skiing styles associated with more traditional skiing technique; the Driver , and the newskool technique of the Rider .

Drivers use a more athletic looking, lower postured stance- Resembling that of a middle linebacker while waiting for the football to be snapped. Drivers use the entire length of the ski through more of the turn, turning their skis by carving the ski from tip to tail throughout the turn, for both control and the joy of it, be it short slalom turns, longer GS type turns, or floaty turns in deep snow.

Riders stand more upright on their skis. They turn their skis more for avoidance and trail-following than control of speed. In fact, riders tend to prefer to ski faster and in a straighter line (often referred to as "straightlining"), using controlled skids (smearing) of the mid body and tail of the ski to manage speed. Most riders will tell you that turning is "overrated" and boring, preferring the excitement of speed over G-forces. Their stance in deeper snow involves leaning back a bit, as opposed to maintaining center of mass over the arches of their feet.

Some might say there is also a prevailing attitude amongst riders, associated with the antidisestablishmentarianism snowboarders were known for. While drivers seem to adhere to established rules and skier codes, riders seem to "interpret" those rules however they prefer, as opposed to the generally accepted meanings previously applied to them.

That loose interpretation of the rules leads Riders to believe that once they've set a course down a slope, that course is their :"lane" or " line " for that run, and people below them need to be cognizant of that, allowing Riders the freedom to proceed in that "line", while jumping and/or performing tricks, at whatever speed they see fit.

Riders also tend to believe that slow signs mean that they should slow to any speed they feel comfortable at, as it pertains to their idea of control, as opposed to slowing down relative to traffic and the hazards signs warn of.

In general, riders and drivers have different styles and philosophies of skiing, likely (at least partially) borne of the fact that Riders, often, over estimate their ability to avoid collisions based upon the level of balance they have on their skis.

In general, riders don't like carving skis; skis that drivers prefer, and they think turning takes too much work.

Conversely, some drivers may like the skis riders are partial to, for their ease of use and comfortable stance.

What are your thoughts on riders vs drivers?

Do you think technology has come along too fast?

Do you think the skiers responsibility code is hokey, or a necessary part of skiing safety and courtesy?

Is technology a good thing or a bad thing, as it relates to skiing in general and acquired skills?

Look for part 3; "It's the snowboarders fault".

Stay out of my line! (Part 1: The Rise and Fall of Snowboarding)

Thu, 24 Oct 2024 20:40:47 GMT

Where are all the Snowboarders?

For years, there have been many media outlets dedicated to the joys of skiing and snowboarding- Each dedicated to the pinnacle of performance in the sport; big mountain and extreme skiing and competitions, high performance racers, mogul skiing, pipe and park skiers and boarders, travel and industry, film and visual arts... anyway, you get the point. Each glorifying some aspect of the excitement inherent in sliding down a mountainside at breakneck speeds.

For years, alpine skiing was "the way"- the single most exciting way to get out on the snow and have fun as a family, an individual, or a team.

Skiing always represented a bit of an attitude akin to thumbing one's nose at the expectations of a civilized world.

Skiing was fun, skiing was sexy, skiing was Avant Garde.

Furthermore, It was athletic, it was an outlet for artistic expression, it was freedom. The Olympics embraced it. People who never saw snow got to watch maniacs in skin tight clothes racing down icy slopes at blistering speeds in a display of organized confusion...

But it was missing something .

Skiing had become established; in other words, there was the inevitable skiing establishment.

That anti-establishment, thumb your nose at the world attitude, was losing it's outlet. Skiing became an assembly line of super-highway slopes, and regularly scheduled weekends that became formatted and "required"...

For single people, you HAD to rent a "share" in a big house for the season (which was a process unto itself; interviewing people to join your "house" community, reviewing resumes and income profiles to see if they "fit in"), you HAD to get a season pass, you HAD to have the latest and greatest gear, you HAD to fight traffic to arrive Friday night in time to hit the local bar scene, catch first chair on Saturday morning, ski beyond exhaustion, go to dinner Saturday night, get loaded, hook up with someone, then slide back out to the slopes mid-morning Sunday for an hour or two to work off the hangover, then drive home, stuck in traffic along the way.

Families did something similar; fight traffic to the mountain, have a late dinner before bed, drop the kids at lessons first thing Saturday morning, ski with friends until lunch, have a 3 beer lunch, then head back out to the hill for an hour before you had to pick up the kids from ski school. You followed that up by meeting other families for dinner and drinks (often rotating locations every weekend between family condos), then you got the kids to bed, all to be up in time Sunday for half-day, morning lesson drop off. Then you met the kids at ski school after the morning session, tipped the instructor, then haphazardly organized your stuff, threw it in the massive, gas-guzzling SUV (hopefully not forgetting someone's game-boy or favorite stuffed animal), then hitting the road to sit in traffic on the way home, while the kids watched Cars or Madagascar for the 27th time on the back seat DVD player.

This was the definition of "the ski life".

Then, along came snowboarding. No longer did it take years of lessons to learn to slide down a hill and have fun. The learning curve was shorter, the clothes were cooler and more "urban", snowboarders did "tricks" and played in a half pipe rather than just skiing along and popping off 'loop-de-loos" or small home made kickers on regular trails.

Snowboarding was fun ... it was risky. .. and it wasn't " established ".

Skiers poo-pooed it.

Your learned by having your friend teach you...

Lessons didn't exist (until they did)...

You could sit down on a trail anytime you wanted to, smoke a bowl, and heckle skiers to your heart's content.

Snowboard shops distanced themselves from ski shops-

Snowboarders smoked a lot of pot and grew dreadlocks-

They wore urban clothes when not on the slopes and adapted a persona; they smelled bad, but they looked good... Even if they were terrible riders.

Until it became established.

The Olympics glorified it, everyone started doing it... they paid for lessons, they dropped their kids at snowboard school, they met for lunch... they sat in traffic, the look became fashion.

...and the ski industry was watching.

They were sent back to school by the snowboard industry, losing dollars every year as skier numbers stayed flat or declined, and overall lift ticket numbers plummeted (remember, you can hike up to a half pipe and, in most cases, buy a cheaper lift ticket (or none at all) to play in the pipe).

-The half pipe was the skate park of the winter.

Then, that generation got older, stuck their skateboard in some closet, never to bee seen again.

They got tired of clipping and unclipping with every lift ride. -Manufacturers couldn't master a reliable step in system that performed at a high level.

Falling hurt and the bruises took longer to heal .

Snowboard gear became as expensive (if not more so) than ski gear.

It became cliche'.

This opened the proverbial door for a comeback.

First came twin-tip skis.

The first generation of them was not good- the industry had nothing to go on, but they took a shot.

They were easy to ski on; the centered mounting point made them easy to turn, and enlarged sweet spots made them easy to balance on while skiing, jumping, and while recovering on a landing, and they got popular, fast.

The next generation of twins was even better- but their design as a tool for the halfpipe and park limited them- they were still unstable at higher speeds, and they did not have good edge grip. On days kids skied the mountain with the family, or the pipe was closed, they weren't much fun.

Then, came the "directional" twin tip.

Skis got wider.

Rocker became a thing.

Extreme and big mountain skiers loved the extra width and the floaty tips and tails...

People were doing backflips off rocks on 40 degree pitches and landing 50 feet from the jump, stomping the landing, and creating fancier and more exciting tricks every day.

Warren Miller and Teton Gravity Research took a page out of Greg Stump's pioneering ski movies, and a new genre of skiing and ski film was born.

Social media caught on quickly-

...a new direction in skiing came to pass.

Skiing was exciting again.

Skiers were, once again, thumbing their noses at the establishment.

People were skiing out of bounds, more and more.

The backcountry industry was born.

People were learning to ski at a faster rate; gone were the hours of lessons required to have enough skill to handle advanced slopes.

The gear began to look cool.

Boots became more comfortable.

Technology improved at an exponential rate.

Skiers were skiing faster than ever before.

Ski manufacturers started sponsoring extreme skiers along with racers, and a new type of anti-hero was born.

Suddenly, skiing was fun again.

In a possibly coincidental, yet correlating, turn of events, the number of snowboarders began to decline.

In 2016 The New York Times caught wind of it, and published a ground breaking article "Snowboarding, once a High-Flying Sport, Crashes to Earth"

...and the ski industry was listening.

In November of 2023, SnowBrains published an article, " Analyzing Growth in the Number of Skier Visits in The United States Over the Last 44 Years "

From 1985 to 2001 the level of skier visits remained fairly flat (accounting for some years having better snowfall, etc.), even given a strong US economy.

From 2012 - 2019, things started going downhill. There were weak snow years, lift ticket prices climbed out of control- the industry started getting worried.

The market was ripe for a Gordon Gekko turn of events. Ski areas were being gobbled up by multifarious corporate entities at a frightening rate.

Then, Covid hit in 2020 and people were working from home, staying out of bars and movie theaters, and looking for something to do.

"It's ok to do things outside" the talking heads on the news told us...

So we did.

Skier visits began to grow at a high rate-

People realized that the mega-pass wasn't such a bad thing; as long as they could come up with the money up front.

Lift lines were everywhere- they were long, to the point of being ridiculous.

Photo Credit: Unofficial Networks

People were referencing the apocalypse.

Yet, fewer and fewer of those people were snowboarders.

Photos of these ridiculous lift lines were everywhere on the web and social media.

Yet, if you tried to pick out a snowboarder amongst the hordes, you were hard pressed to find one (I can only find one in the main photo to this post).

In 2021, the ANSI Blog (The American National Standards Institute administers and coordinates the US voluntary consensus standardization system. -It's a member organization to The ISO, who sets the standards for ski/boot/binding interfaces and binding release) posted an article "The Decline of Snowboarding", (https://blog.ansi.org/decline-of-snowboarding-lower-participation/) citing some reasons businesses should be aware of this trend.

For what was once a fast-growing industry, snowboarders are becoming harder and harder to find.

Long story short, the decline of snowboarding is very real.

All it takes is one heelside fall to bring on the concussion that makes you decide you've had enough of sitting on the cold ground to clip and unclip your bindings to get on and off the lift, or traverse a flat area, while watching people on two-planks fly by you, then see them skiing in bumps, trees, and steeper pitches with greater ease and less energy expenditure than you.

Don't get me wrong, they're still out there... mostly in the pipes and parks of your local resort.

You can, also, still hear them scraping the snow off of trails with perfectly good cover, all over New England.

But they are fewer and farther in-between

Yet, the antidisestablishmentarianism lives on.

What are your thoughts on the rise and fall of snowboarding?

*Main photo Mabey Ski

Killington Has Been Set Free From The Bonds of POWDR Corp.

Fri, 18 Oct 2024 04:44:14 GMT

The Beast of The East will be undergoing some changes.

Let me say, first and foremost, that Killington is remaining on the Ikon pass for this year, with no foreseeable changes to that in the future.

Killington's new buying group is made up of 16 investors who

call themselves Killington Independence Group- which includes previous owners

POWDR and Great Gulf, who retain minority ownership percentages.

The group is headed by Phill Gross, A longtime Killington

homeowner and passholder who co-founded Adage Capital Management. He's

also served on the board of the U.S. Ski and Snowboard Association and the

World Cup Dreams Foundation. The other key player of the group is Michael

Ferri- A partner and owner of East Coast Valvoline Instant Oil Change

franchises. He's also served as a trustee for Killington Mountain School since

2008.

The group made a statement on "X" (formerly known as

twitter) recently, laying out their plan for the first year of operations:

First and foremost, the resort will have a new Board of

Directors, including influential local businessman and director of Casella

Waste Management, John Casella.

The owner of the Snowed Inn, Carolyn Kepcher, and long-time local and KMS Board

Member, Mike Hone will also serve on the board.

There will be some additional internal reshuffling, with a few well deserved title changes, etc.

As for capital improvements:

The Skyeship gondola and barn are slated to be upgraded/replaced.
The Superstar quad will be replaced with a six-pack.
1,000 new Low "E" snow guns will be brought online.
Re-branded (old-branded) parks.

The Superstar chair will not be a bubble chair- most of us have

ridden that chair on windy days while the the snowmaking guns are blasting away, so I was hopeful they would be able to pull that off.

My guess is that this will reduce wind holds, which bubble chairs are often subject to.

Sidenote- The existing chair runs fast for a quad; This chair was originally manufactured by Yan, who was driven out of business due to commonplace failure/high risks. With that in mind, Killington, very wisely, did an upgrade package on that lift. which also increased uphill

loading. That chair, amazingly, moves over 3,000 people per hour, which is the current capacity for most sixpack chairs. So, it seems, there wont be a major increase in uphill capacity, even given the fact that the six-pack is high speed.

That said, this chair is getting old and It's replacement was coming due. This is a good move for Special K.

Killington is served by two gondola lifts- both gondolas were huge advances for Killington-

Prior to the upgrade of the original Skyeship line, experienced skiers avoided the old, bright orange gondola cars coming up from RTE 4 past Needle's Eye, because the risk of those cars dropping off the line, in mild to moderate winds, was very real, and fairly common. Back in those days, two of my housemates were lift mechanics (RIP Chalker), and they would not ride them, nor would they ski under them, no matter how good the snow was. They did, however, have some entertaining stories about some of the failures on that line.

Anyway, I was working there when they replaced the old death pumpkins in 1994, with the current design, and that was a welcome upgrade. In fact, part of me still regrets not buying one of the old cabins to do something interesting with. Those old cabins had lots of stories in them, most of which I wont regale you with, due to inappropriate content.

Prior to the K1 Gondola implementation, lift service was provided by the old double chair

to the peak. Riding that double was the old route to early season skiing, and significant walking was often involved. That was a rite of passage, but that lift was, certainly, a dinosaur long overdue for replacement.

Also prior to the K1, there was no fast, easy route to the top, because the double wasn't very reliable in it's twilight years... It was subject to ice on the lines, deteriorating shiv trains -evidenced by the common but not so comforting, repetitive squeak emanating from them, and the globs of grease that fell on you as you passed under them. Most of the Killington experienced would go up the Snowdon double or triple, then pole our way over to East Fall to hit CQ4 (the Canyon quad).

As for the Skyeship gondola, all 116 cabins are scheduled for replacement in the summer of 2025.

I was a bit surprised to hear this- as I understood it, this gondola system was still considered to be state of the art technology. I have to believe that the new gondola cabins will be easier to board, especially since the doors on the old cabins barely open wide enough for someone carrying a pack into the cabin. Anyway, it's just the cabins which are being replaced, and the new cabins will, apparently, make that lift more reliable and less subject to wind hold .

I'm curious to see these new cabins, especially since the heaters in the old ones never really worked properly. Not to mention, I've been told that this gondola line ran under-capacity (with less cars than it was meant to run) with to avoid wind holds and too much stress on the system. In fact, this line ran way less than anticipated when it was put in- Especially since

mid-week, these cars would be empty.

It will be good to not have an excruciatingly long wait for one of those cars to arrive, assuming the new system runs a higher capacity.

The gondola barn is slated to replaced at an undisclosed time in the future.

There will, also, be a change to spring skiing for the 2024-25 season at K-Mart, with

skiers being sent up to the Northridge chair to ski there ,and in the canyon.

For the Killington spring faithful this is a blow. Most of May and June skiing were done on

Superstar, and it was mighty convenient being able to park right there, have a

deck to sit on for soaking up the spring rays of the sun, and nearby bathrooms.

Lastly, the new, uber-efficient snow guns will be great for reducing resource use while improving the quality and depth of man-made snow. However, those guns wont be on line early season, because (rumor has it) they cannot run with enough water content to provide a solid base for early-season skiing. So, the old guns wont be going away..... yet.

Stay tuned on how that pans out.

At the end of the day, I'm glad to see Killington purchased by

people who will love her, and take care of her, like the real skiers they claim to be-

Hopefully we will see a skier friendly resort with real skiing, flourish for real New

England skiers.

What are your thoughts on the changes at

Killington?