thelawgoddess

wOOt wOOt!

i've never seen a larch.

the leap is really an awesome place ... and rockclimbing.com is a good place to find partners for those parts. btw, there is nice free camping at the leap within walking distance of a decent bar/restaurant at the hotel whose name i can't remember.

if you're kicking it hard enough, i think that brittle ice is going to shatter no matter how many points you've got. i think monos are better for most vertical stuff, and i would think monos are less obtrusive when dealing with dinnerplate-prone ice and whatnot. if the ice is chandeliered, i think it's much easier to make good solid gentle placements with a mono. of course ... this is just what *i* think.

i use the g14's. i pretty much always go mono but it's nice to have the option to switch to dual should i ever feel the need. mono is nice for technical ice (and rock!) - it's just like climbing with pointy climbing shoes on ... i like rambocomps but those little tiny bottom points suck for walking around on glaciers. the "regular" rambo would be better for that but they are rather heavy. the g14s are a little lighter ... and lower profile than the m10's. (i have smallish feet!)

i have red one with the "sporty" top. i like the narrower profile and how it doesn't leak, but i do think they conduct heat a little too nicely. put ice in it and you almost need to wear gloves to keep your skin from freezing to it! well, maybe i'm exaggerating a little, but anyway ...

cute, dru. are those waterproof?

you okay, rumr? ;-)

unfortunately it looks like i will. not that seattle is so bad, but ... that's unrelated. i would definitely like to make a trip to the methow. have never been and hear it's pretty amazing. is there any skating up by snoqualmie pass?

jeff hansel is rad. coolest cc.com'er who isn't actually on cc.com. tell 'em hi for me, would ya?

found him - thanks! ;-)

[...] can someone send me his new phone number? i got an email from him today but the number i have for him is old - it's been disconnected. [...] thank you in advance!!!

thanks for all the info so far. it's something i've been wanting to try for years now; just never have - mostly because i don't have the gear. but while i have a real job that pays real money i might as well spend it on some more gear. :-)

i want to try some cc and skating this winter. i know basically absolutely nothing about them. i wanted to know how boots size - like real normal shoes or do they get weird like ski boots? also, what is the difference with cc touring and skating? (meaning, what makes the boots better for one or the other?) thanks!

hmm ... i am tempted. i haven't climbed for shit this summer but that shouldn't hamper me too much on those grades. well, except for the leading bit. not sure how my head would be for that. but i've never been to static and would be keen on checking it out as a sort of farewell to summer ...

sweet pics, marko. sounds like a great trip! some of our party were hoping to ski at least one of those "snow" slopes back in early may ... but they were pretty much just ice then as well. hopefully they get some good snow this winter!

i was trying to avoid saying "wood" ... but i'm totally in that camp. my current at setup consists of naxo bindings on dynastar little big fat skis. (and for tele i have targa bindings on k2 public enemies.) not that wood is the be-all end-all, though - rossi's b2 and b3 also ski too damp for me. ps - there are some havocs and tele daddies and whatnot on evogear.com ...

you're right - i edited my previous post. i was thinking of volkls when i said atomics. (except for the tele daddy, of course.) i'm not in any way saying the havocs are bad skis; they just didn't make *me* ooh and aah. other people love them. (snoboy? ) they were too damp for me. i generally like a ski with more energy. k2's for instance. (i am also smaller than most guy skiers and unisex skis my size tend to ski stiffer.)

I wasn't aware soft was a good thing in a ski. some people like soft skis. i'm not sure why. i would think they'd only be "nice" in superlight pow, and even then i wouldn't be convinced. (i like a little more backbone myself.) i really think the pr is overrated, but you sure see a lot of people skiing them at resorts. i haven't skied the sugar daddy. the tele daddy rocks, though! atomics on the whole are pretty sweet skis. they are solid and still energetic. i would definitely go there ... [edit: on second thought, that's not what i meant to write. i meant that VOLKLS on the whole are pretty sweet skis ... (i got a little confused about the brands.) while i did think that atomic's tele daddy rocked, it is basically only good for one thing - and i wouldn't go there for a single set-up.]

mmm ... snow ... mmm

i personally wouldn't go for either of those skis. i have skied them both. but it really depends on you - what kind of skier you are, what you're going to be skiing, what kind of ski you like ... etc.

rumr, i HATE it!!! c'mon bg ... you know you want to move back ...

tele'ing is a whole different ball game ... honestly, i think you could be "learning to tele" [the bc] for the rest of your life - no matter how good of a downhill skier you are. lessons are definitely the way to go. really.

here's an idea: move to ophir and rent me the master suite! :-) seriously, dude ... if you ever want to move back, i'm sure we could work something out ... can't you get the wife to do it? then we could all go bootpack at silverton toegether, performing mass slave labor just like all the other ski bums.