graupel
-
Posts
182 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by graupel
-
-
So in summary, of the two principal critiques leveled at jibbers - the first (not well rounded) is overstated, and the second (no ballz) is a crock. IMO these charactizations are more accurate descriptions of the once-forever-and-only the backcountry crowd than the jibbers. So - what's the story. Why the hate?
While you might be right that the not-well-rounded claim might be overblown, it is non-the-less quite real. Here is an example of a tale told to me by someone who was there:
Two sponsored skiers were off on a trip to somewhere foreign (paid trip). There was new snow overnight, putting a nice fluffy cushion on a mogul run. Described by skier #1, known for being a big mountain skier as "it just doesn't get any better than that", and promptly shredded by skier #1. Skier #2, known for being a jibber, and highly promoted as a sponsored athlete, nearly resorts to kick turns to get down the fluffy bump run.
It would be an embarassment to call #2 a skier. A gymnast with skis perhaps, but skiing in the traditional "making turns" sense they wouldn't even qualify for the "advanced class". I'm sure this isn't the norm, but it does exist.
I'm not sure if heard many claim "no ballz" though, more an issue of whether jibbing is really skiing. I've got more of an issue with white kids pretending to be ghetto in clothing, mannerisms and speech. More in a shake-your-head-I-can't-believe-their-so-dumb kind of thing than truly "hate".
The bonus is when one of the youth oriented film companies shows up at your area with cast and crew on a 18" new day, they build a jump in the middle of a run and session it all day, leaving you and your buddies to freshies all day long.
-
Yes, Paul was quite involved with Tua. There were a new bunch of Tua skis that never got to be shipped to the states that had good feedback from the industry demos.
In the interest of cross-pollination, since many of the questions refer to the new skis:
http://www.telemarkskier.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001083
As long as a company has a decent warranty policy, I don't see any reason to be more afraid of purchasing skis than anything else. Since skis are so tactile though, being able to demo them would make sense.
-
For the most part it is marketing. There is a strong pattern by the companies to make the Tele versions of skis somewhat softer in flex by removing a layer or changing the material in a layer to acheive it.
Skiers who are looking for more stiffness are often using alpine skis, so some companies like Tua before the plug got pulled were acknowledging what folks were already doing and billed their skis as being usable for both. Sometimes the Tele versions of skis, whether they are truly different than the alpine version or not, may be a different price than the alpine version (for tele, sometimes less).
Whether the characteristics between Tele or Rando marketed versions are actually different may vary from manufacturer to manufacturer.
-
Well, if you want warm, one of the thermofittable liners helps quite a bit. The Intuition models frequently have foam that undergoes less volume change throughout the day; Raichle-style ones often have more thickness for filling in spaces, though sometimes the fit gradually becomes more loose during its lifespan. Garmont liners are pretty good if they work volume-wise in your boot. If it ends up during the molding process to get all pressed out in an area, you might not get the full insulation benefit.
In short, a thermo-type liner may solve much of your fit issues, but you may still need to deform the plastic to provide enough contour change to accomodate your insulation needs as well.
By the way, if you have never heated/shaped a boot before, it is worth it to have someone do it in a shop. Amongst other things, there are ways to make your boot ugly (or damage it) for which your only recourse is to hit yourself in the forehead and go "Doh!". Professional shop folks are less likely to have a mishap to begin with, but if they do, they have resources to remedy the problem that you don't have (working relationship with manufacturers for replacement parts, for example). Also, since boots are so important to your enjoyment level, wouldn't you rather have them be the best they can be?
-
Yes. A not uncommon boot stretching project for some folks is euphemistically referred as providing room for the "sixth toe". Some folks need it for both feet, you sound like a potential candidate for one foot only. Sometimes a bit can be shaved out of the liner, but you need to be watchful of removing too much cushioning benefit of the padding or making it more susceptible to retaining more water.
Another consideration is looking at the nature of how your foot responds when you step down and put weight on it. If your foot rolls a bit, which could be from such reasons as an insufficiently supported arch, your foot becomes "wider" within the boot. A more supported footbed may discourage your foot from spreading and reduce the need for blowing out the plastic in the shell.
Many times you strive to punch the shell after trying out other options. For example, if your otherwise foot needs can accommodate it, you might be able to use a thinner footbed which drops your foot lower in the shell. Lower elevation is usually wider within the shell.
I've always had good help on boot fitting projects at Sturdevant's in Bellevue, but there are other worthwhile shops too.
-
I have one and dig it. I was sort of surprised how much I've been utilizing the modularity of it. The pocket makes a small little pack that is actually just big enough to be useful. Can carry skins, shovel probe, a small amount of clothes/food. If you need more clothes, you can use the straps.
I don't pack small enough for a 2-3 day tour to fit into it for that use, but I can see how someone could. I do find the suspension comfortable.
-
Get those TM-11s mounted up with Dynafit bindings. It would be hard to find a lighter set up.
I'm guessing the Atomic that the grumbling was about is the 10EX (orange in the photo).
-
Okay Jon,
Since you would rather render your opinion than do research on your own, here is yet another source:
http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html
Two Congressional agencies dispute findings that caps on damage awards produce big savings in medical costs.January 29, 2004
Modified: January 29, 2004
Summary
The President holds out the prospect of major cost savings if Congress will pass a law limiting what injured patients can collect in lawsuits. He wants a cap of $250,000 on any damages for “pain and suffering” and other non-economic damages. His administration projects savings to the entire economy of between $60 billion and $108 billion per year in health-care costs, including $28 billion or more to federal taxpayers.
But both the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office criticize the 1996 study the Bush administration uses as their main support. These nonpartisan agencies suggest savings – if any – would be relatively small.
Analysis
In a speech in Little Rock, Arkansas on Jan. 26 the President said, “One of the major cost drivers in the delivery of health care are these junk and frivolous lawsuits.” He said rising malpractice insurance premiums and needless medical procedures ordered up out of fear of lawsuits cost federal taxpayers “at least” $28 billion a year in added costs to government medical programs. Bush’s Department of Health and Human Services claims total savings – public and private – of as much as $108 billion a year.
Those claims rest mainly on a single 1996 study by two Stanford economists who said caps on damage awards could hold down overall medical costs by 5% to 9%. They studied heart patients who were hospitalized, compared costs in states with and without limits on malpractice lawsuits, and then projected their findings to the entire health-care system.
But both the GAO and the CBO now question their sweeping conclusion. When the CBO attempted to duplicate the Stanford economists’ methods for other types of ailments they found found “no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending.”
“In short, the evidence available to date does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on economic efficiency, ” the CBO said.
That link that I had above had other articles from various sources too if you bothered to click.
-
You can thank attorney's like Senator John Edwards.
Way too simplistic of an explanation, and as several articles attest, untrue.
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/RisingCostOfMedicalMalpracticeInsurance.htm
Des Moines RegisterThe malpractice myth
By Register Editorial Board
07/11/2003
President Bush said in his State of the Union address this year that the threat of lawsuits against doctors and hospitals was one of the "prime causes" of rising health-care costs. Bush's words suggest a correlation between health-care costs and the premiums physicians and hospitals pay to protect themselves in lawsuits.
Yet between 1988 and 1998, U.S. health-care costs increased 74.4 percent while malpractice premiums increased 5.7 percent. The total premiums paid in 2000 added up to 0.56 of the nation's total health-care bill.
Bush asked Congress to "pass medical-liability reform" that would limit malpractice awards. The House passed it. Senate Democrats thwarted the bill this week. Bush wants Americans to believe that if insurance companies have to pay smaller damages to injured patients, physicians will have lower premiums and health-care costs could actually be held down.
Wrong again.
New information in a national database that collects reports of every judgment and settlement paid in malpractice demonstrates just the opposite. An analysis of that data by a consumer-advocacy group reveals malpractice payouts decreased by 8.2 percent between 2001 and 2002. Meanwhile, doctors" premiums didn't go down.
Damage awards greater than $1 million decreased more than 10 percent between those years. Doctors" premiums weren't affected.
There's simply no correlation between lawsuits and insurance rates. Rather, insurance rates are tied to the climate of the stock and bond market, where insurance companies invest much of their money.
Granted, the way doctors practice medicine could be affected by the threat of lawsuits. They order tests as "defensive medicine" for fear that not doing so could land them in a heap of trouble. Limiting damage awards wouldn't assuage that fear. It would, however, unfairly hurt patients who deserve compensation.
Limiting damages to wronged Americans would have no impact on health-care costs. The president should stop perpetuating the myth that it would.
-
I believe Minx may be referring to Miss Christine's membership in a UW sorority that specifically excluded black Americans.
Still think morality is unimportant?
That sounds like if somebody went into a "club" in Utah for a drink and all they were served was weak beer that you would blame the drinker for the bar's rules.
Hopefully a question of morals would be over something more substantial than that.
-
Are you listening to what you are writing here? You aren't electing a preacher or boy scout leader, it isn't government's job to set morals for the citizens, nor are they empowered to do so.
Yes, you want someone to be honest, but only because that is your only hope that the policies that they say they are for are the ones that they actually follow through with. Policies are the only lasting effect of a politician, so to vote based on anything else has about as much to do with anything as whether they were born on Tuesday in an odd numbered year under a full moon.
-
Yes, it costs about $100 at retail to have Dynafit fittings on a boot from a company like Garmont. Garmont actually takes it in the shorts on the Megaride a little in an effort to keep the price from climbing too high.
I'm sure their rationale for the non Dynafit components on the Adrenalin is that they believe someone choosing this beefy of a boot is probably going to go for a Naxo, Freeride, or if they are looking for lighter, the Silveretta Pure. I think this is a reasonable assumption. Beefy boot skiers tend to like higher DIN settings, but more importantly, they are used to performance alpine gear and would likely prefer something that resembles it in step-in and release functions for their backcountry kit.
From a practical perspective, they would sell more numbers on a less expensive Adrenalin than a more expensive model (as a Dynafit compatible one would be). If there gets to be more buyers of this sort of thing, it might open up options that wouldn't otherwise make sense.
-
One of the bigger problems is water freezing in the bite valve. There are a combination of ways to discourage freezing there. First and foremost, I don't think there is really a way around having to blow the water back into the tube after drinking. The problem is that may not be enough.
Another trick I've heard of but not done myself, is to place a stiffener like a coat-hanger along the tube so the "at rest" position of the tube is with the bite valve facing up. This discourages the water to collect in the bite valve itself.
You could attempt to insulate the bite valve better than the stock "winter kits" that folks like Ultimate Directions sell. The rubbery cap arrangement seems to not do enough, as I've witnessed someone having freezing with a mid summer Rainier summit climb even when using that plus the standard neoprene sleeve that those kits use.
The solution that seems to work best is to have a different pack. Backcountry Access has several sizes specifically oriented for winter use, that include a zippered stowage area for the drinking tube in the shoulder strap of the pack itself. This seems to be quite effective, providing you remember to zip your tube back underneath the cover after drinking.
Another manufacturer that has this feature are packs out of the "Switch" series from Osprey. The largest one out of the series is highly modular, allowing you to convert from barely there nearly bladder only size; to the traveling light mode that can carry shovel, probe, skins, and small amount of clothing; to the final composite system which they term 55+5 (referring to the liters of volume). By building the pack around shoulder straps that continue to shield the drinking tube in all the configurations, it ends up pretty versatile.
-
Here is something I saw posted on another forum. Quite likely this may be something wildwilderness.org sent out, but I'm not certain of the source:
If you've been keeping up with the news, you know that Ohio Representative Ralph Regula attached a rider to the Omnibus bill making Recreational fees a permanent fixture on public lands. It is not, however, over.
An unexpected delay in final passage of the massive omnibus appropriations bill has given public lands fee opponents ANOTHER CHANCE to defeat Ralph Regula's scheme to legislate permanent public lands fees behind closed doors using a parliamentary sleight of hand, without debate or public hearings.
You may have heard in the news that a clause offensive to privacy rights advocates (it would allow certain members of Congress and their staffs to view previously off-limits IRS tax returns) was discovered in the spending bill. The bill, with the offending clause, had already received House approval. The
Senate deleted the IRS clause before they voted. The House and Senate versions are therefore different, and so final approval has not yet been achieved and the bill has not yet been sent to the President for signature.The Congress has been called back for a second lame duck session beginning
December 6 to settle the issues.
At that time, House leadership can also make any other changes they like to the bill, INCLUDING REMOVAL OF CONGRESSMAN REGULA’S UNAMERICAN PERMANENT FEE
BILL, HR 3283.
HELP PULL FEES OUT OF THE OMNIBUS BILL.
One group of fee opponents is sending the following letter to Leadership of both the House and Senate:
Dear Sirs:
We respectfully requests that you move immediately to delete HR 3283 from the omnibus spending bill currently under consideration by the U.S. House.
This bill is substantive legislation, including criminal penalties, that fundamentally changes the way America's public lands are funded and managed. Yet it has never been approved by the full House and has never been introduced, had hearings, or been voted upon in the Senate.HR 3283 would allow the federal land management agencies to charge access fees for recreational use of public lands by the general public. It would
replace the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo) which began in 1996 (via an appropriations rider) as a two-year demonstration and has been extended (as a rider) every year since then, with a permanent fee program. Fee Demo has been highly controversial and is opposed by hundreds of organizations, state legislatures, and county governments and by millions of rural Americans. These fees are a double tax that puts the burden of funding the management agencies on the backs of rural Americans. HR 3283 would constitute the first tax increase of the Bush administration. The attempt to slip such a controversial measure into the omnibus has ignited a firestorm in the West. Fee Demo is even more intensely unpopular now than it was when it was originally implemented, and this bill would beunlikely to pass on its own merits. To tack it on as an appropriations rider is an abuse of legislative power.
House leadership should take this opportunity to right the wrong that is about to be perpetrated on the American people.
Thank you for your consideration.
HERES WHAT YOU CAN DO:
THIS WEEK, before December 3rd, contact the key congressional leaders listed below, by phone or fax. Also call or fax your own Representative and both of your Senators. A massive outpouring of opposition, not only to the bill itself but to its method of passage, WILL have a major impact!
SAMPLE LETTER OR PHONE CALL:
Please remove HR 3283 as a rider on the omnibus spending bill. Substantive legislation, especially with criminal penalties involved, should go through a full legislative procedure of public hearings and debate. I am outraged at this abuse of the appropriations process. HR 3283 should not be passed without ever seeing the light of day.
(please vary the wording)
Feel free to mention any of the numerous other problems that the Fee Demo Program has created, such as the tens of thousands of dollars that have been spent on enforcement instead of maintenance, and projects like the Maroon Bells 1.6 million dollar toilet.
Here is who to contact:
Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House
Phone: 202/225-2976
Fax: 202/225-0697
Tom Delay, House Majority Leader
Phone: 202/225-5951
Fax: 202/225-5241
Rep. Ralph Regula
Phone: 202/225-3876
Fax: 202/225-3059
Bill Young, Chair, House Appropriation Committee
Phone: 202/225-5961
Fax: 202/225-9764
Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
Phone: 202/224-3344
Fax: 202/228-1264
Ted Stevens, Chair, Senate Appropriations Committee
Phone: 202/224-3004
Fax: 202/224-2354
-
-
Here's to sharing summits with a parent
-
I think knots tied in an effort to keep the rope from going deeper into the crevasse is full of more problems than any benefits it is supposed to solve. Should one of those knots arrive below the lip, you just kissed the rescue hauling ability of that section of rope goodbye.
If you are being thoughtful about rope handling (minimal slack), a person falling into a crevasse shouldn't go that deep anyway. Anything that you may have done to inhibit your ability to raise or lower the rope (like knots) will be regretted due to the time and complexity that these sort of things add.
One of the better discussions I've seen on the subject is in a rescue technique book by Bill March (Modern Rope Techniques, my edition is 1986). He may have included the discussion in other later titles, but I don't know that for certain. Amazon lists a couple of choices that are more recent than my copy, see here or other titles that might mention it, since they are also by the same author here.
One of the principles put forth there is that whatever rescue system you come up with must be reversible, that is, you must be able to adapt it if for some reason you decide you have to be able to lower after you started raising. Rather than trying to do a detailed instruction on it here, check out the book or get a guide to teach with this sort of principle in mind.
-
-
Beware of the wiley "bait and switch" ranger. Even if a "chains required" sign isn't posted at the Longmire gate, if you drive up to the parking lot at Paradise and the guys up there think there should have been the sign out, they'll slap you with a ticket even after you made it all the way up but get stuck in the Paradise parking lot because they haven't finished plowing it yet.
No, I'm not kidding either. This event wasn't that recent, but rangers can sometimes be unreasonble with authority just like volunteer ski patrollers.
-
The "snap kickturn" is really only needed if you have the springs installed, to enable keeping the tip up long enough to get it around. My Diamirs originally came with a single spring each and through use each spring broke. I'm glad they did, they are not missed and if I had thought about it I would have removed them anyway.
-
If you do your kick turns toward the downhill side, the springs might not get in your way. If you do your kick turns to the uphill side, which is faster, the springs can make it a little harder to get the tip around. To a small degree the springs may encourage your tip to dive while breaking trail, which of course would be more effort.
By the way, the standard way they ship the Freerides is without springs. Diamirs ship with springs, however.
In short, if you didn't have the springs, you will likely not miss them. If the springs are free to you, it doesn't hurt to see what your think. If they cost anything, you would probably be better off just trying them out first to see if you feel a need for them.
-
Tax Reform
in Spray
http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?040906fa_fact
Such a system would penalize middle-class people, who spend nearly all the money they earn; a fact Hall and Rabushka, the originators of the flat tax, were straightforward about. In 1983, they wrote that a flat tax “would be a tremendous boon to the economic elite,” adding that “it is an obvious mathematical law that lower taxes on the successful will have to be made up by higher taxes on average people.”Moreover, the White House’s forecast extends only to 2009, when the baby boomers are due to start retiring, putting enormous demands on Medicare and Social Security. “Perhaps the biggest difference between Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts is that, with Reagan, history gave us time to clean up the mess,” Peter G. Peterson, who was Secretary of Commerce in the Nixon Administration, writes in his new book, “Running on Empty.” “With George W., history may not be so indulgent.”Roughly two-thirds of taxable income is paid to workers in the form of wages and benefits. The other third goes to reward capital, or accumulated savings, in the form of corporate profits, dividends, and interest payments. If Bush’s economic agenda was fully enacted, the vast bulk of these payments wouldn’t be taxed at all, and labor would end up shouldering practically the entire burden of financing the federal government. In a new book, “Neoconomy: George Bush’s Revolutionary Gamble with America’s Future,” Daniel Altman, a former economics reporter for the Times and The Economist, describes what such a system might look like. “The fortunate and growing minority who managed to receive all their income from stocks, bonds and other securities would pay nothing—not a dime—for America’s cancer research, its international diplomacy, its military deterrent, the maintenance of the interstate highway system, the space program or almost anything else the federal government did. . . . Broadly speaking, that fortunate minority would be free-riders.” -
that depends, name the date you are asking this question
-
Hey dude, we gotta live in this cesspool. You just get to mock us from your safe haven across the border.
To stop whining is to become complacent like a Stepford Wife.
New G3 skis
in the *freshiezone*
Posted
Folks are always quick to assume when they see similar sidecut that the ski is the same. It doesn't take much to change some materials or vary the layers to result in something that feels different.