pbelitz
-
Posts
53 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by pbelitz
-
-
You fucked up.
You can legally return them for a full refund.
I'd feel bad if I did the same.
If I were you, I'd suck it up and absorb the cost of my stupidity.
-
Why should it be a parabola and not a circle?
If it's a parabola, you can't talk about radii. -
The 2005/2006 Shuksan (with the Native American graphics) is the same as the 2004/2005 Shuksan (with the brown topsheet). The older Shuksan must have had a significantly larger turn radius, as the sidecut was something like 107/75/???.
McLean no longer works for BD, he's now a full-time avalanche forecaster in Utah.
Dammit! I just derived an expression for the sidecut radius of a ski, assuming that the sidecut is described by a circle. My result agrees with this page, but given this, my 184 R:EX has a sidecut radius of 14.47m, a 181 Shuksan would have a SR of about 11.61m. The old shuksan has a SR of around 14.22m.
Somehow the manufacturers use something weird when they calculate sidecut radius. Because my derivation is correct.
-
According to backcountry.com (K2 site doesn't list turn radii), the sidecut radius is 16m. Which makes sense, as I mentioned above, the Ethic and R:EX share a SR of 23m, and both have 32mm of sidecut tip to waist, compared to 39 on the Shuksan.
The Sahale has a more reasonable sidecut design, but it's too skinny. K2 loves name-dropping in ski marketing, but I suspect that Volken and McLean's personal preferences were secondary to building a ski that appeals to the masses. After all, the guys who get skis for free don't call the shots, K2 does.
-
I wouldn't buy the Shuksan for a few reasons:
Too much sidecut. 39mm? That's a 16m radius. Compared to the BD Ethic's or Atomic R:EX's 23m. Why do they market this as a steeps ski? Philfort says his are really sketchy on firm steep stuff, and I'm not surprised.
Way too short. It's capped at 181. For a softer ski I'd want a 190.
There are better all-around skis for strong skiers. Like Black Diamond's entire line, several Atomic models, some Volkls, etc.
Kioti, I'm wondering why you feel that a tendency to go fast is a problem to be corrected.
-
Whoa, you got into the mountains.
What was this about 'no time - can't go to Baker'?
-
We climbed the Boulder/Park Cleaver to the Park HW on Sunday. Quite passable, and the schunds are pretty easy to nagivate.
Descending the Boulder back to the cleaver is still possible.
I don't know if the Park proper still goes, it's starting to look pretty crevassed, but I didn't look very closely. The Cleaver is definitely worth your while, though.
-
I've used my 50 liter Icesac for four day trips. Hard to imagine a trip that would require a bigger pack. Remember, at home the pack always seems full. Loads compress.
I'd be worried that carrying skis and boots on the silnylon would shred it like a wet paper towel...I could be wrong.
-
Greg Louie has a new site that covered modern AT gear very thoroughly.
-
Yes, we descended Crystal Pass. We didn't see any ashes, though. Lots of photos were taken, I might post some in the next few days.
Cross-olympic traverse? That would be too much hiking.
It just killed me to slog down all that wonderful corn. But getting skis in there would be painful as well.
EDIT: pics for Fairweather.
-
Good stuff, Brian.
A few recent route details:
My dad and I climbed yesterday. The route is quite a bit more melted out than in FW's pics. We did the 'direct'; the schrund is gaping. To bypass it, we traversed above, crossed some rock, and regained the snow. Crossing from the rock to snow was decidedly non-trivial with crampons on sneakers.
We descended behind the summit group, which has only one snow bridge. The direct will melt out real quick.
Oh, and that's one goddamn long hike. At least we did it, now I'll never have to go back.
-
-
I bought into the hype once. Superfeet made my feet hurt like crazy.
I have custom insoles for my ski boots (~$200). They work magnificently at correcting my stance and providing comfort.
-
All I know is that I sent a 1.2meg image to a friend. He printed it at 16 by 20. He enlarged a slide from his film SLR at the same size, and to my untrained eye, the resolutions are comparable.I would strongly advise against printing 16"x20" images from the size of the raw files a S50 creates. The upsampling of any kind of image you are getting 500 shots of on a 250-500meg card would be terrible. I guess if you shot on the RAW setting you could get maybe about 60 images that would print 8.5"x11" or so without distorting. But I guess everything I just said only matters if you are even going to print them at a large scale. In the end... if you are going digital, go for an SLR.Oh, and I have a 1 gig card, at the highest resolution, the JPGs are typically 2 to 2.5 megs each.
-
I disagree. A fourth should be added sometime soon.3 trip reports, a TAY report, and a feature-length video? I think your ski trip has now been documented.
-
1 battery in my Canon S50 = 250 to 500 MB of photos. That's 250 to 500 pics of high enough resolution that you can print them at 16 by 20.
500 pics = 20 rolls = $200
Hello?
-
I find it rather puzzling that someone who asks questions about going to Muir would even begin to contemplate climbing Rainier, but I suppose that is what RMI is for.
Muir is a (boring) hike. If the weather rolls in, you'll be reminded that you are pretty much higher than any other point in the state.
-
Party of six, me, the Hummel brothers, Sky, Sam, and Bill.
Good times.
-
We skied the route on 7/4/05, after approaching from the South Route. While perhaps not steep enough to be an interesting climb, it is certainly steep enough to be an interesting ski descent, particularly for mediocre skiers such as myself.
Roughly half an hour or 45 minutes after the descent, we watched the Death Cornice self-destruct and sweep the face with debris (we were traversing to the col at the moment). It should no longer be a hazard to climbers.
The South Route is nearly devoid of snow, and the descent from Jack-Maude col has only a few patches left. The Face proper has plenty of coverage, and the approach traverse is easily negotiable.
-Paul
-
Very nice, Brian. Awesome that you get to have fun in the mountains with your kid.
-
Very cool, Luke.
Must be a great experience.
-
Looks like a fun route, nice job all.
How much snow was there on the south side?
-
I'm 6'3" and about 220, and am not a finesse skier. I ski 188 Miras and 184 R:EXs. The R:EX is ridiculously easy to ski, forgiving, easy to throw around, etc, which is why I bought them short. I'll sacrifice some big turn soft-snow performance for performance on steep tight terrain. People describe the ski as stiff and aggressive; ski them short and they're casual.I need new backcountry AT skis for next year. Currently using my old K2 Explorers on dynafit bindings. The skis are approx 190 cm and I'm 5'10".The skis have lost their 'life' and I find it a tad too long when I'm skining up those steep slopes and have to make a corner.
A couple of questions:
1. For those about my height, what lenght are your skis?
2. Any skis you guys like? I'm an aggressive skier
3. What's the difference btwn regular downhill skis and AT skis? I've heard that ATs are lighter. Is this because they compromise performance? I really don't know the difference btwn these two types.
I'd take the 191 any day for most of my skiing, but the 184 is so nice to hop around (or maybe I'm just a pussy). Some fat 195s would be fun for winter. A friend of mine weighs about 170 and bought the 168 R:EX; he's a good skier and loves them in tight terrain. Length doesn't seem to matter so much anymore (as far as I can tell). You'll find 165lbs skiers on the same ski as 200 pound big dudes, and they both rip equally well on the same boards. One of the telemarktips.com ski testers, Big Tim, is about my size and writes that he loves the 176 Karhu Kodiak. Go figure. And K2 caps lots of their AT skis at 181 (WTF?).
Most manufacturers make their skis in S,M,L, sometimes with XS or XL. Decide how big you are, and choose accordingly. Longer or shorter depending on preference.
Alpine vs AT skis: there is no difference. You want a light ski, buy a light ski. You want ultimate performance, buy the alpine board you want. The R:EX and 10:EX (the same ski) is an alpine board. The TM:EX is the same ski for telemark. This year they killed the R:EX and only market the 'telemark' TM:X. It's all the same ski.
Plenty of AT skiers on Gotamas or Explosivs or Seth Pistols, none of which are light and all of which are marketed as alpine boards. And lots of AT/tele skis are alpine skis with different graphics. Examples: Seth Pistol/Hippy Stinx, R:EX/TM:X, etc, etc.
In conclusion, pick a ski you think you'll like. Something midfat, not noodly, and not ridiculously heavy. There is no such thing as a bad modern ski. Enjoy.
-
Hmmm....Cappellini? What's the difference between a switch and a router?
Edit: a quick googling imparted the knowledge that I do, indeed, need a router. Which seems to be a switch combined with other stuff, like a firewall. Damn.
Rei purchased Koflach Degree..they suck.. return?
in The Gear Critic
Posted
Whidbey, I would absolutely love to go climbing with you. There's just one itty bitty little problem. You see, I have a rather strict policy about not climbing with people whose IQ is lower than their age. The concrete-filled sphere you call a head will undoubtedly prevent you from tying your shoelaces, let alone place a cam. So I don't think I'll be taking you up on your offer.
Have a nice day.