Ski

Imagine that's your house on the left. "Aw, shit, Honey, I can't open the front door again."

Thanks, Sib! That was a great source. Pic was way too big: http://www.ignight.com/gallery/album03/P1110064

Thanks, gtd, and, btw, welcome here! Do you ski it much? I'm looking forward to trying it out a few times and seeing if the run down skier's right is steep enough. I get season passes to Montage, but have races at a different mountain every weekend, so I really just need midweek access to a decent slope. And the idiotic county politicians have Montage's future in question. Any more details would be great.

Ha! I missed that earlier. Believe it or not, there were twintip skis and people doin' helicopters (er, 360's) in 1977. And pot was cheaper, so F you!

PARA Finals, 'Dude. You're going, right? Right???

"stiff longitudinally"

'Dude would sacrifice a nad to be skiing there the third week of February...

I know you're just goofing and it's probably just because your store doesn't carry Atomic, but you really should try laying a set of GS:11's on edge at 40mph on an icy slope. The second best feeling is doing it with five year old 10:22's. The third best feeling has something to do with Shannon Elizabeth.

Uh, you may be confusing the terms high quality and high prices. Could you suggest a higher quality ski than the Atomic GS:11, SL:11, R:11, SupercrossB5, Metron M:ex or M:10? So the logic behind not carrying argueably the best line of skis is because they are cheaper to produce? Perhaps Pelican is on to something! BTW, the owner of Pelican (or founder, since he may be dead by now) is scumbag #1. As a kid, he hired me and my friends to sell skis in the original Whitehouse, NJ, store. We show up and he has vans that take us to his house where we were handed shovels and did slave freaking labor for $3.35 an hour and didn't have any way back to our cars. Ski companies continue to price fix to protect small and medium shops. It's also why you can't buy real skis at Walmart or from an online store (other than close-outs). The moment that practice ends, every little ski shop will go belly up. I like to wander around ski shops, but Sib is dead-on: shop guys push what benefits them, or what gear they happen to like. If you plan on spending $1000 on new gear, how about first spending $5 on a Ski Mag Buyers Guide issue which pretty much guarantees you'll then know AS MUCH AS 98% of shop guys. The Buyers Guide simply breaks down what kind of skier you are and matches you to a group of skis. What more can you ask for? And then go demo. Since ski boots are designed for skiing and not walk around a showroom, I certainly hope EVERY shop will work with you to fit your boot. I don't think I've ever bought a boot that I couldn't bring back in for adjustment. Are your heel lifters free? And the foam core v. wood core arguement is absurd. A well made ski with a foam core is better than a poorly constructed wood core ski; and vice versa. If I buy skis from your shop, ski them hard for 30 days and decide I don't like them, you guys will swap them for another set of brand new boards by Jan. 31st? No extra charge and no other strings? That's pretty amazing. Props for that.

http://www.skicamelback.com/ Yikes, I thought I'd reached an error message.

Each 1000 ft. = -3.6 degrees F. It's also why they sometimes find frozen dead guys with lots of broken bones in the desert.

And my handicaps would stink with you around, Sib, 'cause you'd MAKE me ski all morning before NASTAR at CB. Yeah, I blame you for my slow times.

Sibhusky used to think I was nuts when I'd tell her that a great day of skiing was three warm up runs and two runs down a race course. Running gates is addictive for some people (uh hum: Skimom)...and me too, I suppose.

And, BTW, sorry Skifreak, I didn't mean to hijack the thread as a bitch session about NASTAR. I just get pissed at ski area management... Did you race last season?

But that's the option ski areas have chosen: NASTAR or nothing. That's where the mistake is made. I'm not suggesting getting rid of NASTAR and coin-op racing, I'm suggesting that charging extra for kids to ski through gates will deter a large portion from doing it. Our private hill holds races and the fee is two bucks for two runs. When they need my help as a starter, I also collect the money. And I feel like a total creep taking two bucks from little kids that just want to see if they can make it down through the gates. Two bucks to see if it's something they think is cool to do. And our ski school director that runs the races thinks I'm either mathematically challenged---or perhaps a thief---because I refuse to turn away a kid that doesn't have money. Imagine paying your kid's Little League entry fee. Then every time he wanted to pitch, it would cost $5 extra. How many great pitchers would we have? Is it so crazy to suggest ski management treat entry-level racing as if it's part of the skiing experience when you come to their mountain? That basic race courses are provided just like terrain parks and pipes?

Yeah, they hate CATs...believe me, I know. And Elk makes the team RENT their race slope for regular season and Finals races, so it's not just CB. But CB seems to be driven to convert itself into a colorful, plastic snowtubing wonderland. Ever hear of Tremblant, 'Dude? Every CB Board of Directors member should drive up north and spend a week there, in a place that strives to be more like a European village resort than a freaking McDonalds. And Tremblant makes money and doesn't look like a giant pre-school playground. My point, though, is that I think it sucks that ski areas charge for race slopes and not parks. I'd happily pay higher dues for ASRA; and, USSA programs should probably charge more, so more coaches could be hired and paid better. But NASTAR is not a noble enterprise. It's a money making business---which is fine--- but kids get very little out of it for the money they pay. Money for NASTAR and money for the ski area. And not a minute of coaching, unless you pay $100, or so for a clinic at Nationals. If NASTAR offered a free clinic weekend for kids at each resort, then maybe I'd understand.

A weekend day ticket at CB is $48. That includes all the terrain park and halpipe runs I want. Put up some gates and set up a timer and suddenly they feel a need to charge extra, despite it being much cheaper to maintain than the parks?

'Dude, you still have rules, it's not a free-for-all. There are Aholes everywhere, even now. The motivation to charge shouldn't be to keep buttheads from building jumps. It just shouldn't cost extra to recreationally race, while it's free to use all the other runs. I've run courses at Beaver Creek where there's no starter...you just come up to the start wand and push off. At the bottom, your time flashes for about 20 seconds, then is gone.

I was just reading an old SKIING mag editorial about NASTAR and running gates at mountains. It asked why ski areas feel the need to charge extra for people to run coin-op or NASTAR. Parks and halfpipes are far more expensive than setting and running a race course. The amount of snowmaking needed for hits and the pipe, as well as terrain park features, and snowcat times, far outway the cost of basic timing gear, gates, and staff. Could you imagine having to pay $5 to take two runs down a halfpipe? And this will never change since ski areas never consider giving something back once they've charged for it. Most ski areas only hold NASTAR on weekends (CB, Shawnee, Montage) when ticket prices are already highest. I can't count how many times kids have skied up to a NASTAR course and asked if it cost extra, then skied away when they were told it did. NASTAR is a great idea that ultimately hurts ski racing. USSA programs like the CAT Team would flourish with new kids if Raceway was free. Get kids a taste of racing and they get hooked. Or maybe they should just charge for the terrain parks? Hmmm...

Uh oh...sounds like a race coach found this board.

Plake giving major props to Big Boulder? The younger people on this board may not recognize the absolute weirdness in that happening. Not harshing on BB at all---I don't judge or care about parks---, it's just that it's a little like a top stunt car driver getting into an old VW Beetle and calling it the best little car ever. BB should cover every billboard in the Poconos with Plake's words. DaveK would bend over and grab his ankles (sorry 'Mom) for Plake to say that about CB.

Pick up a one of the NorAm kid's skis the wrong way and you'll cut your hand. Like on a car, ya just need the right tires.

I believe the general rule is a 10:1 ratio as a starting point for cold, dry snow. Then it lowers in relation to water content. We've certainly had snowfalls in the higher range of 8:1, or better, but it does tend to be lower. It's also one reason Alta gets 500" of snow annually, with a record of 800" one year. But powder sucks. It gets in the way of perfectly good skiing. I look forward to a wider use of water injected runs.

Just try to remember the guy that sat extra close to you, 'Dude. Do you remember having some weird old guy try sniffing your hair or something? That'd be skierforever. Since you never ride with the bar down, just give him a little shove.

So I was trolling the other MB, as I do once or twice a month, and came across skierforever's post about "overprivledged" 'Dude: "I will understand if you don't want to answer, since it's maybe a personal matter, but exactly how does he earn money for equipment? Birthday money? Taking out the garbage (or other things I'd expect my kids to do as part of household responsibility), or really earning money in part time employment? I just don't see gift money having the same value to a kid." It strikes me that skierforever's parents were complete tight-asses when it came to sporting equipment. As far as I'm concerned, the more sports gear you give a kid, the less crack he's going to smoke. That's kind of the idea behind every inner city youth program, from YMCA/YWCA to PBA youth leagues. Not a lot of jock gang members, and vice-versa. Some kids naturally find it character building to earn gear. Great, but that's a level of maturity that isn't all that common. And parents shouldn't punish for the lack of maturity, which isn't an offense in itself, but generally a stage of growth. My 4-year-old didn't pitch in a single dime for the new soccer ball I just bought her, but as long as she's willing to run her ass off chasing it, then I consider us square. (BTW: big game tomorrow; go Wildcats! ) So it isn't really skierforever's fault that he's an asshead; it's his mother and father's screw up. They wouldn't pop for a tennis racket when he was 12, so he gives 'Mom shit about getting 'Dude a new pair of goggles. So good for 'Mom, I say! Those goggles have kept the 'Dude off crack.