sibhusky

Years ago they used to let Margies bump up, as I recall. They even had bump contests on it. I don't recall them ever splitting Big Poke in two, but the older version before the fence went in at the bottom of the pitch (on Hell's Half Acre) might have given them room to do it.

I can't have a goal for it, but if you count ski off chair to ski into lift line, I am sure it can be done in three minutes or less. You need to establish an official start and finish.

I am sure it is something to do with the state park. It's only been in recent (say last 15) years that CB took over maintaining the park, etc. in return for being allowed to expand. At one time there were actual rangers there.

Not again!!!!! Of course, how often are these things even close to right?

On another board I'm on, it seems a lot of people are nuts about the Atomic Metron B:5, to the point I am willing to consider an Atomic. Anyone here ever try them?

My brother got me one of these things. I should have returned it and got his money back. I had NO interest, especially after strapping the darn thing around my chest. I could see me skiing with THAT on all day! Unfortunately, I gave the thing to Siblet, who opened the box and used the watch to tell time with. She's never used the thing either. Its instructions are worse than your new VCR's.

When skidude starts racing FIS, let me know if he still does NASTAR. Which reminds me -- when are you putting skidude in a ski academy?

Look in the pictures section to see pics of Bridger Bowl, Red Lodge, Big Sky, and Big Mountain.

It was in the mid-30's this morning when I woke up and we can see snow on Great Northern. I am sitting in a cardigan as I type. However, I am sure this is just a blip. Last year's white Halloween turned out to mean bad news for the season. So, the last thing I want is a white Labor Day!!!

Just to explain about the lack of points for the J4/5's... They do gather statistics in PARA as to how well the kids finish. These numbers aren't comparable across the US, but they are all used to determine who goes to post-season competitions. The way it works is the PLACE you finish in gives you some points. If you finish first you get 100 points, second 80 points, etc. on down to 15th place. In PARA, I think they take the best points for a certain number of races (3 I think) and add them up. So, assuming you had 8 runs (each run is treated separately in J4/5) over the season. They would take the top three finishes and add the points together. Then they would compare you to the other kids in your PARA region. Based on some kind of quota, the top x number of kids would go to the derbies. (Usually this is more than half the kids.) So, they are collecting information on how well you are doing. It just doesn't mean anything unless you are being compared to other PARA kids. Now assuming you do well at PARA derbies, the top racers in those derbies (without regard to the races they were in to get to derbies) will go on to compete regionally, like to New Hampshire or something. This is all explained on the PARA site. One really big difference in these points by the way is they don't carry over year-to-year. Each year you start with a clean slate. USSA and FIS points carry over year to year. So, there were kids Siblet was competing against who were good in prior years who got selected to attend things that she wasn't selected for even though this year these kids have had a disasterous season. Their old points qualified them for certain races. That was irritating.

The better skiers in USSA start to turn up their noses at USSA and do FIS races. They are NOT going to add NASTAR, no way, no how. It's not considered serious skiing. The courses are short and kind of straddle between SL and GS. Most of them can just be tucked. There is no challenge for a top USSA skier. Once you start FIS, you'll end up heading towards the NorAm circuit and the USSA Devo team. I CANNOT IMAGINE A USSA RACER WITH A POINT PROFILE BELOW 100 being caught on a NASTAR course unless they are the pacesetter.

It is "snow" in the sense it's frozen water -- a glacier. Using a Canon PowerShot S30. I went with a ranger-led group of 15, none of whom were related to me, but I did go with a fellow skier.

That's a glacier, full of crevasses. Not for walking, even assuming you wanted to scramble up the loose talus, etc. to get to it.

The white stalk-y things are beargrass. They only bloom every three to seven years. Plants in the same area are generally all going to bloom at once and then the following years they just look like grass bunches.

Those are edited down from the 100 I took. I also have close-ups of most of the flowers if anyone is into that and if you want the higher original resolution of anything, just PM me.

Well, I've been so busy working to pay off a car repair bill that I haven't had the time for hiking much this summer. However, yesterday I undertook a moderately strenuous to strenuous (depending on the book you read -- all I know is the ranger told us that anyone with health problems should not be on this hike) hike in Glacier. 10.3 miles long, 2000 feet up, 3000 feet down. Frankly, the group I was with were all either longer legged than I or out to prove something. I wasn't hearing my heartbeat in my head or anything, but I was certainly holding them all up!!!! I was in slomo or something!!! But, I did survive and got some great shots. I've split them into four posts so that your downloads won't be as long. There are far more pictures of the route down (I'm good at down -- must be the skiing) than the route up.

Yeah, I would lean towards the shorter pair myself. It's not like years ago, where longer skis were somehow proof of more advanced skills. Nowadays you are going to tailor the skis to your size, your strength, and your skiing preferences. Longer skis tend to be more stable at speed, shorter skis easier to turn. So, if you want to schuss down cruisers all the time, go with the longer skis. If you want to handle moguls, powder, trees and other tough terrain that requires a shorter ski arc, go with the shorter skis. And just because you tried a pair last year doesn't mean you don't have to demo them in each size. Truly, you can try a ski at 167, try the SAME ski at 174, and it feels totally different!

It depends very much on the ski itself. I'd consult with the ski shop guy. They usually have info from the manufacturer that tells them what to recommend. I'm 5'8", 152 pounds and ski on 167's. I resisted going down to this size quite a bit as I'd made the progression from 193's (straight skis) to 187 to 184 and didn't think I should go below 175. Some skis that length were good, some shorter were too short. The pair I got was best for me in the 167 length. I am a great believer in demo'ing exactly the pair of skis you think you want to buy. Especially with shaped skis, different lengths can be totally different skis.

Yes, really. What difference does it make if it takes 13 days if you're skiing for 40 days? Or do you buy a season pass at more than one resort? (Siblet will need at least two next year and maybe three....aaaggghhh!)

I thought that only applied to new homes bought directly from CB (don't know if PPS bought new or from someone else) AND I also thought that ended a while back.

Um, depends where you go. Siblet's state university is $14,000 a year, including fees and room and board. Of course, the place she originally wanted to go was $35,000 a year. Thank goodness she changed her mind. At the end of college, at least there will be a job. At the end of your ski career...there are only so many sports announcer slots out there.

USSA Major Events