sibhusky

Well, if you are not racing FIS or USSA (which most on this board are not), then you can get what's best. If you are racing, then here is what USSA and Diann Roffe have to say: ============== Alpine equipment rules updated 9/20/04 The past decade has seen tremendous advancements in alpine ski equipment design, snow surface preparation and ski preparation. These changes have made our sport easier to learn and more efficient to master; they have also increased speeds to excessive levels. FIS and USSA control equipment and regulate course setting in an effort to slow the speeds in alpine racing. USSA has had some success in effecting FIS equipment rules in an effort to keep those rules simple and not too restrictive. However, the FIS has found it necessary to establish rules throughout the alpine program, from Children to Masters. The process to establish equipment rules for USSA racing has evolved over a 2-year period in order that athletes, clubs, coaches and particularly the manufacturers could anticipate the requirements. After extensive consideration and debate the USSA Alpine Sports Committee determined that it is necessary to bring USSA athletes into compliance with FIS ski equipment rules. Coaches and officials are encouraged communicate, educate and help bring athletes into compliance with the rules. USSA Competition Regulations Article1.3.1.1 A competitor may only take part in a USSA competition with equipment that conforms to USSA Regulations. Competitors are responsible for the equipment they use (skis, bindings, ski boots, suit, etc.) It is their duty to check that the equipment conforms to the USSA specifications and general safety requirements and is in working order. The regulations for season 2004/2005 can be downloaded by clicking here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following are comments from World Champion Diann Roffe regarding FIS and USSA equipment regulations. The recent changes to the USSA equipment regulations have been evolving over a 2-year period in order that athletes, clubs, coaches and particularly the manufacturers could anticipate the requirements and provide continuity from USSA to FIS racing. Ski development originates with the world's top athletes and 99.9% of the time our sport is driven from the FIS and World Cup competition level. We ascertained long ago the danger of extreme sidecut and a ski that is too short. We have had several years to assess ski development and how it affects safety. Granted it took a while to have a trickle down effect at our regional clubs, but our ultimate goal should always be the safety of our athletes. I grew up skiing on my brother's hand me down skis and they were always "a bit big" for me. I certainly learned something about keeping my hips up over the skis to stay balanced. I was too small to turn them any other way! I realize the current concerns are different, but the point is that the FIS/USSA is not doing this on a whim... Ski companies have become more and more radical in recent years. Junior skis have been created that are lighter, easier to turn and made carving much truer for a young athlete. This was all good. What came about, was a realization that the use of more lateral pressure and shorter skis, shows a younger athlete that carving is possible, much earlier in their progression than ever before. Safety issues only came about when you took a World Cup athlete and added 200 pounds of power, an exacting carve technique, steep, icy terrain, and high turn speeds. The number of knee injuries and dynamic crashes skyrocketed. The shorter lengths could not support the speed and turn radius of World Cup courses. The FIS took the next step and added more turns to the speed events and modified course setting at the FIS level to keep up with technology. The manufacturers responded and created more capped and laminate variations of skis to get the edge up on the new course setting trend. The FIS finally responded with height/sidecut/length restrictions to regulate the amount of forces being created that were catapulting athletes out of the course in a high-speed turn. This in turn regulated the manufacturers R&D. As this has taken years to trickle down, the problem that has been created is fundamental. Our younger athletes have learned a technique on junior skis that has revolutionized skiing at the J3 and J4 level. It works on slower courses and flatter, shorter hills. As an athlete grows in strength and age, the physics of running courses change. Athletes ski faster, the courses are longer, steeper and more difficult. All of this while they weigh more. With the creation of more forces, the injuries start. The age requirements for the ski length/sidecut regulations come in a critical year. We have a responsibility to prepare our kids for this change. With starting the requirements at this age, the kids have a fighting chance to become confident and aggressive a year BEFORE they will most likely race at the FIS level on demanding courses. This is a win-win for safety and athlete development. How does this affect our racers locally? By fighting the ski requirements for another year, we are essentially holding back our athletes from learning a more aggressive technique early enough to be competitive on longer, steeper, and difficult courses, confidently. It should be our clubs' vision to prepare our athletes the best we possibly can for success. I feel strongly that the USSA Alpine Sport Committee is right on the money supporting this move. It is for the benefit and safety of our kids skiing. Diann Roffe

I find that tough to believe. I mean the temps down there are rarely dropping into the 30's -- mostly 40's. Has anyone seen the hill itself?

If you really want to sell them, you'll give us the exact model, the approximate age, the exact bindings, etc. Who is going to offer you money for something they know nothing about? We're not brand new skiers here, people who buy their equipment at garage sales.

Well, here's a bit more discussion of the place on another board. http://www.snowjournal.com/page.php?cid=topic4770 I kept thinking I had heard the name "Masthope" in the distant past. But I couldn't find it mentioned in some of my older books anywhere.

I agree, it's boring, but at least it's not red. Also, I prefer sites that offer CONTENT over glitz. And the new thing certainly lacks glitz.

Actually, as a middle-aged woman, I'd have to say that 95% of the sales people in ski shops spend their time talking down to me as a skier. Most ski shop guys know the stuff that fits THEM and just stereotype anyone else who walks in...like they've got a book that says "accountant = cruiser" or "gray hair = aspiring carver" and they don't spend the time actually getting the true scoop on a person's style and ability. That's probably the main reason I feel you have to DEMO DEMO DEMO, because rarely does the "recommended" ski meet your requirements.

No "used to" about it. Snow is for skiing on, not standing around.

Why does this have no value to this board? Aren't we allowed to discuss ski technique?????

Possibly a guy from up in Connecticut as near as I can tell.

Posted at 10:26 AM Mountain time, 9/20. It could melt before you look, I guess.

One of the guys who works teaching the team here SHATTERED his shoulder last year at the NorAms SLIPPING the course. (I went thru that section, it was like marble on a decided slant -- not my cup of tea.)

Sib is one of the few people that I know that's happy just plain old skiing every day. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, if you recall, I have a vert fetish that means that "waiting my turn" whether it is to race or use some engineered park feature is not high on my list. I am trying to control that "rack up the vert" urge a bit by pushing myself off piste now and again, but I still make sure I have my "day" in before I start fooling around.

We were there a few times for races and I tried to get some skiing in. Basically I found that the lift time at the main lift was too long most of the time to justify the millisecond trail, so I tried to stay over to the left (as you look up the mountain) and ride up and down the far lift, which was pretty restrictive. I don't think, based on the little I skied there (one day a year for four years) that the trails hold up there very well over the course of the day, but my sample size was small. I can't IMAGINE being a passholder there without going insane with boredom, but then I know others said the same thing about me and CB. I never ran into some of the huge liftlines that CB can get, but then I wasn't there on holiday weekends.

We had everything on this 11.4 mile hike: sun, rain, and snow. I don't have any pictures of the snow when it was REALLY coming down, as we were 5.7 miles from the car at that point and I was in a rush to get back since I wasn't prepared to camp in a snow storm. But there are some pictures taken after the squall was over and before the snow on the mountains had melted again.

I meant when he said: Every ski has a purpose, you know? I mean, despite the countless faults and the fact that you have others, you've kept 'Dude, right? That even 'Dude has a purpose....

That's my light weight 183 cm ski. It's fun in any type of snow, but prefers higher speeds. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He's referring to SKIdude vs. the other progeny....There's skimom, skidad, skidude, skisis (?), etc., right?

There's a whole lot of temperature difference between rain and glacier melt!

I've had heavy skis - the Vipers - and light skis - my XP's. The XP's definitely handle the crud better than the Vipers. BUT the reason for this is they are shorter, so they are less work to get around the turn. That being said, the Vipers crush crud, don't chatter at speed, etc. They're fine as long as you are going straight, but they were too stiff and long for me to get them to turn in a reasonable length of time. I wouldn't pay attention to weight except if you are down to two pair of skis and the only difference is weight. Then I'd go with the lightest because you'll ski a longer day.

Why don't you just each race a minimum of eight NASTAR races whereever you want? The eight races will lay down a pattern so that if the snow conditions or pacesetter is off one day it all evens out.

omg sib! you saw snow but didn't want to run and jump into it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It was on the other side of this large lake which was aquamarine blue due to glacier melt and I was already soaked. So...NO!

Took another hike a week ago, but forgot to bring my camera!!!!!! Saw a grizzly and a black bear, got soaked to the skin by rain, but covered ten miles and got to see Iceberg lake, which still has lots of snow on it. Was so cold, tho, I said, "Great, it's beautiful, let's KEEP MOVING and get back to a nice warm car!!!" Have another ten miler scheduled for 8/23. MUST REMEMBER TO BRING CAMERA!

I have to admit, I don't like the red because it doesn't feel like ski colors to me. But the main thing I hate is advertising things like Subaru. I mean, can't they afford to cover the costs of the site without help????

Uh, you forgot to add in the link?

I can assure you, I didn't hike up 11 miles, I'd be dodging airplanes... We started at Logan Pass, only gained about 800 to 900 feet, hiked to Granite Park Chalet, then DOWN to something called the Loop, a drop of 3028 feet. That was the section that hurt. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> i know ya didn't hike straight up, i was just joking. but it looked like you had to ascend alot to take some of those pics.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, we didn't do a back and forth hike. We drove UP to Logan Pass, having left one car DOWN at a place called the Loop. Nevertheless, there is only so much DOWN you can stand. It's better than UP, but I am still stiff today.

I can assure you, I didn't hike up 11 miles, I'd be dodging airplanes... We started at Logan Pass, only gained about 800 to 900 feet, hiked to Granite Park Chalet, then DOWN to something called the Loop, a drop of 3028 feet. That was the section that hurt.