Beckmann AG

AWD: Neighbor drove too far, too fast on his spare tire. Cost him a center differential (2k?+labor), and a set of tires. As mentioned previously, Subaru is known for head/gasket issues, some engines more than others. The 2.2 in the late nineties Legacy was probably the best of the lot, while the 2.5, and the 2.2 in the Forester were not quite so robust. If you find a Legacy/Outback that fits your needs, make sure you do a cold start. And: Remove the radiator cap before starting, and observe as the engine comes up to temperature. The coolant should be visible above the core, and should expand a bit as the engine comes off high idle and the thermostat opens. If the coolant rises to the top of the filler, begins to overflow, and/or you see persistant bubbles, the car has head issues. (On most vehicles, you can safely remove the cap from a running engine without spillage, so long as the system is in good order, and the water pump is doing its job). That said, I have seen more than one Outback that behaved for weeks at a time, then spontaneously pumped the bilge for no apparent reason. And then returned to normal. And so forth. A brand new radiator in an otherwise average 'ru can be a clue to head problems as well. Ticky lifters can often be attributed to the quality of motor oil, more so than an actual mechanical issue. Some oils,even when 'new', will make a top end (or in this case, side ends) louder, while others have the opposite effect. Manual transmissions are preferable for winter driving, as they give you one more braking option on long downgrades. Though it takes time, look at as many candidates of a particular model as possible. You will have a better understanding of what you are looking at, and trends will emerge. Earlier Legacy/Outback were less obstructive to the drivers field of vision to the back and sides. Don't skimp on the tire quality.

If, in fact, Alex had no fear, he would already be a stain on the talus. Regarding the longevity of his career, one should consider that Bachar made it to 52, and there is reason to believe it was not operator error or fitness, but rather rockfall, that took him down. Alex has the benefit of all those who came before him, their mistakes in approach, gear, training, nutrition, etc. If he has logged a quality 1k free solos, he likely has a far greater number of roped ascents on the clock. To suggest that he has not made plenty of mistakes, had his share of learning moments, and has not adequately evaluated the relative risk of his pursuit is kind of silly. The bulk of the history of climbing has been concerned with external conquest. With much of the globe 'mapped', one must naturally turn inward for greater challenge. Better we should look to popular sport and celebrity for our role models?

To the untrained eye, it appears as though Delaney is a bit more supple from the hip sockets down (despite the unfashionably narrow stance), whereas the 'modern' athletes are somewhat 'blocked' for much of the turn. Reflexive/deliberate tension influences the available movement options at/through the turn connection.

The land may be public, but the resort is private property. As such, when using the resort (for a fee), you have agreed to abide by their rules, some of which may be implied rather than expressed. If you did not have a hand in, or have a stake in, the expenses of constructing/operating that resort, should you really feel entitled to profit from the infrastructure? A lawyer indicated that upward of 50% of the cost of a day ticket goes to liability insurance. As a lawyer, the accuracy of his testimony is suspect, but don't assume the resort is making much at the point of entry. Ski schools are generally a profit center for a resort. A cursory glance at the product pricing and the raw wage involved should make that obvious. The numbers are real, and impressive. Rational thought does not always play a part in resort management. You may feel you are contributing in some way to the revenue stream by driving hypothetical clients toward hypothetical purchases, but the resort is concerned mainly by the numbers predicted by the business model and past history, not your promise of how many pair of socks or cans of Red Bull you might move. When you teach a friend, there is no contract, and thus no expectation of revenue. As soon as you agree to be paid for service, that counts as lost revenue, regardless of whether or not your client would take a lesson from the ski school in your absence. Look at it this way: Your neighbor pays the same condo association fees and mortgage that you do. Does that entitle him to chill his beer in your refrigerator, and then sell that beer for profit on your deck, to anyone he can draw in through word of mouth or an ad on CL? You probably wouldn't like that scenario, even if his beer was of high quality, and you would send him packing. In short, you can find the rationale to justify what it is you want to do, but don't be surprised if you don't like the outcome. A business is loathe to suffer a drain on their cash cow, and will waste little time in patching the udder. Assuming your sense of propriety has been injured and needs a salve, your best bet is to get involved officially, prove your ability to deliver on a niche product, and propose a plan by which you may both profit. There are many good reasons to get into the teaching of alpine sport. 'Equitable' remuneration is not one of them.

Something else to consider, (as you may have already), is that toe and heel lift affects leverage ratios at both feet to both toe and heel edges, as well as affecting weight distribution underfoot independently from toe to heel, and also from tip to tail. These variables, along with ROM, need to be 'balanced' for optimal effect. As someone with a penchant for an upright posture, you may find the 'backward' spring of the BTS to be more liability, less asset.

Fear not, as this forms a basis for a productive discussion. You'll notice that I titled my initial post to this thread. As you have been in the business for awhile, you might realize that in many cases, a comfortable, heavier bike, will outperform a light, and uncomfortable bike. Especially for endurance riding. So Dan already has a good start on achieving his goals. Given his weight and stature, one could assume that frame flex will not affect Dan as much as it would a heavier rider. One could also assume that the conditions where Dan will flex his frame will comprise a small percentage of his time on the bike. Further, given his physical nature, and his riding tendencies, one could assume that if he better matches his load to power output, with effective gearing choices and good 'technique', frame flex really wont be an issue. Besides, frame flex was not listed as a complaint. It's a production/budget Masi, not a margin-pushing Serotta. If the goal was a 17 lb bike, then my input would be, "buy a 17 lb bike". The goal seems to be performance through wise component selection. As it stands, he has plenty of good options, and, as his bike is currently functional, plenty of time to explore those options. E.g., Many good shops have higher end wheel sets they will either lend to known clients, or rent for a set time period. For a very small investment, the efficacy of better wheels can be proven prior to purchase. And Nobody said Nothing about buying all new components. With all the changes taking place in the bike world, and that newfangled internet thing, it is all too easy to buy good used stuff (with little wear) for short money. Particularly if one does not need 'it' right now this very second. As Dan seems to be the contemplative type, with time to map out a plan and make some effective decisions, he can engineer a path to his riding goals. This route is often more rewarding than simply spending money on a new ride with the probable, yet unverified promise of success. There is a tremendous amount of Value in understanding how you got to where you presently are, as it provides a link to how you will then get to where you want to be next. Now if he was trying to decide between the purchase of an older, classic steel bike, and a newer bike on sale, then I would be inclined to agree that the newer bike would make sense, especially in economic terms. But then money, and the saving thereof, is a game that quite often does not end the way one might expect. A number of years ago, VeloNews did a write up on rider weight V. bike weight, as pertains to off road racing. I think the conclusion had something to do with all the top riders were within a certain percentage of their bike weight, or vice/versa; the end product being that if the rider was over a certain weight, then they could forget about winning at the highest levels. If you were racing off-road, then it might be more important to lose weight off the bike for handling purposes. If you split the difference between you and your bike, (seems feasible) you will experience an appreciable difference. While your perception of this difference will fade, the results with regard to the clock should be consistent/improved. As for yourself, distance=RT, and for hill climbing, work=MGH, so the lighter the weight of the system, the less 'energy' expended to do a set amount of work in a set period of time. Roughly. Something else to consider, is that as you become a more effective complement to your machine, through fit and technique, your distribution and mass of muscle tissue will reflect that change.

This, along with your budget, is an important consideration, particularly if the frame is of quality. As mentioned earlier, go for a wheel set. Find something durable and non-exotic with a good following, light enough to make a significant difference, strong enough and pricey enough to carry forward or re-sell. Replace your rear shifter, rear derailleur, and cassette. If your drive train is worn, you probably don't shift as often as you should, so your power to load is not optimally matched. Consider also a lighter, primarily stiffer, stem and/or bar set. 'Racers' become rather skilled at rationalizing their expenditures. Unless you are losing money on a regular basis by failing to 'win' something, you don't need to get caught up in this game. Sounds like you would like titanium at some point, so choose components now that you can hang on that future frame. Though not always mathematically the best option, upgrading can firmly establish what it is you need in a bicycle, which means you stand a better chance of getting exactly that when you buy your next complete unit. And to ask the obvious, can you stand to lose the same weight (or more), as your bike? This option is both cheap and effective...

This option should be reserved for those without the inclination, understanding, or wherewithal to personalize their gear. That doesn't sound like you. From past experience, you know where you want to be, so use that as a start point. Remove the lower spring from the BTS, and use whatever spacer is handy to set the forward lean to the same angle as your previous boots, then work forward (so to speak) from there.

Re: Suffering. Sentence appears to contain at least one non-sequitur? E.g., Faulty equation of manufacturing date with relative misery?As to the grooming thing: As you well know, the northeastern mountains experience periodic thaws. Depending on the weather trend, if grooming was halted for 24-36 hrs, most of the free water would have time to drain as the temperature drops, after which grooming would leave a 'lighter' surface. Grooming on schedule post-thaw ensures that any excess moisture is fully integrated into the rest of the snow, much like using a squeegee to fully 'wet out' fibreglas with resin. When the temperature drops to seasonal norms, the corduroy is hard as, well, cured epoxy on your favorite hull. Ideally, grooming would follow snow science, and integrate with, rather than simply follow, market demands. This implies either not grooming select trails at certain times, or grooming particular aspects when it really matters. A reasonable notion when one considers the cost/hr. Of course you can imagine the uproar if a BR was out tracking and packing during a windy powder day. Not to mention the potential liability. You might also note that Sugarloaf has recently converted their snow reporting to the metric system; as such, wind is typically measured in meters, not feet. __________________

email sent. (I think). Let me know if it makes it across the big water.

Take your average 'quality' road racing bicycle; carbon fork, deep section rims, etc, and blast down an abandoned railroad grade, through the loose cinders and wheeler whoops; or over a gravel road at speed, pebbles pinging through the spokes and thwocking off the oversized down tube. It's a hoot. Do it enough and it will no doubt improve your handling skills. It will also tell you things about your bike fit/component selection that you might prefer not to know. Quality groom certainly provides a nice experience. Not requiring good groom to enjoy the ride is another experience entirely. Quite often, the snow would be better a few days hence if it was not groomed now.

SSurfer: After anything in particular?

NB: The primary gain to skiing with a free flexing cuff (forward) is that one learns to ski off the sole of the foot, rather than by using the leverage provided by the boot cuff. Of course, a small amount of resistance is required, to provide a secondary register for spatial awareness. When the knee moves over, or back of, the ankle joint, as viewed side-to, there follows a loss in/of agility. The whole fore/aft thing is directly related to boot/binding geometry. (This is where the variable stance length of 'free heel' gear comes in handy.) When interface geometry has been resolved, the backward support of the boot, at least in the skiing context, becomes effective as a proprioceptive tool, more so than as a lever. A positive backward stop should be set so as to allow the knee joint to 'facet', but not straighten.Odds are your AT boots default your weight distribution on your skis to someplace other than where it belongs. Increasing range of movement allows for some degree of compensation. Find an old pair of Dynafit 3Fs, and install the salvaged flex control/forward/backward lean adjuster on your favorite sliding shoes. That'll do ya right.

Fab Five Freddie told me everybody's high, DJ's spinnin' are savin' my mind...(?)

SEJ, Some of the boards of that generation suffered from a glue problem. If the top sheet pops, the guts may not be far behind.

As in hardbooting in two discrete modes of boot flex, or hardbooting and then skiing without a boot change?Skiing in a boot with almost unrestricted forward flex is good for you. The primary compromise is with the emotional connection between boot flex, performance, and one's on-snow identity.

There is nothing particularly 'eco' about snow surface maintenance. To pretend otherwise is marketing spoo. A revolution in grooming would be to groom less, and to discover that in some circumstances, the 'glisse' improves, customers stay happy, and revenue remains stable. Tractive power and ground pressure shouldn't be much of an issue. On the other hand, unless the auxiliary tillers are running on cracked elk scat, diesel consumption will likely remain the same or increase. As though Prinoth, Kassbohrer, et al, see no point in providing sufficient horsepower/torque for the intended use of their machines. Of course, they could be in cahoots with the oil companies... The articulating boom structure is remarkably similar to that used for highway flail mowers. These use hefty counterbalance weights to avoid overturning/breaking the tractors. As the booms on the 'green cat' articulate independently, and are not tied together to balance themselves, one could surmise that the deck and frame of the cat will require bolstering to avoid cracking. This of course adds weight, which draws power, while increasing compaction, offset by larger tracks, which adds weight, requiring more power etc. At least on eastern machine-made,(as Jack points out) the best grooming results often involve blade work, grading, and tilling; to selective depths based on the prevalent weather conditions. The GET (or, in this case, SET) at front and rear of the machine should be matched. If you want a quality groom, there is a practical limit to surface-feet/minute and feed rate. As Tufty mentioned, running multiple tasks simultaneously without operator mutation/ helper monkey can be a challenge. With advances in computer control and contour mapping, a resort should be able to purchase what is essentially a CNC groomer. The cost of which could be covered by selling off the contents of resort 'lost and found' at the end of the season. Move less snow, burn less fuel. Kinda like hardbooting...

Can't speak for either of your prospects, but Sugarloaf/USA cuts waaay back on grooming at this time of year. More or less 'natural conditions prevail' on anything other than a few novice trails, so you should probably call ahead.

One of my clients ordered a set direct, mid February(?), and had them in hand within a few weeks. Which also speaks to: So far as I know, there was no verbal or email communication either before or after his card was processed, but he had a tracking number in short order. Sean@Donek is making an effort, so you may want to go that route...

I only wish it were easier to find quality Italian footwear. Speaking of 'great leaps forward', Chinese Junk floating about the market dilutes the soup with tears. The best ski boots are anatomical, with the minimum of bulk, comprised of transmissible plastic, with minimalist liners. Primarily 4 buckle overlap; with the notable exception of the Raichle Flexon series and the Dynafit 3f, and perhaps a few oddball situations involving Salomon SX90E, and later their bubblegum clamshell. One issue with an overlap shell for snowboarding is inconsistency of flex diagonally, as the overlaps will 'shear' or slide, relative to each other. This can lead to cracking, and loss of support on the short axis of the board. If you used carbon in the right places, in combination with a high quality plastic, you could resolve this problem and others. At least one of the Crispi telemark boots, and several XC skate boots, incorporate what amounts to a 'stirrup' to which the ankle hinges attach. This could combine with your notion of a spine, (and sole plate) with an integrated flex control, much like an RAB or BTS. Only more effective. The 'blousing' effect will be minimized or eliminated, as shell distortion as a means of flex control will be obviated. One of the primary gains in using carbon in/for the boot shell may be snow feel. Enhancing sense of touch is one of the easiest ways to make an athlete faster, and the main reason why stiff boots tend to ski better than soft boots. It's not so much the leverage, as it is the transmissibility of the material. I have two generations of Salomon XC skate boots, and the newer carbon sole boot is a clear winner in a literal side by side comparison. Sense of touch is enhanced to the point where you can feel the exact moment when the ski releases from the snow. By comparison, the all-plastic sole feels more like a drunk knocking about the dustbins. No idea what Dodge does for destructive testing, but you may recall the early Spinergy wheels, and how their 'blades' could transform into knives in a crash... As to the source from which you derive design principles? Skiing has what, over a hundred years of history, incorporating all manner of equipment success and failure, encompassing all sorts of materials? So far as weight is concerned, boot weight is probably less significant than the weight of the board+binding+plate. Which is not to say that a lighter boot might not be an advantage, only that you could build a better boot that is no lighter than current offerings, and it would probably sell just fine. And, if the shell was a better match for the foot, you, for instance, wouldn't have to use the heavy Strolz liner. Older versions would suffice as a drift anchor for a small skiff. HP foam liners have a tendency to block ankle articulation, particularly with a lot of foam fill in the ankle/heel pocket. Of greater concern is market acceptance of a better product. It's not so much that boots have to catch up with hardbooting, it's that hardbooting 'technique' has to catch up to the use of what has historically worked well for alpine footwear. A better boot will be more responsive, more supportive, and more comfortable. Such a boot will demand greater accuracy of movement. The way to go, is to sneak up on the eventual goal, so that nobody has to completely abandon their (current) technique. So plan on building several generations of boot, using quality materials, to advance the sport without alienating the long term enthusiasts. If you learned to telemark on Merrill Supercomps or Asolo Extremes, the first round of plastic was a nasty shock. It has been almost 20 years, and the current offerings are far better, but there is an entire population of free heelers who know little to nothing of the joy that comes with finesse. The formative years of bicycle suspension systems revealed that there is no real substitute for travel. Despite their relative weight and complexity, springs and dampers won out over the simplicity of elastomers. Practical shock absorption then, should be derived from free articulation of the knee, ankle and hip. Pretending that you can get anything significant from the sole of the boot (or the shell) is a little silly, current trends notwithstanding. One of the worst ski boots ever produced incorporated a damping system, and all that did was hinder athlete development in favor of the delusion that a smooth ride indicated a smooth skier. The articulations of the foot and ankle are fairly straightforward. Regardless of how progressively/extensively a boot flexes, the ankle joint only has so much range. If the boot flexes more than the ankle, the bones of that joint will repeatedly clash under the wrong circumstances. You also risk the possibility of soft tissue injuries at the back of the lower leg. The NAVA system... Something like that could be the grail for those wishing for more performance from their softboot interface... Unfortunately, with most things boot related, there is no one simple fix. Each geometric parameter of a boot will have a distinct outcome. Adjusting those correctly is predicated on the inclusion of foot support that actually does something other than reduce wallet swing weight. While it is certainly possible to simplify the adjustment process itself, there is no getting around the fact that if you want to ride at a high(er) level, you have to pay some attention to your equipment and it's configuration. The La Sportiva looks like a nice boot, but only the dedicated enthusiast will put up with the closure system. Of course, the complexity, lack of weight, and price tag will ensure buy-in for at least a few. Catering to the lowest common denominator will be more inclusive, but greater inclusion does not necessarily lead to a progression of the sport. Rather, it can lead to stagnation. For instance, 'better' skis don't really make better skiers, they simply allow skiers of lesser skill to be more effective using what skills they currently have (or have not.) So you simply have more intermediate skiers that don't receive the negative reinforcement that would otherwise define the relative inefficiencies of their movements. And thus little or no impetus to improve. There was a time when the difference between a 'good' and 'really good' skier was easy to spot, and there was an incentive to progress. Of course, better skis provide more bang for the buck regardless, and there is nothing wrong with that. You want a better boot, you'll need a paradigm shift to support it. That requires a few athletes bold enough to ignore what passes for 'conventional wisdom'.

As well they would; as well, they are. Point being, as you spent a winter in the Nordica, you should have no problem with the Krypton/Flexon. I skied the first two generations of the Raichle back when they were called the Flexon 5, and they were wider than the Lange. One of the issues back then, and still, is that the internal hindfoot contour of the Raichle/Deeluxe/(and presumably) Krypton, bears more resemblance to the inside of an oatmeal box than to the shape of an actual ankle/heel. This will, invariably, lead to slippage for some users. Some of their hiking boots suffered from the same design issue.

As well they would; as well, they are. Point being, as you spent a winter in the Nordica, you should have no problem with the Krypton/Flexon. I skied the first two generations of the Raichle back when they were called the Flexon 5, and they were wider than the Lange. One of the issues back then, and still, is that the internal hindfoot contour of the Raichle/Deeluxe/(and presumably) Krypton, bears more resemblance to the inside of an oatmeal box than to the shape of an actual ankle/heel. This will, invariably, lead to slippage for some users. Some of their hiking boots suffered from the same design issue.

Works quite well so long as you aim to create the effect without the usual affect.

Try one in each boot. The hard one will likely enhance snow feel/balance. Jack, The Kryptons are probably no slimmer than your old Nordica GP or XZero9. Way back when, Hostetter rode a pair of Flexon comps to good effect.

Perhaps with a bit of factory modification? http://dodgeskiboots.com/