loafer89
New member
Magic had this policy in effect when we where there on closing day last year, April 6th, 2008. They mentioned that even though they where closing for the season, people could hike up and ski until the snow melted.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Magic's new "earn your turns" policy
- Thread starter ski_resort_observer
- Start date
JD
New member
I toured for years in alpine boots. I tour with a couple who tours in alpine boots. He bought AT boots this year and is selling them. Too soft. Plus, a vibrim sole will not disenguage from your binding as easily as plastic soles. Some people have had real problems and knee injuries because sticky rubber soled AT boots didn't unclick when they should have. AT boots are more comfortable, but if your Alpine boots are OK, then rock them. You can just loose boot, this makes up for not having a walk tab. Definitly don't let the added cost of AT boots stop you from getting some at bindings and skins. MOST people I know tour in their Alpine boots.
my $.02
my $.02
riverc0il
New member
So much truth in this post... but I bolded something that is absolutely KILLING me right now. I started with Freerides and touring with my alpine boots. The weight major sucked. So then I got touring boots. And now I want Dynafit (or Dynafit compatible, two options soon and a third on the way, woo!) bindings. So I am looking at an entire new setup as my G-Rides are not Dynafit compatible and of course the Freerides need replacing. Oh, and I want a fatter ski for touring. Which also means new skins. :blink:
Essentially, if you think you are going to enjoy it, then you might as well get the best equipment for the job up front cause up grading after a year or two or three really really sucks balls. And there is a noticeable difference with lighter gear on the up hill. Using alpine boots for touring locks you into the heaviest of bindings.
All that said, starting with an Alpine boot in a compatible binding is a cheap and easy way to get started and see where your preferences stand. I would just advocate against buying an entire new setup until at least trying it once or twice in an alpine boot and seeing if you are hurting for something a little more light weight and more uphill conducive.
Regarding JDs experiences with others in Alpine boots, I have seen a sharp increase in both AT boots AND alpine front/back side combos (mostly due to the Dukes). Alpine boots do rule on the downhill and my G-Rides DO keep me from touring more frequently because the downhill isn't the best. But I am really optimistic about over lap AT boots now hitting the market. If performance is a huge issue, then Alpine boots is the way to go. But I manage just fine on Mount Washington and other BC locations with G-Rides despite the downhill disadvantage. And I suspect the average mid-weight skier isn't going to notice half as much as I notice being a heavier weight aggressive skier.
Last edited:
Hey dick wad. I just had the time to re read my other post. I do believe it sais it is my experience.
JD
New member
The weight issue comes down to choice. If you are worried about weight and being fast, then yes, there are better options. If you are just looking to get a touring set up to suppliment lift riding, and don't want to spend excess money, stick with your apline boots, buy skins and binding. Then, if down the road you feel like you are gonna get into touring in the east, get tele skis.
I go up to go down. I like the up as well, but don't feel like I want to sacrafice too much in downhill performance. Coming from 2 buckle leather boots, my 2 buckle plastic boots are considered light, so I don't really believe everyone needs as much boot as they have. Less boot makes stuff alot more interesting. But for getting into the BC, there is no reason for anyone with alpine boots to think they are missing out that much by not buying AT boots.
Marc
New member
It says both. Hence, not *just* your experience. Hence my posts. Also, what's with hostility? That's the kind of attitude that drove me far away from ski resorts.
Weight has more to do with being fast, it also has to do with how much total vertical one can climb. The more weight, the more work one must perform, the more energy one must expend which results in less vertical.
Say what now?
Warp Daddy
Active member
Kudos to Magic for this approach
I'm starting to see more snowshoers on my home hill as of late . Tuesday there was a group of 10 college kids with a couple of dogs coming up the side of one of the trails about 2/3's of the way up . They then went into the woods for a bit to the top -- kinda cool to see them having a good time . We waveed at each other several times thru -out the day nice kids
I'm starting to see more snowshoers on my home hill as of late . Tuesday there was a group of 10 college kids with a couple of dogs coming up the side of one of the trails about 2/3's of the way up . They then went into the woods for a bit to the top -- kinda cool to see them having a good time . We waveed at each other several times thru -out the day nice kids
JD
New member
Tele's are the way to go for east coast touring. As far as being limited by the 3-4 extra lbs of alpine gear vs. alpine touring gear, if there is even that much of a difference, I would say unless you are an elite athlete with 5 percent body fat, you own weight can fluctuate that much on any given day. As someone who pedals a 32+ pound Hard Tail Single Speed MTB around the green Mtns, I have heard the weight argument way to many times. There is no way the "extra" weight of alpine boots and alpine compatible bindings are gonna make or break one more lap. If you are racing, or touring out west, AT wins...but we aren't, are we. If you wanna get into ECBC, lose the training heels. In the mean time, buy some skins and some alpine compatible bindings, put them on some way-too-fat skis and join the party.
riverc0il
New member
Perhaps that depends on the size of your foot, and thus the weight of the boot. At a 30.5 mondo boot, I shave 5 lbs between Alpine and AT boots. Trust me, that is definitely at least one lap worth of weight.
JD
New member
An extra 5 pounds is gonna keep you from doing another lap? 5 pounds? For real.
riverc0il
New member
Try affixing five pounds to your heels when you already have a beefy setup. My alpine boots weight 18 friggin pounds. That is nearly a 1/3 increase over my AT boots. That is significant. Five extra pounds SUCKS ASS when booting gullies, that is for damn sure.
hardline
New member
ya know i wonder if my split ways less than an at set up
Marc
New member
I never thought, JD, that you'd be a tele snob. I'd say shouldn't it be about personal preference? Training heels? What's with all this condescension? While I'm definitely not the consummate tourer that you are, Riv and Austin have both toured extensively with randonee gear, I fail to see what the big issue is? BTW, I weigh about 162 which fluxuates between 161 and 163 on an average day, according to the ISO 17025 calibrated balance at work here. It still doesn't matter. Extra weight is extra weight.
Randonee is French for "can't tele" and telemark is Norwegian for "I'll meet you at the bottom guys."
Besides which weight isn't the only reason people perfer AT boots for touring, although it is a big one.
Yeah, weight savings is definitely proportional, but a few pounds makes a big difference, and it all adds up. And it is especially critical when you expend all your energy moving mass uphill. And even more critical when it's affixed to your feet, and it's able to act on a moment arm as long as your leg (since most of the lifting muscles act at or around your femur/hip joint).
Well, it certainly might depending on what a lap is. But it's rather futile to argue over since a "lap" is a pretty ambiguous measure. It's pretty clear though, physics and physiology tells us that more weight, particularly on the feet = less vertical and more fatigue. And fatigue will affect the enjoyment of downhill.
Yeah, the first trip I did to Tuckerman I used my alpine boots. Sucked hardcore. Not to mention the disconcerting feeling of hard ABS plastic soles in a steep, slippery boot ladder. I didn't tour a lot in alpine boots before going AT. I was so much happier in AT boots. Certainly it's all preference. I think probably Riv, and I know I would advise anyone who wants to see if touring is for them (and have in this very thread) to start off with alpine boots. I don't see what's wrong with people like Austin, Steve and me prefering AT boots? There are plenty of good reasons to use them, enjoyment being at the top of the list.
The hostility man, it's heavy in this thread.
JD
New member
Hostility? Lighten up man. I was just pointing out that not everybody who foregoes the season pass for skins and touring bindings "quickly finds themselves wishing for AT boots". This is just not the case. Lots and Lots of people do not. Walk tabs are not that big a deal if you loosen your boots, and if you are not a gram counter and just want to have fun a get some exercise, one should not feel that their Alpine boots will be a major handicap. Now, in the east coast BC, IMO, locked down heels is a draw back...whats'amatter, can't take a little ribbing about your training heels?
Jisch
New member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 315
- Points
- 0
I just picked up an old (very old) and used (very used) set of AT skis. Well actually straight alpine skis with AT bindings on them. If I lived closer to serious BC, I don't think I would have bought DH gear at all, but if I'm doing the 2.5 hour trip to the mountains, I'll likely have my kids with me, which means lift assisted.
Anyway, I plan on using my alpine boots to try these things out. I have an old BC set up for touring with three pin cable bindings and leather/plastic boots. I love those things for touring, but the downhills are sketchy on them. Until I got my DH gear this year I had no idea just how slow turning the BC stuff I have is.
I'll post up once I use these AT things out. I like the way the bindings look, but the skis are really heavy, long and straight. I think I'll look around for a used pair of parabolic alpine or AT skis, I can't justify spending too much on this set up. I gotta say this discussion on AT boots gets me a bit concerned. I guess I see that as the main spot I'd have to spend money on if I were to get into this.
John
Anyway, I plan on using my alpine boots to try these things out. I have an old BC set up for touring with three pin cable bindings and leather/plastic boots. I love those things for touring, but the downhills are sketchy on them. Until I got my DH gear this year I had no idea just how slow turning the BC stuff I have is.
I'll post up once I use these AT things out. I like the way the bindings look, but the skis are really heavy, long and straight. I think I'll look around for a used pair of parabolic alpine or AT skis, I can't justify spending too much on this set up. I gotta say this discussion on AT boots gets me a bit concerned. I guess I see that as the main spot I'd have to spend money on if I were to get into this.
John
Marc
New member
Point taken. I retract what I said about thinking most people end up wishing for AT boots. I freely admit I know far fewer people who regularly tour than you do. But of the touring I've done, the only person I've ever seen touring in alpine boots is me. So I think you can appreciate how I'd get that impression.
And again, not to seem nitpicky, but I've toured with loose alpine boots, and all I got to show for it was some nice rub marks and hotspots on my ankles and shins, on a pretty short tour. And loosening an alpine boot still doesn' t give one the ability to stand upright, as the back (the area from which the cuff derives all its stiffness) is still canted forward.
And I am sensitive about the ribbing... especially coming as it does from someone who has yet to embrace superior technology that's been around going on 40 years. You must like nostalgia :dunce:
JD
New member
2 things made skiing easy enough for the masses....lifts and locked heel bindings...I'll pass on both. Facts for consideration:
As far as tele vs. AT goes...those who have toured extensively in both AT and Tele gear are probably more qualified to speak on the subject, rather then just one or the other..
where have I heard that before...
Oh yea...
you...
Facts for consideration-
1) Others experiences will not be the same as yours
2) Those who have toured extensively in both alpine and AT boots are probably more qualified to speak on the subject, rather than just one or the other
3) A "very narrow range of motion" is a luck based situation- if nothing physiologically is moving incorrectly, then you'll be ok, and if not you will earn yourself a nice repetative injury, which can be the hardest and most frustrating to resolve
ps
you wanna talk about condescention....
As far as tele vs. AT goes...those who have toured extensively in both AT and Tele gear are probably more qualified to speak on the subject, rather then just one or the other..
where have I heard that before...
Oh yea...
you...
Facts for consideration-
1) Others experiences will not be the same as yours
2) Those who have toured extensively in both alpine and AT boots are probably more qualified to speak on the subject, rather than just one or the other
3) A "very narrow range of motion" is a luck based situation- if nothing physiologically is moving incorrectly, then you'll be ok, and if not you will earn yourself a nice repetative injury, which can be the hardest and most frustrating to resolve
ps
you wanna talk about condescention....
Marc
New member
2 things made skiing easy enough for the masses....lifts and locked heel bindings...I'll pass on both. Facts for consideration:
As far as tele vs. AT goes...those who have toured extensively in both AT and Tele gear are probably more qualified to speak on the subject, rather then just one or the other..
where have I heard that before...
Oh yea...
you...
Facts for consideration-
1) Others experiences will not be the same as yours
2) Those who have toured extensively in both alpine and AT boots are probably more qualified to speak on the subject, rather than just one or the other
3) A "very narrow range of motion" is a luck based situation- if nothing physiologically is moving incorrectly, then you'll be ok, and if not you will earn yourself a nice repetative injury, which can be the hardest and most frustrating to resolve
ps
you wanna talk about condescention....
Ok, talk to me about tele and AT, I'm all ears.
JD
New member
Simple....tele's cool and get's you chicks....Alpine touring is for euro geeks.
ok..serious answer. The shuffle. Being able to shuffle across a flat or traverse in the middle of a descent is easier, faster, and more fluid on heel free gear. On the run out to the car you can deal with long flat runouts, at bindings in heel free mode do not work very well at all as compared to tele bindings. Spring tension. When the skinning get's real gnarly, up and over logs, thru tight spruce hell, kickturning in steep puckery woods, having spring tension to keep your ski from flopping around is real nice. Price. How much for some Dukes? 500 bucks. Rotti tele bindings....150 tops. The price difference right there is massive, with the extra 350 you can buy a pack, telescopic poles, skins, first aid, or a GPS. Compatability. I use the same boot for everything from XC to skiing slide paths in the Notch. Freedom of movement. This may sound gay to some of you, but the variety of turns available to you as a tele skier is very very cool. You can still alpine, you can drop deep tele turns, you can noodle w/o changing leads. You just feel free to express yourself thru your turns that much more with that extra range of motion, which ups the fun factor tremendously. Now, locking my heel down feels rigid, restrictive, and frankly, dangerous.
The draw back is it's harder. The plus side to that is you can rediscover terrain you were bored with on your training heels...
My $.02
Honestly, I think that any setup that get's people out skiing the way it used to be, the way it should be IMO, is the right set up. Go self-powered skiing!
In terms of pure efficiency, AT wins, but IMO, 'round these parts, the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.
ok..serious answer. The shuffle. Being able to shuffle across a flat or traverse in the middle of a descent is easier, faster, and more fluid on heel free gear. On the run out to the car you can deal with long flat runouts, at bindings in heel free mode do not work very well at all as compared to tele bindings. Spring tension. When the skinning get's real gnarly, up and over logs, thru tight spruce hell, kickturning in steep puckery woods, having spring tension to keep your ski from flopping around is real nice. Price. How much for some Dukes? 500 bucks. Rotti tele bindings....150 tops. The price difference right there is massive, with the extra 350 you can buy a pack, telescopic poles, skins, first aid, or a GPS. Compatability. I use the same boot for everything from XC to skiing slide paths in the Notch. Freedom of movement. This may sound gay to some of you, but the variety of turns available to you as a tele skier is very very cool. You can still alpine, you can drop deep tele turns, you can noodle w/o changing leads. You just feel free to express yourself thru your turns that much more with that extra range of motion, which ups the fun factor tremendously. Now, locking my heel down feels rigid, restrictive, and frankly, dangerous.
The draw back is it's harder. The plus side to that is you can rediscover terrain you were bored with on your training heels...
My $.02
Honestly, I think that any setup that get's people out skiing the way it used to be, the way it should be IMO, is the right set up. Go self-powered skiing!
In terms of pure efficiency, AT wins, but IMO, 'round these parts, the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.
Last edited:
Similar threads
