Huh? How does being in NATO change old ski resorts? Or are you trying to point out that "eastern block countries" is no longer a pc way to refer to where I was born and raised?
-
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!
Skiing today v. back in the day
- Thread starter highpeaksdrifter
- Start date
Huh? How does being in NATO change old ski resorts? Or are you trying to point out that "eastern block countries" is no longer a pc way to refer to where I was born and raised?
Point taken. I think new gear and new technique in an old and rustic place is the best way to go. Skiing a mega resort where thousands of great skiers ski every day, its like riding a village bicycle. But a small, old school resort that people don't know about... thats cool... you might even find a line that nobody has skied before.
Actually, a lot depends on how far back you remember or want to go. The improvements are there, but I think they aren't as big as most skiers are led to believe. T-bars have practically disappeared, not so much because they were improved on as far as the skiing experience was concerned but as far as the resort and lift operator was concerned. The Europeans have had cable cars for a half century, so you should consider that lifts really haven't changed much. The first single and double chairs all had foot rests, something I value personally. Clothing seems to be warmer, what with all the new synthetics. However, I had a fox fur vest which served me well in the 80's. When it was stolen, I couldn't find a replacement. Fur, if reversed so that the leather side is on the outside, still rivals any synthetic for warmth. Leather boots went out as chairlifts came in, basically because plastic shells were warmer when the feet weren't active. However, back in the days when climbing and hiking were part of every expert's ski experience it wasn't necessary. Even riding rope tows, you are active enough to keep your feet warm. Leather also allows the moisture of sweating feet to escape better than plastic. In many ways plastic shells weren't that much of an improvement. You shouldn't confuse your family experiences with the issues, either. No matter what, you will be nostalgic about your kid's childhood after it's over. Personally, I hated long auto trips as a child.
tirolerpeter
New member
Good Ole' Days?
On "the issues" I can both agree and disagree. "Rustic" lodges with "cubbys" for gear are nice and definitely had a friendlier atmosphere, and I don't like the base "improvements" that make "Day-Trippers" unwelcome. I refer to base developments that locate "unloading areas" ever farther from the actual lodges and/or lifts, and the greed that restricts "close in" parking" to those paying more, or VALET parking that also uses up parking space near the lodge forcing you to park and drag your stuff extra distances. I do like the lift improvements as I noted earlier and don't miss those long waits and rides in the cold and wind.
As to childhood trips; sorry to hear that they weren't a positive aspect of your childhood experience. I understand that kids were and are impatient with long rides. That is why parents need to be creative and attentive to kid's needs. I really do not like to see those "land yacht" SUV's with their "media systems" glowing as the kids "numb out" in the back. Whatever happened to looking out the window, and asking questions about where they are, or what they are seeing? Parents do not seem interested in actually talking and interacting with their kids. We played innumerable word and guessing games, discussed untold numbers of subjects, and never stopped kidding or laughing. And, when the kids were too young too drive (and I didn't have my spouse, a non-skier) with us, the kids competed with each other for the job of "shotgun," whose job it was to help keep Dad awake and alert. To this day, we all reminisce fondly about those times at family gatherings.
On "the issues" I can both agree and disagree. "Rustic" lodges with "cubbys" for gear are nice and definitely had a friendlier atmosphere, and I don't like the base "improvements" that make "Day-Trippers" unwelcome. I refer to base developments that locate "unloading areas" ever farther from the actual lodges and/or lifts, and the greed that restricts "close in" parking" to those paying more, or VALET parking that also uses up parking space near the lodge forcing you to park and drag your stuff extra distances. I do like the lift improvements as I noted earlier and don't miss those long waits and rides in the cold and wind.
As to childhood trips; sorry to hear that they weren't a positive aspect of your childhood experience. I understand that kids were and are impatient with long rides. That is why parents need to be creative and attentive to kid's needs. I really do not like to see those "land yacht" SUV's with their "media systems" glowing as the kids "numb out" in the back. Whatever happened to looking out the window, and asking questions about where they are, or what they are seeing? Parents do not seem interested in actually talking and interacting with their kids. We played innumerable word and guessing games, discussed untold numbers of subjects, and never stopped kidding or laughing. And, when the kids were too young too drive (and I didn't have my spouse, a non-skier) with us, the kids competed with each other for the job of "shotgun," whose job it was to help keep Dad awake and alert. To this day, we all reminisce fondly about those times at family gatherings.
Last edited:
Word brotha!
We travel as far as 7 1/2 hours in the car and my 3 boys (12,10,and 4) behave very well because my wife and I keep them busy with these exact activities. We allow a hand held gaming device each and that's it. My boys get bored with that alot faster than talking to us.
Thank God!
tirolerpeter
New member
Post-script
My daughter (my youngest) developed a fascination with maps at an early age (She was a reader before she went to Kindergarten). She loved "navigating" our way to wherever we were traveling to. She would sit with a map or atlas in her lap, and "guide me" like a co-driver in a road rally. She loved it when I asked her to navigate us around a traffic problem or other issue that was holding us up. You can not imagine the math development inherent in calculating alternate distances, average speeds, time-to-destination, and fuel economy calculations, that a child can experience when they are out in the real world and applying such skills to real world problems as opposed to some hypothetical problem a teacher makes up in class. I never ever took an exit without "checking" with her to verify our route. It really got her involved. BTW, I never understood the paper she wrote on "Fractals" when she took AP Calculus in HS! No, she is not "into" math as an adult. She has a degree in foreign languages and is a talented writer.
On a late night run to Mt. Tremblant from LI, I noticed that the odometer on our car was going to hit 111,111 miles some time during the trip. I gave my older son (he was riding shotgun) the challenge of figuring out when to re-set the "trip odometer" so that both the primary odometer, and the trip odometer would both show all "111111111's at the same time. He did it and somewhere I have pictures taken while pulled over on an over-pass somewhere in Canada that shows all the numbers as "1's" Tip.... it takes two -specific re-sets of the trip odometer to get that to happen. Go figure (pun intended)>
My daughter (my youngest) developed a fascination with maps at an early age (She was a reader before she went to Kindergarten). She loved "navigating" our way to wherever we were traveling to. She would sit with a map or atlas in her lap, and "guide me" like a co-driver in a road rally. She loved it when I asked her to navigate us around a traffic problem or other issue that was holding us up. You can not imagine the math development inherent in calculating alternate distances, average speeds, time-to-destination, and fuel economy calculations, that a child can experience when they are out in the real world and applying such skills to real world problems as opposed to some hypothetical problem a teacher makes up in class. I never ever took an exit without "checking" with her to verify our route. It really got her involved. BTW, I never understood the paper she wrote on "Fractals" when she took AP Calculus in HS! No, she is not "into" math as an adult. She has a degree in foreign languages and is a talented writer.
On a late night run to Mt. Tremblant from LI, I noticed that the odometer on our car was going to hit 111,111 miles some time during the trip. I gave my older son (he was riding shotgun) the challenge of figuring out when to re-set the "trip odometer" so that both the primary odometer, and the trip odometer would both show all "111111111's at the same time. He did it and somewhere I have pictures taken while pulled over on an over-pass somewhere in Canada that shows all the numbers as "1's" Tip.... it takes two -specific re-sets of the trip odometer to get that to happen. Go figure (pun intended)>
Mapnut
New member
Hi, I've enjoyed reading here lately, and decided to join this discussion as an old-timer with some slightly different opinions. Those here who also read Snowjournal know me.
I agree that equipment is perhaps the biggest improvement. I go back to well before step-in bindings - the first year or two in bear traps, then several years in cable bindings. I should admit that step-ins were available then (c. 1970) but it was years before I upgraded to them.
I'm not sure I agree that skiing is more expensive. Those of you who were skiing 30 years ago, how much did you pay for a lift ticket? One or two hours' wages? and today - one or two hours' wages? I bet it's not much different in those terms. And for that price you get snowmaking and high-speed lifts.
Well, the lift ticket doesn't really cover the whole cost of skiing. The bigger resorts have to sell real estate to stay in business, right? That vastly reduces the attractiveness of the mountain environment, so that's a modern-day negative. I don't call on-mountain lodging a modern improvement, because it's prohibitively expensive for most of us. But I can stay at a motel in the nearest town for 2 hours' wages, same as the old days. (Of course in the old days I lived in Maine and made mostly day trips - can't beat that.)
Of course there are still resorts that stay in business without real estate sales, and they're some of our favorites, and their lift tickets are cheaper than the big resorts! So how can real estate sales be so necessary? Maybe the real estate pays for the snowmaking and high-speed lifts, and the rest is covered by the lift tickets?
I agree that equipment is perhaps the biggest improvement. I go back to well before step-in bindings - the first year or two in bear traps, then several years in cable bindings. I should admit that step-ins were available then (c. 1970) but it was years before I upgraded to them.
I'm not sure I agree that skiing is more expensive. Those of you who were skiing 30 years ago, how much did you pay for a lift ticket? One or two hours' wages? and today - one or two hours' wages? I bet it's not much different in those terms. And for that price you get snowmaking and high-speed lifts.
Well, the lift ticket doesn't really cover the whole cost of skiing. The bigger resorts have to sell real estate to stay in business, right? That vastly reduces the attractiveness of the mountain environment, so that's a modern-day negative. I don't call on-mountain lodging a modern improvement, because it's prohibitively expensive for most of us. But I can stay at a motel in the nearest town for 2 hours' wages, same as the old days. (Of course in the old days I lived in Maine and made mostly day trips - can't beat that.)
Of course there are still resorts that stay in business without real estate sales, and they're some of our favorites, and their lift tickets are cheaper than the big resorts! So how can real estate sales be so necessary? Maybe the real estate pays for the snowmaking and high-speed lifts, and the rest is covered by the lift tickets?
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2001
- Messages
- 31,154
- Points
- 0
:lol:tirolerpeter
New member
Old Timer?
Hey MAPNUT whom are you calling "OLD?" I'm sixty and I don't feel old when I'm on the slopes! In fact the more snow I get to play in, the younger I feel. Welcome.
Hey MAPNUT whom are you calling "OLD?" I'm sixty and I don't feel old when I'm on the slopes! In fact the more snow I get to play in, the younger I feel. Welcome.
Mapnut
New member
tirolerpeter
New member
Mapnut
New member
Only 55, and my knees are sound. I skied with a 65-ish guy one day last year and didn't even try to chase him. He was nice enough to wait for me at the bottom.
Last edited:
Where is this thread going? Family trips or back in the day? If you want real reminiscence, you go to ski trains out of Boston and N.Y. I once road a TGV ski train out of Chamonix going to Paris. There was no experience like it. In some ways you do find the >>back in the day<< experience in Europe. I'm not really much of a nostalgia guy. However, I still use '88 slalom racing skiis while my shaped Volkl's gather dust. Step in bindings made it more convenient, but looking at the Tele growth, it wasn't such an improvement was it?
tirolerpeter
New member
Back in the Day?
As the "old saying" goes: "What goes around, comes around." It's why I don't toss out my old clothes!
As the "old saying" goes: "What goes around, comes around." It's why I don't toss out my old clothes!
Geoff
Well-known member
I guess I have to take the contrarian position here.
The only positive things about skiing today are the better equipment and shorter liftlines. Everything else has degraded.
The negatives:
* High speed quads and 8-seater gondolas pump far too many people up onto the hill. As a result, you absolutely need wide trails, snowmaking, and grooming. I grew up skiing Stratton in the 60's through the mid-70's. No snowmaking on the upper mountain. Fixed-grip double chairs. All the trails had tons of character since they were laid out narrow & twisty-windy to hold the natural snow. I wouldn't dream of skiing the tilted dance floor called Stratton today. No character at all.
* Short shaped skis produce unskiable moguls.
* Snowboards don't co-exist well with skiers on classic narrow New England natural snow trails.
Ski boot technology really hasn't changed since the mid-1970's. A Lange Banshee of that generation doesn't perform all that differently from a modern race boot.
Binding technology hasn't changed all that much since the advent of the teflon AFD. A Solomon 555 binding from 1975 has similar retention and release properties to today's Salomon S9xx series. Of course, in 1975, you had to argue with the mountain about allowing ski brakes but that ended a few years later. I remember having a fake runnaway strap for a few years to get around the "safety strap required to ride lift" policy.
Ski technology is much-improved. The Salomon cap ski design of 1991 made it possible to build a ski that was soft flexing but still had great edge grip. Snowboard builders grabbed the technology and added deep sidecut designs to make boards easier to turn. Ski manufacturers then pulled that technology in so today, skis are short, wide, and shaped. They are easy to turn, float on powder, have great edge grip, and perform well at speed. It's really shortened up the learning curve.
Gore-Tex and polypropolene (Polartec, capaline, etc..) produced a clothing revolution. In conjuction with boot heaters, I can be warm and dry in pretty much any climate.
Transportation is also much-improved. In 1975, your ski car choices were limited to Jeep CJ, Jeep Wagoneer, Chevy Suburban, International Travelall... These were extremely unreliable vehicles that handled poorly. Most cars imploded at 75K miles and required constant tune-ups. Snow tire technology was lousy so a RWD car was awful unless you put studded snows or chains on it. The early Japanese cars were more mechanically reliable but couldn't deal with road salt and melted away. Today, you expect to be able to run a car to 150K or 200K miles with nothing but routine service. You never touch the ignition system and spark plugs last 100k miles. Even oil changes are now every 10K miles on synthetic oil. When you fly, airfare is cheap on deregulated airlines.
When I go on vacation, I seek out resorts with 1970's lift infrastructure and enjoy it on my high tech skis and high tech clothing.
The only positive things about skiing today are the better equipment and shorter liftlines. Everything else has degraded.
The negatives:
* High speed quads and 8-seater gondolas pump far too many people up onto the hill. As a result, you absolutely need wide trails, snowmaking, and grooming. I grew up skiing Stratton in the 60's through the mid-70's. No snowmaking on the upper mountain. Fixed-grip double chairs. All the trails had tons of character since they were laid out narrow & twisty-windy to hold the natural snow. I wouldn't dream of skiing the tilted dance floor called Stratton today. No character at all.
* Short shaped skis produce unskiable moguls.
* Snowboards don't co-exist well with skiers on classic narrow New England natural snow trails.
Ski boot technology really hasn't changed since the mid-1970's. A Lange Banshee of that generation doesn't perform all that differently from a modern race boot.
Binding technology hasn't changed all that much since the advent of the teflon AFD. A Solomon 555 binding from 1975 has similar retention and release properties to today's Salomon S9xx series. Of course, in 1975, you had to argue with the mountain about allowing ski brakes but that ended a few years later. I remember having a fake runnaway strap for a few years to get around the "safety strap required to ride lift" policy.
Ski technology is much-improved. The Salomon cap ski design of 1991 made it possible to build a ski that was soft flexing but still had great edge grip. Snowboard builders grabbed the technology and added deep sidecut designs to make boards easier to turn. Ski manufacturers then pulled that technology in so today, skis are short, wide, and shaped. They are easy to turn, float on powder, have great edge grip, and perform well at speed. It's really shortened up the learning curve.
Gore-Tex and polypropolene (Polartec, capaline, etc..) produced a clothing revolution. In conjuction with boot heaters, I can be warm and dry in pretty much any climate.
Transportation is also much-improved. In 1975, your ski car choices were limited to Jeep CJ, Jeep Wagoneer, Chevy Suburban, International Travelall... These were extremely unreliable vehicles that handled poorly. Most cars imploded at 75K miles and required constant tune-ups. Snow tire technology was lousy so a RWD car was awful unless you put studded snows or chains on it. The early Japanese cars were more mechanically reliable but couldn't deal with road salt and melted away. Today, you expect to be able to run a car to 150K or 200K miles with nothing but routine service. You never touch the ignition system and spark plugs last 100k miles. Even oil changes are now every 10K miles on synthetic oil. When you fly, airfare is cheap on deregulated airlines.
When I go on vacation, I seek out resorts with 1970's lift infrastructure and enjoy it on my high tech skis and high tech clothing.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2001
- Messages
- 31,154
- Points
- 0
I've heard the argument that bumps are different today because of shaped skis, but "unskiable"? :blink:
I don't agree here. Crappy skiers don't co-exist with advanced skiers on these trails either.
AHM
New member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 259
- Points
- 0
Not so sure on this about bindings
Think bindings have changed a great deal since the 555. Upward release at the toe is a huge improvement. Din standardization is also a big plus. Recentering limits have drastically improved. And the Fritschi freeride has supercharged a huge development in gear related to the backcountry. Had a lot of prs of 555s they had a tendency to wind down a bit from the shock of mogul skiing.
Think bindings have changed a great deal since the 555. Upward release at the toe is a huge improvement. Din standardization is also a big plus. Recentering limits have drastically improved. And the Fritschi freeride has supercharged a huge development in gear related to the backcountry. Had a lot of prs of 555s they had a tendency to wind down a bit from the shock of mogul skiing.
riverc0il
New member
i strongly disagree on these items. short shaped skis don't produce unskiable moguls. perhaps moguls are not as well formed as back in the day (i couldn't verify that), but they are certainly skiable. and i am not sure why you feel that skiers and snowboarders can't coexist on classic narrow new england natural snow trails. bad skiers scrape up trails just as much as bad boarders.
regarding boot tech, it seems boots have gotten more comfortable, better fitting, and warmer. AT boot tech has sure improved as well. thermo molded liners, also huge. binding tech has come a LONG ways in a few years. integrated bindings and systems most notably. they certainly do make a noticable difference.
skibum
New member
Mervin Manafacturing (Gnu, Libtech) invented the cap.
Here's a pic of the Gyrator they produced for K2 around 87 or 88.
Actually Geoff has made some good points especially regarding the lifts. I find that inexperienced snowboarders have become rather dangerous not because they can't negotiate narrow trails with skiers but because they can't control their speeds on groomed, snow-making intermediate trails. They can't stop quickly (of course an out-of-control skier can't as well). Snowboarding seems to give an inexperienced kid the feeling that he can negotiate any degree of incline easily. As to binding tech, it hasn't changed with Salami or Tyrolia much, but Marker has introduced some interesting new designs post AFD. My internal heated boot certainly was an improvement over those old leather ones I rented in the 60's. However, both are rather rare, now. Although, I did see the advantage to the Cap ski and love mine, I find that I can an equally enjoyable experience with my ski which pre-dated that technology. It also fits my ski vice.
Similar threads
