Raventele wrote:
So now "walking" counts as XCD ?
Walking is a very basic part among all the nordic-ski activities.
One of the reasons you cannot descend on NNN/SNS very well may be that your underestimate the importance of walking.
Raventele wrote:
I don't recall saying that I use my T2's, Backups and 3pin HW for XCD , other than as a joke perhaps..I will climb some with that gear..
You need to stay truthful! What I did say is that I use the T4's , Voile 3pin/cables and either Alpina Xterrians or lite Terrains for XCD..huge difference..
You mentioned that gear
here like this:
Raventele wrote:
If your theory were even close to correct, skiing powder with my K2 Backups, 3pin Hardwires and T2-ecos would REALLY be a nightmare..
Even if you have never tried on that gear, your saying infers that your definition of XCD includes such heavy one.
Raventele wrote:
I never had a miserable time at all in Co Xc skiing on that "BC" gear..I just found it inadequate for anything other thna XC skiing .
Do you mean you skied beautifully in off-track then? Nobody couldn't read in that way your comment:
Raventele wrote:
The truth, just the truth..On our recent trip to Co. we did one day at a nordic center where I rented some NNN/"BC" boots and bindings.."Won't fit in the tracks," they said..but they did..Around this area in the pic I says to myself "BC huh ?" and stepped off into some nice light snow..sunk to my knees.. NNN/"BC" ? bullshit..they were no better or worse on the groomed nordic than stock nordic track gear and they had no relevance to "BC", period. They would ski 4 inches of light snow on a packed surface, but so would about any other Nordic track gear..NNN or SNS BC is nonsense..
First you should clearly specify what gear you were on in Colorado.
You seem that you just mixed up and didn't understand what NNN/BC gear would look like then.
Raventele wrote:
Perform the same test I did with my NNN XC setup with one of your "BC" setups..Take a couple pix and show us how laterally stable the NNN/BC really is. Why not ?
Your test method is just a nonsense from a pure engineering point of view.
There aren't any quantitative data in your test.
Raventele wrote:
"BC" under "Nordic" has become a meaningless catch-all.
That's just your take.
Other majority in the world wouldn't think in that way.
Raventele wrote:
You criticize me for forming an opinion of NNN/BC based on a lot of experience with NNN/XC and a little with NNN/BC and yet you do even worse with pins because you have not skied even weak pins a LOT..Now that's a bit odd..
You don't seem to have read my previous comment carefully.
Here is my answer:
CIMA wrote:
If I borrow a biking analogy of LJ, you're still riding on bike with relying on training wheels.
Are you going to say to the guys riding on the bikes freely already that they should get back to the training wheels and take their videos to show you any proofs? Please don't be ridiculous.
The flowing river never stops and yet the water never stays the same.