XC Ski For Women

[JohnSKepler]

As for wax and most things in life, “use as directed” kinda goes without saying. Except for ppl who think they know more than the effin company that made the wax. Oh, hell no, why should they know anything, right?

I'm working on a frankenbinding. I might wind up buying a set of TTS bindings. They're running about $145 right now. I plan on chopping them up the minute they arrive and adapting them to my idea. But, that's the expensive route and before I do that...

Does anyone have an old set of spring/cable type bindings they're not using anymore? Just some kind of stamped, three-pin set up with cables would be perfect. I will be cutting and drilling them and using them in a way the manufacturer never intended but I'm looking to combine them with another type of binding. I may still wind up buying a new set of something but I'd like to prove out the concept cheaply first.

I reckon that's how TechToe, SNS, NNN, NNNBC, NTN, and pretty much every binding evolved after Mr. Norheim's original birch setup. Not using as directed.

Cars - started with carriages
Indoor plumbing - started with creeks and tubes
Medicine - started with berries, bark, and a stone knife
Flight - started with bicycles and birds

Pretty much the entire history of technology and civilization. Some of us even do this for a living...

[Manney]

You might be confusing experimentation, development and substitution as being the same thing. They’re not.

Birds fly. Bicycles don’t. The only connection is that the Wright Bros. switched from making bikes to developing planes. They didn’t make a bike fly. That experiment had been tried before. Didn’t work out well. And before you go mentioning human powered flight, that’s a technology demonstration that hasn’t seen any practical use ever since.

Why? First, you need to be an Olympic caliber cyclist. Then add a million bucks of materials and R&D. Then pick an ideal day, ideal location and go flying. Once. Maybe twice. And even then, it’s still not a bike. Lots of things have pedals and wheels that aren’t bikes.

Everything else you mentioned is evolutionary development (adding an engine on a carriage to make it horseless) or substitution (metal pipes for wooden ones).

The wax debate is a poor example of substitution… exchanging one type of wax (designed for one use) with another type of wax (designed for a completely different use).

If the argument is keeping water out of the base (like on wooden skis), yeah maybe different types of wax are broadly suitable. But if the argument is substituting grip wax for glide wax and expecting optimal glide characteristics, then it’s an idiotic one.

[JohnSKepler]

You might be confusing experimentation, development and substitution as being the same thing. They’re not.

Birds fly. Bicycles don’t. The only connection is that the Wright Bros. switched from making bikes to developing planes. They didn’t make a bike fly. That experiment had been tried before. Didn’t work out well. And before you go mentioning human powered flight, that’s a technology demonstration that hasn’t seen any practical use ever since.

Why? First, you need to be an Olympic caliber cyclist. Then add a million bucks of materials and R&D. Then pick an ideal day, ideal location and go flying. Once. Maybe twice. And even then, it’s still not a bike. Lots of things have pedals and wheels that aren’t bikes.

Everything else you mentioned is evolutionary development (adding an engine on a carriage to make it horseless) or substitution (metal pipes for wooden ones).

The wax debate is a poor example of substitution… exchanging one type of wax (designed for one use) with another type of wax (designed for a completely different use).

If the argument is keeping water out of the base (like on wooden skis), yeah maybe different types of wax are broadly suitable. But if the argument is substituting grip wax for glide wax and expecting optimal glide characteristics, then it’s an idiotic one.

^^^ Excellent example of the logical fallacy of Equivocation, sometimes called Shifting Ground. And we're about to see another.

[Manney]

Uh huh. You don’t say? That’s very interesting.

You need to take your theories on wax and sort those ppl at Swix, Toko, Rex out. They’re doing it all wrong. But you can see the path…

Musk Ox can do the intro when you burst into the boardroom in Lillehammer.

[Manney]

I'm working on a frankenbinding. I might wind up buying a set of TTS bindings. They're running about $145 right now. I plan on chopping them up the minute they arrive and adapting them to my idea. But, that's the expensive route and before I do that...

Does anyone have an old set of spring/cable type bindings they're not using anymore? Just some kind of stamped, three-pin set up with cables would be perfect. I will be cutting and drilling them and using them in a way the manufacturer never intended but I'm looking to combine them with another type of binding. I may still wind up buying a new set of something but I'd like to prove out the concept cheaply first.

Replied to your post elsewhere, which said you’re looking for the springs and heel pieces.

viewtopic.php?f=4&p=62058#p62026

You can buy these as parts from Voile. $60. Less than half the price of buying a TTS binding and cutting it up. Not free but you can pick out exactly what you need, know it will arrive in good condition, and get on with your project instead of waiting any longer than you need to.

You’re welcome.

[Musk Ox]

Doctor Manney. About this drug sildenafil.

– 'Sildenafil'... the cardiovascular dilator?

Yes, Doctor Manney, that’s it: the cardiovascular dilator shaped like a blue diamond.

– What about it?

Well! It has this extraordinary side effect. It's super effective at giving men... you know... erections.

– No. I don’t think so. It’s a cardiovascular dilator.

Right, but it works to give men erections. Even men with severe erectile dysfunction!

– No it doesn't. It’s a heart drug.

We’ve given it to hundreds of men, and they all got very...

– No they didn’t.

They did, and I was thinking. We could change the name, call it “Viggarizer", or “Viagro,", something like that, and market it to men who…

– That’s quite impossible. Sildenafil is a heart drug.

Here is a photograph of an erect penis.

– It’s a heart drug.

Here is a fifty-five minute video of a man taking sildenafil and getting an erect penis and using it to have sex.

– It’s a heart drug.

–I took sildenfil (‘Enviagrazor’, I call it) half an hour ago, and here is my penis.

– So you know better than our scientists?

Look at it.

– You are so stupid. I am surrounded by stupid people who don’t know what a cardiovascular dilator is for.

[Manney]

You seem to know way too much about Viagra @Musk Ox. Or you’ve overmedicated on something off label.

Hard to tell which. And nobody wants to know.

Through the miracle of the forum search function, it’s easy to find you receiving similar feedback on your approach to waxing…

Waxing is ridiculously easy, takes two minutes of rubbing, and affords me one of my life's greatest pleasures, which is sliding silently, with no friction, over snow.

My god man, you're trying to ruin this guy's trip! He has enough to do and see and enjoy without spending 20 minutes every two hours changing waxes (and hoping he didn't make the wrong call, which even pros do 50% of the time.

OP: just do a little Google searching on the subject and again see what others are using (just email the RD and ask). There really isn't a debate in the real world.

This is in response to your ~one wax to rule them all thesis, which anyone who’s waxed for anything involving glide AND grip knows is pure, 100%, bullshit.

@JohnSKepler. You get to decide what to follow. Manufacturer recommendations or something way outside of it. Based on your initial post, you’re new to skiing. Never had a lesson. So a safe strategy would be to follow manufacturer recommendations, ski your brains out, and pop for a few lessons. During those lessons, you can ask a qualified US Ski and Snowbaord Association certified instructor all kinds of stuff… not just technique, but how to prep your skis, what wax they use for conditions, what works and doesn’t work.

By all means experiment. Keep in mind that your results will be dependent on how you ski. So if you walk uphill on skis and rely on gravity to take you down, your expectation of glide might be far lower than your desire for grip. If you ski quickly up, down, and on the flats, you’ll appreciate finding a balance that works for you and the terrain you’re on.

If you take those lessons with your wife, it can count as date night. The big payoff, besides building real knowledge and proper skiing techniques, is that you’ll both come at the sport from a similar perspective. So instead of giving personal tips to your wife, you can say “remember when the instructor said we should…”.

The alternative is seeking truth on the internet. Not sure if you have built the experience to sort bs from wisdom. It takes years for ppl to build a reasonable threshold of knowledge. Some never do… because they’ve never received proper instruction, never logged the miles, haven’t descended terrain features, or failed to study the subject in any serious way.

So your call, John. What kind of skier do you want to be? A late starter but strong finisher or one that spends the rest of his life buying, trying, and never getting to where you want to be as a skier.

[Musk Ox]

Yes, Manney. 'Off label.' You're so close to understanding the very, very basic principle by which thousands of skiers successfully and happily use product x for purpose y in snow conditions z.

So very, very close.

Just to reiterate, it is possible and often actually desirable to use Swix Polar in the glide zones of fjellski. This is a thing. It is a thing that people do.

[Musk Ox]

Edit: Deleted

[mca80]

All it takes is a refusal to accept that the ski wax manufacturer knows what they’re doing

They wouldn't be the first manufacturer who didn't know what they are doing. Plenty of changes in product come to market and are adopted without first fully understanding their own product. To keep it skiing related, surely Rottefella knows what they are doing so why any hesitance to Xplore initially (for reasons other than price)? Why 3rd iteration of FT from Asnes?

Not related to skiing, but to construction... stick-framed houses became standard because they were cheap and quick. Then a problem arose because they didn't insulate well, so fiberglass became the norm. But a problem arose there too because of moisture issues, which required further redesign of building plans. I am sure the ultra-airtight stuff we see now will have long-term problems down the line as well.

And to mention another point, context. A stick frame fiberglass batt house performs poorly in Alaska, and the desert southwest. Just like focusing on glide waxing for speed may not do the job as well as an alternative method for a particular terrain and skiing style.