Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


View the most recent posts on the forum.


Messages - JeffOYB

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
I got 4 pairs for the price of 3! He threw in an extra pair! ...Some of his listings mentioned this so I asked.

I got some supercool funky ZeroCelsius type skis that I'd heard about but never seen: At 32F in fresh snow -- or in fresh humid snow around that zone -- which is common in lower MI -- it's really hard to wax and nowax isn't so hot either. Clumping, clumping! He had some 'hairies' for sale. They had a weird grip section that you can repeatedly sand with either fine or coarse sandpaper depending on the snow. It'll be fun to check em out. I hear some really like them for a wide range.

I've also been enjoying using Start Grip Tape the past few years. If you don't hit roots that stuff stays on for weeks. Works from 0-30F like a charm. As good as wax!

2
(If one wants a long wide touring ski and cost is what has kept one away from doing skiing, then thrift shops have them for $5. The $20 mil-ski plus shipping might not be the best bargain. But we know that price isn't everything, eh? But, anyway, that's a whole different topic thread.)

3
I'm very curious to see how they work!

They are totally different from a military ski. They are much longer. They are very light and have soft tapering tips. They aren't all that wide.

Yes, they would only be for open terrain and no tight turns. Maybe skiing on a snowy river would be nice.

I wonder if the binding should mount in a different location due to softness of tip.

I had a pr of 210's in this model and NNN-1 bindings on them that I tried using with NNN-2 boots and the hingeing wasn't nice and free. I just didn't like them. Now I'm "going big or going home." Of course, the 280's would be REALLY going for it.

What in the world is up with this kind of ski anyway? Do they really glide and float? Usually only a huge snowshoe will truly float in deep snow and no ski so far actually glides much. So we'll see.

I've read they're designed for SPRING skiing so maybe it's not ordinary deep snow but some kind of weight displacement trick they do on old rotten deep snow?

4
http://www.ebay.com/itm/JARVINEN-LAPPONIA-XC-skis-230-cm-/371115388521?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5668336e69

...I bought the 240's they had.

Gotta give em a try.

Have never seen these skis for sale in the USA.

Of course overseas they go up to 280cm but these should work for an honest test.

Do they glide in deep snow? We'll find out!

5
Back Country Skiing Discussion / Re: Any news on Forest Skis?
« on: January 14, 2014, 09:08:06 am »
I don't see any prices for the skis at that Karhu link for the MA distro. I did see a pop-up saying free shipping.

PS: I just posted another message about a pair of 210cm Forest Skis that I'm selling on eBay for $120. OK, I'll just repeat the link here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=271342337846&ssPageName=ADME:X:AAQ:US:1123

6
Back Country Skiing Discussion / Forest Skis for sale!
« on: January 13, 2014, 07:25:22 pm »
I'm listing my Forest Skis for sale on eBay. I've had em up there awhile, no action. Nobody knows what they are, I suppose. But I suddenly remembered that you guys might like them.

They're only 210's which doesn't seem like "true" Forest length, but they are the ONLY pair of such skis I've EVER seen in the USA, so I wasn't going to look a gift horse and I bought them.

If I end up keeping them I'll install newer bindings on them. They now have NNN-1's. They're mounted tip-heavy. The bases have a half dozen big scratches.

I'm selling them because we just don't get the deep snow around here. ...I *might* jump on a pair of "real" 250's or something someday, though, just to try them.

These do have the neat Forest shape and a soft tip.

$120.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Forest-Skis-210cm-Jarvinen-Lamponnia-XC-ski-nordic-Support-Lore-/271342337846?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f2d437f36

7
Back Country Skiing Discussion / Any news on Forest Skis?
« on: December 12, 2013, 06:39:16 pm »
Anyone see any 230-280cm Forest Skis in North America lately?

8
Back Country Skiing Discussion / Re: Long distance fast light ski camping?
« on: December 10, 2013, 12:41:02 pm »
Singletrack isn't skating. It's singletrack! : )  Following one narrow trail, like a hiking trail. Breaking trail. Singletrack also implies technical skill required.

I need to find some hardcore proven "beta" for sleds and singletrack. I can't believe I'm the first to conceive it.

Like, side-slope slippage isn't really the main concern. It's just plain dump-overs. On singletrack you wind around a lot. When breaking trail in a forest even when you're not winding you're coming close to objects and changes in terrain, humps of even 6" will easily overturn any of the sleds that I've used. I find that I really have to pack them low and minimally. People will be hauling in sleds for our overnighters into the woods and they'll be packed 10" higher than the sled-sides -- and they'll be mostly on their sides. So we need to concept to be robust and dialed in. And very light and fast. Whew! ...But maybe it's out there. Maybe it just needs to be a bit wider than what we've used. Of course, more width is lots less handy in other ways.

9
Back Country Skiing Discussion / Re: Long distance fast light ski camping?
« on: December 05, 2013, 04:00:58 pm »
? Are any of the tobaggans (for kid-pulling, etc.) designed for SINGLETRACK? That's our area of interest. We know that sleds are great for pulling on flat, even surfaces. But what about singletrack? That is, for technical handling, steep up and downs, near trees, with sideslopes...

10
Back Country Skiing Discussion / Re: Long distance fast light ski camping?
« on: December 04, 2013, 09:24:04 am »
Thanks for the thoughts.

About the unusual long distance: yes, we're trying new angles. Going lighter and farther than usual.

It's along the lines of the Arrowhead 135 scene. Epic challenges. But on singletrack.

Weight messes up ski handling and speed. Sleds might also mess up handling, but they could get nearly all weight off the back and become a nifty high-performance rig in their own right.

I agree that this Forum/site seems more geared to traditional/expedition-type winter camping. Which is great! There's a model and range that is proven for this. We're interested in using the newer approaches to innovate on that plan where suitable.

I'll explore around. I see that Arrowhead has a forum and the UL backpacking forums might have ski sub-groups.

It seems that some of my weight and complexity might come from a more time-intensive view of an overnight. We might be able to revise that to just a bivvy for a few hours and keeping the eating somewhat constant and consistent. Possibly we wouldn't need any stove at all or any special meals. Increases potential misery factor but reduces stand-around factor. Really, motion is key to warmth, even slow motion. And eating can be just "more of the same" constant snacking routine. I'm not sure that we're running at a deficit during the day so maybe "dinner" in "camp" doesn't need to be much bigger.

Water could still be a weight problem. I don't dig starting out with 16 lbs of fluids for 2 days. And I don't dig standing around pumping a filter. So what to do?

11
Back Country Skiing Discussion / Long distance fast light ski camping?
« on: November 27, 2013, 03:46:18 pm »
Bike packing is the rave new bike sport. With just 10 lbs of extra gear the dudes can go out on their bikes for day after day. The new bikepacks don't use any racks and are light and don't hurt bike-handling. People are loving it!

I haven't read anything about BC skiers adopting the "go far fast and light" approach that the new Ultralight gear might offer.

I was doing some of the math and it seems that carrying 2 days of food and winter gear even if of the new light breed still adds up to enough weight that ones speed and range is curtailed. Like, you can get it down to 25 lbs, finish weight of 17 lbs, say, ballpark.

I find that I can ski in the technical singletrack backcountry, with friends sharing the trail-breaking work, about 40 miles a day, max. I'd like to go for 50 miles and it could likely be done. But that's with carrying only a 1-day load of 15 lbs that drops to 5 lbs by the finish. That kind of weight doesn't impede me or shorten my range. But I notice that I'm darn sensitive to weight. It seems that 20 lbs would drop my range to 25 miles and double any misery factor. My "ski joy" for all-day trail-breaking hovers around a 10-15 lb pack.

Now... What about a sled? I know that sleds are popular for a lot of winter ski camping. But our mode has a twist: we ski only SINGLETRACK. ...Can a sled be set up for technical descending/cornering on hilly singletrack? I use a crossed-pole light sled that is pretty nimble but I haven't ever considered technical skiing with it. We push the limits of 55mm midlength skis and NNN-BC bindings on a low-top touring boot with light/minimal pivot cuff.

A sled might, just might, give us back our distance-range and let us do back to back 30-mile days with an overnight.

Whattaya think?

12
Of course this kind of "grooming" sure isn't much!

I guess I like including some kind of firm poling area in my local trails that I ski on every day.

If I just ski a few times over a deep snow area I get good ski tracks -- but the poling stays crappy. So I'm wondering what's the easiest way to get the poling to be good.

I'm talking about real skiing not skiing that's like snowshoeing. :) I like lots of glide. It's singletrack skiing. Backwoods but on a trail. A homemade trail.

I'm thinking that 3 passes on skis would do it. One for the center and 2 times more to add each poling lane. Then one night to set up...

If it keeps blowing in... then rats. It's hard work keeping a good poling lane!

I like skiing the backwoods but I do it fast. Without a poling lane my poles sink in WAY far. Maybe carbon 160's would solve it. : ) ...That's my skating poles. But that would still really mess up my tempo, to stick those things in deep then haul back out once a second...

13
What's the minimum needed to get a homestyle ski trail back into shape after a blizzard?

3 snowshoe passes?

I'm talking: ski track plus firm poling.

14
I just tromped a loop around my yard during this huge snowstorm we're getting and I noticed something lame about how my 210cm Forest skis are performing. Jarvinen Lapponia ("Rock") skis model. They're mounted so the tip swings down. When I tromp thru the deep stuff I can tell the skis want to work nice but the snow on the top-deck of the forward part of the skis just makes the tips fling downward and drag with each step. A normal XC ski has a weight-forward tip to keep the tips in the tracks. That's NOT deep snow skiing! I think I'd prefer to have the TAILS stay down -- LIKE A SNOWSHOE! -- to help track LIKE A RUDDER and to have the tips shed their snowload with each step, rising out of the deep like porpoises... :) I'd be happy to remount the bindings further forward to give a tail-drag if that seems like a good idea. I might just test anyway, but would rather not drill more holes if it's be tried before and is dumb. ???

PS: I remounted one of them 1.5" forward, to give forward balance, but once boots were in they were still tip-heavy -- but maybe just due to the rubber-stopper -- far less so than before, anyway. They didn't seem to handle much differently in the deep snow. Maybe the tail-heavy one was a little better. Maybe I should remount the other 2" forward. ??

PPS: I do notice that these skis have rather zero grip. They have a small grip section. I suppose I could add kickwax fore'n'aft. Is there a fairly easy way to add your own extra nowax grip? A friend said he uses an exacto blade to slice in rearward facing slits to refresh worn out nowax tread.

--JP

15
Snowshoeing Discussion / What wrecks snowshoe rawhide?
« on: February 02, 2011, 02:31:22 pm »
I have nice Michigans and I blew thru a bunch of the rawhide on them a couple years ago, but I forget why.

My hunch is that I let the varnish fall off. I do recall using them with the rawhide raw a couple times. Then I was probably surprised to see em decomposing under foot. Is that how the meltdown goes?

I've since revarnished and I've repaired all bad connections with zipties. Got a dozen zipties in there now. Some also varnished over. I hope it all holds together now.

A friend wants to borrow them for a loaded hike / sled-pull into the woods maybe 5 miles each way. I'm hoping the dissolution won't immediately commence again.

Well, I'm taking them out today NOW in this huge snowstorm for some fun. We'll see how they hold up.

--JP

Pages: [1] 2 3