I’ll try to avoid getting dragged down into all the ad hominem attacks here, but in brief (at least relatively):
“Cool, now we have both name dropped in the same response.”
- Maybe I’m missing the point of the emoticon, but all I was trying to point out is that Scarpa- and Trab-sponsored athletes blogged about their 1.0 + Volare combo. Maybe it didn’t turn out to be a good idea for them, and maybe it wouldn’t be a good idea for me either. (By “I'm thinking the 1.0 would be fine for that too.” that was more along the lines of “I’m contemplating such a setup since the 1.0 seems to offer enough control for a ski that wide, and for when conditions merit a ski that wide.”)
“For a guy from Mass. that plays in the NW a few times a year you are pretty free proclamations on gear choices being made here.”
- I’m by no means a full-time skier of any sort, but I did get in over 513,000 earned vertical this past season, with almost 59,000 of that spread across four western states (CA, CO, OR, WA).
- And given the highly variable conditions we have throughout New England (often unfortunately not so good...), I think that provides me with a wide-ranging exposure to different type of snow + terrain combinations. (And yes, I’ve skied more than just Muir on Rainier...)
- However, I did not pick up the 1.0 until relatively late in the season (after sheering off almost half my EVO lugs), so my experience with them is more limited in terms of skis and snow conditions.
“Suggesting one buy a Aspect and a Alien1 as their 1st BC combo is bad advice IMO.”
- That was the proposal from the OP (who is not a BC newbie), not my suggestion.
- My response was in the form of a question: “Setting aside some of the 1.0 inconveniences for general touring purposes, why don't you think the 1.0 can handle a ski of the Aspect width and weight?” ... coupled with my own feedback: “The 1.0 sure does seem plenty stiff enough for me. I've used the 1.0 for my Movement X-Logic, with a similar waist width to the Aspect, and I definitely didn't lack for boot control over a ski of that size.”
- If you have substantive feedback on just what downhill skiing qualities are lacking in the 1.0 for use with the Aspect or any other 90-ish ski (especially since the CO skimo crowd has me so enamored of the 1.0 for everything), then I would sincerely like to hear such feedback. (Or if you just want to continue with ad hominem attacks and various wandering anecdotes, then at least those are generally amusing.)
“The attitude really gets me riled up. Having guided, taught avi classes, skiing and other silly chite even more esoteric. I just gotta say it, "a instructor that allows gear to get in the way of his students learning the material offered tells me all I need to know about both".”
- Unfortunately it is the other way around, i.e., gear-induced student immobility gets in the way of learning the material. Given our topography and weather in the Presidentials, some of the best instructive terrain requires some long (by Eastern standards) tours. To provide my students with significant experience at decision making in potential avalanche terrain (i.e., the core skill in an avalanche safety course), we have to move at a good pace. This goal has been greatly hindered in the past by setups like downhill boots + hybrid bindings or various big tele w/o tour modes.
- The even worse situation is with all the commercial providers who allow snowshoers into L1 courses. The typical L1 schedule looks something like: Day 1 = classroom plus basic beacon practice; Day 2 = more classroom, more rescue practice, very short walk out to look at some slide paths and snowpack attributes; and, Day 3 = ascend ~1900' vertical up a below-treeline hiking trail, ascend ~500' vertical up an at-treeline hiking trail, then poke around a little bit in the base of a glacial cirque. I don’t see how that fulfills the AIARE goal of teaching real decision making in the field. (To be continued at our AIARE IRC on Nov 10...)