or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Kastle FX 94 and the "wonderfulness of medium"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kastle FX 94 and the "wonderfulness of medium" - Page 2

post #31 of 91

As someone that's driven at least 10 different M3's (some s/c), various 911's (and other models) most Corvettes, 650 HP (and less) Audi's, Lotus, AMG Mercedes, STI, Evo... (you get the idea) I must disagree with the amendment. Driving fast cars at "normal" speeds is frustrating.

 

 

Would you rather be on WC DH boards or park skis if you were skiing a crowded run?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbinder View Post

MX, FX, LX.  All the _Xs are confusing me.  Seriously.  While I understand your point,  I would amend your car analogy -- depends on the car:  more fun driving a Porsche at any speed than a Corolla...

post #32 of 91


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by karpiel View Post

As someone that's driven at least 10 different M3's (some s/c), various 911's (and other models) most Corvettes, 650 HP (and less) Audi's, Lotus, AMG Mercedes, STI, Evo... (you get the idea) I must disagree with the amendment. Driving fast cars at "normal" speeds is frustrating.

 

 

Would you rather be on WC DH boards or park skis if you were skiing a crowded run?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbinder View Post

MX, FX, LX.  All the _Xs are confusing me.  Seriously.  While I understand your point,  I would amend your car analogy -- depends on the car:  more fun driving a Porsche at any speed than a Corolla...


 


I'll take the park skis, 'cause I won't be skiing at DH speeds on a crowded run.

 

As someone who has driven less expensive cars that handled speed well and "sporty" cars that rely heavily on advertised performance in the lower price brackets, I find the cars are a lot like skis.   They are most enjoyable when driven close to the top of their performance envelope.  It's more fun to drive an Eagle Talon at 80 mph than a built Chevy Camaro at 80 mph, because the Eagle feels like your doing a buck thirty while the Chevy feels like you should be going faster.  Ditto any of my other skis versus my SGs at 50 mph.

 

I also have an economy car now.  I would much rather be frustrated by not being allowed to press the go pedal than be frustrated by not having a go pedal.


Edited by Ghost - 12/21/10 at 11:16am
post #33 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by karpiel View Post

As someone that's driven at least 10 different M3's (some s/c), various 911's (and other models) most Corvettes, 650 HP (and less) Audi's, Lotus, AMG Mercedes, STI, Evo... (you get the idea) I must disagree with the amendment. Driving fast cars at "normal" speeds is frustrating.

 

 

Would you rather be on WC DH boards or park skis if you were skiing a crowded run?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbinder View Post

MX, FX, LX.  All the _Xs are confusing me.  Seriously.  While I understand your point,  I would amend your car analogy -- depends on the car:  more fun driving a Porsche at any speed than a Corolla...


 


Staying in the car theme...It was more fun driving my Miata at 9/10th because it was still w/in prudent speeds, try doing that with some of the cars mentioned above..you wouldn't have a license any more. I have used Porsches as a reference many times with Kastles, not so much for the performance at high speed but the refinement at any speed. While the above mentioned Corvette and the 911 will both do 150 at ease, the feel of the Porsche is significantly better and more composed. I will also add the newer Porsches are amazingly easy to drive ad 30 as they are at 130, due to their refinement, Kastles command this rare trait too. 

post #34 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

Staying in the car theme...It was more fun driving my Miata at 9/10th because it was still w/in prudent speeds, try doing that with some of the cars mentioned above..you wouldn't have a license any more.


Are you sure you don't need a pair of those 35mm-waisted Antons?
post #35 of 91

 Now I'm confused again. If she exchanged her muscle car for a Porsche, how is this settling for "medium"?

post #36 of 91
simples: It's not a Ferrari
post #37 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

 Now I'm confused again. If she exchanged her muscle car for a Porsche, how is this settling for "medium"?

 

Hmmm, maybe this will help. 
 

Where the question might be stemming from, is confusing performance with speed. The performance of the Kastle is there at medium speeds too. In a speed rating of 1-10, the Mantra is more comfortable in the 7-9 range where the Kastle will have a bigger range from 4-9 along with the smoother refinement. The muscle car is more one dimensional, it might be fine in a straight line and have the same top end for speed as the Porsche, but take both from Loveland to A-Basin and see which one is more confidence inspiring. 

 

Where Volkl used to be a premium brand a la BMW, they have gone mass market to be more like VW in having a model for everyone. Not that VW's are bad (I love mine) but  BMW is still a premium product and what Volkl used to be when making just high end skis like the P9/P10/Explosiv. I am not knocking Volkl, I am not saying they sold out, by going full market, they are trying to be as profitable as they can be, and that is a fine business decision. 

post #38 of 91

This is the kind of intelligent discussion that keeps me coming back to Epic almost daily. Don't get this much wisdom every day but if you pay attention you can learn. Thanks!

post #39 of 91

So maybe you guys can help me better understand certain characteristics of this ski.  The FX 94 is 128-94-117 and the MX 88 is 128-88-113.  Now I would think that the skinnier waisted MX88 should be quicker edge to edge then the FX 94, especially on hard snow.  Probably even a little quicker in bumps too right?  But what happens when you get both skis into mixed or softer snow?  For example, your skiing some tight tree lines with maybe 6" of powder, or maybe the snow is chopped up a little but still it's on the softer side and the line is still tight.  Would the non metal laminated FX 94 with it's somewhat softer flex, and maybe an ability to smear the turns a little bit more, be just as quick or even quicker in those conditions then the stiffer metal laminated MX 88?  Or is that difference in waist still going to give the "quickness" even in these conditions to the MX 88?

 

Hopefully this question makes sense.

 

Thanks

post #40 of 91

I just got my FX94's, own the 88's, will get back to you on this one. But keep in mind that the "non metal" 94 actually has two sheets of titanal, just like the 88, only they're .3 mm each instead of .5, the wood core is different, and the front shape is different. Finally, they have the same finishing radii, but the 88's are dual radius, the 94's are not. Ergo, my informed hunch is that the 88's are quicker into a turn on groomers, but the 94's are lighter, more pop, less tendency to hook or plough in pow, so easier to maneuver in tight spaces in variable or soft snow. 

post #41 of 91



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

I just got my FX94's, own the 88's, will get back to you on this one. But keep in mind that the "non metal" 94 actually has two sheets of titanal, just like the 88, only they're .3 mm each instead of .5, the wood core is different, and the front shape is different. Finally, they have the same finishing radii, but the 88's are dual radius, the 94's are not. Ergo, my informed hunch is that the 88's are quicker into a turn on groomers, but the 94's are lighter, more pop, less tendency to hook or plough in pow, so easier to maneuver in tight spaces in variable or soft snow. 


I'll be very interested in your reply.  Thanks in advance.


 

post #42 of 91
Thread Starter 

It's just barely possible that one could over-think or try to over-quantify what I mean by medium. In fact, the appreciation that I personally have for this ski specifically and this class of ski in general is not something that I would even try to put numbers to. Rather..........the beauty of medium is the exact opposite of specificity and pigeonholing, it is "feel and generality" BTW......medium does not mean "intermediate" or "lower performance" (hence not worthy of "our" interest) I mean after all.....that wouldn't be good enough for us......right?

 

So........specifics

 

Turn Radius.........I don't care at all

Waist width.........I only care a little

Dimensions.........Don't care at all

Metal or not........Care even less

Cores.................So what

 

So why is medium so great and what is it about the feel? Medium is the great denominator of terrain flexibility. (Huh??) OK.......it's easy as pie to make a 94 ish wide ski that holds on ice, make it stiff enough in torsion and overall and give it fair bit of camber and there ya go. If you do it correctly, you can even build in a fair bit of dampening. So ya think this makes a good all terrain/all conditions ski?.......not even close. Why not? you axe. That stiff ski will not flex without significant weight, muscle or speed. Hence in softer, less consolidated conditions it doesn't turn readily or hangs onto the turn right when you need to break it off the most. (like when a tree leaps into your path) Also that stiff ski tends to drop kick you into next week when you make a mistake in bumpish terrain or right at that spot where you have to make that turn....right there. Medium skis tend to blend it all together smoothly and without excess drama. In "Hangman's" at Mammoth it grips well enough on the firm, chalky, bumps down to the choke point. Then when you hit that choke point, the medium ski allows you to make snakey slithery turns through that tight spot without fighting too much grip. Then, below when it opens out, you can crank the speed a little (or a lot) down through the powder or wind packed crud that inevitably hangs out down there. When you hit the track back down to G-1 you can lay that ski out in medium to longish turns and make your eyes water though your goggles. The medium ski makes it easier on you to ski that run well and for my tastes, no less exciting.

 

That's what medium is to me............the great equalizer and the great enabler.

 

Now......of course if you're so damn good that this all sounds too easy.....welllbyallmeans.....stiff skis are for you and your ego too.

 

SJ

post #43 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveturner View Post

This is the kind of intelligent discussion that keeps me coming back to Epic almost daily. Don't get this much wisdom every day but if you pay attention you can learn. Thanks!



 Yeah, it is pretty amazing what you can get from this site..........

 

 SJ,     Well put.               Humm

post #44 of 91



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

It's just barely possible that one could over-think or try to over-quantify what I mean by medium. In fact, the appreciation that I personally have for this ski specifically and this class of ski in general is not something that I would even try to put numbers to. Rather..........the beauty of medium is the exact opposite of specificity and pigeonholing, it is "feel and generality" BTW......medium does not mean "intermediate" or "lower performance" (hence not worthy of "our" interest) I mean after all.....that wouldn't be good enough for us......right?

 

So........specifics

 

Turn Radius.........I don't care at all

Waist width.........I only care a little

Dimensions.........Don't care at all

Metal or not........Care even less

Cores.................So what

 

So why is medium so great and what is it about the feel? Medium is the great denominator of terrain flexibility. (Huh??) OK.......it's easy as pie to make a 94 ish wide ski that holds on ice, make it stiff enough in torsion and overall and give it fair bit of camber and there ya go. If you do it correctly, you can even build in a fair bit of dampening. So ya think this makes a good all terrain/all conditions ski?.......not even close. Why not? you axe. That stiff ski will not flex without significant weight, muscle or speed. Hence in softer, less consolidated conditions it doesn't turn readily or hangs onto the turn right when you need to break it off the most. (like when a tree leaps into your path) Also that stiff ski tends to drop kick you into next week when you make a mistake in bumpish terrain or right at that spot where you have to make that turn....right there. Medium skis tend to blend it all together smoothly and without excess drama. In "Hangman's" at Mammoth it grips well enough on the firm, chalky, bumps down to the choke point. Then when you hit that choke point, the medium ski allows you to make snakey slithery turns through that tight spot without fighting too much grip. Then, below when it opens out, you can crank the speed a little (or a lot) down through the powder or wind packed crud that inevitably hangs out down there. When you hit the track back down to G-1 you can lay that ski out in medium to longish turns and make your eyes water though your goggles. The medium ski makes it easier on you to ski that run well and for my tastes, no less exciting.

 

That's what medium is to me............the great equalizer and the great enabler.

 

Now......of course if you're so damn good that this all sounds too easy.....welllbyallmeans.....stiff skis are for you and your ego too.

 

SJ


 

Stuff like this helps me think about what I really want out of a ski and how will I be using that ski.  And yes, if a "medium" ski helps me to ski the conditions and terrain that I like to ski, and, helps to make it fun too, then I will easily push my ego to the side and pass on the super stiff "expert models". 

 

Thanks for a great reply.

post #45 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by karpiel View Post

As someone that's driven at least 10 different M3's (some s/c), various 911's (and other models) most Corvettes, 650 HP (and less) Audi's, Lotus, AMG Mercedes, STI, Evo... (you get the idea) I must disagree with the amendment. Driving fast cars at "normal" speeds is frustrating.

 

 

Would you rather be on WC DH boards or park skis if you were skiing a crowded run?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbinder View Post

MX, FX, LX.  All the _Xs are confusing me.  Seriously.  While I understand your point,  I would amend your car analogy -- depends on the car:  more fun driving a Porsche at any speed than a Corolla...


 


 

 

I stand by my commentbiggrin.gif.  I have not driven as many different models of cars as you, but I have driven some, and in various situations.  It is the refinement and potential of the "faster" car that I appreciate.  I am not so jaded that I don't get a smile on my face driving a 911 at any speed...  No, I do not enjoy driving my standard transmisson in stop-and-go traffic.  No, I would not take DH boards on a crowded slope or a park slope.  Yes, I will take a 911 over a Corolla at any speed, mainly because of the refinement and the fact that the 911 will answer me when I ask it to perform.  Yes, I will take a versatile high performance ski (and I like SJs definition of "medium") over a beginner ski or a race ski anytime.

 

BUT, I take your point.  So, how about this:  I'll take a Miata over a Corolla anyday... both easy to drive, but the Miata has so much more "range"...

 

Sorry, Jim, for diverting from your excellent post.
 

post #46 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post

simples: It's not a Ferrari


 

I guess my whole disconnect with this is that I never considered a Mantra to be a Ferrari. A solid one-ski quiver that's a bit on the stiff side, but not an ego ski.  They are ubiquitous in CO. To me, the Kastle is more the ego ski ... expensive, hard to find, top performance -- even if its performance envelope is wider, but wasn't that always a good thing? (Not that I'm saying it's an ego ski, but just more that way.) A Ferrari is some one-dimensional race ski, I don't even know what as that isn't my metier. So I'll just duck back into my hole now.

 

BTW, the reason the discussion interested me, even though apparently clueless, is that (as Phil knows) I'm looking to rearrange my quiver a bit and I'm roughly the same size and age as the buyer. I'm not really in a bad spot, but I have a pair of 177s that I bought as powder skis a few years ago, which have turned into all-mountain skis; they are a size long for that, even though I'm still 90% happy with them. And then the powder skis I bought ended up being a bit too short, due to rocker. So I'm trying to figure out how to adjust this ... a 170-ish (+/- a few cm) Something Versatile and a 180-ish (+/- a few cm) Something Rockered is what I've determined to be the best of both worlds (instead of a 177 Versatile and a 176 Rocker, oops). The whole demo problem is another thread. ;-)

post #47 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post

simples: It's not a Ferrari


 

I guess my whole disconnect with this is that I never considered a Mantra to be a Ferrari. A solid one-ski quiver that's a bit on the stiff side, but not an ego ski.  They are ubiquitous in CO.


In this context, the Mantra is _not_ a Ferrari. More like an old Lotus Esprit S2. Old design that works sort-of-OK at speed but really bad at low speeds, and with definite quirks that the driver needs to compensate for even so. The guy in the Mazda RX-7 (Pocket Rocket?) is probably going to have more fun overall.
post #48 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

It's just barely possible that one could over-think or try to over-quantify what I mean by medium. 

 

SJ


I would say the FX94 is exceptionally medium, about as exceptionally medium as possible, on a scale of 1-10 medium it is a solid 10 on medium. 

post #49 of 91

I am loling at the people who compare a "medium" ski to a 80k+ sports car. I haven't seen a porche or ferrari or any 80k+ sports car since I moved from DC to UT. Comparing any ski to a car is silly. Skiing is awesome and a lot of fun. Driving really is a mind numbing and boring activity. Thats why they have radios in cars, and TVs, and why people are constnatly texting each other from the car, beucase driving is so boring they can't even keep their attention on it. Its also why we have road rage and drivers who throw trash and scream obsentiies at bicyclists beucase drivers are miserable and they want company. I moved from DC to UT so I could drive less and ski more on the weekend and spend more time with my family and less time commuting during the week. The goal is spending as little time in the car as possible.

 

If you must make car comparisons and want to communicate to people who live in snow country you ought to come up with something a bit more realistic that people actually own. Compare it to a subaru or some brand of pickup truck. 


Edited by tromano - 12/22/10 at 2:10pm
post #50 of 91

I own a Kastle but will never afford a Ferrari

post #51 of 91

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by bbinder View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by karpiel View Post

As someone that's driven at least 10 different M3's (some s/c), various 911's (and other models) most Corvettes, 650 HP (and less) Audi's, Lotus, AMG Mercedes, STI, Evo... (you get the idea) I must disagree with the amendment. Driving fast cars at "normal" speeds is frustrating.

 

 

Would you rather be on WC DH boards or park skis if you were skiing a crowded run?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbinder View Post

MX, FX, LX.  All the _Xs are confusing me.  Seriously.  While I understand your point,  I would amend your car analogy -- depends on the car:  more fun driving a Porsche at any speed than a Corolla...


 


 

 

I stand by my commentbiggrin.gif.  I have not driven as many different models of cars as you, but I have driven some, and in various situations.  It is the refinement and potential of the "faster" car that I appreciate.  I am not so jaded that I don't get a smile on my face driving a 911 at any speed...  No, I do not enjoy driving my standard transmisson in stop-and-go traffic.  No, I would not take DH boards on a crowded slope or a park slope.  Yes, I will take a 911 over a Corolla at any speed, mainly because of the refinement and the fact that the 911 will answer me when I ask it to perform.  Yes, I will take a versatile high performance ski (and I like SJs definition of "medium") over a beginner ski or a race ski anytime.

 

BUT, I take your point.  So, how about this:  I'll take a Miata over a Corolla anyday... both easy to drive, but the Miata has so much more "range"...

 

Sorry, Jim, for diverting from your excellent post.
 


I get your point too, I think that's where the "low end" nice cars come in. 318i, a4 1.8 etc. (the medium skis) Refined, but completely undemanding and fun, like a head mojo 94.

post #52 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

I am loling at the people who compare a "medium" ski to a 80k+ sports car. I haven't seen a porche or ferrari or any 80k+ sports car since I moved from DC to UT.


DC /is/ car sick. I was just at Panera talking to a guy with a Noble M12.

But it seems everyone missed my funny back in #36. I need to figure out how to type with a thicker accent?

"Is not Ferrari. Of course is only "medium" at best".
post #53 of 91


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

I am loling at the people who compare a "medium" ski to a 80k+ sports car. I haven't seen a porche or ferrari or any 80k+ sports car since I moved from DC to UT. Comparing any ski to a car is silly. Skiing is awesome and a lot of fun. Driving really is a mind numbing and boring activity. Thats why they have radios in cars, and TVs, and why people are constnatly texting each other from the car, beucase driving is so boring they can't even keep their attention on it. Its also why we have road rage and drivers who throw trash and scream obsentiies at bicyclists beucase drivers are miserable and they want company. I moved from DC to UT so I could drive less and ski more on the weekend and spend more time with my family and less time commuting during the week. The goal is spending as little time in the car as possible.

 

If you must make car comparisons and want to communicate to people who live in snow country you ought to come up with something a bit more realistic that people actually own. Compare it to a subaru or some brand of pickup truck. 

 

 

 Every car I listed can be had for under 25k. Everyone I know who thinks driving is boring is a horrible driver that doesn't take the risk  involved seriously. The phones tv's etc is VERY much an American tradition. Until recently Asian and European cars didn't even have cup holders, they couldn't comprehend people wanting to distract themselves by anything.

 

And the way 99% of people ski seems mind numbingly boring to me too.

post #54 of 91

I never thought of driving as boring--or interesting either. Come to think of it, I never really thought about it at all until now. For me, driving is just driving. It's only boring when I get stuck in traffic. It's only exciting when I leave the office at the end of the day and head home.  I never really had any interest and I always thought of cars as a practical but necessary item--something that gets me between point A and Point B, preferably with decent mileage and minimal hassles. I therefore always passed on spending any significant chunk of change on a car as they just depreciate extremely rapidly and more performance= more tickets and higher insurance premiums. All I have ever owned are Subaru and Toyota.

 

I choose skis in a different way and base a purchase on what I believe will maximize the enjoyment of the experience. With a car, I could care less what's under the hood or in the interior, as long as it's not a gas hog and has decent reliability. 

post #55 of 91

Everyone thinks they are a good driver. I really have no clear idea what "good driver" means after all this time.

 

Like comprex said, after driving 15 hours a week for 5 years I am pretty sick of the whole thing. I also note that the countries you mentioned Japan and EU, have high population density and real public transit, real trains, real options... a car is a luxury and driving is a novelty in those places.

 

Skiing is a recreational activity, people would not do it if they didn't like it. Most people I talk to on the lift, whether they are expert or lower level, in UT or in PA are stoked to be out there. Driving for most Americans is a necessary aspect of daily life. You can choose to minimze it, but you can almost never fully avoid it -- especially if you are into outdoor activites, have a family, etc... for most its something that we are stuck with. 


Edited by tromano - 12/22/10 at 5:42pm
post #56 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

I am loling at the people who compare a "medium" ski to a 80k+ sports car. I haven't seen a porche or ferrari or any 80k+ sports car since I moved from DC to UT. Comparing any ski to a car is silly. Skiing is awesome and a lot of fun. Driving really is a mind numbing and boring activity. Thats why they have radios in cars, and TVs, and why people are constnatly texting each other from the car, beucase driving is so boring they can't even keep their attention on it. Its also why we have road rage and drivers who throw trash and scream obsentiies at bicyclists beucase drivers are miserable and they want company. I moved from DC to UT so I could drive less and ski more on the weekend and spend more time with my family and less time commuting during the week. The goal is spending as little time in the car as possible.

 

If you must make car comparisons and want to communicate to people who live in snow country you ought to come up with something a bit more realistic that people actually own. Compare it to a subaru or some brand of pickup truck. 


Porsche does make some nice 50-60K cars too in the Cayman and Boxsters. When the average new car is in the 30K range and we are comparing skis that are 30% more expensive to cars that are 50% more expensive, the Kastles are starting to look more like a deal with every post. biggrin.gif I tend to use cars as a point of reference when comparing ski models because most people are familiar with them. We can use watches, scotch, clothing, audio, bikes and a multitude of other products that have low medium and premium price points. 

 

post #57 of 91

You know, I'm thinking of combining car and skis, and try to go down Scott's Chute at Alpine in my Miata.

 

I'll write a review shortly....wish me luck like "Break a sway bar" or ?

 

And I'm sure Bushwacker has done this backwards...

 

Merry Christmas, all!!

post #58 of 91

Sometimes the quality difference between the low and premium brands is questionable. Case in point: Nike. IMO, of course. A pair of quality Adidas running shoes cost about 1/3 the price of a Nike and has lasted me just as long and offers the same performance benefits. I have found that the rubber soles one Nike Air running shoes tends to wear down relatively rapidly. The same applies for the performance clothing in the sporting goods store. You can pay $50 for Under Armour or Nike running tops or get pretty much the same exact thing for $20 with the less-known brands. In cases like this, you are paying a premium for the logo and it's associated fashion value.

 

The performance benefits of automobiles are self-explanatory.Performance costs money and you get what you pay for in that regards. If you want high performance you have to shell out the cash. Brands and logos won't hide any faults in this area.  

 

Skis are a bit different as there are a lot of gray areas. Terms like high-performance are entirely relative. Every skier has their own idea of what constitutes high performance -- this is largely based on their own goals and current level of skill. For a beginner, a Head Xenon is a high-performance ski. It's also true that some skiers--beginners and intermediates- may not be at a level where they can truly appreciate the benefits of one brand/ski over another and will probably just be wasting money by going for the top-dollar equipment.  

post #59 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post


Porsche does make some nice 50-60K cars too in the Cayman and Boxsters. When the average new car is in the 30K range and we are comparing skis that are 30% more expensive to cars that are 50% more expensive, the Kastles are starting to look more like a deal with every post. biggrin.gif I tend to use cars as a point of reference when comparing ski models because most people are familiar with them. We can use watches, scotch, clothing, audio, bikes and a multitude of other products that have low medium and premium price points. 

 


Did you say scotch? Sorry for the minor rant earlier. biggrin.gif

post #60 of 91

I've settled for "good" being something that isn't actively endangering my life. At least 60% of Americans with a license need to be off the road, but I think the whole issue will have to be forced, sadly by gas prices, not by implementing a "real" driving test. Then there will be a demand for public transportation. Jay Leno said the train will save the car, just as the car saved the horse. I would love not needing to drive everywhere, as much as I enjoy cars.

 

That's a big part of the American car based life, but even people with access to public transport don't use it because of the "convenience" of a car. A friend of mine was complaining her kids had to walk two blocks to the school bus stop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

Everyone thinks they are a good driver. I really have no clear idea what "good driver" means after all this time.

 

Like comprex said, after driving 15 hours a week for 5 years I am pretty sick of the whole thing. I also note that the countries you mentioned Japan and EU, have high population density and real public transit, real trains, real options... a car is a luxury and driving is a novelty in those places.

 

Skiing is a recreational activity, people would not do it if they didn't like it. Most people I talk to on the lift, whether they are expert or lower level, in UT or in PA are stoked to be out there. Driving for most Americans is a necessary aspect of daily life. You can choose to minimze it, but you can almost never fully avoid it -- especially if you are into outdoor activites, have a family, etc... for most its something that we are stuck with. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Kastle FX 94 and the "wonderfulness of medium"