What is the ratio of AT to Telemark skiers?

This discussion can lead to the topic of: What exactly is a telemark turn?<br><br>My use of the technique is that it turns nordic skis that are in tandem, but parallel, while weighting and bending them so that there is, in effect, one large bending, carving ski. The primary difference in my technique, when compared to an alpine turn, is the trailing ski that is weighted in conjunction (varying weighting combinations) to the weighting of the front ski. On very weak boots, one stands on the back ski first at times in order to unweight and rotate/ initiate the front ski into the turn. Beyond the trailing ski and weighting, most alpine technique directly transfers. The telemark turn enhances fore-aft stability in exchange for less lateral stability. As a result, the telemark position is comparatively inherently less stable on hard or steep snow than is an alpine position.<br><br>Obviously, my technique dates from 1976, Steve Barnett's book, and washrag Vasque boots on Epoke 900s, 3-pins and heel locators. I still tele leather and 3-pins and my widest tele skis have just 88mm shovels (compared to my FR 10 rando ski @ 118 mm). The technique that I described, in my view, does not require cables- at least, I do not like them because of their interference with touring.<br><br>It was interesting to me to see the introduction of heavy boots and bindings (Skyhoy! etc....) that allowed one to just shove the skis around. It seems that many on the big gear just carve the front ski while the back ski drags along with little or no purpose or effect. Sort of like someone casually and easily walking down a sidewalk then throwing a leg in some ballet move.<br><br>Please understand the qualifier that I know some tele skiers, male and female, who can probably outski me on extreme terrain on the big tele gear while I am on randonnee gear. At the same time, I see good tele skiers revert to alpine technique when tired, in a difficult turn, or some just make a habit of alpine turns on the new tele gear because alpine technique requires less effort and can be more stable (*the opposite stability argument is also made in some 'taters*). I also freely admit that I will choose the easier and safer (for me) alpine technique on alpine terrain since I am not as skilled as some tele skiers<br>that I know. In fact, the new tele gear handles tough conditions just fine, and even I could probably ski it, but I would not be pure because alpine technique would just be so handy.* =the new tele stuff is as beefy as any rando gear*<br><br>So the point? I feel kinship to the Kingdom Tele boys' (east coasters) postings- leather and skinny skis, and telemark technique. The benefit? Efficient touring mileage. Beautiful arcing turns (within limits).

another observation is that i don't see very many telemarkers at the resorts.

<br><br>As I mentioned above ... this is not the case elsewhere. I am definitely surprised by the lack of free heel skiers at the Summit the past few weeks. Especially midweek. Past resorts I have regularly skied (Steamboat, Mad River, and Stowe mostly) have had pretty large telemark contingents, to the point where they outnumber fixed heels at times (Mad River especially, but that is probably an anomaly). <br><br>

<br>will be curious to see how many do the weds and thurs nite lesson series at the summit this year (often accompanied by their more accomplished partners for the night)

<br><br>Me too. Do you know how many did it last season? <br><br>This may be a good time to encourage TAYers to get out and try it this season, either through the weds/thurs tele series at Ski Acres or other channels. Aside from being a new and cool trick to add to the bag, telemark really is a great way to improve your balance and correct any bad habits that alpine gear is letting you get away with.

Hey Dave great to hear from you.<br><br>I can only imagine that things are great when you don't have to totally depend on gravity for power!<br><br>I bet when you take into account the SNS BC type gear, then there are still quite a lot of free heelers out there.<br><br>Randonee, <br><br>I believe the quality of the turn you speak of on the skinny skis where you essentially form a single long ski was essentially the "perfect" turn for that gear. But the natural radius of the skinny ski(s) used is very long, so long that effectively we had to shorten the radius by increasing the angle between the two skis. Unfortunately, this naturally makes the skis skid or slide. You could argue that this is the whole point of the classic tele turn! The new gear obviates that need, with big sidecut, both skis optimally are edged essentially parallel, with one behind the other but still to the side slightly, and the radius of the turn can be simply the natural sidecut-determined radius. So at some level, the new gear makes the tele position pointless with respect to generating turn. Now the tele turn is still a good turn, can be very stable in some tough snow and is a hell of a lot of fun. Also keeps me in better shape than the AT gear. It is sooo much fun in deep powder, especially low angle when it is like flying and walking at the same time!<br><br>Alan

But the natural radius of the skinny ski(s) used is very long, so long that effectively we had to shorten the radius by increasing the angle between the two skis. Unfortunately, this naturally makes the skis skid or slide. You could argue that this is the whole point of the classic tele turn!

<br><br>A purely carved tele turn is possible, just difficult. I would really like to try a pair of ScottyBobs on corduroy. <br><br>

Now the tele turn is still a good turn, can be very stable in some tough snow and is a hell of a lot of fun. Also keeps me in better shape than the AT gear. It is sooo much fun in deep powder, especially low angle when it is like flying and walking at the same time!<br>

<br><br>You said it!

Digging around in my mail folders, I found several of my Usenet posts on this subject from the late 1980s.

<br>I find it comforting to know that Telemark vs Alpine debates are such an extensive time-honored tradition. I just spent a few hours reading Usenet rec.skiing and net.rec.ski Google archives. For those who ever wish to do the same, the earliest rec.skiing post in the Google archive is April 1989 and the earliest net.rec.ski post is December 1981 with the last one being Oct 1986 . So between 1986 and 1989 wherever skiing was discussed electronically it's not in Google (finally something that's not in Google!!). If you search the Google archives for the term skiing with the date range of 1987-1988 it doesn't appear to return any posts that are in a skiing newsgroup.

<br>I find it comforting to know that Telemark vs Alpine debates are such an extensive time-honored tradition.

<br><br>And before the Usenet, the debates were in the magazines. (Not that they've ever stopped.) For a few examples, go to this page and follow the links under "Nordic vs. Alpine debate":<br><br> www.alpenglow.org/ski-history/subjects/C-info.html#xc-skiing

Or, even earlier, follow the links on the following page (especially under "Suppression by the Arlberg school"):

www.alpenglow.org/ski-history/subjects/T...html#telemark-skiing

In light of the "renaissance" of the 1970s and 80s, this 1949 quote about the telemark turn by Christian Rubi was remarkably prescient:

www.alpenglow.org/ski-history/notes/book...tml#elkins-1949-p36a

"Long a tradition with the Swiss Ski School, this graceful turn has all but disappeared and is only used on rare occasions. However, we would not be too surprised if the telemark were to reappear some day as an 'entirely new and revolutionary method of skiing.'"