I am in this boat, too. I have a pair of Atomic GS skis (kinda planks) that were given to me in 1981 by a guy who raced for Atomic...the are like 208's with the old Marker red bindings; they require maintenance and are stiff...but I love their speed and feel...I have rented much newer skis in recent years, and have never gotten used to the softer feel. I also still prefer my steel bikes, and alothough I do occasionally ride a newer Ti/Carbon bike, the only time I like it better is on longer climbs. Now, with golf clubs, I play so infrequently now that the forgiveness of the mis-hits on the new-fangled drivers and irons is amazing...what before would have been a very poor shot has become acceptable. The well hit shot doesn't change much, except in distance, but the skunk is made to smell sweet! Dean Patterson Alpine, CA USA
cwstudio@aol.com wrote: John,
I'm with you. Having learned to ski in the early '70's on what is now seen as woefully inadequate gear, I would much rather trust my hide (and knees) to the modern equipment.
The bikes, I agree, are a different story. I'll throw a 30+ year old frame into a turn and trust the steel and decent rubber without a qualm. That is, after I've gone over it myself, or knowing and trusting the person who maintains it. And having ridden many current model high end bikes with carbon, Ti, and aluminum frames, I'd say that they are certainly trustworthy when new, but after being hammered for a couple of seasons, I'd have some doubts. Not that I abuse my gear, I don't, but rough roads and potholes are common, and are not kind to our two-wheeled machines. Let's have a look at those new frames in 30+ years and see. Well, if we're around...
I love the look of the old skis. I have a beautiful pair of Austrian Mehrschichten skis, wooden with steel edges, and Inselberg bindings. But I enjoy them on display on the wall, and ski my nice Black Diamonds.
Chris Wimpey
San Diego, CA
-----Original Message----- From: John Wood
To: dan kasha Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Sent: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 8:17 am Subject: Re: [CR]Vintage Bikes, Vintage Skis, why the difference?
As a former collegiate ski racer, I feel that the comparison is very weak at best. I've been a hardcore skier since the 1967, and a hardcore biker since 1972, so have directly experienced the 'modern' transition in equipment. My first pair of skis were solid wood with screw in metal edges and lace up, ankle high, leather boots with bear trap cable bindings. This I think would be the penny farthing of the ski world. It wasn't until the 70's with the introduction of release bindings and plastic boots, that ski technology took any significant step forward from the original skiers in Norway probably hundreds of years ago. While bikes of the 50's were highly refined machines, really not much different from todays, ski equipment of the 50's was pretty primitive. So while the bike in it's modern form has had lets say 100 years of evolution, the ski world has really had at best half of that. While it is fun to get out on the old boards now and then (and for me, old is early '90's), you couldn't pay me to put on a pair of mid-70's Lange Banshee's. And, having experienced 2 knee reconstructions, I would never even think about clipping into a pair of mid-70's bindings.
If anything, you could make the argument that older bikes (30's through the 90's) are more comfortable and safer, in that new hyper-specialized race bikes don't handle rough pavement as well, and the new superlight carbon fiber frames and parts are more likely to fail catastrophically.
I compare modern skis with modern, full suspension mountain bikes. Full suspension allows people with less skills to easily handle more difficult terrain than they could with a fully rigid or front suspended bike only. Same with modern, short, shaped skis compared to the old, long, skinnies. And as always, just my opinion.
John Wood Red Lodge, MT
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:22 PM, dan kasha wrote:
> I have been meaning to ask this question for a long
> time. I have a few vintage bikes that I really like
> riding. I also have many sets of vintage skis and
> bindings that I also enjoy using. The question to the
> list is this. What makes bikes so desired, but other
> sports less so?
>
> An old Marker Simplex releasing toe I think is as
> interesting as an old campy record derailleur. The
> feel of an old ski is much like an old bike. Not
> likely to win the TdF, but can be a hoot to ski and
> can keep up with the best - it is about the skier as
> much or more than the ski, just as with the bikes.
>
> But bike stuff really has a following and a
> desireability. But other sports, beautiful NOS
> equipment sometimes goes unsold. Why? Is it the age
> of the sport, is it the large diversity of components?
> Is it the world wide access to the sport? Oh, yeah,
> safety. But an old bike has issues too, and those old
> bindings, some of them, were great.
>
> Other sports that don't get much interest must be out
> there too.
>
> Anyway, just been wondering, and I hope this is not a
> stretch of the subject.
> Dan Kasha
> Seattle Wa
> PS Last night was a great night skiing on old Olin
> Mark IV's with Look 77 bindings and straps.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.