When it comes to gear and equipment, we like to use whatever we think is best, and we’ve generally avoided commitments to specific brands so as to have the freedom to do that. But when I was presented an opportunity to be part of a small group of product testers for Outdoor Research, I thought it warranted some additional consideration. Actually, I said yes right away.
The reason was simple. To this day I have never owned anything from Outdoor Research that has let me down. From the old classic gaiters (that I still have 15 years later) to their latest puffy coat, I’ve always held their products in high regard. Because of my overwhelmingly positive experience with the brand through the years, I’m excited to be involved. read more>>>
Well it’s hard to say, but after getting my hands on a pair of these and hitting the trails, this latest European concept might actually have some legs, or at least help preserve mine.
The Hoka 1.1, a super-cushioned running shoe, is the antithesis of the current minimalist trend in running, and is being introduced as the new barefoot craze seems to be hitting full stride. The compelling case for barefoot running and it’s purported benefits have made otherwise crazy ideas like the Vibram Five Fingers trendy, and in the process fault traditional cushioned shoes for causing injuries. Having not ventured down the shoeless path yet, I can’t quite speak to the topic, but after one quick jaunt up the trail and back in the Hoka’s, I was left thinking that the barefooters out there might want to reconsider their decision.
The debate will continue as to the pros and cons of barefoot vs. cushioned, but even with all the great press the minimalist camp receives these days, I find it hard to believe it will ever move beyond the fringe. Cushioned running shoes are and will remain, in my opinion, the norm. And for the majority out there who prefer cushioned shoes, you can’t get more cushy than the Hoka.
A moderate pace up the moderate slope, as an avalanche instructor/forecaster, Josh knows better than to assume the moderate rating is as safe as it sounds.
If you haven’t checked the CAIC website as of late, the current avalanche danger rating for the Aspen zone is moderate on all aspects and elevations. With five ratings on the avalanche danger scale– low, moderate, considerable, high and extreme– moderate is just a notch above low, the safest rating possible. To look at it another way, if the ratings were assigned numerical values from one to five, then moderate would be a two. A danger rating of two out of five might suggest a fairly high level of confidence in the snow stability, right?
But what about all the talk a few weeks back of sensitive snowpacks and abundant weak layers out there? Did that change? Is moderate really as safe as it sounds?
After asking these questions to Amos Whiting and Josh Hirschberg, a couple of local guide friends/snow science gurus, they agreed that moderate was the appropriate rating according to the defined danger scale, but admitted the simple rating system doesn’t always tell the whole story. To help explain, listed below are the risk rating definitions and associated probability of an event: read more>>>
Ethics, Aesthetics, and Mount Bross
Christy decided it was time for a challenge. Through the years she had honed her skills on peaks in the San Juans, Sangres and Elks and she was at her peak in terms of physical and mental toughness. The weather looked good, the snowpack was stable– everything was right. She was ready for Mount Bross.
Mount Bross – 14,172 ft.
This required perfect execution. read more>>>