Ever since I came to live in Park City, I’ve placed enormous importance on choosing a home site with true southern exposure.
After spending a quarter century in a shaded location, back in the Alps, where my parents’ home received only a few hours of winter sun, I learned firsthand how profoundly mountain sunlight affects both comfort and morale. Of course, site orientation is only half the equation — architecture must do the rest.
At 7,000 feet, our sun is stronger, our winters are colder, and our skies are clearer, which makes solar geometry one of the most powerful and overlooked design tools. I’ve always been surprised by how little attention many local architects give to passive‑solar principles.
When we built our home in 2013, I insisted on deep south‑facing eaves — in our case, 7 feet — to block the high summer sun while welcoming the low winter sun. At this latitude, the sun’s altitude swings nearly 47° between seasons, so a well‑designed overhang can dramatically reduce summer heat gain while providing free warmth in winter.
The photo below was taken on July 7, shortly after the summer solstice at 11 a.m. MDST, and it shows exactly how the eaves perform: full shade in summer, full sun in winter.
Passive solar isn’t complicated — it’s simply good mountain architecture.
Believe it or not, I’ve learned an awful lot from owning and driving a Citroen 2cv.
It made me an efficiency freak with its undepowered, smartly engineered and inspiring design, literally from top to bottom.
All life long it has made me longing for efficiency in all kinds of domains, from house design,
to all kinds of objects and devices and has made me a much better consumer while developing in me an unending quest for the best ratio between design and performance.
It’s been a catalyst of sort for me, like many other objects or situations can be for many others.
Imagine that you’re skiing very, very fast. Let’s say a high speed GS type of turn, you are in the last section of the curve and your exterior foot is suddenly freed from the ski. No, I’m not talking about the binding pre-releasing, but about your very own boot exploding or better yet, disintegrating.
I don’t have to tell you that you don’t want that to happen while you’re skiing, and this is why, a few days ago, Head USA just announced a voluntary recall of approximately 1,890 pairs of high-end ski boots across North America.
The recall comes after reports that the boot’s shell and sole inserts can spontaneously deteriorate and break, potentially turning a smooth run down the mountain into a dangerous fall. The recall specifically impacts the fluorescent yellow materials used in the construction of the boot shell and sole.
According to the brand, these components can become brittle and crack, compromising the structural integrity of the boot. While the thought of our boot disintegrating mid-carve is enough to give any skier pause, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) confirmed that no injuries have been reported to date.
In my years in the boot business, we had a few warranty claims for broken boots, but from what I can remember the breakage happened during storage. Head is moving proactively to pull the remaining stock and alert owners before the "deterioration" leads to a documented accident.
The affected boots were sold nationwide at specialized ski retailers and through various online platforms. Given that these boots have been on the market for over a decade (spanning from late 2015 through early 2026), many skiers may still have these boots. Just check yours if they happen to be Head!
Subaru has always been in my blood, at least from 1975 to 2022 when I made a fateful switch to an electric car. Subaru was about to come with its own, the Soltera, reluctantly developed by Toyota, but that I didn’t love enough to purchase.
Yet, Subarus have always held a soft spot in my soul and I was just devastated when I caught a glance of its new 2026 Outback model. An ugly box to my very discerning and visually demanding eyes! There are also too many distracting details on that car that are plastered around to try to make it cool, fail badly at it.
A case of less is more… I felt a sense of betrayal and now found a justification for my fleeting loyalty to the Japanese brand. I may be old, but still can change!
Now that we learned all the obstacles that get in the way to making our home building techniques more in line with modernity, where do we see efforts made in that direction? Well, there are still companyies currently Trying to disrupt this situation by the boundaries.
I don’t know what’s going on in Europe or in Asia, but in the United States,
Plant Prefab is a California‑based company building high‑quality, architect‑designed modular homes by focusing on sustainability and speed.
Villa is another outfit focused on accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which are easier to standardize and ship than full homes.
Biltwise is another modular builder working on efficient, sustainable prefab systems. Method Homes is known for custom, high‑design modular homes built offsite.
Dvele is a high‑tech modular home company emphasizing energy efficiency and smart‑home integration.
Module based in Pittsburgh is a mission‑driven modular housing company focused on affordable, community‑oriented housing.
The list goes on with more companies aiming a that goal, but the question remains, why hasn’t a “Tesla of Housing” emerged yet? It’s simply because housing is not like cars or phones.
Again, it’s regulated locally, it’s still built on‑site, its tied to land, heavily dependent on local labor, if made far away, expensive to transport and the industry remains slow to adopt new methods. Even very well‑funded disruptors like Katerra, backed by SoftBank, collapsed under the weight of trying to industrialize a fragmented industry.
This said the companies that are succeeding tend to start small (ADUs, small homes, repeatable designs), stay regional instead of going national, are partnering with local builders instead of replacing them, focusing on sustainability and energy efficiency and using panelized or hybrid systems instead of full volumetric modules.
So, at this moment, the future of modular may not be giant Lego‑like blocks, but smarter, lighter, more flexible prefab systems, until we become all surprised by a new invention that will make us exclaim: “Why didn’t I thought of this!”
Given the high cost of housing construction these days. and the inefficient building methods in America and elsewhere, I've always wondered why a "disrupting company" wouldn't come up with a manufactured, modular home assembly system. In fact, I’m a “frustrated architect” (in hindsight, I should have exercised that profession!)
There’s of course nothing new to my question as lots of of architects, builders, and frustrated home-buyers have also been asking for years. The short answer is yes, many companies have tried to disrupt housing with modular, prefab, or factory‑built systems… but the industry keeps chewing them up.
On paper, modular construction would resolves everything from factory efficiency, lower labor costs, faster building time with higher quality-control, less waste and much more predictable pricing. But the reality isn’t that simple. Many several high‑profile modular companies have gone bankrupt, including Katerra, Veev, and Modulous.
Many of these companies have been failing due to cost pressures and logistical challenges. The biggest obstacles include logistics that are brutally expensive with shipping that demands cranes, escorts, special trucks, and careful routing.
This often wipes out the cost savings. In addition, construction is incredibly local, with each region, even in the “United” States being different with its codes, zoning, inspecting methods, sysmic and other weather specific requirements that make scaling nationally extremely difficult. From a manufacturing standpoint, a modular factory is only profitable if it runs at near‑full capacity and the cyclical nature of housing that make it difficult for accommodated a continued production.
Finally, developers resist change as traditional home builders have entrenched relationships with subcontractors, unions, local suppliers and as any new system is always perceived as a threat to the entire ecosystem. I would also add that banks and appraisers often treat modular homes as “manufactured” or “mobile,” which hurts resale value and loan terms.
In the next blog, we’ll explore if there’s still hope for more efficient ways of creating housing...
Right after learning about the Crans-Montana fire and figuring that there were no automatic sprinklers, I wondered if there would have been less victims if the night club had this kind of equipment in its ceilings? Based on fire science and decades of statistical data from organizations like the American National Fire Protection Association and the European Fire Safety Alliance, the answer is almost certainly yes.
While no safety system is 100% foolproof, fire protection engineers generally agree that automatic sprinklers are the single most effective tool for preventing mass-casualty events in high-occupancy venues like nightclubs. Just like what happened at Le Constellation, the most lethal moment in a fire is the flashover, a point where the heat in a room becomes so intense that every combustible surface ignites simultaneously.
In that fire, the non-fire-retardant foam acted as a "solid fuel," allowing the fire to race across the ceiling. If there had been automatic sprinklers, they would have been activated at a specific temperature (usually around 155°F).
By spraying water directly on the source early, they would have kept the room temperature below the flashover threshold, effectively "pinning" the fire to its origin point and this would have bought time, a critical element in a crowded nightclub with 300 people and limited exits, in which the difference between life and death is measured in seconds.
In addition, sprinklers wash out the large carbon particles in smoke, which would have helped maintain visibility. Le Constellation fire’s survivors reported that the room went "pitch black" within 90 seconds due to the thick foam smoke. Finally, sprinklers would have also cooled the hot gases and smoke. In many fires, victims die from thermal lung damage (inhaling air that is several hundred degrees) before the flames ever reach them.
Sprinklers would have kept that air survivable for much longer. The data on the effectiveness of sprinklers in public assembly spaces is overwhelming as they bring the death rate by approximately 80% to 90% lower in buildings with automatic sprinklers compared to those without. As an extra bonus, in over 95% of fires in sprinklered buildings, the fire is either completely extinguished or held in check by the operation of just one or two sprinkler heads.
The Crans-Montana fire bears a haunting resemblance to the 2003 Station Nightclub fire in Rhode Island, near Boston. In that fire, pyrotechnics ignited foam, and 100 people died in five minutes. A computer simulation from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, later proved that if sprinklers had been present, everyone would have likely survived, as the fire would have been suppressed within 30 seconds of ignition.
In the aftermath of the Swiss night-club’s deadly fire, I’ve been wondering why there weren’t mandatory fire sprinklers in such a public places at the Crans-Montana resort like they exist in Park City, Utah, where I live? The question of fire safety at the Le Constellation bar and nightclub has become a point of national debate in Switzerland following the tragic fire on January 1, 2026.
The absence of sprinklers in that venue—and many similar public spaces across Europe—is the result of a specific regulatory philosophy and a "gap" in existing fire codes that is only now being urgently re-evaluated. In the United States and Canada, fire safety relies heavily on active suppression (sprinklers that put out the fire). In contrast, Swiss and many European fire codes traditionally prioritize passive protection.
This includes using fire-resistant walls and doors to keep a fire contained in one room for 30–60 minutes. The exit routes are focusing on their number, width, and visibility so people can leave before the fire spreads. Also, the regulation the flammability of building materials is an extra consideration. Under current Swiss standards, sprinklers are generally only mandatory for high-risk categories like high-rise buildings, hospitals, and massive industrial sites.
Smaller public venues like Le Constellation often met legal requirements by simply having enough fire extinguishers and marked exits. In many Swiss cantons, a venue must reach a very high capacity (often over 1,000–2,000 people) before automatic suppression becomes a legal requirement. Le Constellation could accommodate approximately 300 people. Because it fell below this high threshold, the law allowed it to operate with manual safety measures (extinguishers) rather than a multi-million-franc sprinkler system.
The Canton of Valais (where Crans-Montana is located) has historically been noted by fire safety experts for having pretty lax interpretations of these rules compared to stricter cantons like Zurich or Bern. Then, there’s the "Grandfathering" of older buildings in Alpine resorts with their older, traditional wooden structures or stone basements. It’s clear that installing a modern sprinkler system in an old building requires some expensive infrastructure judged too high for small business owners.
That certainly applies to old mining towns turned into ski resorts like Park City, Aspen or Telluride, but there’s no exception there, fire sprinklers have to be installed regardless of their cost. More recently, in 2014, we built a new home in Park City that required the installation of fire sprinklers. Our town was an early adopter of residential fire safety standards. A 2002 local ordinance began requiring sprinklers in all new residential construction, including single family homes.
Tomorrow we’ll explore if automatic sprinklers would have saved lives at the Constellation…
It’s been over two weeks since I’ve experienced walking with my new pair of max cushion shoes. Again the name of these walking or running shoes refers to their thick, soft mid-soles designed for shock absorption and comfort offered by Hoka and Sketchers, but also by brands like New Balance (Fresh Foam More), ASICS (Gel-Nimbus), and Brooks (Ghost Max).
This footwear offers significant
comfort and impact absorption but can lead to drawbacks such as reduced stability and potentially altered running mechanics.
As far as I was concerned, I saw them as the solution for the metarsallagia I have suffered since last April, mostly for wearing running shoes with a toe box far too narrow. If that were not the case and what I suffer from is actually more a form of arthritis, as I initially assumed it was, so much the better!
Their thick mid-soles absorb a large amount of road impact, even when walking, making the shoe feel soft underfoot. This makes a huge difference with my former shoes and their ultra-thin front sole that makes you feel any pebble or irregularities in the pavement. This obviously leads to a more comfortable experience, especially on hard surfaces like concrete or asphalt which sums up what I’m walking on.
The shoes seem to reduce the load transmitted through the sole of the foot and its interior bones and offer a good balance of cushioning and energy return, which might theoretically improve efficiency over long distances.
I was warned about getting less lateral stability, a risk of ankle rolls or sprains, particularly during quick changes in direction or on uneven surfaces but I didn’t find anything noticeable there and my foot pains has been largely reduced, which so far is a good step in the right direction.
The next marker in my evaluation will be their durability, so please stay tuned for that.
When I presented the Hoka story a few days ago, I forgot to mention Sketcher, another footwear company founded in 1992 by Robert Greenberg, shortly after his departure from L.A. Gear, a company he also founded.
Initially intended as a distributor for Dr. Martens, Skechers quickly shifted focus to developing its own brand of casual, stylish street shoes. It also became widely discussed in the running community and by legal analysts, because Skechers kept on producing shoes considered to be copycats of Hoka, specifically in the Max Cushioning category.
That’s right, Skechers has been a "fast-follower" in the industry, which led to many lawsuits with other brands, including Nike and Adidas. No doubt that copying successful designs enabled Sketcher to be a better value than the design’s originator and just like Android phones are outselling iPhones worldwide.
As a result, Sketcher is twice the size of Hoka in terms of sales. Now, how does the copy compare to the original? Both are in fact very close. Experts say that Hoka shoes might be better for longer distances and offer better stability, while Skechers are often perceived as having better padding or softer cushioning.
Hoka are said to be better for activities requiring more support, whereas Skechers might be the right choice for a more comfortable, casual, everyday wear. I just got a pair of Sketchers and will soon tell you how well they address my metarsalagia!
The way that initial skepticism turned into adoption happened in late 2010, near Madagascar, on the island of Reunion, during an ultra-trail race called “Diagonale des Fous.” As he was in the 70th kilometer of that race, Ludovic Pommeret a top-ranking French racer was having severe problems with his cheap Decathlon-made shoes that he had to switch to a pair of Hoka’s made Mafate shoes at one of the pit stops, and now with them on, found his second wind and ended up second in the race, a spectacular turnaround that brought the limelight on the strange looking product.
From that unlikely victory came the Pommeret model that immediately was successful and became the talk in every trail racing circles, ushering a marketing strategy focused on trail running. On the eve of influence marketing, trail fans, promoters and bloggers became the mouthpiece used by Hoka to reach practitioners at all sporting events, especially local races that could hugely leverage the company’s very limited resources.
This also led Nicolas Mermoud to focus immediately on the American market, a full 40% piece of the world’s business, by working closely with athletes, retailers and the press. Very soon, this international strategy allowed Hoka to reach the kind of critical mass and the image needed to convince the other world markets.
Introduced in 2011, the Bondi shoe encountered a fast and huge acceptance, further polishing Hoka’s image as the product to race on. Initially embraced by ultra-marathon runners for their enhanced cushioning and inherent stability, the shoes quickly gained popularity among other active runners for that maximum cushion and minimal weight. It’s heart-warming to remember that the founders began that venture on a shoestring budget.
It’s on April 1st 2013 that the Deckers Brands, the parent company for UGG, Teva and other footwear products, took full control of Hoka One One for $1.1 million. For 2024 total Hoka sales reached a record $4.2 billion! Both original founders stayed with the brand, as Diard now oversees international distribution and pursues his innovative product development, while Mermoud continues to run the company’s racing program.
What made that story even more interesting to me, in my current case of metatarsalgia that’s not quite over. It would appear shoes like Hoka could help address it due to their features like thick, cushioned mid-soles, wide toe boxes, and a rocker sole design that reduces pressure on the forefoot. The cushioning absorbs impact, the wider fit decreases compression, and the rocker geometry helps facilitate a smoother, more efficient stride, all of which can alleviate the pain associated with this condition. A compelling reason to step into a pair of Hoka. I’ll keep you posted !
So here we are in 2008 as Jean-Luc Diard gets together with Nicolas Mermoud, himself former marketing manager at Salomon who later worked at Rossignol. Both decided to start a joint venture. They believe that innovation has limitless potential in the outdoor sporting goods industry and they fit this opening.
Working on running shoes is their goal and this domain is ripe for significant innovations, especially in view of the fact that minimalist shoes in trail footwear is the rage, but is too much performance-oriented and ignore masses chiefly looking for fun and comfort. They also believe that it’s not the runners’ responsibility to adapt to the terrain, but it’s their shoes that should, quite a paradigm shift!
Still, starting a new shoe brand remains a risky endeavor as the world is just entering one of its worst financial crises. Still both men see a path to spearheading innovation and think that some “over-sized” design evolution as an attention-getter trend. From golf club drivers, to tennis rackets, wide skis or fat bike tires, over-sizing can generate a lot of consumers’ attraction.
As a practicing trail runner, Mermoud knows full well that just like uphill sections, downhill segments on a race can be fraught with danger and injuries of all kinds and no manufacturer appears to address this. This triggers a search for a trail shoe design that could literally fly on the uphill as well as in the downhill part of a course.
Another Salomon alumni, Christophe Aubonnet and Sébastien Mazars designed a shoestring and in just a few months a totally new sole that will be the foundation of the Hoka One One, which means “flying on earth” in Maori. This time the sole is the opposite of minimalism as its bulky look goes in the opposite direction. At the start-up company, all the principals are sure the shoe will be seen as revolutionary and be loved at first sight.
Reality however will be drastically different when the shoe is officially unveiled before the industry and the press. Some quickly say that it looks like podiatrist footwear for older folks, a far cry from the youth and trendy image hoped for the product. Even racers who’re seen on the shoe get mocked, hearing they look like astronauts walking on the moon! In the next blog, we’ll discover how that view will soon be turned around...
It’s only this year, through and quite randomly, that I became fully aware of Hoka shoes. I had seen them before but without much interest. It’s when I saw a septuagenarian, neighbor of mine wearing a pair and after I talked to him about his experience with that footwear that my interest sparked up.
After some quick research, I learned that Hoka was founded in 2009 by Nicolas Mermoud and Jean-Luc Diard, both former Salomon employees. This goes a long way in recognizing the reservoir of talent that Salomon truly was.
Diard began with Salomon in 1981 and was promoted to marketing director in 1989, was put in charge of brand development in 1997, just when the ski company got sold to Adidas and began to lose its soul. In 1998, Diard became the company’s president and successfully developed its trail running division.
Through 2005 Diard kept going in the complicated marriage with Adidas and finally the German based brand through the towel and sold Salomon to the Finnish group Amer that already owned Atomic skis, Wilson tennis and Suunto among other sport related brands. In 2008, the book “Born to Run” sparked running with "barefoot" or minimalist shoe designs and increasing interest in ultra-running and trail running, though some of its claims about shoes immediately created debate.
The book popularized the idea that modern, highly cushioned shoes can cause injuries and that a more natural, forefoot-strike running style (as seen in the Tarahumara people) was healthier. This led to a boom in minimalist footwear, ultra-running events, and a broader interest in running naturally and for its own sake, rather than just for competition.
In spite of athletic success with that kind of product, Jean-Louis Diard wasn’t so sure and at the same time, his relationship with Amer Sports deteriorating, he parted way with Salomon. Tomorrow, we’ll see how this would trigger the birth of Hoka.
My wife gets into our neighborhood grocery store and says: “Wait for me here, and don’t you runaway with a young girl!” Stoically, I answer: “Absolutely not, no one younger that 40!” At that moment a strange sport SUV stops next to where I stand.
Its special blue color gets my attention. Its driver, a 50 something, blond, elegant, and good looking lady steps out of the car.
As she gets near me, I go: “Fantastic color!” She smiled and nods, “Blue Uranus” she said, and I continue: “What kind of car is that, I’ve never seen one like this, it’s beautiful?” She replied: “Lamborghini, thank you”.
The color, not particularly beautiful was shocking enough to get plenty of attention and that was the central idea…
Later on I found out it was a Lamborghini Urus, right, in Blue Uranus (a custom color), that would likely range in price from around $240,000 to over $300,000 depending on its options.
A few days ago, following a substantially new snowfall, I was sitting on the chairlift, next to a young man equipped with a strange pair of skis. Long, wide and with what could be called a “negative sidecut”, meaning that instead of having a narrow waist, that ski had a wide one, as shown on the photo.
This ski had been produced by Salt Lake City’s DPS, now a popular specialty ski brand, founded in 2005 by Stephan Drake. DPS is an acronym for Drake PowderworkS.
In the early 2000s Drake wanted to create a ski that could float on top of powder while at about the same time, the late extreme skier Shane McConkey was shaking up his own ski design—the Volant Spatula—with Peter Turner, who eventually ended up joining forces with Drake to turn their outlandish dreams into reality, pioneering one of the first rockered skis ever made, the Wailer.
The skis I saw were some discontinued 2016 Lotus model, about 140 mm wide underfoot and really not made for skiing on powder sitting on hard-pack like the 10 inches (25 cm) we had that day, but that needed true “bottomless” powder to be used.
I didn’t envy my chairlift companion for trying to torture what amounted to “2x4” into a rounded turn under the circumstances, but again, innovation in skiing has always belonged to those brave spirits willing to try!
Last week, a French friend of mine from Vail, Colorado has been contacted by the new French distributor that is now trying to market an exoskeleton contraption called Ski~Mojo in America, and asked me for my opinion on the product.
Since I had come across a few exoskeleton devices that have come and gone, I didn’t have much to say, except do some research about it. Ski~Mojo is an exoskeleton meant to make skiing less tiring and help with sore or painful legs, contributing (allegedly) to more time spent on the slope with less fatigue. The principle behind Ski~Mojo is based on a powerful adjustable spring supporting one third of the body's weight, a claim that is to my knowledge not really substantiated.
According to that assertion, the Ski~Mojo is said to increase skiing pleasure. This of course is the opinion of those who are promoting the device. It was developed by Owen Eastwood, a British engineer who began skiing at age 55 but found that his legs were not up to the task.
The solution, in development for 11 years and launched in 2007 consisted of a strap around the skier’s butt, connected to spring-loaded arms running down to the knee, which in turn were linked by composite rods to the back of the boots. Loaded by the weight of the body, the springs are holding the skier in a knees-bent position, and after bending down, the skier springs back to an upright position, with less effort and far faster than usual, ready for the next turn.
The marketers claim that the powerful adjustable spring supports one third of the skier's weight. By compressing the springs during the flexion phase, it restores energy and increases muscle power during extension. They also claim that the suspension effect of the springs reduces shock and pressure on the knees by 40%. It’s also said to relieve hips and back.
Their sales pitch goes by saying that bending the knees requires an imperceptible additional expenditure of energy (probably due to gravity). This additional work of the hamstrings, estimated at 10%, combined with a contraction of the quadriceps reduced by 30%, protects the cruciate ligaments, delays and limits the production of lactic acid (this is what the company, not a qualified orthopedic doctor says).
Same story about reducing the risks of accidents linked to fatigue as well as aches. The contraption can be set up as one dresses up in a couple of minutes and is sleek enough to be worn under the ski pants, unless the skier prefers to flaunt the device. The Ski~Mojo promoters claim that, on average, four out of five people who try the device adopt it.
Obviously the exoskeleton device is aimed at ski pros as well as recreational users who want to ski longer, with less strain, also skiers with weak knees or quadriceps and of course, elderly people like me, looking to limit falls (???) and fatigue. In France, there are supposedly thousand of users, including many instructors and other professionals.
Units yearly sales are in the three thousand range through 320 European retailers, with a total 20,000 users. The company is currently looking into expending in America and I’d love to try it, to verify if it delivers as much as the promotion suggests. Their target price is just below $1,000 but it might be available for rent, for those like me that are reasonably skeptical, especially in view of all the company’s unsubstantiated claims and figures.
I’ll let you know when and if I can rent a Ski~Mojo to ski with!
It’s hard for me not to put together these two car brands and for similar reasons. First, I see revolutionary designs in both the Tesla model S introduced in 2012 and the Citroën DS-19 launched in 1955. While Citroën’s model might have been the most innovative car for the 20th century, Tesla ushered in the 21st century by also upsetting the automotive rules through innovation.
In 1955, the DS-19 offered ground breaking aerodynamic design in an effort to reduce drag and improve fuel efficiency. Its hydraulic suspension, called “hydro or oleo pneumatic”, provided a smooth and comfortable ride, as well as automatic self-leveling capabilities.
The car also featured power steering and power brakes to make driving more effortless and safer. There was also more advanced technology inside that car, like a semi-automatic (“Citromatic”) transmission, disc brakes, and later on, swiveling headlights that improved visibility into corners.
Finally, there were more innovations like a fiberglass roof, one-spoke steering wheel and safety features such as a collapsible steering column, a padded dashboard, and engineered crumple zones to prioritize passenger protection.
As for the 2012 Tesla model S, the internal combustion engine was gone and replaced by an electric motor that offered practical long-range capabilities as well as an impressive performance only found in true sport cars.
The package was rounded up with the firm’s supercharger network that provided free access to high-speed charging infrastructure, addressing range anxiety that, from the get go, was a major perceived downside with electric vehicles.
Then, features like autopilot and the perspective of self-driving capabilities. The model S Autopilot could control the vehicle's steering, acceleration, and braking under certain conditions. Another total innovation were Tesla’s over-the-air updates, pushing software modifications directly to the car's systems in order to enable continuous improvements, add new features and enhance performance over time.
Finally, the car’s interior and infotainment were as minimalist as they were futuristic, with a large touchscreen infotainment system consolidating controls, including vocal commands, and displaying vehicle information.
A year or so ago, I found this beautiful white cap while walking around my neighborhood. At the time, I assumed it had fallen off a truck or some open vehicle. Since I thought it looked rather good, I have worn it from time to time since that time.
I’ve also tried to decipher what was scribbled on it without much success and settled on some probable initials like NW. I even tried Google Lens, an app used to identify objects and it could only return that it might be a “William Murray golf hat” which of course wasn’t even close.
That was until last night, during our after-dinner walk, when I happened to have that special white hat on. We came across a couple walking in the opposite side of the road towards us. We greeted each others and the man said “Where did you get that hat?” I answered “That’s a very long story…” which it truly was.
The man replied: “That’s my company, ‘Mark Wintzer’ is the name!” I answered: “If is as stunning as the hat is, it must be a hell of a great company!”
Most of Park City is roughly at 7,000 feet elevation. While not as high as most Colorado ski resorts, that in certain areas can be approaching 10,000 feet, there are many people who are not able to tolerate the thinner mountain air for a number of medical reasons (COPD and other respiratory ailments among others).
This creates problems that could be seen as linked to altitude sickness, like fatigue, dizziness, and headaches. So, it’s not uncommon to have visitors, second or even permanent homeowners looking forward to living in a beautiful mountain-high environment but unable to enjoy it fully because of rarefied oxygen levels in the air.
Slowly acclimating to high altitude is one way to prevent these discomforts. When traveling to over 8,000 feet above sea level, it would be a good idea to take several days to climb to your final altitude or to ease slowly into strenuous exercise. In fact, doctors recommend spending two to three days of gaining altitude slowly to adjust to changes in elevation with some suggesting gaining only 1,000 feet per day. Ascending slowly enables the body to adjust to higher elevations by allowing red blood cells to carry more oxygen to different parts of your body.
This is however not what visitors typically do. As lengths of stay are becoming shorter, every visiting hour counts, and as soon as visitors gets to Park City, they can’t wait to hit the slopes. Then, there’s the recommendation to “play high, sleep low”. This means that one can play and ski at a high altitude but travel lower to sleep, which allows the body takes in the oxygen needed to combat the thin air affecting a full days of “playing”.
That’s where companies that precisely can provide “oxygenated” nights come into play with new technology and equipment able to oxygenate bedrooms in Rocky Mountain vacation homes. There are a number of these companies going after affluent homeowners that can be persuaded to minimize the debilitating effects of rarefied oxygen in altitude by outfitting their sleeping quarters.
The air unit is controlled by a small tablet size controller on the bedroom wall and can also be controlled by a smart phone app. The room must be airtight with strict safety features to prevent risk of fire so the system can safely pump oxygen into the bedroom.
So the rationale goes that a tired body is able to absorb more oxygen at night while sleeping in such a control environment, rejuvenate itself and wake up with the energy needed to enjoy a full day of skiing. As you can imagine, I find these solutions a bit extreme and gimmicky and the systems required to make them work are very complicated and not cheap. Installation alone can run $300,000 for an average home, so it’s not for everyone.
At that rate and if I happen to feel short of breath at the end of the day, I might have to ski a bit less aggressively next time I’m on the slopes!
Attempts to create a cable closure system in ski boots are not really new. Raichle had it in the late 60s, improved it a bit on its plastic boots and later, Ed Chalmers’ Osprey boot based its lower shell closure on it, but never reach market.
As the rear-entry boot design was sent to ski industry’s hell, most cable closure systems pretty much disappeared from ski boots and it was the return to the antique four-buckle closure system.
In 2001, Gary Hammerslag, a snowboarder and surfer entrepreneur who had moved to Steamboat, Colorado, envisioned to dramatically improve the snowboard boot lacing systems by creating BOA, a micro-adjustable, precision fit that would ultimately equip K2 and Vans in 2001.
The two brand partners that took a chance have now become over 300 snowboarding brand partners using BOA. The system was later applied to trail running, bike shoes, randonnée boots and next season it will be transferred to alpine ski boots made by Atomic, Fischer, K2 et Salomon.
Will the system be strong enough for stiffer, lower shells? How hard will they be to tighten manually? Will it last as least as long as the venerable buckles harking back to the 60s?
Many questions that remain to be answered, but for once, a tiny bit of innovation in a product that has seen no major breakthrough in more than half a century!
Posts
