old Hart Professional metal skis?

[rch427]

I recently obtained a pair of Hart "Professional" skis from, I believe, the late 1950s. I also have a couple of pairs of Harts from the '60s with black decks and red plastic bases, but this pair is a different animal, with applied chrome "Hart" insignia going diagonally across the tops near the tips, and black bases of a different finish; almost like painted metal. The materials and workmanship seem to be a lot higher in quality than the later red-bottomed Harts (better than my Head Standards too), and the condition is fantastic.

I intend to ski on these this winter, so I'm doing a little research into the skis and how to set them up; so far I can't find any mention on-line of this model existing. They're 205cm long and rather stiff. I'm 6'3", and a very conservative and slow skier, so I think they'll be OK. (As an aside, I'm always amused by people who are aghast at the thought of me skiing on 1960s gear -- as if hundreds of thousands of people didn't ski on just such gear, or worse, back then, and live to tell about it!)

Does anyone have any idea as to when these were made? I looked through the back issues of Skiing magazine at the local library, but they only go back as far as 1966.

The skis are in excellent condition, but there are a few very minor scuffs to the finish of the tops. Any idea how I could go about effacing them? Would automotive buffing compound be safe?

They came mounted with Marker cable bindings; not really something I want to ski with. I have a good, used pair of step-in Look Nevadas (with the rotating heel platter), and a pair of Contact Skimatic step-ins from about 1964 that are new, old-stock. They look more "modern" than the Looks, but I don't know if they're as reliable. Any opinions?

Does anyone have any info about how to disassemble, clean, inspect and lubricate bindings? I'm quite handy and have just about any tools needed, but there's no replacement for diagrams and/or experience.

I've asked at a couple of local ski shops, but no one seems to be willing to mount 40 year-old bindings on 40 year-old skis; they all say that liability and the law prevent them from doing so. I don't know whether this is true or they just want to sell me new gear, but it looks like I'll need to find an independent tech to mount and test them. Can anyone recommend such a person in the San Francisco area?

Sorry about the blizzard of questions. Thanks in advance for any advice.

-- Robert

[Seth]

Your Hart Pros may have been built in the early '60s, but the lacquered aluminum base makes it likely that they were made earlier. The factory was founded in 1955, the year after polyethylene bases were first introduced in Europe. I found an ad for the black-top Professional in a 1962 issue of Ski Business -- by that time the Pro certainly would have had a plastic base. Suggested retail price was $84.50.

The reason the skis are so stiff (and heavy!) is the construction. The lower layer of metal isn't aluminum, but perforated steel, to which the edges are spot-welded.

The topskin is, like the sidewalls, of phenolic plastic. This is tough stuff and you should be able to refinish it. I'd try buffing it with progressively finer grades of steel wool. When I worked in a ski shop in 1970 we refinished phenolic-top skis regularly, including refreshing the engraved logos on Head skis. You'll have to work carefully around the Hart's applied chrome logo -- it would be a shame to ding that.

I wouldn't ski on either the Markers or the Skimatics. You don't say whether the Look is the original Nevada I, which requires a notched boot toe, or the more modern Nevada II, with toe wings. Functionally, the Nevada II is still a pretty good binding, but if you do mount it up be sure to add a Teflon anti-friction pad. The binding is made of heavy aluminum forgings and is almost bulletproof. Big concern would be the release springs, which have been under tension for some decades and may have fatigued. This means it's important to TEST the bindings for release function after mounting and adjusting. Best bet is to ask around amongst the older instructors and patrollers at a nearby resort and find someone who used to maintain his own stuff.

Shops won't touch these old bindings because they don't have liability insurance to cover them.

If you know how to work on small engines or can swap out gear rings on a bicycle, you probably have the mechanical skills to disassemble, clean, lube and reassemble the Looks. It's just a matter of unscrewing the adjuster caps, pulling out the springs, and checking for cracks, corrosion and other mechanical nastiness. With the toe spring out, the body of the toe unit should slip right off the mounting pivot. Getting it all back together may involve figuring out a way to compress the springs --

Nothing in this message should be interpreted as approval of your Ancient Ski & Binding Adventure.

But let us know how it goes. I'll bet you find the skis so slooooow that you'll be eager to get off them.

Seth

[rch427]

Thanks for all of the info, Seth!

So, the top and sidewalls are phenolic plastic -- like Bakelite? I've restored a few Bakelite radios, and they responded pretty well to rubbing out with 400 and 600-grit wet sandpaper, but I think you're right about the steel wool, or even fine Scotchbrite pads for the final rubbing-out.

The Looks I have must be the second series, as they have independent "wings", as you say, that have about a one-inch gap between their bottoms and the top-deck. Glad to know I can use them. Refurbishing them should be a fun project. I just rebuilt the engine of an old Vespa scooter, so at least it won't be as involved as that!

I also have a pair of Cubcos, but no boot plates for them. Maybe I'll try them on another pair of skis. And I've recently picked up a binding release tester, so it looks like I'll need to become familiar with its use. Pretty sure one of my old books describes the process.

The two pairs of Nevadas that I have are presently mounted on another pair of (later '60s) Harts, and a pair of Head Standards, which are approximately the same length as the older Harts I want to put them on. I haven't measured where they're mounted, but I've heard that bindings are usually mounted in the center of the ski's length. Would that be true for these as well, or would old, stiff metal skis benefit from having the bindings mounted slightly fore or aft? And how does one determine the center of the skis -- from tip to tail, or the end of the flat bottom surface to tail? For the binding center -- in the center of the boot?

Thanks again for the advice, and don't worry -- I absolve everyone from any responsibility for my strange notions. Being a slow skier, these Harts may actually be too fast for my taste!

-- Robert

[Seth]

Bindings should be located so that the head of the metatarsal (the ball of the foot) is at the center of the ski's running surface. This is a tough measurement to make accurately. In practical terms it usually means putting the toe of the boot (not the toe of the foot) at the midpoint of the chord length -- that is, measure the straight-line distance from tip to tail, divide by two, and then, measuring from the tail bar, mark the top of the ski for the toe of the boot.

Yes, Bakelite is phenolic. Many skis from the 40s and 50s had a phenolic base, too, often called Ebonite. Your skis may have this.

The problem with the old binding tester (probably a Lipe Tester) is that there's no assurance the the tester's calibrated spring has survived with less fatigue than the binding springs -- so you can't count on its accuracy.

Seth

[rch427]

Thank you again, Seth, for the good advice!

I have two pairs of skis with Look Nevadas on them: one 195cm and the other 190, and I measured the exact positions of where the bindings were mounted, so I've calculated where they would be on my longer skis as a back-up measurement (back-up to the foot position you described, that is) to double-check the position for them when I mount them on the Harts I mentioned above.

Afraid I have a few more questions:

On one of the pairs of skis, the heel platters were mounted off-center by about 1/4". Is this probably to correct the former owner's anatomical peculiarities? I'm not aware of any issues with my feet, so is it safe to assume that I should mount them in the centers of the skis? (It looks like the slotted plate allows some adjustment after mounting.)

In disassembling the bindings, I'm having trouble getting the heel pieces apart -- specifically, the two rods on each side that connect the heel piece with the platter. The lower ends of the rods have 90-degree bends in them with flanged tips that fit through bent-up sides of the platter plate (note the red arrow below). Keeping these ends captive are spring-loaded, sliding keepers. In theory, if one could slide those keepers far enough back, it would allow the flanged tips to be popped out, but the springs are very strong and there's little to get a purchase on to be able to hold the sliders back. There is an adjustable screw that controls the tension of the springs, but it's got a tricky slotted head that fits into the plate and is almost impossible to get to (see the blue arrow). I've no doubt that there was either a special Look tool for assembling/disassembling these things, but lacking that, I'm hoping there's some sort of workaround trick. Any ideas?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v332/pygar/bindings.jpg

Also, those connecting rods are in two pieces, and threaded for adjusting the length of their reach. What was the purpose of adjusting their length, and thus the distance between the heel piece and the platter? Do you have any idea how I could calculate how long to set them? If it helps any, I'm 6'3", 170lb, wear size 13 boots and am a slow, conservative skier.

Finally, packed inside of these things is prehistoric, mustard-colored grease. I've cleaned out as much of it as I can with solvent and Q-tips and I now need to re-pack it. What sort of lubricant would you suggest? And should I also lubricate the flat brass anti-friction ring that goes in-between the two halves of each platter?

As for the binding release tester -- yep, it's a Lipe, but it's new, old-stock, so hopefully the only spring fatigue I'll have to worry about is just from losing its temper over the years.

Thanks in advance for any advice you might have time to share. I hope your holidays are going well and the new year is good to you.

Cheers --

Robert




Bindings should be located so that the head of the metatarsal (the ball of the foot) is at the center of the ski's running surface. This is a tough measurement to make accurately. In practical terms it usually means putting the toe of the boot (not the toe of the foot) at the midpoint of the chord length -- that is, measure the straight-line distance from tip to tail, divide by two, and then, measuring from the tail bar, mark the top of the ski for the toe of the boot.

Yes, Bakelite is phenolic. Many skis from the 40s and 50s had a phenolic base, too, often called Ebonite. Your skis may have this.

The problem with the old binding tester (probably a Lipe Tester) is that there's no assurance the the tester's calibrated spring has survived with less fatigue than the binding springs -- so you can't count on its accuracy.

Seth

[Seth]

Hey, Robert --

Sorry for the delay. I've been teaching skiing over the holiday and am just now getting back online.

The purpose of the length adjustment is to fine-tune the location of the heel roller on what would have been a non-standard leather sole. Marker turntables of the same era had an analogous adjustment using a different mechanism.

My memory of the Nevada heel is that the keeper spring wasn't very stiff; perhaps you have some dirt or corrosion in there, thanks to the proximity of dissimilar metals. The only advice I have is to make a special tool, perhaps by slotting the end of a thin hardwood dowel, to use in driving the screw forward with a mallet.

Let us know how this works out.

Seth

[AFRCPAUL]

Robert,
I skied those bindings when they were new and worked on them in my dads ski shop. I never had any trouble pulling the keeper back against those small springs and pulling out the 90 degree bend. That piece is the adjustment for boot length and height. The back side of the keeper, the sloted dohicky thing needs to be turned a 1/4 turn to allow more space for the keeper to slide back. You have to push it (the sloted dohicky thing; blue arrow) forward (towards the spring) with a screwdriver and then turn it a 1/4 turn so it seats in a deeper slot and thus allows for more travel for the actual keeper. In your picture, it appears to be in the 'locked' position. In those days, not all of the boot makers built to a standard sole thickness or width. In fact, the toe pieces of the day all had adjustments for height. The Nevada II toe could adjust the wings to open or close as well as up or down.
And I would not get on them today to win a dare!!!
AFRC Paul