 Poster: A snowHead
|
I've got the gear itch which is looking expensive because I'm at the point that if I buy probably only makes sense if I commit to tech bindings implying buying new boots, bindings, skis, skins and ski crampons. Ouch.
Anyway, I'm struck that the latest lightweight freeride skis with rockers or early rise tips ski shorter allowing you to go longer. Thing is this probably means I could comfortably ski downhill on skis that are too long for comfort for ascents with repeated kick-turns...
What do people think is a good compromise. I'm about 176cm barefoot and have done hut to hut tours on 184s but frankly found them a little cumbersome uphill. I'm not an experienced ski-tourer so I guess it would get easier but my hunch is something around 180 would be better.
What do people think?
Was thinking about whitedot ranger carbonlite, black crows navis freebird or something similar...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
How heavy are you? Unless you're a beefy boy I'd go for something shorter I.e. 170's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
It's a bit of a matter of taste (and how flexible your hips are) - I am bigger than you and generally ski on 185-190 for off piste. These are also my touring skis and I don't think I have ever wished for shorter
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Owen - 78kg in normal clothes - last few years I've skied on conventional sidecuts from 174-184
Arno - what is that 5-10cm more than your height?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@jedster, i'm about 187cm I think - I might ski longer skis if they were available, but they generally top out at 185-190cm
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@jedster, im same height as you and 82kg and I ski 186 Ranger CL's for exactly what you describe, go long not short is my advice. These coupled with Dynafit Beast 16's and Mercury Boots, awesome set up. Suggest you speak to Spyderjon at Piste Office, he's the font of knowledge when it comes to this stuff! By the way the skis are awesome, and go anywhere skis 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm 5 foot 9, however that works out in cms, and 68-70kg.
For normal skiing I like skis around 190 long. Last season and last week I've been touring on 193 skis. Great for descents, but a BITCH for steep kickturns. Moderate slopes are ok, but on steep slopes I have to slide the tail of one ski under the centre of the other - which basically means I can only tour on steeper slopes in powder/soft snow conditions. Not the end of the world, but gets a bit sketchy when conditions unexpectedly change...
For me I think 183-185cm long would be the best compromise for up and down. I don't see the point in going shorter as the descent is the main part for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. Proper advice from the Clarkmeister!! 186 Rangers it is then....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Hi guys, all good advice for the length if you are looking for downhill performance, however if you are really optimising for the climb then the 177 Rangers are worth considering & are still pretty stable for the down  A few of our ambassadors who are not too shy of steep descents ride the 177 happily. Personally I prefer the girth & length of the Ragnarok, but that's purely personal...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I was touring last season on the 195 Rangers and they were distinctly interesting to kick turn on steep, hard spring snow. I've since discovered the obvious technique where you keep the skis pretty horizontal and get very duck footed. That works but is still a big pain. In contrast 190 skis are straightforward and the majority of the skis I've toured on are between 180-185. I'm 6'1" for reference.
FWIW I'm looking at slimming down my ski collection and getting the 186 Völkl Nanutaq as a pure touring ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@jedster, I'm 175cm/79kg & ski the 186cm CarbonLite Rangers with Beasts as a freeride touring ski. I really like the length but the down is waaay more important to me than the up so I've only skinning on 'em for a couple of hours max. If your brief is similar then go 186cm with Rad 2's or Beasts but if your looking to do longer tours/hut to hut stuff then do 177cm with Rad 2's or Speed Radicals. And I've got all of them in stock, inc skins'n'crampons 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
@spyderjon,
Good man, they'll be tying you down if it gets windy on those cols soon!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@jedster, how long is long?
I wouldn't size down/care about weight reductions past what I said above until I was approaching 2000m vert a day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@jedster, 175-180 sounds like it should be about right
if I was in the market for a ski for that kind of thing, I'd probably go a wee bit narrower than the ones you're looking at (90-95mm underfoot I think), but I already have some skis suitable for touring which are 105mm so I'd be looking for something a little better for technical skinning
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
It's about the down not the up IMO, I'd go 186.....in fact I did!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@Markymark29, I'd class the Domes de Miage/Glacier Armancette as a ski mountaineering objective so the up gets a bit more important. i'd do it on 105 underfoot skis, but there would probably be situations where I'd much rather have 90/95mm ones!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
@Arno, yep, I get its serious stuff, the Ranger CL's at 186 will handle it, and give you a proper down too, but hey it's down to the individual, asked for an opinion, can only give one......
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
K2 Coomback 181cm have been my light weight choice for the last couple of winters and they are totally fine on the way up. They've launched two new Coomback skis this year a 104mm and a 114mm I'm thinking the 104mm is going to be ace at around 181cm and a longer 114mm for bigger days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I'm skiing on Whitedot Carbonlite Rangers as well, love them. A great balance of being a solid fun ski underfoot and light enough for the up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Arno - I agree, if they were going to be a pure ski mountaineering ski I'd go skinnier too. But I'll use them for lift served stuff too.... compromises compromises. Probably get them quiverkillered though so I could pick up something skinnier in due course.
Markymark - I'm pretty sure the 186s would be better downhill but when a typical days is 6-8 hours up and 30 mins down then something that makes kick turns at 4000m a bit easier is worth having I reckon. I know I caught the tails a bit on 184s and it does add to the fatigue (which also has an impact on the downhill). But again compromises compromises....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
).
