 Poster: A snowHead
|
I've been using my old Cham 2.0 97 this year (for obligatory touring here in France). They were transformed for uphill by a light modern binding. This type of ski will do everything you ask. I know there are more modern alternatives now but the basic idea is still the same (the BC Camox Freebird has nearly identical side cut for example). When these break (too many gauges near the edge) I'll be shopping for something similar for touring. Maybe slightly lighter and maybe something that now skis slightly better but there's not much I'd change in the 95-100 width.
The binding is brilliant and is ATK C-Raider (same as ATK Raider 12 at the back but lighter and less (pointlessly) adjustable at the front)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Ed_sec wrote: |
| The binding is brilliant and is ATK C-Raider (same as ATK Raider 12 at the back but lighter and less (pointlessly) adjustable at the front) |
Does this mean you can adjust the the binding length at both ends of the boot?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| DB wrote: |
| Ed_sec wrote: |
| The binding is brilliant and is ATK C-Raider (same as ATK Raider 12 at the back but lighter and less (pointlessly) adjustable at the front) |
Does this mean you can adjust the the binding length at both ends of the boot? |
No. The C-Raider is the Raider 12 but with a weight saving carbon toe that doesn't have the (pointless) adjustable uphill boot tension mechanism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| spyderjon wrote: |
| DB wrote: |
| Ed_sec wrote: |
| The binding is brilliant and is ATK C-Raider (same as ATK Raider 12 at the back but lighter and less (pointlessly) adjustable at the front) |
Does this mean you can adjust the the binding length at both ends of the boot? |
No. The C-Raider is the Raider 12 but with a weight saving carbon toe that doesn't have the (pointless) adjustable uphill boot tension mechanism. |
Thanks spyderjon, that's exactly it.
Love the binding for just over 300g a foot though.
It even has separate adjustments for vertical and horizontal release as I discovered by having only adjusted one of them 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
@PaulC1984,
Do those skis weigh 2.3 kg each?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| spyderjon wrote: |
No. The C-Raider is the Raider 12 but with a weight saving carbon toe that doesn't have the (pointless) adjustable uphill boot tension mechanism. |
Ah yes we’ve discussed this before, forgot it was ATK that had that tension gizmo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So for the FX HP = 1890g for a 180cm length and 1970g for the 188cm.
Yes going for something like those and swaping the shifts out for a lighter touring binding on long tours is going to save around 850g / foot (=12kg on your back)
With the V-werks Mantra you would save another 100g per ski (another 1.4 kg on your back) which according to Proski lab is a better ski. - Anybody skied both?
Something like the Scott Superguide 95 or Salomon MTN EXplore 95 would save another 200g per foot (and a few quid for a Yorkshire man) but give less performance.
As I said before it's all down to what the skier means by ski touring, and how fit they are in relation to others in the group. If he / she is just doing short sidecountry / day tours then the FX series with shifts is great for that. If however they mean hut to hut high alpine multiday ski tours then they might end up having great skis on their feet but no energy to ski them.
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Sat 29-05-21 10:17; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
So back to the original question ... ave I missed something or are we still running into the ultra lightness for touring as a bit of a hard constraint to get over?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| So back to the original question ... ave I missed something or are we still running into the ultra lightness for touring as a bit of a hard constraint to get over? |
The Scott Slight that @spyderjon mentions is 1450g for the 178, 1360g for the 163 and seems to get pretty good reviews for a multi purpose ski!
For me I am keeping my r.98s (1990g each) for touring/freeriding, but have
changed the boots to Atomic prime xtd 130 - 2kg savings
changed my bindings to shifts - - 400g savings but also the underfoot saving on the up is much greater due to the pin attachment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| kitenski wrote: |
| under a new name wrote: |
| So back to the original question ... ave I missed something or are we still running into the ultra lightness for touring as a bit of a hard constraint to get over? |
The Scott Slight that @spyderjon mentions is 1450g for the 178, 1360g for the 163 and seems to get pretty good reviews for a multi purpose ski!
|
At that weight you must be giving up downhill performance. Just make sure she’s doing enough touring for that compromise to make sense.
I also have light skis in the 1400g range (albeit 185cm length) but would never use them as an all round ski. Apart from anything else the light materials are fragile as I have learnt to my cost!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
So... @kitenski, @BobinCH, we aren't in that [i]ultra[/b] light range then are we? (Volkl Rise Above @ 1,190g ea.)
My BDs are 1,600g each and I defo wouldn't want to go any heavier! I'd be happy with them all round other than wanting them longer - tip rocker makes them a bit skittish on hard pack.
But maybe I'm just being too picky? @BobinCH, what did you use for the Patrouille and the Haute Route?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| under a new name wrote: |
So... @kitenski, @BobinCH, we aren't in that [i]ultra[/b] light range then are we? (Volkl Rise Above @ 1,190g ea.)
My BDs are 1,600g each and I defo wouldn't want to go any heavier! I'd be happy with them all round other than wanting them longer - tip rocker makes them a bit skittish on hard pack.
But maybe I'm just being too picky? @BobinCH, what did you use for the Patrouille and the Haute Route? |
I used the Movement Alp Track 106’s (185) with Alpinists for the Haute Route. 1400g ski with 300g binding. Zero-G at approx 1500g with custom liners/booster etc. It was perfect for the ups and soft snow/pow descents. It is not good on boiler plate. But this is for 4-6 hour days - not something I do very often.
But for what the OP requested above I have Blizzard Rustler 11 (180) with Shifts. This setup is perfect for Slack country access where you want a ski you can rely on in all conditions. It is fine on piste too but has quite a large radius so I bought the Kastle FX 96 HP after my wife raved about the women’s version. I put Alpine Bindings on it. With its shorter radius it is more fun than the Blizzard Rustlers on piste and good enough off piste to be enjoyable unless the snow is really funky. It’s also great smashing through crud and chopped up snow. Which is why I think it would make a great 1-ski quiver. It is light years better than the Movement Alp Tracks in any firm conditions which is why I would be careful of a really light ski as a 1-ski quiver. YMMV
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I also got the missus some Scott Speed Guides for longer tours. It is a different weight category again (approx 1100g I think for 170). She loves them on the ups but is in survival mode on the descents if the snow is tricky and she’s a good skier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
| kitenski wrote: |
| under a new name wrote: |
| So back to the original question ... ave I missed something or are we still running into the ultra lightness for touring as a bit of a hard constraint to get over? |
The Scott Slight that @spyderjon mentions is 1450g for the 178, 1360g for the 163 and seems to get pretty good reviews for a multi purpose ski!
|
At that weight you must be giving up downhill performance. Just make sure she’s doing enough touring for that compromise to make sense.
I also have light skis in the 1400g range (albeit 185cm length) but would never use them as an all round ski. Apart from anything else the light materials are fragile as I have learnt to my cost! |
Suspect the scotts are a lot more sturdy than you think. Would love to try them as they could be an ideal powderless East Austria/Scotland touring ski.
Scott Slight 83 vs Movement Alp tracks 106
Weight = 1450g vs 1400 g (1320g at 178)
Length = 178cm vs 185cm
Waist = 83mm vs 106mm
The Scott slight 83's are a very similar weight to a lot of highly rated touring skis that have 95mm+ waists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| DB wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
| kitenski wrote: |
| under a new name wrote: |
| So back to the original question ... ave I missed something or are we still running into the ultra lightness for touring as a bit of a hard constraint to get over? |
The Scott Slight that @spyderjon mentions is 1450g for the 178, 1360g for the 163 and seems to get pretty good reviews for a multi purpose ski!
|
At that weight you must be giving up downhill performance. Just make sure she’s doing enough touring for that compromise to make sense.
I also have light skis in the 1400g range (albeit 185cm length) but would never use them as an all round ski. Apart from anything else the light materials are fragile as I have learnt to my cost! |
Suspect the scotts are a lot more sturdy than you think. Would love to try them as they could be an ideal powderless East Austria/Scotland touring ski.
Scott Slight 83 vs Movement Alp tracks 106
Weight = 1450g vs 1400 g (1320g at 178)
Length = 178cm vs 185cm
Waist = 83mm vs 106mm
The Scott slight 83's are a very similar weight to a lot of highly rated touring skis that have 95mm+ waists. |
If you’re just talking about a touring ski that’s fine and I agree go light. But if you’re going to use them for significant piste time/lift served off piste then you lose too much performance in a light ski IME.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@spyderjon,
Yep, a lot of good skis (82 to 86mm waist) out there that would make great one quiver piste / touring skis but they aren‘t available flat e.g. Atomic vantage TI, Völkl deacon etc.
When did they stop selling the flat version of the slight?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
If you’re just talking about a touring ski that’s fine and I agree go light. But if you’re going to use them for significant piste time/lift served off piste then you lose too much performance in a light ski IME. |
given my wife is 63kg and the reviews I've read I think the Scotts may well do a very good job. She ain't a racer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DB wrote: |
| @spyderjon,....When did they stop selling the flat version of the slight? |
It's only an issue on the 83 model at the moment.
19/20
The Slight 83 and the Slight 83 W were available in the flat only.
The Slight 93 and the Slight 93 W were available in the flat only.
The Slight 100 was available in the flat only.
I still have a handful of 19/20 Slight 83 W's in 168cm stashed away at Scott for customers.
20/21 This is were Scott starting offering a rail binding for which somebody in their Marketing Dept should be shot!
The Slight 83 was available in both but the Slight 83 W was with a rail binding only.
The Slight 93 was available in both but the Slight 93 W was with a rail binding only.
The Slight 100 was available in the flat only.
21/22
New Slight 77 TI with a rail binding only (which is very nice if you want a performance piste runner).
The Slight 83 and the Slight 83 W will only be available with a rail binding.
The Slight 93 will be available as both but the Slight 93 W will only be available with a rail binding.
The Slight 100 has been dropped 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
| If you’re just talking about a touring ski that’s fine and I agree go light. But if you’re going to use them for significant piste time/lift served off piste then you lose too much performance in a light ski IME. |
The slights are not that light though e.g.
Your light 106mm skis are 1400g per ski. THe FX 106 HP at a similar length is 2000g per ski = approx 43% heavier.
A light 85 mm touring ski would be around 1100g (e.g. Movement Alp Tracks 85 in a 178) the slights are 32% heavier.
The weight of the rider makes a big difference though, it's harder for a heavier rider to find a one ski quiver solution as they require the extra float offpiste and sturdiness/stiffness on piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@DB,
| Quote: |
The weight of the rider makes a big difference though, it's harder for a heavier rider to find a one ski quiver solution as they require the extra float offpiste and sturdiness/stiffness on piste.
|
Now you've got me thinking ... does it really? By how much? Does one need "float"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
@DB,
| Quote: |
The weight of the rider makes a big difference though, it's harder for a heavier rider to find a one ski quiver solution as they require the extra float offpiste and sturdiness/stiffness on piste.
|
Now you've got me thinking ... does it really? By how much? Does one need "float"? |
That's the reason I used the word "require" (specify as compulsory) rather than "need".
Do you need your 1600g touring skis - why don't you go for some 1100g super light weights?
Suppose ultimately it's all about what gives you the most fun for the right price (and weight).
If your tips keep diving on a deep powder day it's not as much fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^ As I see it : The easiest way to save weight with touring set up is a 300g pin binding.
Dynafit TLT speed is my favourite (timeless classic) but plum, marker alpinist, ATK etc all good.
With such bindings ascent is effortless and they ski fine for the descent.
You can then use the weight saved to select skis and boots that you are going to enjoy.
Skis => 1kg skis obviously climb well but ski crap (soft flex, easily deflected by variable snow)
At 1.5kg you can select a ski with stronger construction that will ski well in all snow conditions.
For touring I reckon ~90mm is a nice width : still fun in powder but works well in firmer snow.
Wider skis are simply more weight and drag from skins. Also, don't get touring skis too long or kick turns become awkward.
Boots => Similar to above... 1kg boot will climb well but might ski more like a wellington boot.
Boots that weigh 1.3kg-1.5ks are still light enough to make climbing fun but will ski noticeably better.
As ever what goes up must come down. So touring gear is always a compromise.
However lightest is not always best, unless you are in a ski-mo race.
Think "right weight" rather than "light-weight" (to quote blister gear-review).
IMvHO: 300g pin binding + 1.5kg ski + light-ish boots is a nice sweet spot for dedicated touring ski.
Light enough to climb 1500-2000m a day and still fun to ski in all snow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I'm pretty sure thi sall depends on the skier as much as the ski. (More really). When I've seen skiers from the past ski on ancient skis and bindings they are still amazing. Someone mentioned the White Rush German ski film of the 1930's- stunning skiing. And the extreme ski descents of the 19702 were of course on monsters. But fo rmortals- then yes there is a question- but the things you want are helped / hindered by different aspects of ski deign. So for example I foudd old fashioned Salomon 10802 / 1080 Foils really easy in powder / crud- but very wobbly on piste at speed- but great short and long swing turns unless fast.
But those blessed with an ability to get floppy skis perfectly on edge would I'm sure have no problems.
I have Whhitedot R98s (well Ranger 98- same ski) which I use exclusively- on telegear- great on crud and powder, light. OK on piste and I can carve when it isn't too steep on piste but then will washout a fair bit.
A light ski certainly helps me. Fitness and strength and technique will be really important aspects of ski choice. I'd guess that the Stockli offerings will ski great anywhere- if you are fit, strong and have great technique.
But I am guessing the search is for a multipurpose ski for the one-two or three week a year skier- possibly with a belly and aversion to the gym, rather than the lucky few.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Probably not helpful --- Volkl Mantras (2014 vintage?), 22Designs Outlaw, TX-Comp boots. Carve on piste, fun in bumps, crud, powder -- easy enough (if slow) on the skin back up. But it all does weigh a bit..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
But I am guessing the search is for a multipurpose ski for the one-two or three week a year skier- possibly with a belly and aversion to the gym, rather than the lucky few.
|
It would be nice to do a study to see just how much difference saving a few grams actually helps on the uphill. I do chuckle when I see out of shape guys with very modest touring goals debating gear and how to save 100g. They'd be better off just going for the odd run and eating a few less cakes.
If you are facing or have ambitious goals (huge vertical) going light makes sense. For recreational tourers don't sweat it, you might as well enjoy the downhill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
It would be nice to do a study to see just how much difference saving a few grams actually helps on the uphill. I do chuckle when I see out of shape guys with very modest touring goals debating gear and how to save 100g. They'd be better off just going for the odd run and eating a few less cakes.
If you are facing or have ambitious goals (huge vertical) going light makes sense. For recreational tourers don't sweat it, you might as well enjoy the downhill. |
Read often on here people saying things like "I'll put some shift bindings on my skis and try some touring".
An easy ski tour is similar in effort to ascending Scafell pike (more vert but lower altitude than a very easy tour in the alps).
100g weight on your foot = 0.1 x 2feet x 7 = 1.4 kg more on your back.
Just going for a proper ski touring binding rather than a shift =around 550g difference per foot = 7.7kg. equiv. weight on your back.
The difference bewteen a high performance touring ski (e.g. Völkl V-werks Mantra) and a freeride ski (e.g. Kästle FX 95) can be 600g per ski (1.7 vs 2.3kg @ approx. 186cm length).
So that's another 8.4 kg.
That's approx. 16 kg equivalent increased weight on your back in total.
With all the avi kit, water, skins, snacks etc contents of a ski touring ruck sack would weigh 4kg+.
Try walking up scafell pike with 4kg in your rucksack and then again with 20kg in your rucksack. Come back and tell me how negligible the difference was. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| DB wrote: |
| boarder2020 wrote: |
It would be nice to do a study to see just how much difference saving a few grams actually helps on the uphill. I do chuckle when I see out of shape guys with very modest touring goals debating gear and how to save 100g. They'd be better off just going for the odd run and eating a few less cakes.
If you are facing or have ambitious goals (huge vertical) going light makes sense. For recreational tourers don't sweat it, you might as well enjoy the downhill. |
Read often on here people saying things like "I'll put some shift bindings on my skis and try some touring".
An easy ski tour is similar in effort to ascending Scafell pike (more vert but lower altitude than a very easy tour in the alps).
100g weight on your foot = 0.1 x 2feet x 7 = 1.4 kg more on your back.
Just going for a proper ski touring binding rather than a shift =around 550g difference per foot = 7.7kg. equiv. weight on your back.
The difference bewteen a high performance touring ski (e.g. Völkl V-werks Mantra) and a freeride ski (e.g. Kästle FX 95) can be 600g per ski (1.7 vs 2.3kg @ approx. 186cm length).
So that's another 8.4 kg.
That's approx. 16 kg equivalent increased weight on your back in total.
With all the avi kit, water, skins, snacks etc contents of a ski touring ruck sack would weigh 4kg+.
Try walking up scafell pike with 4kg in your rucksack and then again with 20kg in your rucksack. Come back and tell me how negligible the difference was. |
I've not seen any literature where they calculate effect of ski weight on efficiency during touring. There is research on shoe weight, but I'm not sure it's the same as when ski touring you are not having to pick the foot up off the ground. My splitboard set up is not particularly light (never weighed it, but it's all standard to heavy parts, no fancy lightweight stuff), and it's far easier than carrying a 20kg backpack although I'm not sure they are too comparable, different muscle groups and demands. I'm not just not convinced those numbers work in reality.
The running research suggests 1 pound extra weight results in an extra 1.4secs per mile. Let's say you save 2kg on your ski set up = 4.4pounds = 6.16seconds per mile faster which doesn't seem worth worrying about. Although again I'm not sure how relevent it is, as running at top speed is likely to be effected more by weight than ski touring (essentially walking). I mean it's completely possible that you could put a kg on your foot and still maintain the same pace - yes you will burn more kcal but as long as you are maintaining below aerobic threshold intensity there is no reason the pace has to change. Going back to the example above my hiking speed with a 12kg bag and without a bag is pretty much the same, the extra weight is not limiting my performance. Of course there comes a speed (jog or running) or weight where it will make a difference. I think if I put an extra 1kg in your shoes and get you to hike scarfell pike you probably don't even notice it. It's not uncommon for body weight to naturally fluctuate 2kg per day and we don't notice that.
What I'd like to see is a study that shows the effect of ski weight on time to complete a 500m climb at 18% gradient. That would give us a real answer rather than leave us guessing and hypothesising.
Having seen plenty of guides crushing climbs on heavier set ups, and plenty of all the gear no idea types trailing behind their groups with their ultralight set ups. I'm in the camp that a person's fitness is way more likely to hold them back than equipment weight. Of course if you are racing a couple of seconds means everything. For the majority of us who just tour for fun and fresh lines I think getting something enjoyable for the downhill is more of a priority than saving a bit of weight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@boarder2020, I think it may be an urban myth to sell lighter and lighter (and more expensive) kit
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| I'm in the camp that a person's fitness is way more likely to hold them back than equipment weight |
I agree with this but in my experience it is still more comfortable and enjoyable touring on a lighter rig however fit you are. Slogging up something on a heavy rig (or with a heavy pack) reduces the enjoyment. And with modern skis the downhill performance can still be pretty good.
But if you’re talking about a 1 ski quiver for 80% piste/lift served then make sure you buy a ski that excels for that and take the compromise of some extra weight for the tours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
If you are facing or have ambitious goals (huge vertical) going light makes sense. For recreational tourers don't sweat it, you might as well enjoy the downhill. |
you need to try some modern ski touring kit 
pin bindings are the key to a touring set-up that can be light and still ski well on the way down.
a 1.5kg ski / 1.3kg boot plus 300g binding will climb nicely and ski well in any snow.
you can go lighter (proper ski-mo kit) but then the compromises on the down really start to become apparent.
irrespective of fitness lighter kit makes touring more fun.
you can go further and faster - which means more skiing with fresher legs.
what is there not to like about that ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
What I'd like to see is a study that shows the effect of ski weight on time to complete a 500m climb at 18% gradient. That would give us a real answer rather than leave us guessing and hypothesising.
Having seen plenty of guides crushing climbs on heavier set ups, and plenty of all the gear no idea types trailing behind their groups with their ultralight set ups. I'm in the camp that a person's fitness is way more likely to hold them back than equipment weight. Of course if you are racing a couple of seconds means everything. For the majority of us who just tour for fun and fresh lines I think getting something enjoyable for the downhill is more of a priority than saving a bit of weight. |
Plan to replace my two skitouring setups with another new light setup (around 3.3 kg per foot) and a heavier side country setup with shift bindings / freeride skis. I'll try the same tours on different sets and let you know.
First time I went up the Groß Glockner the heavier boots I had (Nepal Top) were enough to put me behind people who were less fitter than I was. They were probably around 700g heavier per foot (2.1 vs . 0.7 kg/pair). OK it wasn't just the weight as they didn't roll as well as a normal walking shoe or have the same range of motion.
In my group of Austrian ski touring friends I was the first to get an Airbag back in 2006. Probably only 2 to 3 kg more weight on my back but it made a difference on day tours. Most of the group now have an airbag. The speed of our ascent was definately slowed by the airbag, you could see the people with the airbag drop back in the order of ascent. The extra weight of the airbag is enough that many ski-tourers (probably most) won't take an airbag on a hut-to-hut tour (unless the whole group does).
Was once on a snowshoe tour when the snow was marginal so I ended up carrying the snowshoes on my backpack, didn't think much of it as I knew I was fitter than the other person on the tour. The weight of the snow shoes (approx. 4 kg) was enough to leave me trailing.
Fitness does make a hell of a difference as does acclimatisation. For UK based ski tourers getting acclimatised is much harder. Being trained for that particular activity helps a lot too. Just buying lightweight kit and hoping to keep up with a guide isn't going to cut it.
I know you don't pick up the full weight of the skis / bindings but ski touring seems to have a more relentless demand on the body. A bit like riding a bike up a steep hill, often it's much easier to walk. If you were to attach a weighted trailer to the bike then it would make a massive difference. The extra equipment weight can push you into a higher activity zone too and burn you out quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I always thought the conventional wisdom was 1kg on the foot = 3 on the back?
I use Shifts for all my tours, so I’m definitely not a hater, but there definitely is a noticeable difference vs pure tech bindings. I don’t think it really affects my speed uphill; more like, around the 800/900 vert metre mark (especially when in a group with friends on lighter skis) I start to notice that yes I’m actually dragging quite a lot of weight on each foot. For me that’s very worth it for how much better they ski than tech bindings though.
Biggest difference to my speed/comfort/condition going uphill? By FAR how well I slept the night before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
| I always thought the conventional wisdom was 1kg on the foot = 3 on the back? |
Exactly!
A light-ish touring set up (that still skis well) will be sub 3.5kg per foot.
A heavy one could easily be 6kg or more!
Do the maths : "2.5Kg extra per foot" x 3 = 7.5kg.
In total that is equivalent to an extra 15kg (15 litres of water!) in your pack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
. Many UK based skiers are looking for the one-ski-quiver but if their use includes skinning (or for free-healers) then it's getting hard to find suitable narrower skis (sub 90mm) that are available in the flat.