 Poster: A snowHead
|
Hi.
Looking for some snowhead advice... 
I got in to touring last year, about 5 or 6 single day tours over the winter, some of about 1000m per day.
I did the shorter tours on my own Atomic Theorys 178 with a Salomon Guardian binding.i have used these skis for everything the past few years. The longer ones i did with rented scott crusair with dynafit binding.
The dynafit experience has convinced me i need to go for something like the dynafit tlt speed radical for the binding. Seems like a market leader. But i'm not so sure what ski to pair with it.
My ambition is to do long tours, of about a week or maybe more with maybe 1000m per day. Something like the haute route. So i want something on the lighter end of the spectrum. This will be a dedicated touring ski as i will probably use the atomic theory for anything lift accessed.
I was thinking of going for something reasonably similar in the waist to the atomic theory (96) and a similar length. From what i can see there is two camps, people using 100mm+ skis in long lengths, and then people with about 80mm skis that seem v. short...
Has anyone thoughts on the best strategy.... a ski i like the sound of was the dynafit mustagh ata superlight - 178 and 89 in the waist, as it is similar to what i'm used to (in dimensions) but combined with the dynafit binding should be a lot lighter.
Any other ideas to consider before i spend the money?
edit. i am 180cm and 75kg male.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Shorter and narrower is lighter and less friction to drag about but obviously the ski performance will start to suffer. Personally I think you won't go wrong with similar but lighter skis. I'd try and demo some though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
yes i can see the trade-off, just wondering how extreme to go. If i am used to 178 and 96, then i am thinking lighter binding + lighter ski will do me fine.
I would be interested to know what people tour with on here and what they would go for if they only bought one, would it be 90mm ish, or much less , say 70s?
I have ''grown up'' on the atomic theories, so when i see old French dudes on tiny skis i am wondering whether they know the optimum, or they just use the gear they bought years ago...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Do not buy without trying. As you know, when you're touring you will encounter conditions that are not always ideal. You have to feel confident with your ski. You will definitely need Dynafit or compatible bindings, but most people would recommend saving the weight in the boot and binding and not compromise on the ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Scott crusair with dynafits sound like I great set up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Movement make fantastic touring skiis. My wife used the Logic X which was amazing when we did the Haute Route earlier this year (very light and good in a lot of conditions). I used the Crus'airs which I found to very good in a range of conditions.
For the number of days tourimg your are doing, the lighter the better!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ractys, a pal skied 9 days of of 1,500m + each day in Norway in April on K2 Sidestashes (110mm) and had a great time. Don't worry too much about underfoot width/weight if you're using Dynafits ... I was happy enough with Crusairs (90mm) until I used Powdairs (100mm) which are even more fun and don't make any noticeable climbing difference. Dynafits are good for piste bashing too with caveats that you'll feel every rattle and bump because their connection is so solid and if you tumble awkwardly, they might not release as easily as an Alpine. Plus they'll lean your lower leg further forward than Alpines / Fritschis etc ... I will be shimming the toes before the new season.
Last edited by After all it is free  on Sun 18-08-13 0:03; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
moffatross, I'd be interested in more on your experience with the Powd'airs and dynafits, I'm thinking about just that. Must be good on powder days:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jbob, they've got a bit less bite on neve and scraped snow than Crusairs but they're lots more fun on powder and are better warm day slush surfers too. They're also surprisingly nimble in bumps, berms and gullys. If I had the cash, I'd have a pair of Dynafit Beasts (for the extra release security, not hucking) on Powdairs and that would make my ideal set-up. I skied 30 days lift served and touring last season on Dynafits and another 5 days on Barons and realised only at the season end that I need the toe shims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
moffatross, thanks, I'm totally sold on dynafits, I don't do hucking and I only come out of my bindings a couple of times a season! I skied some dynastar alti lights quite a bit last year and loved how easy they were against lugging around my normal skis. Plus the touring boots were comfortable and easy to walk in. What's the deal with toe shims, you must have flexible ankles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
moffatross, there is a bit of a difference doing that much vert lower down than higher up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forgot to mention re Cham 97 's my Dynafits work very well together , the reason I bought these were that loads of the guides local to me , Ste Foy , were using this set up . Soon worked out why .
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
jbob, toe shim thing was simple trial and error. Some days I didn't notice a problem but some days I thought I was skiing all wrong and had always assumed it was because I was actually skiing all wrong and nothing else. But I'd read about the Dynafit binding ramp angle issue and thought I'd check out whether swapping bindings from techs to alpines on same ski, same day, same conditions etc would make any difference. I realised afterwards that it had completely changed my body position to a relaxed one and let me feel like I was skiing properly again. As the quiver killers are set up so that the boot is mounted at same position on the ski, the only difference was the extra ramp angle which the dynafit naturally imposes. See here ... http://www.wildsnow.com/8185/b-d-toe-shim-tech-bindings-ramp/
meh, yep, in that respect, Norwegian touring would be a little like Scottish or Icelandic touring I'd have thought.
The effect of altitude ... http://www.brianmac.co.uk/vo2max.htm i.e. in the Alps, there should theoretically be around a 10% hit on total climbing capacity or time for a similar climb.
"VO2 max decreases as altitude increases above 1600m and for every 1000m above 1600m maximal oxygen uptake decreases by approximately 8-11%. The decrease is mainly due to a decrease in maximal cardiac output (product of heart rate and stroke volume). Stoke volume decreases due to the immediate decrease in blood plasma volume."
Conditioning at altitude (i.e. living there) or Lance Armstrong's phone number will compensate of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I wouldn't drop much below 100mm underfoot. Circa 100-110 is probably the sweet spot. If you're lugging a ski up a mountain then you want to make the down as fun as poss.
Down CD4 could be an option - check out the thread in Equipment/Reviews for presale prices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
interesting variety of opinions.
clarky999, I think it depends on the snow conditions - if its fresh powder then you might want something like that, but also could it be a hindrance when your tackling any icy traverse? or following someone elses track when they have narrower skis?
Typically, there are more days of icy/variable conditions then good powder, I want a ski that I'm confident to use anywhere (long tours, technical sections)and any conditions . So maybe that requires a compromise. In any case, after a fresh fall, I expect I would more likely be skiing using lifts anyway and using a regular alpine binding and a fatter ski, to get more downhill in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
of course, if you have done a lot of touring on a fatter ski, maybe I am mistaken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
ractys, not 'a lot,' but a reasonable amount on skis from 92 - 118 underfoot. Longer, wider and heavier for sure makes the up more work (especially late season when the skins start to absorb meltwater). However, no question they're more fun on the way down, and construction/rocker/sidecut profiles make as much a difference to the things you list as width. Sure, ice is no fun on wider skis, but width makes variable stuff a lot more fun - makes more of a difference there than in pow. IMHO 100-110 is still the sweetspot for techy variable terrain/snow; that's not much wider than your boot so fitting into a skin track really isn't a problem (at least IME). If a slope is steep and icy enough that a few mms width makes that much difference, it's time to get the crampons out. I haven't experienced that though, but then I generally tour precisely to find good snow and powder a week or more after a storm when the resorts are long tracked out...
If you're doing seriously long tours and massive vert, more 'hike in the snow' or ski mountaineering than aiming for exciting descents, sure save yourself the skin drag and go as short, narrow and light as poss. If you're touring to ski, the all mountain sweetspot (as for lift served) is circa 100-110, decent flex, not too much sidecut and at least some tip rocker. Best compromise for typical, everyday alpine conditions, and there are plenty of skis that fit those criteria that are light enough to skin on pretty happily. Take a serious look at those CD4s, touring in variable Euro snow is exactly what they were designed for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
For powder tourimg I am looking at the Voile V8's. these look fab.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
cheers clarky, sounds like good advice to me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
ractys, that's just my experience, there are plenty of people on here with a lot more touring experience than me though. Will be interesting to see what others think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
depends exactly what you want to do. if i was buying something specifically for the Haute Route, I'd be looking at about 90mm underfoot and maybe 180cm length (for reference I am about 185cm tall and 95kg - normally choose the longest length available for a ski), not too stiff, not too much sidecut (20m-ish) and a flat tail. Dynafit bindings obviously
however, i wouldn't buy skis specifically for the Haute Route because I have a quiver already, so I'd be tossing up between my DPS Wailer 105s with Dynafits, which are probably a weeny bit long and fat for normal HR conditions and resurrecting some old Blizzard Titan 9s (180cm 80mm underfoot) which may be a bit on the narrow side if the snow is difficult, but are great for technical skinning and hardpack
point is, the HR is a lot of travelling for not a huge amount of skiing so if that is the emphasis choose your ski accordingly (narrower/lighter weight may be the bias) but if you want your skis for a bit of hut to hut but also day tours for powder etc, you may want something longer and fatter so you enjoy the down more
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^ this....
touring kit is all about compromise.
in simple terms... what goes up must come down
there is no perfect ski touring set up.
there is always a compromise depending if your focus is on the ups or downs.
either way dyanfit is essential 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
You'll do very well to get a better ski here than a Voelkl Nanuq.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have some, you can have them at Euro Trade, Plus VAT plus Postage. 177 or 184?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Have you seen this http://www.wildsnow.com/9558/alpin-magazine-ski-reviews-narrower-2013/ and or this http://www.wildsnow.com/9535/backcountry-freeride-ski-reviews-alpin-magazine/ .
I bought a Volkl Amaruq in 184 in the sport pursuit Oct 2012 Volkl offer with a view to some hut to hut touring in spring 2013 but I was off games at that time. Skied in bounds/ lift accessed off piste crud just great, in fact lovely carver, very fast edge to edge. Did a 1000m training climb and felt very light, I was very impressed. Dynafit, Technica Cochise 120, 95 Kg, 184cm (n.b. I have mid fats that share the Dynafit). N.b. I bought these because of the price - but if that is all I could find I would buy them again I think. Also its not a rockered ski - or at least my version isn't.
Based on this I'd be looking at the European oriented offerings in in the mid 90's in mid 180s - Blizzard, Movement, Dynastar Cham, Volkl and then seeing what the best deal is. Interesting to see in the reviews above that some Scotts were loved and some hated - maybe a poor tune?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
300 pound quids posted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I may shed some light on your options. Last your I bought a very nice pair of Dynafit Huascaran (196cm), incl. Dynafit Radical FT binding. They're awesome: huge, relatively light, ski very good (even on piste they're alright). Done some freeriding and day touring, and ended the season with a week of skitouring in the Silvretta.
They were however, by far, the biggest ski's I've seen during the tour (and I got a lot of comments!). So if your ambition is do multi-day tours, I would suggest something smaller and shorter. For your length, something like 176cm and 90-100mm wide. Would make the spitzkehre a lot easier too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Urrgh, should not have started looking at skis. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I do like the description of the down cd4s, anyone bought any of their skis before?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
| Do not buy without trying.... |
Mrs MA and I did  . Bergmeister and his missus were kind enough to source and lug home from a Revelstoke trip two pairs of ex-hire Movement Iki touring skis (including Fritschi bindings and skins) for us. Great nick and at about £300 a pop just too good a bargain to miss. We've never looked back and in about two years have already had more than our money's worth. Maybe we were just lucky but it's worked out well enough.
I do think that once you start looking at ski specs it can become a mindblowing minefield. Before getting the Ikis, we'd hired on a couple of occasions for multi-day Alpine trips. Although we didn't have a clue and just got what we were given by the hire shop, we managed fine - although a super-fat pair that I had (marvellous for powder descents) were definitely heavier and harder work for the uphills. If any interest in ex-hire kit, there are a couple of shops in Aviemore that occasionally sell off their rental touring gear.
Meanwhile, this German website seems to have some decent kit at reduced prices: http://www.sport-conrad.com/ski_touring_skis/390/
Of course the other major factor is boots - where the trade off is that lighter tends to mean less performance-orientated for the downhills. My Garmont touring boots are as comfortable as a pair of slippers and great for uphills - but are nowhere near as stiff as my downhill boots. My first couple of turns are usually a shock to the system - but I soon get back into the swing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
1) I found this website which is useful for weights
http://www.evo.com/ski-binding-weight-chart-for-alpine-backcountry-bindings.aspx
What is interesting is that on the down website the 04 is 3600g per pair.
My intended binding is the dynafit speed radical (357 each).
So total weight (without boots) is 357+1800 = 2157g.
Last year I was touring, sometimes, with salomon guardian (1500g each!) + atomic theory (cant find the weight of these) , so it seems the benefit of the binding change outweighs the small differences between ski weight, at least from what I can see.
Anybody know what weight they used for longer (multiday) tours. Obviously its a trade off for energy/performance, but I just want to see whats normal, whats a bit heavy, and whats light.
2) I'd like to test, but my local rental shops aren't going to stock down skis, or many of the skis I am interested it, certainly not in a ready to go ski randonnee , which would be a good test. Maybe I should look at it the other way round and try what they have and if I like it buy it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Bear in mind that with a dynafit binding you don't lift the full binding , just your boot pivoting around the 2 front pins and this makes a massive difference it's basically the difference of about 1kg boot weight. This means you can potentially look at a heavier ski if you dynafit. I m thinking I ll go for a down 2 and quiver killer for both my dynafits and marker dukes. All up weight on the dynafits will only be a few 100 grams more than a 4 equivalent. Also I m too heavy for a 4!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+1 for movement skis, can go proper randonee or middle of the road or proper chargers (but decent weight). Edge and wax have some cracking deals right now.
If looking at dyna/tech, give Plum Guides a look, awesome, dyna-style, bombproof binding. Have a pari of theses usually for use on a pair of movement sluffs, even tho the skis are a bit hefty for a binding like that, its been perfect for the kind of mixed touring/hacking about i mosttly do
Randonee skis well flimsy, you may not like them if you are more invested in the downward journey
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+1 here for the Powd'air and dynafit combo. I run Radical STs and although heavier than the speeds, they have brakes...which, as Arno can testify, can be somewhat essential. The Powd'airs are relatively light given their stiffness and certainly aren't noodles. 100mm seems a good compromise to me, having used them to skin up in fresh powder, hard pack and special Lofoten snow. Particularly good on the way down; with a nice progressive flex, the typical 'spring' of other Scott skis and a decent backbone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
ractys,
As others have said - every set of skis is a compromise. I'm a little lighter than you and run two sets of touring skis 76mm and 90mm (although I'm planing to replace the 76mm with something around an 82mm waist). The wider skis have fairly floppy tips and tails = better powder performance but get thrown about in the crud. The new narrower skis will be stiffer to deal with harder conditions . In fresh snow / good conditions I take the wider skis but have the advantage that I drive to ski tours which are circa 2 hours drive from where I live so can make a decision when I get there depending on how much sniw is on the ground.
At your weight if you are looking at one pair of skis to do it all (and can only take one pair of skis on each trip) then I'd point you in the direction of a 90 to 95 mm waisted ski. A heavier person (circa 100kg) would probably be better on 100 to 115 mm waisted skis.
If you go too heavy and are in a group with people whose fitness is far better than yours (e.g. a group of locals) you could end up knackering yourself out so much that your skiing suffers on the downhill.
I think you are going in the right direction with dynafit bindings but think you should also consider saving weight on your boots if possible. Saving weight on bindings & boots (lightweight but stiff boots) means you can get away with a heavier ski.
Many good skis have already been mentioned in this thread, Volkl have a high P4P (Performance per pound weight). The K2 Wayback is a much loved allround touring ski.
When listening to opinions on skis I find it's better to know - what weight / skiing level is the skier? What terrain do they normally ski (e.g. a ski for wide open bowls with champage powder may not be the best ski for European crud in the trees). I suspect our west coast American cousins see lighter powder and so generally go for wider skis to give them more float than our European neighbours. IMHO TGR & Wildsnow tend to go a bit fatter than European ski tourers. Austrian / German touring ski reviews tend to focus on a slightly narrower waisted ski as the optimum (e.g. circa 90mm Europe v circa 110mm West Coast USA). If you live local, can pick your days and have a quiver then a 110mm waisted ski will provide more grins in the right conditions but at your weight I wouldn't plug for such a wide ski as a one pair ski solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^ plenty of stiff 90-100 skis out there, that wil bust crud, no need to compromise down to skiinnies (randonnee aside)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
