Many ski tourers seem obsessed about weight of skis, bindings, boots etc, but how many of us are happy to lug extra weight, stiffer skis, free-ride boots etc on the uphill to enjoy the down hill? I'm really thinking about full day or multi day tours rather than short skins to access a bowl.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
I'd like both please.
In general option two please Bob. Free-touring FTW.
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?
@On the rocks, just a quick question, how many days touring do you do a year ?
Sorry, but jaded after reading all the posts from the armchair protagonists in the fat skis thread
not as much as I would like, maybe 3 or 4 this year, hopefully a lot more next season. In shopping around for skis I'm inclined to go for something a little heavier and stiffer than dedicated touring skis and put up with having to train harder and be a little slower. I was interested in the views on here
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Ideally both, but in reality I'll take what I want to actually ski down, and soften the weight penalty with dynafits (and then moan about them unless the snow is soft ).
Never done a multiday tour, but I've done some reasonably big days out.
I also kinda like the idea of a super light weight just to go out and travel in the mountains with when the snow sucks, but realistically it would be hard to justify when my budget is already pretty stretched.
I've been lugging around my shiro + dukes setup for 6-7 tours this season instead of my dynafit ski+bindings setup. After 1 tour yesterday on the dynafits I've concluded that the happy medium is a decent, heavy, ~105mm, ski with dynafits.
The ski weight makes little difference compared to the bindings and more importantly you get a stable ski and aren't constantly worried about a core shot that will break your ski in half... The exact reason I haven't used my dynafits so far.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
My present set up is a pair of kastle fx94 176cm with marker baron bindings and Solomon quest boots, great ski for all conditions and I am happy to walk 4/5 hrs up , would probably move on to tech bindings when increasing the number of days touring next year , but would not compromise on the skis or boots as they perform so well everywhere . Fitness is the key , and whilst trying to achieve gains in uphill performance there is a definite benefit in having to work a little harder uphill ,
Also depends who you're out with and what pace they like to go , I ski with my split boarding son and we like an easy pace , so no worries
After all it is free
After all it is free
I have the heavy Atomic Tracker bindings on both my fatter skis, as my touring is currently sub 4 hr hikes I much prefer to have a rock solid set up for the ski down. I basically got the set ups to access more areas, longer tours are usually taking advantage of pistes and for this I just use light touring boots.
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.
I would like to get around to doing longer tours on a dedicated light touring ski, that may be my next purchase. At the moment my main touring ski is a 98mm Nordica Enforcer twin tip.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
It really does depend on the terrain / snow pack as well.
This was yesterday's little excursion http://www.movescount.com/moves/move52814950 basically a long ascent (450m) up a road / paths in the wood to a summer village, then a steep climb in the trees (450m) and then a lovely descent in the trees around 500m before going back down the road.
So with no fresh snow for well over a week the road was hard packed rutted snow and in between the road the trees had gone through some transformation that produced a crust.
Basically the OH was not liking skiing these conditions below on her new lighter skis (mounted with Vipecs), my mate on the other hand was loving the conditions on his light 107's and Dynafit whilst I was fine on my light 90's and Dynafit.
When touring I don't charge on the descents I like to enjoy it, plus if I have the dogs with me then I have to stop quite often and in trees and new terrain and like yesterday anything that was not on the N Facinng aspect was crap so you're always adjusting your line.
So hence I don't ski with heavy frame bindings.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
There are plenty who view the skin up in the same way as 'we' view the ski down. For them every gram counts and the targets are 1Kg per ski, 1Kg per boot, and 200g race bindings. To a large extent this technology is being driven by the emergence of Skimo racing, where they virtually run up the mountain on skis.
I first toured on Line SFB's and Baron's, at 3.5Kg per foot, and yes it was fun, but my hip flexors were shot after a 1000m day. I then had DPS Wailer's and Plum Guides at 2Kg per foot, which were massively better on the up, superb on the down in soft snow, but not great on hardback/ice, and you always had the feeling that you had to be careful or lock out the toe. I have now 'compromised' on 122mm DPS skis with Dynafit Beast 16's at around 2.8Kg per foot. Great on the up and down, and no worry about binding feel or prerelease.
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.
PowderAdict wrote:
............. I have now 'compromised' on 122mm DPS skis with Dynafit Beast 16's at around 2.8Kg per foot. Great on the up and down.....
Ok for hunting winter pow, but probably not too user friendly on a classic get up early Spring day traversing up a nice icy slope whilst waiting for the snow to transform, though just maybe ok with crampons
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
@Weathercam, yep - this is something that seems to get missed a bit. If you're touring for powder, maybe not an issue but for a classic hut to hut spring tour with any amount of "technical" skinning, wide skis can be a pain in the @rse. Dont do much of that these days but I'd be looking 90mm or less if i was kitting up for that sort of thing.
The weight v performance thing is much less of a compromise these days
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
What are you actually polling? (As per the title). There are set-ups to suit all tastes available these days, not just ultra-light OR ultra-heavy. Plenty if options to have a good skiing set-up at a reasonable weight (ie in the middle of the 2 options above...).
As for "the emergence of skimo racing", it has been around for decades (as has ultra-light kit), the only thing that has 'emerged' recently is the skimo name/branding...
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
PowderAdict wrote:
............. I have now 'compromised' on 122mm DPS skis with Dynafit Beast 16's at around 2.8Kg per foot. Great on the up and down.....
Humm....must have got some customs from DPS
What's everyone's take on ski length? I kinda ignored this last week and went out on 192s which were ok on gentle inclines but pushed me into hissy fits on steeper wind blown faces. I found it practically impossible to kick turn and the length made it very very difficult A V ing. I have toured on 180s but the cost vs reward equation didn't really work for me, at least for doing the yomp for powder, corn might be a different thing. Still these guys don't seem to have issues with long skinnys
@Super_Steezy The skis are DPS PowderWorks Lotus 120, not custom, but an extra lightweight limited edition. 189cm, 140-122-126, 1.815Kg per ski. The new DPS Tour Wailer range are even lighter.
Kick turns are all about leg length and flexibility. The shorter your legs the more difficult it is going to be. I'm 6ft and can kick turn the 189's with the bindings mounted at +1. However, I do have limited left hip rotation, making uphill left hand turns difficult, so sometimes it is much easier to kick turn, down rather than up the slope.
I also have 184cm Wailer 112RP mounted with Radicals, which are even lighter, and they are used if I know I will be skinning for 3+ hours in one hit. Then again, for me it is all about the powder/soft snow reward at the end of the climb(s). If there is no reward, I'm not really interested. I appreciate that you might not always get the planned reward due to unexpected conditions, but I would not go out knowing that reward was not there from the start.
With regards to the video, I've seen Rando/SkiMo racers in action, and the speed that they can skin/run uphill with skis on is amazing, however the boots/bindings/skis are minimal to say the least. The downhills are pretty sketchy on race equipment. I once toured in Canada with a member of the Canadian Rando racing team, he was part of a Demo team for the Winter Olympics, as Rando was a demo sport. The European countries turned up with ultra lightweight gear, whereas the Canadians had equipment biased for the downhill rather than the uphill. They were dropped on every climbing section by about 10%, but then gained it all back and more on the descents.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Skimo racers are doing the KV at Courchevel in 42min01s (record) which is a VAM of 1430, that's on bashed ski runs
that's on normal ski touring gear so I get to enjoy the descent too.
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?
I've got Garmon boots, Movement skis and Fritschi bindings. Never weighed them but can safely say that they feel about half the weight of my downhill kit.
The compromise is that (especially after a prolonged spell of downhill kit use) the skis feel very soft and the boots very flexible. Always feel a bit odd on my first few turns but I soon get used to it.
If I was faced with either extreme I'd take the weight hit and enjoy the descents and remember that whatever you're doing, if you're not fit it's poo-poo
In reality, like most people I've gone for a carefully-balanced compromise of lightish (1.7kg/ski), stiffish, longish (183), widish (100mm) skis with Radicals (metal over plastic anytime after one particular failure I've seen recently).
We had hard conditions on south facing ascents the other week and we just used boot crampons on anything vaguely steep.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Not perhaps wholly relevant to the topic but maybe worth mentioning anyway...I did my first ever ski touring a couple of weeks ago, in Bulgaria, and used my regular downhill boots (Head Raptor 115) and skis (Scott Crusades, 169cm), to which I had had Marker Tour F10 bindings fitted to replace the original downhill bindings. I had Colltex skins as well. I did a 3 hour ascent, through a fair bit of soft snow, in this gear, without a problem, which was a pleasant surprise to me. I'm sure it would have been easier with lighter weight gear but it was certainly perfectly OK with the gear I had, and I appreciated the control (and familiarity) on the way down. I'm pretty fit, as I do a lot of running, so this will have helped, but on the other hand my technique for kick turns is poor and I was expending more energy there than I should have been.
As I say, I was pleasantly surprised. For the kind of touring I'm likely to be doing most of the time, this will work fine for me.
Indeed. Up until very recently, I was doing week-long hut-to-hut tours on downhill (Raichle Flexon) boots on heavy touring (Fritschi Freeride) bindings on park-rat (Line Darkside Carbon) skis. This was perfectly fine and I had absolutely no problems with uphill speed.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
So far the last couple of days I've tested around 14 pairs of "light touring skis", and another day to go, along with with King Pins and Vipecs and a few other bindings.
What's ironic on this ski test is that I've fallen in "love" with a certain boot - and have been testing on the ascent as well as the descent - will be doing a more comprehensive write up in the next week.
But viz has been an issue at times, so one ski I might think is not that good could well be down to the conditions
After all it is free
After all it is free
I've been very happy with this set up:
Trab Free Rando Light (79 underfoot) -
Dynafit Vertical ST - never had them "pre-release" in all sorts of conditions
Dynafit Mountain TLT5's
I don't have a pair of "piste" skis.
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.
Dynafit TLT6 Performance (part carbon) boots
Dynafit Radical bindings
Soft Days =90mm wide, 177 cm long touring skis
Harder / variable snow days = 82mm wide, 167cm all-mountain ski (i.e. non-touring specific)
Both ski sets weigh the same
Don't have piste skis but after coming out of the dynafit bindings at speed last season am having piste boots fitted next friday. The second setup is OK for pistes but not at higher speeds, plus I want to test wider freeride skis when conditions are really good and the touring boots are tech-binding compatible only.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Well I did the tour of Grand Paradiso with a 4000m summit on 184 Atomic REX, freerides and scarpa denalis. I'm 5'9. There was nothing light about that set up and I was new to touring so the kick turns were a little tricky with the length but overall it was fine.
My latest set up is 186 WD Ranger Carbonlites 108, beast 14 (didn't see that I need the extra cost and weight of 16s) and fischer transalp lites (a lightish touring boot). I'm going to be using that in all soft snow conditions - lift served, sidecountry, day tours, hut to hut. Many people would say that the boots are a bit soft for some of that and they would have a point! But I bought some chunky intuition wrap liners which I use for non-skinning days and they give me enough extra support. Overall I think that set up is plenty light enough for hut to hut but burly enough to have a lot of fun charging from the lifts. I don't do big hucks though.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Focus is on the down for me but I've tried to assemble a lightweight set-up that is efficient on the up.
This is my quiver of one set-up for all snow conditions and terrain.
Dynafit TLT 5 Performance boots (still going strong, and have a brand new pair waiting in the wings)
Dynafit TLT Radical ST bindings
176 cm Majesty Local Hero twin tip skis (116-82-111 ; r 18 m)
The skis are centre mounted and this has made a massive difference on the up. A more natural and balanced stride length. Hardly ever use the risers.
Tour approx 10-15 days a season. Anything from 1hr sidecountry skins to full day excursions.
Primarily tour in soft snow conditions, but this set up manages firm snow well.
This is my last tour, it was rather solid underfoot with a tricky breakable sun crust
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.
I've been on a light set up with 82 MM skis at 1300g, but this season I am going a bit fatter with tech bindings on some Scott powdairs which are 100mm and 1500g, I'll report back. I'm sure the weight will be fine, I'm more worried about the kick turns. I do enjoy the up.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
I have found a balance I like with a stiff ski, a 193cm, 108mm Cochise, with slightly heavier pin bindings, Marker Kingpin, and light-ish boots, Scarpa Maestrale. The ski is stable enough to deal with anything and whilst the boots and bindings are limited, they work well enough. The only time I struggled with them was skiing avvy debris where I really would have liked a stiffer boot. On the up I am pretty tall so kick turns are generally fine, though the length can be a bit of a pain sometimes. The boots range of movement is really nice after previously touring on race boots and plate style bindings.
I skied a Black Diamond superlight mountaineering ski for a photo shoot this season in Chile and they felt like air on the way up, but were not confidence inspiring on the way down.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
There are now plenty of great skiing skis on the market out there with a relatively wide waist yet that are light. My choice is the BD Carbon Convert. It's 105 underfoot and skis very well considering it's (very) light weight - 3kg - on hard pack or ice. They've become my go to ski for a very wide variety of snow conditions from easy powder days with guests to the week long haute route to steep chutes like the Holzer in the Dolomites.... hard to beat one ski than can do it all. I've got them set up with a Dynafit TLT bindings which makes for a very light weight setup. For boots - here's where I choose to go slightly heavier than most with the BD Factor MX but I prefer the "skiability" that comes with more plastic and therefore more weight...
my two cents worth with around 120 days on snow per year.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Quote:
I skied a Black Diamond superlight mountaineering ski for a photo shoot this season in Chile and they felt like air on the way up, but were not confidence inspiring on the way down.
Do you mind saying which ones? The BD line sound good on paper but I always have a niggling worry with north american skis that they'll be too fluffy powder orientated.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
In answer to my own thread; After shopping around I've ordered a pair of Whitedot Ones, 3.3 kg a pair, 89 underfoot
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
galpinos wrote:
Quote:
I skied a Black Diamond superlight mountaineering ski for a photo shoot this season in Chile and they felt like air on the way up, but were not confidence inspiring on the way down.
Do you mind saying which ones? The BD line sound good on paper but I always have a niggling worry with north american skis that they'll be too fluffy powder orientated.
As I mentioned in my post they were the BD Carbon Convert. Not all light weight skis ski well. That's for sure! These do otherwise I wouldn't boast about them as I ski for a living
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?
galpinos wrote:
Quote:
I skied a Black Diamond superlight mountaineering ski for a photo shoot this season in Chile and they felt like air on the way up, but were not confidence inspiring on the way down.
Do you mind saying which ones? The BD line sound good on paper but I always have a niggling worry with north american skis that they'll be too fluffy powder orientated.
I'm honestly not sure, they may have been a new line coming out this year. It's not that they were a bad ski, they were just really optimised for the ascent, as you'd expect from a mountaineering ski. Pretty sure they were 177, 88mm underfoot or something around there.
I skied a Black Diamond superlight mountaineering ski for a photo shoot this season in Chile and they felt like air on the way up, but were not confidence inspiring on the way down.
Do you mind saying which ones? The BD line sound good on paper but I always have a niggling worry with north american skis that they'll be too fluffy powder orientated.
I'm honestly not sure, they may have been a new line coming out this year. It's not that they were a bad ski, they were just really optimised for the ascent, as you'd expect from a mountaineering ski. Pretty sure they were 177, 88mm underfoot or something around there.
Yeah that could explain a lot. I found most of the new models ('15 or '16) that are slightly wider skied much better than the narrow skis. Specifically the Boundary 107, Boundary 115 and the Carbon Convert in 105.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Quick question for the touring gurus - if I'm 185cm and usually ski rocketed skis happily out to 190s, what length touring ski should I buy - 180 ?
I thinking uphill kick turns in steep terrain on multi day hut to hut tours
- trying to choose between Scott Superguide 88, 95 ; Fischer Hannibal 94 or Transalp 88; Volkl VTA 88; Blizzard Zero G 95 -
Current top choice is either the Superguide 95 or the Zero G 95.
There's more to it than pure length. My rangers are 186 and I'm 176 tall but the tails are quite short and flat compared to the big tip rocker and it's the tails you have to get around your leg. They are manageable. I certainly don't think you need to go shorter than 185 and could probably manage 190
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@mishmash, I would suggest 185-180 for ease of kick turning. I was stroking some super guides when they came out end of last winter, lovely. I actually bought their predecessor the Scott powdairs at a good price. I didn't ski the guides but the powdairs are great. How fit you are and if you will be doing; hut to hut, 1000m+ days, plus what your comrades are using would determine 88 or 95.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
).
