 Poster: A snowHead
|
Hello I am Michele a good summer mountaineer and an expert piste skier but a rookie in ski touring, I am new to the forum and I hope someone can give me some advice. I was convinced to buy the K2 wayback 106 and the fischer transalp pro boots.
However, in my ski touring future I don't plan to be much of a powder chaser but more a ski mountaineer and now I am worried I have bought far too wide skis. Some of you have some experience with 106 skis for more demanding tours?
Is it possible or I should have bought an 88 ski with a lighter boot?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Hi
Just get out there and see if it works for the things you want to do! You'll enjoy the way down.
Future options include light PIN bindings or a lighter ski and use Quiver Killers.
Lots of popular touring light touring skis are already in the 95-99 mm range. Zag Ubac, BC Camox FB, Dynastar Mythic.
Spend the money on a good avalanche course or some other relevant course/ guide. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
The Wayback is a light ski, in my experience weight is more important than width for touring and you'll appreciate the ski on the descent as you don't know what will be thrown at you on the descent, crud, crust or even powder!
My everyday touring ski is Scott Superguide 105 and wouldn't go narrower.........
Only an expert off piste skier would handle truly variable conditions on a sub 100mm ski......
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@Inginkk96, looks like you made a good choice based on the Blister review
https://blisterreview.com/gear-reviews/2018-2019-k2-wayback-106
What binding did you get mounted on it?
Uphill
Clocking in at just below 1500 grams per ski in the 179 cm length, the Wayback 106 is on the lighter end of the spectrum of mid-fat touring skis. It feels light on the skin track, and very light on the pack.
That said, I think it’s important to note that there are things other than weight that play a role in determining how well a ski performs on the skin track, and the Wayback 106 is a great example of that. This ski has fairly subtle rocker lines, but they are very deep on both the tips and tails. As a result, there is less climbing-skin surface area touching the snow on the way up when skinning on the Wayback 106. This means that the Wayback 106 doesn’t offer the quite as much grip as a ski with less rocker and / or more camber underfoot.
The grip of the Wayback 106 shouldn’t be a major factor in choosing or not choosing this ski, but it is worth noting, particularly if you’re someone who spends a lot of time on icy skin tracks and / or likes to use skins with very good glide, but not great grip (e.g., some pure mohair skins).
Downhill
I’ve gotten the Wayback 106 in just about every type of backcountry snow imaginable — from neck-deep blower to boilerplate ice, and everything in between. Overall I’ve been quite happy with the ski — it is easy, forgiving, and fairly versatile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@Inginkk96, it depends what you mean with "demanding tour". If demanding tour is long tour, then you will be fine. You might need a bit extra power to skin up with heavier ski but you will be fine. If you mean with "demanding tour" skiing super steep stuff (not really ski touring skiing anymore, but alpinist skiing), then it will depend on conditions. For this sort of stuff (I still don't ski too extreme stuff, as VI is pretty much max I ski) I have basically 2 pairs of skis. 106 for soft fresh snow days, and 94 (until this season I had 86) for hard snow. For really steep stuff (50+ degrees) and hard snow, I just don't feel comfortable on 106.
So it all depends what you mean with demanding tour, as demanding can be in many ways, and can mean really different things for different people 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| primoz wrote: |
@Inginkk96, it depends what you mean with "demanding tour". If demanding tour is long tour, then you will be fine. You might need a bit extra power to skin up with heavier ski but you will be fine. If you mean with "demanding tour" skiing super steep stuff (not really ski touring skiing anymore, but alpinist skiing), then it will depend on conditions. For this sort of stuff (I still don't ski too extreme stuff, as VI is pretty much max I ski) I have basically 2 pairs of skis. 106 for soft fresh snow days, and 94 (until this season I had 86) for hard snow. For really steep stuff (50+ degrees) and hard snow, I just don't feel comfortable on 106.
So it all depends what you mean with demanding tour, as demanding can be in many ways, and can mean really different things for different people |
Personally I agree with this - when you are traversing steep icy ground on skins a wide ski is NOT your friend. Yes you can use ski crampons but this is inefficient and less comfortable than being on the right ski in the first place. If you are skinning for powder that is a different thing. If you are doing true ski mountaineering in March and April and will be confronting every snow condition possible but likely to be spending a tiny fraction of your time skiing downhill in powder then I would go sub 100mm. Most of the skiing will be in spring snow or in a fairly shallow fresh layer of powder and if you are a competent skier you are not going to need much float. I did some ski mountaineering on my 108mm skis and they were the biggest skis in the (full) hut and for good reason. Our guide was very clear in his opinion - "about 90mm is the right ski for march ski mountaineering". I've now got scott superguide 88 which I think are pretty ideal for the task.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jedster wrote: |
| primoz wrote: |
@Inginkk96, it depends what you mean with "demanding tour". If demanding tour is long tour, then you will be fine. You might need a bit extra power to skin up with heavier ski but you will be fine. If you mean with "demanding tour" skiing super steep stuff (not really ski touring skiing anymore, but alpinist skiing), then it will depend on conditions. For this sort of stuff (I still don't ski too extreme stuff, as VI is pretty much max I ski) I have basically 2 pairs of skis. 106 for soft fresh snow days, and 94 (until this season I had 86) for hard snow. For really steep stuff (50+ degrees) and hard snow, I just don't feel comfortable on 106.
So it all depends what you mean with demanding tour, as demanding can be in many ways, and can mean really different things for different people |
Personally I agree with this - when you are traversing steep icy ground on skins a wide ski is NOT your friend. Yes you can use ski crampons but this is inefficient and less comfortable than being on the right ski in the first place. If you are skinning for powder that is a different thing. If you are doing true ski mountaineering in March and April and will be confronting every snow condition possible but likely to be spending a tiny fraction of your time skiing downhill in powder then I would go sub 100mm. |
Would agree with this. I think 100-something-mm works very well as an all-round touring ski (I'm very happy on 104mm, but do have to break out the ski crampons at times), but if you're not particularly looking for good snow and anticipate skiing a lot of 'technical' hard-snow slopes both up and down, then 90-something-mm is definitely the way to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@jedster, I more meant what I wrote for downhill. For those things I was talking about, going up is always on crampons and with ice axes in hands. But even for down, on hard snow and really steep faces, I don't like wobbly 106 ski under foot, but I prefer boot closer to the edge of the ski, so when you press you press on edge of ski not on middle of ski.
But yes, also going up on hard/icy traverse is much much easier on narrow skis then on wide.
My basement looks pretty full with skis (if I count just my skis, there's 3 pairs of touring/freeride skis, 2 pairs of SL, 2 GS, and one pair of SG skis, plus about 15 pairs of xc skis  ), so I take what I need for that day on skis, but if I would have just a single pair of touring/freeride skis, I would, just like you and @clarky999 wrote, go with something like 94-96mm under foot and certainly not 106. It's also true that about 80% of time, I'm on 106 when touring (125 is only for lifts), but I would easier survive powder on 94 then hard/ice on 106... especially when it comes to steep stuff, which is, next to powder, my favorite thing to do in backcountry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@jedster, How do you find the superguide for a one ski to do it all?? I've got volkl codewall Ls as a piste ski and r.98s for touring (both quiver killered) and I'm seriously wondering about just getting one ski to do everything, piste, off-piste, touring etc due to simplifying life and not having to swop bindings etc etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@kitenski, my experience is that while you can get used enough to touring skis to think they ski just fine on piste, but as soon as you back-to-back them with a heavier ski with proper wood/metal core there is really no comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@clarky999, cheers, I was wondering if any newer skis had managed a decent blend, the marketing blurb from Scott seems to suggest a reasonable amount of wood with a paulownia wood core??
| Quote: |
The updated Superguide 88 has it all: a ski that’s as light as possible on the way up and that comes into its own on the way down. The unique construction combines an ultralight Paulownia core with hardwood Beech stringers for a stable yet lively ride. Add in Carbon/Aramid fibers and a precise 3Dimension Touring Sidecut, and the result is a lightweight package that’s surprisingly quick and reliable on the way up and won’t let you down on that hard-earned descent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@kitenski, decent blend for sure, and you can quickly convince yourself that you'RE not missing out on much. Until you do a back-to-back  Especially when the pistes get a bit chopped up there really is no substitute for another 1-2kg of good wood/metal per foot!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@kitenski, Scott Scrappers worth a look? Still pretty light
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Why buy a ski for 5hit conditions? Just stick on crampons for an icy traverse or boot pack if it’s steep. IMO you want something that gives you pleasure and is easy to ski on the descent otherwise why bother? Those Waybacks look a good option for someone getting into it.
I had a pair of straightish 98mm light skis for touring and sold them as I didn’t really enjoy skiing them. Moved to more rockered 112mm skis and they are much more fun. I don’t make a habit of skiing steep, tight couloirs when it’s icy as it’s neither fun nor particularly sensible but would have no qualms skiing the new skis on steep slopes in half decent conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
| Why buy a ski for 5hit conditions? Just stick on crampons for an icy traverse or boot pack if it’s steep. IMO you want something that gives you pleasure and is easy to ski on the descent otherwise why bother? |
That’s a really good point, and may have just helped me with a decision, so thanks
I have a pair of bindings without a ski (I know…), and was waiting to do more ski tests before choosing. The first one I was going to got cancelled, and the next one isn’t looking good either, so I might have to go on past experience. I was reminded of the Santa Ana, which I think would be perfect for the job in hand (mid waist crud buster for when powder skis are too big and piste skis too small, suitable for occasional short distance touring. I used to use my Scott Superguide 95s for this, but they’ve got proper light touring bindings on now, and I want something I can use with an alpine boot, more for downs than ups), but was stuck between 93 and 98. 93 is prettier (though not a patch on the bright colours of a few years ago), but 98 will be more fun, and more fun is more better  165 should do it, I reckon. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I use a 102 Volkl for everything, shift bindings, reasonable on ice, great on powder or crud. Most people look for good snow, ie powder, or spring snow, not hard snow.What Bobin says is right, steep hard snow can be unforgiving if you fall, and you might not stop for a long way....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
