Ski Club 2.0 Home
Snow Reports
FAQFAQ

Mail for help.Help!!

Log in to snowHeads to make it MUCH better! Registration's totally free, of course, and makes snowHeads easier to use and to understand, gives better searching, filtering etc. as well as access to 'members only' forums, discounts and deals that U don't even know exist as a 'guest' user. (btw. 50,000+ snowHeads already know all this, making snowHeads the biggest, most active community of snow-heads in the UK, so you'll be in good company)..... When you register, you get our free weekly(-ish) snow report by email. It's rather good and not made up by tourist offices (or people that love the tourist office and want to marry it either)... We don't share your email address with anyone and we never send out any of those cheesy 'message from our partners' emails either. Anyway, snowHeads really is MUCH better when you're logged in - not least because you get to post your own messages complaining about things that annoy you like perhaps this banner which, incidentally, disappears when you log in :-)
Username:-
 Password:
Remember me:
👁 durr, I forgot...
Or: Register
(to be a proper snow-head, all official-like!)

Ski lenght and model for ski touring on glacier and technical terrain

 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Hei Skiers,
I am about to buy the zero g 85 skies for spring ski touring jn somewhat technical terrain (some 4000 in switzerland) what I am doubtful about is the lenght to choose (either 164 or 171).
I am 174 for 65 Kg man very expert skier.
I was told that 171 is better for stability and the 164 for technical uphill, but my question is which of the two win overall, is 171 much worse in technical terrain, is the 164 much worse for skiing?
Which one would you suggest? (For the time being I always skied with much wider skies 106+ lenght from 171 up)

Finally how would you compare the zero g85 with the kastle tx 87 or the wayback 88?
latest report
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@Inginkk96, Welcome to snowheads. There's a useful Ski Touring thread at the link below. From my 4000m experiences in Switzerland I'd focus on weight more than anything else. It makes all the difference when touring over distance and time. All of your choices are lightweight skis and choice of binding will be crucial. I'd go for a decent pin binding and probably go a little narrower than your used to (which you have) with something around the 90mm mark. Length isn't so much of an issue but longer will be more stable on the descent. I opted for Blackcrows Orb Freebirds with an Atomic Backland Binding for my upgrade and they do just the job you're looking for.

https://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=149515&highlight=
latest report
 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?
Inginkk96 wrote:

I was told that 171 is better for stability and the 164 for technical uphill, but my question is which of the two win overall, is 171 much worse in technical terrain, is the 164 much worse for skiing?


No, you won't notice the difference.

Get the 164 if you are skiing tight terrain: narrow couloirs, tree skiing. Otherwise go for the 171s. Won't make any difference to you on the climb.
ski holidays
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
@Inginkk96,

I’m almost exactly your weight and height. I skied the Zero g 85 in a 178, which was a bit long. I’d probably go 171. It’s a great touring ski, particularly in hard snow. The narrow shovel made it a bit tricky in crud.

As an aside, I have just come back from a ski touring trip in the Zinal area. Snow (lack of) conditions made it a bit tricky! Fingers crossed that changes for you.
snow conditions
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
davidof wrote:
Inginkk96 wrote:

I was told that 171 is better for stability and the 164 for technical uphill, but my question is which of the two win overall, is 171 much worse in technical terrain, is the 164 much worse for skiing?


No, you won't notice the difference.

Get the 164 if you are skiing tight terrain: narrow couloirs, tree skiing. Otherwise go for the 171s. Won't make any difference to you on the climb.


davidof knows more about skitouring than just about anyone on these boards but personally I'd go for the 171s. These should be plenty short enough to get around in the tightest of terrain and I think you'd find in some tricky snow conditions you needed to pay attention to not burying the tips on the 164s.
If by technical uphill you mean kickturns, I think any ski shorter than head height will feel easy to get around.

Oh BTW I've not skied the ZG 85 but I think its a good choice. I have Scott SG 88s for a similar purpose and they are a similar ski that work well.
snow conditions
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
jedster wrote:


davidof knows more about skitouring than just about anyone on these boards but personally I'd go for the 171s..


Yes we agree, I think he should get the 171s. They will be better.

I just cited two extreme cases where the 164s might be at an advantage.
snow report
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
As it happens, Mrs A and I spent today skinning up ~1200m using the new rando route from Champagny en Vanoise to Mont de la Guerre and then on to the little bar at Tuf Blanc near the top of the Roc des Verdons. Hardly in the same league but, from that experience, my top tips would be:

1) never trust anyone else’s choice of route (or, if relevant, sign marking)

2) always make sure your skins are for your current skis and not the previous, narrower ones. Embarassed
snow report



Terms and conditions  Privacy Policy