 Poster: A snowHead
|
In your opinion(s) where's the max weight limit (Skis, binding & boots) for the following -
1. Sidecountry touring - max 2 hours up.
2. Day tours - max 5 hours up.
3. Hut to hut tours - up to 6 hours a day for up to 4 days.
4. Hut to hut tours - up to 10 hours a day for 7 to 10 days.
Whats the maximum weight you have used for the above?
Are people turning up to tours such asthe Haute route with 2.5 kg+ skis, 1.3 kg bindings and 2kg+ boots? (weights per foot)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Garmont Axon, PM Gear 179 and ST10s. Total foot weight about 4 kg. Gets used for everything from 1 hr from the lifts to multi day stuff.
I could get away with a heavier ski but not heavier bindings or boot.
Tend to disagree with the link on the skinning on firm snow with wider skis point. Obviously we're not going mental with the width here but mine are 99mm underfoot (33m turn radius) and do fine on steeper terrain.
I have done big days on Naxos and alpine boots (foam liner 3+ kg per boot). Not worth it at my level of fitness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I used to tour on quite heavy kit (Denalis + Dynstar Bigs + Frischi Freerides); now my gear is much lighter and outperforms the old stuff in every way. Haven't done a hut to hut tour in a couple of years but would have no qualms about using my DPS W105s + Dynafit Speeds + Garmont Shoguns for that. Only question mark is whether the skis are a tiny bit wide for technical skinning.
Reckon that probably works out at 1.8kg + 0.3kg + 1.8kg per foot
Sidecountry touring I don't really care about the weight - I'd happily do that in Alpine boots and Dukes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Yes I'm running circa 4 kg per foot
Setup 1 circa 1.9kg boot, binding 0.6 kg, Ski 1.5 kg (87mm waist, 177cm)
Setup 2 circa 1.9kg boot, binding 1 kg, Ski 1.3 kg (76mm waist, 170cm)
Looking at a typical heavy touring setup
Whitedot Preacher - 176, 2.15 kg
Boot - 2.1 kg
Duke Binding - 1.3 kg
i.e. over 5.5 kg per foot
In addition the marker binding and heavy boots are often compromised (less climbing height adjustment, walk function not as good) and wider skis = heavier skins.
I see the above heavy setup as ideal for 1. but 2. could be a strain and 3 / 4 would be torture. The main difference being the dynafit/plum binding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
DB, I used to have some 194 Dynastar XXLs with Dukes - must have been well over 6kg per foot with alpine boots. I challenge anyone to find a heavier setup (without resorting to race bindings + Trekkers). Fine for an hour or so provided not too many kick turns!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently on 4.6Kg per foot.
BD Verdicts (180cm), Garmont Radiums and FT12s.
I find that very manageable for pretty much everything and it skis well which is the important bit for me. Don't do much in the way of multi-day touring though but have done it with that kit in the past. If I was regularly going to do lots of multi-day touring I'd definitely slim down.
I have a variety of things in the process of getting setup now that peg around that weight. I'm also going to buy new boots when I'm back in the UK as the Radiums are showing their age in terms of weight, stiffness and touring ability. The heaviest stuff I have being some Redeemers I picked up last year that will be mounted with Guardians that are sitting around my place (pending satisfying myself they'll release the boots I end up buying).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
pity i cant adjust my gut and fatass to match tour mission 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
barry, be thankful your gut isn't attached to your feet. The adage is something like each kilo on your feet is worth ten on your back as you have to swing it about the place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Hi ,
I think a lot depends on who you are touring with and what they are using for 2 3 and 4.
This year I am using the Movement x Logic @ 2200 pair Dynafit Speeds @ 670g Pair and Scarpa Rush boots @ 2800 ish a pair. Good for all 4 really .
Under 3 per foot
Mark 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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'm currently on about 4.6kg per foot although I've been down to about 2kg with Atomic Tourguide Superlight skis and Dynafit TLT3 boots. The latter outfit was certainly very easy going uphill but something like skiing in slippers downhill.
Watch any rando racer and they'll look awful coming downhill but they usually manage without mishap.
Apart from the extra stiffness, weight on its own helps you to punch through some of the roughness involved and makes for a more pleasant ride. I certainly don't want to heavier than 4.6kg but I'd think twice before going less than say 3.5kg again - even if a good 90% of the day is spent going uphill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
agree with altis, totally
I aint super fussy about weights, given that I like/need stiff boots and stiff skis. Even those have started coming down in weight in recent years. My binding set ups are NTN telemark (which can be shaved down further by going to the new touring model - next year maybe) and Plum Guides (a snazier dyna-style binding, bout same weight as Dyna Speed), but these are with pretty hefty boots and middle-of-the-road weight skis (although I do have a pair of PM Gears yet to mount).
I'm pretty much exclusively a day-tourer, although would love to do a big classic sometime in the future. But even then I aint sure I'd enjoy pure rando skis and boots. Interesting that the bindings have seemed to overtaken skis (maybe not boots) in terms of "crossover" - ie lightness to climb but strength and durability to hammer it on the down. Seems that way to me - I love the Plum Guides but couldnt live with rando-level skis
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
Interesting that the bindings have seemed to overtaken skis (maybe not boots) in terms of "crossover" - ie lightness to climb but strength and durability to hammer it on the down. Seems that way to me - I love the Plum Guides but couldnt live with rando-level skis
|
I couldn't either. I'm fine with ascending at 400m/hr if that means that the ski down is better. We're not just looking to survive here, it's supposed to be fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Sure there's a balance, anything under 3.3 kg* probably isn't going to be that much fun on the way down (especially in crustly uneven conditions). Having said that over 5.0 kg on a long tour could leave you so knackered that it doesn't matter what's on your feet on the way down, you are going to be too shot to enjoy it.
* based on a lightweight skier using ......
Binding dynafit speed 0.3 kg
Boot 1.5 kg
Ski 1.5 kg
..... maybe the trick is to make sure you're not the one with the lowest level of fitness and/or the heaviest setup so that somebody else suffers 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| DB wrote: |
| ..... maybe the trick is to make sure you're not the one with the lowest level of fitness |
I dont mainly tour alone cos i'm antisocial 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
DB, Think something along the lines of a Nanuq, Dynafit Mercury plus a RAD ST, should see you at, 1650 + 1500 + 530 = 3700ish, now that set up is pretty hard to beat, weight, power and versitility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
ooopps, the wight of the binding needs halfing! I do take it the weights are being considered "each foot?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
CH2O,
Like I said, circa 3.3kg (+/- 0.1 ). 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Hmmm I had never checked in detail before. Until last year my main setups were boot 1.75 (Typhoon), binding 1.25 5Baron), ski 2 - 2.4, so 5 - 5.4 kgs/ foot....but never used for multi-day tours. This winter I'm moving to boot 1.6, binding 0.6 (Radical FTs), ski about 1.9 so a total of 4.1kg, still heavy but it will feel like helium by comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
You guys have missed something crucial....
The main advantage of Dynafit bindings is that there is zero lifted weight per stride. Saving 500g of weight using a tech bindings (or lighter boots) is mechanically much more efficient than simply buying a ski that is 500g lighter. Basically you can get away with much heavier ski for the downhill so long as you mount them with tech bindings.
A medium weight ski (upto 2kg each / 90-100mm under foot) mounted with dynafit would work for all the 4 tours listed above IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH2O, are you doing any touring boots this year?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haggis_Trap, absolutely - and this is the reason I'm happy to go with a reasonably burly ski. I'll be flying* uphill.
(*for a certain definition of flying, which is "moving marginally faster than I did last year")
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Hmmm
Ski. 1300
Bindg. 520
Boots. 2000
=3820
New boots!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haggis_Trap,
"zero lifted weight per stride".
How does that work? (or is it magic and you can't say  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
With dynafit your boot pivots on the toe inserts.
So every stride you save about 500g (vs Fritshi) or 1kg (vs Marker) by not having to lift the entire weight of the binding.
This apparently small weight saving equates to a huge saving in effort.
i.e 2000 strides * 500g = 1000kg of weight moved.
For ski touring tech bindings really are a game changer.
Much in the same way that fatter skis make the downhill easier.
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Mon 3-12-12 17:01; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
How does that work? (or is it magic and you can't say )
|
At the risk of stating the obvious, you don't lift the heelpiece - you're just pushing the whole thing along the deck. The bulk of the Duke's weight is in the heelpiece, which gets lifted with every stride.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haggis_Trap & gorilla,
(light bulb goes on)
Yes I have Fritschi freerides on my old setup and Radical ST's on the new. Even though the weight difference isn't that great the tech setup is a lot easier. I put that down mainly to the different pivot point but I see now with Fritschi (and Marker etc) you are also picking up a large part of the binding with every stride whereas dynafit stays on the ski.
Thanks - this could just be the "excuse" I was looking for to justify putting tech fittings on my old skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
A medium weight ski (upto 2kg each / 90-100mm under foot) mounted with dynafit would work for all the 4 tours listed above IMHO. |
I've never used skis that are 100mm underfoot, but I would be interested to hear your views on this opinion...
'Up to around 90mm underfoot, lightweight pin bindings are fine for all round touring in the European Alps - but I wouldn’t recommend using them on skis any wider than this, expecting to get that mythical dream - the super light wide bodied ski suitable for all round conditions – because you won’t end up with that! Instead you’ll have a ski that’s great for early season deep snow, but hopeless for long hours of skinning on spring multiday hut to hut tours.'
From...
http://alpine-guides-blog.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
'Up to around 90mm underfoot, lightweight pin bindings are fine for all round touring in the European Alps - but I wouldn’t recommend using them on skis any wider than this, expecting to get that mythical dream - the super light wide bodied ski suitable for all round conditions – because you won’t end up with that! Instead you’ll have a ski that’s great for early season deep snow, but hopeless for long hours of skinning on spring multiday hut to hut tours.
|
Interested by that. I've been on a 99mm ski with Dynafits for some time. Not really had that experience and rarely use crampons. I suspect what they don't want are people turning up on tours with something like my JJs. I can see how that would be troublesome. My skinning technique is effective but not fantastic btw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
gorilla, ditto been on Dynafits on a 102mm waisted ski for the last three years with no problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
^ You have to put those comments in context.
Mountain guides generally ski well and have the technique to ski variable snow properly on narrower skis. I would agree there are good argument's not to go much wider than 90mm for a touring specific ski. Wide skis are heavier, don't always fit in frozen skin tracks, plus there is more friction. Basically with decent technique you can ski any snow on a 90mm ski - though you will be making shorter radius turns when the snow gets cruddy.
Having said that I don't agree that dynafit should never go on wider skis. Something like a K2 Coombak (102mm) is a great all rounder and works well with tech bindings to give a ski that goes up and down well. If your reasonably fit (say able to run 10km in approx 45-50 mins) then it would be very possible to do a haute-route on such a set up and really enjoy the downhills too.
FWIW I know several mountain guides who use dynafit non 100mm+ skis for day tours. Though as ever it depends on the skier, their focus (up or down), style of skiing and fitness levels.
Oceanic - You should try a 100-105mm ski : off piste will never be the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
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'd be more inclined to think the construction of the ski was the deciding issue. Plenty of touring specific skis at 90-100mm are horrendous noodles and definitely need a good wrangling to ski in crud. IMO 10mm extra in the waist for a similar ski equates to a very marginal difference and you can easily buy 90mm skis that outweigh 100mm ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
...... depends on the weight of the skier too. One fat man's noodle is another man's optimum touring 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.
|
|
My skis weight about 1.65 kilos per ski (100mm under foot) + Fritschi Freerides Pro, and I use normal alpine boots. OK for couple hours up. If I tour more I will probably invest in Dynafits, though will probably still stick with "alpine skis".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A few reviews of some 101 to 110mm waisted skis that also perform on hardpack.
| Quote: |
ALL-MOUNTAIN: Carvers & Skis Especially Capable In Firmer, Hardpack Conditions
101-110mm
Kastle FX104, 184cm, 2012-2013 – 104mm
Fischer Watea 106, 190cm, 2012-2013 – 106mm
Moment Belafonte, 182cm, 2011-2012 – 106mm
2nd Look: Belafonte, 182cm
3rd Look: Belafonte (with comparisons to the Moment PB&J and Blizzard Cochise)
Moment Belafonte, 187cm, 2012-2013 - 106mm
Blizzard Cochise, 185cm, 2011-2012 - 108mm
2nd Look: Cochise, 185cm
Blizzard Dakota, 177cm, 2012-2013 - 108mm
2nd Look: Dakota, 177cm
Black Diamond Zealot, 182cm, 2011-2012 - 110mm
2nd Look: Zealot, 182cm
Fischer Big Stix 110, 186cm, 2012-2013 – 110mm
|
http://blistergearreview.com/index-ski-reviews-sorted-by-type
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm definitely in the (1) and (2) category.
Skis: BD Verdict, 180cm, ~100mm underfoot => 2Kg each (mine are the 2008 model, so slightly lighter than the current model).
Boots: Full Tilt Classics w/Intuition liners => 1.8Kg (not yet Sethed them, might do that one day)
Bindings: Fritschi Freeride Pro => 1kg
Total 4.8 Kg
Very much a downhill oriented set up. I'd do a mellow hut to hut on these, but if was going to do anything arduous I'd be less keen. However, I'm not really interested in suffer fests so realistically I'm going to stick with this set up. I use the same boots in DH bindings on my Atomic Nomad Renus for regular alpine skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
unless they are superfit I think they will be in for a shock on multi-day tours.
No this heavily increasing market has called for us to stop sellling boots in this segment!!!!! Yes Yes Jimbo, of course. 
