Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2016 - 06:47am PT
|
That's be a fun setup for touring, which sounds like your objective.
If touring leads to the desire to go higher/steeper, then make the jump to AT. Having both in your quiver only expands your horizons.
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2016 - 05:33pm PT
|
AT sucks bad for touring - you can't flex your foot.
I'm a huge fan of old-school alpine skis with cable bindings, flexible boots and skins. When I want to climb, I don't want to slip or herringbone. And you can don and doff skins very quickly without taking off your skis. In certain conditions, I can skate even with skins in place.
P.S. Flailing on wimpy narrow skis is not dancing.
|
|
Jay S
Mountain climber
Silver Gate, Mt
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2016 - 07:54pm PT
|
Last winter I skied from the southern sierra to oregon.
My setup was a light tele setup.
Madshus annum ski (109 in the tip) with fishscales
Scarpa T 4 boots with an upgraded liner
Light cable binding
I find this setup handles the flat funky terrain better than AT gear.
I had every I had every condition imaginable and this setup handled it all. I thought about switching to a lighter narrower ski several times then would get hit by a storm and liked the wider ski for trail breaking.
Free heel gear is the only way to go for long touring!
|
|
10b4me
Mountain climber
Retired
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2016 - 06:18pm PT
|
I skied both Alpine, and Nordic gear. When I toured, I preferred my telemark skis.
I hated my first Alpine bc tour because the gear was so much heavier.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2016 - 06:36pm PT
|
Forrest,
That's a setup circa 2003 or 2004. That makes the plastic on that binding at least 12-13 years old. Might have a few years left in them but you don't want binding failure in the backcountry.
If you could get them cheap you could ski them at the resort and maybe some sidecountry. But I'd be hesitant to go too far away from a trailhead.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2016 - 07:22am PT
|
Forrest, "cheap" and a backcountry powder-oriented AT setup aren't exactly synonymous :).
If there's a backcountry ski shop near you I'd check with them. Some have swaps or consignment gear. Used rental gear is another good option as a starter. The shop folks could check the used gear out for you, help with boot fitting, etc. If powder's your goal a ski with a 95mm+ waist is nice. Your snow might be lighter; Tahoe snow can get heavy.
|
|
OlympicMtnBoy
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2016 - 09:16am PT
|
A lot of great advice earlier in this thread, but I thought I'd throw out my piddly pennies.
Unless you get good at tele skiing, I have not been able to find a combination that makes for "fun" cross country skiing and "fun" downhill. Perhaps Ryan's skinny patterned skis with dyanfit bindings and race boots would come closest without learning to tele (I took a class for a season in college, it takes longer than that). I just ended up with multiple skis.
For about $250 I got some soft xc boots, NNN bindings, poles, and some non-metal edged skis. You can probably do better if you look used. I use these when I plan to mostly ski mellow rolling hills, logging roads, or groomed xc tracks. They are a lot of fun in that you are more "running" on the snow, moving quickly and enjoying the kick and glide. I never get that feeling with skis with skins on. Skate skiing is even better but that's another story and hard for me off groomed tracks.
My second set started out with some used dynafit boots and a lightly used setup with dynafit bindings and bc skis around 88 underfoot. I think it was around $700 for everything, again you have to get a bit lucky. This lets me get up and down most everything. Not as much fun on the logging roads but it works. I ski these if I want to enjoy the downhill part and make real turns, sometimes I ski em at a resort too. I have since gotten some 105 mm underfoot skis that I much prefer for anything fresh or crusty. My narrower skis now only come out in the spring for ski mountaineering and longer traverses. I highly recommend a dynafit style binding (there are many "tech" bindings out there now). You don't have the weight of a frame binding going up and down on your foot with each step and overall the binding can be much lighter. I don't huck cliffs or ski so aggressively that I pop out which seems to be the reason some people like beefier bindings. I'd rather travel as light as possible but I don't have the skill to not lock my heel down.
You will NEED new boots unless you already have backcountry/randonee ski boots. You won't be able to skin without ankle flex (at least it would really suck). I would start with boots that fit and then beg borrow skis/bindings which can all be adjusted. Or just enjoy an XC setup and kick and glide till you save some money for something that will get you back down the hill.
Just my opinions as a mediocre skier who went through this all a few year ago.
Also don't forget to leave some $ for an avalanche class, or maybe do that first. Don't go out there if you aren't aware of avy conditions and have the tools (beacon/shovel/probe) and partner and skills.
|
|
kunlun_shan
Mountain climber
SF, CA
|
|
AT sucks bad for touring - you can't flex your foot.
Not sure if I understand SLR's statement, but some AT boots now have a large degree of articulation at the ankle in walk mode.
Scarpa Aliens, some race models from La Sportiva, the Dynafit TLTs (5 thru 7), Dynafit DY.N.A. EVO and even the Vulcans, have a large range of movement forward and back. They are very comfortable for touring and allow a longer stride than stiffer boots. Though not recommended practice, I know a snow industry professional or two who sometimes drive wearing TLTs, as they provide sufficient flex and feel when you need to jump in the truck and are in a rush. These boots were initially quite expensive, as many of those with "running shoe" flexibility and light weights were made for randonnee racing. Such advances have trickled down to cheaper boots for ski mountaineering, but be sure to check the design particulars. There are still LOTS of heavy clunky AT boots that do NOT have high degrees of articulation.
Here's a good (race boot) comparison from http://www.skintrack.com/boots-comparison/
These are specialized boots, many of which are great for ski mountaineering, and beyond the scope of what the OP wants to do.
|
|
Spiny Norman
Social climber
Boring, Oregon
|
|
The most frustrating day skiing on the wrong gear is better than the best day arguing politics on Supertopo bump
|
|
rockermike
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
I've had days in the BC (glazed breakable crust interspersed with patches of super dry wind packed powder) when I really would have rather been at home arguing on ST. :)
Most people consider me an expert skier, but falling every 30 feet, and breaking through every time you try to set a edge can make for a miserable day. Ever seen a grown man cry? And then take his skis off and post hole down the god damn hill. :)
|
|
10b4me
Mountain climber
Retired
|
|
I've had days in the BC (glazed breakable crust interspersed with patches of super dry wind packed powder) when I really would have rather been at home arguing on ST. :)
Most people consider me an expert skier, but falling every 30 feet, and breaking through every time you try to set a edge can make for a miserable day. Ever seen a grown man cry? And then take his skis off and post hole down the god damn hill. :)
lol, because I've almost been there.
|
|
ryanb
climber
Hamilton, MT
|
|
OlympicMountainBoy just to clarify I'm usually doing my mellow tours on *fat* light skis... g3 synapse at 109 underfoot. But they only weight about 1300g each so similar to a pair of karhu guides/madasu anums and much much easier to break trail with which I end up doing a lot. (First world skier problem: all my mellow tours have too much powder!)
I'd go with something a little skinnier for general use or for consolidated snow. In fact i was shopping for something skinnier and I bought the 109's mostly because they were a screaming deal but I haven't exactly been reaching for my old skinny skis for anything but carving in bounds.
Also come to montana!
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
I'm not talking ankle flex - I'm talking foot flex. The difference between a boot with a rigid insole (like alpine and AT ski boots) and a flexible insole (like hiking or tele boots).
A 2 week tour on AT gear gave me a serious case of plantar fasciitis.
|
|
Scoop
Mountain climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2017 - 11:47am PT
|
In my experience wax-less or fish scale skis work well on low angle fresh snow but are near useless on corn, frozen or creamy. I would suggest considering at least carrying a set of kicker skins.
I also don't think the weight of a two or three buckle AT boot, dynafits and a ski like the voile vector or BD hello 95 is that much more than an NNN set-up, and sure has heck gives a lot more control and flexibility for terrain and conditions.
|
|
TeleK
Mountain climber
San Francisco
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2017 - 01:05pm PT
|
This is why you want a whole quiver of skis. I've got my powder boards, spring touring set up, a lighter spring touring set up on Fischer BCs, and a XC ski with NNN-BC.
A pair of my NNN BC set up weighs just as much as one of my Fischers. I can get to the TM hut in a lot less effort using my NNN BCs... but if I want to make any turns, I don't use them. And use one of my other set ups. There's no quiver killers for skiing...
So... if you want to just do some flat touring off groomers, then get the NNN-BC set up. If you want to make any turns... then get the ATs. If you want to do some of both, you'll need both.
|
|
allanc
climber
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2017 - 02:27pm PT
|
"Do you ski?"
"I telemark"
"Don't you feel guilty about calling people during dinner?"
I ski on everything from skate (poorly) to AT. My wife says
I have too many skis. The truth is I don't have enough.
For the Sierra, I'd go for lightest plastic low-cut
teleboots (old T3 or T4 or whatever is current). It has turned out to
be the best compromise.
NNN-BC and below just don't have the boot support and stiffness
needed. If you had the stiffness, you'd rip the binding apart.
The T3/T4 with good inner boots are warmer and won't
significantly slow you down on the flats (we're assuming that
you're probably breaking trail or behind 1 other person and
not skating the glacier point road out and back.)
It's never mentioned, but the stiffness and beefiness also helps
when you're trying to slog through a couple of feet of Sierra cement
and don't want your feet sliding off the sides of your skis.
I should make up some skiing fortune cookies that say
"You will ski through cement"
"Your wax will not stick" "You will break out the klister"
"You will fix something with duct tape"
AT is just too uncomfortable and slow for doing anything other than a
skin up, and let's face it, you probably shouldn't be pushing your limits
20 miles into BFE. Once you get adept at tele, T3 will allow you to ski
almost ANYTHING, telemark or parallel style. I've seen guys doing
jump turns with low-cut cable gear down 50+ degree chutes and more.
The good thing about AT, is that it gets people with downhill experience
into the backcountry on something within their comfort zone.
(they probably should start by parallel skiing with some T2).
If I was going to do a short ski into a base, and then spend a couple of
days yo-yo-ing a glacier or runs on some hardpack, or corn, or suncupped stuff,
yeah, AT. The problem is that you get a little of that sandwiched in with
some cement, some powder, some breakable crust, some junk, AND it's 10 miles in.
Tele is stable in a lot of junk. Even lift service, I hit teleturns here, parallel
there. High tele, low tele. It's a flexibility you don't get with AT.
My dynafits are close in weight to the heavier tele, but speedwise on the
flats, they lose. Uphill, it's the same. Downhill, AT wins on speed, but you
really really want to ssssllloooowww down anyway. Several times I've seen
how much hassle it is getting a stokes litter in to pull out a skier with
a broken leg.
It's the difference between doing Royal arches with 4 nuts and 3 cams and
doing it with doubles #00 to #4.
Having either a touring mode or way of unlocking the cable and just
using pins is a big plus. The old Rainey (cable only) and Voile (3pin+cable)
have been my mainstays. (The bomber bishop are my favorite downhill)
For skis, I'd go with single camber and moderately wide (with a little
sidecut). Wide helps with the flotation. Light is good. I got a free
pair of superleggera _aluminum_ edged telemark skis I still haven't mounted and tried.
You're not sacrificing much on the speed with single, and it makes even mellow
downhills a blast. The double cambered telemark just take a lot more to
carve and turn. I might change mind if the trip involved a lot of
flats or covered roads and I really wanted to wax. I really detested the waxless
fishscale double cambered telemark. I would always choose
longer/narrower over shorter/wider, mainly for the flotation/flats aspect).
I'm not using 210's anymore, but 180-185 is good for me. You can make the
long ones turn quick if you practice.
Go real short if you're going to be stomping dense brush/trees or something
like you have on the East coast.
One last thing. You can mount hinged crampons on plastic tele or the
heavy 3pin leather ones. None of the tele boots I've tried frontpoint well.
Save your rigid crampons for AT. And neither work very well on any of
the xc boots
|
|
Mar'
Trad climber
Fanta Se
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2017 - 05:27pm PT
|
Somebody above mentioned not being able to flex on AT gear/boots. The kind of AT binding that accepts mountaineering boots permits flexing at the ankle, which is perfectly acceptable for linking tele-turns as well as for painless touring.
It actually takes a modicum of subtle technique to hang out in rigid boots all day/every day. Ya can't fall asleep at the wheel. It's not hard~ just a subtle flat-footed hesitation between each foot-flex. Foot ailments are operator error in most cases. Rigid boots require precision.
I've been skiing on full-metal-edge 130cm AT skis (100-75-90) since about 1981. There are two Austrian 130cm skis distributed in North America by Hagan.
Silvretta Sas Fee cable-bindings are still available new on ebay as as well as Ramer's mil-spec derivative. Silvretta 300s are not so common, nor are the Silvretta 500 LSV AT binding which was discontinued a few years back. Yet there are eight pairs of Silvretta 500 LSV bindings for sale on ebay right now.
Any mountain or AT boot will work with these bindings. You can actually climb rock or ice with the boots on your rig …never could say that about a flexy 75mm or BNC boot.
I live in Santa Fe now, but the Pacific maritime range snow I remember is kinda heavy, as I recall~ short skis and burly bindings work real guuud with skins-- it's possible to kick and glide just like god intended~ and especially at the end of the day or in the shade with skins on~ keeping things under control can actually be a reasonable proposition!!
|
|
Climbnrok
Trad climber
LA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 19, 2017 - 09:44pm PT
|
Should have posted this recap a while ago. Sorry.
So I tried out the NNN-BC setup. You guys that said there was no control and you can't turn well were right. The boots didn't feel like they had much support making it even more work to stay on my feet. Plus the auto bindings were way too touchy with some snow in them. I'm not sure how much of it was me sucking at skiing in general (probably a lot), but I'm going to have to say that setup was leaving way too much fun on the table. Flats were fine. Uphill was fine. Any sort of down hill was rough. Probably would not recommend to a friend.
I think next up I'll try out the light AT setup, like TLT7 or Atomic Backland with some 80-90mm scaled skis. I know REI is the evil empire, but they have the Backland boots in stock in LA which saves me driving back to Mammoth to try on boots. They are light, got pretty good reviews, and are supposed to have about as much flex as you can get in walk mode apart from the super high end arc'teryx stuff.
I was going to say that maybe this whole skiing thing isn't for me, but since now it doesn't look like the Sierra will thaw out until next year I better give it another shot.
Thanks for all the great feedback.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2017 - 10:08pm PT
|
My 2 cents...keep the current setup for light/medium, taking the dog out touring.
If you get the AT boots, couple them with a traditional backcountry ski and skins, not a ski with "scales" (waxless base). Better turning ability.
The one exception is if you're just doing mellow tours, then the waxless-base ski would be ok. Either way, spend the $ for a Dynafit or similar tech binding.
Take them to a resort and get used to them on groomers for a day or two. More forgiving than backcountry snow.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!