Thread: Touring Question: 1 Lb/kg on feet == 5 lb/kg on Back ??

I've heard a couple of people tell me that 1lb on the feet is like 5 on the back. SOme people suggest more like 4.

I don't know how true this is. Certainly seems to be some logic in that your feet will move up and down more than your back. I can see in a straight hiking that since your feet move significantly more height than your back you are effectively climbing X meters with your body and 3X with your feet. When skinning this may reduce with efficient sliding.

Going from a heavy touring setup to a light touring setup I certainly believe this. However, as you mention, the efficiency has to be taken into account. Walking in touring boots isn't really any easier than skinning, because it's so much less efficient, even on flat, hard snow.

I posted on a bunch of hiking forums a few years ago about that.
The best support anyone could provide was that supposedly the U.S. military studied that issue many years ago.
Nobody could cite to how many years ago, the exact conclusions, what exactly the supposed study studied, the title, etc.
But when hiking, I think it makes sense.
Skinning is different.
First, the skis, skins, and some portion of the binding stays on the snow. So that 5:1 ratio definitely doesn't apply.
The boot, and perhaps some part of the binding, pivots, but doesn't lift as much as when hiking, so not 5:1, but still, it's way more than 1:1.
What I noticed most when I switched to Dynafits was not the lighter weight when just lifting up the ski-binding combo, but the way the binding adds no swing weight -- or lifted weight as Dynafit now calls it -- to each stride.
In other words, a Dynafit setup with a heavy ski is way more efficient when skinning than a Diaxo setup with a lighter ski, even though the static weight might be identical.

Makes sense.

Another interesting example: a few times I've been on dry approaches, but nice even footing, low angle. So no slipping, or dealing with rocks, uneven terrain, etc. And ski boots already on.
Finally reach continuous snow. Take skis off pack and start skinning. That 5:1 formula says I should be less efficient. But instead of having to lift up my ski boot each step, now the ski boot just pivots a bit. The boot is pushing more weight forward than before, but the ski+binding+skin is just sliding forward on the snow, not lifting up. So feels much more efficient than before.

Another scenario: let's say that nice dry approach keeps going in parallel to the skinnable snow. Which is more efficient, skinning, or hiking with lightweight trail runners (instead of ski boots)? I think it's roughly a draw, especially based on my experience with the ~1850' vert approach to treeline on Mount Washington, which seems to take 50+something minutes either in winter or once the trail is entirely melted out in late spring. (Even better, heading up in mid-summer or early fall with no ski gear takes only about half that . . . but then there's no skiing, sigh.)