What powder touring ski?

[TAFKALVS]

DPS Lotus 138.


End of discussion.

too wide for touring

[hoarhey]

Wasn't there a pair of 179 UL RXs in GS recently? That'd be a good pow-touring choice for a smaller dude/larger dudette.

there has been a pair of 179 Rx's in the discount section of praxis website for a long time...

I'd consider those for inbounds...

Flat tail of the RX is probably not so good for nimbleness in the trees, and is probably more ski than the op needs for soft snow/pow/trees touring...

I think more people would get them if there was a narrower version in the 182 length... (111 vs 116 underfoot).
IMO, the UL cambered GPO's are the most underrated pow touring ski out there...

[kootenayskier]

Kootenayskier - interesting to hear youre psyched on the Synapse 109. The weight numbers they quote are absurdly light, even much lighter than the Tour 1 Wailer skis. Even the Blister guys seems to like them, although their review was pretty brief. Do you like them better than the Wailer 112s in general? I've got pure 112s right now, but am very tempted to get something even lighter. never skied full reverse camber skis, which the synapse appear to be...

I'm stoked on them. My W112 Pures are a great ski, and certainly carve better on groomers, but the S109s are significantly lighter and easier (with their tail shape)to tour with, are as fun and versatile as the Wailers in any good backcountry conditions, while noticeably easier (not that the Wailers suck or anything) in really shitty snow. I have both setups, and usually take out the S109s.

[wilcox510]

I'm stoked on them. My W112 Pures are a great ski, and certainly carve better on groomers, but the S109s are significantly lighter and easier (with their tail shape)to tour with, are as fun and versatile as the Wailers in any good backcountry conditions, while noticeably easier (not that the Wailers suck or anything) in really shitty snow. I have both setups, and usually take out the S109s.

How big are you, and what size of each ski do you have?

[skifishbum]

i'm in the carbon kusala or lotus 120 camp
i gots a pair of kusala w/ tryo demos
picked up a pairr of soli q labs 115 w/ dynas as roofin payment this summer
says 305 bsl on em
youre welcome to test ride either once there's some damn base

[LiveLarger]

too wide for touring

No, you are wrong.

[zion zig zag]

Lots of options these days. Figure out what radius you prefer and go from there. Voile is the the value leader: 181 Charger for >20m radius/stable on firm/all rounder, 186 V8 for <20m radius but more twitchy on firm and chop off the tails if kick turning is a PITA. If price is not an issue, I dunno. Okay then.

ETA: Charger BC for hut trips would be a bold move, a manifestation of your confidence as a modern man. And, yes, I have been drinking.

Someone else nailed it when they said that I probably hadn't looked at Voile since the Mtn Surf, but I'm starting to like the looks of the Charger or the V8. Unlike the 112RP tour, I'm not really reading bad reviews. It looks like the Voile store here in SLC demo's as well.

[zion zig zag]

i'm in the carbon kusala or lotus 120 camp
i gots a pair of kusala w/ tryo demos
picked up a pairr of soli q labs 115 w/ dynas as roofin payment this summer
says 305 bsl on em
youre welcome to test ride either once there's some damn base

I may take you up on that if I haven't done something by then. Thanks mang.

[kootenayskier]

How big are you, and what size of each ski do you have?

6'1", 175lbs. 190cm Wailers, 185cm S109s.

[TAFKALVS]

No, you are wrong.

I'm wrong until you actually have to use the 138 for sidehilling, encounter hard crusts, follow the skin track of someone on skinnier skis (woohoo! break trail everywhere!), when snow builds up on the topsheets (60 lb carbon fiber skis!) or moving across a sketchy ridgeline where edging power is important. Yes, I know that the 138 is THE TOOL FOR PURE 3D SNOW (TM) but there is a reason that most people's "pow" touring ski is 105 - 110 underfoot. It's just simply more efficient.

And don't get me wrong - I love wide R/R fun shapes like the 138, Protest, Pow Board, etc for lift based skiing (heck, even backcountry skiing accessed with a lift that might result in a little skinning.) But pow touring? Nope.

[LiveLarger]

I'm wrong until you actually have to use the 138 for sidehilling, encounter hard crusts, follow the skin track of someone on skinnier skis (woohoo! break trail everywhere!), when snow builds up on the topsheets (60 lb carbon fiber skis!) or moving across a sketchy ridgeline where edging power is important. Yes, I know that the 138 is THE TOOL FOR PURE 3D SNOW (TM) but there is a reason that most people's "pow" touring ski is 105 - 110 underfoot. It's just simply more efficient.

And don't get me wrong - I love wide R/R fun shapes like the 138, Protest, Pow Board, etc for lift based skiing (heck, even backcountry skiing accessed with a lift that might result in a little skinning.) But pow touring? Nope.

Sounds like what you want to do is more like mountaineering. Following skin tracks has never been any issue with wide skis for me. My narrowest ski is 115 mm. I'll give you right that edging a sketchy ridge on the 138 wouldn't be fun, but it's doable. Doing lift based skiing, that's pretty much where I don't bring out my 138. Only exception are places where you know you are skiing untracked all day with minimal transport back to the lift.

[TAFKALVS]

Sounds like what you want to do is more like mountaineering. Following skin tracks has never been any issue with wide skis for me. My narrowest ski is 115 mm. I'll give you right that edging a sketchy ridge on the 138 wouldn't be fun, but it's doable. Doing lift based skiing, that's pretty much where I don't bring out my 138. Only exception are places where you know you are skiing untracked all day with minimal transport back to the lift.

Where do you ski?

[LiveLarger]

Where do you ski?

Norway mostly. Voss, Myrkdalen, Strandafjellet, Hemsedal, Røldal etc. I also do a yearly pilgrim. Last season to Haines and same for this coming season.

[GeezerSteve]

Røldal

Cool keyboard bro

[mall walker]

Sounds like what you want to do is more like mountaineering. Following skin tracks has never been any issue with wide skis for me. My narrowest ski is 115 mm. I'll give you right that edging a sketchy ridge on the 138 wouldn't be fun, but it's doable. Doing lift based skiing, that's pretty much where I don't bring out my 138. Only exception are places where you know you are skiing untracked all day with minimal transport back to the lift.

What slope angle are you negotiating with 138 underfoot?

[turnfarmer]

If you like the Charger, try the BC version. If your only using it for powder touring it may rock your world. Or you will hate it. Only way to know is to try it and if they demo it your luckier than most who have to buy it on trust.

[TAFKALVS]

Sounds like what you want to do is more like mountaineering. Following skin tracks has never been any issue with wide skis for me. My narrowest ski is 115 mm. I'll give you right that edging a sketchy ridge on the 138 wouldn't be fun, but it's doable. Doing lift based skiing, that's pretty much where I don't bring out my 138. Only exception are places where you know you are skiing untracked all day with minimal transport back to the lift.

No, not mountaineering, just normal ski touring in the Pacific Northwest. We get a mixed bag of snow conditions and we start below treeline where there is often steep slopes and death crusts. Therefore (most sane) people tour on skinnier skis unless somehow using lifts to stay at high elevations. 138's et all are excellent for resort pow conditions because we often have bottomless snow conditions with various wind affect.

Try going on a tour with a 95-105 underfoot ski in pow conditions sometime. You'd be surprised how awesome they are.

[mall walker]

Try going on a tour with a 95-105 underfoot ski in pow conditions sometime. You'd be surprised how awesome they are.

QFT!

[Peruvian]

The sizing on these is really annoying, as I feel 181 would be too short and 191 a touch too long...

+1 on the Chargers. I have both 181 and 191s. I ski in VT trees so I prefer the 181s (me: 6'1, 185lbs).

[GeezerSteve]

The sizing on these is really annoying, as I feel 181 would be too short and 191 a touch too long...

181 Chargers ski long. Tails are a bit short, nice for kick turns, which makes the ski forward of the boot more like a 185 or 186.

[turnfarmer]

BTW that Countdown YW8 102 looks like an awesome backcountry ski.

[1000-oaks]

^ Those do look badass, they even have white tops.

[Cosmic Suncloud]

there is a reason that most people's "pow" touring ski is 105 - 110 underfoot.

simply nontrue

[XavierD]

I like touring on sub 110skis much more than I like skiing pow on 120+ skis.

If you live in a place where you never have to encounter firmer conditions or side hilling while touring good for you. Just understand that going from point A to B up hill can really suck on a RR shape.

If it's really deep I'll be in the resort anyway. I'd rather ski 30,000 vert feet a day than 6000 of low angle pow if there is good snow to be had.

[bodywhomper]

i have been very happy with 138's for powder touring. i have accidentally gotten them on some very hard 2d snow on the up and down and lived to tell the tale (wrong tool but still doable). i turned a few friends onto the 138s (very older version) for pow touring. one used the 120's and the 138s trading on several consecutive days and chose the 138s in the end. my understanding is that the current 138's are marketed for resort skiing. all of this experience is limited to the tahoe area.