Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 57
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    12,899
    Ah, the old soft tail vs. hard tail backcountry ski debate.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by Shorty_J View Post
    The Spire BC is a very soft ski. I am interested in this ski as well, but even at only 150lbs, I'm worried that with a full pack that these would be just too soft. I'd find somewhere to hand-flex a pair before you bite.

    Singel: Do you have an first-hand experience with the IM95? This is also an intriguing ski to me given that it has some girth but is still very light.
    The shorter length Spire BCs might be a little soft for someone at 190, but the 184s would still ski really nicely. Otherwise, the regular Spire is probably the right recommendation. I'm about 190 myself, generally lugging camera gear as well as my pack, and my own preference is always for something a little shorter and softer in the backcountry than my resort/sidecountry skis. I find it a little more versatile and forgiving as the conditions change back and forth through the day. If it's bulletproof out in the BC (like if the corn never warms), the difference between some carbon and a little metal isn't going to change my descent dramatically.

    Depending on the characteristics you're looking for, all these suggestions can really be broken up in a couple different categories:

    Superlight BC skis: ok edgehold on superfirm, light, fast to turn, great weight.
    K2 Baker SL (88 waist) - 3100g/pair for 174cm
    Dynafit Mustagh Ata (88 waist) - 3240g for 178cm
    Karhu Spire BC (86 waist) - 3062g for 177cm
    BD Voodoo (88 waist) - 3300g for 175cm
    Atomic Kailas (88 waist) - 3265g for 174cm
    G3 Ace (81 waist) - 2950g for 177cm)

    Stiffer BC skis: better edgehold, mid-to-heavy weight
    K2 Mt Baker (88 waist) - 3620g for 174cm
    Karhu Spire (86 waist) - 3420g for 177cm
    BD Havoc (88 waist) - 3500g for 175cm

    Going a little wider: good edgehold, wider, stable platform, much more weight.
    Bro 174/179 (99 waist) - 3912g for 174cm
    Karhu Storm (96 waist) - 3876g for 177cm
    Dynastar LP (97 waist) - 4100g for 176cm

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    399
    I skied on dp wailer 95s for a season and switched to reverends this year. I removed the brakes on my dynafits to help make up for some of the weight gain. What a huge difference. The rev is a legitimate crud buster and with the brakes gone I dont notice the weight. Much happier with this set up in the PNW snow and would highly recommend the reverend. If you want something lighter, take a look at their Spitfire and Saint, although I havent skied either.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Colyrady
    Posts
    3,802
    Quote Originally Posted by 3pin View Post
    Superlight BC skis: ok edgehold on superfirm, light, fast to turn, great weight.
    K2 Baker SL (88 waist) - 3100g/pair for 174cm
    Dynafit Mustagh Ata (88 waist) - 3240g for 178cm
    Karhu Spire BC (86 waist) - 3062g for 177cm
    BD Voodoo (88 waist) - 3300g for 175cm
    Atomic Kailas (88 waist) - 3265g for 174cm
    G3 Ace (81 waist) - 2950g for 177cm)

    Stiffer BC skis: better edgehold, mid-to-heavy weight
    K2 Mt Baker (88 waist) - 3620g for 174cm
    Karhu Spire (86 waist) - 3420g for 177cm
    BD Havoc (88 waist) - 3500g for 175cm

    Going a little wider: good edgehold, wider, stable platform, much more weight.
    Bro 174/179 (99 waist) - 3912g for 174cm
    Karhu Storm (96 waist) - 3876g for 177cm
    Dynastar LP (97 waist) - 4100g for 176cm
    Thats useful, although a bit counter-intuitive. In general I'd think the narrower ski would do better on edgehold, all other things equal.

    Where would you put my old Tua Crossride 112s for comparison? 112-80-100

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by smitchell333 View Post
    Thats useful, although a bit counter-intuitive. In general I'd think the narrower ski would do better on edgehold, all other things equal.

    Where would you put my old Tua Crossride 112s for comparison? 112-80-100
    The old Couloir reviews list the Crossride 112 as 3380g/pair (length unknown, but likely the 178).

    All things equal, a narrower ski should have better edgehold, but there are a ton of variables that come from the design (sidecut type and depth) and construction (materials change things like torsional rigidity, and even weight has an effect with how we perceive edge-to-edge quickness). I say good edgehold on the fatter skis given because they're all pretty stiff builds with strong torsional rigidity. But I'd still say that middle group would have the best edgehold in the widest conditions though, a combination of similar builds and narrower profiles.

    For my skiing, a spring/summer touring ski is
    1) light (for covering much more distance than mid-winter)
    2) mid-fat (better edgehold for firm, don't need big float for corn, so ~85 waist. A wide shovel with that waist width does great for float in sloppy snow)
    3) forgiving (easy to ski all day long, even when my legs are tired or the conditions get miserable)

    Choosing what's right for you is really picking the characteristics that are most important in your given day. Hope that helps.

    Edit: also, hway makes a great point about the overall weight of your set-up. If you're dropping more weight with boots and bindings, you can slide the scale back up on skis weighted more toward descents than ascents.
    Last edited by 3pin; 03-19-2009 at 02:53 PM.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    3,607
    3pin... great explanations... thanks for the breakdown!

    In principle I agree that softer is better in the backcountry due to it being more forgiving, but with the extra pack weight (i.e. for longer tours) I think a little more stiffness could be beneficial. And I'm a little hesitant to go 184 for a light touring setup just to get the extra stiffness from the Spire BC.

    Regarding item 3, would you agree that more sidecut also adds to forgivness since it's easier to turn those suckers with tire legs/poor form?
    Goal: ski in the 2018/19 season

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by Shorty_J View Post
    3pin... great explanations... thanks for the breakdown!

    In principle I agree that softer is better in the backcountry due to it being more forgiving, but with the extra pack weight (i.e. for longer tours) I think a little more stiffness could be beneficial. And I'm a little hesitant to go 184 for a light touring setup just to get the extra stiffness from the Spire BC.
    Sorry, I was recommending the 184 more for the OP's size. If you want a stiffer ski at 150lbs, I'd recommend the 177 Spire (maple/aspen and metal vs the paulownia/maple and carbon in the BC).

    Quote Originally Posted by Shorty_J
    Regarding item 3, would you agree that more sidecut also adds to forgivness since it's easier to turn those suckers with tire legs/poor form?
    More sidecut in the shovel, yes, not as much through the entire ski. Too deep a sidecut, and suddenly things can get pretty hooky, where you have to drive the edges instead of getting lazy. A wider shovel with a moderate taper toward the tail gives you easy float and quick turn initiation, but gives you more versatility with turn shapes at the close of the turn.

    Relating to the tired legs thing, one of the nice things about a softer touring ski is the ability to scrub speed off the tails. I have a couple skis with stiff tails that just won't do that... they like to accelerate when you get back on them, which isn't what I want late in a long day of touring.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    3,607
    I think that with the sheet of metal, the non BC version is heavier than I'd like to go for my long tours ski.

    The search continues...
    Goal: ski in the 2018/19 season

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wankouver
    Posts
    1,526
    I haven't seen mention of the Dynafit Manaslu yet which has had a few good reviews here.
    122-95-108mm
    2.82kg (178cm)

    Might be a bit soft for the OP.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    verbier, milan, isla de pascua
    Posts
    4,812
    forgot to mention because it's very expensive, though....
    the best AT ski I've ever tried so far (apart from handmade birdos) it's the stockli stormrider pit pro (174, 77 in the middle, 3.1 kg for pair). It might look slim, but it's amazing in every spring ski condition, and it takes an hold like a GS ski.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    3,607
    Manaslu is on the list, and is actually probably the pefect ski for what I want to do (though maybe I'll wait and see what the spring snow reviews have to say about that)... just a very expensive ski. I think the stiffness is about perfect for what I want too.
    Goal: ski in the 2018/19 season

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    'bangin' your girlfriend
    Posts
    802
    I like my G3 SpitFires. 126-89, wide enough for some soft stuff, but still grabs on hard pack. They're about the same weight as the slightly larger G3 Saint, but stiffer. I have FFR's on them, as I'm not a big dynafit fan, but that does add weight. I'm 155lbs and I'm using the 177's, and find them plenty stiff for me, but a bigger guy would go to the 184's for sure.

    Saints are well reviewed as a good touring ski, being light for their size (paulownia) but I skied them and found them just a bit soft for me. That said, I know a bunch of guys with them, and sing their praises.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    12,899
    Quote Originally Posted by Shorty_J View Post
    Manaslu is on the list, and is actually probably the pefect ski for what I want to do (though maybe I'll wait and see what the spring snow reviews have to say about that). . .
    I too await the reviews after the Manaslu is tested in spring conditions. But I remind that there are two very different spring conditions, at least here in the PNW: (a) the early spring bottomless unconsolidated mush phase, where the Manaslu's soft flat tip should be superior; and (b) post-consolidation firm corn, where a stiffer ski is superior for skinning firm morning conditions and keeping speed on long low angle stretches.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    7,804
    i used to lust over this ski, and each time im in bentgate, i swear i see some from last season, really marked down

    checkout the trab stelvio

    [164cm, 171cm, 178cm, 185cm] 115 / 84 / 105mm
    1500gm per ski in the 171

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    the gach
    Posts
    5,494
    I am on the storm 184 and it feels like cheating. Amazing edgehold on boilerplate super easy to turn but damp stable and fast. With dynafits I dont need another touring ski. Not as heavy as they sound. I am 6'2" 250# and ski and skin aggressively.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    South Lake Tahoe
    Posts
    3,498
    Both my Mt. Baker SL's and Trab Duo Freerando Lights both don't have too much side cut, 20mm or less between waist and tail. I don't care about tip/waist too much, because it is usually enough. The problem is that alot of skis have to much side cut between waist and tail.

    The Trab is a great ski, lots of edgehold and very lively, maybe too lively - I have trouble with it in breakable crust, were a softer ski might be better. That is why I got the Baker SL.

    The Baker SL is 6.5 pounds in a 174 (which is similar in length to most of my 180 cm skis) and I think the Trab in a 178 is less than 5.5 pounds.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Colyrady
    Posts
    3,802
    Some good options. hmmmmm wish I could just get another pair of 185 TUA crossride 112s as they were damn good skis with a good balance between float & edge and very lively.

    Here's another twist - I've been on the 185s and longer for years but thinking about going a bit smaller just for the ease of hiking in trees or rocky terrain where longer skis constantly catch. Is that ill-advised as I'll overpower 175s dropping down?

    Anyone ski the Dynafit 7 Summits?

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    12,899
    Quote Originally Posted by smitchell333 View Post
    hmmmmm wish I could just get another pair of 185 TUA crossride 112s. . .
    SM, my buddy has a pair of Crossride 112's with very few days (prolly <10) on them, and I'm certain he'd be willing to part with them for a low price. Mounted with HH's. PM me if you're interested.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    3,607
    Quote Originally Posted by pechelman View Post
    i used to lust over this ski, and each time im in bentgate, i swear i see some from last season, really marked down

    checkout the trab stelvio

    [164cm, 171cm, 178cm, 185cm] 115 / 84 / 105mm
    1500gm per ski in the 171
    I've been thinking about this ski as well... and they sell a "light" version of this ski at 2.58kg/pair at 171cm!

    http://www.mec.ca/Products/product_d...=1237820709881
    Goal: ski in the 2018/19 season

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    verbier, milan, isla de pascua
    Posts
    4,812
    FWIW, I tried and really did not like the stelvio. Way too nervous.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Your Mom's Bed
    Posts
    416

    Light AT Skis

    One of my favorite Spring/Summer skis is the Atomic MX09.

    Here's a review by Lou:

    http://www.wildsnow.com/156/ski-review-atomic-mx09/

    I have a pair of these for sale for $100/obo. I also have some brand new Black Diamond Ascension skins with STS cut to fit for a few bucks more. pm me if interested. Thanks.

    Last edited by Plinko; 03-23-2009 at 12:09 PM.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Turin, Hugging The Horse
    Posts
    3,374
    Quote Originally Posted by verbier61 View Post
    FWIW, I tried and really did not like the stelvio. Way too nervous.
    Verb,have you skied the Freerando light?
    That stick is sounding intresting and has gotten good reviews,wondering about the 171cm. Looking for a supa-light-spring/summer-climb-stick.[/hijack]

    The floggings will continue until morale improves.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    3,607
    Quote Originally Posted by verbier61 View Post
    FWIW, I tried and really did not like the stelvio. Way too nervous.
    Can you elaborate on what you mean by "nervous"?
    Goal: ski in the 2018/19 season

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    7,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Shorty_J View Post
    Can you elaborate on what you mean by "nervous"?
    and can you elaborate on where you had them mounted and how many days you skied them and with what bindings and boots?

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,277
    i really like my wailer95's for this purpose. light, relatively wide, ski well, easy to flick around, good edge hold, etc. in one swoop, they replaced my falling-apart crossride 110s and the BC use of my explosives. it was a good match for me. other skis that i considered at the time: reverend, stelvio, kilowatt. the twin tip hasn't bugged me much, either.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •