Recommendation for a steep couloir/ mountaineering ski?

[NShultz]

I'm looking for a steep couloir/ technical line/ big vert day ski....

I currently tour on Praxis BC 180cm & Lotus 120 Pures 184cm. I have not had a chance to ski the Wailer 99 yet. After reading hours of forums here I'm still not sure if it would fit the bill for what I'm looking for.... Any advice is much appreciated! Or if you know of another ski that would be better I'm open to suggestions!

Also btwn the 176cm / 184 cm size if you all think the W99 is a go. I'm 5'10, 145lbs.

Thanks!

[freak]

in my opinion they have a too short turning radius and too much tailrocker for a dedicated ski-mountaineering/steeps ski.
i would want something with 25m (or >25m) radius@ ca. 180cm. little bit of tiprocker, no tailrocker, no twintip. 90mm wide. k2 waybacks and hardsides are pretty popular around here for stuff like that...

freak~[&]

[grinch]

i really like everything about my moment tahoe except the twin tip. the praxis yeti addresses that with a similar sidecut(good) and no twin. great weight and price. i think UnfrozenCL has a 182 new in package for sale on the praxis thread. i really want one but i'm having a hard time giving up my tahoe. bet the yeti improves upon it everywhere though

[TahoeJ]

The 99 wouldn't be my choice.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

Similar ski with no twin tip and a longer radius = Countdown 4.

[GeezerSteve]

I'm 5'10, 145lbs.

If I weighed 145 lbs. my ski mountaineering ski would be way shorter than 180cm and way narrower than 99mm.

[NShultz]

Awsome advice so far! Anyone have some more personal experience on the Yeti? (I also had them in mind... as I love my Backcountrys).

Think the 172cm would ski too short?

Keep it coming. I appreciate it!

[GeezerSteve]

At 145 lbs. 172cm is plenty long for a true ski mountaineering ski. You could go even shorter with some skis.

[NShultz]

Big Steve -

Do you have anything in mind that you would recommend specifically? Considering the Yeti in 172cm. I hear great things about Ski Trab too....

[wgrand802]

G3 saint. G3s seem pretty love hate from what I have read, but I am certainly on the love side of that

[rod9301]

I would look at the blizzard bonafide or the dynafit hm 97 .

in skiing steep couloirs, you encounter many different conditions, and you want a ski that can handle anything.
a light ski is too much of a compromise.
may have a good hold on ice, but what do you
in breakable crust, or heavy, wet snow.

the w99 is definitely but the right ski, gets deflected into oblivion.

save the weight in your bindings, boots, backpack, poles, before you look at skis.

for steep, fall you die couloirs, get a ski that you are 100% comfortable on.

another half a pound to a pound per ski won't make that much difference uphill, but will make the downhill much more enjoyable.

a lot the best skiers tahoe are on bonafides or cochise skis for this reason
Sent from my SCH-I500 using TGR Forums

[whatsupdoc]

Personally, I don't think the Yeti or W99 are ideal for what you're looking for (understand I haven't skied either, but I have spent a lot of time on the Praxis BC). They would both make awesome quiver of 1 touring rigs, but I think there's better options out there for the quiver ski you're looking for.

Why? I think they both have too much rocker and not enough running length for firm snow. This makes sizing down troublesome. This type of ski will see a lot of firm snow. The Yeti has the same rocker profile as the BC. I may stand alone on this, but I would have mellowed out the rocker on the Yeti. A narrower ski will be lighter for big vert days. And I would want a flat tail for ski mountaineering.

Personally, I'd want something in the 85-90 underfoot range and more running length for the given size with a flat tail. I'm not convinced rocker is necessary for this type of ski.

check out the Trab Stelvio Light XL, Trab Ripido, Movement Logic, and La Sportiva GT. If you want a little rocker, look at the La Sportiva GTR, Dynafit Mustagh Ata Superlight, G3 Spitfire LT, K2 Wayback, and Movement Bond.

[bluesbrother49]

Dynastar Cham 97 High Mountain..rips! 184cm

[steveski]

At 145 lbs. 172cm is plenty long for a true ski mountaineering ski. You could go even shorter with some skis.

Yes and no. It really depends on the type of ski mountaineering. Is the ski a tool for travel first? or a tool for descent in varied snow conditions. I think there is a balance in length, especially when skiing with a multi-day pack.

[auvgeek]

I bought a pair of 178 Ski Trab Stevio XLs specifically for that purpose. I only skied them for 1200 ft of vert so I probably need to spend more time on them, but I really didn't like the way they skied at all. (And I usually can tell these things relatively quickly nowadays given the number of skis I've skied lately.)

I'm thinking I'll pick up a pair of PM Gear 183 or 179 Bros. 125-99-114. Nice long turn radius (like 33 m in the 179).

I also very much liked my K2 Hardsides for that purpose, but I sold them because they were quite heavy. I'm sure the BackUp would work quite well too (81 mm waist), but it's still a bit heavy.

Edit: I'm not a super-experienced ski mountaineer, unlike some others here, so take it with whatever grain of salt you want. But I still want a ski that I can trust and makes skiing enjoyable, even though I know it won't ski like an alpine setup and race boots.

[StopMakingSense]

You guys are all fucking nuts, at the very least have a sub 176cm ski under 90 at the waist and go for 3lbs or less per ski ... you really aren't doing much skiing in epic conditions. More high consequence situations with a lot of ropes, hop turns, hard snow, steep boot packs where you don't want your skis towering over you and throwing off your center of balance. What I'm trying to say is you aren't looking for a ski that rips because you aren't starring in the next TGR movie, you're trying to make it down alive, it sure as shit is not going to look pretty most of the time. Why would you be maching a high consequence coulior? Every turn I'm going to make is well thought out and very deliberate.

whatsupdoc has the right thoughts ... new G3 C88 is looking good, definitely under my radar for a mountaineering ski next year for me - http://www.verdepr.com/sites/default...INAL_small.pdf

However, if you plan on skiing lines like Terminal Cancer in Nevada or Bloody Coulior in Cali when the conditions are perfect then by all means get something wider and stiffer as you'll have a ton more fun.

[stradissimo]

Personally, I'd want something in the 85-90 underfoot range and more running length for the given size with a flat tail. I'm not convinced rocker is necessary for this type of ski.

check out the Trab Stelvio Light XL, Trab Ripido, Movement Logic, and La Sportiva GT. If you want a little rocker, look at the La Sportiva GTR, Dynafit Mustagh Ata Superlight, G3 Spitfire LT, K2 Wayback, and Movement Bond.

I agree with this one million percent.

Also, I weigh 140 lbs and for me the sweet spot for mountaineering skis is 170 - 175 cm. My one-ski backcountry quiver for the last couple years has been 184 Movement Sluffs with Dynafits. On big vertical days I want lighter lighter skis. On tight lines I want shorter skis. On deep days I want bigger skis. They rail groomers, though . Next year, I'm going back to having a mountaineering ski like a Trab Stelvio Light XL 171, and a pow ski like a Protest.

[Tutuko]

Kabookie if you want a great, almost full running length ski.

Edit: Yeti has crazy edge grip (combination of sidecut, slight oscillation and perfect 94mm width) but only over a short running length. Keith needs to flatten out the tail.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

For really hard snow I prefer an older, stiffer midfat like a Dynastar Legend 8800 or Atomic REX. I've tried a bunch of ultralight skis from several manufacturers. They're useful, but I just don't think they're fun. I'll take the weight penalty.

For more mixed conditions, I'm coming around on subtle tail rocker for this application. You might lose a bit of grip, but on steeps, an easier to pivot ski spends more time on the snow and less in the air. It lets you add more of a slarve to the end jump turn. This also means smaller jumps and less acceleration/deceleration- less energy used. The Countdown 4 has a 101 waist, but its only 121 in the tip and 107 in the tail, so for side hilling it feels like a narrower ski. It doesn't have that "where the fuck is the tail?" feeling some skis have. So far I'm a big fan.

[Mr Mack]

I am using K2 Back-up's (82 waist) as my Teton spring ski and I have found them to be solid in all types of snow, even powder. They really hold an edge and when I desperately need to make a turn they never let me down. Not the lightest ski but I have tried several 6 lb skis and never felt confident on them--

[StopMakingSense]

I am using K2 Back-up's (82 waist) as my Teton spring ski and I have found them to be solid in all types of snow, even powder. They really hold an edge and when I desperately need to make a turn they never let me down. Not the lightest ski but I have tried several 6 lb skis and never felt confident on them--

My point with sub 6lb skies is that you aren't skiing these lines like you normally would, you practically aren't skiing but I guess this depends on your goals and what the descent has to offer.

In the end I tell everyone is that it depends on YOUR personal goals you set for yourself during the year. Some want to go as fast and as light as possible and will link up multiple peaks which would only be possible with Ski Trab WC skis, Scarpa Alien Boots, and Plum 145 bindings ... the opposite end wants a Volkl Chopstick with Krypton Pros and Duke's. Both will make it to the top and make it down but their goals differ entirely for a day out. The Chopstick wielder may take the direct route up the ridge line and down the face while the Ski Trab might want to link up a technical scramble involving ropes on the ascent and then ski a portion of the face that will require a rappel down to make it to an extremely tight coulior.

Pick your ski/boot/binding combo wisely ... they all need to match to work harmoniously

[verbier61]

Please forget the trabs for that. Kabookie looks the best option

[NShultz]

What's the concern against the Ski Trabs? The Trab Stevio XL looks pretty gud?

Thanks for all the input folks! Paying attention for sure!

[neck beard]

.... too much rocker and not enough running length for firm snow. This makes sizing down troublesome. This type of ski will see a lot of firm snow.

....more running length for the given size with a flat tail. I'm not convinced rocker is necessary for this type of ski.

This makes sense.

..

[LeeLau]

Replaced Atomic Rex with G3 Spitfire. Reasonably light. Tough so I can run it into rocks. Skis reasonably well at 177 short length. 88 underfoot. Slight early rise. Could be stiffer but not much will be as stiff as the old reliable R:ex

http://www.wildsnow.com/7233/scarpa-...strale-review/