Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    West Shore
    Posts
    2,322

    Skis for mountaineering

    I'm thinking about joining the dark side along with the rest of you double-plankers this Winter. I've got some climbing trips that I'd like to do in the future where an AT setup will come in handy for the approaches to the climbs. I don't think I'd really call this ski mountaineering as I'll more than likely ditch the skis before any of the real climbing begins, so downhill performance isn't necessarily the biggest priority. What I've got in my mind is a setup that works well for glacier travel, but with better downhill performance than skis with Silvretta bindings and mountain boots. I'm 5'11" and around 150 lbs, so I was thinking something around 170-180 in length and about 90 underfoot, but I'm open to suggestions. The Dynafit Cho Oyu has definitely caught my eye with its weight.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    281
    Check out the Praxis EXP, virtually made for what you're asking for. I've been on neither, but the Praxis with less deep sidecut sure looks more manageable on funky terrain than the lighter and turnier Dynafit. A tad heavier but as you said, the skis would not be intended for a lot of climbing which would reduce the weight factor being an issue. If travelling a lot of flats is on the agenda, being able to ski without skins could be a nice option which is featured on the Voilé Objective BC 's, also worth a look.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    cordova,AK
    Posts
    2,640
    you should think more about your boot choice than a ski.
    off your knees Louie

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Golden, BC
    Posts
    1,355
    If you want to test your limits, there is no replacement for something lighter. Chos are pretty manageable going downhill, for the weight class they're pretty forgiving. Go for the 17x length of whatever ski you decide, shorter skis are more forgiving which is a trait you definitely want if skis aren't your first language (at 6'4" I run a 182 most of the time for mountaineering). Boots are very important, if it doesn't fit you will be miserable. Go to a shop, figure out a good boot and get it fitted, then spend the rest of your budget. 90-odd underfoot is the money spot for spring mountaineering, for my snowpack anyways. If nobody else you're skiing with has fishscale bases, I wouldn't bother getting those skis. You'll be out of sync with them on the way up.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    CH
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by grubbers View Post
    I'm thinking about joining the dark side along with the rest of you double-plankers this Winter. I've got some climbing trips that I'd like to do in the future where an AT setup will come in handy for the approaches to the climbs. I don't think I'd really call this ski mountaineering as I'll more than likely ditch the skis before any of the real climbing begins, so downhill performance isn't necessarily the biggest priority. What I've got in my mind is a setup that works well for glacier travel, but with better downhill performance than skis with Silvretta bindings and mountain boots. I'm 5'11" and around 150 lbs, so I was thinking something around 170-180 in length and about 90 underfoot, but I'm open to suggestions. The Dynafit Cho Oyu has definitely caught my eye with its weight.
    Might fit the bill and I think I have a 2nd left. Could hook it up via the group buy and cheap in a topsheet 2nd.
    http://www.downskis.com/shop/yw8-89-factory-2nd
    #1 goal this year......stay alive +
    DOWN SKIS

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    17,964
    sounds like you are a climber who wants to use skis to acess climbing ?

    If so I wouldn't over think this just get something narrow light & cheap

    skis that were hot 15 years ago would be fine so you could probably pick up a set of skis/skins/bindings for very cheap
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    818
    I agree that boots are your best investment if you objective is to approach on skis and then climb technical stuff.

    For skis, I have the Down WY89 -- it's last year's model, 89 mm at the waist, and 172 cm overall. Pretty damn light too and a better downhill performer than Dynafit Nanga Parbat (which it replaced).

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washoe Valley
    Posts
    257
    I would take a hard look at a new school waxless ski like a Voile Vector BC or the like. The difference in slogging speed for the approaches and runouts is huge and the skis still have enough chops to ski the down decently. The skis would be a good match for Dynafit race bindings and TLT 6/7 boots. IMO

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    West Shore
    Posts
    2,322
    So I'm about to pull the trigger on the Scarpa F1 for my boots, they seem to have a decent balance between weight and downhill performance. I tried on the Maestrale recently and liked the fit of those, looks like the F1 is just a hair wider so I can't imagine the fit will be too different. If I liked the feel of the 27.0, I'm guessing I should just order the 26.5 since it's the same shell size, right?

    I'll probably pick up some Speed Radicals for bindings, but I still can't decide on skis. Might just go the used route if I can find something for the right price.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    Down LowDown 90 looks like a great mountaineering ski. I have a pair, but haven't skied them yet. But to my eye, the rocker, shape, and weight all feel about right.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    6,088
    Quote Originally Posted by grubbers View Post
    So I'm about to pull the trigger on the Scarpa F1 for my boots, they seem to have a decent balance between weight and downhill performance. I tried on the Maestrale recently and liked the fit of those, looks like the F1 is just a hair wider so I can't imagine the fit will be too different. If I liked the feel of the 27.0, I'm guessing I should just order the 26.5 since it's the same shell size, right?

    I'll probably pick up some Speed Radicals for bindings, but I still can't decide on skis. Might just go the used route if I can find something for the right price.
    When I tried on F1's I though they fit a bit smaller than Maestrales.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    2,984
    Quote Originally Posted by grubbers View Post
    So I'm about to pull the trigger on the Scarpa F1 for my boots, they seem to have a decent balance between weight and downhill performance. I tried on the Maestrale recently and liked the fit of those, looks like the F1 is just a hair wider so I can't imagine the fit will be too different. If I liked the feel of the 27.0, I'm guessing I should just order the 26.5 since it's the same shell size, right?

    I'll probably pick up some Speed Radicals for bindings, but I still can't decide on skis. Might just go the used route if I can find something for the right price.
    Sounds as if you know what boots will work for you on the climb (and you can advise us in this respect). Yes, Scarpas are the odd ones in terms of shell size break, so 26.5 & 27.0 use the same shell. I'm not sure how they approach the liners (i.e. take up space for the smaller of the shared shell sizes with thicker foot board?).

    I sort of agree with xxx-er on ski choice since you won't be near pushing your limits - using them only to get to the climb.

    The only thing you might consider is that on the return trip, you'll be tired so maybe there's something to the idea of getting a ski that's initiates turns easily after an epic This is on the assumption that you'll be doing something more than flat shuffling on the return of course.

    Cheers,
    Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,354
    For the purpose the OP is talking about (skiing only for approaches, then climbing) the new Arcteryx boot would be at the top of my list.

    However if you're set on the F1 Evo then my recollection is also that they fit a touch tighter than the Maestrale. And yes, 26.5 and 27.0 are the same boot, you can buy either size.

    For ski - based on the original requirements I'd agree with the suggestion of a light, fishscale, metal edged ski. Voile Vector BC, Rossi BC125 or BC110, Madshus Annum, Alpina Discovery, etc. And I'd pair it with a lighter, race binding. But if skiing downhill is more of a priority than a little heavier ski might be in order, and in that case, I agree with everything auvgeek said.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    For the purpose the OP is talking about (skiing only for approaches, then climbing) the new Arcteryx boot would be at the top of my list.

    However if you're set on the F1 Evo then my recollection is also that they fit a touch tighter than the Maestrale. And yes, 26.5 and 27.0 are the same boot, you can buy either size.

    For ski - based on the original requirements I'd agree with the suggestion of a light, fishscale, metal edged ski. Voile Vector BC, Rossi BC125 or BC110, Madshus Annum, Alpina Discovery, etc. And I'd pair it with a lighter, race binding. But if skiing downhill is more of a priority than a little heavier ski might be in order, and in that case, I agree with everything auvgeek said.
    x2. I was just too lazy to write all that. And it seemed like his choice of F1 and speed radicals meant he was no longer using it purely as an approach ski.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    West Shore
    Posts
    2,322
    For those of you mentioning the fit of the F1, are you talking about the new version or the older one? According to Scarpa's site, the new last is 1mm wider than the current Maestrale.

    Quote Originally Posted by auvgeek View Post
    And it seemed like his choice of F1 and speed radicals meant he was no longer using it purely as an approach ski.
    Well I'd like to at least have some fun on the down.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Zurich, Switzerland
    Posts
    5,507
    Quote Originally Posted by auvgeek View Post
    Down LowDown 90 looks like a great mountaineering ski. I have a pair, but haven't skied them yet. But to my eye, the rocker, shape, and weight all feel about right.
    I thought you didn't like the mount/shape (in the 102) when you tried it?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post
    I thought you didn't like the mount/shape (in the 102) when you tried it?
    I didn't. The LD90 is a totally different shape/rocker. The first time I looked at the CD102, I thought the rocker looked off. Looking at the LD90, it seems like they'll ski great.

    Nitpicks are that I wish they were 180 cm instead of 177 and kinda wish the mount was more progressive. But whatever. Closest I've found since PM Gear went under and 179 Bro is no longer available.
    Last edited by auvgeek; 11-22-2016 at 11:34 PM.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Zurich, Switzerland
    Posts
    5,507

    Skis for mountaineering

    Quote Originally Posted by auvgeek View Post
    I didn't. The LD90 is a totally different shape/rocker. The first time I looked at the CD102, I thought the shape/rocker looked off. Looking at the LD90, it seems like they'll ski great.

    Nitpicks are that I wish they were 180 cm instead of 177 and kinda wish the mount was more progressive. But whatever. Closest I've found since PM Gear went under and 179 Bro is no longer available.
    By shape/rocker, you just mean rocker or both rocker and sidecuts? Post some photos?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post
    By shape/rocker, you just mean rocker or both rocker and sidecuts? Post some photos?
    The LD90 has a different rocker and sidecut than the CD102. I'll start a new thread with pics of the LD90.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Zurich, Switzerland
    Posts
    5,507
    Quote Originally Posted by auvgeek View Post
    The LD90 has a different rocker and sidecut than the CD102. I'll start a new thread with pics of the LD90.
    Right, but did you think both the sidecut and rocker of the 102 looked off or just the rocker? I don't remember you commenting on the sidecut at all.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    4,420
    Quote Originally Posted by auvgeek View Post
    I'll start a new thread with pics of the LD90.
    That would be rad, I'm pretty curious for one. And something tells me I'll be able to get a pair in gear swap pretty soon...

    (it would be rad if Down could talk to skimo.co, they do a lot of euro imports for us muricans stuck on the wrong side of the pond)

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post
    Right, but did you think both the sidecut and rocker of the 102 looked off or just the rocker? I don't remember you commenting on the sidecut at all.
    Why the curiosity?

    But to answer your question, I thought it looked too pin-tailed for the width and too high of a turn radius in the tip for the long turn radius elsewhere. It seems like basically a powder ski in a 102 waist (similar to the ON3P Steeple), and I was hoping for something 102 underfoot would have more all-round performance. But I reserved judgement on the sidecut because my chief complaint was that it looked like too much tip rocker and too much camber. The LD90 seems much more hard-snow focused with a bit of tip rocker.

    This talk should be in a different thread, though. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
    Last edited by auvgeek; 11-23-2016 at 09:06 AM.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

Posting Permissions

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