Ski length/weight tradeoff for medium aggressive touring and ski mountaineering?

[auvgeek]

IMHO, you really need two touring skis, esp for a maritime snowpack: one for midwinter and one for post-consolidation (i.e., spring/summer). Tastes diverge, but I'd generally recommend:

180-185 x 105-110 for midwinter/"do-it-all"
~175 x ~90 for spring/summer/"ski mountaineering"

As for boots, I recommend starting with something ~1500 g. Go try on: Atomic Hawx 130 Extended/XTD, Maestrale RS2, Mtn Lab, Vulcan, Zero G, etc. These aren't quite as light as a Backland/TLT6/F1, but they do ski much more like a real boot IME.

But I like to ski fast, as close to inbounds as possible for my midwinter setup. I know a guy who outweighs me by probably 40# but prefers to milk his turns so he can get away with shorter skis and softer boots. I wouldn't say one of us is objectively a better skier—we just have different preferences. We can (and have) swapped gear and styles, but we just don't have quite as much fun. Personally, it annoys me when people act like burly gear is a crutch because someone might be able to ski light gear but not necessarily want to.

I'd go 1500g boots and 300/350g bindings over 1200g boots and 600g bindings all day long. If you can get away with lower heel risers and the release values are similar to your DIN then I'd go down to 175g bindings (ie speed superlites) before going to 1200g boots. 1700-1900g skis (180-ish length) are the sweet spot. I'd go 1200g boots before dropping below 1700g on the skis.

Yep. Agreed.

[mall walker]

Anytime this topic comes up we see a pretty broad range of strong opinions, ranging from the "skis shorter than 195cm are just too small for any human" on down to Jonathan S (sorry Jonathan S ). it would be interesting to categorize replies by user height/weight, where they tour, and the % of their overall skiing that touring represents.

For me, at 5'10" 160lbs with 85%-90% of my skiing over the past 2 seasons being touring (3 days inbounds this year for example), I'm looking to trade in my TLT6Ps in for something lighter (Alien RS, Fischer Travers) and I can't imagine going much heavier than my current ~1750g ski+binding Countdown 102Ls. My other setup is ~1350g ski+binding Response-X's. I probably won't buy new bindings again that aren't race bindings or at heaviest something like SSL2.0s, and the sweet spot for me is starting to feel like it's around 2500g/foot for skis, bindings and boots. But I'm not a big guy, I live in a place where I can start skinning in a 30 min drive from my house, and there's a relatively stable snowpack most of the year (compared to CO anyway). I'll make a number of transitions in a day of touring, and even a "long lunch" or post-work trip will often have 2 laps. I basically use the single riser position on Trab Gara Titans / SSL1.0s / etc because again I live in a place where there just aren't approaches, and aside from weight the optimization most beneficial to me personally has been efficiency at transitions. This sort of thing overwhelmingly informs my gear choices.

Even if your days are 50/50 inbounds/touring, you ski more downhill on an inbounds day, and your overall skiing style is probably influenced more by the skiing you do on that sort of gear. So if you're spending 80% of your runs on Pivots / 193 Cochise or something, switching to a ~177cm, ~90mm waist, ~1400g ski might just annoy the fuck out of you / you might struggle on it. I don't really think this is any reflection on relative ability either, and I would certainly not describe heavy gear as a crutch. If anything for me it's light gear that's the crutch, it lets me ski more and climb more without needing to get a lot stronger. And I'm not a great skier by any means, I just spend virtually all my time on 1400g or lighter skis, so I'm used to it and it doesn't bother me. But nobody would describe me as a "chargey" BC skier either.

If I was 3" taller and 30 lbs heavier, if I lived in Denver or Jackson or Tahoe or Wenatchee or Bozeman, if I had a pass and 3 alpine setups, if I used to ski park and liked twin tips, if I was a racer, if I was skiing 7k' up-and-backs on PNW volcanoes with heavy glacier travel, etc etc etc - any of these things could radically change what my idea of a good touring setup is.

TL;DR all this advice is imo highly dependent on a lot of factors that are often not explicitly stated alongside said advice.

[thekol]

Thanks folks, I feel like I just got a whole education in ski/binding/boot choice! I found a good deal on the black Vipecs and Salomon Mtn Explore 95s so put in an order on those. Thanks Greg for the suggestion on the skis, I was looking hard at the Volkls and then it turned out their binding mount area is H-shaped and doesn't work with Vipecs...?? So looks like the Salomons will be a great ski for what I'm looking for. For short tours where I'm looking for more power, I'll just break my current setup back out and deal with the weight.

Good point also on the boots, I've been pretty happy with my Titans but sounds like with the boots that are around these days I can get the same downhill performance with better uphill and 2/3 of the weight. I'll be hitting up a bootfitter next time I'm out in Tahoe/Shasta and not on the snow during business hours! One last newbie quesiton, if I'm going to get new boots in about the same size am I going to be able to adjust the Vipecs without redrilling the skis? Googled around and couldn't find a good answer on how wide of a range you can readjust the Vipecs without remounting them.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

. So if you're spending 80% of your runs on Pivots / 193 Cochise or something, switching to a ~177cm, ~90mm waist, ~1400g ski might just annoy the fuck out of you / you might struggle on it. I don't really think this is any reflection on relative ability either, and I would certainly not describe heavy gear as a crutch.

This is a very good point. In recent years I've toured on everything from Cochises with Dukes to Hannibals with Plum race bindings. I've definitely been moving toward lighter gear. There are a few reasons for that.

1) Lighter boots have gotten much better. My F1's don't give up much to my Maestrale RS's going down hill. Skinning with the RS's and an 1800g ski doesn't feel that much more efficient than a 1300g ski. The weight of the boot matters. On the pack, the lighter/ shorter ski is very nice.. But a 1300g skis with F1's, oh man. The efficiency gained makes the loss of stability much more worth it. Can't wait for Alien RS's...

2) But it wouldn't be worth it if I wasn't in pretty good shape. I'm not going to keep up with any skimo folks, or the people who putting in 100 long days a year. Sometimes I'm too busy to ski much (toddler, work), but I'm typically out running/skiing in the hills/mountains 4 days a week. It's enough that moving steadily uphill feels good. It feels better with light gear. A few years back I wasn't running much. I lived in NYC. I was lifting weights, and coaching wrestling. Heavier gear was better.

3) Because I'm busy and have a kid, a lot of my skiing is half-day mid-week solo ski tours. I squeeze it in when I can and get to daycare pick up just in time. I don't take breaks. And I am careful as fuck. I don't need burly skis to be careful as fuck.

Despite all this I also have two pairs of skis that weigh 1800g. But at this point I've spent enough time on the Hannibals that the 1800g skis feel like resort chargers. My 182 GPO UL's with SSL 2.0's feel like solid all-around skis for a variety of conditions at A-Basin. A couple years ago I would have called them noodles. I recently sold my Beasts and Kingpins. A couple years ago I thought they were game changers. I don't need that solid "feel" anymore. It's overkill when you're used to skiing in slippers attached to splinters by pins.

Having bored everyone with my blog post I'll suggest that if you start touring a lot, what you want in a set up will change over time. It will also depend on touring partners and your resort skiing habits. Get something you can resell without losing too much cash. If you can get a good deal on Zero G's or BMT's, they will still have value if you decide to sell. Same is true of used Kingpins or older, simple tech bindings like Verticals or Speed Turns. They probably won't lose much value.

[XavierD]

I like my resort skis as close to 190 as I can get, touring skis as close to or under 180cm.

5'10, 205, and ski 85% lift access. Most of my touring is done in the spring and summer after ski areas close.

[auvgeek]

As per M Billie's request, I'm 5'11", 160-165#, experience is mainly in the WA Cascades (previously) and Front Range (recently), and tour about half the days I ski, with maybe 25% of touring days midwinter.

Thinking about dropping down to the Alien RS next season for big spring days, but hated the TLT5P so I'm hesitant about dropping money on boots that I might hate. Hard to tell, though, because of that stupid metatarsal flex. Wish Scarpa would make a 1100 g boot that's correspondingly stiffer than the 850 g, 95 flex Alien RS. No way I'm giving up my Vulcans for midwinter touring.

One thing to consider is that you can't drop weight in the boots, bindings, and skis simultaneously and expect to know which thing is causing you problems. If at all possible, ski your new light skis/binders with your burlier boots before buying lighter boots.

[gregL]

One last newbie quesiton, if I'm going to get new boots in about the same size am I going to be able to adjust the Vipecs without redrilling the skis? Googled around and couldn't find a good answer on how wide of a range you can readjust the Vipecs without remounting them.

I totally depends on which new boot you get.

If you wear a 26.5 Titan (302mm BSL) and get a 26.5 MTN Lab, for instance, the new boot will only be 1mm shorter - no problem. If you got a 26.5 TLT6P, on the other hand, the new boot would have a 287mm BSL, so out of the normal adjustment range unless you plan ahead and mount the bindings with the shorter BSL in mind. Boot sole lengths are all over the board on AT boots, with most of the lighter ones being way shorter than you might expect.

[gregL]

PS The Vipec heels move about 12.5mm in either direction (normally you mount in the middle of the range) so a total of 25mm of adjustment.

[jorion]

I get the sense that the MTN Explores are more forgiving than the zero G 95s for getting off balance and sometimes sloppy technique. Is that the case? And that BMT94s are also easier-going than zero G 95s?

Somehow I managed to break the tail of one of my zero G 95s today...they're outside of warranty so I guess I'm stuck buying new skis. At least it's spring and there are some good prices around.

Ironically, I had been frustrated with the zg95s recently and was thinking I would've been better off with less demanding skis, but I really loved skiing them today inbounds, which I did in order to see if I could get a better sense of piloting them. I was successful (although it was easy to have good technique with the perfect conditions), only to then apparently destroy them on the last run.

I'm debating between buying another pair of the Blizzards or trying the MTN Explores, Hannibal 94s or maybe even the BMT94s. The first three are $150-$200 cheaper than the Volkls so I would much prefer those options unless I can be convinced that the BMT94s would be worth the extra money.

This is for spring touring only; the Eastern Sierra, volcanoes, overnight trips, Tahoe patch skiing, etc. I want to generally stay in the same weight class but I have a feeling that sacrificing a couple hundred grams for more dampness and forgiveness would be worth it.

Are one of those three options easier to ski/more forgiving than the zero G 95? I'll be putting the Ion LTs from the destroyed skis on whatever I get to replace them, and boots are Maestrale RSs. I'd be getting 177/178cm version of whatever model. I'm 5'10" and drift between 175 and 185 lbs.

I'm leaning towards MTN Explores that are under $500.

[rod9301]

If you can find a good deal on the vwerks katanas, they are really good. They will hold a better edge than any of the bmt s, because they are stiffer torsionally.

They are damp, and they do really well on corn, but also slush, powder, ice etc.

[gregL]

Are one of those three options easier to ski/more forgiving than the zero G 95?

All three of them are.

I'm leaning towards MTN Explores that are under $500.

Not a bad choice.

[zion zig zag]

I'm 5'11, 165ish, boots are Maestrale RS and I picked up some 178 Zero G 95's. I've had maybe 10 runs on them and like them so far. They do like to be driven and won't tolerate any back seating but I got used to that within a few runs. I mounted on the line and would like to try 1cm forward, which I think would make them easier to stay in the balance point. I most likely will not remount though. Ideally, if I had the cash, I'd like to try these with a Scarpa F1 for a little more weight savings.

[thekol]

jorion, can't tell you how the Mtn Explores ski since I haven't skied on mine yet but I did want to mention that when I was looking around I found a sweet deal on brand new '16 Volkl BMTs from a reputable-looking seller on eBay (~$500)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Volkl-2016-V...EAAOSwTM5YwF4K

Might be worth it if you're planning on using compatible bindings with them!

[N1CK.]

I have 180 Backcountry ULs in the gear swap ... I could include Vipecs for right price.
Those could work well at your height and weight, and for what you describe.

[jorion]

Thanks GregL, thekol and N1CK. Those BMTs on eBay are a great price and I did look twice at the BC ULs on gear swap, but I very quickly bought whatsupdoc's old BMTs. Can't get to get work out of the way so that I can ski again.

[jorion]

Since I threadjacked this, let me help get it back on track:

I'm 5'10" 180, and touring accounts for probably a third of my ski days.

I have Maestrale RSs for touring. My powder ski is a l120 spoon 189 with vipecs. Whenever I replace this ski I'll likely go down a size and probably go a little narrower as well. Really I want a 184 Billy Goat that weighs a little less than the current Steeple.

I had the zero G 95 in 178 with ION LTs. When I felt confident and drove it it was great, and plenty long enough. In not ideal conditions I could get in a bad cycle of not trusting the ski and skiing tentatively, which just made the ski less predictable and made me more nervous. It was perfect for Shasta last year though, and I had been planning on using it for trips to the Cascades this summer. I'll use the BMT94 instead.

[galibier_numero_un]

... One last newbie quesiton, if I'm going to get new boots in about the same size am I going to be able to adjust the Vipecs without redrilling the skis? Googled around and couldn't find a good answer on how wide of a range you can readjust the Vipecs without remounting them.

The Vipecs have about 21mm length adjustment, so with some planning and test mounts on a 2x4, you can bias your heel location for a fairly large length difference.

[edit] I just caught Greg L's post stating 25mm. I need to check my notes. I was conservative in measuring because when you get too close in the forward position (short boot), you run into brake locking issues.

... Thom

[gregL]

That's what I was told, Thom, but as always it doesn't pay to push it to the limit - there are plenty of cases of stated specs that don't . . . quite . . . measure up. A relatively safe assumption is that it will move enough to accommodate a full mondopoint size bigger or smaller (so ~ 10 mm in each direction).

[1000-oaks]

Pretty sure I got 25mm range between stop lines when I mounted mine.

[galibier_numero_un]

Pretty sure I got 25mm range between stop lines when I mounted mine.

I couldn't find my mounting notes and I wouldn't trust my memory on this ;-)

I recall when first pushing the limits to establish the adjustment range, I discovered how you can mess up the brake function by adjusting to the most forward position (for the shortest boot). At that point, I got conservative in my estimation of the range, although you'd only have to back off by 1mm to ensure brake function.

I'd trust 1000-oaks and Greg-L on this ... with the caveat that a 2x4 & a test mount is your friend.

... Thom