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

[thekol]

Hi folks, so after finally getting into the backcountry this season and loving it I've admitted to myself that I'm going to need a lighter setup. Right now I've been skiing Guardians mounted on all mountain skis and my skis+boots+bindings are 25lbs...ouch. I'll keep that setup for in bounds and maybe some especially aggressive/accessible backcountry lines.

I'm hoping to get a pair of skis and bindings to be my do-everything backcountry setup, and eventually boots too since my Dynafit Titans are super heavy. I've been doing some backcountry day trips and starting out ski mountaineering, and I'm also interested in multi day tours, so definitely looking for light gear. But, I do ski somewhat aggressively (hard turns, small cliffs) so I don't want a setup that'll keep me from doing that completely.

After reading around, it looks like Vipecs are going to be the best bindings for what I'm looking for, since they're way lighter than the Kingpins and I'm not trying to huck 30 foot cliffs on them.

As far as skis go, the Fischer Hannibal 94s and Volkl V-Werks BMT 94s both look super promising. The caveat is I can only find the Hannibals in a 170 length and the Volkls in a 176, which is closer to the 177s I ski now and am happy with. (Edit: I'm 5'9, 165lbs) How much would my skis hold me back if I went with the superlight 170s? In some ways they could actually be an advantage for being lighter on the uphill and shorter for mountaineering, but I don't want to have to dial my skiing way back.

Also open to other suggestions on the skis and bindings, and on if this is even the right time of year to be buying a new setup - not sure if prices are at their cheapest right now and/or if way awesomer new stuff is about to come out.

[rod9301]

For technical skiing, in all conditions, i would not go with a light ski like the fischer.

Keep in mind that in the spring, the chances of skiing perfect corn are a lot lower than skiing mank, or boot deep slush.

I would go with the bmt 108, or vwerks katana, my favorite.

I have the g3 ions, and for me they are perfect, never pre released.

[Vt-Freeheel]

Check out the Praxis EXP at Praxisskis.com

[bigdude2468]

Moment Exit World / Under World I ski the Underworld with Vipec's, lightweight and they ski well. I enjoy skiing them in bounds in hard and soft conditions. Not quite wide enough for powder days.

[mall walker]

I ski pretty light skis in the BC (179cm Down CD102L ~1400g, 177cm Movement Response-X ~1200g) and while I don't do a lot of "backcountry cliff dropping" I have no problem skiing steep, technical terrain on them.

If you're going to use a lightweight ski like the Hannibal, I don't think the weight savings from shortening up ~8cm or whatever is going to be a big difference maker.

Fwiw my wife is on Ions and hates them, brakes incessantly release while in touring mode. Perpetual PITA. G3 support unhelpful. Would not buy again.

[dark_star]

Notwithstanding the fact that I am a full-on weight weenie, my two cents after a few seasons of skiing on ultralight gear and short skis is that the situations where I find I have to dial back my skiing the most is on icy terrain (e.g., refrozen corn) - and this is more the boots than the skis IMO. Pow, corn, etc- most of the time I'm most of the way there. For the east coast, I love shorter skis as they make skiing in glades and tight trees significantly easier.

So while I do miss long skis when I'm really opening it up from time to time, most of the time the short skis make life easier. If you're really looking to rip huge lines routinely, that's another story- I'm personally more interested in big days and big vert.

So although YYMV, IMO, go light. You'll get used to it, maybe become a better skier, and ski more.

[trogdortheburninator]

1200-1300g 175-180 length 90-100 waist ski. Speed rad or lighter binding. For me, I'm much happier with a 177 light ski in varying snow conditions vs a 170.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

I'm about the same size as you and I ski 177 Hannibal 94's. Great skis, but they won't feel like alpine skis. I think it takes some time on lighter gear to develop confidence in it, and to adjust your skiing style. It takes a lighter touch, and attention to staying balanced at all times. If that sounds like how you ski, I'd say go for it. I think sfotex is selling some 177 Hannibal 94's in gear swap.

But there are skiers much better than me who can't stand lighter skis. If you tend to muscle your skis around a little more, or you want to ski aggressively even in bad snow, I'd go for something that weighs closer to 1800g per ski. Good skis in this category don't feel out of place in a resort, and they won't crush you on long tours either.

As for length, I wouldn't go shorter unless it's a hard-snow-only tool.

[hoarhey]

for reference...
what 177 ski are you on now?

I'm 5'8" 185 lbs (and was lighter before when I was doing more touring, closer to 175 lbs)

I haven't upgraded my tech bindings, still skiing verticals st10/ft12.

vipec's sound like a good choice

I think a ski in the 1600-1800 range is pretty solid for most "aggressive" touring.

The newer boots will be a nice improvement from your titans (i had those and they were 8 lbs in a 25, I think).

Then went to 7 lb boots like mercury's, and have purchased TLT6P's, but haven't used them.

For volcano skiing (shasta), I liked a 173 cm Dynafit Grand Teton (like stoke, but stiffer), 106 underfoot (probably more like 7.0 lbs or a bit lighter)

For winter touring, I went with a 175 GPO UL (111 mm) which is about 7.2 lbs.

it's all about how big of a jump you want to make.

I personally think you'll be thrilled with your first tech bindings (weight and pivot will blow your mind, so much lighter and easier for skinning).

And with a lighter boot (so many 6-7 lb awesome ski boots out there now), that skis as well or better than the titan and with a much better walk mode.

I would keep the ski weight around 7.5 lbs for now.

You could demo the ultra light stuff afterwards and take your time before going full weight weenie...

My two cents.

[PNWbrit]

Hi folks, so after finally getting into the backcountry this season

I think that's everyone now?

[Norseman]

I think that's everyone now?

Almost.


OP:

You've likely considered this already based on the ski models you mentioned being interested in, but consider the tail shape vs ski length. Twin or rockered tails snag on each other, especially when doing kick turns. If you want/need length, you can get away with having a longer ski overall if it has a flat tail, and vice versa.

Boots will hold back aggressive skiing much more than skis. But your attitude and goals will adjust in time.

[GeezerSteve]

medium aggressive touring and ski mountaineering * * * do-everything backcountry setup * * * I'm 5'9, 165lbs

Not enough info. Where and when will you be touring and what kind of ski mountaineering? Mid-winter pow touring and ski mountaineering are different things. If I were a little guy like you here in the PNW I'd be on 170s with flat (or nearly flat) tails 88-95mm waist for spring/summer touring and ski mountaineering, 177-178 w/100mm+ waist for powder touring.

Getting a touring setup always starts with boots. If you really want to ski mountaineer, get the boot that tours/walks/crampons/scrambles the best, that fits and that you can ski proficiently.

This may seem obvious: Ask people who do lots of touring about touring gear. As a group, TGR posters have a strong bias in favor of longer skis and bigger boots. Supplement your info elsewhere.

[dark_star]

Not enough info. Where and when will you be touring and what kind of ski mountaineering? Mid-winter pow touring and ski mountaineering are different things. If I were a little guy like you here in the PNW I'd be on 170s with flat (or nearly flat) tails 88-95mm waist for spring/summer touring and ski mountaineering, 177-178 w/100mm+ waist for powder touring.

Getting a touring setup always starts with boots. If you really want to ski mountaineer, get the boot that tours/walks/crampons/scrambles the best, that fits and that you can ski proficiently.

This may seem obvious: Ask people who do lots of touring about touring gear. As a group, TGR posters have a strong bias in favor of longer skis and bigger boots. Supplement your info elsewhere.

Big Steve speaks the truth.

[gregL]

It's not about how hard a charger you are in your alpine life, it's about how adaptable you are as a skier and how grandiose your objectives as an uphill skier. You will never "ski the same" as you do on an alpine setup, but you don't need to.

Everyone draws the line in a different place, but I'm your size and normally tour on a 108mm wide ski in a 178 length for winter and a 95mm wide ski in a 171 for spring and summer. Boots make a huge difference going both up and down; you should probably think in terms of revising your entire setup simultaneously with the boots as priority #1.

If you have zeroed in on the ~95mm waist category (not a bad choice) then the Hannibal 94 and BMT 94 are both great skis. Look at the Blizzard Zero G 95, Salomon MTN Explore 95, Atomic Backland 95 and Dynastar Mythic as well.

[PNWbrit]

Almost.

It's not about how hard a charger you are in your alpine life, it's about how adaptable you are as a skier

And luckily for the OP there's little to worry about regarding "aggressive" (WTF?) ski touring and ski mountaineering than exactly which ski to use.

[Norseman]

😎

[thekol]

Thanks for all the advice (and ribbing) folks, will be looking up the ones you recommended tonight.

I'm on Nordica Nrgy 100s right now, which have been great for me on the downhill.

More on what I'm trying to do - definitely more day/hut trips around Tahoe and elsewhere in the Sierra, trying to get some bigger lines there. Also looking to do more beginner ski mountaineering like this past weekend when I went partway up Shasta and skied avalanche gulch. I'm OK on the crampons/ice axe game but not so much on the ice climbing so I won't be doing anything too crazy for the time being. And I'm super stoked for doing the Sierra High Route or a similar longer tour next year or the year after, hopefully we'll have good snow again.

I'm definitely not expecting to be skiing exactly the same way in the backcountry as in bounds, but also hoping not to be skiing on wet noodles! Light is great but for me the best part of more uphill is getting more downhill.

[XXX-er]

I'm your size and I tour everything from light to heavy setups in 176 to 190 depending on what I found cheap, if they are soft enough 190 is ok ( Stoke and lotus) but in general I would go with what you are familiar with and find easy to control in your Alpine aki


For me that would be 180-185 at 160 lb but everybody is different

I mostly go longer cuz that's what come up cheap/used but I also got the super light Denali in 177 and they sure gets kicked around as the snow gets shittier

[2wheeler]

Touring set-up weight is a very personal choice.

1. Most important thing is keeping the weight off your feet. Heavy boots in frame bindings take much more energy to lift with every step than sliding weight on the ski. A tech binding of some kind will be the biggest change you can make to lighten the weight on your foot. Next comes choosing one of the many lightish weight free ride boots in the 1500-1800g range.
2. I find with skis I adjust my style of skiing to what is on my feet. Personally I don't mind lugging around a heavier ski that rides the way I like. I spend most of my time touring on a pair of Praxis Protests (2100g) with Plum bindings (~350g). I also have a pair of 2016 Katanas (~1900g) with kingpins. For the ups it depends who you're touring with, it's nice to have a set-up that allows you to keep close to your partners. If you're touring with the kind of people that treat every up track like the Randonee World Cup then you might want to go lighter.
3. My personal guideline is keeping the total weight of the binding and ski < 2500g, but I'm sure many would like to be below 2000g.
4. Most people adjust their skiing style to the situation i.e.. if you're skiing 20 km from the road and no cell service you might want to keep major hucking to a minimum...
5. As far a length I would recommend keeping the same size you would normally ride in powder. If you go too short you'll also lose floatation.

Oh and FYI I'm 5'9" and 160lbs.

[Toddball]

Great advice in this thread. I haven't been ski touring for too long, but I'm around your size (5'9" 135lbs). I agree with some above that 170 would be too little ski if you're used to 177. But, get well-fitting boots that don't weigh too much before you do anything else.

I have three touring setups I use:

187cm 15/16 Hojis with Rad 2.0 ST (2260g + 630g + ~30g toe shim = 2920g per foot)
177cm Huascarans with Rad 2.0 ST (1780g + 630g + ~30g toe shim = 2440g per foot)
170cm 05/06 Dynastar Altitrail Verticals with Tourlite Tech (1280g + 350ish + leash < 1700g)

All of this with TLT6Ps, with Boosters and stiff tongues and Pro Tours.

The heavy setup skis the best, and is fine when I'm skiing with people who aren't super fast and we aren't going very far. I've done days with more than 6000' of climbing with these, but not many.

The medium-weight setup doesn't ski as well in less-than-perfect snow, but it still does pretty well. Definitely handles kick turns better than the Hojis. Floats well on top of heavy mank. I used these on a 27-mile day in late April, they were fine.

The lightweight setup is only useful for tours when you are guaranteed to not need float, e.g. big days in late spring and summer.

[goldenboy]

The heavy setup skis the best

This is a universal truth.

[LC]

Switching to light boots and bindings is going to feel very light compared to what you're currently skiing so don't worry about the difference between a 1400g ski and a 1800g ski for now. Just buy what you want to ski downhill on that you can find at a nice price. If you really care about weight then go with Speed Turns instead of the Vipecs.

[GeezerSteve]

Addendum: OP specifically mentioned ski mountaineering, which involves carrying skis on your pack while climbing technical terrain. When skis are on your pack, ski/binding weight and swing weight often matter more than when they are on your feet. Length is also a factor, both because longer skis can get caught up on shit and longer skis means higher swing weight.

[skibrd]

The lightweight setup is only useful for tours when you are guaranteed to not need float, e.g. big days in late spring and summer.

My $.02 is don't get too small of a ski to save weight. Their is a reason why we all love fat skis, the are easier to ski.

What everyone is trying to say is create a strategy for building your touring set up. The consensus is get the right boots for what you want do, sounds like you are looking for a DynafitTLT6 P, Atomic Backland or similar boot. Light weight touring boots will not ski like a race boot, it doesn't matter, you'll be fine if you put the work in to make them comfortable, warm, and learning how the boots drive a ski.

Next comes bindings, and again you'll have a compromise to make. You stated you want to save weight over a frame binding, so you won't have the feel of a alpine DIN rated binding when skiing. You need to decide how much risk you want to put your legs and knees at when ski touring. You can go ultra-light with a skimo race binding, but the release values will be set and you won't be able to adjust it from there. I personally like Kingpins because the feeling of the keel clicking in, is comforting and confidence inspiring. (On a side note, if you don't think the Kingpin 13 is enough binding for you, go watch Ian Mac's segments from last falls movies, any of the touring segments he is sending pillows, cliffs, and deep pow on Kingpins. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are not him and don't need bigger binding)

Lastly, skis, find a ski you would want as a one ski quiver and get that. We all see pictures and videos of epic days touring, the truth is that their is power in the backcountry, but you will also encounter every snow condition you can think of, and should get a ski that can handle everything. By everything I mean ice, mank, slush, refrozen coral reef, dust on crust, powder, maritime sludge (I mean that stuff Bobby calls powder at Alpental). If you have a ski you love, and that ski is made in a lighter construction that you might not want as an every day ski because it's missing metal or some specific wood, check that out. The example I use is a lot of people love the 193 Blizzard Cochise for every days inbounds, me too, so I got the 193 Blizzard Scout, which is the non-metal Cochise, as my touring ski. Next winter I'm getting the 192 Zero G 108 because it's just a little bit lighter, but can still handle everything. The Momment Bibby Pro now comes in a touring version, most of Blizzards skis have a lighter brother, DPS makes 3 versions of some skis, figure out what you like as an every day ski, get it to tour on.

I hope that helped. In bounds I like race boots, and long stiff skis. Touring I'm in Atomic Backland Carbons, with Kingpin 13s mounted to either 193 Blizzard Scouts or 193 Volkl Shiros. I tried 184 Volkl Nanuqs and almost killed myself because they don't float! Big skis are fun and their is a reason we all love them.

[Lindahl]

My 2 cents:

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. 105-ish mm is the sweet spot for width. As long as it has modern rocker, there's no reason to go wider for your first touring ski. For a ski with the right rocker (ie Camox Freebird), I'd even consider 95-ish mm if you're skiing 6-10" most of the time -- unless you really plan on hauling ass.