Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 114
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,966
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    oh yeah right ski guide ... bathing optional !

    Agreed! those guys are usually too busy doing it !
    I think he's a hippy carpenter or contractor and a daddy. Not a guide.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    west tetons
    Posts
    2,090
    I am going to ignore all the above blather and respond to the guy's question.

    I used a pair of Voile Ultra Vectors last spring in the Sierra and the Tetons, liked them so much that I bought a pair for this year. Reasonable quiver of one, honestly, but quick and stable for the steeps and the weird chunder. They replaced a pair of BD Helio 105s that were way too squirrely for anything except ankle-deep pow.

    Resume the squabbling.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Glacier, WA
    Posts
    366
    Sometimes the difference between a good alpine ski tour and ski mountaineering is the quality of the bud. Totally.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    21,938
    Volkl Snow Ranger Lite
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    tahoe
    Posts
    3,428
    Hah! Some good stuff in here and some...........
    I had originally titled the thread: the best light stiff mid 90s waisted minimal sidecut ski but it was too long so I shortened it to ski mtneering. There's not much my gpo's (my current quiver of one) don't do well but getting a platform to bite on a steep firm skinner with exposure is a lot tougher then it needs to be on em. 95mm is as slim as I'd dare in the all too common Sierra funk below the dank. Thanx for the quality responses buried amongst the static

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,319
    Andreas Fransson skied the South Face of Denali on OG Nordica Enforcers:


    Kilian Jornet skied up and down Denali in less than 12 hours on some much lighter kit.


    Right tool, right job.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    37ft above the hood
    Posts
    16,576
    Quote Originally Posted by gimpy View Post
    Hah! Some good stuff in here and some...........
    I had originally titled the thread: the best light stiff mid 90s waisted minimal sidecut ski but it was too long so I shortened it to ski mtneering. There's not much my gpo's (my current quiver of one) don't do well but getting a platform to bite on a steep firm skinner with exposure is a lot tougher then it needs to be on em. 95mm is as slim as I'd dare in the all too common Sierra funk below the dank. Thanx for the quality responses buried amongst the static
    Well, you doing any technical moves or just jagging us off?
    Zone Controller

    "He wants to be a pro, bro, not some schmuck." - Hugh Conway

    "DigitalDeath would kick my ass. He has the reach of a polar bear." - Crass3000

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    21,938
    Quote Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds! View Post
    Andreas Fransson skied the South Face of Denali on OG Nordica Enforcers:

    Kilian Jornet skied up and down Denali in less than 12 hours on some much lighter kit.

    Right tool, right job.
    Kit and Rob Desalaurius and Johnny Chin skied the N Face of Everest 2006... husband and wife on Volkl Gotamas and Chin on BD Havocs (the old shitty green ones... good mountaineering ski though I had a pair)
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    182
    I happen to have a pair of K2 Shuksans that I'm willing to part with. Good ski for the right person who needs such a ski. Still some life in it.


    Quote Originally Posted by flowing alpy View Post
    yup, the K2 Shuksan was overlooked.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    the gach
    Posts
    5,661
    195 superbro is the ski you’re looking for.
    But Ellen kicks ass - if she had a beard it would be much more haggard. -Jer

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,711
    Serious question: Do folks feel the difference between a light ski and a very light ski is all that important?

    I'll be honest, unless I'm carrying them in my hand, I don't really notice the difference between my ZeroG 95s (5 lb 10 oz) and my Synapse 109s (7 lb), even on long days. I can certainly see the advantage to shorter skis for "ski mountaineering," but I'd prioritize ski performance over weight in my own decision-making process. If the ski is under 7.5 lbs and has lighter tech bindings, that's light enough for me. YMMV.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    13,243
    I barely notice an extra pound per ski while skinning. IME, weight, especially swing weight, is most noticeable when skis are strapped on my pack while maneuvering steep terrain on foot (or hands and feet). Shorter length also helps while skis are strapped on pack because shorter length = lower swing weight.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Bottom feeding
    Posts
    10,828
    Kit and Rob Desalaurius and Johnny Chin skied the N Face of Everest 2006... husband and wife on Volkl Gotamas and Chin on BD Havocs
    Did they get them for free? Most guides I know ski on free gear, and that decides what they ski on.
    Well maybe I'm the faggot America
    I'm not a part of a redneck agenda

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    13,243
    Dave Watson skied the N ridge of Everest and K2 on Karhu Guides, 78mm waist, fishscale base, noodly (now known as Mashus Annum). He was sponsored by Karhu/K2 at the time.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    21,938
    Quote Originally Posted by plugboots View Post
    Did they get them for free? Most guides I know ski on free gear, and that decides what they ski on.
    I dunnot... but if it was me, I'd sure want the Gots for the descent but I'd much rather have carried the Havocs up!
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    champlain valley
    Posts
    5,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Chugachjed View Post
    195 superbro is the ski you’re looking for.
    i was under the impression that non of the bros models were light

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Northern BC
    Posts
    2,596
    Black Crows Navis Freebird. 102 underfoot, si outside of your prescribed range but it is otherwise exactly what you are looking for.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    774
    Quote Originally Posted by AKbruin View Post
    Serious question: Do folks feel the difference between a light ski and a very light ski is all that important?

    I'll be honest, unless I'm carrying them in my hand, I don't really notice the difference between my ZeroG 95s (5 lb 10 oz) and my Synapse 109s (7 lb), even on long days. I can certainly see the advantage to shorter skis for "ski mountaineering," but I'd prioritize ski performance over weight in my own decision-making process. If the ski is under 7.5 lbs and has lighter tech bindings, that's light enough for me. YMMV.
    I guess I notice the weight difference between the bmt94s I’m on now and the zero g 95s I used to ski, but I don’t notice the extra energy I’m spending. And I’m way more comfortable with the volkls since the tips aren’t constantly getting knocked off course.

    I’ve never skied the down lowdown 102 or its previous iterations but it sounds like what OP is looking for. 3100g per pair and 41m radius. Seems like the light weight versions pop up on gear swap a bunch when people are disappointed by them not being damp or stable enough.

    The other spring touring/mountaineering skis that often are recommended in tech talk (zg95, bmt94, hannibal, mtn explore) all have radii around 20.

  19. #94
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    1,857
    I won't be sarcastic as I was in my first post. For me, ski weight has never been the thing. Ski performance has. I hike up so I can have a blast on the down. A bit heavier ski deflects less in variable snow, and fits me and my style better. I'm not out there to be the fastest guy up. I'm out there to have the most fun on the way down.

  20. #95
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,319
    Quote Originally Posted by AKbruin View Post
    Serious question: Do folks feel the difference between a light ski and a very light ski is all that important?
    Only on long days. It's more cumulative than a difference in sensation while moving. Feel it more if skis are on my back.

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by Canada1 View Post
    I won't be sarcastic as I was in my first post. For me, ski weight has never been the thing. Ski performance has. I hike up so I can have a blast on the down. A bit heavier ski deflects less in variable snow, and fits me and my style better. I'm not out there to be the fastest guy up. I'm out there to have the most fun on the way down.
    Not always so black and white. I've toured with people of your mindset, and sometimes at the end of a long day their legs are so fried from hauling their heavy gear around that they don't have the strength to fully take advantage of all that downhill performance that their heavy gear supposedly gives them. Not that they can't ski anymore, but you can see some laziness and shortcuts in technique, turns not quite finished, speeds a little higher than prudent. Like tired flatland gapers at the resort at 2:30pm. A little less control. Riskier.

    that's before you get into how that fatigue would come into play in the event of accidents/rescue/hauling ass to escape rapidly deteriorating conditions, etc. At the trailheads I frequent there are lots of sweaty mouth breathing tired spent sloppy skiers returning from a long (or short) day. You gotta have something left in reserve at the end of the day, just in case.

    of course, if your idea of backcountry involves sliding out of the resort sidecountry gates and being within a cellphone call of ski patrol, good for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds! View Post
    Only on long days. It's more cumulative than a difference in sensation while moving. Feel it more if skis are on my back.
    yeah fatigue creeps up on you. One step doesn't hurt, 20000 steps starts to add up.

  22. #97
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Squaw valley
    Posts
    4,639
    Personally, I would rather work out/lift weights to get strong than ski on a shitty ski in shitty conditions

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using TGR Forums mobile app

  23. #98
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,319
    Quote Originally Posted by rod9301 View Post
    Personally, I would rather work out/lift weights to get strong than ski on a shitty ski in shitty conditions
    Counter argument to this is "I'd rather get good enough at skiing that I don't need to carry heavy-ass gear to cover up deficiencies in my technique."

    That said, I use my heavier touring skis more than the light ones. But if I'm looking at an 8 mile approach and a bunch of time with skis on my pack, give me the toothpicks.

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    30,885
    Quote Originally Posted by AKbruin View Post
    Serious question: Do folks feel the difference between a light ski and a very light ski is all that important?

    I'll be honest, unless I'm carrying them in my hand, I don't really notice the difference between my ZeroG 95s (5 lb 10 oz) and my Synapse 109s (7 lb), even on long days. I can certainly see the advantage to shorter skis for "ski mountaineering," but I'd prioritize ski performance over weight in my own decision-making process. If the ski is under 7.5 lbs and has lighter tech bindings, that's light enough for me. YMMV.
    I don't feel it but if I do timed runs comparing a pretty light full dynafit setup to a heavy setup that can tour

    The light setup is faster
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  25. #100
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Squaw valley
    Posts
    4,639
    Quote Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds! View Post
    Counter argument to this is "I'd rather get good enough at skiing that I don't need to carry heavy-ass gear to cover up deficiencies in my technique."

    That said, I use my heavier touring skis more than the light ones. But if I'm looking at an 8 mile approach and a bunch of time with skis on my pack, give me the toothpicks.
    You're right, but technique improvement comes a lot slower than fitness improvement, at least for me.

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using TGR Forums mobile app

Posting Permissions

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