Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5
Results 101 to 120 of 120
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    228
    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.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Squaw valley
    Posts
    2,100
    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

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    5,231
    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.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    16,072
    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

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Squaw valley
    Posts
    2,100
    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

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    north aspect
    Posts
    39,073
    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.
    Praxis Rx
    bF
    Alpental Indigenous

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Northern BC
    Posts
    1,359

    Best mountaineering ski?

    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.
    This. I wouldnít go as far as saying weight plays no part in my selection process, but I agree that downhill performance is vastly more important. The ski industry can fill the ether with all the marketing b.s.they want about their fancy materials, but there is invariably a point of diminishing returns when it comes to ski weight. As in the more we diminish the weight if the ski, the poorer the downhill performance. Iíve always felt the magic nimber wad in the 1700 gram per ski area. Below that and you better be skiing derp, untracked pow or your going to be getting tossed around.

    Yeah, and thereís a fine line between ę†my technique can overcome the limitations of a light ski†Ľ and skiing like an old lady. Just sayiní



    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Glacier, WA
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by Angle Parking View Post
    The ski industry can fill the ether with all the marketing b.s.they want about their fancy materials, but there is invariably a point of diminishing returns when it comes to ski weight. As in the more we diminish the weight if the ski, the poorer the downhill performance. I’ve always felt the magic nimber wad in the 1700 gram per ski area. Below that and you better be skiing derp, untracked pow or your going to be getting tossed around.

    Yeah, and there’s a fine line between ę my technique can overcome the limitations of a light ski Ľ and skiing like an old lady. Just sayin’
    Can I add the 500-700 grams of snow each of my skis is usually carrying around in the form of Cascade powder stuck to the top sheets?

    'Cause then my Zero G95's will weigh 1850-2050 grams each and be above your magic number. That way I won't be forced to ski like an old lady? I never knew lightweight skis caused me to ski like an old lady. Remind me to grab my heavy skis before I show off.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Squaw valley
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by mbillie1 View Post
    if Iím actually mountaineering I probably donít mind skiing like an old lady. Iím not airing out the ice bulges in the chevy or anything. thatís just me though Iím not that rad
    True, but still most of the time I ski wind affected snow, breakable crust, slop, etc.
    Rarely good snow.
    In which case I want a ski that I'm confident it will have all conditions, including ice.

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

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    276
    I dont think the fact that somebody skied something incredible on bad gear should be an excuse to not care about gear. I'd like to think the newer/better gear lets us do new things / different things.

    IMO a pound on the foot makes a huge difference over a long day - if you dont think it matters, it probably means you arent pushing the mileage/elevation/pace close to your limits - which is fine. I tend to stress over 50-100 grams in my setup - a pound is not even on the table. Furthermore, 10 mm of extra skin width adds a ton of drag over the course of a long day. I have no problem skiing a well-designed, lightweight 85 mm ski (zerog 85). I find that the zerog 85 skis extremely well in all conditions, regardless of its weight. Edge hold is amazing, it skis well in powder. It sucks in breakable crust, but so do I. For me to consider something a mountaineering ski in my quiver, it would need to be 75 mm to 95 mm waist, under 1.25 kg, 175 cm to 180 cm long. If it meets those criteria, then I start to look at shape. Fairly traditional, with maybe a bit of rocker for versatility. At these weights, I want brands that know what they are doing, not just throwing performance out the door. I think that is doable in this day and age.

    I think a big thing people need to realize is that switching to lighter-weight gear that is purpose-built for ski mountaineering will bring a learning curve with it. Some folks can adapt fairly fast (20-30 days?), but for other folks it will take much longer. Expecting to jump from a 4.5 kg fun-shape charging setup to a 2 kg mountaineering setup will require adjustment. It doesnt mean the latter is shitty, just that it needs to be learned/relearned.

    That's my opinion, although I'm still not sure what the definition of ski mountaineering is, or that I've ever done it.

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    872
    My $.02

    - Breakable crust sucks on any ski. Don't buy a ski with the intent of skiing breakable crust. If you find yourself encountering breakable crust often, maybe work on your assessment of weather/snow conditions.

    - Start with something close to what you enjoy skiing now. Already on pixie sticks and rattling out your fillings skiing tech bindings at the resort? Great, go super light. Skiing on burlier stuff? OK, grab something closer to the 1600-1800g spectrum

    - If I'm looking to trim weight, the order is bindings -> Skis > boots. IMO a race weight tech binding paired with heavier boots/skis gives all the benefits of a more stout setup, while still trimming weight.

    FWIW I ski a MTN Explore 95, F1s, and have my eye on Ski Trab Gara Titans to replace the Speed Rad's that are on them now.

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by North View Post
    My $.02

    - Breakable crust sucks on any ski. Don't buy a ski with the intent of skiing breakable crust. If you find yourself encountering breakable crust often, maybe work on your assessment of weather/snow conditions.
    .
    Fact.

    The other thing to keep in mind is just how good light gear is now. Talking about compromising on binding-> ski -> boot, the truth is with something like a plum race, zerog 95, alien RS, you are cutting like 1-1.5 kg per foot with no compromise in performance versus a decade ago.

  13. #113
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    risin up to paradise...
    Posts
    154
    I had the same question and went with the zeroG. It was a toss up between that and the volkl bmt. I generally dislike light skis as my go-to So. Cascade quiver but I was getting tired of touring my bonafides. After demoing a bunch, those two ski pretty decent for light skis.

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Squaw valley
    Posts
    2,100
    Still, I watched the altitoy ski MOUNTAINEERING race in France, 10,000 + skiers and only the top free looked like they were in control on the downhill.

    And also watch all sorts of randonee skiers on light gear, all fast uphill, but really struggling on the down.

    I agree that you can get tired on the uphill with heavier gear, but the same thing can happen on the down with light gear.

    I ski with 184 carbon katanas, G3 ions and Lange 130 freetours and I can do 5,000 plus plus days and still not tired on the down.

    But, I take my time uphill, never out of breath, and I think this counts for more than pushing it on light gear, going fast, but ending up tired because of higher heart rate.

    Anyway, I know I'm not convincing anyone, but I like skiing, and I don't mind breakable crust, which is more than manageable with my setup.
    My theory is buy the ski for the worst conditions, because almost anything works in good conditions.

    There.

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

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Glacier, WA
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by rod9301 View Post
    Anyway, I know I'm not convincing anyone, but I like skiing, and I don't mind breakable crust, which is more than manageable with my setup.
    I suspect you don't have experience in the full range of various breakable crusts.

    Because breakable crusts form, from time to time, that NO ONE would ever say they don't mind. Ever. I don't care how core you are.

  16. #116
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    1,163
    Itís interesting to see perspectives. For me, mountaineering implies that I will be spending time in no fall zones. I get more scarred of falling due to a deflection or crap edge hold than I am of being tired and slow at the end of the day. Iíve never been scared because of the weight of my pack, but I can remember saying to myself ďI chose the wrong ski todayĒ a number of times. I guess itís like bikes. I compromise durability over weight sometimes.

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    872
    Quote Originally Posted by trogdortheburninator View Post
    The other thing to keep in mind is just how good light gear is now. Talking about compromising on binding-> ski -> boot, the truth is with something like a plum race, zerog 95, alien RS, you are cutting like 1-1.5 kg per foot with no compromise in performance versus a decade ago.
    Agreed. I'd be in a RS right now if I could get my head around the $$$/gram. Reality is I'm not logging big enough days to justify it. Yet.

  18. #118
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Northern BC
    Posts
    1,359
    Quote Originally Posted by AweShuksan View Post
    Can I add the 500-700 grams of snow each of my skis is usually carrying around in the form of Cascade powder stuck to the top sheets?

    'Cause then my Zero G95's will weigh 1850-2050 grams each and be above your magic number. That way I won't be forced to ski like an old lady? I never knew lightweight skis caused me to ski like an old lady. Remind me to grab my heavy skis before I show off.
    You have 500 to 700 grams of snow stuck to each of your skis as you descend? Sounds like you do indeed ski like an old lady.

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by rod9301 View Post
    Still, I watched the altitoy ski MOUNTAINEERING race in France, 10,000 + skiers and only the top free looked like they were in control on the downhill.

    And also watch all sorts of randonee skiers on light gear, all fast uphill, but really struggling on the down.

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using TGR Forums mobile app
    I think itís common to want to equate the style observed in a skimo race with the style/performance one can achieve skiing mountains on the slightly heavier gear espoused in this thread. All the while forgetting that the former is a race. The goal is to go as fast as possible start to finish. No style points are awarded. A 700 g race ski will top out an hr-ish climb minutes faster than an 1100 g ski. The descent will come with indescribably tired legs. The skis would be harder than usual to ski fresh, but tired, it really is just survival. Nonetheless, even the best descenders in the sport (read: absolutely phenomenal skiers) might only gain 30 s over a more average competitor who is looking like a total goon. Take that same average competitor, stick them on 1200 g skis, let them climb at all-day pace instead of hypoxic race pace, and odds are you get some darn good skiing on the down.

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Glacier, WA
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by Angle Parking View Post
    You have 500 to 700 grams of snow stuck to each of your skis as you descend? Sounds like you do indeed ski like an old lady.
    It's not uncommon in the Cascades to encounter conditions that are conducive to snow buildup on the top sheet that's difficult to remove, even with a gloved hand at the end of the day. It has little to do with skiing style. I get it on all my skis but it does seem like it's worse on my Lib Tech's with the "bio-bean" top sheets. It probably doesn't help that my skis are usually above 32 degrees when I take the first run of the day. On the upside, it adds quite a bit of dampness and crud-busting ability to them.

Posting Permissions

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