Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 54
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden, Colorado
    Posts
    5,868
    When I Iived in CO, 100mm worked just fine for me in midwinter, but it was a modern shape with a good amount of rocker. Skinnier modern-shaped skis do surprisingly well in powder. Especially in light, dry powder that just gets out of the way.

    Though, I never really skied stuff under 25 deg and on super deep days I was at the resort. So... depends on when and where too I suppose...

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,318
    I tour in CO on 116mm for winter pow and 108mm for spring and steeper terrain, with 85mm for long days. 116 makes the inevitable meadow skipping way more fun than a mid fat. 108 makes the wet pow and spring slush fairly effortless. Long, steep skin tracks aren't all that common where I tend to ski and I use light boots and bindings (with light, but not ultralight skis) to keep the weight down.

    # of times I wish I'd gone skinnier last year? Maybe one day skiing perfect corn on Grays my 85's could have saved me some energy without much downside on the down. # of days wishing I'd gone fatter? There were a couple when I deeply regretted going 85 over 108 (such as 3000' of slush in the Silver Couloir), and a couple when 108 was fine but 116 would have been sweet.

    That said, people prioritize different things. Most people prefer heavier boots and bindings than I do, especially people who ride lifts a lot. And if you're learning to skin, fatter is a little trickier, especially for steep sidehilling. And it's heavier, of course. This is why I recommended getting a setup you can easily move on from if you don't love it.

    I should also mention that I get to tour a bit in the Dolomites most years as I have family there. The skis I leave there are 88 underfoot on the heavier side with heavier bindings. Different terrain. Different snow. Lots of lifts to get you up high, then steep skin tracks followed by groomers and more lifts that get you back to town. When I replace them I may bump it up to 95, but not much more than that. But if I were buying one ski for CO is would be around 105. If I were looking for ski mostly for winter it would be at least 105.

    But there really isn't one right answer. If you already have some touring partners lined up, it probably makes sense to get gear similar to what they're using, then adjust as you learn more about your own preferences.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Evergreen Co
    Posts
    969
    I just don’t see substantial downsides to going over 110mm for winter touring. I touring in Colorado extensively from November through early April. I get on my bike when things warm up.

    Narrowest setup is 120mm... and I have three.

    There is a little extra weight but light bindings offset that.

    If you want a basic co backcountry setup. Maybe look for voile v8’s. Not a ski that’s talked about a lot here but defiantly an easy touring ski.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden, Colorado
    Posts
    5,868

    CO Backcountry Ski Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Tailwind View Post
    I just don’t see substantial downsides to going over 110mm for winter touring. I touring in Colorado extensively from November through early April. I get on my bike when things warm up.

    Narrowest setup is 120mm... and I have three.

    There is a little extra weight but light bindings offset that.

    If you want a basic co backcountry setup. Maybe look for voile v8’s. Not a ski that’s talked about a lot here but defiantly an easy touring ski.
    Drag (esp powder) and weight imo is the drawback. But on midwinter tours I was often on 150g bindings and 1100g boots, so it tends to matter a bit more for that kind of setup. About the only wider ski for that weight class I’d consider is the Vapor Float. Maybe the new Voile Hyper V8. But still... more drag. I just don’t think there was that big of a gain from going wider than 100mm in CO fluff. Also... porpoising is fun.
    Last edited by Lindahl; 10-06-2019 at 12:16 PM.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SE Idaho
    Posts
    2,178
    Personally, I have never understood the appeal of skinny, light, and stiff for touring in the intermountain west unless you are skimo racing.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gaperville, CO
    Posts
    5,844
    Quote Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds! View Post
    But if I were buying one ski for CO is would be around 105. If I were looking for ski mostly for winter it would be at least 105.
    This is generally how I feel. Few days am I upset on my Praxis Yetis at 95 underfoot. Reality of Franger weekend warrioring is you're not going to ski a ton of bottomless pow in a season. But I am glad when the Lhasas (112?) come out. If I was gonna have one ski, it'd be 105ish. If I had two, a 95, and a 115.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    7,239
    I have these GPOs with new vipec if you decide to go 116. They are 187 with 307 boot sole

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0498.JPG 
Views:	63 
Size:	119.8 KB 
ID:	296753




    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I need to go to Utah.
    Utah?
    Yeah, Utah. It's wedged in between Wyoming and Nevada. You've seen pictures of it, right?

    So after 15 years we finally made it to Utah.....


    Thanks BCSAR and POWMOW Ski Patrol for rescues

    8, 17, 13, 18, 16, 18, 20, 19, 16, 24, 32, 35

    2021/2022 (13/15)

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    colorady
    Posts
    1,318
    I have some BD Carbon Converts 188cm that are 105mm waist. I've skied them a lot in CO and WY. Great skis, just not my cuppa tea. Super light, but still stable and decent float. Might consider selling them. Dynafit demo bindings so no need to re-drill. Maybe somewhere around $600?

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by doebedoe View Post


    MTNs >> Radicals.
    doebedoe, curious to hear more of your thoughts re: MTN> radicals. Now I'm looking at two more pairs, one with MTNs, one with Radicals. The MTNs are on Voile Superchargers, which have fantastic reviews for all conditions, and seem like a great choice for me. Coming from the piste, I'm a little lost when reading about the MTNs and how skiing more conservatively is prudent on a "low tech" pin binding like this. Conversely, the Radicals are on beast 98s, so not quite as fat, but still seem to get good reviews on all conditions and have a pretty good sized shovel for the deeper days. I know there's a weight penalty on the Radicals, but for me, it seems to be warranted for the peace of mind. I enjoy pushing my skis in-bounds (not really dropping cliffs or anything yet, just skiing pretty hard in trees and bumps and steeps) and envision skiing a similar style out of bounds.

    Is that the correct way to be comparing those two bindings?

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gaperville, CO
    Posts
    5,844
    MTNs are just a more refined design -- same basic premise. More clamping force on the toe, heel tower feels a bit beefier. They don't ski much different. Some complain about lack of vertical release adjustability in the MTN. Others about the heel lifter plate on the early versions of the Radical.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by doebedoe View Post
    MTNs are just a more refined design -- same basic premise. More clamping force on the toe, heel tower feels a bit beefier. They don't ski much different. Some complain about lack of vertical release adjustability in the MTN. Others about the heel lifter plate on the early versions of the Radical.
    Sorry, to clarify the beasts have the Radical 2.0s, which does have vertical release I believe. Is that something worth considering?

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gaperville, CO
    Posts
    5,844
    Quote Originally Posted by cjohns716 View Post
    Sorry, to clarify the beasts have the Radical 2.0s, which does have vertical release I believe. Is that something worth considering?
    They all have vertical release. The radical release is adjustable with a screw. The MTN release is determined by which spring is loaded on it.

    The MTN is a better binding. Less weight, simple reliable design. The Radical just adds complexity with no real benefit.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by cjohns716 View Post
    Sorry, to clarify the beasts have the Radical 2.0s, which does have vertical release I believe. Is that something worth considering?
    Radical 2.0's don't break like the older versions. But they are a mediocre product that is heavy given what they offer in terms of retention and feel. MTNs are simple, light and bomber, but have U springs.

    Sent from my Pixel 3a using TGR Forums mobile app

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,644
    Quote Originally Posted by doebedoe View Post
    They all have vertical release. The radical release is adjustable with a screw. The MTN release is determined by which spring is loaded on it.

    The MTN is a better binding. Less weight, simple reliable design. The Radical just adds complexity with no real benefit.
    MTN seems really nice for reasons everyone has stated, as long as you're willing to let the manufacturer determine your RV. I'm not.

    I'm growing more and more happy with my choice of Plum Guides for this reason, although the Xenic, ATK Crest and Haute Route, along with the Kreuzspitze GT have my attention (all 4 having fine adjustment of RV for both vertical and horizontal).

    ... Thom
    Last edited by galibier_numero_un; 10-16-2019 at 07:29 PM.
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Frantically crawling out of the backseat
    Posts
    697
    This one rules in all countries.
    Quote Originally Posted by digitaldeath View Post
    Here’s the dumbest person on tgr
    "What are you trying to say? I'm crazy? When I went to your ski schools, I went on your church trips, I went to your alpine race-training facilities? So how can you say I'm crazy?!"

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gaperville, CO
    Posts
    5,844
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    ...
    I'm growing more and more happy with my choice of Plum Guides for this reason, although the Xenic, ATK Crest and Haute Route, along with the Kreuzspitze GT have my attention (all 4 having fine adjustment of RV for both vertical and horizontal).
    ..
    Giving what you make for a living, I'm surprised Xenic is even on your list given the beautiful machining of the ATKs and Kreuzspite.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,644
    Quote Originally Posted by doebedoe View Post
    Giving what you make for a living, I'm surprised Xenic is even on your list given the beautiful machining of the ATKs and Kreuzspite.
    If it were only so (salary), but yeah, the ATK & Kreuzspitze machining is gorgeous.

    Alas, this year's toy fund is about an air bag pack.

    ... Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Swiss alps -> Bozone,MT
    Posts
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by doebedoe View Post
    They all have vertical release. The radical release is adjustable with a screw. The MTN release is determined by which spring is loaded on it.

    The MTN is a better binding. Less weight, simple reliable design. The Radical just adds complexity with no real benefit.
    Just to echo a different sentiment here: I fully agree that the MTN is a great binding. However if you plan to use the same setup in the resort, the rotating toe of the radical 2.0 (that one has the rotating toe right?) will allow you to ski hard snow with a lot less jarring feel. For pure touring I'd go mtn, but for a do-it-all ski there is something to be said for the radical 2.0.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden, Colorado
    Posts
    5,868
    Quote Originally Posted by smooth operator View Post
    Just to echo a different sentiment here: I fully agree that the MTN is a great binding. However if you plan to use the same setup in the resort, the rotating toe of the radical 2.0 (that one has the rotating toe right?) will allow you to ski hard snow with a lot less jarring feel. For pure touring I'd go mtn, but for a do-it-all ski there is something to be said for the radical 2.0.
    Where did you get this information from? The rotational toe was designed to create a predictable release, and has nothing to do with ‘smoothness’ in harsh snow. It’s still quite harsh.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Swiss alps -> Bozone,MT
    Posts
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post
    Where did you get this information from? The rotational toe was designed to create a predictable release, and has nothing to do with ‘smoothness’ in harsh snow. It’s still quite harsh.
    From skiing dynafit beasts for years. I dont care what the design philosophy was, it skies a lot less harsh than any other pin binding.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    199
    OP - just buy one of those two setups (or something else) and run with it like I've seen black diamonds! said earlier. It sounds like you have no clue what you like (many of the skis you've mentioned are quite different) and getting hung up on bindings is dumb. Rad 2.0 and MTN are fairly new and plenty good enough to get you started. If I were you I'd buy the Voile/MTN (solid setup/maybe easier to move than the Beast 98s if you resell), sign up for a AIARE Level 1 if you haven't already taken one, and get stoked.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gaperville, CO
    Posts
    5,844
    What Rocca said ^^.

    You want cheap, you're not gonna get perfection.

    Here's a cheap option, warning it's mine: https://denver.craigslist.org/spo/d/...001388436.html

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden, Colorado
    Posts
    5,868

    CO Backcountry Ski Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by smooth operator View Post
    From skiing dynafit beasts for years. I dont care what the design philosophy was, it skies a lot less harsh than any other pin binding.
    The Beast is a very different binding.

    After multiple rounds of back-to-back and side-by-side testing with a variety of similarly-weighted tech bindings, there’s very very (2x) little difference in ‘smoothness’ with the Rad2. If you’re claiming to have experienced this on the Rad2, perhaps you’ve been bit by differing conditions, differing skis, or our extremely poor perceptive memories?

    You’re way way (2x) better off choosing based on other factors, even if downhill performance is your top priority.

    Last edited by Lindahl; 10-17-2019 at 09:18 PM.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    1,712
    I'm sure I haven't A-B tested as well as Lindahl, but I've owned a couple pairs of Rad 2.0s, and I'd certainly agree that they're not much different than most other tech bindings in terms of damping. None of them have much elasticity. If you're on a budget and buying used setups, the skis are going to make a much, much bigger difference. Focus on that part of the equation.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Swiss alps -> Bozone,MT
    Posts
    671
    Very well, I stand corrected. Just figured since it was the same toe as the beast 14 it would ski similar.
    Carry on.

Posting Permissions

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