Results 26 to 50 of 54
Thread: CO Backcountry Ski Advice
-
10-06-2019, 12:43 AM #26
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...
-
10-06-2019, 08:41 AM #27
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.
-
10-06-2019, 09:08 AM #28Registered User
- 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.
-
10-06-2019, 11:48 AM #29
CO Backcountry Ski Advice
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.
-
10-06-2019, 02:06 PM #30
Personally, I have never understood the appeal of skinny, light, and stiff for touring in the intermountain west unless you are skimo racing.
-
10-06-2019, 04:22 PM #31Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Location
- Gaperville, CO
- Posts
- 5,844
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.
-
10-07-2019, 06:35 AM #32
I have these GPOs with new vipec if you decide to go 116. They are 187 with 307 boot sole
Sent from my iPhone using TGR ForumsI 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)
-
10-07-2019, 06:52 AM #33
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?
-
10-16-2019, 01:01 PM #34Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2018
- Posts
- 39
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?
-
10-16-2019, 01:08 PM #35Registered User
- 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.
-
10-16-2019, 01:45 PM #36Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2018
- Posts
- 39
-
10-16-2019, 01:50 PM #37Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Location
- Gaperville, CO
- Posts
- 5,844
-
10-16-2019, 01:57 PM #38
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
-
10-16-2019, 06:17 PM #39
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).
... ThomLast edited by galibier_numero_un; 10-16-2019 at 07:29 PM.
Galibier Designcrafting technology in service of music
-
10-16-2019, 06:51 PM #40
This one rules in all countries.
-
10-16-2019, 09:41 PM #41Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Location
- Gaperville, CO
- Posts
- 5,844
-
10-17-2019, 01:58 AM #42Galibier Designcrafting technology in service of music
-
10-17-2019, 04:10 AM #43
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.
-
10-17-2019, 05:30 AM #44
-
10-17-2019, 07:56 AM #45
-
10-17-2019, 08:08 AM #46
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.
-
10-17-2019, 08:34 AM #47Registered User
- 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
-
10-17-2019, 08:54 PM #48
CO Backcountry Ski Advice
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.
-
10-17-2019, 09:10 PM #49
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.
-
10-18-2019, 03:01 AM #50
Very well, I stand corrected. Just figured since it was the same toe as the beast 14 it would ski similar.
Carry on.
Bookmarks