Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 33 of 33
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Zurich, Switzerland
    Posts
    5,507
    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
    6,087
    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
    Posts
    178
    I just donít 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 v8ís. Not a ski thatís talked about a lot here but defiantly an easy touring ski.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Zurich, Switzerland
    Posts
    5,507

    CO Backcountry Ski Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Tailwind View Post
    I just donít 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 v8ís. Not a ski thatís 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 Iíd consider is the Vapor Float. Maybe the new Voile Hyper V8. But still... more drag. I just donít 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
    Western MT
    Posts
    1,306
    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
    3,726
    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
    5,195
    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:	20 
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

    2018/2019 (24/32)

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    colorady
    Posts
    1,186
    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?

Posting Permissions

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