Looking for a new touring ski- Zero G 105, BD Helio Recon 105 and what else?

[Kevo]

I'm looking for a lightweight dedicated touring ski for long days.

Current quiver-
-188 Rustler 11s with Shifts (resort and sidecountry ski that I haven't skied yet)
-187 Liberty Origin 106s with Shifts (used them as a resort and sidecountry ski in a place with less snow than where I live now).


Stats-
-I'm 5'11'', 190 lbs and an OK skier.
-I love my Origins for their maneuverability and playfulness, but I'm heavy enough to overpower them at speed or on hard snow.
-I would also prefer better edge hold than the Origins have for skimo missions.
-I really like the stiffness and flex profile of Volkl Kendos.


Ideally, I'd like a ski around that is around Kendo stiffness, that floats in deep snow, that's lighter than my Rustler 11s and also doesn't feel like a plank of carbon.

I've been researching Zero G 105s and BD Helio Recon 105s. I've also wondered about the Fischer Hannibal 106 Carbon. Is there anything else that I should be considering? Thanks for your help, mags.

[gregL]

I'm looking for a lightweight dedicated touring ski for long days.

Is there anything else that I should be considering?

Probably a ski narrower than 105mm.

Zero G 95, Backland 95/100, MTN Explore 95, Helio (not Recon) 95 . . . these are skis I would consider "long day" skis.

Slightly heavier: Line Vision 98, V-Werks Mantra, Camox Freebird, Ranger 98 . . .

[thecazdog]

Camox Freebird is pretty solid, but i don't have enough time on them to give you a better review.

I'd go with the ZG105. Thanks to the longer radius, you can ski em even on firmer snow. I used my ZG108s in low snow areas and felt they were super solid on steep firm snow thanks to their sidecut. And they weigh about the same is the Camox FB.

The only issue you'll have is that a 184cm ZG105 would be ideal for you...but you will have to either favor going short or long. I'd say shorter with your preference for longer days.

[kamtron]

You could ditch the shifts for a real touring binding and save a lot of weight for powder skiing.

I agree with Greg that if you really want to do bigger days, a narrower ski is a good call. Or an ultralight and slightly shorter fat ski can make sense if you only do your "missions" in powder. Hard to make a ski that's both good for powder and skimo missions. But 95 mm waist can actually ski powder quite well, just with a different technique.

[COBRI]

what about helio 105- lighter and stiffer than the recon. Put a true touring binding on them.

[kathleenturneroverdrive]

FWIW the MTN 95 floats WAY better than I would have imagined. And I'm someone who hates tip dive/spent the better part of 3 seasons on 138's.

[gregL]

FWIW, I own the Zero G 105 in a 180 and love them, but they are not the ski I reach for when planning a "long day."

[LeeLau]

FWIW, I own the Zero G 105 in a 180 and love them, but they are not the ski I reach for when planning a "long day."

Greg are we twins separated from birth? Same here re ZG 105.

Kevo I have Salomon Mtn 88 for a long day ski

[gregL]

Greg are we twins separated from birth? Same here re ZG 105.

Kevo I have Salomon Mtn 88 for a long day ski

Probably, from what I see we kind of look the same but you have hair. I have Zero G 85 in a 164 (original version) for a long day ski.

[Falcon3]

(Me=5-10”, 190lbs). I’m on the Camox FB 183 with ATK Crest 10 binders. I’d consider this a great long day setup. I’m not in super amazing shape but putting in 6k+ vert is no issue with the skis, and they do float better than you’d expect for a 96 waisted ski.

It handles long mid-winter pow days and spring volcano tours equally well. At your height/weight I’d say the 183 or 188 would be great.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[I've seen black diamonds!]

I think ideal width comes down to where you ski, when you do your longs days and what you mean by long day

-If you're going to do endless sidehilling and kick turns on spring snow a skinnier ski is nice.

-If you tend to find yourself skinning up mellower trails and valleys then switching to booting after a few kick turns, a little more width for the way down is great.

-Then there is the question of how long the corn tends to last and how much spring powder you encounter.

When I was on the East Coast my spring skis were skinnier because the corn lasts longer there (lower elevation, more clouds) and spring pow above treeline tends to become windbuff/board very quickly. Plus I'd occasionally do some 16+ mile days with long flats in the Adirondacks or heading up to Katahdin, when minimizing drag was important. 85-95mm waist was good for me there.

In CO corn tends to be short lived on sunny spring days. On longer descents if you time the top section perfectly you often have glop at the bottom. Plus my favorite skiing here is 6" of spring pow glued onto a snowpack that's been through a few melt-freeze cycles. That's when you can ski the best terrain in style. A 105 waist is perfect for this. I find the extra weight and drag worth it. I used and loved Zero G 108's for a few years and just replaced them with the 105's. The 108's are a phenomenal couloir ski. Great on firm snow and wide enough to deal with funky snow. They are a mediocre powder ski for the width. Hoping the 105's have a bit more float and a bit looser tail without giving up edge hold or predictability.

Neither East Coast alpine terrain nor the Front Range tend to involve lots of steep skinning (sure you can find it, but we're not talking about thousands of vert up a volcano at a steady 30º). I just sold my Zero G 85's because I wasn't using them much. I may regret it a couple days this season, but more frequently when I took the 85's I regretted not having something fatter.

I also ski in the Dolomites most years, and when I'm there I will break out some old 88m waist skis to skin up firm or crusty, South facing 30-35º couloirs so I can ski down better snow on the North side. It just works.

[cat in january]

I have a new in plastic pair of Down LD90 for sale

https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...-miscellaneous

[Kevo]

Great info. Thanks very much, everyone. I guess I should mention that I'll be skiing in/ around Teton Canyon with this setup, so I'll be dealing with a combination of long approaches and deep snow.

Probably a ski narrower than 105mm.

Zero G 95, Backland 95/100, MTN Explore 95, Helio (not Recon) 95 . . . these are skis I would consider "long day" skis.

Slightly heavier: Line Vision 98, V-Werks Mantra, Camox Freebird, Ranger 98 . . .

Good to know, thanks. I asked some neighbors what they ski for their longish 10+ miles, 6k+ foot days around here. One is skiing a 114 waisted ski, the other is skiing a 118 waisted ski
Both mentioned the need for floatation

FWIW the MTN 95 floats WAY better than I would have imagined. And I'm someone who hates tip dive/spent the better part of 3 seasons on 138's.

That's really good to hear! Thanks.

@Greg and Lee- what amount of vertical/distance/snow is your cutoff for picking up something smaller than your Zero G 105s?

I think ideal width comes down to where you ski, when you do your longs days and what you mean by long day

-If you're going to do endless sidehilling and kick turns on spring snow a skinnier ski is nice.

-If you tend to find yourself skinning up mellower trails and valleys then switching to booting after a few kick turns, a little more width for the way down is great.

-Then there is the question of how long the corn tends to last and how much spring powder you encounter.

When I was on the East Coast my spring skis were skinnier because the corn lasts longer there (lower elevation, more clouds) and spring pow above treeline tends to become windbuff/board very quickly. Plus I'd occasionally do some 16+ mile days with long flats in the Adirondacks or heading up to Katahdin, when minimizing drag was important. 85-95mm waist was good for me there.

In CO corn tends to be short lived on sunny spring days. On longer descents if you time the top section perfectly you often have glop at the bottom. Plus my favorite skiing here is 6" of spring pow glued onto a snowpack that's been through a few melt-freeze cycles. That's when you can ski the best terrain in style. A 105 waist is perfect for this. I find the extra weight and drag worth it. I used and loved Zero G 108's for a few years and just replaced them with the 105's. The 108's are a phenomenal couloir ski. Great on firm snow and wide enough to deal with funky snow. They are a mediocre powder ski for the width. Hoping the 105's have a bit more float and a bit looser tail without giving up edge hold or predictability.

Neither East Coast alpine terrain nor the Front Range tend to involve lots of steep skinning (sure you can find it, but we're not talking about thousands of vert up a volcano at a steady 30º). I just sold my Zero G 85's because I wasn't using them much. I may regret it a couple days this season, but more frequently when I took the 85's I regretted not having something fatter.

I also ski in the Dolomites most years, and when I'm there I will break out some old 88m waist skis to skin up firm or crusty, South facing 30-35º couloirs so I can ski down better snow on the North side. It just works.

Thanks for your take. Great info here too.

[gregL]

I asked some neighbors what they ski for their longish 10+ miles, 6k+ foot days around here. One is skiing a 114 waisted ski, the other is skiing a 118 waisted ski
Both mentioned the need for floatation. Greg and Lee, what amount of vertical/distance/snow is your cutoff for picking up something smaller than your Zero G 105s?

Everyone has to determine for themself how much "float" they need in a given situation. Personally, I feel like 100mm is plenty for 12-14" of snow, but YMMV. Your neighbors may also be in better shape than I am. I usually start wishing I had something narrower when the day includes more than 4,000 vertical feet of climbing or the snow is pretty much corn or less than 4" deep.

[sf]

How about the new Volkl Blaze? Either the 94 or 106? I have not seen them, but they seem interesting.

This coming from a guy with close to 100 days between Volkl BMT 94s and 109s, both of which would be great. Neither are stiff, just a very even, accesible flex. Pick width based on what you need.

Obviously the 94s were replaced by the 90s a few years back, so you would have to find them used. I didn't like the 90s as much when demoing. Tail felt a bit soft.

Maybe the W-werks Mantra?

I end up coming back to Volkls, probably since you mentioned the feel of the Kendos

[3PinGrin]

For light and deep Teton powder, I would definitely go 100+. Especially if skiing with others on fatties.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[kathleenturneroverdrive]

Great info. Thanks very much, everyone. I guess I should mention that I'll be skiing in/ around Teton Canyon with this setup, so I'll be dealing with a combination of long approaches and deep snow.

Wait. Teton Canyon mid-winter deep pow touring? What's a "long day" of pow touring for you there in terms of miles and vert?

Personally, my recommendation for the MTN 95 goes out the window if this is a full-time pow touring ski. I'd be on a BC Nocta + FR14 in those conditions. If I was buying new/paying retail I'd look at the Deathwish Tour, Wildcat tour, Renegade, and probably a few dozen other skis that are 110+ waist and 1500 - 2000g for this role. But my POV is there is a time and a place for little skis, and mid-winter, deep snow touring in the Tetons ain't it. YMMV.

[Kevo]

Wait. Teton Canyon mid-winter deep pow touring? What's a "long day" of pow touring for you there in terms of miles and vert?

Personally, my recommendation for the MTN 95 goes out the window if this is a full-time pow touring ski. I'd be on a BC Nocta + FR14 in those conditions. If I was buying new/paying retail I'd look at the Deathwish Tour, Wildcat tour, Renegade, and probably a few dozen other skis that are 110+ waist and 1500 - 2000g for this role. But my POV is there is a time and a place for little skis, and mid-winter, deep snow touring in the Tetons ain't it. YMMV.

A long day would be maybe 12 or so miles and 4k+ feet of vert.

I think you are probably right about me wanting too much from a single setup. I probably need to run a ~110mm+ ski for mid winter and have another ~95mm ski for spring mountaineering.

[kathleenturneroverdrive]

N+1 is always the right answer

[3PinGrin]

A long day would be maybe 12 or so miles and 4k+ feet of vert.

I think you are probably right about me wanting too much from a single setup. I probably need to run a ~110mm+ ski for mid winter and have another ~95mm ski for spring mountaineering.

Now you're talkin! 110ish +/- should be a good fit for your mid winter needs and you could score a spring deal on narrower access tools.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[kc_7777]

I think you need two pair as well...a light bc dedicated rig and a mid winter pow touring rig.

I’ve always had a heavier set up for sidecountry pow eg. currently have Blizzard R11s (112mm) and Shifts for this like you. You’ll like em. Also fun to ski on inbounds.

Never had a really light dedicated bc set up before. Am figuring this year could be a weird one and I wanted a light, dedicated bc ski in case the lifts stop spinning or the resorts get crazy. And to complement the heavier R11/Shifts.

Figured 100mm is about the right width (95mm just seems narrow to me).

I fondled the Volkl Blazes (both 94mm and 106mm) but at -12 rec the mount was just too far back. I also looked at the Salomon MTN 95, Faction Prime 2.0, Blizzard Zero G 95 and Dynastar Mythic 97. All very nice skis but damn those traditional -9cm to -11cm mounts don’t look that fun and are not what I’m used to.

Considered the Raven. I know they ski short but didn’t want a 184cm in bc with my short legs. Almost bought a 179cm Line Vision 98 but finally settled on the 180cm Atomic Backland 100. It checked all the boxes.... with a more progressive mount (eg mine at -6.5 cm at the +2cm line). The BL 100 is only 1450gm per ski. Mounted them with Salomon MTN bindings so they are pretty damn light.

[AKbruin]

I'd also check out the Atomic Backland 107s, which can be found for $400.

I have the 189cm Backland 107s and some 183cm ZeroG 95s. They are both fabulous skis, but the Backlands are more fun and are more frequently my choice for long days (as defined in this thread). I reach for the ZeroGs when I'm doing something (a) very narrow, (b) long and ski mountaineery where the skis will be on my pack a lot, or (c) requiring a lot of ski crampon usage. I have ski crampons for the Backlands, but doing a bunch of sketchy kickturns on icy snow with 107mm-wide, 189cm long skis sucks. Anyhow, if I had to pick only one touring ski between the two, I'd go with the Backlands, but, as others have mentioned, it's very much a matter of personal choice.

As for ski weight, I hardly notice the difference when skinning. I notice the extra weight more when the skis are on my back and, particularly, when I'm carrying them by hand for short sections. YMMV, but I've never done a long tour on my Backlands and wished I had brought the ZeroGs instead so I could have saved weight.

[nickel]

Dump the shifts and get fit. 4k vert is manageable on just about anything ime. I did a number of days of 2k meters vert covered over more than 20km on 192 UL protests last winter and I'm basically a fat fuck. You got this.

[LeeLau]

Great info. Thanks very much, everyone.

@Greg and Lee- what amount of vertical/distance/snow is your cutoff for picking up something smaller than your Zero G 105s?
.

Teton Canyon! You'll be touring for pow

I grab my smaller lighter skis when I'm going for speed on flat glacier approaches. At that point its more about diatance. But let's say a biggish day would be 20+kms and 2000m+.

Also the lighter skis are more about letting me put out less effort so I can tour multiple "big" days in a row. Like when in a hut for a week or more at a time

[gregL]

Well, if your partners are all on fat skis and your fitness level is similar, I'd think in terms of maybe Armada JJ Ultralite, Black Crows Anima Freebird, or Bent Chetler 120 (all in the mid-1800 gram range) with an R14 . . . for me, that would be a very specialized ski that would probably only go on a trip to Hokkaido.