Light, shred-worthy touring sticks

[BFD]

Yeah, complete bs on skimo sticks handling rime with "no problem." That person needs to be reminded how good skis and bindings that weight more than a 2L of coke actually ski.

This is from a person who has both skimo sticks and HEAVY skis where the bindings alone weight more than the skimo skis and bindings.

they replace Zero 85 so I think they had something to compare to. How about some northern Cal info. Any snow on Preston Peak?

[NorCalNomad]

they replace Zero 85 so I think they had something to compare to. How about some northern Cal info. Any snow on Preston Peak?

sorry don't live in California anymore

[altacoup]

How big are you? I’m 6’5” 240


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

5’10” 185, so considerably smaller. But I fucking hate light skis. The ravens are legit.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[mr_pretzel]

5’10” 185, so considerably smaller. But I fucking hate light skis. The ravens are legit.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

Blue raven?

[Falcon3]

That’s so Raven

[altacoup]

Blue raven?

Yep, blue raven. Excellent ski. Haven’t followed construction changes to the raven. Has it been softened and lightened? Shape and rocker profile of the blue version is money.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[WhetherMan]

5’10” 185, so considerably smaller. But I fucking hate light skis. The ravens are legit.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

As a counterpoint I'm 6'6" 210# and I did not like the raven. Neither did my buddy who's similar height and 250#. To me they felt hooky, which I can only guess is because they were folding/overflexing, because nothing about the raven shape or rocker profile would otherwise seem the least bit hooky.

[margotron]

As a counterpoint I'm 6'6" 210# and I did not like the raven. Neither did my buddy who's similar height and 250#. To me they felt hooky, which I can only guess is because they were folding/overflexing, because nothing about the raven shape or rocker profile would otherwise seem the least bit hooky.

Not hooky. Literally can’t be. How fast were you skiing / what angle / kind of snow? Hard to compare backcountry skis bc we all on diff snow (as opposed to resort). In low angle wet snow I’ve experienced them as grabby and reluctant to turn, but I think that’s due to stiffness. I skied them one day in a resort to test the edges and was kinda shocked how maneuverable I found them. I don’t ski them often that said

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Well, they’re acceptable for me getting through the resort going to and coming from bc laps but they do get tossed around in chunky crud. They’re fine on smooth groomers and firm wild snow. I have no complaints in powder and all 3D bc snow, crust and wind board.

I have the blue and white 190s. I can see how someone might feel they’re hooky. If you’re heavier and stomp on them they will flex too much and bog down in deeper snow.

I feel if you drive forward too much they seem unpredictable. If you drive through your arches and use lateral movements they’re automatic. They like speed. You can noodle around but the faster you go the looser they get.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[MagnificentUnicorn]

5’10” 185, so considerably smaller. But I fucking hate light skis. The ravens are legit.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

I think at my size I would feel the same as you about the Ravens on the 195 Hojis inbounds.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[alpinevibes]

Which Kastle's did you get and why do you love them? The tx98 looks interesting.

This thread seems like a good place to ask - anyone have a strong recommendation for a light ~100mm touring stick that can hold up to 210# and comes in a high 18x or ideally 190+? The ZG105 is appealing, but the 185 actual length is shorter than I'd like at 6'6" what with physics and center of mass and all. The 194 Beast 108 is wider than I really want this ski to be, though I did weigh a pair at 1700g/ski which is about the top end of what i'd consider for this slot. Findr 102 is interesting, but I get mixed impressions of that ski. Anyone been on the Backland 100? Not sure how similar it is to the 107, which some folks here seem to like. Maybe I should add that to the list. Prioritizing edgehold and versatility in weird conditions.

ZG108 in 192 is what you seek. Edge hold, skis long, provides stability and power in bad conditions if driven.

[WhetherMan]

Well, they’re acceptable for me getting through the resort going to and coming from bc laps but they do get tossed around in chunky crud. They’re fine on smooth groomers and firm wild snow. I have no complaints in powder and all 3D bc snow, crust and wind board.

I have the blue and white 190s. I can see how someone might feel they’re hooky. If you’re heavier and stomp on them they will flex too much and bog down in deeper snow.

I feel if you drive forward too much they seem unpredictable. If you drive through your arches and use lateral movements they’re automatic. They like speed. You can noodle around but the faster you go the looser they get.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Yeah, I'm guessing they behave differently if you're not so heavy that you flex through them. I mean, they obviously do, or people wouldn't be raving about them. Curious if anyone over 200lbs has gotten along with them.

To be clear, it was in 3 dimensional snow they would fold/hook. Definitely not on firmer surfaces. The harder you skied them the worse it got. Dolphin turns? Fantastic.

While I'm playing the heretic - they're also pretty heavy for the surface area. 104 underfoot, but also only 120 in the tip. And what, 1900g in the 190? That's pretty chunky for a touring ski that size, even a damp one. So I guess what I'm saying is that personally I didn't find them to have too many redeeming qualities as a touring ski.

[WhetherMan]

ZG108 in 192 is what you seek. Edge hold, skis long, provides stability and power in bad conditions if driven.

Oh man, corbetts had some 192s cheap earlier this year and my finger was on the trigger multiple times. I have regrets. Ultimately, for my use case though, I decided the 1850g weight wasn't enough lighter than my current options. Still not sure. If I come across a cheap used pair, I'd probably bite

[frorider]

I dig my 192 108 zeroG’s but they really prefer open terrain and a stiff boot. They do handle PNW snow better than many somewhat comparable skis. Much different than the 105s, which are friendly and easy to ski but don’t have the edge hold and power of the 108.

[mtnjam]

I have nothing but great things to say about my newish DPS Pagoda Tour 100RPs. Light, stable and a really fun ski. I put a pair of Salomon MTN Pure bindings on and couldn't be happier with the setup.

I replaced a pair of K2 Coomback 102s with the Pagodas and have definitely noticed a difference in the ability to open up the Pagodas versus the Coombacks that liked to turn.

Yes, DPS = Double Priced Skis, but....

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Yeah, I'm guessing they behave differently if you're not so heavy that you flex through them. I mean, they obviously do, or people wouldn't be raving about them. Curious if anyone over 200lbs has gotten along with them.

To be clear, it was in 3 dimensional snow they would fold/hook. Definitely not on firmer surfaces. The harder you skied them the worse it got. Dolphin turns? Fantastic.

While I'm playing the heretic - they're also pretty heavy for the surface area. 104 underfoot, but also only 120 in the tip. And what, 1900g in the 190? That's pretty chunky for a touring ski that size, even a damp one. So I guess what I'm saying is that personally I didn't find them to have too many redeeming qualities as a touring ski.

Maybe I’m not being clear, they’re my
favorite touring ski


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[NorCalNomad]

That’s so Raven

LULZ

[WhetherMan]

I dig my 192 108 zeroG’s but they really prefer open terrain and a stiff boot. They do handle PNW snow better than many somewhat comparable skis. Much different than the 105s, which are friendly and easy to ski but don’t have the edge hold and power of the 108.

And now i want them more. Since unrealistically specific preferences are what we do around here, what I'd really like is that ski in a 100-102 with a commensurate weight reduction.

[WhetherMan]

Maybe I’m not being clear, they’re my
favorite touring ski


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Oh, no you were mostly clear on that. I just missed your linebacker status further upthread. Question answered. "Stomping" on them sounds synonymous with skiing hard to me, but perhaps I'm misinterpreting you.

You're certainly in good company liking them, I seem to be in the minority.

[NorCalNomad]

Realized I have forgot to mention LongRide, dude lives in the PNW and both dabbles in lightweight and fr sticks. Got some from him that are 1800 and loving them.

[WhetherMan]

Corbett's has a few pairs of backland 100s in 188 for $335. I smashed around inbounds this afternoon on a demo pair and was pretty impressed. Only got them in a little funky snow, mostly skied windbuff which seems a fair approximation of corn skiing, which will be their primary responsibility. Well that and making scary turns on steep shit. Tail is quite stiff, front less so - recommended mount definitely feels too far forward. It feels like you're well into the forward sidecut on rec. Hopeful that pushing back a cm or 2 will make it feel a little more balanced. 1445g/ski on the shop scale, can't believe how hard I could ski these given that weight.

[cat in january]

Looking for skis and posted up in gear swap. A bit shorter than a lot of the skis mentioned here (short Irish legs and to mangage EC thwack)

https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...28#post6277528

[LeoK]

Diggin up this old thread as I am in a similar situation as the op.

Skiing the alps, only touring, 180cm, 75kg. Looking for a directional reliable ski for tours around 1400-1600m a day.
The ski will get ATK R12 and bootwise I am in Blizzard Zero Gs. I have powder skis (Lotus 120s), I have a ultralight pair (old pre-rocker movement Logic-X) and now I am looking for something in the middle. Lowdowns 102 not available anymore... would have loved a long radius.

Torn between Blizzard Zero G 105 and Scott Superguide Freetour. Any more info on the free tours an how they compare? Or general reservations on any of the brands (build quality and so on)?

thx!

[thecazdog]

I'd favor the ZG105 - bit more versatile and easier to use. I've spent plenty of time on ZG skis, and they are pretty awesome skis.

Just to throw out another contender, consider the Majesty Supernova. I got a pair this season, and they are a really capable ski. Interesting design with the cut off tail lets you ski a bit shorter but have plenty of ski in front. I'll have to ski them more, but at this stage I'd rate them the best ski in that mid-fat class...and it takes a lot for me to consider saying that given I still have a pair of ZG108s.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

Diggin up this old thread as I am in a similar situation as the op.

Skiing the alps, only touring, 180cm, 75kg. Looking for a directional reliable ski for tours around 1400-1600m a day.
The ski will get ATK R12 and bootwise I am in Blizzard Zero Gs. I have powder skis (Lotus 120s), I have a ultralight pair (old pre-rocker movement Logic-X) and now I am looking for something in the middle. Lowdowns 102 not available anymore... would have loved a long radius.

Torn between Blizzard Zero G 105 and Scott Superguide Freetour. Any more info on the free tours an how they compare? Or general reservations on any of the brands (build quality and so on)?

thx!

I own the Zero G 105's. They are excellent. I previously owned and enjoyed the Zero G 108's. I once bought a pair of the older Scott Superguide 105s, but never mounted them. The were stupidly stiff and the quality of construction was subpar. The just looked sloppy. Hopefully the new ones are much better.