Which ski to mount with tech bindings?

[DougW]

Switching over my AT setup to tech

Boots BD Factor 110
bindings Dyna Radical FT with 110 brakes

Skis new or almost new

BD Megawatts 188 , 125mm under foot
Bluehouse Precinct 191 ( 140-116-130) mounted Barons - have skins
Atomic Big Heli 190 131:107:119
Dyna Legend 8800 188cm, 90mm mounted Naxo very few days have skins

Will be doing week long hut trips, slack country days, Rogers days, and some long all day tours ~20km

My first thought was to buy some 130 brakes and mount the Megawatts /big heli/8800s tech with inserts
mount the Precincts alpine

could sell Megawatts for more than I bought them for as were a super deal

[GeezerSteve]

How much do you weigh? Will you have only one pair of touring skis? If so and it were me, I'd sell some of those and get something 105-112 waist, a bit shorter and prolly lighter. I'd replace those boots too.

[kootenayskier]

^ x2.

[skimaxpower]

^ x3.

You couldn't pay me enough to crawl 20km in Factors.

[DougW]

I did the 22k the first real day out, 1/2 at hill and two evenings watching TV only thing before that. That was on the Bluehouses' with Barons

Weight 200lbs

yes want several skis so I thought I'd use the 8800s for a long tour, 2 or 3

Also have an old pair little use Dyna torteck 3 that would be good of a tour very very little ski.

[gregL]

I wouldn't set out on a week-long hut trip with any of those skis, or bother mounting tech bindings on them. You're going tech to make your touring more efficient, right? The 8800's weigh a ton, the MegaWatts have as much skin drag as two pairs of my Cho Oyus. How about a Dynafit Huascaran, Blizzard Zero G 108 or Voile V8?

[DougW]

not even the Big Heli? haven't weighed them be seem pretty light

[gregL]

. . . haven't weighed them . . . seem pretty light . . .

Under 2000 grams per ski? Pretty easy to put them on a scale and check. But you're the one dragging them around all day, not me.

[galibier_numero_un]

... the MegaWatts have as much skin drag as two pairs of my Cho Oyus.

Of course, this raises an interesting point. How much is too much skin for a wide ski. Is cutting a skin to the equivalent of 97mm waist something you can sleep with? 105mm? Of course there's no law that says you have to cut your skins right up to the edges, but we all have a tendency to not want to leave money on the table

I'm wrestling right now with this - how much skin to cut back on my Megawatts.

Cheers,
Thom

[moose pit]

All of em. I tossed inserts in Praxis Rx, Protests, 183 fat Bros and I am happy. Granted I am a tele wanker and can't ski for shit, but having the tech option is pretty nice. I still don't get the tech hate.

[Lindahl]

Of course, this raises an interesting point. How much is too much skin for a wide ski. Is cutting a skin to the equivalent of 97mm waist something you can sleep with? 105mm? Of course there's no law that says you have to cut your skins right up to the edges, but we all have a tendency to not want to leave money on the table

I'm wrestling right now with this - how much skin to cut back on my Megawatts.

Cheers,
Thom

I've ran 110 straight skins on 115 and 124 skis for a while now. In soft fresh snow it isn't really a problem. You'll hate life if you have old skin tracks with switchbacks, though. I really only use my 110s for road laps and sidecountry where you don't really climb what you ski and only bring them for mostly gentle ridgelines, short straight climbs or uphill traverses out. I sometimes use them for real tours when I know I'll be laying down new tracks or at least fresher tracks and not dealing with super steep switchbacks. Old skin tracks on straight slopes are fine since you can just balance skinning on the middle section of the ski.

The lack of drag is amazingly awesome, by the way. You can move super fast, thats why I think its great for sidecountry and road laps. Pairs really well with glueless tech (ie Gecko) and mohair.

I like less than 110 skis for the lack of drag. They ski powder well enough. I use 102s when doing powder yoyos or long tours.

[moose pit]

ski with split boarders, the skin track is usually wide and you will always win at the transition. Drag is a non issue.

[Lindahl]

As for what skis to mount with Dynafits? I vote all of them with inserts. Dynafit weight and stride make up for a lot when it comes to effeciency. Sure, lighter skis and better boots would make a noticeable difference, but if thats what you have, why not? I have buddies who've put dynafits on praxis powderboards and don't regret it.

[moose pit]

As for what skis to mount with Dynafits? I vote all of them with inserts. Dynafit weight and stride make up for a lot when it comes to effeciency. Sure, lighter skis and better boots would make a noticeable difference, but if thats what you have, why not? I have buddies who've put dynafits on powderboards and don't regret it.

wurd.

[gregL]

Of course there's no law that says you have to cut your skins right up to the edges, but we all have a tendency to not want to leave money on the table

Thriftiness doesn't have too much to do with it, it's more about reaching your destination. Have you tried skinning up an icy sidehill with 10mm of P-Tex showing underfoot?

As Lindahl says, if it's perfect fresh snow with no ice, no windcrust, no frozen old tracks and pretty low angle so you can go straight up (and you have good technique) you probably will be fine with a straight skin 6 or 7mm narrower than the waist of your skis, assuming you find those same ideal conditions all day long. How often does that happen for you?

[DougW]

Under 2000 grams per ski? Pretty easy to put them on a scale and check. But you're the one dragging them around all day, not me.

don't have a good scale but by doing the bathroom scale differential they are 3.6kg for the pair

[gregL]

don't have a good scale but by doing the bathroom scale differential they are 3.6kg for the pair

1800 grams is pretty light for a 190, why don't you ignore all the acquisitive gear nuts on this forum and mount them up with the Dynafits - it won't cost you anything.

[galibier_numero_un]

I've ran 110 straight skins on 115 and 124 skis for a while now. In soft fresh snow it isn't really a problem. You'll hate life if you have old skin tracks with switchbacks, though. I really only use my 110s for road laps and sidecountry where you don't really climb what you ski and only bring them for mostly gentle ridgelines, short straight climbs or uphill traverses out. I sometimes use them for real tours when I know I'll be laying down new tracks or at least fresher tracks and not dealing with super steep switchbacks. Old skin tracks on straight slopes are fine since you can just balance skinning on the middle section of the ski.

The lack of drag is amazingly awesome, by the way. You can move super fast, thats why I think its great for sidecountry and road laps. Pairs really well with glueless tech (ie Gecko) and mohair.

I like less than 110 skis for the lack of drag. They ski powder well enough. I use 102s when doing powder yoyos or long tours.

Thanks (and thanks Greg as well). I've never done the narrow skin on wide ski thing, although it did make intuitive sense, to me. My thoughts were that edging on an icy skin track would actually improve. From your comments however, this is apparently not the case, and I guess that's why the split skin was developed.

Greg: I wasn't very clear with my "leaving money on the table" comment. I wasn't trying to refer to saving money but rather to cutting away extra traction by running narrow skins on wide skis. The money on the table was intended to refer to the potential for regretting the decision to cut away too much skin.

Cheers,
Thom

[dark_star]

^ x3.

You couldn't pay me enough to crawl 20km in Factors.

x4. Getting a nice, lightweight touring rig is one of the best investments you can make in ski gear, if you're serious about touring. Opens up new worlds.

[NoPostholio]

x4. Getting a nice, lightweight touring rig is one of the best investments you can make in ski gear, if you're serious about touring. Opens up new worlds.

x4²

[NoPostholio]

Ditch those factors (for touring) yesterday -

[smooth operator]

or just get fit.

[angrysasquatch]

IMO, get trekkers for your usual alpine boot and ski setup for sidecountry, as a real touring boot won't ski the resort well and will probably get shredded. Only the track for west-end Molars and Dogtooth ridge is too much for trekkers, the rest is super benign skinning. Plus it's a pain changing boots mid-day. Then get a full BC boot/ski/dynas for days at the pass, overnights, real touring. Beware, lots of lightweight skis achieve that weight by using thin base material and edges, depending how much rock you ski on that may be a problem. Start with boots and dynafits though, the skis can come later.

[dark_star]

or just get fit.

Or be fit, get light boots, and tour 3x further.

[DougW]

But I did a 22 km tour on my Factors and it was fine. Walk mode was great seemed way better than my Tornado Pro that I used to be on. Hate to admit it I didn't even undue top buckles or release the cable thing.

Any way this has shown me that there is no reason to mount the 8800 tech as they are the same weight as the Big Heli. I'll just keep my eye out for a pair of BD currents or something like that that would be better suited for something long tour wise. As noted I do have a pair Dynafit Tour tech3 (12 years old but only 6 or so days) which ski like shit but are super light.

By the way my wife did the same tour in alpine boots so for her a big step up would be anything with a walk mode.