Gear Help a brother get touring skis

[Mendieta]

You might want to email Gear Hut in Reno to see what they have (and then report back to us so we can decide by committee!). But seriously, over the summer, I emailed them asking if they could tell me what paddleboards they had, and within a day someone got back to me. I also couched my question as "I'm coming from [not Reno] and wanted to see if there were any boards like [specs that I wanted] on your floor before I drive all the way out there..." They were super nice.

I wanted to second this. I did contact them, and they were wonderful. They didn't have exactly what i needed but still sent me some pictures over email ... I don't even know them and we are already best friends Gear Hut at Reno, highly recommended! (I'll leacve a Google Review when I have a minute, too)

 

[Rainbow Jenny]

Everyone at Alpenglow Expedition at Olympic Village seems to rave about Pomoca. On my radar for the next purchase.

 

[charlier]

Everyone at Alpenglow Expedition at Olympic Village seems to rave about Pomoca. On my radar for the next purchase.

Many ski manufacturers re-brand Pomoca skins on their pre-cut skins, including Atomic, Black Crows. The re-branded skins are mostly Climb Pro S-Glide model.

 

[Mendieta]

Many ski manufacturers re-brand Pomoca skins on their pre-cut skins, including Atomic, Black Crows. The re-branded skins are mostly Climb Pro S-Glide model.

Mine even say it on the box!

On other updates, my Lange XT3 130 arrived and they are the bomb. Ten percernt lighter than the Lange RX 130 (8.1 lbs the pair vs 9). They feel a bit more oriented to comfort than performance in comparison: I warmed the liners and used them a few hours at home and they feel "almost there" (while my RX130 were painful without a few punches). Love that.

Finally, the skis. Oh, the skis. I ordered from a crappy vendor (not a ski shop), and they never shipped. Friday, almost a week later, I got them to cancel and now I ordered from a real ski shop: Ascent. Not sure when they will be here, but at least I can trust them. I ordered Friday, regular shipping, and they come from Seattle, I believe, so it will be a while. Sigh.

But I am still waiting for the bindings which I found at a really good price, but from Canada. A little patience is all I need now But it's looking good!

 

[Hankj]

Super solid advice here. I’ve been enjoying my Liberty Origin Backcountry 106. Perhaps another option.

Fwiw, I recently slapped some frame bindings on my regular Liberty Origin 106's and have been touring with them a bit. Not recommending! But I really lke them for this purpose. So much more soft snow on average when touring, and these skis make it easy while still getting an edge in nicely too.

On my last trip out the Origin 106's were coveted 3 times - oh I bet those ski good out here.

On coveter, very experienced touring guy, settled into some reflection. Expressed that like cyclists tourers obsess about gear weight on paper, but if you aren't racing up mountains or going super long days, it's silly to be on ultra-light gear that skis relatively poorly to save 6 minutes and 100 calories that you probably needed to burn anyway. He wasn't saying go heavy, but rather prioritize down as much or more than up if you know you are doing huge days.

 

[Primoz]

It depends on person. Me personally it's all about down. I mean I love to go up, I love being out in middle of nowhere, but when it's about skiing. it's about skiing. So I never bother with ultralight skimo stuff, which of course makes it much easier and faster to get up, but skiing down on those skis and in those boots is just not worth it in my mind. On the other hand, half of my friends would rather die, then put on some proper ski boots (my Atomic Hawk xtd 130 vs. their Scarpa F1 or similar ultralight and chewing gum like "boots"), or use proper skis for powder (my nowadays tool for powder in backcountry are Rossi Sender 106 TI Plus instead of their 854 or 86mm toothpicks). It makes it slightly more challenging for me to follow them up, but on way down, I have fun, while they are mostly trying to survive. So it depends. For some (of us) having fun on way down, even if you suffer a bit more on way up, is more important, while for others, going up is important part. But I would agree with @Hankj that it's similar to bike.... Quite often 50g less for 1000eur more, while being 20kg overweight is the norm... also in ski touring
As for frame binding... I did plenty of long and demanding tours on frame bindings, so it can be done, but for pure backcountry skis, I prefer my Atk (nowadays all my touring skis have Freerider 15 evo). It's definitely worse binding then any frame binding, when it comes to skiing, but walking part is so much better, then at least for me, it's worth sacrifising a little bit of downhill performance for this, as on up proper tech binding really makes huge difference.

 

[Ken_R]

Ok, I just got my back country gear and I am looking for a companion rescue course. Having touring skis will probably be required, so I'll start the search now. (Otherwise i will rent for the course)

I am 6'1 190lbs (sigh) and my favorite skis right now are the Factions CT 1.0 in 179 cm. I prefer them over my 184cm Enforcers 100 in that they are as stable in speed, but easier to maneuver in trees and tight steeps. Also easier in bumps.

I am also looking for hybrid bindings. Ideally I would buy a used set (assuming shift style bindings can be adjustable).

In principle I thought of the Enforcer 94 or 104 ultimate but I read too many reports that it can lock you into a turn. I certainly don't want that.

Any help is appreciated.

If I had to do it all over again I would get a lighter weight setup that is durable, easy and simple to use. I got pretty close with my first setup. (184cm Black Crows Navis Freebird skis with Dynafit FT bindings (similar to the rotation) and Atomic Ultra XTD boots).

Things I learned, size down on skis compared to your resort skis, maybe one size down so 179cm for me. That will make transitions easier and kick turns easier and just be a tad more maneuverable. The width and design of the skis were spot on for here (Colorado) throughout the season so nailed that (102mm wide, rocker, camber-rocker design with solid edgehold and good float, medium to stiff flex). The bindings were a tad heavier and more complex than I needed, I got close, I would pick the simpler Dynafit Radicals or something similar. Regarding the boots, they were excellent but again, a bit too heavy duty for what you really need. I would choose a touring specific boot now.

Now as for skins I first got the G3 nylon skins and they worked but the glide is not great and the glue gets bad after a few months or less. I now have mix (mohair/Nylon) skins Black Crows branded and they are worlds better in every way.

I cant emphasize enough the importance of keeping things simple, durable and reasonably light. When you are out there you want things to be easy to use and be reliable. Most times during transitions you will be tired and you dont want to be dealing with finicky gear.

I am 6-2 and about 190 when in shape.

 

[Slim]

As a counter point to @Hankj ‘s quote, I’d say that it’s also silly to go super beefy on the boots, skis and bindings, just to save 60 seconds on the descent.
If you are not going to send it at high speed, and catch air, you don't need gear that the movie skiers do. I don’t ski crazy hard or or catch air when I’m inbounds, and dial it back when I’m in the backcountry, so for me, and people like me, a simple, light weight binding is all I need. Other than safety, there is no benefit to beefier bindings for me.
Skis and boots are bit more difficult, because beefier boots at least, are easier to ski, not just for skiing faster.

For me at least, choosing lighter gear is more about enjoying the uphill more, rather than saving time. It seems that many people forget that in essence, you are going for a long walk in the mountains, with a very few ski runs in there as well.

Basically, it comes down to knowing what you want out your touring days, and what gear offers that.
@Primoz in bikes for sure, you can (sometimes) spend money to lose weight, without a difference in performance. But in’s skis, (and often in mtb too), it’s not about spending more, it’s just choosing how much weight you are willing to drag up, and how much descending performed you demand. Or do you know of an example where you can spend more, to get equivalent performance at lighter weight?

 

[Mendieta]

As a counter point to @Hankj ‘s quote, I’d say that it’s also silly to go super beefy on the boots, skis and bindings, just to save 60 seconds on the descent.
If you are not going to send it at high speed, and catch air, you don't need gear that the movie skiers do. I don’t ski crazy hard or or catch air when I’m inbounds, and dial it back when I’m in the backcountry, so for me, and people like me, a simple, light weight binding is all I need. Other than safety, there is no benefit to beefier bindings for me.
Skis and boots are bit more difficult, because beefier boots at least, are easier to ski, not just for skiing faster.

For me at least, choosing lighter gear is more about enjoying the uphill more, rather than saving time. It seems that many people forget that in essence, you are going for a long walk in the mountains, with a very few ski runs in there as well.

Basically, it comes down to knowing what you want out your touring days, and what gear offers that.
@Primoz in bikes for sure, you can (sometimes) spend money to lose weight, without a difference in performance. But in’s skis, (and often in mtb too), it’s not about spending more, it’s just choosing how much weight you are willing to drag up, and how much descending performed you demand. Or do you know of an example where you can spend more, to get equivalent performance at lighter weight?

That's an interesting perspective! In my case, I tried to go incremental, or rather, progressive. Gear that is towards that light, fully touring oriented set up, but close enough to familiar to offer an easy transition, and offer low risk, since everything I bought is functional, and useful, in bounds, off piste. Can't wait to take it all for a spin!

 

[Primoz]

@Slim that's why I said it depends on people. We have different priorities. Personally, I rather go a bit slower and I'm a bit more tired when dragging 4kg skis up while being in 2kg ski boots, and have more fun down. Someone else enjoys better when going up lightweight and then ski down a bit worse. It's personal preference, so everyone should figure out for him/herself what is their preference. Ok if you are racing, things are clear, but for fun, what we, or most of us do, it's really only about what makes more fun for someone. But don't get me wrong, I still try to get things light too, but personally I won't sacrifice better skiing for 500g lighter equipment on way up. But that doesn't mean I will go with my powder setup I use when I go with lifts (125mm skis with frame binding and race boots that all together weight probably 10kg) in backcountry.
As for more money for lightweight... check how much race skimo boots cost It's almost double the price of "normal" ski boots, regardless if super light or super stiff. And btw... they are shit to ski with. It's almost like xc ski boots, just that skis are not really xc skis and you ski out of groomed track, so not really much of fun. And I still see few people with this setup around here, and they are not skimo racers

 

[Mothertucker]

There's only one solution... backcountry quiver=buy more skis.

 

[Slim]

That's an interesting perspective! In my case, I tried to go incremental, or rather, progressive. Gear that is towards that light, fully touring oriented set up, but close enough to familiar to offer an easy transition, and offer low risk, since everything I bought is functional, and useful, in bounds, off piste. Can't wait to take it all for a spin!

yeah @Mendieta , I was specifically not talking about your set up, more about what I see/hear people (resort skiers) talking about when getting a (first) touring set up. In that case, what seems to happen is the only exposure/knowledge those people have of back country skiing, is movies, where they see people skiing crazy stuff, in amazing style. Then, they think that’s the gear they need, or even, that that is the only stuff available, and they buy this beefy set up, and end up just doing mellow skiing, enjoying turns and doing long walks, where that type of gear is not the best choice, and then they come to the conclusion they don’t enjoy back country skiing very much. Basically, total thread drift

In your case, you use case was clear:

1. A setup that has touring capability for your avalanche course.
2. A ski/binding that can function as your powder ski for lift served skiing

I think your set-up is perfect for that. And, it will let you try out true, backcountry, touring as well. Like others mentioned, your set-up is way better on the uphill than the frame bindings and old boots many of us used in the past. In my case, only for a year, but my friend used a set up like that for 12 years, doing pure touring. Then, if you find you dig the human powered side of the sport, you can get a narrower ski to round out your touring quiver, and put some lightweight bindings on it.

 

[Slim]

@Primoz , yes, I also think it is all about what each person wants out of their experience. I just thought I should point out that, just as their are people who would have more pun in heavier gear, there are people who would have more fun on lighter gear.

And yes, skimo race gear is a place where you can spend more money to get lighter weight at the same performance.

What I meant is, is there a similar option in the normal categories?
In bikes this is true: you can get cranks or a frame that is heavy and cheap, or light and expensive, and they will perform the same. But in skis? The closest example I know of is Atomic Backland skis, where the have ‘regular’, “SL” and “UL” versions, that get lighter and more expensive , but their performance is not the same at all, so not a case where you can simply spend more, save weight, and have everything else the same.
The same applies to boots: often times the pricier version of a boot is lighter, but it is usually also stiffer, so again, not the same performance at all.

 

[Primoz]

@Slim I'm honestly not sure it's much different with bikes. Sure you can get cheap and heavy frame, but I'm not so sure it would perform same way as light and expensive. I mean for me I'm sure it wouldn't make difference, as contrary to skis, I'm not so sure I would notice much (or any) difference between top of the line bike for 15.000eur or slightly worse one for 5000eur. But if I would think of someone with so many kilometrs on bike as I have on skis, I'm quite sure that person would probably feel difference. Question is if it would make and real difference or not. But then again, while I can feel difference between 2 different models of same race ski, it doesn't mean one makes me ski any better or faster then the other.

 

[Mendieta]

yeah @Mendieta , I was specifically not talking about your set up, more about what I see/hear people (resort skiers) talking about when getting a (first) touring set up. In that case, what seems to happen is the only exposure/knowledge those people have of back country skiing, is movies, where they see people skiing crazy stuff, in amazing style. Then, they think that’s the gear they need, or even, that that is the only stuff available, and they buy this beefy set up, and end up just doing mellow skiing, enjoying turns and doing long walks, where that type of gear is not the best choice, and then they come to the conclusion they don’t enjoy back country skiing very much.

In your case, you use case was clear:

1. A setup that has touring capability for your avalanche course.
2. A ski/binding that can function as your powder ski for lift served skiing

I think your set-up is perfect for that. And, it will let you try out true, backcountry, touring as well. Like others mentioned, your set-up is way better on the uphill than the frame bindings and old boots many of us used in the past. In my case, only for a year, but my friend used a set up like that for 12 years, doing pure touring. Then, if you find you dig the human powered side of the sport, you can get a narrower ski to round out your touring quiver, and put some lightweight bindings on it.

Exactly - I didn't torture you all with my thought process; but once I decided to stick to Faction, my choices were La Machine (Touring with a focus on uphill, so, really light), and Agent, a little heavier but reportedly more assertive in crud, which is what you find all the time in resorts, offpiste. So, I chose the latter. Same with the bindings: I chose shift, the 50/50 binding of choice by at large, but I chose the lighter of the two in the market (DIN 10 instead of the 13).

But the discussion was/is very useful to me, and I am sure, for the anonymous reader bumping into this thread. You guys gave me some additional info on top of what I needed, which is kind of like teaching a person how to fish, as opposed to feeding them.

And point well taken on the "what do people do in their skiing" vs "what do I actually do when I ski". The skillset of the best skiers out there is unreal, and so is their willingness to risk their lives. In comparison, I am a wimpy newbie. But having lost a ski by simply hitting a bump on a steep chute (Our Father at Alpine Meadows), I also know that I need a little beef in my bindings.

All things said, yes, I am very happy with my purchase, and appreciative of all the help!

 

[charlier]

@Mendieta After reading the original post, I understand that her needs were totally different than my everyday touring experiences. Similarly, at Red Mtn, I use Shift bindings on alpine skis and describe the skiing style as side- country/alpine.


@Primoz and @Slim
To paraphrase- “what do I actually do when I ski. " It’s a fine-line, deciding on weight vs performance for backcountry ski equipment.

What I actually ski: Our winter hut trips, a day tour typically has about 5k ++ vertical, with side-hill traverse’s and following topography uphill. Perhaps 12-15 miles total. First, unlike most recreational ski tourers, we rarely use kick-turns for skinning uphill I try to shed weight with a relatively light pack (40l) and clothing. Although I always carry an extra mobile battery, first-aid kit, extra puffy, extra googles, light Nemo pad,, extra mittens, thermos of tea, and food. We split carrying a rescue sled and repair kit. Since the powder is what it’s about, I do not use ski-mo light boots or ultralight skis - too light for enjoyable downhill sking. In the Selkirk’s, my skis are 112mm and my boots are Tecnica Zero G Scouts w/booster straps. My skis are slightly shorter than my alpine skis. With a serious injury, we are probably going to wait at least 24 hr for a helicopter and getting back to the hut might be 10 miles. So everyone dials down their skiing, say 60%.

In contrast, skiing up volcanos in the spring and summer, I will use much lighter skis (Blizzard zero G 95), but still not the super light carbon-rich skis.


@Primoz
If I toured in the Alps and we were only about long downhill runs based out of a hut, I would modify my gear. If we were able to arrange a daily heli-bump to a high elevation, we would use Shift bindings on say Corvus or Kaizen 105 skis. Day touring from a hut in spring, I’d go back to my lighter touring skis and boots.

It seems to me that that ski touring has a large window of individual experiences, aspirational goals, and social media articles that greatly vary in content, biases, and promotion.

 

[Mendieta]

my boots are Tecnica Zero G Scouts w/booster straps.

Yeah, I didn't mention, but I totally plan on installing booster straps in my BC skis - I have them in my resort boots, and they are a wonderful way to make the cuffs engage progressively and quickly. For the Lange XT3's 130 , I would imagine the improvement is even more significant. I have been breaking in / molding the liners at home and they feel less substantial than the RX3 130, as expected.

 

[Slim]

The only thing I don’t like about Booster straps for BC boots is that the buckle is so large and heavy. There has to be a way to mod that with a lighter buckle that works about the same for touring use. Seems like it would be a good way for them to capitalize on the growing touring market
Call it Booster BC or something like that.

 

[Slim]

@charlier, What I actually ski, vs what I dream of skiing, haha, that goes for all skiing, lift served, touring, anything

 

[Ken_R]

There's only one solution... backcountry quiver=buy more skis.

That always works