UKC

Can anyone recommend a good guide to buying off-piste/touring skis and bindings?

I am a reasonable skier but have never bought skis new before and am finding the range a little mindboggling.

Any input on Dynafit bindings vs. Fritschi style ones also much appreciated. My boots will take both.

Tom

In reply to Mr Powly:

This is a good brief guide:
http://www.facewest.co.uk/Skis-How-To-Guide.html

Do a forum search on the bindings thing it's been done a few times. It's probably the most divisive issue in skiing!

A brief summary might look like this:

Dynafit - siginficantly lighter, better walk mode, less user friendly and need careful set up, can have release/prerelease issues (usually a set up issue).

Fritschi - Heavier, less efficient in walk mode, more user friendly, easy to set up, better release/less prone to pre-release

In reply to DaveHK:

Thanks, the Facewest site looks really useful, as does their ski comparison chart! K2 Backups looking like a good option, anyone with any experience of them?
Tom

In reply to Mr Powly:

"Do a forum search on the bindings thing it's been done a few times. It's probably the most divisive issue in skiing!"

+1

One point to remember, if you're going to use one pair of skis for both lift served skiing and touring then Fritschi are probably the way to go (easier to pop on and off for lifts).

All the Dynafit users I know (including me) started off with Fritschi. I don't know anyone who has switched from Dynafit to Fritschi, however there are a lot of people who start with Fritschi and stay with them.

The big decision to make with touring skis is weight. Essentially the heavier the ski the better it skis, but the harder it is uphill. It's always a compromise and you'll never get it right.

You have to decide what sort of touring you're doing (multi-day hut touring or a bit of slack-country) and choose the weight of ski based on that.

In reply to Mr Powly:

Don't forget Marker, the F12/10 Tour range would be my choice over Fritschi.

In reply to tri-nitro-toulumne:



Thanks, I'm aware it's been done to death and will spend some time trawling.

Tom

In reply to Mr Powly:


No need to apologise. Most folks are happy to discuss it over and over and over...

In reply to DaveHK:

I tried to resist the urge but... you know... it just came out

In reply to tri-nitro-toulumne:

You just can't help yourself can you?

In reply to Mr Powly:
I have just got a pair of K2 Waybacks from Sport Conrad, only had 2 days on them but they seem good, nice and light on the up, at 88mm underfoot they are no powder ski but will do just fine for Scotland and the Lakes, if we ever get any snow.......

I should also add that after much deliberation I went with Fritschi Eagles, I am only just starting out touring and wanted reliable release as falls are more likely, I also wanted easy in and out with familiarity of a traditional alpine binding, I could do without learning about Dynafits little pluses/negatives whilst on the hill.

In reply to Dark-Cloud:

Thanks Richlan, seems crazy to see 8mm underfoot describes as 'no powder ski'. I did look at the Waybacks too, but have found Backups much cheaper, so I'm not sure I could justify the extra cost.

A final question, if anyone could help me it'd be much appreciated:

I'm getting a bit confused about length. I'm 183cms tall, and weigh about 80ks. My current skis are 179cms (I think they're these; http://tinyurl.com/p5oohmv; this person is singing their praises, perhaps I should just keep them?). The backups I'm looking at are 181cms, and I'm unsure whether I'll notice the extra length. I don't want to end up with something I can't turn in a tight space.

Thanks again,
Tom

In reply to Mr Powly:

The length of ski is determined by weight (height is just used as a proxy for weight).

The trade off for touring skis is between shorter ones (more maneuverable) and longer ones (more floatation in powder). You have to decide which is more important to you. Remember that wider skis will also give more floatation for the same length.

There's loads of charts on the web giving a rough indication of the length of ski suitable for various weights.

In reply to Mr Powly:

Just be aware that K2's can size up quite long, my 174 are more like a 178 (lots of info on other forums about that too) the Backups do look good too so if on a budget you probably won't go far wrong with them, they are a little bit stiffer than the Wayback as they have a metal sheet in them.

It also depends where you are going to be doing most of your touring and what sort, if its resort based in Europe then personally i would go for more like a 100mm underfoot but something still fairly light as you are more likely to need a bit more float.

I found this article very helpful when i was going through all this.....

http://www.alpine-guides.com/skiing/advice/ski-touring-equipment-advice.htm

In reply to Mr Powly:

<My current skis are 179cms (I think they're these; http://tinyurl.com/p5oohmv; this person is singing their praises, perhaps I should just keep them?).


The guy selling them is talking mince about the dimensions and them being one ski for everything.

However...unless you want to keep a dedicated piste set up there's no reason why you couldn't spread your costs by fitting a touring binding to them and using that for a few years then buying a touring ski once you've got a better idea what you want.

In reply to DaveHK:

Hi Dave, thanks I suspected he was having a laugh. I have been using the Salomons as touring skis for 5 or 6 years (mostly Scottish, with a week of 'sidecountry' in the Alps last year). The thing is I've been using whatever I could scrounge or buy on the cheap, so my bindings are those awful Naxo ones and my skins don't fit properly. I'm now thinking if I'm going to get new skins I may as well upgrade the skis at the same time.

Tom