UKC

Though considered less trendy ( esp in the USA owing to a combination of commercial, user demands and snow conditions), skinnier touring skis of less than 85mm waist width seem to be still acceptable by many, esp in Europe where spring time snow conditions might be firmer. Just wondering what your thoughts are on "one-kilo" type skis for a 67kg 5'8" skier like me getting into AT skiing. As my needs will evolve, not enthused about spending a bucket of cash on the 'latest', or the new "fat and light". Looking for something that can get me up some firn peaks, and OK in Spring conditions. Looking at some new unmounted K2 Backlites and even Backtracks going for a steal online. Some of the older models which i think are still quite effective on the slopes are going for a bragain these days. Looking at sizes 153cm and 160cm. I like the idea of wweight savings for the uphill and easier turning capabilities going dowm, and hence torn between the shorter (153) vs the 160s. Your thoughts on skinnier, LIGHT, skis most appreciated. there's a dearth of online info on the Backlites/backtracks for example. Even looking at womens skis to expand my options.. Thanks

In reply to Davelim8850:
I learned to ski on narrow touring skis + bindings + boots = 2.7kg per leg. Next year I consolidated on the same setup by skiing with footbeds out and, on one foot from part way through the week, the upper buckle (the one that matters on a two-buckle boot) non-functioning but unrepaired. I think you just find that things work whatever you've got. Ever seen someone glissade down a mountain upright on just their boots?

In reply to Davelim8850:

I've used a pair of Movement Sparks (82 waist I think) for about 5 years - they're always the narrowest in the pile outside the hut. I can just about get by on them but I'd definitely go for something a bit wider next time. The Backlites/tracks are ~75 waist so unless you're a pretty good skier you might have quite a hard time going down in any soft conditions.

In reply to Davelim8850:

It always amuses me when I see fat skis used in Scottish touring where 95% of the conditions are hard to very hard.

Going relatively narrow is a good move for most touring skiers based in the UK, assuming you only have one pair of skis.
I have more pairs than you would want to shake a stick at, including some fatties. There is a definite trend for me to select from the narrower end of my choice, and stiffer, less side cut for hard conditions.

One thing to watch for using skis designed for women; they may be too soft to edge on icy stuff. It's all about weight...your skiing weight that is, so factor in clothes and pack!

In reply to Davelim8850:

I've been using Scott Fly'Air's for the last couple of years which are about 85mm underfoot the widest skis I've ever owned. Wider skis are heavier and harder to push uphill when skinning. They do get bounced around a bit when skiing crud, but what doesn't.

In reply to top cat:


I used my Cham 107s for all of the last season in Scotland (about 35 days managed) and they were spot on. A surprising amount of powder around if you pick routes well! I think only on three of the trips were they overkill due to hard conditions.

In reply to Davelim8850:

I'm just back from my first weekend touring with my new light, skinny (for me) setup of Blizzard zero g 85s with Kruezspitze GT bindings and brakes. They weigh 1.5kg per ski and binding/brake, so pretty light.
The conditions were quite deep powder for NZ, at least a foot of fresh wind blown powder, some breakable crust, quite a few buried rocks.

They skied surprisingly good, but I think I've finally started get reasonable skiing in powder: I wouldn't have been so happy skiing so narrow in the past.

However, they look pretty trashed on the edges and base for 3 days use: durable they are not!

My conclusion is that for NZ, and other places with variable snow and not much powder, I would use a ski 80-95 underfoot most of the time, not too heavy, but not too light either, and predominantly cheap, so I'm happy skiing them hard without worrying about every possible buried rock.

In reply to damowilk:

Thank for the "NZ" perspective. As a newbie, I am almost certain I would be changing my equipment after a couple of season as experience builds - so getting the first set of "light" AT skis etc is interesting. I tend to concur with argument that the wider skis are doing better these days although with weight and sidehilling issues, mid-fat 80-90mm skis are the way to go for "most" purposes, with the nod to the issue that they wont do quite so well in deep powder. I have an option to buy some unmounted new K2 Shuksans or Backlites in a length I want for just US$100 a pair. Backlites are super light but skinny at 74mm, and Shuksans are heavier, but considered a tad more durable and are at 78mm. Both are, in the USA, 'unfashionable' which is why you can hardly find them anymore, but one might do the trick for noob just getting into skimo/AT

In reply to damowilk:

Where did you get to? Nice to see a bit of snow again

b

In reply to ben b:

Cass valley from Lady Emily hut, near Tekapo. Snow was superb, for NZ, though Sat was a claggy, hut-bound day. Great terrain up there, second weekend trip up there, might do a week next year if we can book the hut.
More snow on the way! Possibly even down to sea level in CCh on Friday. Winter might finally have properly started!

To the OP: those are pretty narrow skis for new to touring, particularly if you wanted to explore Japan backcountry (am I correct that you're Singapore based?)

In reply to damowilk:

Excellent. Not been up that side (I did potter around Two Thumbs with Gottlieb many years back) but looks reasonable access and a grand place to be.

cheers

b

In reply to ben b:

2 hours drive in a proper full clearance 4WD, then steep 60-90mins walk in to hut. For the lazier and more well-heeled, you can heli from Glentanner.

In reply to Davelim8850:

153-160cm sounds really short to me - I'm 5'9, 68kg and my skis are 166cm. And even that feels fairly short to me. My skis are older and have 80mm waists, and they've been excellent for spring touring in Washington State. They were not so great in mid winter heavy powder.

In reply to cat22:

Thanks for the input. Ilike them shorter so that they're more 'turn-y'.

Damowilk: yes JaPow is the closest, but also thinking slighly longer term where I might take them elsewhere to some simple skimo on spring or similar hardpack. Flopping those wide 100mm+ planks isnt a pleasant thought on side hills ....Mid-fat might do the trick. i already have a Salomon Q90 at 87mm but a it's bit on the heavy side for full-on AT. Might be fun slackcountry though.. the search continues - thanks for the thoughts

In reply to Davelim8850:

A quick look outside any hut where tourers stay will tell you that short and skinny is still the most popular choice amongst yer continentals, any massive powder planks tend to belong to brits!

Have you looked at the Trab range? Not cheap but often available on sale.

In reply to DaveHK:


This is true*, although it's worth pointing out that said continentals have probably been skiing every weekend for the whole season every year since they could walk and have several pairs at home including a pair of massive powder planks.

* I'd say it's still rare to see anything < 80mm at the waist though.

In reply to robhorton:

Ideas, folks, on a compromise mid- fat set of skis around 158-167cm and a 85mm waist that's a kilo? For those not keen on accumulating multiple pairs, this might be the way to go. My Salomon all-mountain q90s at 161cm is about 1.4-1.5kgs... Heavier than I'd like for a skimo ski

In reply to Davelim8850:

Not many skis in that category. Not skied either of these but I'd look at:

Ski Trab Mistico

http://www.skitrab.com/prodotti/sci-alpinismo/sci-mistico-5.html

(Bang on spec) or the slightly heavier Dynafit Manaslu:

http://www.dynafit.com/en/manaslu-ski.html

In reply to Davelim8850:

I wouldn't overlook the fact that while narrower tend to be better on hard snow, they may well be poor on ice and in powder. But I know it's hard to find one ski...quest for the Holy grail

In reply to Davelim8850:

How about some X-country skis?

seriously they are getting wider & stronger with less camber, & "those in the know" are using them for lightweight ski mountaineering as they have fishscale bases, so better than skis & skins for shallow slopes etc.

See Madshsu, Fisher, Asnes, Voile.

In reply to Snowdave:

Thanks for the tip - I havent researched much into the mysterious world of telemark skis - yet!

In reply to Davelim8850:


To be technically correct I am not talking about Telemark, but XCD...(X-Country Downhill) & touring skis.

Telemark has for the past 6yrs at least been merging with downhill (off piste/back-country) skis & ski-MTN skis. Most skis in this "area" are total cross over between styles & can be mounted with various different bindings. They are more like big resort/back country skis & will take a pounding, so heavy etc.

My Ski Trab Stelvio skis are designated for tele/downhill off piste/back country.

To go lighter & narrower then big beefed up & less cambered X-Country skis are on the scene now, plus the advantage of fishscales if required.

Good thread here on XCD & touring skis & various models with people who have big heavy set ups & want to lighter

http://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1132

In reply to Snowdave:

more like the last 20 - I have an old pair of Tua's from then which were sold as both alpine & telemark ski touring

In reply to Snowdave:

finally checked some of those unusual, XCD skis - with the fishscales. Very superior in rolling terrain which wouldnormally involve alot of hassle for normal AT gear users! But probably not for me at this time