This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
With all the snow on the ground, and many mountain goers taking to skiing, we put together an article explaining the different types of skis and equipment out there to help you start your skiing career.Do you know the difference between ski touring and cross country skiing? Or what size of ski you should buy?
Read more at Skiing for Mountaineers
In reply to UKC Articles:
There´s another form of XC skiing called backcountry (not to be confused with what the Americans term backcountry skiing). It´s XC but off the beaten track and the skis have edges, are a bit wider than langlauf ski´s and can be used with skins as well as being typically with a nowax climbing system. The bindings are wider as well (NNN BC and SNS BC are the usual ones) and the boots more like walking/mountain boots than normal XC ones.
There´s another form of XC skiing called backcountry (not to be confused with what the Americans term backcountry skiing). It´s XC but off the beaten track and the skis have edges, are a bit wider than langlauf ski´s and can be used with skins as well as being typically with a nowax climbing system. The bindings are wider as well (NNN BC and SNS BC are the usual ones) and the boots more like walking/mountain boots than normal XC ones.
In reply to jimtitt:
The article is pretty poor on all the nordic formsof skiing - nordic covers much more than narrow, light skis designed for prepared tracks, as you say, there's also slightly heavier gear with steel edges which is great for rolling terrain such as much of Norway & Scotland. With a bit of practice this type of gear is suitable for muc of Scottish ski touring, & very good in places like the Cairngorms. Its possible to telemark or parellel on, although for steeper ground wider, alpine camberred skis have advantages - this sort of gear is fine for most alpine ski mountaineering, although not so good for skiing into routes as the boots are not so good for climbing - although thats not true with the new NTN bindings/boots
I suspect Jack has never done much Nordic skiing (in the true, wider, sense of the term.
The article is pretty poor on all the nordic formsof skiing - nordic covers much more than narrow, light skis designed for prepared tracks, as you say, there's also slightly heavier gear with steel edges which is great for rolling terrain such as much of Norway & Scotland. With a bit of practice this type of gear is suitable for muc of Scottish ski touring, & very good in places like the Cairngorms. Its possible to telemark or parellel on, although for steeper ground wider, alpine camberred skis have advantages - this sort of gear is fine for most alpine ski mountaineering, although not so good for skiing into routes as the boots are not so good for climbing - although thats not true with the new NTN bindings/boots
I suspect Jack has never done much Nordic skiing (in the true, wider, sense of the term.
In reply to jimtitt:
I think calling that "back country" is a bit confusing because I don't really know who use it to mean what you mean these days. Back country now tends to mean any ski touring that is more than a bit of "side country" off piste. But I agree that Jack skipped straight over the wide spectrum of Nordic touring that falls between XC track skiing and then ski-mountaineering on telemark gear.
I think the big thing that really defines XC skiing is that it is done on prepared tracks. Normal XC skis are annoyingly badly behaved when they are not in tracks. The tracks are generally machine made by skidoo or snowcat (like in the videos) but can be just where others have already skied http://instagram.com/p/W78KVBrvKG/ But for most Scandinavians, "skiing in the mountains" is nordic touring. Skis often have metal edges and classic three pin bindings were the norm for a long time until NNN BC came a long. It is harder to go down steep stuff on them but they 'safe' for negotiating mountain terrain in. The same type of gear is still the norm on Arctic and Antarctic ski expeditions.
There are also news ski types and bindings that are closer to the Nordic touring tradition coming out, than they are to the European SkiMo tradition, but interestingly some of those skis and bindings I think may well turn out to be the best thing for ice climbers to use!
> There´s another form of XC skiing called backcountry (not to be confused with what the Americans term backcountry skiing).
I think calling that "back country" is a bit confusing because I don't really know who use it to mean what you mean these days. Back country now tends to mean any ski touring that is more than a bit of "side country" off piste. But I agree that Jack skipped straight over the wide spectrum of Nordic touring that falls between XC track skiing and then ski-mountaineering on telemark gear.
I think the big thing that really defines XC skiing is that it is done on prepared tracks. Normal XC skis are annoyingly badly behaved when they are not in tracks. The tracks are generally machine made by skidoo or snowcat (like in the videos) but can be just where others have already skied http://instagram.com/p/W78KVBrvKG/ But for most Scandinavians, "skiing in the mountains" is nordic touring. Skis often have metal edges and classic three pin bindings were the norm for a long time until NNN BC came a long. It is harder to go down steep stuff on them but they 'safe' for negotiating mountain terrain in. The same type of gear is still the norm on Arctic and Antarctic ski expeditions.
There are also news ski types and bindings that are closer to the Nordic touring tradition coming out, than they are to the European SkiMo tradition, but interestingly some of those skis and bindings I think may well turn out to be the best thing for ice climbers to use!
In reply to Doug:
Thanks Doug, I did mention in the article that I had been led to believe that people use nordic/XC gear on rolling terrain in Scotland, but I've never seen any one skiing in to routes in the Alps, or on any serious mountain ski tours on this gear (actually I have never seen anyone in the alps on that gear ever actually).
Do you do a lot of alpine ski touring on this set up? I'd be really interested to hear about any recent adventures on this type of gear that you've had, sounds great.
Would you think this would be a good way for beginners to start out in the mountains?
Cheers,
Jack
Thanks Doug, I did mention in the article that I had been led to believe that people use nordic/XC gear on rolling terrain in Scotland, but I've never seen any one skiing in to routes in the Alps, or on any serious mountain ski tours on this gear (actually I have never seen anyone in the alps on that gear ever actually).
Do you do a lot of alpine ski touring on this set up? I'd be really interested to hear about any recent adventures on this type of gear that you've had, sounds great.
Would you think this would be a good way for beginners to start out in the mountains?
Cheers,
Jack
In reply to UKC Articles:
As someone who knows nothing about skiing (but fancies giving ski touring a go) I found the article useful. Cheers.
As someone who knows nothing about skiing (but fancies giving ski touring a go) I found the article useful. Cheers.
In reply to Jack Geldard - UKC Chief Editor:
It probably depends what they want to do in the future, if they want to ski mountaineer in central Europe, than no - you might as well get piste skiing so you can parallel strongly on steeper ground or in cruddy snow. If you want to ski through the Arctic Swedish mountains for a week, camping or staying in huts, then Nordic touring gear is the thing to use.
I know Doug does plenty of touring in some of the smaller French mountain ranges, I guess where covering distance is a big part of the day. So more like going for a long hike; then Nordic touring gear is the solution. But if climbing up something steepish, then skiing back down and enjoying that, is the aim of your day, then skimo (or modern tele gear) is what you want.
> Would you think this would be a good way for beginners to start out in the mountains?
It probably depends what they want to do in the future, if they want to ski mountaineer in central Europe, than no - you might as well get piste skiing so you can parallel strongly on steeper ground or in cruddy snow. If you want to ski through the Arctic Swedish mountains for a week, camping or staying in huts, then Nordic touring gear is the thing to use.
I know Doug does plenty of touring in some of the smaller French mountain ranges, I guess where covering distance is a big part of the day. So more like going for a long hike; then Nordic touring gear is the solution. But if climbing up something steepish, then skiing back down and enjoying that, is the aim of your day, then skimo (or modern tele gear) is what you want.
In reply to Jack Geldard - UKC Chief Editor:
For ski mountaineering I mostly use widish (75mm underfoot) skis with telemark bindings & boots (plastic) - but this IS nordic gear !
But depending on where I am I also tour in places such as the Vercor,or the Capcir on the sort of gear Jim describes & which most Norwegians would consider as 'mountain skis (fjellski in Norwegian). I also use such gear on easier tours in places like the Queyras & for the only time I skied in the Canadian Rockies (for a version of the Wapta traverse which included a few summits such as Mt Balfour, Mt Gordon & one of the Rhondas)
When I started skiing in Scotland in the early 80s most of the people I knew who toured in Scotland used nordic gear, narrowish (55mm) waxable skis with steel edges & 3 pin bindings & leather boots (plus skins) so thats what I used. When I went to the Alps I stayed with the gear I was used to, but got wider, alpine cambered skis to help with the downhill.
Is this a good way to start ? if you live in England & what to combine skiing & climbing, probably not. If (as I did) you live somewhere like Aberdeen, its a viable option - for years I used one pair of skis for forest skiing, touring & piste skiing.Now Ihave a salary, I have a range of skis (but less time to use them
(written from the Jura after a day skating about the forests & hoping dinner isn't to far away)
For ski mountaineering I mostly use widish (75mm underfoot) skis with telemark bindings & boots (plastic) - but this IS nordic gear !
But depending on where I am I also tour in places such as the Vercor,or the Capcir on the sort of gear Jim describes & which most Norwegians would consider as 'mountain skis (fjellski in Norwegian). I also use such gear on easier tours in places like the Queyras & for the only time I skied in the Canadian Rockies (for a version of the Wapta traverse which included a few summits such as Mt Balfour, Mt Gordon & one of the Rhondas)
When I started skiing in Scotland in the early 80s most of the people I knew who toured in Scotland used nordic gear, narrowish (55mm) waxable skis with steel edges & 3 pin bindings & leather boots (plus skins) so thats what I used. When I went to the Alps I stayed with the gear I was used to, but got wider, alpine cambered skis to help with the downhill.
Is this a good way to start ? if you live in England & what to combine skiing & climbing, probably not. If (as I did) you live somewhere like Aberdeen, its a viable option - for years I used one pair of skis for forest skiing, touring & piste skiing.Now Ihave a salary, I have a range of skis (but less time to use them
(written from the Jura after a day skating about the forests & hoping dinner isn't to far away)
Post edited at 17:45
In reply to TobyA:
That´s the common term here at least and has been for decades but like I said it´s confusing. The manufacturers like Fischer call it backcountry but Rossignol print back country onto both their nordic skis and their touring ones. The Americans even call it backcountry touring to confuse themselves even more! Nordic Backcountry has got to be the best description I´d guess.
> I think calling that "back country" is a bit confusing because I don't really know who use it to mean what you mean these days. Back country now tends to mean any ski touring that is more than a bit of "side country" off piste.
That´s the common term here at least and has been for decades but like I said it´s confusing. The manufacturers like Fischer call it backcountry but Rossignol print back country onto both their nordic skis and their touring ones. The Americans even call it backcountry touring to confuse themselves even more! Nordic Backcountry has got to be the best description I´d guess.
In reply to Doug:
In the 90s I had a group of six skiers from New Mexico to do the Chamonix Zermatt Haute Route. We'd had loads of correspondence before they arrived. Five of them would be on Teles and the sixth on AT gear.
When they arrived and I looked at their gear it was clear they were going to struggle. Long narrow telemark skis and even narrower skins (made from one skin cut in half lengthways...) leather boots (mostly) and big backpacks completed the ensemble. I told them of my fears and in turn they told me that they'd done loads of this stuff in Colorado and that they mainly skiied in Taos which was really steep... and not to worry. We went for a ski around the next day and sure enough these guys were great skiers and were clearly enjoying themselves ripping it up and so I felt a little more comfortable about the week...
... until the next morning when we ducked under the Grands Montets ropes! All the telemarkers wiped out in the windblown snow before we reached the spot to put on the skins. The ascent of the col du Chardonnet took forever - one of the guys reckoned that he'd had to side step 90% of it as his skins were so narrow that they never touched the snow. I used everything I had at my disposal - prussiks tied around the skis, my spare skins, sticking the skins on in an S so that there was skin near an edge at least somewhere along the length of the ski, duct tape, those emergency square patches of colltex you used to be able to buy - all to little or no avail. Even going down the other side was an epic partly due to the trench in the snow being 20cm too narrow for thei skis, but also because their boots overhung the edges of the skis so much that sideslipping down 80m of 45° snow even belayed on a top rope was virtually impossible. Three of them descended on foot and naturally all dropped into the bergscrund at the bottom (roped, of course). By the time we got to the fenêtre de Saleina there was no question - we booted up it. They managed the virtually flat plateau de Trient without too many problems apart from the accumulated fatigue... and so it went on, all the way to Zermatt!
They said to me afterwards that they we shocked at the difference between 'their' backcountry terrain and alpine terrain. They all came back a few years later on AT gear.
In the 90s I had a group of six skiers from New Mexico to do the Chamonix Zermatt Haute Route. We'd had loads of correspondence before they arrived. Five of them would be on Teles and the sixth on AT gear.
When they arrived and I looked at their gear it was clear they were going to struggle. Long narrow telemark skis and even narrower skins (made from one skin cut in half lengthways...) leather boots (mostly) and big backpacks completed the ensemble. I told them of my fears and in turn they told me that they'd done loads of this stuff in Colorado and that they mainly skiied in Taos which was really steep... and not to worry. We went for a ski around the next day and sure enough these guys were great skiers and were clearly enjoying themselves ripping it up and so I felt a little more comfortable about the week...
... until the next morning when we ducked under the Grands Montets ropes! All the telemarkers wiped out in the windblown snow before we reached the spot to put on the skins. The ascent of the col du Chardonnet took forever - one of the guys reckoned that he'd had to side step 90% of it as his skins were so narrow that they never touched the snow. I used everything I had at my disposal - prussiks tied around the skis, my spare skins, sticking the skins on in an S so that there was skin near an edge at least somewhere along the length of the ski, duct tape, those emergency square patches of colltex you used to be able to buy - all to little or no avail. Even going down the other side was an epic partly due to the trench in the snow being 20cm too narrow for thei skis, but also because their boots overhung the edges of the skis so much that sideslipping down 80m of 45° snow even belayed on a top rope was virtually impossible. Three of them descended on foot and naturally all dropped into the bergscrund at the bottom (roped, of course). By the time we got to the fenêtre de Saleina there was no question - we booted up it. They managed the virtually flat plateau de Trient without too many problems apart from the accumulated fatigue... and so it went on, all the way to Zermatt!
They said to me afterwards that they we shocked at the difference between 'their' backcountry terrain and alpine terrain. They all came back a few years later on AT gear.
Post edited at 19:01
In reply to Doug:
Just tried to edit my post but it was too late.
I didn't really make it clear, but the intention of the post was not to criticise backcountry gear but more to say that if you are going to use it in typical alpine terrain then you need to be probably a better skier than a skier on alpine gear, or indeed be prepared to find everything a bit harder. This comment doesn't really apply to completely modern tele stuff which is virtually no different to alpine gear.
Just tried to edit my post but it was too late.
I didn't really make it clear, but the intention of the post was not to criticise backcountry gear but more to say that if you are going to use it in typical alpine terrain then you need to be probably a better skier than a skier on alpine gear, or indeed be prepared to find everything a bit harder. This comment doesn't really apply to completely modern tele stuff which is virtually no different to alpine gear.
In reply to jon:
On my tele bindings I don't have heel lifters or harscheisen - bloody well feels like a difference watching my mates use theirs on their AT bindings! Grrr...
Actually I think it's made me pretty good at skinning as I managed skin stuff with my gear where friends do need their harscheisen on. I think with tele boots (if you are reasonably flexi you can get more pressure down on to the ski (and hence make the skin grip) because I can push down with the ball of my foot, whilst friends on AT bindings are obviously only pushing down into the binding - so just a small area in front of the boot.
> This comment doesn't really apply to completely modern tele stuff which is virtually no different to alpine gear.
On my tele bindings I don't have heel lifters or harscheisen - bloody well feels like a difference watching my mates use theirs on their AT bindings! Grrr...
Actually I think it's made me pretty good at skinning as I managed skin stuff with my gear where friends do need their harscheisen on. I think with tele boots (if you are reasonably flexi you can get more pressure down on to the ski (and hence make the skin grip) because I can push down with the ball of my foot, whilst friends on AT bindings are obviously only pushing down into the binding - so just a small area in front of the boot.
In reply to TobyA:
The key to getting the skins to grip is to really push hard through your heels. I often see folk standing on their toes thinking they're applying more pressure when suddenly their skis shoot out backwards from under them. Obviously with rigid boots you direct the force either through the heel or the toe whereas maybe with the flex of your tele boots you are able to direct it into a more efficient area?
Of course the cut of the skin is far more important nowadays as skis are so waisted. My take on this is that if you can see ANYTHING more than your two edges, then the skins are badly cut.
The key to getting the skins to grip is to really push hard through your heels. I often see folk standing on their toes thinking they're applying more pressure when suddenly their skis shoot out backwards from under them. Obviously with rigid boots you direct the force either through the heel or the toe whereas maybe with the flex of your tele boots you are able to direct it into a more efficient area?
Of course the cut of the skin is far more important nowadays as skis are so waisted. My take on this is that if you can see ANYTHING more than your two edges, then the skins are badly cut.
In reply to jon:
First time on touring gear for me involved an ascent of the Col du Chardonnet (just to see what this skinning lark was all about). We ended up in Zermatt 5 days later. Fortunately I was on some half decent skis Dynastar Vertical skis, bought second hand from a shop in Argentiere along with a set of skins. "J d Montjoy" was written on the skin bag....
We had a great time and fortunately listened to a chap in the Gite Belvedere to get some wider skins than the ones we originally planned on using
First time on touring gear for me involved an ascent of the Col du Chardonnet (just to see what this skinning lark was all about). We ended up in Zermatt 5 days later. Fortunately I was on some half decent skis Dynastar Vertical skis, bought second hand from a shop in Argentiere along with a set of skins. "J d Montjoy" was written on the skin bag....
We had a great time and fortunately listened to a chap in the Gite Belvedere to get some wider skins than the ones we originally planned on using
In reply to GraB:
Wow Graham that's fantastic! Clearly there's no hiding place these days. Yep, he was right about skins. Glad you enjoyed it.
Wow Graham that's fantastic! Clearly there's no hiding place these days. Yep, he was right about skins. Glad you enjoyed it.
In reply to UKC Articles:
Only a small thing, but the article says Marker are the heavier option. The F12 weighs less than any of the Fritsshi Diamir models.
Only a small thing, but the article says Marker are the heavier option. The F12 weighs less than any of the Fritsshi Diamir models.
In reply to UKC Articles:
Useful article, I'm hoping to buy a set up this season so it was a helpful read for me.
Useful article, I'm hoping to buy a set up this season so it was a helpful read for me.
In reply to Jack Geldard - UKC Chief Editor: > Thanks Doug, I did mention in the article that I had been led to believe that people use nordic/XC gear on rolling terrain in Scotland, but I've never seen any one skiing in to routes in the Alps
Doesn't mean you can't tour in the Alps on Nordic gear, though, as Doug has said, and also climb easy mountains. I've just posted a few slide scans from Otztal, Oberland (where my leather duckbills were fine on the Finsteraarhorn and Jungfrau), and Valais. And this kind of kit isn't restricted to 'rolling terrain' in Scotland; my 80-something skinny-ski Munros include Stob Binnein & Ben More and the Grey Corries traverse.
I'm not recommending Nordic gear for most of what you discuss in your article, but just want to back others up in saying there's a lot of enjoyable middle ground between track xc and full-on steep skimo. Nordic mountain skis allow all the turning techniques that people did on Alpine skis 50 years ago; you don't have to telemark.
Rob F
Doesn't mean you can't tour in the Alps on Nordic gear, though, as Doug has said, and also climb easy mountains. I've just posted a few slide scans from Otztal, Oberland (where my leather duckbills were fine on the Finsteraarhorn and Jungfrau), and Valais. And this kind of kit isn't restricted to 'rolling terrain' in Scotland; my 80-something skinny-ski Munros include Stob Binnein & Ben More and the Grey Corries traverse.
I'm not recommending Nordic gear for most of what you discuss in your article, but just want to back others up in saying there's a lot of enjoyable middle ground between track xc and full-on steep skimo. Nordic mountain skis allow all the turning techniques that people did on Alpine skis 50 years ago; you don't have to telemark.
Rob F
In reply to jon:
Brings back embarrassing memories - first time I skied with a CAF group was les Trois Cols (Chardonnet,Saleina & Tour), & although they were suspicious of my skis they could see they weren't ski de fond. First turn after ducking under the ropes I fell & I could see they were worried.
Thankfully it was my only fall of the trip & I skied quite often with that group for the next few years, I was even asked to lead the odd tour - that was with what then (early 90s) were considered wide nordic skis (60mm under foot) with cable bindings & leather boots, fine for anything graded MSA or BSA in the old guidebooks.
> ... until the next morning when we ducked under the Grands Montets ropes! All the telemarkers wiped out in the windblown snow before we reached the spot to put on the skins.
Brings back embarrassing memories - first time I skied with a CAF group was les Trois Cols (Chardonnet,Saleina & Tour), & although they were suspicious of my skis they could see they weren't ski de fond. First turn after ducking under the ropes I fell & I could see they were worried.
Thankfully it was my only fall of the trip & I skied quite often with that group for the next few years, I was even asked to lead the odd tour - that was with what then (early 90s) were considered wide nordic skis (60mm under foot) with cable bindings & leather boots, fine for anything graded MSA or BSA in the old guidebooks.
In reply to jon:
It was a great trip and the skis were also very good - for their time. I can't imagine what they'd be like now though. I kept them for a few years after - for Scottish touring mainly. I especially liked the bright pink bases! We're a bit spoiled these days.
It was a great trip and the skis were also very good - for their time. I can't imagine what they'd be like now though. I kept them for a few years after - for Scottish touring mainly. I especially liked the bright pink bases! We're a bit spoiled these days.
>
And this kind of kit isn't restricted to 'rolling terrain' in Scotland; my 80-something skinny-ski Munros include Stob Binnein & Ben More and the Grey Corries traverse.>
> Rob F
> Rob F
me too - spent many a happy day shambling around the munros on lightweight nordic gear - cover some big distances
In reply to A9:
Wouldn't call that "skinny" my current Alpine touring skis are 106-72-98.
> my 80-something skinny-ski
Wouldn't call that "skinny" my current Alpine touring skis are 106-72-98.
In reply to UKC Articles:
Curious why the article considers the Dynafit binding 'complex'? Hard to imagine anything more simple in mechanical terms.
Perhaps a bit fiddlier to step into before you have the 'knack' down, but if you're getting into AT, there's no better kit.
Curious why the article considers the Dynafit binding 'complex'? Hard to imagine anything more simple in mechanical terms.
Perhaps a bit fiddlier to step into before you have the 'knack' down, but if you're getting into AT, there's no better kit.
In reply to jon:
What year was your group ? We met a few Americans at the Cabane de Trient on the 3 cols trip I mentioned who were on nordic gear & who said they'd found it hard to find a European guide who would take a group of nordic skiers on the Haute Route. I think that was around Easter 1992, same group ?
What year was your group ? We met a few Americans at the Cabane de Trient on the 3 cols trip I mentioned who were on nordic gear & who said they'd found it hard to find a European guide who would take a group of nordic skiers on the Haute Route. I think that was around Easter 1992, same group ?
In reply to Doug:
I can't remember Doug. We've just moved house and all belongings not immediately required are spread around the village in various barns. This includes my diaries... If I had to guess then I'd say it would have been a bit later than 1992, though not really sure.
I can't remember Doug. We've just moved house and all belongings not immediately required are spread around the village in various barns. This includes my diaries... If I had to guess then I'd say it would have been a bit later than 1992, though not really sure.
In reply to UKC Articles:
Interesting debate about nordic ski. Not sure I would really recommend them to climbers — those who want to approach climbs (in the Alps) and ski out of climbs — even with edges.
Yes, ski touring kit is heavier (though it is getting lighter and ligher) but it has some advantages. All touring boots can take C3 crampons — not sure that works on Nordic kit — and with the amazing walk mode on the new boots you can do some decent climbing in those boots. But more importantly, I think, it will be a safer option on very varied terrain.
In general, my advice for climbers who think about getting into touring would be to get kit that works well in many different terrains — so to have fun whatever the conditions (and they will be varied in the Alps)— and kit that works VERY well in difficult terrains — so to stay safe when you ski back after an epic climb on an icy slope that you hoped would be nice corn snow…I don’t think Nordic skis fit that bill. Again, there might be some hardcore nordic skier doing rad stuff, but for the normal punter thinking about getting into ski-touring it will be much easier to be safe on skis than on nordic skis.
With all that in mind I thought the advice given in the article was good. I would go that far and not recommend skis that are sub 80mm under foot (if you plan to just have one ski). The edge grip is just as good as that of a thinner ski (many steep skiers use skis in the 90mm-100mm range) and you have much more fun when the snow is deep -- skinning up or skiing down. Lastly, a rockered ski makes life a lot easier (easier to turn, better float), so I would definitely get one with a rocker.
Interesting debate about nordic ski. Not sure I would really recommend them to climbers — those who want to approach climbs (in the Alps) and ski out of climbs — even with edges.
Yes, ski touring kit is heavier (though it is getting lighter and ligher) but it has some advantages. All touring boots can take C3 crampons — not sure that works on Nordic kit — and with the amazing walk mode on the new boots you can do some decent climbing in those boots. But more importantly, I think, it will be a safer option on very varied terrain.
In general, my advice for climbers who think about getting into touring would be to get kit that works well in many different terrains — so to have fun whatever the conditions (and they will be varied in the Alps)— and kit that works VERY well in difficult terrains — so to stay safe when you ski back after an epic climb on an icy slope that you hoped would be nice corn snow…I don’t think Nordic skis fit that bill. Again, there might be some hardcore nordic skier doing rad stuff, but for the normal punter thinking about getting into ski-touring it will be much easier to be safe on skis than on nordic skis.
With all that in mind I thought the advice given in the article was good. I would go that far and not recommend skis that are sub 80mm under foot (if you plan to just have one ski). The edge grip is just as good as that of a thinner ski (many steep skiers use skis in the 90mm-100mm range) and you have much more fun when the snow is deep -- skinning up or skiing down. Lastly, a rockered ski makes life a lot easier (easier to turn, better float), so I would definitely get one with a rocker.
> With all that in mind I thought the advice given in the article was good. I would go that far and not recommend skis that are sub 80mm under foot (if you plan to just have one ski). The edge grip is just as good as that of a thinner ski (many steep skiers use skis in the 90mm-100mm range) and you have much more fun when the snow is deep -- skinning up or skiing down. Lastly, a rockered ski makes life a lot easier (easier to turn, better float), so I would definitely get one with a rocker.
As I understand it, rockered skis are pretty US in icy conditions, so not a good choice for Scotland or if you only have the one set? I'm only basing this on what I've heard and seen: I've not skied rocker as yet.
In reply to UKC Articles:
I would just like to chip in my experiences for what its worth as a climber who came late ( very late to skiing - started at 50!!) The whole question of what ski kit to get for approaching alpine routes is a black art & always a compromise. If you want to climb in the alps in winter - you have to ski & I don`t mean just be able to snow plough!!! Try that from the bottom of the droites with a big sac in the dark by headtorch with crap snow!!! There is no shortcut you need time on skis & LESSONS!! I have spent about 6 weeks each season till now trying to improve my skiing & would class myself as just about competent offpiste with a sac. Gear will make a difference but being able to ski well will make a much bigger difference. Re gear nobody is climbing hard routes in ski boots so you have to carry your climbing boots as for skiing in climbing boots apart from flat shuffling ( I did some in Alaska) this is not an option for mortals!! ( OK Jon maybe for Chamonix residents). As phil says slightly bigger skis 90mm underfoot will help offpiste if you have the dough something like the scott cruisair ( carbon ) which is also very light. I fail to understand the GB bias against dynafit bindings - I have used these since day one & had very few problems. Also using dynafit bindings lets you use a heavier/wider ski but still keep weight down, Almost all the continentals in the alps who tour uses these. Also having wider skis means when you can`t climb you can enjoy the skiing more. Rocker also good. Be careful or you may find yoursely turning into an aspirant ski tourer ( like me!!!) I would aslo say don`t get a ski thats too soft or you will have problems when it gets icy/hardpack - Scottish conditions. Finally if you live in Scotland there is some fantastic touring & a good opportunity to practice & refine your kit before having to try it in the big mountains.
I would just like to chip in my experiences for what its worth as a climber who came late ( very late to skiing - started at 50!!) The whole question of what ski kit to get for approaching alpine routes is a black art & always a compromise. If you want to climb in the alps in winter - you have to ski & I don`t mean just be able to snow plough!!! Try that from the bottom of the droites with a big sac in the dark by headtorch with crap snow!!! There is no shortcut you need time on skis & LESSONS!! I have spent about 6 weeks each season till now trying to improve my skiing & would class myself as just about competent offpiste with a sac. Gear will make a difference but being able to ski well will make a much bigger difference. Re gear nobody is climbing hard routes in ski boots so you have to carry your climbing boots as for skiing in climbing boots apart from flat shuffling ( I did some in Alaska) this is not an option for mortals!! ( OK Jon maybe for Chamonix residents). As phil says slightly bigger skis 90mm underfoot will help offpiste if you have the dough something like the scott cruisair ( carbon ) which is also very light. I fail to understand the GB bias against dynafit bindings - I have used these since day one & had very few problems. Also using dynafit bindings lets you use a heavier/wider ski but still keep weight down, Almost all the continentals in the alps who tour uses these. Also having wider skis means when you can`t climb you can enjoy the skiing more. Rocker also good. Be careful or you may find yoursely turning into an aspirant ski tourer ( like me!!!) I would aslo say don`t get a ski thats too soft or you will have problems when it gets icy/hardpack - Scottish conditions. Finally if you live in Scotland there is some fantastic touring & a good opportunity to practice & refine your kit before having to try it in the big mountains.
In reply to spidermac:
'nobody is climbing hard routes in ski boots'
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=3568
'The striking orange and black Scarpa Maestrale touring boots weigh in at a mere 1530gm. They are a four buckle boot, giving really good support whilst skiing, but using a newly designed super thin shell, Scarpa have been able to keep this boot as the lightest in their touring range.
I have comfortably used these boots for trad mixed climbing up to around M6 and I am sure a more talented climber could go much harder. Nick Bullock for instance is well known for climbing really hard mixed routes in his ski touring boots (but he is mad!)'
'nobody is climbing hard routes in ski boots'
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=3568
'The striking orange and black Scarpa Maestrale touring boots weigh in at a mere 1530gm. They are a four buckle boot, giving really good support whilst skiing, but using a newly designed super thin shell, Scarpa have been able to keep this boot as the lightest in their touring range.
I have comfortably used these boots for trad mixed climbing up to around M6 and I am sure a more talented climber could go much harder. Nick Bullock for instance is well known for climbing really hard mixed routes in his ski touring boots (but he is mad!)'
In reply to UKC Articles:
To John2, OK so there was bound to be one or 2 - but this is definitely not the norm & those scarpas are no way as good as new style climbing boots - like scarpa rebel carbons - I`m sure he could but did you see Ueli steck climbing the droites or Colton Mac in his ski touring boots?? What would be great is a climbing based boot with dynafit inserts but I think this market is simply too small for the major boot manufacturers to be interested.
To John2, OK so there was bound to be one or 2 - but this is definitely not the norm & those scarpas are no way as good as new style climbing boots - like scarpa rebel carbons - I`m sure he could but did you see Ueli steck climbing the droites or Colton Mac in his ski touring boots?? What would be great is a climbing based boot with dynafit inserts but I think this market is simply too small for the major boot manufacturers to be interested.
In reply to spidermac:
What do you count as 'hard'?!!! I've seen pics of people doing things like Scotch on the Rocks in ski touring boots and people are doing things like http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2llF4stcmGg/Uqdlp_M-xpI/AAAAAAAAFmg/op0Y8PmOxnI/s... in their dynafits.
> Re gear nobody is climbing hard routes in ski boots so you have to carry your climbing boots
What do you count as 'hard'?!!! I've seen pics of people doing things like Scotch on the Rocks in ski touring boots and people are doing things like http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2llF4stcmGg/Uqdlp_M-xpI/AAAAAAAAFmg/op0Y8PmOxnI/s... in their dynafits.
In reply to UKC Articles:
I am not getting into a slanging match with you pair - your pic Toby looks about wi4/5 - so not that hard. Also some one getting into skiing into routes will want a boot with good support to help their skiing ( like me ) as these lighter boots offer less support - ie are harder to ski. So climbing with these heavier boots would not be pleasant. See post above re Ueli steck!! If it was easier to climb in your ski boots I`m sure he would be doing that!!
I am not getting into a slanging match with you pair - your pic Toby looks about wi4/5 - so not that hard. Also some one getting into skiing into routes will want a boot with good support to help their skiing ( like me ) as these lighter boots offer less support - ie are harder to ski. So climbing with these heavier boots would not be pleasant. See post above re Ueli steck!! If it was easier to climb in your ski boots I`m sure he would be doing that!!
In reply to top cat:
Wether or not a ski is shit in icy conditions depends mainly on the (torsional) stiffness of the ski under foot and its width -- not whether it has a rocker or not.
It's true that many rockered skis were very soft and wide skis to start with as they were aimed at powder skiing and so crap on ice mainly because they were super soft -- but that changed recently with some of the stiffest skitouring skis all now featuring a rocker. The rocker of a ski mainly affects the very front of the ski and this is not the part of the edge that you really put much pressure on when skiing icy conditions.
In fact it does help even on ice to have a bit of a front rocker as you less easily catch a front edge and the turn initiation is much easier.
Wether or not a ski is shit in icy conditions depends mainly on the (torsional) stiffness of the ski under foot and its width -- not whether it has a rocker or not.
It's true that many rockered skis were very soft and wide skis to start with as they were aimed at powder skiing and so crap on ice mainly because they were super soft -- but that changed recently with some of the stiffest skitouring skis all now featuring a rocker. The rocker of a ski mainly affects the very front of the ski and this is not the part of the edge that you really put much pressure on when skiing icy conditions.
In fact it does help even on ice to have a bit of a front rocker as you less easily catch a front edge and the turn initiation is much easier.
Post edited at 13:17
In reply to spidermac:
Not trying to start an argument - I don't own AT gear so I've never tried climbing in ski touring boots beyond my tele boots (which are really rubbish). The guy in that picture is also a ridiculously good climber!
I just wondered what you consider hard - because I know lots of people seem quite happy climbing vertical ice (which is bloomin' hard to me!) in ski touring boots. I can fully accept that as soon as you are doing anything that needs strange foot movements (i.e. bending ankles) they would make old school plastic climbing boots feel dainty. So Scottish VII and VIII mixed etc.? I guess they would be really bad for that.
It does though seem that people are doing well climbing particularly in the new generation dynafits, which are said to ski very well too.
Not trying to start an argument - I don't own AT gear so I've never tried climbing in ski touring boots beyond my tele boots (which are really rubbish). The guy in that picture is also a ridiculously good climber!
I just wondered what you consider hard - because I know lots of people seem quite happy climbing vertical ice (which is bloomin' hard to me!) in ski touring boots. I can fully accept that as soon as you are doing anything that needs strange foot movements (i.e. bending ankles) they would make old school plastic climbing boots feel dainty. So Scottish VII and VIII mixed etc.? I guess they would be really bad for that.
It does though seem that people are doing well climbing particularly in the new generation dynafits, which are said to ski very well too.
In reply to TobyA:
I know Nick Bullock made the first free ascent of Omega on the Petites Jorasses (ED3, VIII, 8) in old-school Scarpa touring boots. They were used because he is a better climber than skier.
I know Nick Bullock made the first free ascent of Omega on the Petites Jorasses (ED3, VIII, 8) in old-school Scarpa touring boots. They were used because he is a better climber than skier.
In reply to PhilE:
Not exactly.....
"Rocker" is a bit confusing as like "softshell", it used to mean something but now everyone uses it to mean whatever they want to market their new rad ski.
A rockered ski used to be a reverse camber ski, i.e. it bent the other way to a traditionally cambered ski so it looks like a rocking horse rail and, unsurprisingly, rocks. These were great in powder but they weren't that versatile. So companies realised that an early rise tip like those on a rockered ski, combined with traditional camber underfoot (and maybe some tail lift), would combine to make a better "all-mountain" ski. However, "early rise tip" sounds a bit dull and tip rocker sounds more extreme so now we have tip rocker, all terrain rocker, powder rocker etc. The best bet is to look at the camber profile image of a ski to get an ideal of what the camber of the ski is actually like.
The more tip/tail rocker, the shorter the ski will feel and the less edge grip it will have on hardpack/piste. However, it¡¦ll ski better in powder/crud and funky 3D snow (I believe that¡¦s the new phrase). And vice-versa, obviously.
> The rocker of a ski mainly affects the very front of the ski and this is not the part of the edge that you really put much pressure on when skiing icy conditions.
Not exactly.....
"Rocker" is a bit confusing as like "softshell", it used to mean something but now everyone uses it to mean whatever they want to market their new rad ski.
A rockered ski used to be a reverse camber ski, i.e. it bent the other way to a traditionally cambered ski so it looks like a rocking horse rail and, unsurprisingly, rocks. These were great in powder but they weren't that versatile. So companies realised that an early rise tip like those on a rockered ski, combined with traditional camber underfoot (and maybe some tail lift), would combine to make a better "all-mountain" ski. However, "early rise tip" sounds a bit dull and tip rocker sounds more extreme so now we have tip rocker, all terrain rocker, powder rocker etc. The best bet is to look at the camber profile image of a ski to get an ideal of what the camber of the ski is actually like.
The more tip/tail rocker, the shorter the ski will feel and the less edge grip it will have on hardpack/piste. However, it¡¦ll ski better in powder/crud and funky 3D snow (I believe that¡¦s the new phrase). And vice-versa, obviously.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...