Hey all,

I'm starting the slow process of maybe thinking about some BC skiing at some point. This means that I've made some inquiries about gear, almost did an avi 1 course this year and have looked at a lot of pics.

But I don't think I'll start playing til next year, and will be on piste this year.

What should I be looking for? Are Diamir still the thing? Recommends on skins? Avi gear too?

what do you use and why?

thanks for the help,

Munge

Munge,

Your'e setting yourself up to get flamed on this one. The recommended new concept is to research first, then ask intellegent questions. In the last year, or more like the last the last few months, there have been a few lengthy threads on this very topic in the gear forum. based on the broad, general scope of your question I'm gonna guess you haven't read up on the other posts yet. You can search the forums using key words like AT skis, BC skis Rando, Randonee or other key word variations.

(p.s. I'm a big fan of the Dynafit TLT verticals. after you've read the other threads post back here and I'll tell you why)

DYNAFIT!

I second the Dynafit recommend
check out the BD line of skis

Agreed--do your research--but hopefully this will save you some time:

Skis should be chosen based on intended use and place of use. This is obvious, but it's easy to get quagmired in marketing nonsense, so do think about it. For example, if you want to replace your snowshoes with skis (i.e., you're mostly a mountaineer or ice climber), it's extremely convenient to be able to skin in with your normal climbing boots. You'll want the Silvretta 500's or something similar. If you live in Norway (broad, open, not much brush), you can get away with long skis. If you live near the Cascades, where it's brushy in the lower elevations and where you might use your skis on glaciers, shorter, fatter skis might be the way to go. Shorter skis are better for mountaineering, but they should be fat enough to support a heavy pack.

On the other hand, if you plan long BC tours (e.g., Haute Route or High Sierra Traverse) where the emphasis is on covering large distances, get a light and floaty setup. Dynafit wins. Get long and fairly fat skis if you expect deep, unconsolidated snow and heavy packs. If you ski in one of the alpine countries, you can get away with smaller skis because you will have much, much less on your back; we "backward" Americans often need bigger ones because we don't have a great hut infrastructure. Rando racing sort of falls into this category, but obviously it has its own specialized and ludicrously light gear.

The correct choices for the two situations above are easy and everyone agrees on them. The discussions and disagreement are about what's best suited to the sort of skiing which is done predominantly for the downhill, like when you go out for corn or powder. The answer is a function of mountain range (type of snow), skiing style (tight couloirs, cliffs, trees), approach needs, and current fashion. If you want to do extreme stuff, it would probably help to get specialized gear, but many people compromise and use their touring setup for this or vice versa.

sorry, you're right. I asked for that.

I was just about to repost that I was looking at the gear section on this site (i hardly use other functionality on sp) when I got pulled away from the desk.

thx for the reply and the check

hamik wrote:Agreed--do your research--but hopefully this will save you some time:

Skis should be chosen based on intended use and place of use. This is obvious, but it's easy to get quagmired in marketing nonsense, so do think about it. For example, if you want to replace your snowshoes with skis (i.e., you're mostly a mountaineer or ice climber), it's extremely convenient to be able to skin in with your normal climbing boots. You'll want the Silvretta 500's or something similar. If you live in Norway (broad, open, not much brush), you can get away with long skis. If you live near the Cascades, where it's brushy in the lower elevations and where you might use your skis on glaciers, shorter, fatter skis might be the way to go. Shorter skis are better for mountaineering, but they should be fat enough to support a heavy pack.

On the other hand, if you plan long BC tours (e.g., Haute Route or High Sierra Traverse) where the emphasis is on covering large distances, get a light and floaty setup. Dynafit wins. Get long and fairly fat skis if you expect deep, unconsolidated snow and heavy packs. If you ski in one of the alpine countries, you can get away with smaller skis because you will have much, much less on your back; we "backward" Americans often need bigger ones because we don't have a great hut infrastructure. Rando racing sort of falls into this category, but obviously it has its own specialized and ludicrously light gear.

The correct choices for the two situations above are easy and everyone agrees on them. The discussions and disagreement are about what's best suited to the sort of skiing which is done predominantly for the downhill, like when you go out for corn or powder. The answer is a function of mountain range (type of snow), skiing style (tight couloirs, cliffs, trees), approach needs, and current fashion. If you want to do extreme stuff, it would probably help to get specialized gear, but many people compromise and use their touring setup for this or vice versa.

sound advice...from my perspective

I can gaurantee that most of my skiing will be spring corn (ideally), like Sonora Pass, Night Cap Peak, etc. Shuttle runs. Maybe some east sierra overnight tours for turn and burn fun. I don't like paying for lift tickets and I'm getting to the point of wanting to earn my turns.
But probably mostly one day stuff from the car on SPH, but should I want to do a trans sierra I would like to be able to do that too with this set up.

Skiing in to a ice climb is also an object. Likely Cali based.


see where I'm going with this? Cali cement?

disregard the avi question

skis for a late 30s guy that used to downhill in his youth. Don't need screaming speed, but all day comfort and ease of skinning is probably my primary concerns. Dynafits seem light but looks like the binding set up lifts you up away from the ski and consequently your edge. harder transitions in crud?

Take look at the ski forum at www.thebackcountry.net for Sierra destinations and conditions and the talk forum at www.telemarktips.com for equipment discussions.

mungeclimber wrote:I can gaurantee that most of my skiing will be spring corn (ideally), like Sonora Pass, Night Cap Peak, etc. Shuttle runs. Maybe some east sierra overnight tours for turn and burn fun. I don't like paying for lift tickets and I'm getting to the point of wanting to earn my turns.
But probably mostly one day stuff from the car on SPH, but should I want to do a trans sierra I would like to be able to do that too with this set up.

Skiing in to a ice climb is also an object. Likely Cali based.


see where I'm going with this? Cali cement?

disregard the avi question

skis for a late 30s guy that used to downhill in his youth. Don't need screaming speed, but all day comfort and ease of skinning is probably my primary concerns. Dynafits seem light but looks like the binding set up lifts you up away from the ski and consequently your edge. harder transitions in crud?

Munge,

O.K. now we're talkin!

I can relate to your motivation to get on some backcountry skis. I've been downhill skiing inbound, at resorts for 30 years (damn I'm old!) Backcountry skiing gives us the rewards of adventures in the mountains along with the exhilaration of quick descent all without the crowds and hassles of the ski resorts.

I did a lot of research before I bought my gear. I almost bought the Marker Dukes based on their reputation of being heavy duty under demanding downhill skiing. I decided on the Dynafit boot/binding system because I wanted the downhill control I was used to from resort skiing but I didn't want to lug 25 pounds of gear up the mountain. I mounted the Dynafits myself using the instructions from Lou Dawson's Wild Snow website. With the Dynafit bindings my boots are less than 3/8 of an inch above the top of the ski, closer than systems that require a full length plate under your boot. My set-up of k2 Mt. Baker skis, Dynafit TLT Verticals, and Garmont Megaride boots weighs around 13 pounds or about half of what my Rossignal, Solomon, Lange resort set-up weighs.

Last year was my first season on backcountry skis. I tried them out on San Jacinto, Baldy and Shasta. The experience was everything I hoped for and more. A good workout on the way up and a bitchin run on the way down. My new gear allowed me to feel just as secure as I would in any expert terrain on my resort gear.

good info! thx!

back in 99, the last time I looked at BC gear seriously (bought a pair of used NNN skinny metal edge with overly large rental boots), the tele set up was Heli Stinx with T2s. Now I'm not looking at tele as my knees probably couldn't, but the sizing on the boots was that T2s were standard foot and Garmont were wider fit.

Still the case?

I'll take a look at your set up as a tangible starting point.

thx guys!

boots, boots, boots. aye, like downhill, once you get the good fit boots, you can plug and play more.

ok, gotta replace my TNF pants with something more skiable than a rain pant too if we're going this year.

thx hombre, if I can make this thing happen before the snow melts, you're on!

Munge,

In your quest for boots, new or used, Garmonts are reputed to fit narrower feet while Scarpas are supposed to fit wider feet, I'm not sure about Black Diamonds. I have long narrow feet, my Garmonts, size 30.5 (U.S. 13) fit me well.

DMT,

Thanks, I didn't know that.

Dynafit Manaslu, rockered tips and very lightweight
Dynafit FT 12, bomber will even take resort abuse...
and for boot you need to find what you want to go for
I have the above set up and use Scarpa Spirit 3 boots.

MAke sure you get brakes for the skis and crampons if climbing chutes and other steeps.
otherwise skins will do.

hope this helps