A few more ski questions

[Gremlin]

Sorry, I ought to have read the post more carefully. The G3's are best on big terrain, the Karhu's are great in the backcountry.

 

[DougPaul]

Anyway I was referring to the wider skis with more sidecut that I am looking into.

Wider and more sidecut sound like Tele skis--Tele skis are pretty much all waxable.

Doug

 

[cushetunk]

90/70/80 or 100/70/85 with 3 pin and removable cable and plastic two buckles would probably be sufficient for anything I'd want to tackle.

If you're agonizing over the effects of a few mm of sidecut on kick-and-glide touring, you don't want a 100mm shovel, and you definitely don't want plastic boots (even light ones like the T4).

I'm not seeing much evidence in your posts that you really want or need to tele ski. You talk about limiting yourself to glades, but glades at a ski area are generally a poor place to learn tele. In fact, they are probably the worst. Unless you are there first thing on a powder day, it is just skiing uneven bump troughs with lots of trees to hit. It is one place where I find a quick freeheel parallel turn is indispensable.

And anyway, as the Dave's have already pointed out (each in their own way), you aren't doing yourself any favors trying to learn telemark skiing with a T4 plastic boot.

 

[cushetunk]

Amen Brother! For your entertainment. LOL

I finally got my second ice axe!

 

[MikeK]

The only thing I'm agonizing over is responding to a post that obviously was set up as personal attack. I've obviously offended some people with my questions and my apparent stupidity. I'll slink back down the hole I came from I guess and rely on pre-internet methods to gather my data.

I'll leave this thread with a question then... If such things didn't matter, then why wouldn't there be only one ski?

 

[cushetunk]

It wasn't intended to be a personal attack, and I'm sorry if it seemed that way.

 

[MikeK]

I must have offended you for you to make such a response...

But seriously. Think about it. If I was an exec at Fischer, why would offer 4 different S bounds all in 10mm width increments (more or less) to a relatively small, niche market? The only reason I could come up with is there is a difference and the market (the skiers) demand different models for different purposes.

Any engineer worth his salt knows it is much easier and cheaper to produce the same thing in kajillions. So here lies the dilemma...

If I knew a retailer that carried these skis that I could demo I wouldn't think twice about it... I'd try the Madshus models, I'd try the Fischer models and I wouldn't have to ask silly questions on the internet.

Unfortunately I only know of ones that carry Madshus and limited Fischer models. So that puts me in a difficult spot if I am going to dump a fair deal of cash on a pair of skis... if I could find something used that is comparable for little money I'd take a gamble.

Thanks again for everyone who contributed some positive feedback.

 

[dave.m]

MikeK, while I can see how you might think it, I'm very confident that Cush was try to helpful, and not offensive. Blame the medium on this one.

You're right to go slow. At full retail it's quite pricey. It's one reason I like kick wax. It opens up the world of literally discarded Alpine skis. The basic design templates are pretty well understood.
http://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/DirtbagPinner/bc-skis.html

If you can find old Alpine skis with the right profile you'll have a reasonable approximation of a newer ski with the same profile. Big caveat that camber HUGELY changes the feel. But still.

Find a pair of SOFT skis with a 85/65/75 profile and mount some pins on them. Your Alaska will handle them and after a fee outings, you'll have a better feel for next steps.

 

[MikeK]

Sorry cushetunk, it seemed a little snarky from my end.

Reading it a bit differently you are correct, I don't need or want a tele setup. I know all about glades getting bumped up and skied off. I have no interest in skiing them then - I said in an earlier post that I'd consider them on a powder day.

I looked up learning and there is a telemark lesson and rental program at Bristol Mountain near me. No glades there. The terrain is pretty easy, and boring if you ask me, I've skied there a lot. Perfect place to learn though. There are a number of low angle runs that stay nice throughout the day. Some of the more popular blue runs turn to a chopped up mess by noon, as do the blacks. At night the place is usually a sheet of ice. Perfect excuse to stay on the greens

Just one comment to dave.m. Have you used the Alsaka? They aren't stiff at all like an Asolo Extreme - snowpines and the lesser Alpina, the 1575, although lower, have a stiffer cuff. The sole is fairly stiff torsionally, but there is relatively little real ankle support - I can roll my ankle nearly as much with the boot on as without.

I saw a post on another forum where someone had done a good demo with videos showing the Alaskas strengths and weaknesses. The uppers are completely flexible and soft as was illustrated by the author bending them around. The sole has some stiffness and he showed by trying to torque it. It's nothing compared to plastic boot. The test he shows is pretty poor because once in a binding the thin duckbill of the boot adds more rotational flex.

It's a warm, supportive, comfortable, and flexible touring boot - but it really has no turning merit.

The next best in between boot for me might be a Fischer 675 or 875. I'm not sure how they'd fit but I believe they are closer to a true Extreme class boot than the Alaska.

I'm hesitant to try an actual Asolo Extreme because the Snowpine is so unfreindly to my heels. The plastic inner just doesn't fit my foot right and after about 3 miles I'll blister every time. I tried two different size, both did the exact same thing.

 

[dave.m]

Mike, wow. That's pretty flexible. The Extremes are gone unless you find them in eBay. Scarpa Wasatch is probably closest but hard to find. To be honest, I've not laced up my Extremes since getting the BCX 675. Won't be as durable but very light and the cuff rocks.

 

[MikeK]

Good to know. I'll look into that boot then. Seems the market is getting ever thinner for 75mm boots.

I know extremes are out of production. Looked for a while on eBay earlier this year but no luck... again not confident on the fitment either.

I don't think the Wasatch is being imported to America anymore. Another I looked into but it's a lot of money for a boot that may skin my heels or give me cramps.

BTW a 5 min search found that 'test' I saw previously:

http://www.backcountrytalk.earnyour...N-BC-Boots-Crispi-Svartisen-and-Alpina-Alaska

 

[MikeK]

I didn't think that demo was as good as I remember. Here is comparison to the Snowpine. It's pretty obvious which boot is which:



Also when I grabbed my boots I noticed another flaw. Seems the rubber around the bail is chunking away. I assume this happened when I took a spill and twisted the boot a bit:

 

[David Metsky]

Doesn't mean you have to get rid of your tele gear. It just means you need a bigger ski rack!

I've got a roofbox. Last trip we had 10 pairs of skis up there. No tele gear will be harmed in the acquisition of AT gear.

 

[Gremlin]

As I see it the problem with telemark gear in the backcountry is that you need telemark boots. Although BD makes tele boot compatible crampons, they are not very versatile. The advantage to AT gear is that you can use plastic mountaineering boots for your backcountry adventure - just be sure to get mountaineering compatible bindings (Grivel Randonnée, Silvretta 500 - not 550).

 

[David Metsky]

As I see it the problem with telemark gear in the backcountry is that you need telemark boots. Although BD makes tele boot compatible crampons, they are not very versatile. The advantage to AT gear is that you can use plastic mountaineering boots for your backcountry adventure - just be sure to get mountaineering compatible bindings (Grivel Randonnée, Silvretta 500 - not 550).

I've put crampons on my tele boots without any trouble. I'm not sure this is as much a problem as you think. I don't do mountaineering on them but it doesn't interest me. I'd rather ski.

 

[dug]

I suppose it may depend on your foot size. I wear 11's, and if I fit my crampons for a size 13 boot, they fit fine. If I had a size 13, I could see that being a problem, maybe?

 

[dave.m]

As I see it the problem with telemark gear in the backcountry is that you need telemark boots. Although BD makes tele boot compatible crampons, they are not very versatile. The advantage to AT gear is that you can use plastic mountaineering boots for your backcountry adventure - just be sure to get mountaineering compatible bindings (Grivel Randonnée, Silvretta 500 - not 550).

I think this makes sense and is one of the reasons why I increasingly think of there being a pretty clear distinction between Nordic backcountry touring (rolling terrain where single mode bindings make sense) and Alpine touring (steep terrain, more up and back down oriented where dual mode bindings make more sense).

There are clearly areas of overlap. But, if the discussion is about steep skiing and if the presumption is on plastic boots and if the issues of releasability and climbing ability (free pivot) come up, then it's a (heavy) tele vs AT type discussion and for simple efficiency, AT just seems to make a lot of sense.

Dave Metsky, if I ever set my backcountry sights back on steeper terrain, I may join you with AT gear (cost prohibitive right now).

Gremlin, conversely, if the issue is more rolling pursuits, single mode tele gear seems to me to make more sense still. I think a light 2 buckle plastic boot, pins and skis with tips in the sub-100mm range are sort of the upper end of where I think Nordic offers real advantage on rolling terrain. Here in the NewEngland, we have a lot of trips where reasonable folks might choose either Nordic or Alpine gear (Bolton/Trapp, Wildcat Trail).

 

[jniehof]

I think this makes sense and is one of the reasons why I increasingly think of there being a pretty clear distinction between Nordic backcountry touring (rolling terrain where single mode bindings make sense) and Alpine touring (steep terrain, more up and back down oriented where dual mode bindings make more sense).

My personal thoughts boiled down to "In what circumstances will I have a longish ski approach and also need bulletproof crampons?" And the answer was, Katahdin. at which point you're pulling a sled and a second pair of boots isn't the end of the world.

I had been leaning heavily towards an AT setup but I'm not really in it to enjoy the downhill. Anything I'd need to crampon up isn't something I'd be skiing down. Others will have different priorities.

 

[dave.m]

Nod.

I should add that my old SMC Scottish strap 10-pt crampons fit both my tele boots and my hiking boots. Not made any more. Newer stuff is better, or so I'm told.

 

[David Metsky]

Dave Metsky, if I ever set my backcountry sights back on steeper terrain, I may join you with AT gear (cost prohibitive right now).

Check out the consignment shops at Ragged and IME if you're up north, or Craigslist locally. You'd be amazed at the deals you can get on used gear. The expensive items are the boots and bindings - skis are dirt cheap if you really don't care about cutting edge performance.