AT/Rondonee question

[Puck]

Does any one just use alpine touring skiis for both backcoountry and groomed trails?

I am looking into taking the leap and want to do both with one investment. I welcome any and all comments, advice and jokes.

 

[Chip]

Does any one just use alpine touring skiis for both backcoountry and groomed trails?

Yes. Where ya been, man ? Search "randonee" or "silvretta" here for several good discussions.

Caveat: I'm not a huge skier, just like to have the gear available to tool around the woods, slopes or trails. If you really want to tour seriously or telemark, none of my posts will help you.

 

[mirabela]

The thread here has my setup in it. I've been out ten times since I posted, using it for pretty much everything, wearing my koflach double boots.

It's lots heavier than my touring setup -- and I get some really funny looks at the warming hut -- but I've got comparatively great control on the downhills and it'll float where the touring skis would just spear in and sink. It's definitely a jack-of-all, master-of-none deal -- but I did a hilly ~12K tour yesterday morning, about half on groomed corduroy and the other half breaking through 6-8" of fresh and then blasting down a hill with alternating scoured ice and big windpacked drifts and it handled all of it well. Right now my skiing is limited by my ability, not by my gear.

There are lots of better, lighter skis and bindings out there but yes, I am using a primitive AT setup for groomed and BC skiing.

 

[Chugach001]

So...you don't ski either way now???

My personal suggestion is to just go tele and solve the whole issue.

Before I took up tele I screwed around with gear forever and never found a great solution. (there may be one out there that I don't know of). It seems that serious skiers don't like the AT binding and will often use a BC Access touring insert in their alpine bindings.

If you are a noob to each and on a budget, I'd say just get a pair of basic randonee gear and learn to ski. You can then upgrade or swap as you go. That's what I did and now my son uses my old Silveretta's.

I do like the Dynafit ultralight setup for boots and bindings.

Best of luck and let us know what you selected.

 

[The Lisa]

Welcome to taking the plunge - you won't look back!
I took up skiing 3 years ago with the intention of doing more AT than alpine so I bought AT boots, Fritschi Freeride bindings (heel locks/unlocks for downhill/touring) and a pair of all-mountain skis that would work fine in resorts (for learning) and be able to handle most everything in the backcountry.

There are lighterweight (and lighter on the wallet) options out there for ski touring, like Mirabela's great setup, but if your goal is skiing Tuckermans or other burlier terrain then heavier-duty gear will be safer.

It was one big investment but I get so much use out of that gear that I get my money's worth. Look for last year's model of skis, boots, etc. to get a cheaper price.

This weekend I tried out my new Dynafit setup - a much lighter if more fiddly binding. I would not start out learning to ski with this but now I have some experience I am loving the lighter load and the tighter connection to the ski.

 

[Puck]

thanks for the feed back. I have looked at some of the old threads.

I do ski now. I rent alpine and own BC nordic and skate skiis. I just don't want to own a set of AT and alpine and hope to have a solution for both. I think an AT set up is the way to go. Pricewise AT could be a bit more expensive than alpine but there is alot of overlap.

 

[Chip]

I just don't want to own a set of AT and alpine and hope to have a solution for both. I think an AT set up is the way to go.

AT skis are lighter and probably more apt to snap during aggressive alpine. I think you're bigger issue is what boot and binding you want to use and generally, for what kind of skiing.

 

[SAR-EMT40]

Consider telemark skis, I bought a pair of tele skis years ago and have never looked back.

Of course I suck equally at all three, tele, downhill, and cross country so I might not be the best person to ask.

Keith

 

[BobC]

I'm confused every time I hear someone talk of a "tele" set up. When I went to the AMC Boston Ski Open house a few weeks ago I was told that telemark is a type of turning style, not a type of ski or binding. Or maybe they said something else and I just have a thick skull...

I think what I might want to move up to after I actually learn how to ski a little better is a setup where I can ski and hike in the same boots. Right now I have Alpina Tracker backcountry skis with NNN-BC bindings so I need the boots that go into those bindings (I have Alpina 1550 boots to go with this setup).

 

[Chugach001]

I'm confused every time I hear someone talk of a "tele" set up. When I went to the AMC Boston Ski Open house a few weeks ago I was told that telemark is a type of turning style, not a type of ski or binding. Or maybe they said something else and I just have a thick skull...

It's not that complicated. Telemark is a region in Norway where some guy perfected a turn on skis. XC and jumping skis stayed free heel and are considered Nordic. Downhill setups with locked heels became considered Alpine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telemark_skiing


At any rate, tele covers a turn, a nordic binding to facilitate that turn and a ski which is designed to facilitate all of this and finally a boot which ties the skier to the binding and board.

Despite it all, my recommendation; skip AT and go Tele. The gear is SO beefy these days, you can rip on anything in tele and never screw around with anything more than skins.

 

[DougPaul]

I'm confused every time I hear someone talk of a "tele" set up. When I went to the AMC Boston Ski Open house a few weeks ago I was told that telemark is a type of turning style, not a type of ski or binding. Or maybe they said something else and I just have a thick skull...

The Telemark turn is a specific kind of turn. It requires a loose-heel binding so that the skier can assume the telemark position (the crouch with one leg forward and one leg back as shown in the video). Here is a video of some nice clear tele turns: http://faculty.washington.edu/mtuggy/video5.mpg

In terms of equipment, tele, backcountry, and cross country skis all have loose-heel bindings. (All Nordic skis.) Modern tele gear is as heavy as modern downhill gear. (BC is lighter and XC is even lighter weight.) And yes, it is possible to perform tele turns on any of these classes of skis.

Downhill gear uses a locked heel binding (and thus cannot do a tele turn). AT (also known as Randonee) bindings have a toe hinge and a heel lock. When the heel is locked down, it is essentially downhill gear. When the heel is unlocked the skier can walk on the level or uphill (with skins attached to the bottoms of his skis).

Doug

 

[mirabela]

Nicely explained.

As for this --

When the heel is unlocked the skier can walk on the level or uphill (with skins attached to the bottoms of his skis)

-- I've found that with this AT binding on a waxed ski with some camber (and, I'm sure, on a cambered waxless it would be the same) I can do better than merely walk on the level. It's not the silky glide I get with my touring stuff, but it beats snowshoeing all to pieces. More ground, more easily, in less time, with more joy ...

 

[Chip]

-- I've found that with this AT binding on a waxed ski with some camber (and, I'm sure, on a cambered waxless it would be the same) I can do better than merely walk on the level. It's not the silky glide I get with my touring stuff, but it beats snowshoeing all to pieces. More ground, more easily, in less time, with more joy ...

Agree. I will say this though; On a trip up Marcy several years ago, on snowshoes I matched the pace of a buddy on AT gear - going up - once we summited, he was gone and I rejoined him at our lean-to at the dam. It was after this that I decided to piece together some AT gear that would work with my Degres.

 

[DougPaul]

I've found that with this AT binding on a waxed ski with some camber (and, I'm sure, on a cambered waxless it would be the same) I can do better than merely walk on the level. It's not the silky glide I get with my touring stuff, but it beats snowshoeing all to pieces. More ground, more easily, in less time, with more joy ...

OK--that makes sense. One just has to be careful not to torque the binding when the heel is unlocked.

I certainly put XC waxes on my Tele skis and use them as (heavy) XC skis when the need arises. Not as efficient as real XC skis, but it is good for an easy approach to the steeps (eg the Ravine Lodge approach to Moosilauke).

BTW, XC waxes will work even without camber.

I'm working on mounting my AT bindings right now...

Doug

 

[David Metsky]

There are AT setups that will work fine doing everything you could possibly want at a ski area - bumps, racing, jumps, cliff hucks; with excellent control and extremely safe release.

There are AT setups that will be great for lightweight touring, covering lots of distance while still giving you good control on the downhills, some release, and that are generally solid all around performers.

They are not the same gear. Like with telemark, there are ranges of gear in AT from bombproof to lightweight. The bombproof stuff weighs more, the lightweight stuff isn't as tough. You need to make tradeoffs. What kind of alpine skiing are you looking to do? Are you aggressive or a beginner? How important is lightweight to you? And of course, how much is your budget?

 

[TCD]

All good info. One other thing that might not be clear from the foregoing regarding AT gear vs. tele gear: With AT in the "free heel" mode, the heel can generally be lifted with little or no resistance. The toe piece is simply a freely pivoting hinge. Alternatively, with tele gear, there is considerable resistance to lifting the heel (resistance varies with the set up). This resistance to heel lift allows the skier to transfer forward weighting to the ski, and is an important component of making tele turns.

As a result, even though you read that both tele and AT can be "free heel" set ups, each has its advantages. It's quite difficult (though not impossible) to make tele turns using AT gear in the free heel mode. It's also quite strenuous (though not impossible) to do long, steep skin climbs in tele gear.

Some recent (expensive) bindings like the Voile Switch allow you to switch the binding between a tele (resistance to heel lift) and an AT (no resistance to heel lift) setting. These are a handy development.

TCD

 

[David Metsky]

Free pivot tele bindings are becoming more common. I have the Switchbacks on my backcountry gear. They're a bit more expensive than the the non-free pivot version, but not too much. They certainly make a difference, but I toured on regular tele bindings for years without any real issues. It's not a deal breaker.

 

[Puck]

They are not the same gear. Like with telemark, there are ranges of gear in AT from bombproof to lightweight. The bombproof stuff weighs more, the lightweight stuff isn't as tough. You need to make tradeoffs. What kind of alpine skiing are you looking to do? Are you aggressive or a beginner? How important is lightweight to you? And of course, how much is your budget?

Although telemark is very intriguing and I would probably go that route, I seem to ski most with my son who is an alpine bomber. Having torn an ACL on the slopes I am a bit more cautious. I do attack a slope but I tend to attack a pizza or sandwich wiht more vigor. I would say my breakdown would be 50-50 groomed to BC. Budget?? I want to do it right. (you always get what you pay for)

 

[DougPaul]

Having torn an ACL on the slopes I am a bit more cautious.

As you probably know, release is standard on AT bindings. There are also release Tele bindings available too. (Tele is inherently less risky due to the free heel, but the AT/downhill release mechanisms are better.)

If you are interested in a study on Tele injuries, see http://faculty.washington.edu/mtuggy/telepag1.htm.


Ultmately, AT is better at some things, Tele is better at others. Choose whichever you prefer (or both). In my case, Tele was a natural progression from XC and BC and I will soon try AT. (Still have to get those bindings mounted...)

Doug

 

[Remix]

I bought AT ski's because I wanted to do backcountry and ski at lifts. In retrospect, I do not think it was a wise investment.

I picked longer skis to get more float with gear for backcountry, but it decreased the fun I had for lift skiing--its much easier for me to do turns in a short ski.

Then I found most of backcountry skiing needs could be met with lighter equipment. I really began to dislike having to choose and apply a wax as well (for use on groomed trails). And the AT gear is so much heavier for groomed trail use that I was just shuffling along and not really skiing.