Calling all backcountry skiing experts

[yardsale]

Back to Audrey's ?? (as the group now knows, I'm sketchy with names) comment about accepting the cables in order to eliminate the need for pins. IMO, the pins provide some welcome redundancy in tha backcountry if you happen to blow a cable, although I have never seen that happen with the three pin cable set up.

Alternately, has anyone seen this years innovation in tele bindings? The heavier bindings now have a *touring mode* similar to an AT set up where the entire binding piviots freely from a pivot point in front of the pins. Anything like this on a light binding that might match the light bc boards we have been discussing?

 

[TomD]

skis

YL, you may want to ask this same question over on telemarktips.com. I've gotten some very good advice on backcountry ski choices from several members there. Pinnah posts there as well and has given me some valuable advice along these same lines.

 

[dave.m]

Audrey's complaint about difficulty getting into pins is a very common frustration. IME, the secret for easy-in with pins is to install counter-sunk "smile plates". 99.9% of the time, I get in and out of my pins much, much faster than any cable binding I've used. The first person to point this out (in writing) was Alan Bard in an essay on pins he wrote back in the 90s. Unforunately, counter-sinking smile plates is not for the feint of heart.
http://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/DirtbagPinner/smiley-plates.html

Regarding the 3 pin cable, the reason you don't often see blown cables is because the pins are keeping the boot from spinning out of the binding. The Voile Classic Cable (same thing without the pins) is notoriious for blowing or stretching cables in this mode.

As far as the free pivot goes, 2 things.... First, the ease of the pivot of pins is determined primarily by the flexibility of the toe. Two of my 4 pairs of boots are leather and the difference in touring ability (with pins) is just huge. That is, imo you don't need free pivot if you have leather.

Second, remember that the nnn-bc and sns-bc bindings are based on a pivoting bar. Good news, it looks like Alpina will be bringing back a higher plastic cuffed nnn-bc boot this year.

 

[DougPaul]

Audrey's complaint about difficulty getting into pins is a very common frustration. IME, the secret for easy-in with pins is to install counter-sunk "smile plates". 99.9% of the time, I get in and out of my pins much, much faster than any cable binding I've used. The first person to point this out (in writing) was Alan Bard in an essay on pins he wrote back in the 90s. Unforunately, counter-sinking smile plates is not for the feint of heart.

FWIW, I have little difficulty getting into pins. Just have to push the boot all the way forward before closing the bail. A bit of anti-icing tape on the metal binding helps to prevent binding icing. Voile makes a pre-shaped plastic sheet with an adhesive back for the purpose. Or you can just use plastic tape.

If you have trouble with ice forming in the pin holes, one fix is to drill the holes all the way through to the top so you can push the ice out from below (with the pins).

Doug

 

[yardsale]

I agree Dave, flexible boot allows for easy stride if you have no cable. The pivot binding would enable free pivoting even with cables. There is another advantage in deep snow. I have noticed while touring with AT skiers in deep snow that their skis pop right up to the surface of the snow as they stride foreward, whereas three pin skiers must lift the ski to the surface, more or less. A free pivoting cable binding would provide us with this advantage as well.

 

[dave.m]

I agree Dave, flexible boot allows for easy stride if you have no cable. The pivot binding would enable free pivoting even with cables. There is another advantage in deep snow. I have noticed while touring with AT skiers in deep snow that their skis pop right up to the surface of the snow as they stride foreward, whereas three pin skiers must lift the ski to the surface, more or less. A free pivoting cable binding would provide us with this advantage as well.

Yardsale,

I definitely agree. But I think there is a catch...

From a technical pov, I think there are 2 choices. Either you have a bi-modal binding that you need to switch from one mode to another for optimal performance in different skiing modes. Or you have a uni-modal binding the enforces comprimises over a range of uses. AT bindings and the new cable bindings with "touring" modes are both bi-modal and they give optimal performance in both climbing due to the free pivot and turning by fixing either the heel or the ball of the foot (in the case of cable bindings).

Pins (not cables) and system bindings are both unimodal. You live with a single mode for all skiing uses but avoid the need to switch modes. With both binding, you can "adjust" the amount of pivot creating more or less forebody pressure. With pins, you can adjust this to some extent by the tightness of the bails but more dramatically with different stiffness boots (in the duckbill). Old Snowfields are very easy flexing and will allow ski tips to rise to the surface easily. With system bindings, you adjust this with different rubber bumpers.

Now... I find it helpful to differentiate between backcountry nordic skiing and backcountry telemark skiing, mostly along the lines that the manufacturers have split the market. One of the many differences between the 2 imo is that nordic backcountry really calls for a unimodal binding. When cruising along in rolling terrain, I just don't want to dink around switching modes. For example, last year I saw a group of well meaning college students struggling, and I do mean struggling on the East Side Trail (along the Pemi) on their AT gear. Afka_Bob and I just skied on by on our E99s and Snowfields! But, backcountry telemark is more about climb, climb, climb and then ski down. A perfect match for bi-modal bindings like you describe.

Putting this yet another way, if you're using skins and rarely use kick wax, bi-modal bindings might make sense.

Or putting this yet another way, I now think backcountry telemark gear has more in common with AT gear than it does with backcountry nordic gear.

 

[TCD]

The joke among tele skiers is that randonee (AT) is French for "can't tele."

Modern tele gear for list served is almost identical to alpine gear, in terms of the skis and the boots. I use my lift served tele gear for backcountry tele, but I usually just pack the skis up and climb on snowshoes, which is faster.

But I have been looking for a compromise set up for when the approach is rolling, and I might actually be able to save time by skiing. My interest is in simplicity (for example, I've always used waxless).

Dave, do you have any comment pro or con on the "kicker skins" Doug Paul mentioned? Again, if it's a sustained climb, I'm just going to snowshoe. But it might be cool to be able to get some kick and glide out of my lift served gear for rolling terrain.

Thanks in advance!

TCD

 

[DougPaul]

I agree Dave, flexible boot allows for easy stride if you have no cable. The pivot binding would enable free pivoting even with cables. There is another advantage in deep snow. I have noticed while touring with AT skiers in deep snow that their skis pop right up to the surface of the snow as they stride foreward, whereas three pin skiers must lift the ski to the surface, more or less. A free pivoting cable binding would provide us with this advantage as well.

There is another difference between AT and Tele/nordic gear that may be an even bigger factor in keeping ones tips above deep powder when striding--the binding placement. The Tele/nordic bindings are mounted with the pin line at the center of the ski--thus one lifts the ski from the balance point. The AT bindings are mounted with the center of the boot over the center of the ski (the pivot point is in front of the toe of the boot)--thus when one lifts an AT ski (with the binding unlocked), one is lifting from well forward of the balance point.

Two winters ago (I think...), we had a deep powder snow fall in the local (Boston) area. I broke trail in it using flexible Snowfield II boots with 3-pin bindings on nordic BC skis and it was exhausting--the shovel of my forward ski tunneled under the snow and had to be laboriously pulled out on each stride.

Doug

 

[DougPaul]

The joke among tele skiers is that randonee (AT) is French for "can't tele."

Old joke. But, from what I have read, AT gear is superior to Tele gear under certain conditions--eg steep icy faces.

Modern tele gear for list served is almost identical to alpine gear, in terms of the skis and the boots.

Not quite true--Tele skis are similar to AT/DH skis with a soft tail. Some AT/DH skis have a tail which is too hard for good tele. The back portion of the modern plastic boots may be similar, but the toes are very different.

I use my lift served tele gear for backcountry tele, but I usually just pack the skis up and climb on snowshoes, which is faster.

Doesn't sound like you have tried full skins--they give you pretty good grip on the uphills. Skinning speeds are similar to snowshoe speeds on appropriate terrain. And you don't mess up the track on narrow trails...

But I have been looking for a compromise set up for when the approach is rolling, and I might actually be able to save time by skiing. My interest is in simplicity (for example, I've always used waxless).

Rolling terrain (with decent snow conditions) is a place where waxes shine--better grip on the uphills (I have put grip wax on waxless skis...) and better glide on the downhills.

Dave, do you have any comment pro or con on the "kicker skins" Doug Paul mentioned? Again, if it's a sustained climb, I'm just going to snowshoe. But it might be cool to be able to get some kick and glide out of my lift served gear for rolling terrain.

A bit more supporting evidence:

The friend that I loaned my kicker skins to has bought her own pair...

In the swapping skis (waxless vs waxable with kicker skins on damp powder) experiment that I described earlier, the two skis had a very similar glide--and my waxless skis are good gliders (for waxless skis). At other times when I have used full skins on level powder, they have glided moderately well. (Mohair is supposed to glide better than nylon. Using skin wax (or, in a pinch, any hard glide wax) on the skins probably helps too.)

Two friends and I did the Cedar Brook loop (Hancock Notch TR, Cedar Brook Tr, East Side Rd, described in Goodman's book) using nordic BC gear. One had kicker skins, the rest of us had full skins. There are some moderately steep, but not desperate climbs on this route. The one with kicker skins had some trouble at the steeper spots. The grip is reasonable, but does not match full skins.

On an attempted Zealand-Pemi traverse, one trip member brought tele gear and used full skins the whole time (no kick wax--it was red wax/red klister conditions (damp to wet snow near freezing)). He had a strong kick, got some glide, but definitely had to work harder than the rest of us.

Remember mohair skis? Two thin strips of mohair (skin material) set into the kick zone of the skis. Kicker skins are just removeable mohair on steroids.

Two cautions:
1) Skins do not glide well on ice. (I have the wounds to prove it...)
2) Since the kicker skin only covers a portion of the ski, the drag will change differently from the drag of the entire skin. And if you get a narrow skin (as I recommended), the skin will release if you set the ski up on edge.

BTW, for easy rolling terrain in my Tele gear, I generally just use XC kick waxes. Quick, easy, and efficient. I use my full skins or kicker skins when waxes do not grip well enough.

Doug

 

[skiguy]

There is another difference between AT and Tele/nordic gear that may be an even bigger factor in keeping ones tips above deep powder when striding--the binding placement. The Tele/nordic bindings are mounted with the pin line at the center of the ski--thus one lifts the ski from the balance point. The AT bindings are mounted with the center of the boot over the center of the ski (the pivot point is in front of the toe of the boot)--thus when one lifts an AT ski (with the binding unlocked), one is lifting from well forward of the balance point.
Doug

Doug if you could clarify yourself here. I am not quite sure if I quite understand your definition of Tele/nordic bindings. In my twenty plus years as a part time Ski Shop employee which has included mounting many a pair of skiis we have always done as follows. Nordic Telemark skiis of the single camber nature have always been mounted with pins at one have the cord length of the ski (usually the Center of the ski) which is not neccessarily the balance point. Tele/nordic skiis of the double camber nature are always mounted with the pins at the balance point not necessarily and highly unlikely the center of the ski.

 

[DougPaul]

Doug if you could clarify yourself here. I am not quite sure if I quite understand your definition of Tele/nordic bindings. In my twenty plus years as a part time Ski Shop employee which has included mounting many a pair of skiis we have always done as follows. Nordic Telemark skiis of the single camber nature have always been mounted with pins at one have the cord length of the ski (usually the Center of the ski) which is not neccessarily the balance point. Tele/nordic skiis of the double camber nature are always mounted with the pins at the balance point not necessarily and highly unlikely the center of the ski.

I was trying to avoid this level of detail because my essential point did not require it.

As far as this is concerned, classic (striding) XC skis, BC skis and Tele skis are variants of nordic skis. All use the same basic hinged just in front of the boot mounting system. No locked heels. All are just points on a continium. Single (better for turning) vs double (better for kick-and-glide) camber is just a design detail. Call them all free-heel skis/bindings if you prefer.

There are several definitions of the center of a ski--balance point, chord center, manufacturer's mark, etc. Usually they are within a few cm of each other. The pin line of nordic (classic XC, BC, Tele) skis is usually mounted within a few cm of this line.

(If you read discussions by the purists, some argue that some models of skis should be mounted on one of the lines, other models in some other place a few cm away. Some aggressive Tele skiers like to mount a few cm forward of the line. Whatever--all are in the same general region.)

Downhill/AT bindings are mounted with the center of the boot (ie the arch) mounted over the center (range of definitions as above) of the ski. Maybe some mount a little forward or a little backward of the center--again doesn't matter for the essential point.

My essential point:
When striding, the pivot point of the ski relative the boot (nordic/Tele or AT with the heel unlocked) is about at the toe end of the boot. Due to the different mounting locations, the pivot point of a nordic/Tele ski is about at the ski center, while it is about a half boot-length forward of the ski center for an AT ski. Thus the shovel of an AT ski will have more lifting force on each stride and is therefore easier to keep on top of powder than is the shovel of a nordic/Tele ski.

Credentials: I mount my own skis (all nordic/Tele/free-heel), have studied both types, and have talked to professional mounters of both types.

Doug

 

[skiguy]

There are several definitions of the center of a ski--balance point, chord center, manufacturer's mark, etc. Usually they are within a few cm of each other. The pin line of nordic (classic XC, BC, Tele) skis is usually mounted within a few cm of this line.
Doug

I respectfully disagree my comrade.Balance point and chord center IMO are too different entities. I challange you to balance a ski and then measure the Chord Center. After that look at where the Manufacturer's Graphic line is; (which by the way is a screened graphic put on by the manufactuer therefore an inpercise science that has a "fudge" factor) guaranteed different parts of the ski. Most expert ski mounters will agree that 1/2cm difference in where a binding is mounted will make a difference in the performance of the ski. Therfore it is VERY important that you understand what type of ski you are mounting because different skiis get mounted differently.

 

[DougPaul]

I respectfully disagree my comrade.Balance point and chord center IMO are too different entities.

YOU are missing the point. The issue that I was responding to was that when striding through deep powder, AT skis tend to stay on top better than nordic/Tele/loose-heel skis. The key point is the big difference between pivot points of the AT vs nordic/Tele/loose-heel mounted skis (15+ cm), not the fine points of a cm or two in mount points.

When I am actually mounting a binding on a ski, I most certainly pay attention to the issues of which definition of center to use and any small offsets to apply.

What you are saying may be perfectly accurate (I haven't checked it in detail), it just is not relevant to the issue of the relative flotation of the two different ski systems.

Doug

 

[skiguy]

YOU are missing the point. The issue that I was responding to was that when striding through deep powder, AT skis tend to stay on top better than nordic/Tele/loose-heel skis. The key point is the big difference between pivot points of the AT vs nordic/Tele/loose-heel mounted skis (15+ cm), not the fine points of a cm or two in mount points.

When I am actually mounting a binding on a ski, I most certainly pay attention to the issues of which definition of center to use and any small offsets to apply.

What you are saying may be perfectly accurate (I haven't checked it in detail), it just is not relevant to the issue of the relative flotation of the two different ski systems.

Doug

I am not missing the point at all;you are. Again with all do respect to the point you are trying to make it only makes sense to completly understand what type of ski,binding, and intended application you are trying to use for what situation and be sure they are mounted the way they are supposed to be mounted. If you don't understand the dynamics of proper ski mounting and your skis are mounted inproperly then everything about your point of striding through powder becomes improper.

 

[yardsale]

Doug,
I didn't know that about AT mounting--that would certainlly be a major factor. The whole question is moot however unless someone comes up with a light binding that does have a free pivot point. Voile dosen't seem to have one at least for this year.

What would happen if we mounted a tele ski like an AT ski? Anyone done it?

 

[dave.m]

I am not missing the point at all;you are.

Neutral corners guys...

Skiguy, while pins on chord center and pins on balance point have been the traditional methods for nordic skis for many years, many now advocate a more alpine oriented mounting, even for tele gear. This mid-sole on center of running surface method is, essentially, the same method used for alpine and AT gear. Plenty of folks have different recipies and Dana Dorsett suggests the following
http://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/DirtbagPinner/binding-location.html

IME, of the 3 methods, pins on chord center and pins on balance point are more alike and boot center on running surface center is more different. More to the point, the latter alpinish method tends to put the boot toe much further forward.

HTH

 

[DougPaul]

Doug,
I didn't know that about AT mounting--that would certainlly be a major factor. The whole question is moot however unless someone comes up with a light binding that does have a free pivot point. Voile dosen't seem to have one at least for this year.

The TeleBulldog (the tele binding with the built-in hinge) goes back to clamping the boot by the duckbill and pinholes--no cable. It will be interesting to see how well it holds up.

What would happen if we mounted a tele ski like an AT ski? Anyone done it?

You don't specify which kind of binding (AT or Tele), but since a number of skis are sold for either tele or AT use, the effects of an AT binding should be well known. So I'll assume you mean with a tele binding.

Never tried it, but here are my guesses:

* It would probably loose-heel parallel turn pretty well... Just like a DH or AT ski. The biggest difference between it and a DH/AT ski (for parallel turns) might be that you couldn't push the shovel down with your shin. (It would work for me--my loose heel parallel is better than my tele turn. )

* It probably wouldn't tele turn very well, because the pressure point of the back ski would be way forward of the ski center.

* The kick might also be compromised because the pressure point of the kick would also be way forward of the ski center.

* It would probably glide (straight) ok.

The above said, my latest pair of Tele skis (new last winter) have mounting studs placed at the centerline and 1 inch forward of the centerline. I mounted them at the 1 inch forward location and they both parallel and tele turn very nicely.

Doug

 

[skiguy]

Neutral corners guys...

Skiguy, while pins on chord center and pins on balance point have been the traditional methods for nordic skis for many years, many now advocate a more alpine oriented mounting, even for tele gear. This mid-sole on center of running surface method is, essentially, the same method used for alpine and AT gear. Plenty of folks have different recipies and Dana Dorsett suggests the following
http://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/DirtbagPinner/binding-location.html

IME, of the 3 methods, pins on chord center and pins on balance point are more alike and boot center on running surface center is more different. More to the point, the latter alpinish method tends to put the boot toe much further forward.

HTH

Taking my neutral corner your Nordic Highness I guess I should have known better and checked your web page first. I shall now go back to my cage sir.

 

[Y.L.]

I looked into that and found that the choices of waxable skis in that category is really limited. Here is what I found:

Evolution Wasatch Soft 84-65-76
http://www.evoskis.com/telemark.html

Rossignol BC 90 CL 90-70-80
http://www.rossignol.com/index.php?template=accueil.html&function=accueil&_lang=US

Atomic Limit 96-67-90
http://www.atomicsnow.com/atomic.php?id=63&s=96

Fischer Outtabounds Wax 88-68-78
http://www.fischer-ski.com/en/

Any thought on these? Maybe I should think about converting myself to waxless

Also which length do you suggest? I’m 5’10” and 180#. My E99 are 190 or 195 (I don’t remember) and my tele skis are 170 (for skiing the glades).

 

[TCD]

DougPaul,

Thanks for the reply. That's helpful information.

I'm familiar with the details of the various equipment; I think what works best on descents has more to do with skiing skills. I've been on tele exclusively for about 12 years; I'm not sure I could as well anymore with my heels locked down. Even on ice, I'd rather have my tele gear. My lift served tele gear is fairly heavy duty (Scarpa T1, Rossi T4 or BD Nunyo).

I've used full skins, but only the Voile rubber "snake skins." They don't glide very well, so they basically turn your skis into "long skinny snowshoes without a claw." For the trails I climb for skiing (ADK High Peak region hiking trails), snowshoes work better.

I might try throwing some kick wax on my lift served teles for flat and gentle rolling approaches. Does the wax wear off faster on a single camber ski?

Thansk again.

TCD