Randonee (AT) vs Telemarking?

[Jkrew81]

I have been alpine skiing for a little over ten years and winter hiking for about 4. Seeing pictures of people out skiing in the backcountry seems to be the ultimate in winter travel. The fact that you can move faster and get abit of a rush here and there seems like my next step in the outdoors. My question is, do people prefer Randonee (AT) or Telemarking? I am thinking with my alpine skiing background that Randonee seems like it would require less of a learning curve, but are there advantages to Telemarking? I do seem to notice that Telemarking gear seems less expensive. Can someone fill me in?

 

[David Metsky]

Short answer: It depends.

Long answer: It depends on lots of things. I'm a tele skier, have been for years. I got into it through backcountry on beefy X-C gear, gradually progressing to heavier tele gear over time. The terrain I skied was much more rolling hills, where tele IMO has a huge advantage over AT. Now I ski steeper terrain, where AT has some advantages, but for the east coast I still favor tele due to the fairly long approaches.

What type of terrain do you expect to ski? Backcountry is not like lift skiing in most ways. The ability to ski black diamonds at Killington doesn't directly translate to many backcountry runs. Can you give some examples of what you'd like to ski in the backcountry, and are you willing to skin up for 3 hours to get 30 minutes of downhill?

Tele is generally lighter and cheaper, but the gap is getting smaller and smaller. I still think you have greater reliablility with tele, but I'm not that familar with the current crop of AT bindings. The skis are essentially the same.

-dave-

 

[cbcbd]

The main difference and expensive part about Randonee skiing is really the bindings. While a Telemarking binding will be around $100, a randonnee binding will be over $400.

Boot costs will be about the same for both and you can use the same skis for either- They are softer and lighter than a downhill ski.

If you want less of a learning curve then AT gear would be for you since you'll be able to carve turns downhill and not have to learn the telemark turn.

But...
Adaptors are sold to convert your alpine bindings to telemark and also to convert your telemark into alpine. Although I don't have any experience with these I could only see this system making the bond between your feet and skis weaker and making it harder to carve or telemark turn.

 

[Jkrew81]

What type of terrain do you expect to ski? Backcountry is not like lift skiing in most ways. The ability to ski black diamonds at Killington doesn't directly translate to many backcountry runs. Can you give some examples of what you'd like to ski in the backcountry, and are you willing to skin up for 3 hours to get 30 minutes of downhill?



-dave-

To be honest I am not really sure. I am more interested in the fact that I could cover more terrain on skis than snowshoes, and the 30 second downhill runs are more of a bonus. From your description it looks as though Tele would be more suits to what my needs are. So my next question is what is the learning curve generally? As well are Tele boots ok to hike in if sections of your hike are not suitable to ski?

 

[DougPaul]

If you want less of a learning curve then AT gear would be for you since you'll be able to carve turns downhill and not have to learn the telemark turn.

Note that one can perform parallel turns on tele gear (but not tele turns on AT gear).

To be honest I am not really sure. I am more interested in the fact that I could cover more terrain on skis than snowshoes, and the 30 second downhill runs are more of a bonus. From your description it looks as though Tele would be more suits to what my needs are. So my next question is what is the learning curve generally? As well are Tele boots ok to hike in if sections of your hike are not suitable to ski?

Tele skis can be used as heavy weight (overweight?) backcountry skis. One can put XC waxes on them and kick and glide as well as use skins and gravity. (Tele skis are generally too wide to fit in machine-set tracks.)

If you just want to travel in the BC, perhaps you should consider BC skis.
Much lighter and cheaper than tele or AT gear. (Many of us have both BC and tele/AT gear.) Much NE BC skiing is done on hiking trails which tend to be narrow (frequently too narrow to use turns to control one's speed) and can be rather steep. Many trails also follow old logging roads or rail beds which can be very ski friendly. Depends on one's goals and abilities.

On some terrain, I am faster (and safer) on snowshoes than I am on skis. Depends on one's skiing abilities.

LIke Dave, I followed the path from BC gear to tele. I still do both. (I have never used a locked heel binding, so I have no direct experience to base my opinions on. Have read a lot about them, though. I believe there are some ATers on this BBS. There are definitely some on the amc-ski mailing list.)

Doug

 

[cbcbd]

Note that one can perform parallel turns on tele gear (but not tele turns on AT gear).

True, you could do a "lazy" turn... and watch all the tele skiers around you frown and shake their heads

 

[Jkrew81]

Ok, so then the next question is what are Backcountry ski's? Are they shorter?

Sorry guys, I know nothing about this subject

 

[cbcbd]

BC skis (or cross country) are long and skinny so you can cut through the snow efficiently. They are thin at the ends and fat in the middle (as in thickness. They are straight skis or have little shape). BC boots are not plastic and look like a regular boot. The binding systems are usually different than telemark - NNN and SNS are popular types of binding mechanism.

skis:
http://www.ems.com/products/product...avigation/subcategory.jsp&bmUID=1131639746240
boots:
http://www.ems.com/products/product...avigation/subcategory.jsp&bmUID=1131639815775
bindings:
http://www.ems.com/products/product...avigation/subcategory.jsp&bmUID=1131639815788

 

[DougPaul]

Ok, so then the next question is what are Backcountry ski's? Are they shorter?

Sorry guys, I know nothing about this subject

Take a look at Dave.m's website: http://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/DirtbagPinner/dirtbag.html
Some good info there.

BC skis are narrower, have less sidecut and are probably a bit longer than tele skis. My favorite pair is 190cm, 65/54/60 mm profile, metal edges, a groove, "camber and a half" (a shallow second camber or wax pocket), and are mounted with 3-pin bindings. (I might prefer a bit more sidecut.) These skis can be used in a machine set track (the grooves are typically ~70mm wide). I also have waxless (pattern base) BC skis for wet snow conditions. BC boots tend to be similar in weight to summer hiking boots.

My tele skis range from 167-180cm, 20--41mm of sidecut, 60--78mm waist, metal edges, no groove, single camber, waxable, and are mounted with tele bindings. (Ok, my lightweight pair is mounted with 3-pin for BC use.) The more recent skis are tending to be wider and shorter. Modern tele boots tend to be calf-height plastic--but they do flex at the ball of your foot so they are not too hard to walk in.

More info on tele gear (including gear reviews) at:
http://www.couloirmag.com/
http://www.backcountrymagazine.com/

FWIW, waxing in good snow conditions is pretty easy and gives better grip and better glide than waxless skis. Waxing also allows one to tune one's skis--sticky for climbing, more slippery (faster) for easy terrain. Waxing can become difficult when conditions are wet, crusty, or changeable (ie cold dry snow in shade vs warm wet snow in the sun)--I simply use waxless skis under these conditions. For steeper climbing, on can use skins on pretty much any ski. For BC, I use my waxables about 90% of the time.

Doug

 

[DougPaul]

Note that one can perform parallel turns on tele gear (but not tele turns on AT gear).

True, you could do a "lazy" turn... and watch all the tele skiers around you frown and shake their heads

C'mon now, let's not start a religious war--the OP is a beginner asking for info.

For some tele is a religion, for some the tele is just an enjoyable turn.

IMO, parallel turn should be in every tele skiers quiver--in some situations, a tele is a better choice, in some a parallel is a better choice. There are also hybrid turns which can be useful.

Since the OP has an alpine background, a familiar parallel turn could help get him started on tele gear.

Doug

 

[Gator]

You should look at your options along a spectrum and decide where you want to be:

If travel is your primary concern, a backcountry ski with more of a xc influence would be the way to go.

If all-out adrenaline rush and speed is what you want: seeking out challenging terrain to make big turns on slides, tuckerman's, great gulf, etc, An alpine ski with AT bindings would definitely be the way to go. Tele would be more on this end of the spectrum, but if you're a really good skier, you can go faster and make bigger turns on alpine skis. AT gear could also come in handy when accessing hike-to terrain at ski areas like the Chin at Stowe.

Somewhere in the middle I think would be a touring ski by a company like karhu or tua, that's really light and has tele bindings.

 

[cbcbd]

C'mon now, let's not start a religious war--the OP is a beginner asking for info.

For some tele is a religion, for some the tele is just an enjoyable turn.

Once when I was talking to someone about telemark skiing a telemark skier who was nearby mentioned that you could do "lazy" turns on teles, implying that parallel skiing, to her, was viewed as a lesser form of turning. I know people get religious about it and thought it was just a funny point of view of some.

I hope my comments won't turn the OP away from fear of getting his cables cut if a telemarker sees him parallel turning.

 

[el-bagr]

Where do you want to ski? Can you give us a few trails you think you'd like to ski? For the Wilderness Trail (or almost any other non-peak trail) you'd be best with backcountry gear, not tele or AT...

I have some experience skiing hiking trails in the WMNF. I skied about 3/4 of the peaks on lightweight cross-country gear -- no metal edges, nothing fatter than 55mm. I don't recommend it -- there are easier ways to do it -- but it can do the trick. Anything else is heavier, though may offer better downhill performance.

I now telemark as my primary downhill modality, but I do have backcountry touring skis (not AT, but skinny skis like the classic E99) that get a lot of use too.

Of course, if you are strong enough, or if your goals are easy enough for you, you can bring heavy gear. For example, I have one telemark setup (boots/bindings/skis) that I use in the backcountry that weighs 24 pounds. By contrast, my light but robust backcountry touring rig is under 9 pounds. Fifteen pounds difference on the feet -- is that worth 75 lbs on the back? (No.) I'll use the lightest gear that lets me get the objective done -- sometimes the objective is light and fast, but sometimes it's a character-building sufferfest.

 

[Seeker]

Great comments here! Looks like folks have mostly covered it. The only thing I'll add is that the Boston AMC Ski Com sponsors a backcountry workshop the last weekend in Jan. at Cardigan--it's a great way to get started. (Full disclosure, I'm chair of the committee and both Dave and I are instructors.)
We also sponsor a Novice tele workshop at Wachusett the previous weekend. More info at our Web site:

http://www.amcboston.org/ski/index.html

 

[DougPaul]

You should look at your options along a spectrum and decide where you want to be:

If you are not sure what you want to do or get, try renting and taking some lessons. Some resorts have demo days where you can try a range of gear. (However, demo days may not be too useful to a beginner who may not have the experience to feel out a new ski quickly.) All of the forms of skiing are complementary.

The AMC has some workshops on basic XC, intermediate XC, BC, beginner tele, and advanced tele skiing: http://www.amcboston.org/ski/index.html. (Some of the VFTT skiers are instructors in these workshops.) Commercial lessons are also available. (Don't know of any AT lessons, but presumably alpine lessons would apply.)

Doug

 

[bruno]

randonee is french for "can't telemark".
telemark is norwegian for "slow hippie"

 

[spencer]

Lots of good info and if you search the VFTT forums, you'll find even more from the last few years. THere is a lot about various models of BC skis (particularly the Karhu vs. Fisher lines).

I'll add something about why touring begs for tele. The tele boot/binding system forces your foot to pivot on the ball of your foot while AT bindings have a pivot out in front of your toe. The latter is way less comfortable and efficient in my opinion.

like many others, I began bc skiing by trying to ski 4ks peaks on 210, skinny, touring skis. It's very hard so I eventually mortgaged my dinner and got some decent BC skis. and I like to "tele" but most people would refer to my turns as "fake-a-marks."

In my quick look through the above posts, I didn't notice a link to Telemark Tips but it's likely I just missed it.

welcome to your next infatuation!

spencer

 

[el-bagr]

I'll add something about why touring begs for tele. The tele boot/binding system forces your foot to pivot on the ball of your foot while AT bindings have a pivot out in front of your toe. The latter is way less comfortable and efficient in my opinion... In my quick look through the above posts, I didn't notice a link to Telemark Tips but it's likely I just missed it.

Good link to ttips, Spencer -- its users are primarily focused on higher-angle skiing than long tours, but anything related to backcountry skiing and sliding goes over there.

I don't use AT gear, but the subject of whether it is more efficient for touring than telemark gear is hotly debated. General consensus is that AT is generally more efficient for skinning/waxing due to the free pivot (i.e. largely resistance-free pivot in front of the boot as opposed to telemark boots'/bindings' variable resistance to flex at the bellows). When climbing at a steady grade, I think the case for AT's superior efficiency is clear. With the forebody pressure exerted on the ski by tele boots and bindings, you're fighting against the system in a way that freepivot AT bindings eliminate.

Where AT skis might make less sense is on logging roads or Pemi railroad trails. Like Spencer, I think they feel less natural to me than midsole-flexing boots. Still, in a parallel ttips thread, AT enthusiasts swore that they'd still pick AT over tele for such a trail -- although light bc touring gear might be better still, whether SNS- or pinhole type.

The free pivot is found in xc skis, too -- the NNN/SNS and other "systems"-type bindings with the toe bar instead of pinholes take advantage of the same principle. Most if not all competitive xc racers have used this kind of binding for about a decade. Duckbills and underfoot pivot points are key to current telemark gear, but there's a strong trend away from it.

So why do I keep buying more boots with pinholes and active bindings? Because it makes me smile. The best route from Point A to Point B isn't always the easiest!

edit to add: Here's a link to the ttips discussion on AT vs telemark gear for touring on the flats that I referenced above. General consensus is no consensus.

 

[David Metsky]

I have a pair of "traditional" BC skis (E99) and some new BC skis (Fischer Outtabounds) and the newer models have some real advantages. The main one is that they can turn. With my Excursion boots (lower plastics) I can both tour and turn. The E99s do cruise in a straight line better, but if I can get a dozen turns in it's worth the extra effort.

I think a great backcountry setup is something like the Outtabounds or Rebounds, Excurstion or T4 boots, and a 3 pin or 3 pin with cable binding. You can do pretty much anything but serious lift served with that.

-dave-

 

[Seeker]

Just another emphasis on the fact that you don't need a tele turn to ski in the bc. P turns on tele gear is perfectly acceptable (as are snow plows--I use'em often).

How you turn is up to you--what you ski on is also up to you, but some gear it better suited to certain types of terrain that others.

I wouldn't bother with heavy tele or AT gear unless all you wanted to do is skin up a mountain and then ski down it. Otherwise, it's too heavy and limiting, IMO.

I would start by considering where you want to ski and then decide what to buy. I know lots of folks who get along great on lighter, skinnier gear in the bc on a lot of different types of terrain--but they aren't doing a lot of T-turns either.