• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Alpine-Touring hybrid setup

tomahawkins

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 3, 2019
Posts
1,800
Location
Bellingham, WA
Keep in car with skins on to make a run for it?

I'm intrigued by a two ski solution, if this 5:1 is true. Compare a marginal uphill/downhill ski (1500 g) to a great downhill ski (2000 g) and a great uphill ski (1000 g).

1500 * 5 > 2000 + 1000 * 5
7500 > 7000 => The adjusted weight is lighter with 2 skis.

Then consider in spring you don't need a big ski for float. You can drive the on-foot weight down further by packing your alpine boots and just wearing shoes or nordic boots. For a given adjusted weight limit, for every pound you trim from your uphill setup means you can invest 5 pounds in your downhill gear. That's huge. @James, touring with an FIS SL might not be out of the realm of possibility.
 

Rod9301

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Posts
2,443
I'm intrigued by a two ski solution, if this 5:1 is true. Compare a marginal uphill/downhill ski (1500 g) to a great downhill ski (2000 g) and a great uphill ski (1000 g).

1500 * 5 > 2000 + 1000 * 5
7500 > 7000 => The adjusted weight is lighter with 2 skis.

Then consider in spring you don't need a big ski for float. You can drive the on-foot weight down further by packing your alpine boots and just wearing shoes or nordic boots. For a given adjusted weight limit, for every pound you trim from your uphill setup means you can invest 5 pounds in your downhill gear. That's huge. @James, touring with an FIS SL might not be out of the realm of possibility.
I hope this is a joke.
 

charlier

Fresh Tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 6, 2019
Posts
607
Location
Seattle & Rossland, B.C.
I would add the Salomon Mtn explore 95 to your list. It can handle 50/50 use and is quite light as well.
I will weigh in here. Salomon Mtn Explore 95 are superb backcountry volcano skis. Although, I personally use Blizzard Zero G 95, the Salomon skis are a bit more forgiving. The tails are not quite as stiff as the Zero G. That said, the Salomon skis are super fun and is a superb ski - forgiving does not = beginner ski. For similar skis, Backland 98 W are very nice spring and summer volcano skis, as well. How would I choose between the three skis - I would purchase what is available with correct sizing and price point. A good backcountry skier would be satisfied with any of these skis. Full-disclosure, I do not use my Zero G skis for inbounds resort skiing.
 

Rod9301

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Posts
2,443
I had the salomon mtn explore 95 and while ok, i found it unstable at speed on freezer corn conditions on shasta.

Sold them and went back to the katanas.

I also recommend the mantra vwerks
 

Bruno Schull

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Posts
361
Here's an idea:
1-Buy a medium ski + binding + boot system (how you define medium will vary from person to person)
2-Buy a very lightweight, highly mobile, great ROM touring liner
3-Buy a heavier, structured, supportive alpine liner
4-Wear the light liner on the way up...switch to the heavy liner on the way down.

Not too much added weight...big change in performance...also gives you the chance to change into dry socks after the long sweat uphill!
 

Rod9301

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Posts
2,443
No
Here's an idea:
1-Buy a medium ski + binding + boot system (how you define medium will vary from person to person)
2-Buy a very lightweight, highly mobile, great ROM touring liner
3-Buy a heavier, structured, supportive alpine liner
4-Wear the light liner on the way up...switch to the heavy liner on the way down.

Not too much added weight...big change in performance...also gives you the chance to change into dry socks after the long sweat uphill!
No need for two.
The power wrap tour does both.
 

Tony Storaro

Glorified Tobogganer
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Posts
7,806
Location
Europe
I would purchase what is available with correct sizing and price point.

The second part I do understand, the first-not so much.
What is the correct size for the 183 of me? I was thinking Backland 95 in 177 or Zero G 95 in 178, is that correct?

BTW, already ordered the Hawx Ultra XTD so things are starting shaping up. :ogbiggrin:
 

Noodler

Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
6,314
Location
Denver, CO
The second part I do understand, the first-not so much.
What is the correct size for the 183 of me? I was thinking Backland 95 in 177 or Zero G 95 in 178, is that correct?

BTW, already ordered the Hawx Ultra XTD so things are starting shaping up. :ogbiggrin:

Everything I've read recommends going shorter for your touring setup than where you would normally land on a dedicated downhill setup.
 

Noodler

Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
6,314
Location
Denver, CO
These posts about changing boots or liners in the transition really surprise me. I can't imagine taking on that task in the transition at the top of a mountain slope. Seems like a recipe for serious disaster. There are better ways to solve these challenges through equipment selection.
 

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,490
Location
Colorado
I don't know anyone who is a regular tourer who would serious consider taking a liner for downhill vs uphill. I "get it" but it's an absurd way to solve a problem.

I do know people who take two liners into the same boot for different applications. A lightweight touring liner and a powerful downhill liner in a boot like the Atomic Hawx XTD as a travel boot.
 

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,166
Location
Gloucester, MA
Here's an idea:
1-Buy a medium ski + binding + boot system (how you define medium will vary from person to person)
2-Buy a very lightweight, highly mobile, great ROM touring liner
3-Buy a heavier, structured, supportive alpine liner
4-Wear the light liner on the way up...switch to the heavy liner on the way down.

Not too much added weight...big change in performance...also gives you the chance to change into dry socks after the long sweat uphill!

Interesting idea, I also have two sets of liners for my AT boots. One thing I noticed is there is only 80 grams of weight difference between the two you have, not enough to matter (to me anyway). I hear you on the performance difference, as that is why I have two liners. My Hawx XTD's came with a lightweight, flexible liner that gets uncomfortable for a full day in the resort. I added a new Atomic Mimic accessory liner that now comes std with the boot. Much better for the resort and more comfortable. It snugs up my foot, has better (more) padding, and more comfortable. It weighs about 150 grams more.

My plan is to use the mimic for mostly resort days, and only use the lightweight liner for mostly touring days (real back country, non resort days). I won't carry both and change them while skiing, too much to deal with for not enough gain. So far I have only used my mimic's and haven't put the lightweights back in. I have to say the extra 150 grams and slightly less flexible minic liner hasn't bothered me at all while skinning. I bet if I had one in each boot I would notice, but otherwise not a big deal so far.
 

Tony Storaro

Glorified Tobogganer
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Posts
7,806
Location
Europe
Everything I've read recommends going shorter for your touring setup than where you would normally land on a dedicated downhill setup.

Yeah, but what does that mean in absolute figures? My normal ski are from 184 to 175 and the next size down from 177 of Backlands is 169 and that seems terribly short. :(
 

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,490
Location
Colorado
Yeah, but what does that mean in absolute figures? My normal ski are from 184 to 175 and the next size down from 177 of Backlands is 169 and that seems terribly short. :(

If you're on 175-184, then 177 is the choice.

The way I think about it is -- if you're between two sizes, size down. If one size is the clear choice in your normal range, than there you go.

For instance, in my most recent touring ski purchase I could go 181 or 187. I own skis from 179 to 188. I bought the 181 and can't really imagine needing the 187 except in very isolated cases.
 

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,166
Location
Gloucester, MA
As far as choosing a shorter length for a BC ski, I think the strategy is to not go too long. Meaning don't buy a 190cm ski, and really 180-185cm is the max you want to deal with in BC trees and kick turns. If you normally ski a 175cm resort ski, than its fine to stick with that length. Factor in that longer equals heavier, so if you can go down one size and it will work fine for you, then save the weight. Since your not typically skiing as fast on touring skis, you probably can go shorter. You don't have to unless your pushing against the 185 cm max. I was looking at a 191 versus 185 and the 185 was the right choice. My Zero G's are fairly stiff, so the 185's work fine for my weight. For a 175 lb person, you don't need the 185 and can drop down to the 17Xish size(s).

Just read @jmeb's post and I am saying the same thing.
 

Noodler

Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
6,314
Location
Denver, CO
I've posted elsewhere the major difference in boot performance that a liner can provide. There's a huge difference in performance between the Palau All Track Power LT and the ZipFit WC liners that I have for my Fischer The Curv 130 boots. They don't even feel like I'm skiing the same boot. I've been trying all kinds of things to get the Palau liners to ski "stronger" without adding weight, but I've been coming up short in that quest. My next "creative" attempt will use a super stiff lightweight foam layer added as additional support to the front of the entire length of the tongue. I think that may actually work.
 

sparty

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Feb 15, 2018
Posts
1,005
Re: ski sizing: it usually takes a lot of work to earn the turns when touring, which at least for me, means that I'm a lot less likely to be going top speed at any point on the descent. YMMV, but I like to enjoy the payoff a bit more.

Will I need new brakes for the Shifts if I go wider than 95mm? I think they are now 100mm, what is the margin there?

One point of data: to put a 100mm Shift brake on my wife's Cham 107 took a little bit of bending and a little bit of Dremel work on the plastic bits. In the thread on the TGR forums, I think +5mm is the rough consensus without any modification—i.e. a 90mm brake will be fine on a 95mm ski, beyond that may require a bit of bending or removal of plastic.
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
Hah, I watched a video on “choosing a touring ski”. But it’s from BC, and as the guy says, it’s touring for powder. The Navis Freebird seemed to be the skinny option, 102.
 

Bruno Schull

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Posts
361
Hey folks--yes, I know, two liners and swithing sounds crazy but...hear me out. First, back country skiing is a broad church, and let it remain so. That's part of what makes these conversations so interesting...everybody's needs are different. Back to the two liner system...why would I ever do that? I generally do two kinds of tours: first, moderate tours with my wife, skin up toward some peak or pass or goal, maybe some scrambling or easy climbing near the summit, then down. Half-day to three-quarter day. We're nearly always with a guide on those days--I don't want to be responsible alone for managing all the risks with my wife. Time is never a pressure. I don't have to worry about weight at all. I can use a 1600-1800 gram ski, Shift bindings, hybrid boots, and so on, no problem, no stress, just fun. On those days, I'll just use a single liner, probably the overlap liner, because I like to make it easier for myself on the part of the day where I know I'll struggle the most, on the descent! The other kind of tour I go on is using my touring skis to access ice or alpine climbs in the Alps with climbing partners. Depending on the technical difficulty of the climbing route, you can put crampons on moderate-weight touring boots and they climb just fine, but as the technical difficulty goes up, it's really nicer to be in light touring boots, or touring boots with a really light and flexible liner, or real climbing boots. In the latter case, the packs get heavy, and you're changing into and out of boots anyway, so switching liners on the ski boots is no big deal. How would that work? Start in the morning with light touring boot and light tongue liner...approach climb...he light touurig boots and liners on, or switch into climbing boots if you're going that route...climb...come back down...put on touring boots with heavy overlap liner...ski out. The main advantage is that when you're skiing down, especially after a long day with a heavy pack, you have a solid boot/liner combination. It helps me feel safer and more secure. I'm happy to trade the small weight on the up and hassle at transitions for security on the down. But that's just me, for these uses. If I was repeatedly skiing up and down a peak or slope to get in as many laps as I could, I wouldn't use two liners. If I was a better skier, I would just make do with a thinner liner. If I was a better climber, I would just climb everything in ski boots. If I really had to be moving fast and counting every gram, I would go lighter, and so on. But, for my skill set and use, the liner switch solves some problems. I'd say that, if you're only going to make one transition during a day, it's something to consider. Afterall, people change socks, switch tongues in and out of boots (old Dynafits) and so on...sometimes it's really nice to take the feet out of the boots and let them breathe, air our the toes, and so on. Try it!
 

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
@Bruno Schull , I think in the scenario you are describing, the climbing scenario, the AT boots with removable tongues would be the way to go, instead of removable liners.

Especially because I have serious doubts about the whole 5:1 energy efficiency thing being true anyway.

The study that @tomahawking linked was about walking, not skiing. And it was with some very high loads.
 
Last edited:

Sponsor

Staff online

  • Andy Mink
    Everyone loves spring skiing but not in January
Top