European Hut Trip / Ski Mountaineering Set Up

[Snowflake2420]

I'm looking into trips for next spring, such as the Ortler Route in Italy (multi day touring with a focus on skiing off peaks) or a multi day ski touring / mountaineering trip in Alaska.

I'm an avid tourer in Front Range Colorado and ski Black Crows Atris Birdie 160 cm with Marker Alpinist bindings and Atomic Hawx Ultra XTD 115W. This set up has been perfect for Colorado touring, however, I realize I could go lighter for a multi day type trip and save a lot of energy. Most guiding companies recommend a ski waist widths below 95mm. This is "skinny" in my book and hard to accept as I tend to enjoy wide, playful skis with rocker that still have some backbone.

Has anyone done these kinds of trips and what is your advice on ski set up? I'm also open to lighter boots.

I'm currently considering Black Crows Camox Freebird 160cm, Elan Ripstick 94W, and Zag Ubac 95 Lady 158cm. I'm 5'1" so that somewhat limits skis I can consider and I'm focused on skis <160cm. I typically ski on lengths at least 160 cm or greater.

I fortunately don't need to make a decision on this soon, but wanted to see if I'm on the right track. Thanks!

 

[James]

How many hours/day will the trip be skinning?
I’ve started to look into the Haute route trips also. I’ve got almost no skinning experience though.

They are definitely light oriented. I see 95ish as the limit. I think the big difference is one may be skinning on steep, hard snow slopes, and they seem to hate skis >90mm for that.

Prob comes down to how one feels on the up for skinning. If one is in great shape and can knock it out several days in a row, then use the leeway to go heavier. If not, go lighter.

Looking at the description of the Ortler route, it looks like you’ll have 4,000ft skinning elevation on some days.

Ortler Ski Touring

Ortler Ski Touring in the Alps with Cosley & Houston Alpine Guides, American UIAGM Internationally Certified Mountain Guides.

www.cosleyhouston.com

 

[Slim]

Paging @jmeb

 

[Slim]

@SkiFiore , the Ripstick is a lightweight resort ski, not a touring ski. Nice ski, I got it for my daughter based on @Tricia ’s review, but hardly the first choice for true lightweight touring. Elan calls their touring skis the Ibex series, but I don’t know much about them, including lengths.

Have you checked out the K2 Wayback/Talkback series? 88 or maybe 96 if want to keep some width?
Comes in a 153 and 160.
I have the 106 and like it. All models always get top review marks for being allrounders, and predictable skis, high on the list for a long, multi day trip. They also are reasonably priced and widely available.




As far as your concerns about liking wide and playful skis with tip and tail rocker, here is an article about the Fischer Hannibal 96 that refers to that:

Fischer Hannibal 96 Skis

The Fischer Hannibal has been out for a few years. It's touted as a lightweight well-crafted touring ski. I haven't skied on the 2019 or earlier model so I can't comment personally. But I got my hands on a pair of 185s last winter and had a good chance to put them through their paces.

sawback.com

I really don’t know much about this, but wouldn’t a ski closer to 150cm be a better length for someone your size? Don’t people typically choose a ski at least 10-15cm shorter than head height for this use?
That would be 145cm ski, right?

 

[Snowflake2420]

@SkiFiore , the Ripstick is a lightweight resort ski, not a touring ski. Nice ski, I got it for my daughter based on @Tricia ’s review, but hardly the first choice for true lightweight touring. Elan calls their touring skis the Ibex series, but I don’t know much about them, including lengths.

Have you checked out the K2 Wayback/Talkback series? 88 or maybe 96 if want to keep some width?
Comes in a 153 and 160.
I have the 106 and like it. All models always get top review marks for being allrounders, and predictable skis, high on the list for a long, multi day trip.


As far as your concerns about liking wide and playful skis with tip and tail rocker, here is an article about the Fischer Hannibal 96 that refers to that:

Fischer Hannibal 96 Skis

The Fischer Hannibal has been out for a few years. It's touted as a lightweight well-crafted touring ski. I haven't skied on the 2019 or earlier model so I can't comment personally. But I got my hands on a pair of 185s last winter and had a good chance to put them through their paces.

sawback.com

I really don’t know much about this, but wouldn’t a ski closer to 150cm be a better length for someone your size? Don’t people typically choose a ski at least 10-15cm shorter than head height for this use?
That would be 145cm ski, right?

Thanks for the ideas. Yes the Ripstick is not a touring ski, but something I thought on the lighter side I could get away with.

Salomon MTN Explore 88 is also on my list.

Going down to a 145 cm is hard for me to fathom skiing especially with a decent sized pack on. I'm hoping to actually be able to ski on this set up not just survival ski. I'll have to think about that.

 

[James]

SkiMoCo loved the K2Wayback 88
There’s so one interesting comments comparing the Salomon, Dynastar, Dynafit 88’s. The new Volkl 88 is supposedly much better than the old.
If looking at light, the Movement Alp Tracks 89, 95.
Was looking at the Camox Freebird also. There’s a shop here that has them. OutdoorGearLab gave it a very good all around.

Compare Mid-fat Skis

skimo.co

 

[Slim]

Everyone loves the Wayback 88. Test winner in the Alpin ski test. And more importantly than a particular person liking them, is the fact that the reviews always sound the same: a ski that can do anything, no suprises, good generalist.

The other reason I mentioned it, was because it is pretty light, and it comes in shorter lengths.(as the Talkback). Or if you want to stay a bit wider, the 96 would still be a noticeable difference to your Atris, especially if you go a fair bit shorter too.

Lots of people love the Salomon Mtn Explore 95, but the 88 I have read (on skimo.co and other places) is softer, so maybe not your cup of tea?

Dynafit Blacklight 88 worth a look?

Zero G 95?

Voile has a good selection too.

Movement has plenty of highly rated skis too, in a bit higher price segment.

The Spring Skiing Quiver Slot

skimo.co

 

[Slim]

@SkiFiore , do you think you can demo some skis? https://cripplecreekbc.com/ does have demo set ups, and they have locations in Denver, Vail and Aspen.
But of course, you and I struggle finding demos in our size, so that might not be an option.

As far as the length goes, I definitely don’t want to say you HAVE TO go shorter, I don’t know you, and I have never tried different lengths.
I really just wanted to give you pause to think about it.

One thing that is probably true for both of us (I am 6’5”) is that the “general rules of thumb” for ski sizing, might not be very applicable (for example, I have never skied a ski that is head height on me, don’t see many 195cm skis, lol).

The one thing that is universal though, is that a long ski will be annoying on your pack. A major consideration for mountaineering. But you already know that better than me. How do you find you current length of skis on your pack or in tight terrain?

I don’t think many skis are available in 145cm anyway, haha! But maybe 153 is worth considering at least.

 

[Noodler]

@SkiFiore , do you think you can demo some skis? https://cripplecreekbc.com/ does have demo set ups, and they have locations in Denver, Vail and Aspen.
But of course, you and I struggle finding demos in our size, so that might not be an option.

As far as the length goes, I definitely don’t want to say you HAVE TO go shorter, I don’t know you, and I have never tried different lengths.
I really just wanted to give you pause to think about it.

One thing that is probably true for both of us (I am 6’5”) is that the “general rules of thumb” for ski sizing, might not be very applicable (for example, I have never skied a ski that is head height on me, don’t see many 195cm skis, lol).

The one thing that is universal though, is that a long ski will be annoying on your pack. A major consideration for mountaineering. But you already know that better than me. How do you find you current length of skis on your pack or in tight terrain?

I don’t think many skis are available in 145cm anyway, haha! But maybe 153 is worth considering at least.

The longer skis can also make kick turns a more challenging affair...

 

[PowHog]

First off great choice of touring region (Ortler), from own experience long time ago it's stunningly beautiful during springtime. And the good food and cheap red wine served on Italian alpine huts is hard to beat.

I just got a new lightweight but stiff 88 mm waist ski for mountaineering purpose. Reason I didn't go wider is that on hard frozen, tilted skin tracks you will encounter during spring mornings they just skin easier. Also since most mountaineers still use skis waisted well below 100 mm you will fit into the tracks better. Crust or corn snow is what you will encounter mostly on the descents so width isn't a big factor here as well. If your boots, although on the heavier side, fit you perfectly then use them.

Depending on which routes you are hitting the ascents range between 3000-4500 ft. Since you will be also travelling on glaciated terrain and might encounter hard conditions the backpack can get quite heavy when slogging rope, slings, harness, snap links, axe, crampons etc. Unless your company carries most of that you will eventually find out your willingness to sacrifice some downhill performance in exchange for a happier time uphill. Here @Noodler has a point too with easier kick turning on a length not much about your own height since occasionally ascents slopes can be pretty steep.

Have fun!

 

[TrueNorth]

Shorter, narrower, cambered skis are better for:
1. skinning uphill in general, because of weight (and to a lesser extent width)
2. skinning on steep icy tracks, because of camber (more contact = better grip)
3. skinning across large, low angle glaciers, because of weight (and to a lesser extent width)
4. traversing steep slopes, especially when firm or icy, because of width and camber
5. kick turns on uphill switchbacks, because of length (less awkward)
6. climbing and scrambling with skis on pack, because of weight and length (less awkward)
7. skiing down firm icy snow, or shallow soft snow or corn on top of firm base, because of width and camber

Longer, wider, rockered skis are better for:
8. skiing down soft deep snow, because of length, width, and rocker

Everybody wants to do #8, but the reality of spring ski mountaineering and hut to hut tours in the Alps is mostly (or often entirely) #1-7.

However, plenty of people prioritize the downhill and the chance (dream?) of powder turns enough that they make do with equipment that's not optimal for #1-7, resulting in some extra suffering for 90%+ of the trip, and potentially also some sketchy/dangerous situations.

 

[slow-line-fast]

Ski characteristics and reasons for these are already well covered in this thread. I'd just add, think about a ski that you could also use in spring conditions at home. Then it's more useful to you .

If you're happy with your boots and can skin 4000' vert with them, I wouldn't mess with that part.

And also get a ski bag with space for two pairs and check the weather before boarding - it can sometimes snow a lot.

 

[Bruno Schull]

Shorter, narrower, cambered skis are better for:
1. skinning uphill in general, because of weight (and to a lesser extent width)
2. skinning on steep icy tracks, because of camber (more contact = better grip)
3. skinning across large, low angle glaciers, because of weight (and to a lesser extent width)
4. traversing steep slopes, especially when firm or icy, because of width and camber
5. kick turns on uphill switchbacks, because of length (less awkward)
6. climbing and scrambling with skis on pack, because of weight and length (less awkward)
7. skiing down firm icy snow, or shallow soft snow or corn on top of firm base, because of width and camber

Longer, wider, rockered skis are better for:
8. skiing down soft deep snow, because of length, width, and rocker

Everybody wants to do #8, but the reality of spring ski mountaineering and hut to hut tours in the Alps is mostly (or often entirely) #1-7.

However, plenty of people prioritize the downhill and the chance (dream?) of powder turns enough that they make do with equipment that's not optimal for #1-7, resulting in some extra suffering for 90%+ of the trip, and potentially also some sketchy/dangerous situations.

I'd like to add some points to what longer, wider, rockered skis are good for:

9.acommodating a more centered stance and skiing style for those accustomed to that
10.skiing down funky, awkward, back country snow of all kind...from soft and heavy to hard and chunky and refrozen.
11.absorbing shock and providing a solid, supportive, damp feel, a forgiving base of support, espcially when wearing a heavy pack and or with tired legs
12.Generally safer and more enjoyable on the way down because of reasons 9-11

And so on.

The OP has expressed a preference for wider rockered centered skis with some backbone, and I don't think it will be so easy to make the transition to light, narrow, "carbony" directional touring skis. Skis like the Salomon MTN 88 or Talkback 88 are great and versatile skis for their width and weight...but they are still light, directional touring skis with little rocker at the tip and tail, especially compared to skis like the Birdie.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the OP look at mid-weight skis in the 90-100 range (or wider!) with some real tip and tail rocker. To save weight, one could go with a light binding, and a mid-weight or light-weight boot.

Yes, it will be a little more work on the up, but I think it will be safer and more enjoyable on the way down.

 

[slow-line-fast]

Between the point-counterpoint of truenorth and bruno, I agree more with truenorth, for high touring in the Alps (per the OP's question). Taking two endpoints of a spectrum, one could go on classical tours in the Alps, which thread ski routes through steep, otherwise improbably snowless terrain, or on a spring dessert in the CA Sierra.

In the Alps endpoint, the only way from A to B involves some seriously sketchy high-angle skinning up frozen spring snow at 5am. And (for whatever reason) we want to go from A to B.

In the CA Sierra endpoint, skinning up refrozen reflects poor planning. We've pitched camp in a bowl surrounded by corn-blessed slopes spanning all aspects. Skin up just behind the sun, ski down in the same way, even do it all with just a crown base pattern and no skins! A and B are irrelevant, only good skiing is. (I prefer this endpoint ;-)

But since the OP wants to do a spring tour in the Alps, go with truenorth's recommendation. Bruno's points are correct in general, but they also are not typically the most risky part of touring in the Alps.

 

[TrueNorth]

Don't get me wrong, I have mid 90's width, mid-weight skis with some tip rocker, sized just under head height, and mounted with pin bindings for all-purpose touring use, and I have happily used them on a spring hut to hut tour. However, if I had to pick a ski specifically for that, I would be inclined to go a little shorter and narrower (but not all the way to ultralight skimo race gear, and certainly not the opposite direction to fat and fully rockered).

 

[Bruno Schull]

@ slow-line-fast. I see your point. I'd just like to offer the alternative viewpoint. I think it's really important to know yourself and your sking style and preferences.

Just to be clear, I'm from the US, but I've lived in Europe for about 15 years, first in Spain (great ski touring!) and not in Switzerland (Alps!). I and ski, tour, and climb in the Alps all the time. I am not recommending wider rockered skis for dense, light, continental powder, like that found on Colorado....I'm recommending such skis for the Alps.

And this of course is simply my perspective--I know that I started to feel much safer and more comfortable when I stopped trying to make skinny light touring skis work for me, on funky snow, on glaciers, approaches in the dark, and what not. I'd be the first to admit that I'm not a classically trained or great skier. I can carve, and I love my SL skis on piste, but I also love my 108 mm rockered all mountain skis for anything and everything else.

For anybody who faces this choice, I really recommend trying a "true" ski touring set-up. I know that's not easy to manage...maybe visit somewhere with a good back country shop and rent/demo some gear? Light narrow directional ski in the 80-90...pin binding....light touring boot...full pack with water, skis, ski crampons, personal gear, food, sleeping gear, and so on. My bet is that if one is not used to such gear, it's going to feel like survival skiing...its going to be survival skiing...for quite some time. Then ask yourself...is this what I want every downhill to feel like?

Try to repeat the same with some mid-weight wider rockered skis...see how different the down feels...see how much you notice the weight on the way up.

Another whole discussion is the issue of steep ice skin tracks...I would say that a good guide should mitigate all that, and nobody shiuld feel unsafe on the way up.

B

 

[Choucas]

I’ve toured in the Ortler. As I recall, it’s more of a mountaineering trip, so the objective each day is summits. Not all summits are skiable and you’ll be reaching the summits mostly with crampons leaving skis cached below. Emphasis is on light weight and uphill mobility. The mentions of tricky skin tracks are accurate. Kick turns on icy tracks are common. Ski crampons for some sections when it’s firm in the morning. Lighter is better for all your gear. Alpinist binding is fine. Around 88mm under foot max for skis. A little tip rocker is okay. It’s a spectacular area with some very nice huts.

 

[Snowflake2420]

Thanks everyone for the response thus far! I'm hoping to demo the Camox Freebird. Majesty Superwolf also looks promising and comes in small sizes.

 

[PowHog]

Regarding the ski discussion afore:
Having toured the Ortler region it strongly depends on the routes and conditions but I'd recommend preparing for the worst. Which includes steep, icy sections on the up (eventually even with crampons on your feet) and, more important, down where the ski needs to hold a proper edge rather than float (unless you intend to climb down as well). And here narrower and stiffer is better, simple as that. Also a short turn radius/sidecut, as beneficial for carving, is less good on a steep, frozen face where rather classic hop turns dominate and maximum edge line eventually needs re-engagement right away.

On the other hand the sacrifice of float between a 90 and 96 mm waisted ski is less than many people think, particularly on the options OP mentioned.

 

[Bruno Schull]

Considering the probable/likely ice ski tracks in Ortler, I'll revise my suggestion of "wide" but I'll stay with "rockered and solid." My vote would be something like the Blizzard Sheeva 9. 90 mm underfoot, rocker at tip and tail, plenty of backbone. A ski like that will offer far more security, safety, and maneuverability compared to skis like the K2 Talkback 88, Salomon MTN 88, and Majesty Superwolf.

164 cm length weighs 1790 grams
157 cm length weighs 1630 grams

Pair that with a ightweight pin binding and a light to midweight boot with good enough ROM (like the Atomic the OP owns) and I think it would work really well.