European Hut Trip / Ski Mountaineering Set Up

[charlier]

Any thoughts on the Black Crowd Camox Freebird?
It’s 97mm, about 1500gms in 178

James, I used to ski on the Camox, as a work ski. I really liked the ski - poppy with a stiff tail, that carried me through my turns. For ski touring, I prefer I lighter ski, at least for volcano skiing. That said, I thought that the Camox was a really nice ski, same for the Corvus Freebird. Given the costs and if you do not care about weight, consider Ripstick 96 or 106. For Euro spring touring, go with the narrow waist ski, for sure. At least that is my personal preference.

 

[slow-line-fast]

I was able to demo the Völkl Blaze 94 W 158 cm today and was really impressed. I skied in the resort today with spring conditions and saw just about everything except breakable crust. The rocker lines are quite deep, but on the subtle side. The ski held an edge well and had a high enough speed limit for me, quick edge to edge. Definitely interested in this as a touring ski. I was surprised the very directional mount didn't bother me at all and worked perfectly with the ski shape.

Great that you like the Blaze. 94 underfoot and good edge grip would do fine on an Alps tour. Though there are lighter options - if you get the chance it would be well worth testing some of Völkl’s touring skis, since you like the Blaze. I’m not familiar with them, but probably others here are.

 

[PowHog]

Great that you like the Blaze. 94 underfoot and good edge grip would do fine on an Alps tour. Though there are lighter options - if you get the chance it would be well worth testing some of Völkl’s touring skis, since you like the Blaze. I’m not familiar with them, but probably others here are.

Völkl touring skis always came with a stiffer flex which is not a bad thing imo. Not sure about today's options though.

 

[Snowflake2420]

I was able to pick up the Blaze 94 W cheap at an end of season sale. I'm going to hold onto them for next season and see what I decide. I would like to demo the Camox Freebird and see if I like how they ski.

Going to a Blaze 94 + Alpinist would shave at least a pound off my current set up and if I commit to a week long hut trip I'd probably lighten my boots too.

 

[Slim]

I was able to pick up the Blaze 94 W cheap at an end of season sale. I'm going to hold onto them for next season and see what I decide. I would like to demo the Camox Freebird and see if I like how they ski.

Going to a Blaze 94 + Alpinist would shave at least a pound off my current set up and if I commit to a week long hut trip I'd probably lighten my boots too.

Cool! And remember, the shorter, narrower skins will save even more weight. Lighter and smaller skins not only save weight(effort) on the ascent, but also weight(balance) and pack space on the descent. So unlike skis and boots, lighter is always a benefit for skins.

Besides the weight savings, I would imagine the better edge grip on firm side hills will make life more comfortable there, the shorter length will make kickturns easier, and boot packs too.

Then add the fact that a shorter, narrower ski lets you use a lighter weight boot, with better walk mode, and I would have to think the total set up would be a LOT more fun/easier to use on the ascents/traverses on firm snow.

I write this having just finished 4 days of spring skiing in 105mm wide skis with Zero G Pro Tour boots. With moderate tours and cool temps, we never had to skin on hard frozen snow, nor did we go long or steep, but o could see the appeal.

 

[Rod9301]

I don't think narrower shorter skis will allow softer lighter boots.

 

[Slim]

I don't think narrower shorter skis will allow softer lighter boots.

No? That’s an interesting thought.
It seems a super wide spread practice by many, many people, including testers trying many different boots and skis.

I must confess, I have certainly never tried it myself, but it sounds reasonable to me: less leverage needed to pressure the edges/tip of the smaller ski, means less stiffness in the boot.

 

[Rod9301]

It's not just pressuring the tips though.

In uneven snow,a soft boot will pitch you forward when encountering denser snow.

Same with skiing breakable crust.

In perfect powder or smooth corn, sure you can get away with a soft boot, but most of my bc days are in bad or at least not ideal snow.

 

[locknload]

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.

Very succinctly stated and summarized.

 

[SBrown]

It's not just pressuring the tips though.

In uneven snow,a soft boot will pitch you forward when encountering denser snow.

Same with skiing breakable crust.

In perfect powder or smooth corn, sure you can get away with a soft boot, but most of my bc days are in bad or at least not ideal snow.

Thank you. This has been my internal conflict all day after purchasing some lighter boots. I am heading to France next March, and have been trying to figure out the balance here. The plan is to do a variety of touring, and I already have a BIG setup (Kore 117s/Shifts/XTD 120s) if that's necessary (praying to the snow gods already), but working on the little setup now.

I do want lighter boots for ups. Just need to match skis. Looking at the Superwolfs, as well as Movement Alps Tracks 95 (insert drool emoji) and Backland 95. Trying to figure out length is the hardest. I just don't think I can go down to 169.

 

[Primoz]

My personally preference, even for skiing super steep stuff, which doesn't really fit into ski touring anymore, and what most of people don't even look at, even less ski it, is always get longest skis they make. If you don't plan to sideslip down some very very narrow couloirs, where 186cm (which is currently my shortest ski touring ski... I just broke my 88mm 182cm long light and fast spring setup) can actually mean you are not going to fit between rocks on each side of couloir, while with 160cm you could (I never ski that kind of stuff as side slipping that kind of terrain doesn't make fun for me), then longer ski is always better option.
As for 117s.... you can easily leave those at home, as it's way overkill for ski touring. Sure you can easily have heavy dump in Alps in march, where these skis would come handy, but it's just way too heavy to tour with. Most of tours in Alps are 1000+ meters of ascend, and getting up to 2000 or 3000m of ascend in single tour is nothing special. Dragging up super wide skis with heavy bindings is not that much of fun. Personally, I ski most of winter on 106mm (188cm long) with Dynafit Speed Turn binding, including those days with 1.5m fresh snow. My 125mm (190cm) planks are there only for times when I go with lifts, as they are simply too heavy for touring. So if you plan touring exclusively with no lifts, then you can easily leave those at home.

 

[Nobody]

I agree with @Primoz , whilst a 11x+ waisted ski has a "cool" factor (and one can ski it in the Alps as well) a thinly waisted ski is more than enough 97% of the times here for AT activities. My powder skis are 106 mm waisted 10 yrs old Gotama with AT Baron bindings. Perfectly fine in the kind of snow I get at my resort, both on piste and off. This said, skins (which I do have, of course) are there for emergency only, the setup is still a bit too heavy for my liking, performing "regular" AT activities (with Tecnica Zero G GP). If you plan ski touring @SBrown, then 88-95 (at the really maxmax) should do the trick, and offer versatility (not uncommon for ppl here skin up in 78 waisted skis or even in race equipment, which is currently all the rage) what lenght, it depends on you. Me, I am targeting a 177 cm long, 88-95 waisted, witch specific bindings and boots; but first, wife needs to have her knee mended, then we will take on AT heads on, both of us.

 

[Nobody]

Also, since given the present situation, AT has become THE preferred activity on the mountains. Renting shops have equipped themselves to follow the "fashion", I think you should find enough offerings for renting skis/skin combo, netx year. If you know whee you are heading, surf the net for rental shops in the area which offer AT setups. This way, if you are not satisfied with a setup/waist/lenght choice, you can swtich is easily by going back to the shop and changing equipment... Boots, OTOH, I would mosdef take my own.

 

[SBrown]

As for 117s.... you can easily leave those at home, as it's way overkill for ski touring. Sure you can easily have heavy dump in Alps in march, where these skis would come handy, but it's just way too heavy to tour with. Most of tours in Alps are 1000+ meters of ascend, and getting up to 2000 or 3000m of ascend in single tour is nothing special. Dragging up super wide skis with heavy bindings is not that much of fun. Personally, I ski most of winter on 106mm (188cm long) with Dynafit Speed Turn binding, including those days with 1.5m fresh snow. My 125mm (190cm) planks are there only for times when I go with lifts, as they are simply too heavy for touring. So if you plan touring exclusively with no lifts, then you can easily leave those at home.

They aren't for touring! At least anything long ... I'll be over there a month, and plan on some lifts or other mechanized possibilities in addition to human-powered. As it gets closer and the itinerary is finalized, I may leave them home, certainly.

 

[Slim]

Which lighter boots did you get @SBrown ?

 

[SBrown]

Which lighter boots did you get @SBrown ?

The Backland Carbons. (I already have Atomic Ultra XTDs, they felt fairly similar.)

 

[Slim]

The Backland Carbons. (I already have Atomic Ultra XTDs, they felt fairly similar.)

I tried those on last year. With a slightly beefier liner in them, they felt like they were made for my foot, amazing fit for me. And the walk mode is fantastic.
I just didn’t dare commit to them, since I am 6’5”, 180lbs and have 106mm X 186cm skis, and not the greatest technique, I worried that in tough snow, they would make life to hard in the descents for me.

They should make a great boot quiver combined with the XTD!

My 10 year old has the Backland Ultimate, and they worked great for her, super walk mode and plenty of support to ski (and with a beefier liner in them, she has some give off the top of the flex too)

 

[SBrown]

I tried those on last year. With a slightly beefier liner in them, they felt like they were made for my foot, amazing fit for me. And the walk mode is fantastic.
I just didn’t dare commit to them, since I am 6’5”, 180lbs and have 106mm X 186cm skis, and not the greatest technique, I worried that in tough snow, they would make life to hard in the descents for me.

I hear that -- nowhere near 6'5", but have a similar inseam haha. I tried some Scarpas, too, and they were noticeably lower in the cuff. (Plus, didn't fit as well in the foot.) I imagine I will end up with some other liners, helping beef it up and extend the cuff.

 

[SBrown]

I agree with @Primoz , whilst a 11x+ waisted ski has a "cool" factor (and one can ski it in the Alps as well) a thinly waisted ski is more than enough 97% of the times here for AT activities. My powder skis are 106 mm waisted 10 yrs old Gotama with AT Baron bindings. Perfectly fine in the kind of snow I get at my resort, both on piste and off. This said, skins (which I do have, of course) are there for emergency only, the setup is still a bit too heavy for my liking, performing "regular" AT activities (with Tecnica Zero G GP). If you plan ski touring @SBrown, then 88-95 (at the really maxmax) should do the trick, and offer versatility (not uncommon for ppl here skin up in 78 waisted skis or even in race equipment, which is currently all the rage) what lenght, it depends on you. Me, I am targeting a 177 cm long, 88-95 waisted, witch specific bindings and boots; but first, wife needs to have her knee mended, then we will take on AT heads on, both of us.

This reminded me of my first "touring" experience in Europe, 12 yr ago or so -- it was just traversing (no free heel) and side stepping, but my 94mm Auras didn't fit in the tracks! Talk about big fat American....

 

[Primoz]

@SBrown still not much different nowadays I'm pretty sure more then 50% (I would be probably safe to say more then 70%) of people still use super narrow touring skis designed 30 years ago. At least around here (Slovenia, Austria, Germany, Italy) ski touring is mainly about going up, and then somehow, anyhow, getting down alive. I was never fan of narrow stuff, as except for weight, you don't really get anything over let's say 94-96mm skis, even though my 88mm were super nice for spring skiing, as they were really light... obviously too light for my way of skiing But even with those 88mm, I had most of time issues fitting into tracks With huge powder dumps in middle of winter, I'm always swearing about people going up with "xc skis", when I try to get into track with my regular 106mm