Printable View
Has anybody used reverse camber skis for touring? Or is it even possible? If not what could be done to make it work? I've always thought that touring turns are the hardest you'll ever work for so you want to have the best/most fun ski possible for reaping the rewards. Any thoughts...
paging upallnight, who apparently is not living up to his name....
{insert template answer}
oh, wait...i need to save a template for this.
short answer: if your tour involves skinning, touring on a heavy reverse camber ski is dumb (Spats). if your tour involves some bootpack/steep hiking, then it's slightly less dumb.
lighter reverse camber skis (e.g. Lotus 138 + Armada ARG) would make skinning more palatable than using a Spat....but they're still damn heavy skis.
you'll sink less if breaking trail in deeeeep pow, but that is likely to be more than offset by the inefficiency of (1) having very heavy skis for touring and (2) all the snow that will collect on the huge topsheet surface.
note: for shits and giggles, i've skinned with Spats a couple times (forget about sidehilling!)...and i'm psyched on the performance of reverse camber skis on the way down + lifts + tours where you're just hiking.
if you want to suffer the most for "the most fun" on the way down, you might want to consider it.
for me, humbly, there's a balance between speed of ascent and fun on the descent. you can have plenty of fun in deep untracked snow on skis other than the Spat, et. al., and you might find that you do 3 laps because you're not so spent after one with a super-heavy ski (whether it's RC or not).
that help? :D
i need to change my handle to "sleepsalot"...then maybe the power of suggestion will work to help me get to bed.
I gotta think skinning on a steep skin track would suck also because way less of the skin would actually touch the snow
indeed. the only value/benefit would be for breaking trail in super-deep snow. that said, if i were behind someone breaking trail on Spats, it'd be super easy to motor around them... the said Spat-user wouldn't be breaking trail for long.Quote:
Originally Posted by trouble
forget about using them on any established track.
PS when soul_skier says "jump", i say "how high?"
There's quite a slog in to one of the runs Brownmonkey and I were skiing in Alpe d'Huez thsi year. He was breaking trail on some Bro Models. I was breaking sweat with the Spats behind. In short, the Spats were heavy, loads of snow collected on the top sheets, they're a bitch as soon as you're sidehilling on anything firm, they won't fit in an established skin track and they'll leave you so knackered at the end of it you won't have the juice to enjoy the run.Quote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
So don't do it. At least not with Spatulas.
shit roo, i was going to try skinning with some spats this winter, but i've always been pretty terrified of getting knackered
I've been curious about this as well since i have some Lotus 138's that i was planning on mounting with AT bindings. The last two years I've toured on by Big Daddies and those were nice and light after a few years on my Head M103's. I'm not a huge bc guy, but i usually have about 25 days a year with most days getting about 7,000 to 10,000 feet of elevation/day and i'm used to climbing on big heavy boards with snow on top of them.
This thread has me guessing my logic a little more, but here were my ideas:
- I've seen 130mm skins and also the split board tractor skins, so the base vs. skin coverage is not a issue.
-Traversing across the slope, my thinking is that a spatula is truly reverse camber, which I can see the difficulty. The Lotus actually has a very slight, but normal side cut so it should be easier to pressure for most of the 1645mm running length.
-The softer tip for plaining on the Lotus should assist with trail breaking.
-snow on top shouldn't be much worse than BD's or M103's should it?
I might be totally underestimating things here, but I just don't see how they will be harder to ski on than my current BD's.
If you think BDs are "light" skis, then you'll have no issue with touring on dps.Quote:
Originally Posted by grooveninja
The truth is, I don't know anyone who has 10k vert days of skinning with skis in that weight range...but if you're that guy, you'll have no trouble.
The 138s are at least 3 pounds lighter than Spats, which makes a huge difference. The Lotuses are in the range of "heavy" skis (light for the size, though!).
Hauling Spats all over is a PITA, but oh so worth it on the descent. I ski @ Alpine, and so spend most of my days in side-country, which means a lot of traversing, side-stepping, hiking, and skating to get to where ya want to go...and the Spats are heavy and that metal top sheet is a fricking tractor magnet for snow (btw, anyone got any secrets here? do you wax your top sheets?)....but like i said, as much as a I sweat, swear and bitch baut hauling these heavy mo fo's all over Alpine, they are worth the extra effort once you get to where you want to go...
As for skinning with these, never. I have a dedicated AT rig w/PR's/Fritschis/Denalis for anything that requires more than 30 mins of touring.....
My Spats have P12s
My Gotamas have the Naxos
I'll cart my Spats on hike to for sure.
Are you certain you didn't just describe a splitboard?Quote:
Originally Posted by bad_roo
You actually wasted a pair of skins for spatulas for a few days?Quote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
i wouldnt tour on 138's, those skis just demand a rock solid alpine binder to tear shit up on, but when i get the money to get some 120's also, im definitley mounting my nx21s on them for super deep days when i have extra time cause, for me at least, the weight usually isnt a factor as to whether ill make it to my goal or not, its just about how long it takes, so if im not in a rush to beat the CO heat, the 120's and naxo combo should certainly be treating me well.(wow, that was a long sentence)
no. i may be dumb but not *that* dumb. i used skins i had from other skis, as i knew it would only be temporary. the skins weren't the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by powderface
couloirman...sounds like you've been riding the 138s, yeah?Quote:
Originally Posted by couloirman
i'm going to put Fritschis on my 138s and Dynafits on my 120s (current plan). not sure that full-on alpine bindings are required for tearing shit up (esp for a powder ski)...except for maybe some race/ice skis.
the extra weight just means more time on the tour, true....but it also means fewer laps...or going further so you've got more untracked or a longer ride down. or getting back to some beer & the hot tub/hot spring faster.
what doesn't kill you...
...tearing shit up on AT bindings since '96...
Would a 193 EHP be better than a lotus/spat/arg in theory? Im considering that ski with some naxos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
Not yet, i placed my order two weeks ago and am waiting on them, but i have fondeled a pair before.
i'm sure the 193 ehp weighs less than a Spat, but let's be honest...touring on any of those skis is slow as hell as they're all on the heavy side of the spectrum (not arguing whether they're light for their size).Quote:
Originally Posted by FREESKIER_FIVE-0
you're really not going to go that far.
a ski that has a slightly more traditional shape will hold a little better sidehilling, but it will still have some trouble on an established skin track due to the reverse camber.
the main issue is that these skis are not only heavy (esp the Spat), but they also wind up accumulating alot of snow on top.
Is the ride down fun? Sure! But you're gonna be tired, not go as far, not last as long, etc. If you can do a steep bootpack, yep, strap 'em to your pack and go. Skinning? Not so much.
Also...keep in mind that folks on this board have way different views of what makes up a "tour". I'm talking getting out there and skinning a few miles and few thousand vert, at least. Sidecountry hits, lift-served, car shuttles are a different sport, IMHO.
not sure if this will work on spats, but pam or WD40 is what we use to keep the snow off our metal snow plows.
didja get any new, updated ETA? last i heard was just "october". it's killing me!Quote:
Originally Posted by couloirman
why would you say that the 138s *demand* an alpine binding more than the 120s? they're both huge skis.
one could argue that the 138 is even more of a pow/soft-snow exclusive ski than the slightly more versatile 120s (based on dimensions), meaning it'd likely be the other way around -- if either of them even do *demand* an alpine binding.
you'll find me charging on them up here in NW wyoming...on full AT setups, inbounds and outtabounds.
(you might be right...but i'm just curious as to why you're making the statement. we'll know the answer in a few months.)
Thanks. My "tours" are not really long tours at all. Im mostly resort backcountry and sidecountry near a small resort. I can always go super-light tele/cross country on those uber long tours. I also just like to get up the mountain again to get back to a friends sled. But the EHP also only has tail rocker, or so i think, so I assume it would be a little bit better than the other skis that have tip rocker too. I think that this could be for me, but i can see why it would be somewhat impracticle for someone like you who is doing long tours. Gracious mang.Quote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
upallnight-
Oh, and what, may i ask, is your preferable AT setup/setups?