Well the space blanket on the liners definitely did insulated my feet better. They are starting to wear a bit (which I expected) but not too bad. Will upload photos later.
Printable View
Well the space blanket on the liners definitely did insulated my feet better. They are starting to wear a bit (which I expected) but not too bad. Will upload photos later.
Could there be a chance that the boot is too narrow/tight somewhere and restricting blood flow? The liner is actually decent for 1kg boot but it pinched my foot so badly, I sold before punching like crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalNomad
Big toe is a little cramped but this is one of the only boots that doesn't crush the shit of out my instep (which is one of the key areas for hot blood to go to your foot). There is a few local/close enough shops that are willing to punch the cf plastic in these so want to get just a smidge of a medial punch on the big toe and see if I can convince them to do a little punch on the most rearward section of my 5th metatarsal since that's the only other area that bothers me. The heel and cuff fit is awesome which is usually a challenge for my foot. Zero hot spots on our 7m 3k approach with a 45lb pack.Quote:
Originally Posted by djhutch
Looking to build out a setup for long tours in the sierras this spring. Also flexible enough for big winter missions. My heavy setup is a 4frnt Raven 190cm.
I like to ski aggressivly down the fall line. Typically in bigger radius turns and have fun on the runouts, but will dial it back a bit if I'm many miles into the woods. I havent skied anything under 100mm waist or shorter than 190cm in...a decade?
I'm looking at at the Atomic Backland 85, the Blizzard ZeroG 85 and Zero G 95... Any thoughts on these as potential options? Or something else I should look at?
Thanks!
Alex
That sounds like a zero g might be a good candidate. Light and stiff and like to be skied aggressively.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisAintCheckerz
I have an older generation zero g 95 that I want to sell (cheap) if you are interested.
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
Yeah the ZeroG 95 is definitely a pretty amazing ski for how light it is vs how damp it feels.
Another vote for the Zero G 95. I also have ravens also and find that they complement each other well. If I expect 3-D snow I take the Ravens, 2-D snow, I’ll take the Zero G.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The zero g 95 seems like a good pick. I'm 215 and they will likely be my next "skinny" touring ski.
The zero g 85 is considerably softer and friendlier than the 95.
The backland 85 is also likely to be overpowered by a large human. I haven't skied the backland 95, but i believe it's the stiffest of the narrow backlands (vs 85 and 100)
I have tried pretty much all the skinny skis. For the most part, they all have too much sidecut and get hooked up in weird snow, and most have very stiff, punishing tails. The only skinny ski that will ski like a Raven is the discontinued Volkl BMT 94, but you can find a used pair of 186s if you look (176 are almost impossible to find). The upcoming Heritage Lab C90 is also very promising. The Down LD90 is nice, I found the tails to be too stiff but I had to mount forward due to a hole conflict and I only weigh 145lbs. While I think the BMT 94 is an excellent ski, I like having something closer to 1kg and I've found the Atomic Backland UL85 to be the least-bad 1kg ski because it has a nice round flex and relatively low camber. I haven't skied the Backland 95 but I found the Backland 100 to have a very punishingly stiff tail, the Backland UL85 is a much better ski for lighter skiers.
Question on boot/ski compatibility - recently skiied Down CD102L w/ LS Skorpius, which I've found to be fine on corn and pow. In breakable/heavy windslab really struggled to get the skis to turn in a way that made the skiing not fun, surprising for a ski w/ a 25m turning radius, and not experienced with the same ski and ZGTP. The question is, would that kind of problem be mitigated by a shorter/softer ski with the same boot? Or, is that just part of the compromise with a soft boot.
My mid-winter touring setup is significantly heavier and fatter, but skis great in any sort of bad snow like that.
My bad-snow setup is Dynafit Beast 108 with LS Skorpius. I could probably ski a bit better with a 4-buckle but the Beast is a very friendly ski that releases easily in all types of snow. You can ski fat skis with light boots in all snow types if they are friendly shapes, but you can't go as fast as you would on a bigger boot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Backward_Banana
I like the backland 95 a lot, i weigh 220 pounds with my touring gear though. I have the 177 and it’s stable enough for any speed i’m interested in going in weird snowQuote:
Originally Posted by Benneke10
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
At risk of drifting from skinny ski discussion….Quote:
Originally Posted by Benneke10
Blister said this about the Backland 107 as well and after two years on a pair I have no idea WTF they were talking about
I think that the recommended mount points on the Backland 100 and 107 are way too far forward, which results in the tail feeling too stiff or unruly, especially with lighter boots. I moved my bindings 2cm back on my 100’s and found it completely changed the feel of the ski. Much friendlier now, and better behaved in 3-D snow.Quote:
Originally Posted by dcpnz
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The 100 and 107 are very different skis. The 107 is a much more forgiving, playful ski than the 100. Even mounted behind the line the 100 just does not like to make turns at slower speeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by dcpnz
I’m wondering if you’re to light for the backland 100? I’m 180 and feel like the 100 is super easy to get along with. I mounted 1.5 behind the line. I use the 100 for my touring far when I don’t know what kind of snow I’m going to encounter ski. Really enjoy it for a wide range of conditions and for it weight to width it’s pretty darn good. I really like how the ski can ski pretty loose with tips and tails pretty heavily detuned. Take all this with a huge grain of salt though cause it’s all just my opinion;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Benneke10
I gave up on owning anything under 100 underfoot a few years ago with our shit snow pack.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I don't think the Backland 100 are bad skis, I think the shape and weight are very nice and there aren't many any skis in that weigh class that I would say are significantly better. I just felt that they were much more demanding than my BMT 94s and even the Backland UL85.
The backland 100 handles very similarly to a ZeroG 95 IME. The 2nd gen and current versions do, at least.
The 1st gen Zero G was a lot looser than all three of those IME. I’m looking at mine now, and the camber has faded so much that they look like a flat ski with early rise tip and tails. It’s a closer rocker pattern to my BC Daemon’s than my newer Zero G’s.
I think the Backland 100 would be absolutely dreamy in its current construction, but with a low splay, rocker/flat/rocker profile like this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ah, that makes sense. For sure the bmt 94 is easier. I loved that ski, but my well over used knees had to go back to camber for a little added suspension [emoji22] BMT 94 was such a sick ski, bummer they quit making it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benneke10
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I'll second the 85 UL being a nice, predictable ski for the weight. I prefer progressively mounted skis, am skiing these on the line and am not experiencing any notable issues in anything but breakable crust which was to be expected anyway. Pleasantly surprised, I'm using them way more than i anticipated.
This prob belongs here more than anywhere else; wildsnow was purchased by the quacks who run bikerumor and gearjunkie.
https://allgeardigital.com/
My assumption is that it is effectively dead. RIP.
Interesting. Wasn’t it sold to Cripple Creek a few years ago?
It’s still better than Outside buying it… watching what they’ve done to Cycling Tips has been a bit upsetting. It went from the best content out there to garbage pretty quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westcoaster
Wow, wildly different takes on the backlands.
Again, I'm 215lbs... I own and have skied (a lot) the 188cm 100 and the 189cm 107. I find the 100 to be by far the easier ski. I'm also mounted back 1.5. I really enjoy the 100 but find it slightly on the soft side in the tip and a bit lacking in edge hold when things get very steep and firm. That said I have really enjoyed it as my spring do everything ski in the eastern sierra. Enough that I'm pretty torn about replacing it with something else.
The 107 I mounted right on the line and perhaps I should have gone back on that as well. The tail on the 189 107 is pretty legit. Very fun when it's launching you out of turns on perfect corn, but a handful when you get into any kind of funky crusts. It's light, energetic and floats well for it's size, but I personally would not call it playful outside of those characteristics. It feels very directional and likes to be on edge. Unless you're in consistent pow. Then it loosens up a fair amount.
Cool, everyone should be sufficiently confused about these skis now, lol.
FYI, wild snow discussion also got restarted here, a few more comments…
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...d-alternatives
Ahh sorry I missed itQuote:
Originally Posted by tang