The TGR Skinny Ski Ski Tourers' Refuge Thread

Thoughts on ~80mm wide ~1000g weight class skis for Colorado Front Range?

My current lightest and skinniest setup I have is 88mm wide and 1700g, and I am thinking I should probably go for something a bit lighter and skinnier for distant objectives on mostly packed/consolidated snow. More of an “efficient” traverse, approach, & climbing tool than a high-speed grins downhill freeride tool. Would be mostly used for approaching climbs in the Longs-Meeker Cirque and long ridge ski traverses.

For your entertainment, here is a video of Killian Journet descending the Troll Wall on X-Alps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIfhbMVN3fY

@Karl_H at that point, I would start to wonder about fishscales (Voile’s BC versions and the 1 or 2 other models out there).
Being able to save the hassle of putting skins on can be a big time and energy savings on rolling approaches or ridges.
My friend has the Objective BC, and the 1 drawback he notes is in steepish, firm side slipping, it is harder to keep going straight downt he fall line due to the scales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tjaardbreeuwer

at that point, I would start to wonder about fishscales (Voile’s BC versions and the 1 or 2 other models out there).
Being able to save the hassle of putting skins on can be a big time and energy savings on rolling approaches or ridges.

---

As someone who has tried (but never owned) several of the Voile BC models, I feel like the advantages of a scaled base are often not worth the drawbacks; with the exception of people skiing 3-pin or other dedicated freeheel setups.

The reduction in downhill glide with scaled skis is a huge drawback, IMO. Long, slightly downhill exits that are easy with well-waxed, flat base skis become more labor intensive on scaled skis. I also find that I get a lot less run out distance, when trying to carry speed from a steep descent into the flats. For AT skiing, I’d rather focus my efforts on using a narrower ski that provides less uphill skin friction. If I have to switch my boots and bindings over anyway, might as well rip skins too and get better performance across the board. That said, they could be a lot of fun (in certain terrain) with a TTS or 3-pin setup, offering way better downhill control than typical waxless nordic gear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@Tjaardbreewer:

I don’t think the fish scales is what I want. I am not anticipating a lot of rolling terrain. The valley trails tend to be pretty continuously up or down. The alpine ridge lines are generally wind swept and require frequently carrying skis on the windward side.

skis that come to mind would be salomon mtn summit (i think these can be had pretty cheap and also sure ive seen vids of these used for high altitude mounteering objectives). the atomic backland ul 78 seems like a sweet spot in the class; it can be found cheap and heard its fun (all relative) to ski but also has cap sidewall so -1 for durability. the blizzard zero g lt 80 sounds awesome and has a full sidewall i believe. i have the magico2 and its pretty rad but a bit wider at 85 underfoot.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

selling a pair of Atomic ultimate 78 (similar to the modern backland 78) skis in 170cm length for cheap ($125) if anyone is interested. Have had one mount. Listed on skimo gear swap group on FB for now, will put in TGR gear swap in a few days. Happy to send photos and more details if there is interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mantana1

selling a pair of Atomic ultimate 78 (similar to the modern backland 78) skis in 170cm length for cheap ($125) if anyone is interested. Have had one mount. Listed on skimo gear swap group on FB for now, will put in TGR gear swap in a few days. Happy to send photos and more details if there is interest.

---

Nevermind, skis already sold.

Have a pair of Helio 76's for general light & fast spring ski + occasional steeps, considering something a little wider for more float in suboptimal conditions. Purchased used a few years ago as my first lightweight touring ski, it's been a good first step but now doing enough skinny ski days I think it's worth getting something I really like.

Curious to hear from other folks who have (or have had) quiver slots in both the ~75 and 85-90mm width. How much of a difference between the two in wonky snow, and degree of tradeoff in edge hold on steeps (if any)? I'm less concerned with soft snow performance, have a pair of Ravens for midwinter touring I like a lot. Maybe these would end up going out on the longest pow days but that's not really a priority. What I hope could be improved is staying more on top of funky crusts and variable snow where I feel the Helios occasionally get sunk/stuck/locked in.

Seems like there are plenty of good options in the next width up and <= 1.2kg weight class. Alp Tracks 85/90, Zero G 85, Backland 85 UL, Blacklight 88, M-Vertical 88... all of which would add 10mm+ underfoot at the same or less weight. Am I gonna be stoked on any of these? Or is 1 cm underfoot not going to make that much of a difference and I just need to adjust expectations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deft_funk

Have a pair of Helio 76's for general light & fast spring ski + occasional steeps, considering something a little wider for more float in suboptimal conditions. Purchased used a few years ago as my first lightweight touring ski, it's been a good first step but now doing enough skinny ski days I think it's worth getting something I really like.

Curious to hear from other folks who have (or have had) quiver slots in both the ~75 and 85-90mm width. How much of a difference between the two in wonky snow, and degree of tradeoff in edge hold on steeps (if any)? I'm less concerned with soft snow performance, have a pair of Ravens for midwinter touring I like a lot. Maybe these would end up going out on the longest pow days but that's not really a priority. What I hope could be improved is staying more on top of funky crusts and variable snow where I feel the Helios occasionally get sunk/stuck/locked in.

Seems like there are plenty of good options in the next width up and <= 1.2kg weight class. Alp Tracks 85/90, Zero G 85, Backland 85 UL, Blacklight 88, M-Vertical 88... all of which would add 10mm+ underfoot at the same or less weight. Am I gonna be stoked on any of these? Or is 1 cm underfoot not going to make that much of a difference and I just need to adjust expectations?

---

Nothing that small/narrow will ski crap snow well. Backlands are the most approachable, balanced (not dumb stiff for the weight) ski in that range IMO. Mverts have a good rep but seem to be discontinued?

As an alternative, backland 78ul is a weirdly good little stick. I would never dd it though, it's a spring traverse/alpinism/volcano ski.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deft_funk

Have a pair of Helio 76's for general light & fast spring ski + occasional steeps, considering something a little wider for more float in suboptimal conditions. Purchased used a few years ago as my first lightweight touring ski, it's been a good first step but now doing enough skinny ski days I think it's worth getting something I really like.

Curious to hear from other folks who have (or have had) quiver slots in both the ~75 and 85-90mm width. How much of a difference between the two in wonky snow, and degree of tradeoff in edge hold on steeps (if any)? I'm less concerned with soft snow performance, have a pair of Ravens for midwinter touring I like a lot. Maybe these would end up going out on the longest pow days but that's not really a priority. What I hope could be improved is staying more on top of funky crusts and variable snow where I feel the Helios occasionally get sunk/stuck/locked in.

Seems like there are plenty of good options in the next width up and <= 1.2kg weight class. Alp Tracks 85/90, Zero G 85, Backland 85 UL, Blacklight 88, M-Vertical 88... all of which would add 10mm+ underfoot at the same or less weight. Am I gonna be stoked on any of these? Or is 1 cm underfoot not going to make that much of a difference and I just need to adjust expectations?

---

Maybe Marshal will do another run off C90s, surprisingly capable in all sorts of terrible snow, very good in soft snow and good grip on firm snow


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Just purchased new Stockli Stormrider Lights (78mm underfoot) for less than 3 bills. Will mount with Ion LT and inserts. Know nothing about them, but the price was right. Basically bought them for hiking to the Castle and Baldy, and pre-season hikes up Collins. Probably not a great option for one [touring] ski quiver, but might be perfect to share with inserted surfboards (like my Sanouks).

I don't have any recent experience with skis in the ~75 mm width, but I do notice a big difference between my 88 and 96 mm width skis in variable snow. For a marginal weight penalty, the 96 waist skis are so much better in punchy crusts, funky mank, and occasional powder. I do not feel they compromise in firm conditions, but I do notice a bit more torque on my hips when skinning firm crusts. Take that for what it's worth....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deft_funk

Have a pair of Helio 76's for general light & fast spring ski + occasional steeps, considering something a little wider for more float in suboptimal conditions. ... Or is 1 cm underfoot not going to make that much of a difference and I just need to adjust expectations?

---

I have no personal experience on the Helio skis but they certainly seem to favor weight savings over skiing performance in bad snow. You should gain a lot of ski-ability moving up to the 85-90mm waist category. For that reason over the last few years 90mm was my skinniest ski although I picked up some Backland 86SL this year (yet to mount them tho) as anything skinnier seems to be too big a tradeoff in performance for my spring skiing objectives. I don't think you'll lose any functional edge hold on steeps at any of these waist widths.

If you bump your weight class to 1400g you could consider skis like the Volkl BMT90 or Faction La Machine Micro. 1400g seems to be pretty magic for skiing performance but still quite light with a race style binding. If you want to stay on top of junk snow and crusts you are probably better off with minimal camber and a long sidecut like the BMT series, some of the HL, etc.

I've tried a lot of skinny skis and found that performance starts to decline much more steeply once you get below 90mm and 1300g. You really don't gain anything in terms of downhill when you go below 90mm underfoot in any backcountry conditions. I love skiing on skinny skis still, my lightest are the Atomic UL85 and they get a lot of use. I also have BMT94s and the extra 400g per ski and ~cm of width underfoot is very noticeable on the up and down. There are so many 85mm+ skis that clock in around 1kg like the Atomic and Movement 85s, that it really isn't worth saving a handful of grams to drop down below 80mm underfoot. The extra width is very noticeable and helps tremendously in wild snow.

i bought a pair of solomon summit 79 last spring to take to the sierra. Were great on corn and hard packed sucked on everything else. Would agree with Benneke10. Than I watch my son ski everything on a pair of Wasatch speed projects and maybe I just need to be a better skier.

Did anyone get out on the faction la machine micro? Those look pretty interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6ytL-tdk14 this is a review of the mini, I haven’t seen the micro reviewed.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Thanks all, super helpful.

Definitely seems like bumping up in width is the right call. And the Helio's aren't especially light (1200g I think for the 171?) especially with Backlands on them, so new setup could drop significant weight even if wider.

I'm not concerned enough about downhill performance to be all that interested in a 1400g ski for this spot in my quiver. I'm sure it goes down better, just too much overlap with my Ravens for any days I'm not as focused on the ups. There are basically zero days on the Ravens I wish for something lighter—skinny ski days are pretty clear in advance based on objective and/or touring partner so I know what to grab. And I think for these days, happiness from dropping ~1lb per foot > happiness from a damper, heavier ski. Maybe there's a future 3rd ski in the quiver in the 95-100 range and more emphasis on the down... but not what I'm after right now.

Have a fairly specific idea of what I'm looking for but not overly attached to any given ski. Figure I'll probably piece something together based on this info and keep an eye on spring sales, but if anyone's looking to unload a setup in good/very good shape (low 170's length)... I might be interested

Anyone have any days on the Blizzard Zero G 80 LT?

My wife is due some new spring/multi-day-trip skis, and these are high on the list, for ease of turning, especially in deeper snow.

What are people’s experiences with heavily rockered (Faction La Machine Mini 2) skis during kick turns?

I’m asking here, because she is coming off Fischer Hannibal 96, so want to compare to that type of ski (no tail rocker, not too wide).
Even on those skis, she sometimes has struggled (as do I) on steep, icy kick turns.

Of course, technique can overcome most issues, but we live in the Midwest, so don’t get much practice on steep, icy slopes.

The K2 Wayback would maybe be a safer bet for kick turns being a bit less rockered in the tail, and for icy skinning in general, thanks to the longer side cut, but the Machine Mini will almost certainly be looser and easier to handle in tight terrain.
Do you think there will be a noticeable difference in kick turns in hard conditions between these two? If not, I’d go for the Machines. If yes, the Waybacks will still be a big step up in “looseness” and ease of skiing in deep snow compared to the Hannibal 96.

Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tjaardbreeuwer

My wife is due some new spring/multi-day-trip skis, and these are high on the list, for ease of turning, especially in deeper snow.

What are people’s experiences with heavily rockered (Faction La Machine Mini 2) skis during kick turns?

I’m asking here, because she is coming off Fischer Hannibal 96, so want to compare to that type of ski (no tail rocker, not too wide).
Even on those skis, she sometimes has struggled (as do I) on steep, icy kick turns.

Of course, technique can overcome most issues, but we live in the Midwest, so don’t get much practice on steep, icy slopes.

The K2 Wayback would maybe be a safer bet for kick turns being a bit less rockered in the tail, and for icy skinning in general, thanks to the longer side cut, but the Machine Mini will almost certainly be looser and easier to handle in tight terrain.
Do you think there will be a noticeable difference in kick turns in hard conditions between these two? If not, I’d go for the Machines. If yes, the Waybacks will still be a big step up in “looseness” and ease of skiing in deep snow compared to the Hannibal 96.

Thanks!

---

K2 Wayback for the win. Don't overthink it 4 her... Just go with the predictable vanilla ice cream option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tjaardbreeuwer

My wife is due some new spring/multi-day-trip skis, and these are high on the list, for ease of turning, especially in deeper snow.

What are people’s experiences with heavily rockered (Faction La Machine Mini 2) skis during kick turns?

I’m asking here, because she is coming off Fischer Hannibal 96, so want to compare to that type of ski (no tail rocker, not too wide).
Even on those skis, she sometimes has struggled (as do I) on steep, icy kick turns.

Of course, technique can overcome most issues, but we live in the Midwest, so don’t get much practice on steep, icy slopes.

The K2 Wayback would maybe be a safer bet for kick turns being a bit less rockered in the tail, and for icy skinning in general, thanks to the longer side cut, but the Machine Mini will almost certainly be looser and easier to handle in tight terrain.
Do you think there will be a noticeable difference in kick turns in hard conditions between these two? If not, I’d go for the Machines. If yes, the Waybacks will still be a big step up in “looseness” and ease of skiing in deep snow compared to the Hannibal 96.

Thanks!

---

K2 Wayback for the win. Don't overthink it 4 her... Just go with the predictable vanilla ice cream option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tjaardbreeuwer

My wife is due some new spring/multi-day-trip skis, and these are high on the list, for ease of turning, especially in deeper snow.

What are people’s experiences with heavily rockered (Faction La Machine Mini 2) skis during kick turns?

I’m asking here, because she is coming off Fischer Hannibal 96, so want to compare to that type of ski (no tail rocker, not too wide).
Even on those skis, she sometimes has struggled (as do I) on steep, icy kick turns.

Of course, technique can overcome most issues, but we live in the Midwest, so don’t get much practice on steep, icy slopes.

The K2 Wayback would maybe be a safer bet for kick turns being a bit less rockered in the tail, and for icy skinning in general, thanks to the longer side cut, but the Machine Mini will almost certainly be looser and easier to handle in tight terrain.
Do you think there will be a noticeable difference in kick turns in hard conditions between these two? If not, I’d go for the Machines. If yes, the Waybacks will still be a big step up in “looseness” and ease of skiing in deep snow compared to the Hannibal 96.

Thanks!

---

I would not sweat the minis, they are not heavily rockered and are kinda more similar than different compared to wayback 96s. They are very much two takes on a similar ski. The minis are bit softer underfoot with more splay in both ends to enable them to pivot more easily while making them quicker to turn than their very long radius would indicate (I am guessing, just trying to make the graphic make sense). The Waybacks are a bit more traditional with a directional mount point and flex pattern, and a design were a slightly tighter sidecut is meant to pull you a bit more into the turn. I do not think there will be much daylight between them wrt kick turn prowess - the 2cm mount point difference is pretty negliable and made up for by the minis increassed tail splay.

I did not find the same type of graphic for Fischer Hannibal 96s, but if their wider 106 counterpart is any indication then the 96s are more similar to waybacks, just stiffer. Stiffer is not necessarily better, rounder and smoother is better imho - I think that is the main difference nowadays, a lot of brands have figured out how to make skis that are light yet surprisingly smooth.

https://www.datocms-assets.com/55942...2wayback98.jpghttps://www.datocms-assets.com/55942...chine2mini.jpg

I would go with the minis as their shape seems a bit more permissive of an upright stance and in that they look a bit more balanced, while the waybacks are fairly traidional (which is a very good thing in the touring segment).

Völkl BMT90s is a similar type of ski that is just great. Could be hard to find, and they can be fair bit more expensive too.

Thanks folks!
The Hannibal’s are quite different: very traditional shape, almost no tail rocker and minimal tail taper too, so yes either of these will be a lot looser ski, which will be more similar to her inbounds skis (K2 Fullavit).

@Kid_kapow, thanks for digging up those graphics.
I had seen the Mini specs on that Swedish site, but had compared it to specs from Soothski for the Waybacks. That got me very different numbers, probably due to how they measure rocker length.
The turn radius is interesting, published specs (at Skimo) have the Wayback listed much longer than the Mini.

Anyone have experience with Ski Trab skis? I found a good deal on some Sinestis (171 x 75mm) mounted with ATKs that seem like they could be good for fitness / long days in flat or good snow. Construction is similar to Magicos (14 layer with a carbon cap) but narrower and a little heavier. They have limited reviews but folks seem to like Trab skis for their durability.