Printable View
If this has been discussed I missed it and couldn't find it in the search.
My touring skis are 193 which is in line with the rest of my skis. But someone on here said they go shorter with their touring skis. Kinda makes sense. Better in couloirs, lighter, easier to manage on tired legs, easier to do kickturns. Main downside is not as stable but I don't really ski wide open when I'm touring. Who's skiing shorter touring skis compared to their resort skis? Who's not and why not?
everyone (i know) is skiing slightly shorter skis touring than inbounds. you very rarely are charging hard while touring (unless you're boissal, and i think he even skis shorter), they're lighter weight, more maneuverable, better for kick turns, quicker in really tight trees, etc. i ski 185-189 inbounds and 171-183 touring, for the most part (there are exceptions). ymmv though.Quote:
Originally Posted by brundo
Not me. But I have a 36” inseam, and kick turns have always been easy for me.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Most lightweight touring skis have flat tails and traditional mounts so they ski way longer than the dual rocker progressive mount skis most of us use inbounds. My eurotrash lighweight 170 touring skis don't feel that much shorter than my 180+ inbounds skis and they have just as much ski in front of the binding
I have a couple of setups that are really too long, 190+ is too long for 5'8" / 165lbs but they are fairly soft, were used and were a smokin deal
but 182 works better
I would say down a size is easier to handle
It’s these reasons that I went shorter for my touring setup too (184cm BG 108 Tours vs 189-191cm inbounds skis). The other reason was to “force” myself not to take as many chances or ski as hard in the BC as I can get away w/ inbounds too.Quote:
Originally Posted by tgapp
yeah also it depends on the ski/terrain choice. if i only had ONE touring ski it would be right around 180 for me, but because touring is my primary form of recreation, i have different skis for different touring quiver slots - 171, 176, 180, 181, 183, 189. i spend the most time on my 176s (volkl BMT 94s) and my 181s (down CD104Ls). the downs are close enough to be a quiver of one ski for me, but i suppose if i was skiing a bunch of wide open stuff and charging all the time, i wouldn't mind sizing up, but there hasn't been a compelling reason to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by MHSP1497
Clearly in the minority here, but I like my touring skis long (Kootenay tree skiing). Not sure what you guys are doing on your kickturns but they aren't a problem for me with a 30" inseam on touring skis ranging from 185-190 with a variety of different mount points and different tail rocker profiles.
I guess all the years learning to kickturn on forward mounted fully cambered 190s with the alpine boot + pivots + day wreckers taught me something. Or maybe I just don't know what I'm missing.
In my current quiver my inbounds skis are 185-190 and my touring skis are 178. For everything on the uphill this is an advantage, and I have had fun on that setup the last 3 seasons. I'm not sure what it is this season but I really want bigger touring skis. I have been skiing in the backcountry less than normal for a number of reasons, so maybe I just need to get used to the setup again but going from stiff boots and 190s to soft boots and 178s had been annoying this year. I think it also has to do with my new touring partners being on burlier setups than me. I will probably get a 185ish touring setup for next season.
Mine are pretty in line. Resort skis are 196, 2x193 and a pair of race carvers at 184. Touring skis are both 192. I dunno, kick turns are a non issue for me and the weight savings of sizing down isn't worth the change in ski behavior. It's a highly personal choice though.
I have two touring setups. The old one and the new one.
Old one is 180cm, x 102mm. Skis great down. A bit heavy on the up, but manageable for strong legs. I love these skis.
New one is 170cm x 85mm. I got the skis because I'm dealing with a hip injury, and the lighter weight (due both to shorter length and narrower waist) helps a lot. I like these skis a lot. I love them on the up and on groomers. Everywhere else - they work.
Last weekend I found some knee deep powder on the skinny skis. It worked. Would have been more fun on the fat skis. But it was still fun.
also maybe worth mentioning that it would be helpful to know who you get advice from.
me: not really an inbounds (or a particularly strong) skier, but i do love long walks, all the time. 4-8k feet is a "normal" length of a tour
those other dudes on long sticks(probably): way better skiers than i am, but they might not like walking or suffering as much as i do
Inbounds I know all the turns I need to make, out of bounds I usually don't know what all the turns are so an easier ski to turn means i hit less trees
Shorter it is! I'm not seeing (much of) a downside to going shorter if you aren't charging
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Go short?
Midwinter- No thanks, short is the last thing I want skiing bigger terrain and deeper snow in the backcountry. When conditions dictate staying off of avalanche terrain, bigger is better.
Spring- Yep, 6-10 cm shorter makes sense.
Don't understand the kick turn thing either but I'm long legged. I guess I could see it if you are smaller and ski the longest lengths inbounds. If you're a big dude, I feel like most of the longest lengths now are proportionally pretty small anyway.
I see what you did there...Quote:
Originally Posted by tgapp
I did ski 194s for years at the resort and have been shortening things a bit for touring but that's more about availability than anything else. I toured on the 190 Lotus120 for years and loved every minute of it. Now I'm on 189 or 187 because that's what Down is making. I'm happy with it and I bet if I skied the 181 CD104L I'd be annoyed and would like to go back to the longer ones. I had 2 pairs of skis under 180 and did not like them. It might not have been entirely about the length but it was a strong contributor.
My main touring partner is a 50 year old guy who's about 5'8" and maybe 130 lbs with packs and boots. Very serious racing background, he's easily one of 10 best skiers in the 'satch, watching him ski is awe-inspiring. He's on 188 skis no matter where we go and it seems to be working really well for him, even when it's sphincter-tightening steep / super tight / bulletproof.
To me length has a limited influence on weight (girth is more important on that front), a very limited influence on kickturnability (that's all about mounting point and your own balance, Fullstop is 100% right on this), and small influence on maneuverability/responsiveness (as long as we're staying reasonable and not talking about a 5'6" skier on a pair of 204), and a MASSIVE influence on float, stability at speed, ability to handle variable snow, ability to rescue your ass from back-seat excursions, etc... It's a no brainer in my book.
TL;DR: pick a tool that works for what you want to do (and be a dick about it).
Edit: jeebus tgapp, the vert spray is getting out of hand with you. Big days are perfectly doable on skis longer than 175. And if you suffer after 8k on those chopsticks and slippers you call skis and boots you're doing it wrong :biggrin:
I actulay have the lotus120 in 184 and 190 only 3 s/n apart same red top sheet but the 184 has more early rise and makes nicer turns if you are not sure where you are going
[QUOTE=Boissal;6217863
TL;DR: pick a tool that works for what you want to do (and be a dick about it).[/QUOTE]
This.
There isn't one way to do it right. I've been skiing some longer, heavier ones this year, which was great, then I got back on some shorter, lighter ones this week to hang out a bunch of laps which was fun too. I did a bunch of lift assisted touring in the Dolomites on 185 OG Cochises one year. Worked great. They make bad snow good. I owned 170 Trabs at the same time. Those were good at something else.
If I need to do a handful of kickturns I don't care about length. If I'll be doing them over and over on steep firm snow then skinny and short is worth it.
When I'm pretty fit covering a lot of ground and very on light gear feels great.
When I only have a few hours to get out Praxis Protests are fuuuuuuuuuuuuun. I won't get tired if I have only have a few hours to ski. Might as well make it count. But if it's a 16 mile day? The grams, and the added effort of managing the extra cm on the tail add up.
All this is why when people ask about what to buy for their first touring ski I say "something cheap."
My take on it;
Finding myself preferring the bigger skis for touring. Even wider. All conditions except super steep and firm - I'd go back to a 187 for those days.
I have a cpl sets of 187 hojis set up to tour but I keep reaching for the 191 Ren's. With pomoca race, they r $$$
Inbounds I have a 186 gotama and 187 hoji.
Can't remember a time a ski inhibited a kick turn, ranging from Rogers Pass steep tree ascent and K Country rotten facets. Haven't found anything too haggered on the coast yet except some ice covered gems.
For me, having a slightly smaller ski on the resort encourages me to try hold more speed and the added benefit of not encroaching on people's personal space in the lift line.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
I'll put a check in the shorter column. With my 32" inseam, anything longer than 180 or with a center-ish mounting point and my kick turns loose their speed and smoothness. Plus, I frequently find myself in awkward places, going both up and down, where shorter makes life easier. If you're skiing wide open terrain and don't mind the weight, sure, go long. For me, length is most useful for stability when trucking through inbounds chop and crud.
A formative experience happened to me a couple years ago. I was skiing with my fat skis (186cm Helio 116) with some friends who were training for a multi week traverse and were on 170cm skis, probably 70-75mm wide. After generally making an assclown of myself trying to keep up and make passable kick turns in steep pow, we ended up at the top of a 1000' face. Time for payback! I thought I was pretty cool, making big sweepers all the way down. When we looked back up at our tracks, I had trouble figuring out who's were whose and I'm pretty sure they had as much fun as I did. Reading my thoughts, my buddy offered, "You just have to make adjustments to the gear you're on."
I’m 6’3” 180. Skis are mid-180s resort depending on the pair and 169 for touring. I decided uphill ease was better than downhill stability. 169s are truly terrifying going down though.
I don't have touring skis, I just have skis. So I guess my touring skis are the same length as my resort skis.
ha, I'm only trying to qualify the perspective of where my advice is coming from. Lots of folks on TGR ski very hard, and there are also plenty who would say that the only binding worth touring on is a shift/Tecton/similar. I disagree. I like long schwacky walks in the woods with good sunsets. And try as I might to limit my beer drinking/improve my overall fitness, I just can't manage big days on big skis. My love of Nutella precludes me from doing so; believe me, if I could have my cake and ski as much as I want I would do it, but for now, something's got to give. And it's not the costco sized jar of Nutella, you'll pry that from my cold dead hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boissal
I do have fat/long touring skis, but for a lot of the touring I do (hippy powder farming), I'm pretty content with shorter skis, shorter turns, quicker laps. I agree with the right tool for the job, 200%. I'm just pushing back against the conventional wisdom that longer, fatter, and heavier is always better.
Taking my Kusalas out for tomorrow fwiw
Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
It’s all about the right tool for the job. And where you are in the country and your style plays into it as well.
The most important factor that has been forgotten except for once or twice above is the mount point on said touring ski. Progressive vs traditional is the most important factor in deciding length. There are a lot of touring skis I wouldn’t buy in longer then a 180 and there are a lot I wouldn’t buy in less then a 180. But I also don’t cut steak with a spoon.
What type of boot you are using matters and draws some guidelines for what you should get for skis. It’s a system that all needs to play nice.
I have a 190cm moment touring setup and couldn’t imagine going smaller on those. Skied with Hoji Free 130’s and tour wraps.
I want to get a smaller lighter setup for 20 mile days but this only makes sense if I pickup some 1000 gram boots as well. 180cm ultralight skis will feel terrible with a super stiff boot and honestly not very fun as you can constantly feel the ski limiting you.
A lighter, slightly shorter, ski paired with some lightweight boots sounds like a good call if efficiency matters. Skip this entirely if you’re using a boot over 1300-1400 grams.
For a single touring ski... just buy something that’s fun. You’re probably getting a couple hundred turns, might as well enjoy them.
Yeah I buy into that entire statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tailwind
With a 1.5 yr old now I don't get to bang out weekends away on missions as much as I used to so I really value those 2-300 turns.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
I have the same boot, my previous one was zero g tour pro 130.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tailwind
People were trying to get me to buy the 110 free, saying that the 130 is too stiff.
I skied a few times with the free, and i don't feel it's too stiff. Vwerks katanas.
Under what circumstances do you think the boot would be too stiff?
I'm 176, expert skier
Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk
A question that will help you conceptualize this: Why do ski boots flex? Why aren’t they just completely rigid when skiing downhill?
Ski boots are similar to suspension. They dampen impacts from the ski and also mute the skiers inputs into the ski.
Not a perfect companion but : What would happen if you took suspension with a spring rate for an f350 and put it into a Porsche? It wouldn’t drive well.
Lighter skis (and lighter skiers) ideally need softer boots to be paired with them. A Zero G 85 in a 175cm length doesn’t have a flex pattern, mass or overall length to properly flex a 130 flex boot. Wider, heavier, longer, stiffer skis need a stiffer boot to be paired with them.
For Katana’s the 130 is likely a great boot (stiff ski).
Quote:
Originally Posted by rod9301
Kind of get what you're saying with the car reference, but a vehicle isn't dynamic in its movement. It's a heavy chunk of metal that relies on suspension to move efficiently over terrain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tailwind
Your finesse as a skier IMO largely determines the type of boot you can use on a ski. I'm on maestrales RS on basically all my skis. 177 Rando skis and 185 pow skis and everything in-between.
The one time I miss my stiffer alpine boots is when I'm straight-lining chunder inbounds. Back to the car analogy, basically just driving the skis as hard/fast as I can. Relatively static in my moment relying on the boots to take the beating.
Touring... that rarely happens. I'm not often just charging through chunder and more often time than not skiing pretty good pow. Can get away with a lot softer boot for sure and still have a blast.
This is just not my experience, at all. I have 178cm Zero G 85s. They ski far, far better with XTD 130s than with Scarpa F1s or La Sportiva Syborgs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tailwind
I’ve used all 3 of boots in San Juan blower, PNW hot pow and mank, and Muir snowfield corn. The XTDs always make the downhill more fun.
Granted, I weigh 145 lbs, so maybe I need beefy boots to get the skis to work, but they’re the skis I have.
Climbing balances the equation. It takes me an hour longer to get to Camp Muir with the XTDs than the Syborgs.
Short is nice for Spring booting, less likely to catch tree branches and drag tails on boulders while on your pack. If you have a long rocky or steep dry hike out, catching your boots or rocks with your tails every few steps gets super annoying really fast.
At 5'9", you can scramble and move freely with 170's, which helps confidence when gripped on the way up.
IME skis that are not working are becuz i am not fat enough,
I can have a little leeway with a softer design but otherwise instead of my normal 165lb I need to be > 180lb or more to bend a 190cm ski into something that turns
sure height gives you some leverage but mostly a ski only knows how fat you are
This. Some of the sketchiest moments I've ever experienced in the BC were getting pushed back on a technical climbing move when I rammed the tips of my big skis into a rock. I've modified my Salomon pack so the diagonal carry is more pronounced otherwise it happens all the time (and I keep clipping the tails with my boots).Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000-oaks
Tgapp, I've offered you a brand new bucket of Nutella in another thread, you up?
how did I miss that?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Boissal
and yes, I will prostitute myself for that diabetic chocolatey goodness. or trade coffee. or commit petty crime.
Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
if you wana go longer ski/ need the extra weight by all means ... Nutella
I was on 175 and switched to 163. So much easier to handle on the skin track and not just because of the lighter weight. We'll see how it is over time