AT newbie

**Charli2na** · 11-09-2007, 11:08 AM

Looking to venture more into the back country this year and I'm investing in my first AT setup. I need some recommendations on a good ski for Colorado.

I'm 6'3" and weight 220 pounds so I'm no lightweight. I currently use last years Scott P4's for inbounds as well as a pair of P3's and old Pollards.

Ideally I'm looking for something thats bigger than the P4's but softer, but I want it to be somewhat maneuverable in the BC. I'm hoping the collective expertise of TGR can help me out.

Feel free to call me whatever names you want and no I don't have naked pics of my wife... but I should.

**cfoster** · 11-09-2007, 11:50 AM

Check out the Coomba from K2. It isn't the widest ski in the world but for its size it is really light and a blast in the pow

**Charli2na** · 11-09-2007, 12:02 PM

I'm seen that, but was thinking a little larger and preferably a twin. Something on the cheaper side would be nice too.

**jrosendahl** · 11-09-2007, 02:50 PM

Here is all of the advice I can give
1) For Colorado - I would not recomend anything much above 100 underfoot, less is probably better unless you have a selection of skis
2) You probably don't want a twin, you don't need a twin, all of these pain in the ass things that you never think of at the resorts come out with twins in the backcountry.
3) Buy boots that are dynafit compatible, or you will be buying new boots in 2 years.

**Bullet** · 11-09-2007, 03:32 PM

I've played around with about 1/2 dozen set-ups over the past 6 years. I'm
in about the same weight category as you (+ a few).

Salomon X-Scream Series - 195. First set-up. Outdated.

K2 AK Enemy -older version - 90 underfoot, 188, twin tip. Too short, too narrow for deep days. To laterally loose for spring corn. Got rid of them.

Atomic TM:X - 88 underfoot - 190. Great for spring corn. Too narrow for heavier, wet Sierra mank.

Atomic Big Daddy - 107 underfoot - 193 length. Pretty close to the perfect ski. Not quite as friendly when it was hard pack, but I'd take it anywhere.

4FRNT EHP 193 - 112 underfoot - 193 length - pin tail, rockered tip. Great in powder. Not so good in spring snow or harder pack. The tail liked to release too much for my taste.

Fisher Watea 101 (2008 model) - 101 underfoot - 190 length. This one is doing it for me. Good side-cut for harder snow, spring corn, etc. But fat, softer tip for pow. Floats well, turns easy, and has a strong tail for holding turns on harder snow. The Watea has the shape and flex I find nearly perfect as a one ski does it all BC set-up. Especially when I want to use it for conditions ranging from wind stripped-to-pow-to-frozen-to-corn.

Side note - weight of the set-up wasn't a concern to me.

**LifeIsHood** · 11-09-2007, 03:32 PM

Jrosendahl...Curious about #3...Do you really think everything but Dynafit is going to be obsolete in two years, or am I reading that wrong? Whats up with that? Dynafits are great and all, but neccesary?

**Rasputin** · 11-09-2007, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Charli2na

Feel free to call me whatever names you want and no I don't have naked pics of my wife... but I should.

Fuckin' JONG, what about your sister! A hot neighbor? Throw us a bone here.

Oh and try using the search function, or look in the recommended skis sticky.

**Kski** · 11-09-2007, 03:39 PM

I read it to mean that if you do a lot of touring over the next couple of years you will more than likely come around to wanting Dynafits and then you will have to buy a new pair of boots. It happened to me

**jrosendahl** · 11-09-2007, 04:00 PM

Life - Ken Said it very well if you continue to tour you will probably want dynafits

I have bought 3 pairs of boots in the last 4 years, I now ski megarides, I could have bought them year one and saved $1000.

If it matters, I also own two pars of Freerides, both on twintips.

I think I have made every bad gear decision possible, maybe you shouln'd listen to me at all.

**SWskier** · 11-09-2007, 04:14 PM

I'm your size 6'3", 220. I couldn't be happier with my 190 Verdicts. 99 underfoot and very light. Just my .02

**Ireallyliketoski2** · 11-09-2007, 04:47 PM

First of all try having a salad for lunch now and then. Second don't worry about dynafit binding compatibility if you find a good boot for a good price. I have dynafit compatible boots I still have a pair of dynafit bindings sitting in my garage waiting to be mounted, while my fritschis continue to get the nod. I found the dynafit bindings to be somewhat of a pain in the ass to use.

**corn dog** · 11-10-2007, 12:28 AM

I do love all my dynafits, but 220 lbs might be getting to the limit of what they'll hold, since they only go up to DIN 10. So check your DIN needs first.

**skikola** · 11-10-2007, 02:09 AM

i second the verdict recommendation, or even the zealot, for a dude your size. and yeah i don't see you on dynafits unless they come out with something burlier. you could get by with naxos or fritschis just fine, or if you're dick is too small you can get some dukes.

**laseranimal** · 11-10-2007, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by corn dog

I do love all my dynafits, but 220 lbs might be getting to the limit of what they'll hold, since they only go up to DIN 10. So check your DIN needs first.

5' 11" 235# Gorilla

no problems with dynafits

DIN chart recommends 7, I normally run my alpine toes at 8.5 and heels at 9 but have run my dynafits at 9 with no problems.

Never ceases to amaze me how well those little things work

**Kevo** · 11-10-2007, 04:23 AM

Originally Posted by laseranimal

5' 11" 235# Gorilla

DIN chart recommends 7

Really?

...really?!?!

**hutash** · 11-10-2007, 02:24 PM

I haven't skied it as a BC ski, but it rocks alpine, is very light, and a great all around ski......

Wait for it.......

Bros, be a maggot, support a maggot or 12.

**Huckwheat** · 11-10-2007, 02:32 PM

Gotama.....you should be able to find some 1st/2nd gen worth of an AT setup.

I would throw Explosive out there too....classic AT ski (but you requested wider and softer).

**wapos** · 11-10-2007, 02:41 PM

Verdicts, 06 version are cheap now, or pay a little more and get the wood from this year...you will not be upset with these for the BC. As for the dynafits..if you are going to do allot of touring you will come around to them, sure they take some getting used to but after you get used to them they are the answer for long tours.

**dodsonCB** · 11-10-2007, 02:50 PM

I'm a big fan of Gotamas. go with the 190's. I have the 05-06 and the 06-07 and the older ones have the AT set up. (Freeride Plus) I live in Crested Butte and both pairs rip, even with our thin snow pack

**JoeStrummer** · 11-10-2007, 03:36 PM

I weigh 250 which means close to 280 when fully geared and carrying a hut pack of 18 pounds. I switched to Dynafits lat year, ski Dynafits hard in all conditions, and have never had an issue with the binding in 100 days on them. I got them for long tours like the Haute Route but now I ski them everywhere and don't think they are a compromise whatsoever.

For a ski that would do well in Colorado backcountry, I would go with a BD Voodoo, G3 Rapid Transit, or maybe a Kilowatt. Or a K2 Mt Baker. These are excellent skis for the variable snow you'll find here on 14ers or on tours - enough shovel for powder but managable for skinning and traversing.

If you are looking more to yo-yo places that are roadside, you could go wider (i.e. Verdict or a Movement Goliath 184.) The best ski sort of deppends on how you define "backcountry."

**JimLad** · 11-10-2007, 04:05 PM

I'm wondering what bindings to put on Coombas. Seen the Dukes in town, they are not that heavy really.

**Below Zero** · 11-10-2007, 04:09 PM

What BC location are you looking to ski?

**Charli2na** · 11-12-2007, 10:28 AM

I guess I should have defined "backcountry". I think myself and the group I ride with are not going to be doing any long technical approaches, so lightweight will not be an issue. We will most likely be doing more sidecountry and shorter trips. Kind of lame but I hope to "graduate" into bigger and better things as I go along.

I ended up getting some dukes from a friend, and will be using alpine boots so lightweight is officially out the window. I believe this should work for what I'm looking to do. I'm kind of nervous as the only bindings I've broken in the past have been markers.

Thanks for all the ski advice, I flexed a lot of skis this weekend and still haven't decided. I'm thinking the gotamas are the best bet? I have not had any luck finding a 190 used this time of year though. I want a fun easy to turn ski that will float a man of my stature, yet is versatile enough for a variety of snow conditions.

Thanks again for all your responses, I thought you would all be a lot harder on me... kind of disappointed!

**Below Zero** · 11-12-2007, 02:06 PM

^^I actually meant the specific area, to help you with some ski ideas for those areas^^

JONG!

**GeezerSteve** · 11-12-2007, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by JoeStrummer

I weigh 250 which means close to 280 when fully geared and carrying a hut pack of 18 pounds. I switched to Dynafits lat year, ski Dynafits hard in all conditions, and have never had an issue with the binding in 100 days on them.

I've had similar good experience on Dynafits, but only for a half season (I'm a coverted telemarker of 16 years).

I'm 245 to 250. Skied the Dynafits on Jak BC's last spring for 12 - 15 days with no problems and great performance, including several big lift days and several days of BC skiing with overnight backpack, i.e. total payload >280. I'll mount Dynafits on my new Voile Insanes for midwinter deep stuff, Fritschi Freerides heavymetal on Mantras for resort skiing, and keep the Jak BC/Dynafit for spring skiing and some mid-winter trips. My pinhead buddies are upset with my coversion to the dark side, but I'm lovin' the return to the fixed heel. The Dynafits are great, lightweight, elegant engineering and no hassle to use after getting the hang of it.