It took me decades to really care about skiing. Growing up in flat Ohio didn't help, but even on trips further afield the lift-served, in-area alpine skiing never resonated. I usually got bored before my legs gave out or the lifts stopped running. Cross-country skiing was more my style, but I inevitably wanted to venture away from golf courses and groomed trails, where the floppy boots and skinny, plastic edged skis made the steep and narrow woods exciting in a way only enjoyable by those young people yet to realize their own mortality. Hiking, mountain biking, and kayaking always seemed like a better use of my time outdoors. I went to college in Iowa, and after graduation escaped further west to Utah and Arizona. I skied occasionally, at both alpine and cross-country areas, but as before failed to see the possibility inherent in skiing which made so many so fanatical about it.
Three years ago, I moved to western Montana to attend graduate school.
Even before the move I knew I'd need to learn how to actually ski. The most interesting areas for a wilderness traveler - the mountains - are in western Montana under snow for over half the year. A wilderness traveler has three options: stay home or in the lowest and most civilized valleys, get snowshoes, or learn to ski. I wanted to learn to ski, not primarily as a means of exercise or of kinesthetic enjoyment, but as the most efficient way to move around the snowy wilderness. Snowshoes are easy to use, but if driven with a modicum of skill, skis are almost always a faster and more elegant way to travel. Or at least, that was what conventional wisdom had to share with me, the unstudied newbie.
So I bought some short alpine touring skis on closeout and got some telemark boots and bindings. I went skiing, a lot. I got new boots and new skis; Karhu Guides, then the widest metal-edged waxless (fishscaled) ski available. I skied more, flailed a lot, got frustrated, and had a lot of fun. It didn't take me long to realize that not only did none of the existing ski gear fit my needs particularly well, but that virtually all of the momentum in the market was concentrated on two distant ends of a spectrum. I wanted to ski along in the middle of that range, going from one point to another as I did on dirt during the summer, and there wasn't much gear at all suited to doing so.
The ski market as it exists today largely caters to pure alpine skiing or pure Nordic skiing. Alpine skiing is, to steal one company's jingle, all about the down. Folks spend cataclysmic amounts of money to visit places to ride lifts so they can ski back downhill around lots of other people and then do it again and again. The equipment reflects this, being great for difficult, chopped up snow and knee-dislocatingly heavy. Virtually all backcountry skiing gear, be it alpine touring (heel fixed for downhill) or telemark (heel freed) is dedicated to doing what is in essence the same thing. The gear is lighter, increasingly much lighter, in order to make climbing slopes to ski down faster and more enjoyable, but skiing relatively steep terrain is still the raison d'etre. Even ski mountaineering race gear, where the application of technology has facilitated ski/boot/binding pairs which weigh less than a pair of alpine boots, is still circumscribed by the necessity of descending steep slopes quickly.
Cross-country skiing hasn't changed much, in focus or application, since my youthful golf course exploits. Even the heavier boots and wider, metal edged skis meant for "Nordic backcountry" or "rugged touring" look and ski like fat Nordic race gear. This gear can be quite light, and in the right hands and under the right conditions travel through the woods impressively fast, but the not-right conditions slow such gear to a crawl, and these conditions, namely weird snow, breakable crust, ice, and tight trees and brush are all too common if your winter interests involve approximating summer backpacking routes. What was good snow last night will be miserable in the morning, and sometimes you'll get all of the aforementioned in one place, together, a state of affairs which, in reasonable folks, engenders swearing and crying in equal measure. Quite simply, skis may be the best way to backpack in deep snow, but the skis and ski gear yet produced are not designed with such ends in mind, and their application in the arena of winter backpacking reflects this.
ARTICLE OUTLINE
- Introduction: My Short History as a Skier
- Fast Shoes Defined
- The Hok Examined
- The Limits of Universal Bindings
- Conclusion and Applicability
# WORDS: 4910
# PHOTOS: 13
Member Exclusive
A Premium or Unlimited Membership* is required to view the rest of this article.
* A Basic Membership is required to view Member Q&A events
Discussion
Become a member to post in the forums.
I am really digging McCarthy's setup. I wonder how hoks with fortybelow overboots screwed to the base will work. Probably some reinforcement under the rubber sole may be required. I am thinking 1.5 oz cuben fiber bonded to inside of the sole should prevent the rubber from tearing. Any better ideas?
"I am really digging McCarthy's setup."
— What aspect of it? I ran the numbers for his overboots and hardware as compared to xc classic race boots and bindings, and in return for the lack of any striding pivot and far reduced skiing control (as well as highly suspect durability), the weight savings are somewhere on the order of just a few ounces, so an utter failure in both efficiency and fun.
No.
… but my point is that cross country skiing with overboots screwed into skis (as opposed to using cross country ski boots and bindings) entails both a lack of any striding pivot and a significant reduction in skiing control that sure seems like a lot less fun.
I think the advantage of the overboot setup is that it is:
1) Cheap
2) Can work with hiking boots
If you are too cheap to get a good universal binding, then the overboot should work (if it doesn't break). The advantage of an universal binding is that you don't have to use ski boots. This means that if you don't own a pair of (cross country or other) ski boots, but you already own hiking boots, you can save yourself even more money. It also means that you don't have to either carry your ski boots, or worry about whether they are comfortable to hike in (or whether you might damage them in some way).
As previously mentioned, though, a lot of ski boots are very comfortable for hiking. In general, the overboot would not be my choice, but if you like to tinker around and want to save money, it is probably the cheapest way to go (assuming you already have hiking boots and can get overboots for cheap). Worth mentioning is that lots of people have tried this approach, but only a few have succeeded (and bully for the folks that have).
In general, though, using cross country gear does sound like a lot more fun. I think most people would agree (just as most people would say going to the dentist is not fun, even though that isn't quantifiable either).
. . . pretty much none. If I'm understanding his setup correctly, the cost of overboots and related custom hardware will save a very small amount of money over some used xc classic race boots and bindings.
But his setup "works" with trail runners (or whatever non-snow footwear is being used) only by slipping them into the overboots (which are permanently attached to the skis). You could instead just slip off the trail runners and then put your feet into the xc ski boots for a far more efficient and in-control skiing experience (which I think anyone would agree adds up to more fun).
The only advantage the screwed-on overboots have is a very slight weight savings (i.e., a few ounces) relative to xc classic race boots & bindings. But the striding inefficiency and lack of skiing control will more than offset the weight savings.
I mounted the heavy-duty Voile 3-pin bindings on the Hoks and used my only 75 mm Nordic Norm boots, an early pair of Scarpa T1s (similar to recent T2s). The skis climb great and glide surprisingly well. They are very easy to turn. However, the factory binding position is quite a bit too far forward for those accustomed to skiing. I think they are meant to appeal to reforming snowshoers. I made some light-weight adapters of redwood that move the bindings back three inches, which allows comfortable linked telemark turns, or anything else you want to do with the Hoks.
T1s are overkill for these short skis, so I ski them unbuckled, which makes them very comfortable indeed. The boots have Thermofit liners, and that makes them slightly lighter. I will try to find a smaller lighter 3-pin boot for these skis. Or I may mount some adapters I made to fit my SNS bindings and use some Karhu SNS boots on hand. That would be a fairly light setup overall. But even using the T1s, the rig feels pretty light to me, accustomed as I am to a very heavy backcountry telemark setup.
It is no surprise that these skis are at their best in my "backyard", which is the foothills zone (7-8.5K') south of the San Juans and east of the South San Juans in southwest Colorado. There are lots of up and down, lots of brush and trees, and usually thin snow cover. As noted in the review, the built-in skins must be kept well-waxed and scraped from time to time, if they get iced. This will happen when skiing alternately on sunny wet snow and cold shady snow. I am seeing signs of wear on the skins. Eventually, something will need to be done, but probably not for a few years.
I have tried skiing them up high in the Wolf Creek Pass region, and that is the wrong terrain for them. They are not meant for big descents where maximal glide is best. There's no harm in trying though.
Become a member to post in the forums.