BC ski gear for rugged, mileage focused touring

They used to sell strap-on plastic ankle support cuffs for leather boots. This would be easy to put on to help stiffen leather boots for the odd but necessary hairy downhill run when doing "mileage touring".

I haven't see them advertised in years but perhaps they could be DIY'd from old alpine boot cuffs.

I got out for a ski tour today in difficult conditions. Boot-top Cascade Cement in about 3' of total accumulation. We toured up a valley on a road and than a hiking trail, gradual rising traverse up and shallow descending traverse back down.

We had an interesting mix of equipment. I was skying 168cm Alpina Lite Terrains w/ 3pin, Bobby had a conventional telemark set-up with Cobras on some older K2's with skins, and John was demo-ing a pair of the new Rosignol BC 125 skis with 3-pins.

We traded skis around all day, and it was interesting. We
we couldn't get the Rosignol skis to climb at all. About 10-degrees was all they would go up. We eventually resorted to taping a pair of skins that were two short onto the skis in order to keep moving.

My Alpinas climb like crazy, I had no problem all day without skins but I couldn't really break trail in those conditions. I've found these skis highly useful due the the aggressive pattern and plenty of side-cut in a shorter ski. The primary thing they lack is flotation. I also had a very hard time trying to descend anything with my skis buried and not coming to the surface.

The rossignol skis floated awesome. They were light and easy to manage and the tip would just come right up. We used them to break trail because they were by far the most efficient tool to do so. They really just don't have much grip to speak of without skins. We all agreed that if they could climb well with the pattern they would be just about ideal but as it was we figured you could only get by without skins on pretty level ground.

Beefy telemark bindings with no tour mode and heavy skis with full skins seemed terribly heavy and slow compared to both of the patterned skis.

We did suspect that we were all a little light for the rossignol skis, as none of us weigh more than 160lb-gear. I still think they should have climbed better than that however. I guess it's back to the search for the perfect ski.

Different ski companies make very different sorts of fishscales. Fischer and Rossi seem to have less grip, but are faster on the down. Karhu/Madshus are in the middle, and Alpina is the most aggressive. None of the patterns are worth a darn in dry, fresh snow.

I got out this past weekend on the Kahru Lookout/Rotefella 3-pin/Alpina 1575 combination and had a great time.

This was my first time out, so I was just getting my feet wet, so to speak. I pulled a pulk with the skis on a mix of fire road and trail. The skis climbed and tracked well. I have nothing to compare it to, but everything seemed to work fine.

I even took a whack at making a couple of turns on the slope where we camped. I think the turning thing is going to be trickier than I originally anticipated. My alpine experience helped out as far as just being on the skis, but a tele turn is a whole different animal.

I look forward to basing around around some more.

Gonna disagree w/ ole Rog here and say stay away from NNN boots/binders. Not the stability, control, nor the strength when compared to the OG 3 pins or the LW cables such as Voile or similar. I have used both NNN's, 3 pins and cables, and have found the 3 pins or cables to be much more responsive and strong in real world usage.

If you are looking to go up and to make turns on the way down, NNN's are NOT the way to go. For touring – they are great but not for any torquing. Personally, my favorite in-between are some old Asolo leathers w/ 3-pins on some old skinny metal edged Karhus … touring and turning all in one! Second to that are some T3's or Garmont 2-straps w/cables on 10th MTNS or Guides, and you may also find touring/turning bliss. That's if you have some prior usage, of course. Aesthetically and functionally speaking, steer clear of the NNN's unless you are are going on moderate/mellow terrain folks.

Horses…Courses…

Hi Nicholas

> unless you are are going on moderate/mellow terrain folks.
Well, that may describe our terrain. Spring touring around Mt Jagungal.

But we just can't fit into our old 3-pin boots any more. Sad. Fwiiw, I was using Voile plates and Sue was using some very nice limited edition cables.

Cheers

Roger Caffin: "But we just can't fit into our old 3-pin boots any more." What, are your feet getting fat with advanced age?

> "But we just can't fit into our old 3-pin boots any more." What, are your feet getting fat with advanced age?

Not fat, no way. The boots did fit when we bought them, but our feet HAVE grown about 1.5 sizes over the last 15 years. Yeah, weird, but true.

So now we have these low-cut leather 3-pin Scarpa ski boots in very good condition, with matching skis, and we can't use them. We switched to NNN-BC with new skis when low-cut leather 3-pin boots went off the market a few years ago. Too hasty maybe: low-cut leathers have gone back into production as the demand for them is still there. Not everyone wants plastic Darth Vader coffins on their feet.

Mind you, my understanding is that Scarpa had to bring an old guy out of retirement to teach the new generation how to operate the machines for making leather ski boots … Nearly lost some important skills there!

Cheers

Roger must mean 1.5 sizes in metric sizes.

I've been skiing with 3-pin boots and bindings for over 30 years, and wild horses could not pull me to those newer systems. The newer systems are fine for mild terrain, but when the slopes get serious, the increased torsional stability of a serious boot/binding system pays off.

For the first 20 years, I stuck with Asolo leather boots. Finally about ten years ago, the leather bit the dust. Now I use Karhu boots. They are high top and look like leather, yet they are all synthetic.

–B.G.–

Have your arches fallen? Have your foot muscles grown massively, like Arnold's arms and chest? If the total volume hasn't increased, shouldn't a good boot fitter be able to change the shape of the boot to match the new shape of your feet? (Totally incidentally, a few feet to my left as I type, is a low-cut, leather 3-pin boot with fur-out, sheep-skin side-lining, white nylon laces, and no trace of a brand name remaining, except it is stamped "made in Norway" on the bottom. I love 'em.)

"(Totally incidentally, a few feet to my left as I type, is a low-cut, leather 3-pin boot with fur-out, sheep-skin side-lining, white nylon laces, and no trace of a brand name remaining, except it is stamped "made in Norway" on the bottom. I love 'em.)"

That's exactly what boots I started skiing in for 1978-1979.

The 3-pin toe was offered in three pin-width sizes, 71mm, 75mm, and 79mm. Even though 75mm became standardized, mine were 79mm. Of course that brought up a whole set of compatibility issues later on.

–B.G.–

Hey, stop dating me! My great-grand kids think I'm 32 years old!

Roger was probably a tiny lad when those boots were new.

–B.G.–

But he stopped growing, while his feet kept getting bigger and bigger. Is he an alien? (Besides being an Aussie) Maybe he could get a job in a circus as a big-footed clown. Sorry Roger, I know I'm going off the deep end of the cruelty pool.

Hi Bob

> Roger must mean 1.5 sizes in metric sizes.
Nope.
I went from about 7.5 US to 10 US.

At one stage I had my feet inspected by a foot specialist. He carefully looked them over, sat back, and commented very cheerfully that at least my feet would never be a cause for an invalidity pension. Some of the toughest feet he had seen.

Cheers

Hi Robert

> Have your arches fallen? Have your foot muscles grown massively, like Arnold's arms and chest?
I suspect the bones grew a bit under the load of several 2 and 3 month walking trips in Europe. Then the tendons and ligaments inside the foot grew in size to match.

> If the total volume hasn't increased,
Ah, but the volume HAS increased!

Cheers

> Is he an alien?
I do believe that is what the USA immigration department would call me ….

Cheers
PS – 'deep end'??? Mild, very mild. :-)

What do people think? Which is a better touring/approach ski? I'm a newb looking to start skiing cheap. It would be uses in California mostly, in the Sierras and on Shasta. Right now I'm finding a better deal for the Rossignol than the Madshus. Also, I haven't seen a weight recommendation for the Rossignols. I'm 165 and 5"10 so I'd imagine I'd want the 175's, yes?

I haven't gotten to play with the Madshus/Karhu ski yet, but I have demo'd the Rossignol, and a buddy of mine has a pair. I have done a fair bit of research because I do like fish scales in the backcountry.

The two skis are conceptually different. The Madshus is a traditional-length, conventional profile, low-cambered, soft-flexing telemark ski with fish-scales added. The Rossignol is a short, wide, high-ish camber powder ski (or what would have been a powder ski 5 years ago), with fish-scales added.

I would guess the Madshus will probably tour more efficiently in most conditions, and will probably be more stable and easier to handle descending in soft backcountry snow that is not terribly deep. People say it climbs a bit better just on the pattern. Note that skiers refer to snow depth based on how far you sink in standing on skis, not overall snow pack. These are about the biggest skis that most people will want to manage with 3-pin bindings and a light 2-buckle boot. The are to much ski for leather boots unless you are very talented, and some people are quite happy using 3-buckle boots and a moderately burly binding. Some happily ski them with Dynafits, and it would be well matched to any of the light tec-compatible boots. In this ski you would want the 185. It would be more work to manage in the trees than the Rossignol. It would be a bit lighter.

The Rossignol is a bit of a different animal. For your weight you would want the 165. With more camber and less-aggressive fish-scales you would not want to size up until you weigh at least 180lb. This ski calls for a 3-buckle teli boot and some sort of cable or hard-wire binding for most free-heel skiers, or dynafits with a moderate boot. It is going to be easier to manage in the trees. This ski will probably call for more energy input to control and a little more skill, but if you give it that it will allow you to ski more difficult conditions. That's my take on it anyway.

You will want skins fore either on many trips.

I appreciate the thoughts. I decided to go for them in the 165 length as you recommended. I'm excited. I'm getting a pair of used 3-pin voile bindings as well. I guess I'll have to find some inexpensive plastic boots strong enough to drive my new skis. I can't wait.

I decided to get the BC 125s—which I'm super stoked about. I'm pairing them with voile hardwires. I've been looking for an affordable pair of two buckle plastic boots and so far haven't had much luck. I've heard that the garmont excursion (the only two buckle plastic boot available new) doesn't fit many people well and that the best thing I could get would be an older pair of scarpa boots. I just found a pair of scarpa boots that seem to be in my size, but I'm not sure what model they are or if they'd be worth my while. They look awful old. Any opinions? Thanks!

Royal, those are some pretty old T2s. Nothing wrong with that. The boots looks to be in very good shape, if the pin holes are the same, you're good to go.

Fitting ski boots is a complex topic. You want them to be very snug all around, but to have enough room for all day comfort and warm toes. A rule of thumb is to take the liner out and put a socked foot in. With flat toes touching the front you should be able to put two tight fingers between your heel and the boot shell.

In 2008 I Bought a pair of new Norwegian Army skis (Asnes) from Neptune Mountaineering in Boulder, Colorado. These skis are light but mil-spec strong.

I got 210 cm. skis B/C that's what I was used to as a Nordic patroller. They are fast over rolling terrain but tough to maneuver over downhill wooded forest areas.

Also I have Atomic TM skis in 190 cm. for on-piste and steeper backcountry areas. they have a lot more width and sidecut than my Army skis. They are slower, don't track straight and are heavier than my Army skis but they DO turn well.

Both pair use Voile' release binding plates with different toe and heel setups. IMHO baackcountry skis W/O release bindings are unsafe for backcountry use.

I am a totally new to back country skiing but I would like to pick up a set of skis, bindings and boots. I am 6'1, 204lbs. I have a little downhill and xcountry experience. I would mostly be skiing in the Sierra doing touring on fire roads and trips such as Ostrander Hut. I would like a balanced ski that emphasizes covering miles off-trail efficiently and climbing over turning and downhill speed.

I was looking at the Fisher SBound 98 Ski (189 CM)or the Madshus Eon (195 CM). Based on Dave C's earlier post about Fisher being more downhill oriented, perhaps Madshus would be the way to go for me. Would a 3 pin binding balance these choices out nicely for the skiing i would be doing?

I am very much open to buying used skis if I can find a good pair at a decent price.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

David

>>In 2008 I Bought a pair of new Norwegian Army skis (Asnes) from Neptune >>Mountaineering in Boulder, Colorado. These skis are light but mil-spec strong.

>>I got 210 cm. skis B/C that's what I was used to as a Nordic patroller. They are fast >>over rolling terrain but tough to maneuver over downhill wooded forest areas.

This past year, I took a part of my tax rebate and splurged on a pair of Asnes skis as well.

I also most bought the same pair as you:
http://tinyurl.com/3rsq554

The version I ended up going with is this one:
http://snipurl.com/27r2gn [www_neptunemountaineering_com]

They are very similar to yours (weigh, profile, sidecut, etc.) but a little more 'spongier'/not as firm.

They are a bit better with turning if not as quite as good at gliding with heavier loads. Figure it was a good trade off.

My boots and binding system seem to be identical to what you are using.

Love 'em for the type of skiing described.