Ski Advice

Colin- might want to post in the winter hiking forum, also take a peek at a relatively recent thread there dealing with backcountry ski's- I was looking for just about the same setup as you and got some very good advice

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=39122

and this too

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=38781

Mike

Mike's links are good.

First, you sound like a hiker primarily. You have to kind of decide whether you are primarily a hiker, and you simply want some long skinny things to keep from sinking into the snow, or else you are primarily a skier.

There is no one sport called cross-country skiing, or ski touring. It is different for everybody. For some, it is lift-served telemark skiing. For others, it is snow-backpacking (which I call backcountry skiing). If you are more into covering parks and golf courses, then that would be called light touring. Others are into ski racing, which is sort of like a distance running event except that it is over snow. You can begin in one category and transition into another category, but some of your ski gear may have to change. So, it is helpful if you know which category you are headed into.

As an example, few people doing light touring would want the weight and expense of metal-edged skis. OTOH, a telemark skier or backcountry skier would probably demand metal edges for durability and performance.

The length of the ski kind of varies depending on what you want to do. If you are about 6'3", that is tall. For many kinds of cross-country skis, you will want to be around a 215cm length. You might want shorter if you are up on the steep slopes. As a general rule, the longer length gets you straight-ahead glide over miles, and the shorter length gets you steep quicker turning. A longer length with double camber is more for the miles, and a shorter flat camber is more for the telemarker. Take note of the fact that 215cm is roughly the longest length that a normal cross-country ski shop will stock. If the 215cm ski will not support you enough, then you need a slightly broader ski, like 80mm wide instead of 75mm wide.

–B.G.–

There are a lot of different skis out there and a lot of different types of skiing. To make matters even more confusing, there are a lot of different terms used. I personally like to classify it like so:

1) Groomed
2) Ungroomed Road Skiing
3) Touring, or Light Back Country (basically rolling hills)
4) Ski Mountaineering

Unfortunately, most of the stuff you read is geared towards the opposite ends of the spectrum. You can find magazines that mainly focus on groomed Nordic skiing (including articles about racing). You can also find magazines that cover extreme ski mountaineering (which are really fun to look at, even if you would never go there). There isn't a lot of information about the other type of skiing. Fortunately, the stuff in the middle is a lot of fun, and much cheaper.

What you want, basically, is a good compromise setup. Like any compromise, you may find that you gravitate towards several pairs of skis (and boots) over time. Personally, I have the following setup:

1) Very light skinny skis for the tracks. I use regular (SNS) Nordic bindings.
2) Fischer Inbound Crown skis, with the same boots. The Inbound Crown have a fair amount of sidecut (10 mm) but no metal edge. I recommend this design for most conditions. It is very light, but the sidecut allows you to maneuver on a wide variety of terrain. They are also a bit wider than many Nordic skis (you can go even wider with Outbound Crown or other models). This allows you to break trail fairly well as well handle deep snow. I've used these skis on terrain where most people use BC gear or much heavier, bulkier gear (Telemark, AT, etc.).
3) Atomic Rainier with backcountry bindings and boots. These skis have metal edges. I've used this gear on more difficult terrain. The metal edges are really nice when the snow gets crusty. On the other hand, they are unnecessary if the snow is nice. Unfortunately, you just can't get skis with this much sidecut (or more) without getting metal edges. These skis are also fairly good in the tracks. Quite often, you will spend a certain amount of time in the tracks, and then off trail. This is fairly popular for that, especially for folks that don't want to go with anything lighter (people have been known to put telemark bindings on Rainier's or similar skis).

I don't want to imply that those particular skis are the best skis. I think they are very good, but there are a lot of other good ones out there. More importantly, I would try to get skis with similar characteristics. Basically, I would start with category 2 or 3. Personally, I would start with category 2, and just try and avoid skiing icy conditions (which means that you may decide to snowshoe on those days). It is, I think the cheapest overall setup to get. I think it is very important to get good sidecut. You can find a lot of skis that don't have metal edges (and a few that do) that have 5 mm or less sidecut. I think this doesn't make sense. At that point, you may as well get skis in category 1. Likewise, it makes sense to get skis in the third category that are a definite step up from the second. That way, you can cover a wide variety of terrain.

I might also add that there is a 4, 5 and 6 (or more) to this grouping, but I don't know that much about it. These are for folks that want more control. They tend to ski tougher terrain or in tougher conditions. They also tend to do more skiing that involves using skins to go up steep terrain, and then making really pretty telemark turns going down. You can use this heavier gear for the other type of skiing, it is just more expensive and (generally) more tiring. You can use the lighter stuff for steeper skiing, you will just fall down more (unless you are a really good skier).

Unless you live in area that is always cold, I would get waxless skis (the skis above are waxless). It is just a lot less hassle, even though it is a bit slower. I would also get a pair of skins or kickers. I've used them with my Inbound crowns quite a bit as well as my Rainiers. Sometimes the snow conditions just make it difficult to go uphill without them.

Oh, and I should mention that ski lengths for a particular ski are based on weight, not height. So, if you decide you want to buy a Kahru XYZ ski, then you need to match the size of that ski to your weight.

Thanks for the great advice Mike, Bob and Ross!
I checked out those past threads and they helped answer some other questions I had.
Ross, your breakdown of different skis for different conditions was super helpful.
This gives me a better idea of what I should be looking for to get started.

One last question: How much does going waxless affect your glide speed? Do you guys think it's worth going waxless for the extra convenience and lower maintenance requirements if you're pretty recreational and don't mind plugging along at a bit of a slower pace?

Cheers,

"Do you guys think it's worth going waxless for the extra convenience and lower maintenance requirements if you're pretty recreational and don't mind plugging along at a bit of a slower pace?"

Canadian Rockies. That sounds cold. You might look around and see what other skiers in your area are using. A perfectly waxed waxable ski is better than a waxless ski for most conditions. However, getting that ski waxed perfectly can be a tremendous challenge of you go through changing snow conditions.

Although I ski on waxless, I've skied with many oldtimers that know how to get that perfect wax job for California snow. They are really skilled, and I don't know how long it takes to learn that.

I've been in ski races where the waxers almost laughed at anybody with a waxless ski. But that was OK, because I wasn't a serious race competitor. Often the waxless ski is just a convenient compromise.

–B.G.–

"Do you guys think it's worth going waxless for the extra convenience and lower maintenance requirements if you're pretty recreational and don't mind plugging along at a bit of a slower pace?"

Yes. That is a good statement of the best reasons to use waxless.

To put it another way: I live in Montana. Winter snows tend to be cold, lightish, and dry. Ideal waxing terrain. Once March rolls around, that all changes. Waxing for a 10-20 degree F day with 2 day old pow is easy. Waxing for a 15-40 degree F temp swing (from 800-1400) with old, recycled snow is a nightmare. In an ideal world I'd have two sets of skis. I have one, so I get waxless.

You can kickwax the tips and tails of your waxless skis, it isn't hard to clean off, and can be very nice on those super cold dry days when a waxless pattern works worst.

"those super cold dry days"

What is that?

In California, we can only dream of super cold dry days.

–B.G.–

Bob said "In California, we can only dream of super cold dry days" well next week we're looking at temps dipping into the -20 to -30 F range- that's when I do my California Dreamin' :)

waxless skis appear to have gotten better, that's from my wife comparing her new skis (Fischer Spiders) to her circa early 80's Fischers- one little tip I picked up on a ski site was this product for specifically for waxless skis – Swix Nordic Easy Glide

Mike

I agree with the previous statements. Waxless skis are better than they used to be, but nothing beats a properly waxed ski. The big question is the conditions. In the Northwest, our toughest problem is not that it varies too much (unlike the Sierras) but that it is often just around freezing. If temperatures vary from 10F to 20F, then one wax will probably do just fine. However, if temperatures vary from 25F to 35F, then you will want to change your wax. As Bob suggested, check what others are doing. Regardless, though, it is a good idea to wax the non-pattern area of the skis. This makes it go faster. In general, a good wax job on the non-grip area of a ski will make it go almost as fast as a fully waxed (no fish scale) ski. In other words, a competitive racer on a pair of new, fast waxless skis will still beat the pants off me, even if I'm using his super fast, well waxed skis.

While waxed skis are undoubtedly faster, quieter and tunable to the conditions I would always go for waxless for long day trips or ski touring. Skilfully waxed skis are great for ski racing when the wax can be tuned to the exact conditions expected over the next hour or so.

Waxless skis work for me in 90% of conditions. I find they can sometimes struggle in super cold, dry fresh powder as has already been mentioned and also very icy Spring conditions (but some skins usually sorts that out). Waxless skis are cleaner though. Working as a cross-country ski guide during the winter I abhor having to sort out client's waxing disasters on their personal skis. That sticky sh** gets all over my jacket, gloves and backpack. The school's hire skis are waxless. Going waxless is also lighter (an important element on this website!) as you don't have to carry a selection of waxes, a tube of klister, scraper or a cork. They're also far less labour intensive, there is no need to scrape off the wax you carefully applied in the morning and reapply a different wax as the conditions change during the day.

Waxless skis might be considered blasphemy here in Norway but I'd pick them every time for my kind of skiing.

Thanks for the great advice folks.
What are your thoughts on bindings and boots? My understanding is that 3-pin offers a bit more control?

For a beginner "waxless" skis are the way to go.

I say "waxless" B/C you still need to put glide wax on the tips and tails. (Iron it on and scrape it down to a smooth finish with your plastic ice scraper & then polish W/ an old nylon stocking.)

Also, on cold days where you'll still encounter wet spots you will need some wipe-on glide made for your fishscale kick area to help keep ice off the scales. But always carry a small windshield ice scraper with you for scraping the inevetable ice spots off.

The ultralightweight substitute for the windshield ice scraper is a small piece of fiberglas printed circuit board. Scraps can be found around electronic manufacturing companies.

–B.G.–

Waxless skis are good for a beginner and/or places with variable snow. For the mainly cold, dry conditions of CO, I'm all about waxable skis. But, even I'll take some fish scales for late winter/early spring conditions because the snow IS variable.

I mentioned this link in a previous thread, but I'll mention it again.
http://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/DirtbagPinner/dirtbag.html

I think it is the best page out there for backcountry skiing. (Not the groomed areas or for ski mountaineering, for but for the in between stuff that is so hard to find!)

Have fun!

You are right, Paul, I think that is a great website. It is hard to find information about the "stuff in between". Ron Bergin writes about that exact type of skiing in the latest copy of Cross Country Skiier (the article isn't on the web yet, or I would link to it). In there, he covers the topics that are often mentioned. Terminology is one. Generally speaking, I prefer to use the word "touring" or even "light touring". Part of the problem is that there isn't huge money in that type of skiing, nor are there regular publications. The hard core folks spend big bucks on equipment, and have stunning pictures and videos to demonstrate their extreme awesomeness. The skinny ski folks have resorts (or parts of resorts) dedicated to their sport, along with Olympic competition. Both groups have magazines. We have a few books and a few websites.

I think most folks find the information just this way; they get on sites that are primarily for hiking, and find folks into ski touring. I think this works well, as most of the people that are into ski touring are into basically the same experience. We just want to hike, but in a slippery, snowy way. A lot of folks also snowshoe (I do as well) but gliding along in the back country is sure a lot more fun. The unfortunate part is that there are probably a lot of people who aren't even aware that the sport exists. They assume that people either do very tough, extreme ski mountaineering, or stick to the groomed terrain. Both are cool, but I prefer the stuff in between.

I am always interested in regional guides for this type of skiing. In Washington State, we have a couple books published by the Mountaineers which describe a great variety of ski travel, as well as nwhikers.net and http://www.turns-all-year.com/. In the Sierras (when I finally get there) I know I'll lean on this guide: http://www.backcountryskitours.com/ (I also have books by the same author). I'm curious about resources for information in the Rockies (both U. S. and Canadian) as well.

Back to the original website you mentioned, as much as I like it, and think that it is the best thing out there, it sure would be nice if it was a wiki. I think it is really hard to keep up with the new skis, but if it was a group effort, then it could be done. That might be difficult, since the website groups skis into categories, so perhaps a different page which simply listed the facts on lots of skis would be really nice.

I agree that the site is a good one, but as pointed out a little dated as far as skis/boots go- to be expected, but there are a lot more choices today in the "middle realm" range than there was 5-10 years ago

The specific equipment may be dated, but I think the overall 'feel' is still spot on. Guess the specifics need updating…but the basics have not changed. Of course, I say this owning a pair of older skis. ;)

Ross mentions snowshoeing..

I think the traditional person who enjoys ski touring (a backpacker who likes to ski in the same way they hike!) now is gravitating towards snowshoeing.

In Colorado at least, there is less emphasis now on getting far into the backcountry on skis but rather skinning up to a slope, skiing down and then doing yo-yos. The backcountry skis are getting fatter and less friendly for distance.

And snowshoeing has exploded. Rocky Mtn NP has trails that are technically Nordic touring friendly but invariably have more snowshoers (can be ah, interesting, on windy, crowded trails!) For obvious reasons, snowshoers can't push as far into the backcountry overall and many places once popular now have less people except for the occasional group of skiers.

So it goes…

Love to see the article you mentioned Ross!

For ski tours in CO, I found this book to great..
http://snipurl.com/1uyp5y [www_amazon_com]

Of course it is out of print and 20+ yrs old! :)
Goes with what you were saying.

Over 150 tours…MOST (not all) if the info is still accurate. Access issues are mainly what has changed. See the notes in the review I wrote.</font></font>