Calling all Altai Hok users!

thanks gents!

the complaints of they don't downhill very well, slow because of the skins and don't rip turns- tends to make me think they may be what I'm looking for :) I have no visions of becoming a downhill or backcountry skier, simply looking for a tool that might be quicker than snowshoes

sounds like a few lessons on the bunny hill would be advantageous

the Russian skis certainly look interesting, but am looking for a near plug/play setup

it's not unusual on an outing (especially spring) to get into a variety of snow conditions, including hard packed stuff where solid grip is needed- any thoughts on a traction adding device that would work w/ the Hoks?

tia

deleted

I am getting into winter hiking and camping more and was using snow shoes. I am also a downhill skier. I looked at the Hoks, but went with their Kom ski instead. They are short (162cm), wide and have a fish scale base. Looks like they will be a capable on the downhills and good on a variety of terrain. Due to our lost PNW winter, I don't have any field reports on them yet. I used Riva 2 bindings and have a pair of old school 3 pin leather boots and a pair of Scarpa T-3's to play with.

No problem, Mike. I wouldn't know what size to recommend since there are so many variables: weight of the person, weight of the pack, weight of the equipment (eg. guns, chainsaws), hardness of snow, wetness of snow and so on.

Supposedly according to one documentary, one of the Russians has about 12 different pairs of different sizes for different times of the year.

But it's interesting that the Siberian forest skis are about 20 or 24 cm wide. Most of the forest skis offered in the States don't even come close to that.

To be honest, I am looking at the Karhu Jakt Classic which is 160 cm by 108 mm for my forest skis. Haven't pulled the trigger yet since I am still skeptical whether or not I should go shorter and wider given how dense the bush is here.

Michael G summed up my brief experience with the LL Bean version of the Hoks perfectly. They don't climb well due to the lack of a full skin, they don't glide well due to the short length and lame base material/integrated skin, and you can really only do the most rudimentary downhill skiing with them (depends on the binding/footwear combo you use: universal bindings with hiking shoes… forget it).

If you set them up with some pivoting crampon like those that Dynafit makes or something, it would help the climbing. If you skied them using actual ski boots and bindings, that would help the comfort and efficiency on the flats, and maybe erase some of the poor descending performance. But in reality, a short, fat BC setup like a Rossignol BC 125 with real boots/bindings and climbing skins would be better in pretty much every department. If you have firm snow and only low angle terrain, the Hoks might treat you better than they did me.

Disclaimer: I am a long-time snowshoer, tele skier, and avid splitboarder, and so my standards might be slightly high.

I would reciprocate by agreeing with Philip. I'm just pretty sure my standards are a lot lower. I have a short Alpina BC ski set up similar to the one describe below. But for really rolling hilly terrain through trees that you can do on snowshoes, the Alpina's can't deal with it well. I already had boots and an extra pair of 3-pin binding. So the Hoks were a cheap and easy item to add to the quiver and expand the range of snow conditions one can get into. They are short and light enough you can easily just strap them onto your pack and bring them along INSTEAD of snowshoes.

Having said this, I'm not advocating for them. Short regular BC XC skis with full skins are definitely better in more open terrain.

My standards are pretty low too as I'm no skier. I get the no master part, but if they can cover more ground quicker than snowshoes then they are worth a look for me. Snowshoes excel in steeper technical terrain, but they are slow and in deep powder they usually don't have enough flotation.

I'm wanting to go with the universal bindings as I envision using these like I would w/ snowshoes in the Spring where they may spend a great deal of time on my back

I haven't looked at the short back country Nordic skis as I didn't even know they were out there, I'll peek at those as well, but don't see them working out for Spring use that well

One should look at Hoks as "sliding snowshoes", not skis.

This means Hoks and similar types will likely:
1. be easier for breaking a fresh trail than snowshoes and make it far easier for those following on snowshoes.

2. climb fairly well with proper climbing skins (i.e. the widest you can find, shortened for the Hoks)

3. "ski" slowly on some downhills with stiffer boots like plastic winter climbing boots or low Tele boots

4. be able to replace snowshoes in all but the brushiest or steepest terrain

^ that's kind of what I was looking at them as; not as a skier, but wouldn't mind being a faster "sliding snowshoer" :)

To be honest, after learning about the Siberian skis and how they are used, it kind of bothers me that they are called skishoes in English. Especially since they are clearly distinct from snowshoes.

They should be more adequately called "hunting skis" or "forest skis" in order to put them in a category separate from backcountry or Nordic skis as well as alpine skis. Technically, that's the only real niche for them– in the virgin forests where silviculture is not practiced.

Nordic skiing (aka backcountry skiing) makes sense in forests which are trimmed constantly, or in the open fields.

Mike,

I had the use of a pair of the Alti Hok skis with the universal binding for a winter when they first came out. They only made the shorter version at that time.
I thought they worked quite well as a "sliding snowshoe." I skied them mostly with trail running shoes.
Turning them on anything other than powder is very difficult if not impossible with the TR shoes. Just not enough tortional stability.

I have skied quite a lot. Classic, Skate, various backcountry cross country skis as well as AT gear. The problem I always had was that the boot is much heavier than a TR shoe (for good reason) and in those spring conditions where I wanted to be hiking fast or running dry sections, the boot wouldn't work for that. I think the Hok is a pretty good compromise for that use. I will probably pick up another pair for this coming winter.
I always go back and forth between whether snoeshoes or skis are most effecient. A lot of the Rocky Mountain Front areas that I frequent tend to have lots of bare wind swept ridges and hard packed snow, so many times the snowshoes are my weapon of choice. In deeper more unconsolidated snow, skis are the better choice.

Just a quick addition. I am not sure I would go for the Hoks or anything with a universal type binding. I would want the extra "tortional stability" of a ski binding. But that means you are locked into your 3 pin boots for the trip even if you need to hike. Compromises compromises.

A friend of mine from Norway cannibalized the bindings from his snowshoes for his skis. He found that he couldn't lift his heels very high with the default universal bindings, so he got rid of them. He didn't have the money to spend on new boots or different bindings, so he just used an old pair of military snowshoes.

Another friend of mine did the same with his for the same reason (couldn't lift the heels as he wanted), but used one of those really old Finnish bindings that were used by forestry workers from the 1950s. Forgot if Karhu or Savotta still sold them for a time.

So, don't be surprised if you want to switch out the bindings. You won't be the only one.

As you've probably figured out Mike, snowshoes are pretty terrible is serious unconsolidated powder (the archaic, gigantic snowshoes of yore excepted). The Hoks are good in powder, especially powder in the tight trees. Fishscales are more versatile, but suck in cold dry pow.

Over around Helena and the Front you get enough wind and sunny days that something narrower and with at least a partial metal edge would be better. Cruise the used gear shops and ski swaps for a nordic ski 60-70mm underfoot, with scales, and 160-170cm in length. That's short for your height, which will be slower, but a lot easier to move around and turn.

great insight gents- thanks!

Dave- I have a pair of BC 70's (60mm) w/ decent scales and full metal edge (albeit a little longer than what you suggest); I think it might boil down to I'm not a very good skier???

looks like the Base Camp here is a dealer of Altai, so probably before shelling out my hard earned dough I'll try a pair this winter and see

I do know for them to work for me well, I'll need some kind of crampon for icy/hard pack conditions- anyone use a crampon w/ the Hoks? which ones? do they work?

tia

Mike