Backcountry touring ski upgrade

Ski length – 180 should be about right, I'm about the same height and weight and that works great for me. Epoch or Eon should be good either one, the Eon is a little lighter and narrower, the epoch a little wider and heavier. Given that you have Glittertinds and assuming you will keep those, I'd say Epoch. Or S-bound 98 if you can find them – I think they were discontinued.

Boot stiffness – stiffer means more control. Those Alaskas are right up there with the stiffest leather or fabric/leather boots, from what I've heard. Beyond that you go plastic – Scott Excursions or Scarpa T4. If I were you I'd try on some plastic boots as well as the stiffest leathers you can find. Basically the stiffest leathers will be the least boot you'd want. Plastic will be better on the downhill for sure, especially if you go overnight, but not as good on easy rolling terrain.

You do want heel lifters, and the 3-pin cable heel piece has them.

Can you use anything you already have. Uh, the poles? Seriously, you could put those bindings on a wider ski but you'd be disappointed – you'd probably have less control than you do now. Better to keep that setup and use it for what it's good for and get a whole new rig for steeper terrain.

And you do want skins. You may not use them a lot but when you need them you NEED them.

I have Voile' release bindings for my 3 pin plate bindings. They use a Besser style toe release and always work well. The setting numbers are not DIN so you have to experiment for the correct setting.

I use them on both my 210 cm. Norwegian Army Asnes back county touring skis and on my 190 cm. Atomic TM 22 Tele skis.
As a ski patroller I've seen enough broken bones and torn tendons to know that release bindings in the backcountry are necessary.

REGARDING THE PLASTIC BOOT & BLISTER PROBLEM MENTIONED BELOW:

I use Vasque double layer leather 75 mm 3 pin boots for my Asnes touring skis and the Scarpa T3 boots for my Tele skis.
I haven't traveled for more than 2 hours in the T3s but (so far) no problems B/C I loosen the tops to the last notch on the buckle.

Never used or needed skins. Fishscale always works fine for us.
Never used or needed release bindings either, at least on Nordic-style XC skis.
I image it might depend a bit on the terrain and what you are really doing.

Cheers

I got the Madshus Annum with a voile 3 pin binding this year for exactly the same reasons. Already had a pair of T4 with which they work great.

Velimir,

Skis: The wider the ski the better it will handle powder. But wider skis are more unwieldy for touring. If you're climbing primarily for turns (as I often do) any good backcountry ski will work. The trend in resort skis is lighter weight, high tech, very expensive materials. Goode makes carbon fiber skis that are phenomenally lightweight and cost about $1500 a pair. Check ski swaps for a ski you like. I agree with Paul that 180 cm should be long enough.

Boots: Unless you are going on long tours, I'd go plastic. Much better control on the downhill runs. I can recommend the SCARPA T4 tele boots.

Skins: Take them. Fishscales can't handle really steep uphills.

Bindings: I use 22 Designs Axl tele bindings. Love 'em. Whatever you chose be sure you have heel lifters.

As others have noted, the right setup depends on terrain and the purpose of your tour. If it's downhill powder runs, you'll need a wider ski and stiffer boots than your current rig. If it's touring with the occasional climb and descent, I think your rig will do fine.

Another trend is away from telemark to randonnee (French for 'can't tele')boots and bindings for backcountry use. You can probably save some weight with skimpy Dynafit setup, though not too much if you're going with a traditional 3-pin binding.

Velimir, I've not used the Alaska boot, but I'd question how much you'd gain in turning over the 2550s. The Epochs can be driven with fabric/leather boots, but light plastics will give you quite a bit more power. If you're looking for a setup to compliment your existing rig, Annums, Voile Mountaineers, and light plastic boots (T4 or Excursion) would be a good way to go.

Hi,

first of all thank you to all of you who responded to my questions! I realy appreciate
it and am gratefull for your shared knowledge.

I did look at all the skis suggested and see that Madshus is either 175 or 185 cm lenght. I guess size down is the way to go here?

I read most of you are plastic boot fans and that you much like Scarpa T4. As with the skis these will have to be purchased online as I can only get Alpina boots here. Coming from the land of Alpina that's not unusual at all..I do ask you users of T4 how wide they actually are? I have very wide feet and barely feel comfortable in my 2250 Alpina leather boots. Will have to order two sizes to try for lenght but main deal breaker for me so far has been my wide feet:(

Now its bindings where I got all confused. What are the main differences between Voile 3-Pin Cable Telemark Binding and Voile HD Mountaineer 3-Pin Telemark Binding apart from cables? Why do you use them at all and what do you loose if not using them? Stability..control power etc.

Yes the poles need to be replaced for something better as to what I have now. They are just rubbish:)

Thanks guys!

There is a problem with all plastic boots. They are great for downhill turns, but if you are touring some distance your shins will rub on the front of the boots, and after a few hours you may be in total agony there. Well, that's what happened to me with T3s, anyhow.

Cables – more control, lots more, than no-cables.

Cheers

If in doubt go shorter is my mantra. They will turn easier and grip better if shorter. You might lose a little glide but that's better than having not enough grip on the up.

As to 3-pin cables vs. 3-pin Mtneer; the cables are the only difference. With my plastic boots I cannot tell the difference in control with or without cables, so I never use the cables. Some say the cables make a good backup plan in case of pinholes ripping out and carry them just in case – I never have, even skiing across the Sierra. Better skiers than I may be able to feel the difference, though.

As to plastic boots and touring – I've skied a few hundred miles in my plastic boots. Roger's boots obviously did not fit well. Heat-molded liners are essential.

> As to plastic boots and touring – I've skied a few hundred miles in my plastic boots.
> Roger's boots obviously did not fit well. Heat-molded liners are essential.
They were hire boots for the day.
I now use NNN-BC fittings and low-cut Alpinas.

Cheers

"As to plastic boots and touring…"

For several seasons now I have been using Karhu 3-pin boots with vibram sole. They are relatively high-top for cross country boots, and they are made of a synthetic leather. So, they are strong and mostly stiff and non-breathable as plastic, but they still have some leatherlike flex.

–B.G.–

I can't help you with the T4s specifically, though Scarpa's tele boots are generally regarded as having a middle-of-the-road fit. Sounds like you have very wide feet, in which case you're a good candidate for Excursions if you can find them. They fit very wide.

If you're building a turning/woods setup, shorter and wider is a good way to go.

I'd recommend the BD Boundary poles over the Traverse. They are significantly more durable and stiff for a very modest increase in weight and cost.

Velimir,

To answer one of your questions,the difference between the Voile bindings you identify (and among all comparable three-pin bindings) is in fact the cable, which helps only on steeper descents. Before switching to the Axls, I removed the cable when skiing in the backcountry.

As for boots, Roger (as usual) is correct that plastic boots increase the risk of shin friction, though this can be avoided with careful fitting and orthotics (not inexpensive). I've had a different problem with my T3s and T4s – heel blisters. I can ascribe this to my skinny ankles, but it's definitely a more serious problem with plastic boots than with laced-up leather ones. On balance I think the trade off for better stability on descents is worth it, but remember that descents are often my principal reason for touring. As I stated earlier, make your equipment decisions based on your trip terrain and routing.

Richard

Just in case you actually want something light, efficient, safe, etc. (as opposed to the gear that has been suggested so far, all of which is heavy, lacks a resistance-free pivot with zero lifted weight on each stride, offers poor control for skiing, and won't release), here is a good place to start looking:
http://skimo.co/product/compare

Come now Jonathan, next you'll be trying to convince us to replace our warm, inviting gaslamps with those new-fangled Edison bulbs!

> something light, efficient, safe, etc. (as opposed to the gear that has been
> suggested so far, all of which is heavy, lacks a resistance-free pivot with
> zero lifted weight on each stride,

So I actually went and looked at that web site, and clicked on Touring Boots.
Hysterical! Great big plastic boots, all well over 300 mm (12") high, weighing upwards of 2.2 kg (almost 5 lb) a pair. Oh yeah, real Light! And the prices up to $1,000 a pair.

Not having a go at you Jonathon, but these guys have NO idea what 'touring' is. Heavy telemark/downhill stuff.

Cheers

Original inquiry stated:
"But if I try to do anything on the steep side thats where it gets more interesting to get off the hill alive. […] I would like to use the above on powder snow, groomed slopes and over heavy Spring snow."
– The boots I use for that weigh three pounds per pair, less than my SNS-BC boots.
– Bindings weigh about half a pound per pair.
– All of this is course available at Skimo Co.
– Yes, the very lightest can be pricey, but so is a decent road bike compared to a Huffy at WalMart, and ditto for much of the lightweight backpacking gear reviewed at BPL compared to the equivalents at WalMart.

"I now use NNN-BC fittings and low-cut Alpinas."
– Might be good enough for all the low-angle touring you do, but doesn't seem to match up with what the original poster intends.
– Plus your gear doesn't weigh any less than mine.

"Not having a go at you Jonathon, but these guys have NO idea what 'touring' is."

I've run into this same problem of language before.

Some people seem to mean that it is loading fifty pounds of baggage onto a big tour bus and visiting three or four downhill ski resorts for lift-served skiing.

I think for most of us, "touring" means cross country skiing up and down a little through the woods with few trails, maybe 5-10 miles per day. It also means dodging a few trees, so you need some control.

–B.G.–

My ten centimes: Jonathan Sheffetz in an ALPINE tourer. Randonee skiing. Over towards the side of the continuum where it is "all about the down" there is wonderfully light downhill gear that is also great–light–for climbing. Some boots, these "rando-race boots" are probably lighter than the Excursion/t4 weight range. Carbon fiber. Molto Costoso. Plus cher.

I bought some Axls and promptly sold them when they were delivered. Heavy. For that *general* level of turning power, I'd go with the Voile Switchback for light weight and free-pivot mode.

Like Eric, I favor double boots where camping, but for me that means plastic boots. Doubles in leather, or lighter composites don't exist as far as I can see.

Throwing in another ten centimes, I'll voice a preference for less sidecut, say, maxxing at 32mm. Reason is, sidecut's value is solely in turning via edging; carving. Lots of sidecut makes for harder tracking on the flats and a much less relaxing traverse when the traverse is long and you need edging bite. I find the reality for me skiing ungroomed snow with a pack at my age, elegant angulated edging of turns doesn't happen much, and crude stem initiations frequently do. Madshus Annums have this sidecut.

"Some boots, these "rando-race boots" are probably lighter than the Excursion/t4 weight range."
Yes, my boots weigh less than a T4.
More specifically, my *pair* of boots weighs less than a *single* Excursion or T4.
That's right, boots that are stiff enough to ski any descent weigh less than half of the Excursion or T4, and have a range of resistance-free motion for touring far beyond the Excursion or T4.
My rando race boots even weigh less than my nordic SNS-BC boots.
(Yes, they cost more too, but that certainly does stop all sorts of expensive BPL weight saving on the back, where it counts far less than on the foot.)

I'm following this thread with interest.

One option not mentioned here is described by Luc Mehl:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthingstolucat.com%2Ffast-and-light-winter-travel%2F&ei=AswkVMu6C8n8oQSxj4HIBQ&usg=AFQjCNGMmBlFC6z_non-CgNLT_dFKe-fvA&sig2=16muL6BTCQ6IQCMjCWMagA&bvm=bv.76247554,d.cGU

Tech bindings (e.g. Dynafit), and AT boots with the tongue removed, and DIY gaiters attached to the boot.

[] crampon compatible
[] removable liner
[] lightweight binding

Have others tried this?

I ask because currently I have traditional backcountry touring skis, 3 pin voile bindings with removable cables, and old Scarpa T2s, which are basically the current T4s. Would an AT boot with modifications kick and glide as well as these low-cut lightweight tele boots? I find my setup suited to rolling hills and such but would appreciate a more crampon friendly toe, as well as being able to lock my heels when carrying a heavy pack.

Here is the link:

http://thingstolucat.com/fast-and-light-winter-travel/

That article is a few years old, and the light rando race boots have gotten way lighter since then (though pricey in a big way). Also keep in mind that Luc Mehl used only the toepiece of his Dynafits – no heel piece at all.

Will,
You sent me to earnyourturns.com with your post; I think that's where I saw someone–also from AK–do a very similar hack to telemark boots, pretty bushwacking oriented though. [EDIT: Oops, I lied. Was a Luc Mehl style hack to F2 AT boots. Interesting, tho in that cut down tongue, didn't remove: http://www.backcountrytalk.earnyourturns.com/vb/showthread.php?590-Modifying-boots-and-liners-for-tourability-weight&p=7686&viewfull=1#post7686

FWIW, I think you're right and the Pbax thickness/weight of Scarpas for the "chassis"–all boot below the cuff–is the same over T2/T3, & probably T4. I know my Excursions are way lighter, flexier in the chassis.

[Edit to remove dated, off-point info on AT boot lightening.]

"Kick and glide"–defining is the crux. Without any AT experience (tho, coming this season) I don't see any way to get true mile-eating, roll-off-the-rear-boot push without a bellows. I do keep hearing about sole flex in the TLT5. I got a pair of the F1s, and can say (but very limited testing last yr) the bellows flexes. I got them for TTS–tech toe but telemark heel cable. (Bellowed AT boots are dead, though. My new bellowed "Dynafit" boots are NT). System is fabulously light and will glide fine under-pack, where all you really do is slide forward. But without some heel retention, or a toe bumper, you couldn't skate and I don't see kicking out fast & classic style over flats.

Now the hack that really intrigued me I haven't seen since. A commander of the Marine Corps High Altitude Training Center near Bridgeport CA, adapted some Excursion boots with three pin bindings by adding Dynafit heels. He claimed recruits from Alabama, learning–& doing–skiing with monstrous packs needed heel retention. But also demanded the complete walking, working, bushwacking, flexibility of Excursions & three pins. He was working with Mammoth Mountaineering in Mammoth Lakes CA to add the heel pieces to Garmont Excursions. I emailed them & started a conversation, but dropped it when it started sounding like a significantly $$ custom job.

Anyway, there's a big magic kingdom out here in Hackdom to explore.