Waxless ski setup…recommendations?

I’m interested in following responses to this as well.

ORS Cross Country Skis Direct is a good source for figuring out the differences. On the top right of their page, under “Confused” you can click on Backcountry on see a couple of videos and look at their different packages and what they are best for. On the lower left they also have reviews and a whole slew of videos which should help you sort it out.

George’s ORS site looks fairly comprehensive!  As a backup option you can dig through some of the content at wildsnow.com.  The material there will be mostly around AT setups, but not exclusively so.  For example, there’s a review of the Voile Vector BC skis and in the comment section there’s some good discussion on alternative setups, when the scales work and don’t work, and so forth.

-J

Thanks…I had spent a bit of time on the ORS site but George’s links led me to a few videos I had not yet found.

“but am interested in something that will allow me to explore (and enjoy) some steeper terrain, though I will still see a fair amount of flat and rolling.”

Stiffer, higher camber is better for touring. Soft camber is best for turning on the steeps. I think that you’ll have to sacrifice one of these–or go for a compromise that may not do either very well.

I think that this plays out with boots too. Maybe keeping dedicated skis and boots for moving across rolling terrain is a good idea–and then buy equipment for steeper terrain.

First, bindings.  If you plan on doing a bunch of rolling stuff 3 pins with light plastics are the way to go.  Constant mode changes are still the achilles heel of using dynafit stuff for nordic skiing, and skiing downhill with unlocked tech bindings comes up short in the control department.  In every other department tech bindings rule, mainly because the boots are so much better.

I would not recommend the heavier fabric/leather 3 pin boots for anything wider than 70mm underfoot.  Control is just not there on any harder snow.

In the realm of waxless skis over 70mm you can make a distinction between fat nordic skis (Madshus, Rossi, Alpina) and the alpine skis (Voile, G3).  The former are a lot softer in both directions.  Depending what you want to do softer might actually be better.  I haven’t seen the new wider Fischers, but assume they bridge the gap between the two.  Fischer has historically been a better built and burlier ski than the other nordic brands.

Being in the mountains in Wyoming, it really depends on where you want to go.  Tech bindings and waxless alpine skis will be great for trail breaking and moderate downhill, and will probably push you into the realm of backcountry skiing with all that goes with that (ie avy safety).  It could be a rig which ages well as you develop as a skier.  A heavy nordic rig will be cheaper, heavier, work better in rolling terrain, and potentially require hard to source boots (Scarpa T2 or 3, etc).

Personally I’ve gone to two rigs; fabric/leather nordic boot and 3 pins on waxless skis which are 60mm underfoot, and tech binding and skimo boots on a light alpine ski around 90mm underfoot.  The later option, when used with mohair skins, is as fast or faster than the first when it comes to breaking trail and doing quite a lot of off-track “nordic” skiing.

Thanks David – this is really helpful

After much research in looking for BC skis I settled on the Altai Kom’s with Riva 2 bindings and Scarpa T3 boots. I am coming from a more traditional alpine background and these are new to me, but so far, so good. They are worth a look. My boots and bindings were bought used, but Altai has a well priced package of the Kom’s, Scarpa Boots and Voile cable binding.

I’m a pretty accomplished alpine skier who has long been thinking of getting into the back country. Not to look for steeps or fresh powder, but as a winter extension of my hiking. (I’m happy to keep my shredding on groomed slopes.) Thus I’m very interested in this discussion.

I’m particularly interested in what Dave means when he says “moderate downhills” regarding tech bindings in that penultimate paragraph. As I said I won’t bee looking for steeps, but if I’m on top of a hill I’m going down it. I’m definitely not just going to be gliding on logging roads. So not really backcountry downhill and not really touring, but something in between. But my problem is that I will probably never be a competent tele skier, so I’m probably forced to look at locking bindings and mode changes.

I’ll throw in this link on maintaining a low-angle skin track:  http://www.earnyourturns.com/24692/backcountry-ski-technique-meanderthal-mind-games/.  (n.b. The author mentions that waxless skis will probably max out around a 10° incline, after which you’d need to add skins anyway.)

Dean, what sort of elevation profile do your routes have?  My (extremely limited) experience agrees with Dave’s comments.  If you can do routes that are uphill for the first half of the day, and downhill for the rest, transitions are no big deal.  If you’re going up and down a half dozen small hills each day it will put a decent dent in your travel time.  (Assuming a 2-minute transition time, that’s almost a half hour gone, and I suspect most people in this thread will not be that fast.)

-J

You did not mention in the original post whether you would be doing overnight trips on this gear. To me that is a key factor for a couple reasons. As to boots, all the leather and fabric/leather boots eventually get wet even if the don’t wet through. Wet equates to frozen in the morning if you are snow camping; plus if they wet through it means wet inside, not fun there; plus it means they get heavier as you go. Thus, plastic rules for multi-day trips, And the added beef is welcome when skiing downhill with a pack on your back.

As to skis, a little added stability doesn’t hurt with a pack.

But when and where you ski, and the typical snow conditions you’ll encounter, makes a big difference. I do all my skiing in the Sierra in the spring. Corn all the way, and waxless skis excel in those conditions where the snow is very transitional and changes all day long. I skiied across the Sierra on mine and only had skins on about 5% of the time. In areas with colder drier snow things may be different, not only in terms of waxless pattern performance but also in terms of optimum ski width. On firm corn width is not a big deal, flotation is not an issue. On softer snow wider is better a lot of the time. My skis are fairly skinny – 88/69/80 and work well for me, but I know guys who like wider skis even for the corn, and nearly everybody wants wider than that for softer snow.

Also, memo to Dean F – with light plastic boots and 3-pins, parallel turns are quite possible , especially for a good alpine skier. I don’t tele at all on my 3-pins. I ski parallel when things are good, and wedge turn or stem when conditions are funky. I’m not a very good skier.

Paul makes a good point on the snow type. Here in the Wasatch we get a fine powder. My waxless work well on ski tracks and snowmobile trails but as soon as I start breaking trail they lose effectiveness fast. I tried kicker skins for the first time yesterday and they are great on the easier terrain and moderate uphills where the waxless aren’t grabbing and it is not steep enough for full skins. And the glide is much better than full skins. Depending on where your are I would recommend getting a set, the price and weight are both very reasonable and  they can keep you from getting frustrated on a powder day.

His point about boots and turning is also dead on. 20 years ago I did a lot of  yo-yo tele skiing and almost everyone I was out with had gear that was lighter and skinnier than my current setup, Madshus Epochs and Scott Excursions. Now most skiers that are in the backcountry for a days turns are on AT gear and at ORS my kit isn’t even considered Backcountry Downhill but Backcountry Touring, which is what I do these days, with turns when they come along. Boots like the Excursion or T4 give you plenty of control when doing parallel turns and will tour easier than an AT setup.

Dean, I’d try to rent/demo the various gear options if at all possible.  The trouble for someone in your position is that with a strong skiing and backcountry background you’ll have a hard time accurately assessing what gear will best suit the trips you’ll want to do.  In a place like Colorado, with plenty of snow and a relative profusion of lower-angle alpine terrain, you could do the same trip between the same two points in very different ways with two different ski rigs.  It all ends up being about what aspects you want to prioritize and what compromises will irk you least.

A light Dynafit rig (without fishscales) can be a pain with mode changes (you have to exit the binding completely to go from down mode to up mode) and having to pick your poison on rolling terrrain (skins, or no skins?) but it combines uphill and downhill efficiency so incredibly well that I find myself using it increasingly often, and just tailoring routes to the gear as much as possible.  I still wouldn’t be without my pure nordic gear.

+1 to David Chenault’s suggestion that you rent different rigs and see what works best for you on the kind of trips you will be doing.

Personally, I telemark using relatively short, fat alpine skis (Dynastar Powertrack 84s @ 176 cm), plastic boots (Scarpa T1s), and Rottefella Freeride bindings, for all my skiing, both at alpine resorts and backcountry touring (with skins) in the Sierra Nevada. I’m not trying to set any speed or distance records when touring and I prefer to tour at altitude, where the slopes are generally steeper. I also prefer the telemark set up versus AT Randonee for comfort and versatility.

For uphill traction there is simply no comparison between skins and waxless skis. For downhill the security, turning power and precision of alpine/telemark skis is far superior to waxless XC/touring skis. And it you don’t like or don’t know telemark you can just do parallel turns, even without rear bindings, as mentioned by Paul McLaughlin above.

The “problem” when skiing downhill on a waxless ski is that it requires a double camber to create a pocket in the traction area. This allows it to slide on the front and back portions of the skis when gliding, but lets the fish scales contact the snow when you push down hard for traction. A double camber waxless ski can never carve as smooth and powerful an arc as a single camber alpine/telemark ski does. The first time you find yourself at the top of a long, steep, narrow and icy run while wearing a pack, you will be grateful for single camber skis.

I don’t mind the transitions, and they aren’t always necessary anyway. With practice you can put skins on for uphill in a couple of minutes, and stripping them off can be done in seconds without taking off the skis at all. For rolling terrain I usually just leave the skins on all the time. They make the skis go somewhat slower downhill but for me the increased traction when climbing uphill is worth it.

Alpine skis and plastic telemark boots have worked well on Tuckerman’s Ravine on Mt. Washington back east, the Winter Sierra High Route here in the West, and alpine resorts both east and west. It is a strong, powerful and versatile set up.

“For rolling terrain I usually just leave the skins on all the time. They make the skis go somewhat slower downhill but for me the increased traction when climbing uphill is worth it.”

This is my plan for rolling trails and forest roads in the Appalachians. At my skill level, going slower downhill is a very good thing. I use Rossi BC70’s with NNN-BC bindings. I haven’t used them on an overnight trip yet because I don’t have skins yet. I’ll be bringing snowshoes too for the un-skiable sections. No need to cringe at the weight of carrying skis, as I’ll usually be using a sled

“For downhill the security, turning power and precision of alpine/telemark skis is far superior to waxless XC/touring skis.”

This is true, but to be clear, some of the skis I mentioned above are proper AT skis with a waxless pattern.  The Vector BCs have excellent edgehold, comparable to anything in the same weight class.

Black Diamond now has full length, 50mm wide “nordic” skins, which are a great option (and only 10 bucks more than their kicker skins).  Plenty of grip, and no shame in keeping them on as a drag break on descents.  Everyone does that occasionally.

I need help on Back Country Ski “Bindings”.  The majority of my hiking partners use bindings that accept any type of boot.  They do not require a shoe to fit into pins etc.  Does anyone have any comments on this type of set up or where I could buy them.  One of them bought their bindings from Weber Arctic Co.  Weber Bindings.  I could not find any info anywhere on the web.  John

Is this for telemark or AT?

I’ll assume telemark because you mentioned pins. There are many telemark bindings that do not require the boot to fit on pins: Voile, Scarpa, 22 Designs, Rottefella, Bishop Binding Co., G3, Black Diamond, Diamond Sports. Don’t know about Weber.

Altai universal binding.

Heavy, and not very high performance, but sturdy and functional.

I looked at the Altai Skis web site, and they have some very interesting products. The Hok is a hybrid snowshoe/waxless ski, and the Kom is a waxless backcountry ski. Worth considering.

Thank you David for the input.  I checked out the Altai ski link.  Very interesting.  I’m from Michigan and most of our showshoe trips have been in the Upper Peninsula.  4-5 days with snowshoes and hauling pulks for our gear ETc.  Rolling and flat terrain mainly.  I’m just starting to look into why you would need the BackCountry Skis as opposed to the Snowshoes.  I know they take both.  At what point would you change from Snowshoes to BC skis hauling a Pulk?  This whole thing of Alpine Touring really has me intrigued.  Would you even want the capability to have telemark equipt. when using a pulk.  I guess the original question that i posed was one Mukluk for both.  Now i know there are universal bindings.  I want to be up to speed and understand this.  Any articles or insight on the matter.  John.   Thank you.

I hate snowshoes. Never use them. No glide and no fun on downhills.

So I would go with the Hoks before snowshoes except for the most extreme bushwacking through heavy brush, where skis will get hopelessly tangled.

For anything else I would prefer skis. The Hoks would also be great for someone with little or no skiing experience.

Sure, you can use telemark gear when hauling a pulk. If it gets steep put on some skins and it’s like having four wheel drive.

Don’t know of any articles to share, but a google search got a lot of hits.

That was “Exactly” what I needed to know.  Thanks for staying with me on this. The only last issue I need to address is the skins.  I can research that. Really….David….you could not have said it better.  I thank you for that.  John from Michigan.