What's Up With Trekking Skis

Rex,
Did not find any weights given with a quick search. After looking at the MSR and other solid polymer snowshoes, I haven’t seen any that compete with the older tube and deck designs in terms of flotation for weight. And the bindings that allow lifting the foot while only partially lifting the rear deck, allow very quick movement in flatter terrain – easier too because the shoes are lighter. The polymer shoes might be better on rocky terrain that can tear up a decked snowshoe. But for the conditions shown in the Tracker video, the Trak Bushwhackers would be much faster, and they have partial metal edges, so do very well turning on downhill sections of open terrain. For conditions that require snowshoes, I’ve found that at least 2 pairs, small deck and large deck, are needed, depending on the depth and flotation of the snow.

Interesting Skishoes. I wonder if they’d have enough bite going uphill in semi-soft conditions? In hardpack the crampon would work and in soft snow you’d be post holding well enough to stay put, but in semi-soft that fishscale might not be enough. Hard to say. They do look pretty interesting.

Tracker Skishoes looks like a classic cottage industry startup, run by an engineer working in his garage, including a failed Kickstarter campaign

More background on this well-hidden blog:

https://trackerskishoes.blogspot.com

Including this overview of his perceived competitors, both funct and defunct:

https://trackerskishoes.blogspot.com/2017/10/new-winter-sport-that-really-isnt-so-new.html

But I couldn’t find weights.

— Rex

I use the Altai Kom’s with an old pair of Riva 2 bindings and Scarpa T3 boots. The Kom’s are short and fat with fish scale bases. They are now offered in sizes 154, 162 and 174. I have the 162’s. They are fairly maneuverable and glide well while trekking and, with the plastic boots, turn quickly and can handle steep terrain on descents. If the terrain you are on demands more then a ski shoe, check them out.

I originally purchased a pair of 125 Hok’s, liked them, but thought I could benefit from more flotation- found a screaming deal on a used pair and ended up with a pair 145’s- I like them better (and my wife likes the 125’s :)).

Both are equipped with universal bindings which work decently, but not great.  I’m seriously thinking about going to a 75mm 3 pin (and cable setup) and giving that a go.

I have zero experience downhill skiing and think I would greatly benefit from a few lessons on a bunny slope with the Hok’s.

There are places that I go in the winter that necessitate snowshoes, but many places a small, maneuverable ski is a lot handier (and faster!).

I , too, have a pair of the 125 Hoks and now want the 145s for better flotation, when snowshoes just end up postholing in deep powder.  Yes, my x-country touring skis will float better than the Hoks, but then if I,m on a long traverse across a high, snowy plateau starting from a dry trailhead, I have to pack along two pairs of shoes:  x-c ski boots and trail runners.  Using the Hoks I need only trail runners…works for me!

But BD borrowed their design and improved upon it by making it lighter.  Darn…now I feel that I need the new BDs.  The only drawback that I see (I’m trying to talk myself out of this) is that the BD version binding uses a plastic hinge instead of a flex plate and leaves me wondering how long it will be before it shatters.

For those of you who have the Hoks you probably noticed that the skin material is quite loud (you’ll never be able to sneak up on an elk heard) and the glide unremarkable.  I solved both problems by spraying the skins with a teflon lubricant (it was not Tri-flo, but something from the hardware store that sprayed a white film).

Happy trails!

http://www.crossblades.ch/en/

Another variant (in the market and scanning the globe) ;

http://www.crossblades.ch/en/