Skiing the John Muir Trail

Well done Kevin. Our course I wouldn't expect any less from someone who hiked the JMT solo in 9 days at the age of 14!

Incredible and inspiring…

Great trip report Kevin!

I really enjoyed your trip report. Great photographs. I am in awe!

Cool TR, but given that this website is about lightweight gear, and since you listed it, why such heavy nordic backcountry gear:
Skis, Bindings Fischer Outtabounds Crown with Voile Three-Pin Cable Bindings, 179 CM 122.0
Boots Rossignol BC X11 80.0
I can understand that lots of rolling terrain might favor patterned-base skis, but still, rando race gear would have saved about 4.5 pounds off your setup, and you still brought two sets of skins anyway.
Examples of what I'm referencing:
http://slc-samurai.blogspot.com/2010/04/wurlos-mountains.html
http://slc-samurai.blogspot.com/2010/04/wurlos-gear.html
http://getstrongergolonger.squarespace.com/journal/2010/5/2/the-future-is-here.html

This is a very good question that has multiple answers that vary by individual, skiing skills, terrain and snow conditions. My ski quiver contains most of these answers! (as my wife reminds me I have more pairs of skis than toes) :-) I'm going to justify my ski gear decisions but by no means suggest they are "right." They were generally right for me on this trip in these conditions. I do suggest that each group member have similar gear if you want to maximize efficient travel. If you've even followed the skin track of someone with full length skins when you only have kickers you'll understand the frustration involved!

Skis: Travel efficiency is my primary consideration when choosing a skiing style, ski and binding. I want to keep moving as it covers miles and keeps me warm. I want gear I don't have to mess with. Kinetic bases limit the time I spend putting skins on/off on rolling terrain. Skin transitions take at least 5 minutes. These can be reduced if you're good at side stepping or herringboning but these techniques aren't as efficient–especially with a pack. I've skied Goode carbon fiber skis (including a pair in which I tried to carve a kinetic base) They are very light but a bit stiff for varying snow and they don't have a kinetic base. None of the light rando gear has kinetic bases.

Binding: I choose a telemark binding as having a free heel, in combination with a kinetic base, additionally helps limit transition time on rolling terrain. I have never skied AT style but I've skied with several people who do and nearly always I end up waiting for them to pick ice out of their boots and bindings during transitions. AT skiers have many more transitions even on moderate downhills–the fully free toe pivot that works so well uphill really sucks on downhill as many who've faceplanted can attest. The AT binding does give bomber control on steep downhill skiing but this is generally a small part of long backcountry tours. The telemark binding opens up the ability to get your weight low and widen your fore/aft stance which is valuable in irregular snow conditions. Not essential but valuable. I've been skiing telemark style for more than 20 years and for others parallel/AT techniques may be as comfortable.

Having just stood up for being able to use the telemark turn I'm not a telemark disciple. I use the telemark turn only if it most efficient–you'll see me making parallel turns, snowplows, stem christies, jump turns and kick turns (and even semi-purposeful "crash turns") if conditions dictate. Unfortunately telemark bindings (except simple three pin bindings) aren't as light as their AT counterparts. A simple three pin binding might be adequate for moderate terrain but I feel the extra weight of a three pin cable binding is worth the additional control and redundancy (if the pins rip out or the bail breaks you can still tour with the cable).

Skins: In most snow conditions kinetic bases can be used without skins. However a combination of icy and/or steep snow doesn't allow kinetic skis to grip and skins become necessary. I could probably get by with kicker/full width skins but full length skin lets me go more directly up steep stuff and traverse icy slopes with much greater security. The kicker skins let me glide/travel faster on icy flat->moderate terrain and are probably worth their extra weight. Whether to take one or both (and which one) is a debatable point and I debated it right up to the day we left. I still don't know the right answer.

I don't want to sound dogmatic. My choices were made based on my skiing skills, expected terrain and snow conditions. Others may make very different decisions. Had conditions been more solid and uniform, had there been less rolling terrain (and if I was willing not to use telemark gear) the gear you've suggested would be great. I drool and reconsider my choices everytime I see such light gear! I wish I had lighter kinetic-based telemark ski and binding combinations to choose from. I wish I had slightly stiffer, better insulated and lighter boots. However the extra ~3 pounds (which includes a wider longer ski for float–the ones you've quoted have a 64mm waist and 160cm length as opposed to mine which were 179cm and have a slightly wider 68mm waist) were more appropriate for the conditions I expected to face.

Agreed on tradeoffs re weight vs travel efficiency, but the justification for those extra 4.5 lbs of weight on your feet aren’t in line with the current rando race scene, e.g., our skin<>ski transitions don’t take “at least 5 minutes” (more like 50 seconds), and a rando race setup is going to have way better downhill performance in tricky snow conditions than a nordic backcountry setup like that. (Whoever these AT skiers are that you’ve skied with, if you’re waiting for them, they’re either not on the latest gear or they’re not very skilled.)
The irony is that rando race gear has been advancing so much in recent yrs b/c of the crazy Euro race scene, while nordic backcountry gear still isn’t really very performance oriented, so that rando race gear has now been used to dominate a nordic backcountry race like the Grand Elk Traverse.

A rando race ski (at a typical weight of a little over 3 pounds) with a patterned base would be an interesting development. Or alternatively if a company like Madshus or Fischer would put their patterned-base skis through a major weight reduction.
I briefly experimented with a Fischer Outtabounds mounted with Dynafits. (On rolling terrain I was just going to keep them in tour mode — I've skied plenty of moderate downhills in tour mode when I knew an uphill was coming around soon, and it puts less stress on the binding than skinning in steep terrain.) The problem was that the setup weighed so much more than my rando race skis, and the patterned bases quickly reach their limits for any sort of sustained ascent.
I still have a nordic backcountry setup — Fischer Rebound w/ Salomon Raid boots — but I use it only for relatively casual tours.

Kevin –

Hats off – I agree that this is one of the best BPL articles I've read. You do a nice job of capturing the big picture of big adventure: dreaming up an idea, then training, planning, executing, and decision making all the while mixed with varying degrees of joy and suffering.

I like gear about as much as the next BPL member, but you remind us what is so great about expeditions in the first place: the overall experience is so much greater than just the sum of the time spent on trail. Sometimes the pre-trip and post-trip experiences are worth just as much as the time in the backcountry. Fun stuff, and more than a little inspiring.

Matt

Hi Kevin

You have mentioned AT skis and telemark skis and other heavy skis and bindings, but not the light-weight NNN-BC bindings. Have you tried them?

My 185 cm Fischer Nordic Cruising (Explorer Crown) fish-scale skis with Rossignol NNN-BC bindings weigh 2.32 kg (82 oz) for the pair. The matching boots weigh 1.6 kg (56 oz) per pair. No leather in the boots either, so they have less tendency to freeze up and they do warm up quickly.

We use this sort of combo without skins for all our alpine touring here in Australia. Granted, we are not telemarking down gullies, but we are carrying full packs. Tele turns, snow plows, kick turns … kick and glide … They work well enough in our conditions, but I have never met 'Sierra cement'. Dunno what that's like. Got some fine breakable boilerplate though … :-)

Wondering why this sort of gear does not get more use in the USA?

Cheers

I know a few guys that have mounted Salomon skate bindings on light rando racing skis for backcountry use. The skate boots actually have quit a bit of stiffness.

No personal experience though.

You got it, David – tiny market segment indeed. So tiny that I doubt we'll see much carryover from the rando racing stuff into the backcountry touring segment – much as I might wish it. I'd love to see a lighter plastic boot than my Garmont Excursions that is still 3-pin. Seems very doable, but the tooling costs are probably too high for a very few pairs that would be sold. Or a beefier version of the NNN-BC bindings, with a light plastic boot. I wish.

If I had lots of cash, I'd try some rando race bindings and boots on my Atomic Rainiers, which are about as light as you can get in a metal-edged, backcountry capable waxless base ski (77 ounces for the pair without bindings). But there's the rub – that stuff is very pricey.