A few more ski questions

DougPaul said:

Many (most?) skis that fit in tracks (tracks are 70mm wide) don't turn particularly well. I deal with this by having several sets of skis ranging from kick and glide oriented BC (65/54/60) camber and a half* (which fit) to single camber* light Tele (90/67/8) Tele to single camber* heavy Tele (119/78/105) and (try to) choose the most appropriate pair for the situation. (All have metal edges and are mounted with 75mm pin or cable bindings.)

* There has been very little discussion of camber--it has a huge effect on the turning performance of a ski.

BTW, all of the above skis can be waxed or skinned and used in a kick and glide mode.

Click to expand...

I understand this to some degree, but then I'm also trying to consider flotation, length, and camber/stiffness into the equation. Then of course there is sidecut...

I guess maybe I was buying the marketing hype that, what is considered now, a midrange Nordic BC ski like the Epoch or S Bound 98 would be a good compromise between touring and turning, depending on the boot. Seems to me from looking at old data that the manufacturers have added sidecut to models like these. That probably hurt the touring performance and made them ski more like a modern shaped ski, as I think dave.m was trying to point out.

The thing that concerns me about a skinnier ski like the Eon is being able to ski it deep powder. I'm fairly confident I'd be able to parallel turn it on piste or hardpack but if I'm sinking to my waist in pow or knee deep in glop that might be a different story.

Seems maybe my next ski should be a little wider with a more traditional sidecut?

DougPaul said:

The cable bindings give better ski control, but you need a beefy enough boot to take advantage of it. My BC and light Tele skis have 3-pin bindings (mostly Rottefella Super Tele) and my heavy Tele skis have cable Tele bindings. All of my boots (Snowfield II (leather), T3 (light plastic), T2 (heavier plastic)) are 75-mm system and I can choose boots to match the skis and expected conditions.

Click to expand...

I understand the mechanics of it, but I guess I don't understand why one wouldn't use them coming down on a mountain tour and keep them off on the flats and the way up? Maybe I am thinking they will have more effect on a T4 boot than they actually do.

DougPaul said:

Both Tele gear and BC gear can be used for kick-and-glide which should flex your feet a bit... (Have you considered footbeds? I use green superfeet in my Snowfields. Some of the better boots also have heat-moldable liners.)

Doug

Click to expand...

Yes. This is what I like. Being able to flex is key for me these days. Keeps the blood moving I guess. Less cramping.

I do have custom footbeds but they've been shaped so many times they really ought to be redone. I was having some major issues with my alpine boots and the boot techs were throwing everything at them to try to help. Never did make them right. I gave up on those boots. Anyway the beds work pretty well in my soft boots. I have a really wide foot that spreads when I load it. That tends to be a real issue with a stiff boot...

I'm not sure how much stretching can be done on a tele style boot, but it's something I plan on looking into. Highly unlikely I'll get the right fit out of the box.

MikeK said:

I understand this to some degree, but then I'm also trying to consider flotation, length, and camber/stiffness into the equation. Then of course there is sidecut...

Click to expand...

Without significant side cut the skis won't want to turn. You can make them turn, even in leather boots if the snow is right, but it's more work and even then only the best skiers will make it look good. The bottom line is what is the purpose of your skiing? If you want to earn turns you'll want to get bigger, heavier, stiffer gear - both skis and boots. If you want to mainly tour and cover ground you want straighter, skinnier, lighter gear.

The middle ground is a compromise. I have many different sets of skis in the quiver so I can select what I need for the trip planned. But if my goal is to make turns I will always grab the bigger gear. My Outtabounds are great skis to have, but even matched with Excursions they aren't really very turny skis in anything but soft snow. Figure out what you're going to be doing 80% of the time and buy skis for that activity.

David Metsky said:

Figure out what you're going to be doing 80% of the time and buy skis for that activity.

Click to expand...

I think I have those skis and boots already. I'm looking to expand though - that other 20% may become 30% next year, or 40%... Naturally I want my next ski to give me as much compliment to what I already have.

I like the beer analogy though. Seems appropriate here. Not everyone likes the same types of beers, but they are all beer by some definition. I tried a few 'beers' this year and got a taste of what I liked on the touring end.

Also I wish I would have tried this myself, but my wife did try a set of T4s with a pair of compacts this year. She is not a good downhill skier - she's done it twice and never made it off a green run. She was cutting all over the place with those things on shallow hills. She looked better than she did on downhill skis. Maybe a bad example but I'm basing a lot on this observation.

MikeK said:

I understand this to some degree, but then I'm also trying to consider flotation, length, and camber/stiffness into the equation. Then of course there is sidecut...

Click to expand...

Ski design is very complicated and involves compromises between the different features (eg profile, length, camber/stiffness, damping, weight, strength, etc). No single ski is optimum for everything which is why many skiers maintain a quiver of skis to choose from. And, if one insists on using one ski for everything, skiing will be much harder in some conditions than it would be with a more appropriately chosen ski.

Essentially all of my skis are metal-edged and useable in the backcountry. As noted earlier, they range from kick-and-glide oriented to heavy Tele. My Tele skis are all all-mountain skis which are useable from piste to powder. (We don't see much light powder here in the NE... If I lived elsewhere, I might choose different skis.)

I think, that to some degree, you are asking for the impossible. As others have suggested, decide what you want to do and choose a ski or set of skis that cover it. Of course, your preferences may change with time and as your skills change. (A bit of a chicken and egg problem...) I suggest that you dive in (which you seem to have done) and accept that there may be additional pairs of skis in your future (which appears to be your current problem).

The thing that concerns me about a skinnier ski like the Eon is being able to ski it deep powder. I'm fairly confident I'd be able to parallel turn it on piste or hardpack but if I'm sinking to my waist in pow or knee deep in glop that might be a different story.

Click to expand...

The primary determinant of flotation in a ski is the waist width. The Eon is probably a poor choice for deep light powder.

There is also a new camber design for deep powder--rocker. This is a traditional single camber center with upturned tips and tails. The logic is that the rocker will help to prevent tip dive and make it easier to keep your skis on/near the surface of light powder and the traditional center section will still work on hardpack and piste. (I know, yet another feature to add to the confusion...)

I'm not sure how much stretching can be done on a tele style boot, but it's something I plan on looking into. Highly unlikely I'll get the right fit out of the box.

Click to expand...

I don't think I do much foot flexing in my T2s when skiing downhill (Tele or parallel), but I most certainly shift the underfoot pressure point around (big toe on the front foot and little toe on the back foot during Tele turns...). When kicking and gliding (as in getting back to the lift or during a BC approach), I do fore-and-aft flexing but not much side-to-side. (As with plastic downhill boots, you control your edging from the knee.)

Doug

DougPaul said:

I think, that to some degree, you are asking for the impossible. As others have suggested, decide what you want to do and choose a ski or set of skis that cover it. Of course, your preferences may change with time and as your skills change. (A bit of a chicken and egg problem...) I suggest that you dive in and accept that there may be additional pairs of skis in your future.

Click to expand...

Oh I agree... I think that two pairs of skis is not going to cover everything. I will most likely have more some day.

I'm trying to not ask for the impossible, but get some more info on how these skis may perform. My thoughts are shifting from where I first started.

As far as deep powder... pretty rare and even rarer that I make it out in the woods the day it exists... so probably not a priority.

I understand an Eon won't be an ideal turn ski. But it won't be a horrible touring ski either. I'm wondering if I by going to that ski I'd be taking more of a baby step to get to skiing some turns, on mellow terrain more or less.

I don't think I'm ready to commit to turn only ski - I probably wouldn't use it that much.

And obviously I don't plan on giving up my Glittertinds... just expanding.

If you want to turn, the EONs are not the ski. They will turn but that's not their primary purpose. If your goal is to do turns get a ski/boot combination that is designed for that and that can also tour. I'd go with something like the Voile Vector BC if touring for turns is your primary goal, pair it with a 2 buckle plastic boot and Voile Switchback bindings and don't look back.

Dave is right on the money.

+1 for the Voile Switchback. Great binding, very handy. I'm running those right now on 165 Madshus Annum skis (the former Karhu XCD Guide). A little wide for touring in tracks, but I can handle absolutely any downhill in that set up. When I'm on those, I wear the same T1 boots I use for lift served. I don't mind the extra work of a bigger boot on the uphills; they're solid on ice in crampons, when needed; and I turn where I plan to turn on the way down. That set up is probably on the heavy side for what you want, but look at that ski to get an idea of the range. Eon = old XCD GT = unturnable spear. Trust me, that's what I started on 20 years ago learning tele at the resort. Just about impossible to turn those things, even on groomed. A boot somewhere in between the reinforced leather (like the Fisher BCX and the light plastic (T2, T3)) would be good. The plastics are much lighter (and warmer) than they were years ago, with the new foam liners. The old loden wool liners were wicked heavy. So don't shy away from plastic based on weight.

David Metsky said:

The middle ground is a compromise. I have many different sets of skis in the quiver so I can select what I need for the trip planned. But if my goal is to make turns I will always grab the bigger gear. My Outtabounds are great skis to have, but even matched with Excursions they aren't really very turny skis in anything but soft snow. Figure out what you're going to be doing 80% of the time and buy skis for that activity.

Click to expand...

I agree with this.

The only things to add is that, for me, ski (and boot) selection also depends on the length of the tour (favoring lighter straighter skis) and the expected steepness (favoring wider). Another factor is personal turning style in wild snow. Skinnier skis favor a down in the snow technique vs a skim on top with wider skis. Wider also generally translates into faster in wild snow for just that reason.

Second thing to add is that I think wild snow turning is affected as much by flex as it is by width and side cut. Soft, rounding flexing skis make slow speed, down in the snow turns easily while more highly cambered and stiffer skis tend to flail. I would rather have my (Atomic made) Black Diamond Synchos (tip width about 72mm) than your Fischer Outtabounds for powder. The Fischer's are so stiff and highly cambered that they flounder (at least my Rebounds do and all ohter high cambered skis I've skied in powder). The Synchros have a nice round flex (like the old Karhu Supremes) and are very nice down in the powder, despite being skinny.

In the mid width range, I really like the 90/70/80 profile so long as the ski is flat, soft and round flexing. I've stock piled several: Garmont Monashee, Tua Excalibur, Kneissel Tourstars. The Monashee is my go-to ski for what Mike is talking about. Tours well. Will hold an edge on boiler plate. Round flex in the deep. And important for me, keeps me just deep enough in the snow in the woods that speed control isn't usually a problem. Honestly fat skis in the woods scare the crap out of me. Just too fast for my taste. Definitely YMMV though.

Mike, I think for what you describe on the currently available market, the Epoch, Switchbacks and T4s is a reasonable combo.

If you need to lower cost and can stomach wax, you can find a TON of used beginner skis that are nice and round flexing with the same basic profile as the Epoch. The old K2 Two is one of a kajillion.

I think I'll pass on the vectors... way too fat for me. I'd be all over the place on those.

I'm really struggling to understand this concept of straight, skinny skis not turning... at what length? I'm recalling my old alpine days and I can turn a ski like the Eon in a 170 or 180 like a champ... I was poor then and only had one pair of super soft skis, more for moguls. But they would crank turns. Given enough boot I just can't see that not being the case... Now take that same profile and go to a 200 or 215... good god! A death trap! I'm thinking I'm getting a mix of old school length and soft boot syndrome in with these opinions... but hey, I've never really freeheeled, so I may be way off!

Camber I get. One of the things that makes me leery about the S bounds. I've also read that they are stiffer than a comparable Madshus. Might be nice for touring speed but with a stiff boot on my foot that seems like a moot point.

I'm also not convinced the switchback is the way to go. Again I'm going based on the time my wife skied with the T4s. She could kick and glide just fine... albeit a bit slower. I think if I was going to buy those I might as well go for an AT ski... seems to me a floppy hinge is going to suck for anything but climbing straight up in high/stiff boots and it can't be used with any other boots because there aren't pins. Also my foot won't probably won't flex the bellows and it would't be any more natural for my foot that a rigid AT boot.

I like the initial idea of having just pins. To me the cable or hardwire seems to make more sense because it is defeatable - I'm still not clear on the disadvantage here.

MikeK said:

I'm really struggling to understand this concept of straight, skinny skis not turning... at what length? I'm recalling my old alpine days and I can turn a ski like the Eon in a 170 or 180 like a champ... I was poor then and only had one pair of super soft skis, more for moguls. But they would crank turns. Given enough boot I just can't see that not being the case... Now take that same profile and go to a 200 or 215... good god! A death trap! I'm thinking I'm getting a mix of old school length and soft boot syndrome in with these opinions... but hey, I've never really freeheeled, so I may be way off!

Click to expand...

The straight skinny skis turn perfectly well on groomed or relatively firm surfaces by using skidded turns. You need the sidecut and relatively soft single camber to make edge turns in (rather than on) snow. (Of course, you can make step turns with either type of ski.)

Camber I get. One of the things that makes me leery about the S bounds. I've also read that they are stiffer than a comparable Madshus. Might be nice for touring speed but with a stiff boot on my foot that seems like a moot point.

Click to expand...

It looks to me like you are focusing on waxless skis. In general, most waxless (and track/many BC waxable) skis are double camber or camber-and-a-half to reduce the pattern (kick wax) drag resulting in reduced turning performance.

Most Tele skis are waxable and can therefore be designed with a true single camber.

An anecdote:
My first skis were 200cm waxable wood Bonna Turlangrenn 2000's (61/51/57) with single camber, hickory bases, and lignostone (compressed impregnated beechwood) edges. (Plastic bases and waxless were just coming into existence...) They skied pretty well on both groomed and BC snow. (I only knew snowplow turns back then.) I had to take several years off due to a leg problem and when I came back I used "modern" plastic 190cm Karhu XCD-GT's (62/54/60) with metal edges. The camber was too strong for my weight and it caused me problems until I figured out what the problem was and bought a more appropriate pair of skis. I may have been able to ski more difficult BC terrain on those wood skis than I have been able to ski since. Wax adhered to those wood bases better than to any plastic base that I have used--the difference is dramatic when the snow is abrasive.

The key may have been a single camber with good wax adhesion. (And maybe being a bit younger... )

Doug

I see. I've also really never skied downhill on anything other than piste or a hard base that had a few inched of fluff on it... so that would explain my lack of understanding.

I'm not very keen on wax. I kind of wish I was because I know it is better, but my last pair of traditional XC skis were wax base and they were always a nightmare. In all fairness I mostly skied on those close to Rochester, which being close to the lake has more moderate temps than say other parts of NY or NE. I just seem to remember always icing or not sticking and trying to scrape and reapply wax on the trail... it gave me a bad taste for it. I'm honestly pretty impressed with modern waxless skis though. I should be skiing a 215 and I'm skiing a 200 and able to get what I consider a respectable glide in most conditions - the grip I feel is excellent if I use a good stomp to plant the pattern while climbing. I'm certainly not going to win any races but what I'm more concerned about is energy conservation. On a broken track I feel as though I'm expending less energy to move at the same, or faster pace than I would hike in the summer... and that's about all I'm after for touring.

I'm OK with going a little slower if it opens up more options for me. If my feet aren't happy I certainly won't be going anywhere though. This is still a bit concern for me.

Again thanks everyone for all the feedback.

dave.m said:

IMO, 2 buckle plastic boots, pins and skis like the old Karhu Guides (or current equivalents) are a great combo for making turns in the woods, but this is really the combination of the best of Nordic and the best of Telemark techniques. IMO, the fastest way to get those is to focus on each separately. Do Nordic touring in the woods to start and learn to make parallel and tele turns on lifts with bigger gear. Much faster approach.

Let me say this another way... Don't fall into the trap that many of us did of trying to get good at tele by just marginally increasing your gear in small increments. IMO, that middle zone occupied by the 2 buckle plastic boot is best conquered from 2 directions at once.

Click to expand...

OK - I think maybe I've devised a plan of attack that may hopefully satisfy my future desires. After all I think everything has started to sink in... maybe...

In an attempt to get the the zen area of woods skiing I'm going to forgo the two buckle boot for now and rent something burlier.

As far as skis - I'll buy something in the Epoch/Annum range with the plans to ski with them on two buckles. I think I'm going to rent skis though for learning... I've read about the waxless bases getting tore up at ski centers.

I'm leaning with keeping the pins just because I'm not sold on skiing flats with the hinge... I see the submarining issue and the advantage of the free pivot for climbing in deep snow. I'm not planning on climbing slides and skiing down them so I don't think that is an issue. If I can get a chance to demo the switchbacks I will... because maybe I won't mind it.

If I ever get serious about going downhill with my heels flopping I'll definitely go the free pivot route.

Anyway, once I get some feel for skiing greens and blues on piste I'll think about buying skis and boots trying a sledding hill, and then maybe a logging road, etc...

I've finally been convinced!

MikeK said:

I see. I've also really never skied downhill on anything other than piste or a hard base that had a few inched of fluff on it... so that would explain my lack of understanding.

Click to expand...

In general parallel or snowplow turns are easier on a firm surface and Tele turns are easier in powder.

I'm not very keen on wax. I kind of wish I was because I know it is better, but my last pair of traditional XC skis were wax base and they were always a nightmare. In all fairness I mostly skied on those close to Rochester, which being close to the lake has more moderate temps than say other parts of NY or NE. I just seem to remember always icing or not sticking and trying to scrape and reapply wax on the trail... it gave me a bad taste for it. I'm honestly pretty impressed with modern waxless skis though. I should be skiing a 215 and I'm skiing a 200 and able to get what I consider a respectable glide in most conditions - the grip I feel is excellent if I use a good stomp to plant the pattern while climbing. I'm certainly not going to win any races but what I'm more concerned about is energy conservation. On a broken track I feel as though I'm expending less energy to move at the same, or faster pace than I would hike in the summer... and that's about all I'm after for touring.

Click to expand...

When I started, wax was the only way to go...

The proper wax both out grips and out glides waxless in good snow conditions. Waxing is easy in cold dry snow but becomes more difficult in wet or very changeable or crusty snow. If the snow is good, I virtually always choose wax (I have both kinds of skis) and have waxed* my waxless skis a number of times to improve their performance. If you are serious about your skiing (and you seem to be...), I suggest that you try waxes again. It is easy to learn basic waxing--the best way to learn may be to go out once or twice with a friend who knows how and is willing to show you.

* In addition to the universal glide wax that one should always put on waxless skis.

I posted a tutorial on basic waxing in http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?39326-Choosing-BC-Skis&p=339614&viewfull=1#post339614. (You may wish to read the entire thread--it has a lot in common with this one...)

I have done several 25mi tours in the WMNF backcountry, each in a single push. Efficiency is key and I used waxable skis on the first and waxless skis on the second. The waxless skis were chosen on the second because of poor snow conditions near the trailhead. However, snow conditions improved after we got a distance in and I improved both the kick and glide by waxing the skis. It saved a tremendous amount of energy. I also waxed my partner's waxless skis and she is now a convert... http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?39621-Pemi-Ski-Loop-in-Less-than-30-Hours-)

IMO, if you don't wax, you are missing the best XC skiing...

Doug

Ditto Dougpauls comments on waxing. Even though you may have a waxless ski, waxing it will significantly improve performance both uphill and down. While it may not have the adhesion of a ski designed to be waxed, its still worth the effort. And it looks cool to whip out a few tins and scrutinize them. Don't fear the wax (just the klister)!

Doug, that TR is simply amazing. Really, my (red plaid) hat is off to you. Just wow. Very, very, very impressive.


Mike, I ski only pins but I'm a devout Luddite. The issue with plastic boots is that the duck bill is very stiff, which really impedes efficient kick and glide or climbing with pins. Pins are much better than any pure cable binding, but compared to leather boots and pins, moving to plastic boots is quite a jump down in touring efficiency. The report from people I trust is utterly universal. With bigger boots plastic boots, free pivot is worth the weight penalty in terms of the better kick and glide. As a rule, free pivot bindings are dual mode, like AT bindings, having both a free pivot and locked down mode that works like a regular cable binding.

I find I can *tolerate* my Liberos with pins. It's tedious at the end of a day but fine for short outings. I would expect the T4s to be about the same as my old Liberos in this regard and the Excursions to be noticeable tick better, due to the softer plastic they use in that boot. This is why I think you could go either way with a 2 buckle boot in terms of bindings: plain pins (better for single mode touring) and free pivot (better for up/down or yo-yo skiing).

I am a huge fan of wax. Huge.
http://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/DirtbagPinner/wax.html

But, one thing that should be mentioned is the social aspect of the wax/no-wax debate. Wax and no-wax produces a different rhythm on the trail. They fail and succeed in different ways at different times. I find that when I'm the lone waxer in a group of no-wax skiers, they get impatient with me futzing with wax. They also get annoyed when I double pole past them on the run out of the woods and start the car while they bzzt-bzzt-bzzt their way home. Actually, if I can get a couple of good skates in, I can get a cool Doppler effect when I fly by them; bzzt-bzzt-bzzt-BA-BA-BAZT-BAZT-BAZT,

I think you're on the right track of renting burly gear for lifts.

Here's an off-the-wall suggestion (that shows my dumpster-diving tendencies). Scour the local craiglist or ski swaps for a short pair of old Alpine beginner skis. Look for something with a tip at or under 90mm, in the 190 to 180cm range and just as soft as soft as you can find. Basically an old rental beginner's ski. Get some tins of wax for cheap at the REI clearance (due anytime now) and a pair of SuperTelemark pins for about $50. This will be a rig that will give you more umph for harder trails but will still be manageable with your Alaskas. It will cost you peanuts and if the skis don't workout, you can just chuck 'em and move the bindings to something else. My point here is to get out in the woods with the boots that you have for as little extra money as possible.

As soon as you hit a climb you can't do with wax, you know you're ready for skins.
As soon as you hit a descent that scares you, you know you're ready for plastic boots.

Doug... still shaking my head at the tour. Just audacious.

dave.m said:

Doug, that TR is simply amazing. Really, my (red plaid) hat is off to you. Just wow. Very, very, very impressive.

Click to expand...

Credit should go to Becca too...

Mike, I ski only pins but I'm a devout Luddite. The issue with plastic boots is that the duck bill is very stiff, which really impedes efficient kick and glide or climbing with pins. Pins are much better than any pure cable binding, but compared to leather boots and pins, moving to plastic boots is quite a jump down in touring efficiency. The report from people I trust is utterly universal. With bigger boots plastic boots, free pivot is worth the weight penalty in terms of the better kick and glide. As a rule, free pivot bindings are dual mode, like AT bindings, having both a free pivot and locked down mode that works like a regular cable binding.

Click to expand...

When I skied Moosilauke via Ravine Lodge using T3's, cable Tele bindings, and medium-heavy Tele skis, I had to XC up the road before dealing with the steeps. I simply loosened the upper on the T3's and the flex came from a combination of the duck bill and my ankle. (Also left them loose for the ascent.) I then tightened the boots for the descent. Not sure how well this would work for my T2's. (However, I have asked a T2 user and he didn't seem to think there was any significant problem.)

That said, I'm not tempted to take my Tele skis, Tele bindings, and T3/T2 boots to the local XC ski area. (Unless, of course, you make it worth my while... )

I am a huge fan of wax. Huge.
http://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/DirtbagPinner/wax.html

Click to expand...

Yea wax! W! A! X! Yeaaaa wax!

But, one thing that should be mentioned is the social aspect of the wax/no-wax debate. Wax and no-wax produces a different rhythm on the trail. They fail and succeed in different ways at different times. I find that when I'm the lone waxer in a group of no-wax skiers, they get impatient with me futzing with wax. They also get annoyed when I double pole past them on the run out of the woods and start the car while they bzzt-bzzt-bzzt their way home. Actually, if I can get a couple of good skates in, I can get a cool Doppler effect when I fly by them; bzzt-bzzt-bzzt-BA-BA-BAZT-BAZT-BAZT,

Click to expand...

Another difference is that patterns can stick on bits of wood etc in the trail while waxable skis glide right over them. This can help one avoid flattening one's nose...

I think you're on the right track of renting burly gear for lifts.

Click to expand...

Agreed--it will be much easier to learn Tele technique on groomed slopes with heavy Tele gear. Once you have the skills you may be able to apply them to lighter gear off-piste. (I'm still working on it.)

Here's an off-the-wall suggestion (that shows my dumpster-diving tendencies). Scour the local craiglist or ski swaps for a short pair of old Alpine beginner skis. Look for something with a tip at or under 90mm, in the 190 to 180cm range and just as soft as soft as you can find. Basically an old rental beginner's ski. Get some tins of wax for cheap at the REI clearance (due anytime now) and a pair of SuperTelemark pins for about $50. This will be a rig that will give you more umph for harder trails but will still be manageable with your Alaskas. It will cost you peanuts and if the skis don't workout, you can just chuck 'em and move the bindings to something else. My point here is to get out in the woods with the boots that you have for as little extra money as possible.

Click to expand...

An old traditional method for getting a cheap pair of Tele skis is to check the yard sales, etc for old used downhill boards with use softened tails and remounting with Tele bindings.

As soon as you hit a descent that scares you, you know you're ready for plastic boots.

Click to expand...

Or taking your skis off and walking...

Doug... still shaking my head at the tour. Just audacious.

Click to expand...

It is a nice tour--give it a try, but wait for good snow conditions before trying it. If it makes you feel any better, it only took 17.5 hrs the first time I did it. (No route finding difficulties and I was younger, stronger, and in better shape than the second time as well as pre-leg-injury.) BTW, the biggest hazard is the drive home... And there is no car spot to deal with!

Doug

Doug,

Would be curious on you ski and boot choices for these lollipop trips.

Here's a recent TR on TelemarkeEast.com. BobT used Vectors, T4s and Switchbacks. Mike, take note on what can be done with free pivot bindings.

http://www.telemarkeast.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3037&p=21975#p21963

HI! A few of us have been down what you're pondering!!! The more you dig, the deeper you'll get

* I started (and did the lollipop) with NNNBC but have since switched (for flat touring) to leather/3-pins per Doug's advice. If I'm just skiing hiking trails (flat) - I use a universal glide wax (on my waxless skis) and on longer tours put on real wax (little blue can mostly because it's usually colder) and wipe it down with a cork - pretty simple, and it works for me

* I took a couple years of tele lessons (AMC offers cheap lessons with excellent instructors/volunteers) - got decent at the downhill on-piste but never totally comfortable off-piste - got a beefy setup (hammerhead bindings, Scarpa T-2, and BD fat skis)

* moved on to snowboarding/took a year off from tele/took up splitboarding/now more comfortable in mank/crap/turns in the woods.... going back to update my now green circle tele abilities on the beefy gear again... still tour on the skinny stuff but only flats

It's a fun hobby!!!!

I think maybe when I started thinking about plastic boots and curvy skis I had it in my head I was going get them and then figure out how to ski on them... I've been thinking about this since mid-winter mind you... I won't buy anything next year. Rent only... unless I find a dumpster deal. I'm always looking... must be better in NE than NY - it's mostly alpine or groomed xc equipment I see around here.

I've thought about the wax. Seen as how I don't have any ski friends... well any that want to ski what I want to ski - it's just me, or me and the missus. My wife is a novice. A real novice. Never skied before this year. She's actually better than she thinks she is. Her biggest problem is the lump on her shoulders telling her she can't. Other than that she skis fine.

She isn't all that fast. She wouldn't fuss with wax - I would. And I'd have to fuss with two sets of skis. And I'd still blaze ahead and have to wait.

I sometimes think about buying the same set of skis I have in a wax version. Or something skinnier and longer with wax. Then I think about how much I'd use them and how much I skied when I owned wax skis.

I've skied more times this winter than the whole time I owned the wax skis. So I can't complain.

And I do use wax on my waxless skis. And yeah they have clumped up in packed down transition snow (near 32F). So despite how good they say they have become, they still aren't perfect. I have read there is a solution for that, but I've yet to try it.

I am however very German (not really, only in heritage) and very much an engineer, so it bothers me not to be as efficient as I could. Plus it's fun to say 'vokss'.

dave.m said:

Would be curious on you ski and boot choices for these lollipop trips.

Click to expand...

All trips listed below used Rottefella Super Tele bindings, Snowfield II boots, and Leki 2-section poles. Skins were used to climb near Thoreau Falls on the first two.

2003 (solo): Tua Escape skis, 65/54/60, camber and a half, waxable. Very good snow conditions, starting cold but warming. Started on special green wax with a green kicker and went through the waxes up to special purple as the temps rose.

2011 (with Becca): Karhu Pinnacle skis, 67/56/58, camber and a half, waxless. Snow hard packed near Lincoln woods, good powder beyond wilderness boundary. Waxed (with extra blue) part way onto Thoreau Falls Tr. which significantly improved performance. (Also waxed Becca's waxless skis.)

2014 N-S Pemi traverse via Shoal Pond Tr (with 2 friends): Same skis as 2011. Poor snow conditions: 0-3 inches of unconsolidated powder over a breakable crust. The pattern didn't grip well and purple wax, while it was a big help, wore off quickly due to the abrasive snow. I struggled.

The non-uphill terrain on both routes is mostly fairly easy and kick-and-glide skis were a good choice.

Here's a recent TR on TelemarkeEast.com. BobT used Vectors, T4s and Switchbacks. Mike, take note on what can be done with free pivot bindings.

http://www.telemarkeast.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3037&p=21975#p21963

Click to expand...

Looks like a N-S Pemi traverse via Thoreau Falls Tr.

Doug