Advice on Backcountry Skis

Hi Folks.

Looking for and would very much appreciate some advice from the backcountry ski gurus et. al. on the board. I'm looking for specifics as I do not know the product I want but I do know some of the qualities I am looking for. After watching someone spray lovely powder all over the Fire Wardens Trail on Hale yesterday in snow globe conditions, I'm ready to get a pair of these. Here are the details:

-I'm a fairly experienced backcountry traveler but a complete newbie to backcountry skis.
-I skiied downhill regularly for many years and was relatively good at it (not an expert though).
-I have cross country skiied a handful of times (a beginner).

-I want skis that

1. Need little maintenance - I probably won't want to wax anything.
2. Edit: Drop this Requirement
3. Are reasonably affordable
4. Are easy enough to use on hiking trails in the Whites such as that mentioned above.
5. Are easy to adapt for uphill (skins?)
6. Edit: Drop this Requirement
7. Also - I do not want to buy a mediocre pair only to regret not getting good ones the first time.
8. I love second hand gear.

So, what skis do people suggest to meet these requirements?

Also, what questions am I not asking that I should?

Thank you fellow board members!

Most of this is doable - lots of experts here will help.

>2 is a little challenging; there are bindings that work with hiking boots, but most are designed for ski boots.
>4 and 6 run counter to each other just based on ski width. All other things being equal, a wider ski is easier on hiking trails and a narrower ski is easier at groomed and tracked areas.

All the rest can be managed together, with some patient shopping.

I'd skip #6 for the time being. There is really no good solution for meeting both that and the backcountry requirement, especially since you do not want a mediocre experience.

The desire to use non-skiing boots will mean either sloppy control or resorting to bindings that will either break your wallet or break your knee joint at some point. Caveat emptor.

Since you love second hand gear, you are an excellent candidate to reap the benefits of the advice at DAVE'S NORDIC BACKCOUNTRY SKIING PAGE. May I suggest you take a look at that and come back with questions?

We love talking about this stuff here, so don't be shy.

If you want to have fun you really need to drop the hiking boots requirement. Hiking boots aren't ski boots and won't work like that. Bindings that take hiking boots aren't very good for fun touring and skiing - they are merely transportation.

For the type of climbing needed to ski something like Hale you want to have skins on your skis anyway.

The skis are the least important part of the picture. You can slap skins on pretty much any ski and manage to have fun. The problem is boots and bindings. The reality is that what you want is an AT setup - actual AT boots and a reasonable binding (Fritschi, Markers). If new, that will set you back $1000. You may find something on Craigslist, or consignment at Ragged, IME, or OGE, or you can find great deals on Sierra Trading Post for boots right now. Slap those bindings on any random pair of AT skis, buy skins ($100-200) and you're all set.

IMO, anything short of real gear is going to be disappointing and not very much fun. You don't have to spend a ton if you're willing to hunt for deals and buy used, but trying to use the wrong tool for the job is a recipe for a bad trip.

if you insist on the hiking boot requirement and low price then you should get hok ski

But David is right. Abandon the hiking shoe requirement and a whole world of options opens up to you. To make it easier for you - if you go 3 pin route with leather ski boots then you can certainly hike in them just as well and also use them in snowshoes if necessary.

I ski on some basic skis with a 3-pin setup - Salomon X-Scream something or other (given to my by a Salomon rep), Black Diamond 3-pin cable bindings, and Scarpa T3 boots. My boots are a bit low for good telemark turn, but I manage OK and I have used them as a "cross-country" boot on trails and such. Probably a bit light for downhill, but too heavy for groomed trails (as mentioned above).

With that same setup, and because I'm cheap, that is almost all I ski on (I have a lighter 3-pin setup I will use occasionally if on a broken trail). On a camping trip, a day in the woods skinning up and down, or even on the lifts when I go with my daughter, who boards. I am trying to kill several birds with one stone, and like I said...I manage it OK....A benefit is that they are low enough, and flexible enough, that I have used them as a hiking boot when it gets too steep to skin and I can fit step-in crampons on them, too.

I also recommend once you get your setup, to go to a small area. Some places offer lessons (like Pats Peak), but at the least, practice using your gear and how they manage in a safer environment. It helps confidence-wise tremendously to get that familiarity down before you are in the trees and miles from home.

Thanks for the initial responses!

I have edited my original post based on some not unexpected results. Dropped #2 and #6 as neither matters much to me but would be nice.

Let's drop the hiking boot requirement and stick to back country use only.

I will check out the suggested links though in the meantime to see what other Q's come up. Thanks.

Also, without knowing your skill level on skis #4 is impossible to answer. Most hiking trails in the Whites are not suitable for skis, at least on the downhills. There are some, for sure, but most aren't suitable unless we have exceptional snow conditions or you are an expert backcountry skier, or both. It's relatively easy to skin up many trails, but coming back down is where things can get hairy quickly. IMO, #4 is a more of a requirement on the skier, rather than the ski.

Are you an experienced Alpine skier? If so, AT makes the most sense. No point learning the telemark turn just for this type of trip. If you have a backcountry touring background, and do a lot of XC then tele would make more sense. But your initial comments about a hiking boot would make me think you don't have this type of experience. As much as I love tele, the learning curve is pretty steep to get enjoyment out of small runs like you describe when AT gear is getting lighter and easier to use every year.

I scored a brand new, in the wrapping, Canadian Army (Karhu) skis at Cascade (NY) Ski Centre for 60$ I put Silvretta 500 bindings on (about 500$) because they take plastic mountaineering boots (Fritschi, Marker, Dynafit, G3 don't) which I use for winter hiking and camping. The outfit works extremely well. I found US Army surplus strap-on skins at a second hand outdoor gear store in Lake Placed (now gone). I used the skins on a yurt to yurt ski on the Long Trail in Vermont and they worked surprisingly well. Strap on skins went out in the 70's, but I saw some by G3 (www.genhiuneguidegear.com) at Cascade a few years ago and so they are perhaps coming back. I hope this helps.

BTW, the boots (Scarpa Inverno's, but there are many other brands) work with skis, snowshoes and crampons.

David Metsky said:

Are you an experienced Alpine skier? If so, AT makes the most sense. No point learning the telemark turn just for this type of trip. If you have a backcountry touring background, and do a lot of XC then tele would make more sense.

Click to expand...

Let me paint a picture to give an accurate idea that may help me clarify: I skiied downhill for 10+ years, 4-8 times a year, and would be confident today on most any black diamond at a place like Attitash or Sunday River. But that's about the limit of where I am. I could ski it upright, although I would not be as graceful as an expert skier in an way. I would realistically rate myself as an intermediate plus on standard groomed downhill slopes. I expect I will get better quickly with my own skis.

I basically want the set up that would allow me to ski moderate trails on mountains like Hale but also moderately graded, fun runs like the Sherburne ski trail. I'm looking for some moderate speed, some turns, some fun, and nothing that ends up being a pain in the A in the backcountry because I'm trying to fit a square block in a rectangular hole. But I also want to be able to realistically hike up some place with some slopes and ski them out. Taking these above treeline on a bluebird day for example and avoiding the ravines.

I would be more comfortable in a binding meant for downhill than for telemark based on my limited experience with it.

To throw my two cents into the mix (mostly because dreaming of backcountry skiing up/down the 4k's is something I struggled with as well). For me it comes down to this: Your day should either be about backcountry skiing, or about bagging peaks. As soon as you try to double dip, one of the two goals is going to suffer.

To give some background:
I was an expert level snowboarder (comfortable on double blacks, in the glades, etc...), I eventually took up alpine skiing, then I went to tele (neither of which I'm very good at). I've done 100+ of the W115, and I can honestly say that there hasn't been a single one where I thought to myself "from trailhead to summit, this would have been a better day if I had skis (or splitboard) with me". However; I will qualify that a bit more by saying, often on winter hikes I will say "oh my god, I wish I had skis here (magically at this spot), this would be amazing" but usually that is in the middle of a hike where the logistics of bringing skis would have been prohibitive.

Some examples of places I would like to go back to when I'm done peak bagging are:
* The engine hill bushwhack - Nice open glades with a low angle slope (except you have the approach in and out)
* The lower third of Waumbek - Open woods, old woods road for a trail
* The lower portion of Garfield - I don't remember this one too well, but it is an old woods road which gives you some room for turns
* The lower section of the Wolfjaws - Nice open woods, except you have the whole approach from the Garden which isn't an easy ski

Anything beyond that, unless you are an expert-expert skier (e.g. the type who is comfortable with the mantra of "when in doubt, air it out", and comfortable in any glade at a resort), then any 4k hiking trail is going to be a miserable experience (if not dangerous).

That being said, if I were in your shoes, and didn't mind dropping the dough (and using that investment as a forcing function to get out and ski). I would personally pick up some mid/light AT ski gear with dynafit boot/binding and call it a day.

To give some additional background of my many (failed?) forays into attempts at backcountry skiing:

1) Splitboard - Awesome because I am a very good snowboarder, terrible because they don't tour well, and you either need to chose between wearing snowboard boots (bad hiking, uncomfortable), wearing hiking boots (bad downhill performance), or wearing/carrying both (logistics). Good because I can navigate the most terrain on a snowboard versus other ski types.
2) Karhu Metas (Short mini-skis with snowboard type flexible binding) - Pretty much useless, they don't glide well, they're death traps on the downhill
3) Backcountry xc skis (full metal edges, fish scales, sorta long, sorta narrow) with a leather boot - Too long to turn anywhere with trees, boots too floppy to do much turning with anyways. Plus I totally lack the skills
4) Tele Skis (full tele skis, 3 buckle boot, cartidge/cable binding, skins) - Brought in the backcountry a few times, but even with a car-width woods road, I can't make a tele turn fast enough to not kill myself. It was on these where I figured out that it doesn't have to be steep to be fun, and that I would probably have a better time on the low angle stuff.
5) Karhu Guides (Beefy backcountry ski, full metal edges, wide, fish scales, cable 3 pin binding) - Got them for a steal, still haven't used them because I'm trying to find an "excursion class" boot to pair with them. My planned use is for some tours and/or low angle skiing.

bignslow said:

5) Karhu Guides (Beefy backcountry ski, full metal edges, wide, fish scales, cable 3 pin binding) - Got them for a steal, still haven't used them because I'm trying to find an "excursion class" boot to pair with them. My planned use is for some tours and/or low angle skiing.

Click to expand...

I have the re-labelled version, the Madshus Annum. They are the proverbial cat's you-know-what for this purpose and others. I would step down a notch to the Extreme class of boot. That's what I'm using, and the combo is terrific for the purpose you mention.

I don't know much about AT gear, other than what I have casually read about. And, to add, I am not a tele-expert. In fact, if I'm skiing all day at an area, probably 60% of my turns are not-tele...I'm just not good enough at it. Some areas in NH that I have used this setup: Wilderness Trail to Stillwater Junction, Cedar Brook Trail, up and down Mt. Garfield, Gulf of Slides, in the Kilkenny, Wild River area, etc. It's pretty flexible. Only reason I bring it up (again) is I think they are the most flexible for uses, but note again: I'm sure someone with more AT experience will enhance/shoot down my thoughts here.

Also note, typical mountain trails broken out with snowshoes, while they look so inviting, are not. They tend to be a deep trough, which makes turning very difficult.... shorter is better, but you lose a lot of glide that way. Based on your background experience, I'd say that would fit with mine as well before doing more in the last several years.

sardog1 said:

I have the re-labelled version, the Madshus Annum. They are the proverbial cat's you-know-what for this purpose and others. I would step down a notch to the Extreme class of boot. That's what I'm using, and the combo is terrific for the purpose you mention.

Click to expand...

What boot would you consider the right tool for the job? I have been eying the Garmont excursions (I ride the syner-g for my in-bounds stuff), but I'm not going to buy anything until I have the time to actually get out into the hills again (too much time spent on W115 trips and school work).

bignslow said:

What boot would you consider the right tool for the job? I have been eying the Garmont excursions (I ride the syner-g for my in-bounds stuff), but I'm not going to buy anything until I have the time to actually get out into the hills again (too much time spent on W115 trips and school work).

Click to expand...

I use Asolo Extremes for this and am very pleased. But then I hate the very notion of plastic on my feet unless I'm wearing crampons. The Extremes are very comfortable to tour in and can handle those skis, IMHO. YMMV.

My Norwegian forebears demand that I combat the entreaties of the AT crowd whenever I can.

For instance, by linking to this countervailing wisdom:

In Defense of the Duckbill

An observation for someone with large wide feet, finding any ski boots that fit can be a real challenge. Back when I attempted backcountry skiing, I had a heck of time finding NNNBC boots that would fit. I finally found a borderline pair but it required a lot of phone calls as apparently Europeans don't have wide feet and therefore don't make wide boots.

bignslow said:

* The lower portion of Garfield - I don't remember this one too well, but it is an old woods road which gives you some room for turns

Click to expand...

Garfield is a fairly common ski destination--it is skiable up to the final ~.1 mi which is too steep and rocky. The upper half of the (Garfield) trail might be a bit steep on the way down for some. (I have climbed it on waxes and then used my skins for the descent...)

Some other 4K that are skiable by less than expert BC skiers:
* Moosilauke is skiable via the Snapper trail, Gorge Brook trail, and the Carriage Road.
* I skied Owls head in ~1980 via the NNW ridge (wood skis, no skins...). The terrain wasn't difficult, but I don't know what the vegetation has done since then.

"Best Backcountry Skiing in the Northeast" by David Goodman is a worthwhile investment.

Doug

Thanks for all the thoughts, advice, comments, etc. on backcountry ski gear. I'm learning the basics. So, I've looked at some of the suggested bindings online to see what they are like, done some research, checked out some of the suggested websites, and found some old threads here.

Here's what I am thinking for the moment. I'd appreciate hearing the pros and cons if people have opinions.

Sylvretta 500 bindings
Koflach Artis Expe plastic boots (I own them, I wouldn't pick them first as a ski boot)
Madshus Annum skis (or others if these will not work with bindings or based on cost)
Skins TBD.

Reasoning: I already own the boots. I can get the bindings for under $300. This would allow for some versatility (crampons and skis would work with the boot).

It seems that since this system is so versatile, I must pay a price somewhere else (the boot?)

Thanks again! And thanks Gremlin for the idea.