Converting Downhill skis to BC-Telemark use

[BobK]

I have 2 pairs of downhill skis given to me, one of which I was considering using for mountainous backcountry and Telemark use. While I would probably use them on lift served areas a few times (as practice), their primary use would be for steep backcountry travel. One motivation was a trip I took up Pelkey Brook on Phelps Mountain last winter. My trip mates had much more downhill looking equipment – including plastic boots and cable bindings. I did most of Marcy too but kept the skins on for much of the steep descent. I know I’m getting cable bindings for Christmas (Voile – 3-pin with removable cables) and I need to mount them on something. I am about 6' 200# and have been skiing for many years.

My recent BC trips have been on Karhu Orion skis (190CM, 85/70/80 sidecut) using HD 3-pin and fairly high leather boots (two buckles). These float in deep powder and have a waxless pattern that climb well. I do have skins that fit these. The downhill choices are Elan DRC 4.5si Reflex-cap (188CM, 84/63/72), or Volkl Lynz VSP cap construction (180CM, 84/64/80). I have no idea how good or old these are but they are free. I’ll get them sharpened before using.

I assume the downhill skis will not hold wax for long (single camber) and I know they won’t kick & glide well (I have touring skis for gentler terrain). I want them to climb, including with skins, and go down steep slopes with turning ability. Speed is less important than control for me.

Will the downhill skis turn better than the Orions? Which downhill skis would be best? Should I hot wax the entire ski with polar? I plan on upgrading to plastic boots sometime (Garmont Excursions or Scarpa T-4) but that has to wait.

Looking forward to hearing from the knowledgeable folks on this board.

 

[David Metsky]

If your goal is to do steep turns, the setup you are going with is probably not ideal. I'm not really up on those alpine skis you mentioned, but I'm guessing they will be heavy and they really don't have a huge amount of sidecut for a turning ski.

But the main problem is your boot/binding combination. Both the T4/Excursions and the 3-pin w/ cables are designed mainly for touring. They are really just touring gear, with an improved ability to turn compaired to previous generations of touring gear. I don't see your proposed setup being much better than your current setup. The main difference is added weight, somewhat beefier boot/bindings, and a single camber ski.

If your primary goal is steep backcountry travel I'd go for much beefier boot and binding combination, probably the T2 or Syner-G, and a binding like the Hardwires that will be able to drive a bigger ski. As I said, I don't know much about those alpine skis, but I'd probably want something a little wider underfoot and with a bit more sidecut.

I'm guessing your current backcountry boots are the weakest point in your whole setup. I don't think it makes much sense to improve your skis and bindings without first getting a more serious pair of boots. You simply won't be able to turn on steep terrain without something stiffer.

I've now got a pair of Karhu Outtabounds, 3-pins w/ removable cables, and Excursions, but this setup will be for trips like Moosilauke which is actually pretty tame in the grand scheme of things. I got these to cut down on weight when I don't expect to encounter steep and difficult terrain. Exactly what are you talking about when you say steeps? Are you talking about ADK slides?

-dave-

 

[spencer]

Dave, you are talking about the Fisher Outtabounds, not the older Karhu Outbounds, right?

I have the Outtabounds too, but I have Karhu Serius boots and the Voile cable/3pin binders.

It's a great setup for all kinds of things, but I wouldn't want it on "steeps"

Bob,

from those dimensions it sounds like both the downhill boards have some sidecut to them, so I would expect them to turn better than the Orions. They will be a lot heavier though (as Dave said).

Are you talking about Polar kick wax? If so, forget about it on a single-camber ski. If you are talking about polar glide wax (which I don't know anything about - I use a standard glider) then I'm not the person to ask

spencer

 

[David Metsky]

Yes, Fischer Outtabounds, waxable. I'm looking forward to using them this year, just picked up the last pair of Excursions at REI from the discount rack, just my size.

My main concern is that Bob is looking to ski steeps on tele gear, and the setup he's talking about is basically light touring boots and bindings on top of downhill gear. I'd be more concerned with the boots than the skis. The light touring boots that he currently has will make turning a chore in anything but perfect snow conditions.

If your goals were different it wouldn't be a problem, but turning on steeps requires beefier gear, IMO.

As for the skis, your Karhus have 15mm sidecut, the downhills have 20 and 21mm, not a huge difference. Granted, you'll gain a lot from single camber but a backcountry ski like the Outtabounds has 22mm sidecut. As I said, I think you're going to give a lot up (weight, stiffness, lack of a wax pocket) for single camber and slightly more sidecut. Of course, being free, there's little downside to giving them a shot.

-dave-

 

[TCD]

Almost any downhill ski will turn better than a "trail" ski, because downhill skis are "single camber" whereas trail skis, whether waxable or waxless, are "double camber." As you probably know, a double camber ski is designed to spring up in the middle more strongly than a single camber ski. The purpose of this is to minimize the weighting on the "kick section" of the ski during gliding. And it works. But it works against you when you are trying to turn the ski, because it requires more initiation force to form the ski into an arc, and the ski does not form into as round an arc as a single camber ski.

I agree with Dave, you should look into a boot upgrade. I ski a lot of lift served tele, and I wear T1s, which are great. If I'm making a trip into the backcountry where there's a large downhill ski component, I wear the T1s for that too, even though they are a little heavy. T2s would be a great choice. I picked up some T3s last year, and I should have bought T2s. The T3s are only slightly lighter, but they are a lot softer. Go with T2s.

TCD

 

[dave.m]

Couple of comments....

In terms of boots, I'd like to know more about which leather boots you are talking about. If you are talking about a leather/plastic boot like the Crispi Futura Peak, Merrell Fuzion or even older Asolo Extreme Pro, you may not see a massive jump in power by going to a lightweight plastic double boot. The bigger advantage to the newer boots is that they are warmer, drier, lighter (with thermo liners) and will last longer. Norwegian welted boots *do* give up torsional stiffness in the toe box, but imo, this only presents an unsurmountable problem when skiing with on hard snow with skis above 65mm in the waist. I would suggest demoing plastic boots at a ski area before plunking down big money there. As a data point, I regularly ski a pair of 90/70/80 profile skis with 2 buckle leather/plastic boot. In the woods, this is fine. Get's sketchier on ice and uglier snow.

In terms of the skis you described, I would classify both of those skis as Classic Slalom skis and I believe, as you have seen, that these are cheapest way to get going in the woods. My thoughts on the trade-offs of this type of ski are here:
http://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/DirtbagPinner/bc-skis.html#SLALOM

My thoughts on other kinds of skis for the backcountry are here:
http://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/DirtbagPinner/bc-skis.html

In terms of picking between the 2 skis you mentioned, I would pick which ever ski has the softest tail. Stiff old-school slalom skis just suck for tele, imo. But softies can be lots of fun. If one of those skis was marketed for beginners, that would be the one to pick. If marketed to experts, stay away as the tail will almost certainly be too stiff. If they are both soft, I would pick the 180s for skiing in the woods.

I should close-out my comments on those skis by saying though that I generally don't care for classic slalom type skis for any sort of tele skiing. The really fall in the akward muddled middle ground. They are too wide for fun touring and too narrow for fun turning. For turns, especially on steeper terrain, I think a classic AT profile ski or wider is more fun. With your boots, I wouldn't go wider than a classic AT profile. With light plastic boots, a wide shaped ski would be possible.
http://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/DirtbagPinner/bc-skis.html#AT
http://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/DirtbagPinner/bc-skis.html#WIDE-SHAPED

In terms of waxing alpine cambered skis, yes you can do it and it works fine. Wax the full length of the ski. If wax retention is a problem on course snow, ironing in the first layer or ironing in binder wax helps. More of my thoughts on waxing skis is here:
http://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/DirtbagPinner/wax.html

Lastly, in terms of bindings, if you are thinking about pushing your leather boots into continued service, you might consider the 3 pin Hardwire, instead of the traditional 3 pin cable. Folks who I trust point out that they impart a lot more torsional stiffness than the tradtional slinky style cables. FWIW, I ski *without* cables 90% of the time. Junky snow is about the only time I appreciate them. For powder and for ice, I prefer plain pins. YMMV.