Sidecountry vs. AT -- Powder setups: Your favorites + their pros & cons.

If you have the coin, DPS Wailer 112RP in the Pure construction.

-Better than anything in waist range on the front side

-camber underfoot means it does not suck skinning

-lightest ski in its class

-ski powder great, stable and nimble at the same time

the only downside is the price. but how much did you spend on your TV?

http://dpsskis.com/ski/wailer112RP

Hmmm. I'm 3/4 sure I agree with BWPA, the 1/4 doubt is "South Lake Tahoe." If I knew that I were pretty much going to be doing Sierra Cement - and note that SLT gets higher temps than Truckee/Squaw - I might be tempted to get a Prior Husume. Which is going to be damper and very planted feeling, still comes in at 3600 g if you get the 175 with the optional higher carbon package, and has mild front rocker with a more traditional tail (they claim tail rocker, cannot find it at the factory shop). Tahoe has been known to have steep crappy snow - think sun cups, or chutes made of refrozen corn. In those conditions, less certain I want a springy ride with serious tail rocker. OTOH, the 112 should eat any other ski's lunch in the trees after a storm. And is said to be very stabile at speed in chop. So depends in part about what kind of BC you plan to do, when, and whether you want to optimize for fresh to third day snow, or anytime including between storms. 

More ideas: have heard a lot of nice things about the PM Gear 179 Fat, 110 mm, front rocker, normal tail, also very light. And I'm not a K2 fan but many advocate the Coomba's or such for western snow based on their dampness, versatility, price. Finally, the Hell and Back seems like a great choice for a lighter skier, not as fat as the others here, but light enough for AT, great grip, will be just fine if you decide to slum at lift-served once in a while. And like the K2's, about 2/3 the price of a 112. 

All that said, I have a 112 on order, and Phil, who skis Squaw and can pretty much ski anything he wants, bought one...YMMV.

Binders? Barons should be fine. You don't need Dukes. Tours have design issues, far as I know. Fritschi's are outdated. (I know I still have some.) Don't go for tech setups unless you are seriously committed to the BC and are willing to give up a bit in downhill control and precision for the sake of uphill ease. Which you say you are not.  

Skins? Don't know much here. When I skin (which is rarely these days) I use BD Glidelights. They're straightforward to put on, and they're fine for moderate grades. Very light, which seems to me to be the point. I've heard they may not be optimal for steeper terrain, and they don't last as long as some heavier skins.

You haven't mentioned boots. Kinda key issue for your "solo strikes" (which is not a great idea, my .02). But suggest something that's basically a DIN alpine with pads and a walk mode, like a Factor or Cochise or Hell n Back, rather than a full Vibram sole that'll be happiest in a tech setup going uphill. Specific brand obviously will depend on your foot shape. My limited experience suggests that fit is more crucial here than with a downhill boot, even a little misfit will be agony in a few hours...

Moment Night Trains with Dukes. Pros: binding feels like an alpine binding. Cons: Heavy

Moment PB&J with Dyanfit tlt vertical. Pros: very light. Cons: Not as sturdy as the dukes.

As for skins i use the g3 alpinists and the BD Ascensions

For versatility i would say the trains and dukes are more versatile, just because i can ski more on them. I can still get up the hill with the dukes, it just takes longer.

With the G3 skins, they stay on the night trains, but i sometimes find myself sliding a little bit, probably due to the rocker. It's usually easier to skin up very steep slopes and ice with flatter designs.

I am with bushy, I bought a pair of 112RP hybrids with dynaduke plates for my side country rig. Light enough to tour on with dynafit. Dukes for everyday use and side country.

I was looking to buy a pair of volkl sanouk a classic powder ski and is more than light enough to make a great bargain touring rig. The price I was quoted on TGR was $100+ ship. Mounted once.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond 

Hmmm. I'm 3/4 sure I agree with BWPA, the 1/4 doubt is "South Lake Tahoe." If I knew that I were pretty much going to be doing Sierra Cement - and note that SLT gets higher temps than Truckee/Squaw - I might be tempted to get a Prior Husume. Which is going to be damper and very planted feeling, still comes in at 3600 g if you get the 175 with the optional higher carbon package, and has mild front rocker with a more traditional tail (they claim tail rocker, cannot find it at the factory shop). Tahoe has been known to have steep crappy snow - think sun cups, or chutes made of refrozen corn. In those conditions, less certain I want a springy ride with serious tail rocker. OTOH, the 112 should eat any other ski's lunch in the trees after a storm. And is said to be very stabile at speed in chop. So depends in part about what kind of BC you plan to do, when, and whether you want to optimize for fresh to third day snow, or anytime including between storms. More ideas: have heard a lot of nice things about the PM Gear 179 Fat, 110 mm, front rocker, normal tail, also very light. And I'm not a K2 fan but many advocate the Coomba's or such for western snow based on their dampness, versatility, price. Finally, the Hell and Back seems like a great choice for a lighter skier, not as fat as the others here, but light enough for AT, great grip, will be just fine if you decide to slum at lift-served once in a while. And like the K2's, about 2/3 the price of a 112. 

 

All that said, I have a 112 on order, and Phil, who skis Squaw and can pretty much ski anything he wants, bought one...YMMV.

 

Binders? Barons should be fine. You don't need Dukes. Tours have design issues, far as I know. Fritschi's are outdated. (I know I still have some.) Don't go for tech setups unless you are seriously committed to the BC and are willing to give up a bit in downhill control and precision for the sake of uphill ease. Which you say you are not.  

 

Skins? Don't know much here. When I skin (which is rarely these days) I use BD Glidelights. They're straightforward to put on, and they're fine for moderate grades. Very light, which seems to me to be the point. I've heard they may not be optimal for steeper terrain, and they don't last as long as some heavier skins.

 

You haven't mentioned boots. Kinda key issue for your "solo strikes" (which is not a great idea, my .02). But suggest something that's basically a DIN alpine with pads and a walk mode, like a Factor or Cochise or Hell n Back, rather than a full Vibram sole that'll be happiest in a tech setup going uphill. Specific brand obviously will depend on your foot shape. My limited experience suggests that fit is more crucial here than with a downhill boot, even a little misfit will be agony in a few hours...

Good post. Just a few annotations. Barrons are perfect for side country and minimal touring.

As for boots, the walk mode on most side country oriented boots are kind of a joke, but it is better than nothing. And the difference between a good touring liner and what you get in most side country boots is really quite stark in terms comfort, after market liners are a great idea to improve your comfort level, you want a liner that moves with your foot, not one that is rigid in the boot. The best touring feature on alot of side country oriented boots is the rockered lugged sole. This is pretty nice if you are walking on rocks on a ridge or whatever.

Skinning there is a technique to it and generrally it is the opposite of what you want to do as a skier. If its steep and icy, keep your skis flat on the surface, takes some practice, keep your skis flat on the snow, resist the urge to edge your skis. Learn to set a skin track, not too steep, not too flat. You also need to be able to kick turn both left and right, both uphill and down hill. 

Skins, generally the more grip for climbing, the less glide on the flats.  BD ascensions are the standard for great climbing (and slow gliding) skins.

Poles, adjustable poles with powder baskets, really are worth it.

 For what its worth I skied the Nordica sidecountry (steadfast,and hell and back today) Both railed man-made manky pack at Loveland Co.. I am waiting for the riht day to try the unlesh hell I think it comes 185/195-143-113-13somethin w 18m radius and twin tip----the other two in the line were impressive in stability, edge grip and maneuverability. There is definitely less info floating about on the unleash hell but it could be my pick--fo d slack= light ski, check ski,net for a bit of info more professional than mine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philpug 

I have some RP112 Pures, not for the lightness but well they ski great. I do a bit of Sidecountry but these won't be the skis for that, it will be my Bonafides. I also will be sporting a side country boot in the new Cochise. Fit is super and the walk feature just works. I am still leaning to down performance vs. up performance. The question you need to ask yourself is are you more interested in uphill performance or down? How do you earn your turns? By working a day job or by hiking up? There are some great options out there for skis, boots and bindings...so, what do YOU want?

I'm very interested in picking up the Bonafides for sidecountry. But just out of curiosity, why didn't you go with the Cochises?

Also, how necessary is a good walk mode in a boot when skinning with a setup like Dukes/Barons or the MFD All Times?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rushbikes 

I'm very interested in picking up the Bonafides for sidecountry. But just out of curiosity, why didn't you go with the Cochises?

 

Also, how necessary is a good walk mode in a boot when skinning with a setup like Dukes/Barons or the MFD All Times?

It depends on you. AT boots are by definition a compromise. Side country boots are designed for use in the resort and just outside, not for long tours. The difference between a good walk mode and a not so good walk mode walk mode is alot. The difference between how a side country boot skis and how a boot with a good walk mode skis is also a lot. 

I would say having good range of motionin the walk mode is important if walking is your primary mode of transport. Touring more than a few miles in dukes / barons kinda sucks -- doing it in boots that do not stride effectively is much much worse.  

What they said. A lot of it depends on what kind of snow you expect (I know that's obvious for your ski choice, but perhaps less so for your boots and bindings). For example, I feel like I can ski powder in any boot, so if I toured in Utah or something, I might be tempted to go as light as possible. Here in the Alps, you have to deal with more variable conditions. Being a skier first and a hiker second or third or fourth, I like a heavier boot here and just go slowly on the up. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by rushbikes 

I'm very interested in picking up the Bonafides for sidecountry. But just out of curiosity, why didn't you go with the Cochises?

 

Also, how necessary is a good walk mode in a boot when skinning with a setup like Dukes/Barons or the MFD All Times?

I would be curious to hear how many times phil actually skinned last year.....

Either the bonafide or the Cochise is quite heavy compared to even the cheaper DPS. While both the blizzards might be slightly better skiing on hardpack and in crud, anything your touring to ski is most likely going to be smooth either powder, corn or windbuff. The DPS our lighter by pounds over the other skis and that does make a difference when earning turns. I have used overweight setups for years and have done fine, but you will go faster up with lighter gear, no matter how much of your gut you need to use.

There are other lighter skis than the DPS skis but most would stink skiing skiing inbounds on compared to the DPS.

As for skins I like BD accessions personally once your strong enough the steepest angle of attack you can take and grip on is normally the fastest way up.

Boots I have done years in Alpine boots including days over 5K of rise, but I finally have wised up and bought some cochise boots this year. They will work right now with my Duke setups but it will make getting a Dynafit setup less of a pain.

Binding I like Dukes because they ski like an alpine binding and do not fall apart as quick as a baron, with that said I still crush the hell out of them can only get 100-150 days skiing a pair of Dukes. I am pretty light guy who chargers every condition and despite being a heavy duty touring binding, lots of inbounds use on harder snow will loosen them up. In an Ideal world I would have a couple dynafit/plum setups as well but just have had the cash yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philpug 

The Bonafides fit into my quiver a bit better than the Cochise and really like the way it skis. I am not going with an AT binding at this point, I really don't plan on skinning but more hike to access. My priority on the ear is more for going down than up, if not I would would be looking at a ski like a Kastle FX for it's light weight and a Marker Tour. 

ugh why are we advising on touring binding when you do not tour...... the marker tour has had catastrophic failures from uphill skinning.

also if your were hiking for powder turns would you really take the Bonafide over your DPS? also the Kastle FX is heavier than the DPS 112 RP by pounds.....

carbon - the only downside is the price when its engineed the right way.

As far as dukes vs. barons go, I've heard over and over again that dukes are significantly more durable (using metal in places instead of plastic) and the weight difference isn't worth the trade-off.

The construction of the ski makes a big difference when charging through variable snow conditions. The DPS112 pure, while a decent ski in it's element (powder, soft windbuff, moderate speeds), is not a ski I'd want to charge with through suncups and runnels, when exiting a couloir, in the later part of the touring season. It's just not that damp. Even with windbuff and other variable conditions, it definitely shows its weaknesses. Same with the rest of the DPS pure lineup. Yes, they're light skis, but they ski similiar to any other light touring ski (crap) when you need something damp. They really aren't that stiff, either (though stiffer than most of the light touring skis).

The DPS hybrids are better, but I'd still rather have something else on my feet for out here. That said, I do have a different style in the BC than most - I ski like I do at the resorts - more of a big mountain style with fast large-sweeping turns. YMMV.

As for bindings, go with either Dynafits/Techs or Dukes/Barons. The fragile parts on Dukes/Barons are identical (base plate and lock-down pivot point), so it's really about DIN and price. You can usually find used Dukes for cheaper than Barons. More options are coming, but for now, those are the best the market has.

You got it right. Especially if someone wants to huck.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayT 

As far as dukes vs. barons go, I've heard over and over again that dukes are significantly more durable (using metal in places instead of plastic) and the weight difference isn't worth the trade-off.

brian, no offense, you are entitled to your opinion without question, not every ski is for everyone... but you base your powder ski selection around how they charge, comp style, through sun cups and runnels?  just curious more than anything.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by msolson 

brian, no offense, you are entitled to your opinion without question, not every ski is for everyone... but you base your powder ski selection around how they charge, comp style, through sun cups and runnels?  just curious more than anything.  

None taken. When I got my first AT setup, I had thought it would be for powder, etc. As the year progressed, I found that I was doing a lot of touring and backcountry skiing well into the late season. I think it's important for someone buying their first AT/Sidecountry setup to consider that perhaps they might do some late season touring as well, and for that reason, I'd suggest they consider a heavier stable ski (if they have a similar style of skiing).

In Colorado, as you know, the snow quality can be extremely variable, especially in the late season. Usually, it's nasty on top, amazingly light fluff (or smoothly corned) in the middle, and can be extremely nasty at the exit (where a stable ski keeps you from imploding). A lot of times this spring, I was coming hot out of steep couloirs and having a super stable ski to handle runnels, suncups, avy debris, or even just snowfield damage done by falling rock, was a quality I really would never want to give up, even if it does make me a little slower on the way up.

I would have been disappointed if I had, when I first started out, instead grabbed a lightweight touring ski, expecting only to ski powder. And, as I came to enjoy touring in the late-season, find that my skiing style was significantly limited by the ski's stability. It's a lesson-learned that I'm glad I didn't have to learn the hard way.

Maybe that explains my intentions a bit more clearly? I'm sure this all could have been stated more eloquently. And, as said before, YMMV.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Lindahl 

Quote:

None taken. When I got my first AT setup, I had thought it would be for powder, etc. As the year progressed, I found that I was doing a lot of touring and backcountry skiing well into the late season. I think it's important for someone buying their first AT/Sidecountry setup to consider that perhaps they might do some late season touring as well, and for that reason, I'd suggest they consider a heavier stable ski (if they have a similar style of skiing).

 

In Colorado, as you know, the snow quality can be extremely variable, especially in the late season. Usually, it's nasty on top, amazingly light fluff (or smoothly corned) in the middle, and can be extremely nasty at the exit (where a stable ski keeps you from imploding). A lot of times this spring, I was coming hot out of steep couloirs and having a super stable ski to handle runnels, suncups, avy debris, or even just snowfield damage done by falling rock, was a quality I really would never want to give up, even if it does make me a little slower on the way up.

 

I would have been disappointed if I had, when I first started out, instead grabbed a lightweight touring ski, expecting only to ski powder. And, as I came to enjoy touring in the late-season, find that my skiing style was significantly limited by the ski's stability. It's a lesson-learned that I'm glad I didn't have to learn the hard way.

 

Maybe that explains my intentions a bit more clearly? I'm sure this all could have been stated more eloquently. And, as said before, YMMV.

This is an example of the optimizing for "the worst". Personally I tour all year round and want a ski that tours and skis well in most any conditions.  As you said I often find varibale snow in the BC. I don't think optimizing for any single conditions is a great idea. As far as weight, I think I like to choose a ski that is light enough to tour well and has enough substance to turn well most of the time. The burliest alpine skis are simply too heavy for touring and don't ski very well at normal speeds in lighter snow anyway. Lighter skis make sense for human powered transport in the BC, you use less energy and tour faster on a lighter more tour-able setup. That means if you can get in more laps, have less risk of falling behind schedule on tong tours. This lets you manage risks by being moving quickly through danger zones and make it easier to abort the mission if conditions call for it.

Frankly, ripping sketchy conditions at speed really has little place in what I am trying to do in the BC. If conditions really suck like wet slop and runneled mank at the bottom of a line,  I won't be ripping at speed. I will be piecing my way down with text book ski mountaineering techniques including skidding parallel turns, stem chrisites and kick turns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA 

ugh why are we advising on touring binding when you do not tour...... the marker tour has had catastrophic failures from uphill skinning.

 

also if your were hiking for powder turns would you really take the Bonafide over your DPS? also the Kastle FX is heavier than the DPS 112 RP by pounds.....

 

carbon - the only downside is the price when its engineed the right way.

I read the thread on TGR about the tour. Realistically, any step in binding in touring mode is going to be vulnerable to a knee fall. But the tours do seem pretty weak in this regard something about light weight and full plastic build. I heard they are adding a few grams per binding to beef them up this year, most other bindings in the touring segment (besides the markers) are proven designs thaqt have been tweaked over a decade or longer, makes sense that they would need to tweak them.

Any frame AT binding is likely to be susceptiable to damage in a knee fall.  If tourability is important, then eventually you will end up on Dynafit or tech compatible.

If you're touring a lot, the Marker Tour might make more sense than the Barron. Personally, I figured to be using my Marker setup much more downhill than up, and didn't want to stress about its durability, so I went with a Barron.

But really it's a false choice, since if you're touring a lot you want a real touring binding, and people here will tell you that in that case there's no substitute for Dynafit or facsimile thereof. 

Sidecountry/AT skis + pow pow + doesn't suck on the frontside = 190cm DPS Wailer 112RP Hybrid.  This is one of the best skis I have ever skied and I personally own a pair.   They are exactly what you are looking for.

Top ten I can't deliver but of everything I have skied enough to recommend I would add the following to your list  - 195 Armada AK/JJ, 192 Atomic Bent Chetler, and 188 4FRNT CRJ.  The AK/JJ and Chetler measure a little shorter than advertised.  AK/JJ measures a 192.  Not exactly sure what the Chetler measures.

Based on your description of yourself I would say sack up and get a pair of Dynafit Radicals and a tech fit compatible boot like the Cochise or the Titan.  If that is over your budget I would consider the Tour over the Baron.  I have owned Barons and having to lift all that weight ever step kind of sucked.  I skied the Tour last year but never skinned on them.  They skied as good as the Baron but were noticeably lighter.

Last year a lot of Marker Tours failed due to cracked pivots.  Whats a lot?  Not enough to warrant a CPSC recall so bad but I wouldn't call the situation catastrophic.  From the numbers that I saw I would say they were holding up about as good as older Fritschi's.  Naxo's = catastrophic.

Marker did a major overhaul to the Tour binding over the summer.  Over 2 dozen tweaks.  Most of them to address pivot failures and flex.  Lou from Wild Snow recently covered some of the changes.

http://www.wildsnow.com/6034/marker-f12-f10-review/

Is that a rifle strapped to his pack?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philpug 

 

Catastrophic? A bit mellow dramatic. I have a friend who uses Tours from the North pole to the South Pole and they have held up pretty well for him. I will defer to his expertise and experiences to what you say, Sorry.

 

He is also touring on a Shiro, light by no means. 

 

As far as the difference of the 112 and the FX being "pounds", without having both in front of me..just for fun I will have to weigh them...I will say if anything the weight is less than a pound (per ski). I just weighed RP112 Pures 168 and my Bones in a 180 and there is just over a pound difference FOR THE pair (with the same exact binding on both), but why bring  facts into a comparison.  

 

Almost any of the Praxis more powder oriented skis. At 160 pounds, the BC might be enough to be a decent enough powder ski for you/ . It is very much on the light side, tough as nails and it definitely does not suck on the front side. . The new PB should skin a ton better than the original (including side hilling) due to the . Lots of people mounting Protests for this purpose as well - and my understanding is Keith did some tweaks to make it a shade better for this purpose (weight I think). Prices remain sick (with extra code discount) until Nov 1. There's a fair amount of discussion about some of these at TGR.

DPS has already been mentioned... Don't underestimate the fun factor of the 138 if your focus is turns in good snow  - powder, corn, etc. I'd imagine the Pure to be pretty sweet.

If weight is not an issue, all of Rocker 2, Bent Chetler, JJ (not even sure on weight there...), Pon2oon deserve a look. Maybe the Obsethed as well. Strong across a range of conditions. 

The above includes some very different skis - but only you can decide what "style" you are after.

I have talked with several dealers who have sent in some pretty tweaked Marker Tours for warranty & now steer people to the Baron. That said, I've watched a heli guide duct tape his Duke AFD back on in the middle of nowhere... FWIW, I'm north of 200# and stuck Barons on my Praxis BCs. I'm a slacker touring type & just chase after some fun turns here and there. In the end I decided the weight did matter - and unless you are really pounding it out, odds are the Barons are fine.

I am a total fat rockered ski type - so ignoring touring, I'd almost always be on something 115 or fatter. But the weight and side hilling challenges with really fat skis are undeniable issues. I'm not sure that the rocker profile is nearly as big an issue as some worry about - I've done some skinning on older 138s, Praxis Powders and Kuros and my challenges were always various combos of cantilevering while side hilling and just plain weight. I ended up settling on the Praxis BC for "most of the time" skinning because it skis good snow well enough that I don;t feel cheated and the setup shaves pounds off my fatter skis w/Dukes - and I bring up the rear under the best of circumstances... 

Well fit skins matter. Assuming you are not getting pre-cuts, no matter whose skins you get - if not G3,  invest the few bucks in a G3 offset cutter. Takes about 3 minutes to do a perfect trim. Vs ending up with skins all over yourself & looking like a failed experiment in gift wrapping on your 1st attempt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philpug 

Yes it is. There be polar bears where they were going. 

all those south pole polar bears eh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 24 Seven 

Is that a rifle strapped to his pack?
 

 

Probably.  This is not just any adventurer, and I'm betting he has to be prepared for anything where he goes.