EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Sidecountry vs. AT -- Powder setups: Your favorites + their pros & cons.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sidecountry vs. AT -- Powder setups: Your favorites + their pros & cons. - Page 3

post #61 of 77

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

I was.  This past summer turned me into a massive pile of wussyness

 

As we sometimes say in my circle, "It'll feel a lot better when it doesn't hurt so much."  Or if we're in a hurry, "Suck it up, Princess."  wink.gif
 

 

post #62 of 77
Why do people bother putting together "sidecountry" setups?

If you're hiking "sidecountry" your standard lift-served setup should be fine. It is for me. Separate boots? Hilarious! Just unbuckle your cuffs. Separate skis? WHY?

Of course, the weekend warriors tend to be focused on image, so I guess being able to talk about "my new sidecountry setup" when on e-forums or at parties must be worth something big to those folks. I just don't get why they don't hike with their regular alpine setup. I do it all the time when I go "sidecountry" and wouldn't even think of plunking down $2k more for the sake of being able to say my gear is True Sidecountry.

Mobbed by Madison Avenue!
post #63 of 77
Thread Starter 

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrizzledVeteran View Post

Why do people bother putting together "sidecountry" setups?
If you're hiking "sidecountry" your standard lift-served setup should be fine. It is for me. Separate boots? Hilarious! Just unbuckle your cuffs. Separate skis? WHY?
Of course, the weekend warriors tend to be focused on image, so I guess being able to talk about "my new sidecountry setup" when on e-forums or at parties must be worth something big to those folks. I just don't get why they don't hike with their regular alpine setup. I do it all the time when I go "sidecountry" and wouldn't even think of plunking down $2k more for the sake of being able to say my gear is True Sidecountry.
Mobbed by Madison Avenue!

This is enlightening.
Please give me more tips on how I'm going to hike from resort to resort on Hokkaido through 3+ ft of powder.

 

Perhaps your grizzled beard provides better flotation & traction while postholing?

post #64 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post


 



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.

249755_10150331312364989_535449988_9778333_108018_n.jpg

 

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.  rolleyes.gif

 


Leave it to me to tidy up old posts, but according to respective manufacturers (per pair of skis): FX94 in 176 is 3900 g, FX104 in 174 is 4080 g, 112RP Pure in 178 is 3600 g, 112RP Hybrid in 178 is 4200 g. 

 

So there's a difference between the Pure and the FX104 of about a pound per pair. More than Phil anticipated, less than Josh claimed. But, if you look at running lengths, the 112RP in 184 (3800 g Pure) is closer to the FX104 in 174, and so only about 10 oz per pair. Not sure 5 oz per ski will make a giant difference. OTOH, the 184 112RP has a lot more surface area than the 174 FX104, so...

 

Finally, would note that Dawg weighed the 183 Olympus Mons, which has three sheets of metal and a traditional flip tail, at right around 4000 g. If so, it's the clear winner in terms of weight for running surface. Not to mention stability. eek.gif

 

 

 

post #65 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veloscente View Post

Quote:

This is enlightening.
Please give me more tips on how I'm going to hike from resort to resort on Hokkaido through 3+ ft of powder.

 

Perhaps your grizzled beard provides better flotation & traction while postholing?


Where is it that you're going to hike from resort to resort? If you're doing the day tours around the small peaks and Mt. Yotei in the Niseko area, a light set up is pretty nice but not imperative. By not imperative, I'm thinking more like a Fritsche setup. By light, I'm thinking dynafit. You'll get more skinning laps the lighter you go. Personally, I just wouldn't tour on any of the Marker offerings. Niseko and the surrounding area is also one of the places that there's a good bit of horizontal travel, so teley gear is a viable and sensible option as well. 

 

post #66 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post



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



Is that Jim M?

post #67 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post



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



Is that John M?

post #68 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veloscente View Post

Quote:
This is enlightening.

Please give me more tips on how I'm going to hike from resort to resort on Hokkaido through 3+ ft of powder.

Perhaps your grizzled beard provides better flotation & traction while postholing?

While you're arguing against something I haven't posted, I'm laughing at your distractions. Who's your comic line writer? Irwin Corey?

Hiking from "resort to resort on Hokkaido" wouldn't really be "sidecountry" would it? Nope. As sold to us by Ski Industry Marketing Specialists, "sidecountry" is the 5 minute "bootpack" that is marginally "off-area" and gives you ground for bragging on facebook and Twitter about the "face shots in the pow!" you get.

I do 30 minute bootpack hikes in my alpine gear. I don't know why they'd be tough on you. I'm not Andrew McLean.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this is you gathering Interwebz fame.
post #69 of 77

While I am generally inclined toward the quick bootpack or traverse, when I go "sidebounds" at all, there is no doubt that a lot of  "sidecountry" can involve a bit of skinning in or out. 

 

There is nothing wrong with having a skinning capable alpine binding. Especially with bindings like next year's Dukes or the Tracker/Guardian available. They open up options for sidecountry and for the odd touring day. Nothing wrong with that at all. Unless you really never use it, in which case it is an expensive compromise, if a modest one, for no gain.

 

But what do I know, I'm still waiting for my camera mount buds to erupt... wink.gif

post #70 of 77
Thread Starter 

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

While I am generally inclined toward the quick bootpack or traverse, when I go "sidebounds" at all, there is no doubt that a lot of  "sidecountry" can involve a bit of skinning in or out. 

 

There is nothing wrong with having a skinning capable alpine binding. Especially with bindings like next year's Dukes or the Tracker/Guardian available. They open up options for sidecountry and for the odd touring day. Nothing wrong with that at all. ...


What Spindrift said.

 

I should have known better than to acknowledge a Troll who creates a rhetorical red herring by whittling "sidecountry" down to a 5 minute bootpack just so the category is small enough for him to piss on it.

Yeah, you're right grizzled.  Everyone else is out there boasting about their unworthy "face shots in the pow" because they're not humble guys like yourself, who've earned the right to boast about their 30 minute ultra-core bootpacks.

 

Pity the $$$ you've saved not buying sidecountry gear won't buy you any self-knowledge...

post #71 of 77

Hey Velo, ever consider giving the guys at Folsom Ski a call?  Im an eastcoaster that has been in contact with them regarding building a pair of skis to my spec's.  They are GREAT to talk to and guide you through the process and offer sugestions.  Though expensive ($1200) save your coin and in two or three months you got a pair that will last a lifetime.  Thats what I'm doing now.

post #72 of 77

Only just saw this thread now even though its been going for a while, but going back to Veloscente's original question on SC/BC set-ups, I was asking the same questions at the beginning of this season.  My needs were very similar to Velo's - wanted something that would ski well on day trips to BC, I could skin on, but also would be enjoyable for mixed days where I'm few hours on-piste with my family and a few hours of excursions to SC off-piste.  So I really didn't need a full AT set-up and downhill performance was priority over ascent. I mainly ski in the French Alps where conditions are probably closer to Tahoe than Utah.  I'm 49, 6'2" 183 lbs, ex-racer, ok fitness, do 20-30 days a year.

 

I didn't get to demo as much as I'd like, but in the end went with a pair of Kastle FX 94s in 186cm with Marker Barons.  In my first season on this set-up I've been very happy with it.  Others have done detailed reviews of the FX 94s on this site (in particular see Dawgcatching's excellent reviews).  But overall the ski lives up to the hype.  Super smooth, damp, stable precise in all conditions and all speeds.  Good float in pow, powers through crud, excellent edge hold on hard.  The ski is not as light as a true AT ski, but it is still noticeably lighter and quicker feeling than other all-mountain/freeride skis.  The Hollow-tech tips and tails also noticeably lighten the swing weight, so even at 186cm the ski feels pretty easy to yank around in tight spots.  It has a traditional camber so skins well - I got the Kastle pre-cut skins which are easy to use and worked fine for me.  My buddies in full AT gear are definitely faster and had less tired legs on ascents, but I probably have more fun and an easier time in mixed conditions on the descents.  And I can also take the skis back on piste and enjoy them there too.  I'm not a believer in the mythical "one ski quiver" and have a pair of Rossi Radical 9 GS skis for on-piste, but the Kastles are pretty versatile.  The only things they aren't fun on are tight icy moguls (though soft moguls fine) and rough, washboard ice where they lose bite (though smooth/hard they have good edge grip).  They are also a good match with the Barons which give better/safer alpine performance than AT bindings, but like the FX 94s themselves, aren't as light.  So overall the combo skis as well as any alpine set-up, but not as light as an AT set-up and so I wouldn't use for multi-day AT, but still light enough for very enjoyable BC day trips.  What would I change?  I've been skiing them in my old Salomon X-Wave 10 boots - am looking into a pair of Dynafit Titans with walk mode.

 

Some folks on this thread have been skeptical about "side-country" as a category - maybe so.  But perhaps there is a category for "BC day trippers" who want something between full-on multi-day AT kit and standard lift-served alpine gear.  Sadly not everyone can take multiple days off work and from families to do multi-day epic BC adventures smile.gif And the FX 94s fit this nicely.  Would be curious on other skis people feel fit this niche.

post #73 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post


Leave it to me to tidy up old posts, but according to respective manufacturers (per pair of skis): FX94 in 176 is 3900 g, FX104 in 174 is 4080 g, 112RP Pure in 178 is 3600 g, 112RP Hybrid in 178 is 4200 g. 

 

So there's a difference between the Pure and the FX104 of about a pound per pair. More than Phil anticipated, less than Josh claimed. But, if you look at running lengths, the 112RP in 184 (3800 g Pure) is closer to the FX104 in 174, and so only about 10 oz per pair. Not sure 5 oz per ski will make a giant difference. OTOH, the 184 112RP has a lot more surface area than the 174 FX104, so...

 

Finally, would note that Dawg weighed the 183 Olympus Mons, which has three sheets of metal and a traditional flip tail, at right around 4000 g. If so, it's the clear winner in terms of weight for running surface. Not to mention stability. eek.gif

 

 

 



The thing is I do not think Phil actually tours at all. I admittly tour on some VERY heavy gear. Not just doing sidecountry but straight up 100 percent skinning hiking. I do so because I am cheap. with that said the lighter skis and binding will make a difference for alot of people if they are hiking skinning alot during the day. It also make no sense to me to have a crud buster unless you are really bad at finding untracked snow.  In a perfect world I would have next year's dynafit vulcan's with dynafit bindings and set pof 184 wailer 99 and 190 wailer 112s. But the cost is thousands of dollars to put that together. 

 

I also bet in the longer lenght the weight difference gets bigger. 

post #74 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

While I am generally inclined toward the quick bootpack or traverse, when I go "sidebounds" at all, there is no doubt that a lot of  "sidecountry" can involve a bit of skinning in or out. 

 

There is nothing wrong with having a skinning capable alpine binding. Especially with bindings like next year's Dukes or the Tracker/Guardian available. They open up options for sidecountry and for the odd touring day. Nothing wrong with that at all. Unless you really never use it, in which case it is an expensive compromise, if a modest one, for no gain.

 

But what do I know, I'm still waiting for my camera mount buds to erupt... wink.gif


What will be better about next year's Dukes than this years, I don't really see anything really better, unless I'm missing something. 

 

post #75 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post



Is that Jim M?



Sorry I missed this.  No, that's Doug Stoup. 

post #76 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post


What will be better about next year's Dukes than this years, I don't really see anything really better, unless I'm missing something. 

 



Nest year's Dukes are a new wider design. With a wider screw pattern. Folks I trust who have skied them say that they are super impressive in terms of balance and responsiveness. The most interesting comment to me was that the solidness of the binding made him not notice the stand height as much as he expected - or did with the old Dukes. This is from an extraordinary skier who has no affiliation with Marker and likes low stand heights. So it is not just a Marker plug. 

 

I do not think there is anything "wrong" with the current Duke/Baron. But there is a noticeable level of compromise. Next year's top tier AT/Alpine bindings seem, based on very reliable input, to reduce the compromise to mostly weight with a bit of stand height, of differing levels,  thrown in. For people who want to be able to do some skinning without materially compromising Alpine performance, the new bindings seem to offer a very reasonable option. (MFD plates seem a whole 'nother discussion).

 

Again, I have not personally managed to get on either the Marker or Salomon/Atomic offerings. But I have discussed them with several people I trust who have spent time on them. Both products seem to get a solid thumbs up.

 

post #77 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post



Nest year's Dukes are a new wider design. With a wider screw pattern. Folks I trust who have skied them say that they are super impressive in terms of balance and responsiveness. The most interesting comment to me was that the solidness of the binding made him not notice the stand height as much as he expected - or did with the old Dukes. This is from an extraordinary skier who has no affiliation with Marker and likes low stand heights. So it is not just a Marker plug. 

 

I do not think there is anything "wrong" with the current Duke/Baron. But there is a noticeable level of compromise. Next year's top tier AT/Alpine bindings seem, based on very reliable input, to reduce the compromise to mostly weight with a bit of stand height, of differing levels,  thrown in. For people who want to be able to do some skinning without materially compromising Alpine performance, the new bindings seem to offer a very reasonable option. (MFD plates seem a whole 'nother discussion).

 

Again, I have not personally managed to get on either the Marker or Salomon/Atomic offerings. But I have discussed them with several people I trust who have spent time on them. Both products seem to get a solid thumbs up.

 

Nice, thanks for that spindrift. I don't think the 28% wider or something screw footprint will make such a difference, however. Look at the narrow footprint of an FKS binding. Although it is nice that Marker is 'evolving' their touring binding, I don't see it being that much better than this years, although it will be a bit, of course.

I think the Guardian/Tracker binding will be the better option next year. Although they are so far largely untested, they have lower stack height, apparently do not have icing problems, and are "much much much stiffer than the duke" according to Cody Townsend, who is of course biased. Anyway, only time will tell.
 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Sidecountry vs. AT -- Powder setups: Your favorites + their pros & cons.