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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trekchick 

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."  
 

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.  

 

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. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veloscente 

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. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trekchick 

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trekchick 

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?

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... 

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.

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  And the FX 94s fit this nicely.  Would be curious on other skis people feel fit this niche.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond 

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. 

 

 

 

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. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindrift 

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... 

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. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by markojp 

Is that Jim M?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigurd 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindrift 

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.