or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AT skis

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
As further proof of my lack of knowledge about backcountry skiing, I ask these elementary questions:
1) in selecting a pair of skis for AT, is it best to go with a light pair of alpine skis, or a pair of telemark skis?
2) as for AT ski length, is it best to longer than, shorter than, or the same as alpine ski length?
post #2 of 17
Thread Starter 
And are there any comments on the suitability of these telemark skis for an AT set up?
Tua Sumo
Tua Helium
Yostmark Classic Noodle
Voilé Mountain Surf
Black Diamond Arc Angel
Other/better telemark skis you would recommend for this purpose?
post #3 of 17
You can go either lightweight alpine or tele, but light alpine would be my preference (since tele skis tend to be pretty soft -- most aggressive tele skiers ski alpine skis as well). You can go heavy if it saves you $$, just keep in mind you'll be lugging that weight uphill with each step (or on your back).

Most people go a little shorter for backcountry to (1) shave weight) and (2) make it easier to turn them in frozen crud, breakable crust and other crappy bc conditions (no groomers back there!). Also, most people do not ski as fast in the bc as they do at resorts -- savoring the run that took so much effort to earn!

I've heard good things about the Arc Angel (designed for AT more than tele I think, pretty stiff for a bc specific ski). I would recommend the Atomic 9.22 (not the "S", but the regular 9.22) -- a great combination of lightweight and high performance.
post #4 of 17
JW, remember the option of an AT-specific ski! Of course, in this country, you won't be able to find that many AT-specific skis, and the distinctions between an AT ski, a lightweight alpine dowhill midfat, and a stiff tele ski, are all quite blurry, but that is still an option.

For example, I have a Dynastar ATV (the first generation Dynastar midfat) in a 180cm, and my wife has the Atomic Tour Carve Alpin (an AT-specific ski, though plenty of tele skiers use it) in a 163cm. (I also agree on the Atomic 9.22 rec.) You might want to check out some of the midfat ski deals on http://www.rei.com and http://www.altrec.com
post #5 of 17
Thread Starter 
AC, Jonathan, thanks for the rec. on the Atomic 9.22 and 10.ex. Am watching ebay for those right now.

I checked the Yostmark site, and among other things they are recommending a Volkl I have never heard of--the M31--as well as the well known G41 for AT. Man that G41 seems awfully heavy, doesn't it? And do you know anything about the M31? (the brief note on the site implies that this is an AT specific ski sold in Europe)

post #6 of 17

Are you going to start hiking for those turns? When do plan to start your BC adventures? You might have a hiking buddy here if you want the company. I am looking for a avalanche class for next fall early winter.


post #7 of 17
Thread Starter 
Ed--its a lock that I am going to bc ski next season and, if things break right for me, perhaps even next month. Would love to hook up with you for some of that. Will email you. Hey, how did you find the avy class you had mentioned?
post #8 of 17
A Volkl midfat would be a nice choice, but I have no idea what it weighs -- hard to find that data for alpine downhill skis ...
post #9 of 17

This is the only class that I know of, http://www.peaksnowcats.com/survival_course.html. I was hoping of taking a trip and do the Cat Skiing thing plus they give you the BC lessons. I heard that there may be a class up in the White Mountains in the Mount Washington Area.


post #10 of 17
Thread Starter 
anybody know a site or page which give ski wights for AT?

AC, what's the diff. between the 9.22 and the 9.22S (for AT purposes)?

post #11 of 17
For ski weights (AT, tele and some alpine skis), check out: www.telemark-pyrenees.com/e_index.htm

Scroll down the index on the left and click on Skis (appropriately under "S") and among other info presented for each ski will be the weight. (though differences in binding weight are more dramatic than ski weight for the most part -- for AT look at the Dynafit Tourilite).

Now while you are there, pay attention to the prices (it is worth tracking down a conversion rate to do this) and you will be in on the worst kept secret in the backcountry ski industry

The difference between the 9.22 and the 9.22 S is that the S flexes softer. But the regular 9.22 is not that stiff. Weightwise, they are both very light, but the regular (non-S) is a tad lighter (I don't know why).<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by AC (edited March 23, 2001).]</FONT>
post #12 of 17
Thanks AC

A friend had told me about the site but couldn't remember the name - I spent 1 hr searching for it but never found it.

The prices are very reasonable.
post #13 of 17
Thread Starter 
thanks for the tip AC. At 7.3 F to the dollar, these prices are very good indeed.
post #14 of 17
You have to forgive a Swede who´s English, could be better, but what does AT stand for??
post #15 of 17
AT = Alpine Touring.

also known as Randonee (sp?) skiing. Simply means a system of skiing that allows your heel to lift in touring mode, and locks it down in downhill mode.
post #16 of 17
I am a tele skiier on alpine skiis and don't really know any high level tele skiers on them either, i can't imagine they would be a good choice for at.

Fat skiis only for bc, I don't know about you guys but i only hike for powder! (Ok, maybe some corn in the spring!) But the fatter the better! I tour on my 198 Volkl G41's, they are some heavy dogs, but i appreciate having a ski i love for the way down. Besides, i have better places to lose weight than my gear. If weight is a concern, and you NEVER get in the back seat, check out the Atomic 10ex, almost as good a ski as the G41, just lighter.

A fatter ski can be skiied hard in shorter lenghts, keeps you on top of variable crusts better, doesn't bog down in wet and heavy, really no drawbacks to a fat ski in the bc other than fitting skins on them.

Free your heels, poke your eyes out!<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by ridgeHiker (edited April 10, 2001).]</FONT>
post #17 of 17
Do not write off the K2 offerings. Two AT skis for next year....
8611 AT 102/70/91 1450g approx $325.00
Shuksan 107/75/98 1500g approx $460.00
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home