or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

which of these two skis for AT?

post #1 of 6
Thread Starter 
I have some Naxo bindings and BD skins on the way, and I want to setup one of my lesser-used alpine skis for touring. The skis are 181cm Atomic Sweet Daddys (121-80-107) and 185cm Volkl Karmas (twin tips, 119-87-111). Will be used for skinning and skiing in the WV backcountry throughout the season, and post-season "earn my turns" at some of the local resorts (including Timberline WV) after they close.

Of these two skis, which do you think would be better for AT in this case? The Sweet Daddys are very light, they ski gracefully underfoot, and are great on soft snow. The Karmas are a little better all-around (certainly better on hardpack), but are heavier and a bit clumsy underfoot in some situations.

I am leaning towards setting up the Sweet Daddys, but wanted to get some opinions here first.

post #2 of 6
Variable conditions performance would be a priority between your skis. My 183 Havocs about match the Karma dimensions (122-88-114) and handle variable conditions better than my narrower wasted skis. Will you be touring with alpine boots?
post #3 of 6
If you are going to be carrying the skis on the pack some, skating on approached etc go light. Once you are stomping straight up a heavy ski is not as a big deal.
post #4 of 6
Thread Starter 
I am going to start with an older pair of alpine boots I have laying around -- they are softer flexing than my new boots, and I don't care if I pack them out from all the motion. I will likely invest in AT boots next year, assuming I find someplace to try them on that is -- not exactly easy to find here in the mid-atlantic!

At the moment, I don't know how much of my AT will be hiking with skis strapped to my pack, and how much will be skinning. At least post-season, I would expect more hiking than skinning. For the backcountry touring in peak season, it would be almost all skinning.
post #5 of 6
I would think the Sweet Daddys would handle just about anything you will encounter. Since they are lighter and a little shorter I would go with them. In my opinion the little extra width and beef of the Karmas is not going to be worth having to lug the extra weight uphill. It is always a trade off, but since I climb like a brick weight is always a big consideration for me. You are going to be spending a lot of time climbing and hopefully not skiing much hardpack or really crappy snow, so the Atomics are going to work just as well as the Karmas 90% of the time. It's not like they aren't good all condition skis.
post #6 of 6
Thread Starter 
Thanks mudfoot!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home