I must learn to AT and buy the gear

Welcome.
You sound like a serious mountaineer, so I would assume you have all the requisite gear, training & experience. If that is the case, what you have listed above is probably all you are missing. I'm sure you will get a lot of responses & some good insights here. I will stick with the basics. Since you seem most interested in using ski gear to get off the mountain, I would go super lite everything, & that usually means Dynafit. Also I would suggest going to Lou Dawsons site www.wildsnow.com

Oh, & make sure you ski in control at all times.

JF

Yes, for what you want, superlight is the way to go. For steep climbing in crampons, the only AT boot currently on the market that really works is the Dynafit ZZero3TF. That is a 3-buckle boot, to which I add a Power Strap to recover at least a fraction of the dramatically reduced downhill performance of a 3-buckle boot. Dynafit bindings are a must. Various skis will work; the K2 Mt. Baker Superlight or some of the all-mountain Goode skis are excellent choices and very light. A Petzl Snoscopic ice axe-ski pole is handy. Note that, while the Dynafit boots work well on either snow or rock, they are quickly chewed to pieces by rock-climbing or hiking rocky trails (rumor has it that next year's Dynafits will have replaceable solepieces). All of this said, you'd do well to spend a lot of time area skiing this rig to learn what it will do, won't do, and when it all goes to Hell. You don't want to discover these things at 14,000 on Rainier in a storm. Oh, and don't forget the avalanche beacon, probe, and shovel; an Avalung pack isn't a bad idea either. And never BC ski alone. Finally, another good website to check out is: http://www.backcountryworld.com/

What are you looking to do? I have three set ups, from super light to pretty heavy. I'm not sure what I'd keep if I only could use one. Will you yo- yo powder? Climb a peak and ski down? Casual or will your life be on the line?

Ok. I'd say a dynafit setup, but I'd get boots which match the skis you pick. My light setup is an old pair of dynafit boots which are only slightly better ski boots than plastic climbing boots, with a pair of my wifes old Atomic Beta 8:20's in a 170. The ski is no wimp, but narrow and not too stiff, so the boots can drive them just fine. I can ski steep frozen corn, but if the consequences of a mistake are high, I prefer something more solid. They are light enough to blast by boot packing climbers like they are standing still.

If you were to go with a wider, longer ski you would want a more powerful boot. If you yo-yo powder, you would want a more convenient system, like Fritschi.

No one BC set-up will do everything, just like in area skiing. AT is all about choices and trade-offs. Standard alpine gear has been developed to go downhill very well, but I have several different pairs of downhill skis for different conditions and settings. Likewise, AT gear gives up some downhill performance in the service of adding the capability to ascend, and different AT set-ups are better suited to some purposes than to others. Choices and trade-offs.

I had the impression you wanted to climb high peaks and ski down. You can do that with your regular Alpine gear if you are willing to carry your ski boots, but those are heavy, so AT is an alternative choice. But, it means lower downhill performance than your alpine gear. Trade-off.

Sometimes climbing means skinning up. Sometimes climbing means hiking up. Sometimes climbing means bootpacking up. Sometimes climbing means semi-technical ice-climbing up. Often, it means all of them in one day. Any AT boot will work for all but the ice-climbing. For that, you need a free ankle, and I have found that a 3-buckle boot works much better for that than a 4-buckle boot. A 3-buckle boot is much more comfortable for cramponning up a 3000-foot couloir as well. However, a 4-buckle boot gives much better downhill performance. Trade-off.

You can't ski it if you can't get up it, so ski-mountaineering requires light weight, and everything about light weight is a choice and trade-off. I think all AT boots will take crampons, but the Dynafit ZZero CF (carbon fiber) is the lightest boot made; however, it is the most expensive and and the sole-pieces don't hold up to rock-climbing or even heavy hiking on rocky trails. Dynafit bindings (classic is fine) are the lightest by far, but if you're planning to be jump-turning down steep couloirs, they have a nasty tendency to open when you don't want them to, unless they are in locked-down mode, which means you are skiing on non-releasable bindings. The skis I mentioned are the lightest available, but they are not crud-busters, and you meet a lot of crud in the BC. Lots of trade-offs.

With all those trade-offs on an AT mountaineering set-up, you need to spend a LOT of time skiing it in-bounds to learn how to ski it before you ever take it into the BC. I feel all those trade-offs give up maybe 80% of downhill performance, and I use everything I've ever learned to get back to maybe 40%.

Finally, you said you are an aggressive skier. When you do go into the BC, you need to dial your aggressiveness WAY back. Forget what you see in the movies. There is no Ski Patrol in the BC to come get you if you break a leg. Often there is no cell phone service either. So, rescue (think about buying a rescue beacon) could be a long time coming. The phrase "If you fall, you die." takes on much more reality.

I have a pair of fairly lightly used AT boots for sale if you wear mondo size 27. They are Scarpa Matrix, an excellent 3 buckle boot. Good crampon fit (tested with my BD Sabretooths (Sabreteeth?), prettly light weight, Dynafit compatible. They come with a pair of stiff Flexon tongues if you want to stiffen up the forward flex for more aggressive downhill. Thremofit liners, too (warm, super light weight and supremely comfortable).

I think BD skins are made by Ascention. They are very good ,and will work on any ski. G3 skins work great for me.

I skied a black diamond havoc and liked it enough that I'd use it, but mostly I use regular alpine skis.

For a burly 4-buckle boot that is dynafit compatible, the Garmont MegaRide is 1665 grams. That's on the heavier side, but at least with Dynafit bindings, the package is overall pretty light. I have the Adrenaline which is considerably heavier, and I match those with either Freeride or Duke bindings for a package that is close to wearing cement overshoes on a long hike. If I was changing out, the megaride is one I'd have to consider.

Ascension skins are made by BD (they used to be a separate company years ago and were acquired by BD, if I am not mistaken). They should work with any ski, and have several styles of tail attachments. I have used both the clipfix and the STS, and they both work great, but the clipfix are probably not as good on skis with an upturned tail. There are also 2 kinds of Ascension skins. The regular ones are a bit stiffer, said to be easier to deal with in windy conditions, and the Glidelight, which apparently pack up a bit smaller (I have the regular ones, so I can't really say). Both G3 and BD have their partisans. I think there was a review in Couloir magazine (now Backcountry Magazine) last year- look it up at backcountryworld.com.

The G3 skins have very short hairs and seem to absorb very little water. I can't detect any less grip. It is weird....they don't feel to the hand that they should work as well as they do.

My friends on ascensions always seem to have good grip and glide, better than the Coltex I used to use.

My first skins were from real seals, brown spotted furry ones. I would not recommend those.

I use the Glidelite skins. Black Diamond owned and marketed the Ascension skins up to about 2004 but bought Glidelight in order to acquire the glue technology and STS tail attachment system. Since STS and the better glue technology are now used on all Black Diamond products, they are more similar than not, but Glidelight is still just a touch lighter IMO. It hardley matters since they are not made by the same company.

As far as boots, there is a real limit on the amount of compromise you can make in the downhill capability of equipment. Boots are of course the foundation of control. Its not worth giving up 200 grams and having no control over your skis on steep firm terrain, and if you are attaching crampons and toe picking your way up a steep slope, a stiffer boot is not a big compromise. Megaride should be about as close to an alpine boot as you can get, with lighter plastics and a locking / articulating ankle. Combined with a dynafit binding, it should give very positive control over even larger skis while delivering an overall light package.

Good luck, I hope you'll hang around and post some Trip Reports here when you get out. Sounds like you could "take us" to some nice places.

- The Zzero3 C-TF is a fine boot, but the Zzero4 C-TF also climbs well . . . and lots of other AT boots from Dynafit and other brands climb well too. (And all AT boots work with all crampons.)
- Definitely trade-offs though. My rando race boots climb *really* well, but I’d rather sacrifice some uphill mobility for the better downhill capability of my other boots.

- Interesting product, but lacks a real spike. For conditions when enhanced self-arrest is a higher priority (typically steep exposed skinning, and occasional descents traversing above fumaroles and the like), I use a ski pole self-arrest pick. (I prefer the Grivel Condor over the far more popular BD Whippet, since the latter is far easier & quicker to deploy/retract.)

- Both wildsnow.com and tetonat.com reported on Zzero 4 C-TF wear, and concluded no better or worse than other boots they’ve used in the past. (My pair are too new to reach any personal conclusions yet, especially since I used the Scarpa F3 for my late-spring and early-summer skiing this year.)
- The swappable soles are for the Dynafit Zzeus, which will allow it to be used (safely) with alpine downhill bindings.

- Opinions are sharply divided on Goode skis, as their atypical construction definitely lends them a different feel.
- For weight-conscious mountaineering skis, I love my Trab Duo Freerando and Duo Sint Aero, although the newer models coming out from Dynafit recently look intriguing (e.g., Se7en Summits, Mustagh Ata). BD also has its “Efficient” series (as opposed to most of its skis that are more oriented toward resort telemarkers).
- I go for around 80mm midwinter and early spring, then down to the lower 70s for late spring and early summer. But that range you cite is fine. Just remember that even if a ski is fairly light despite its added girth (e.g., K2 Mt Baker Superlight or new Dynafit Manaslu), the skins need to be wider and hence heavier. (Plus the topskins will accumulate more snow while skinning – seriously.)

- The (very) quick summary is that the Classic/Speed is a bit lighter (or quite a bit lighter for the variations that skip any fore/aft adjustment – be careful with the mounting!). But Comfort and Vertical ST add a few more ounces, more fore/aft adjustment, and more stand height. (Differences between Comfort and Vertical ST are very small.) I have both Classic/Speed and Comfort in my quiver, and it’s all about tradeoffs, although if you want brakes, hard to find know for the Classic/Speed. And note that the Vertical FT didn’t have much to distinguish itself from the ST in its first two years, but this coming year ups the release range to 12.

- Dynafit’s older TLT line is lighter. So is Scarpa F1 (available in both regular and race versions).

- Hmm, perhaps the original poster has already noticed this?

- Even besides that fatal flow, it’s an old dated design that has nothing to recommend it over the Spirit series.

- The only compatibility issue is that if you get Dynafit skis, you can buy Dynafit skins that are precut with special attachments to fit the tip notch, although regular skins work too, and you can create a custom attachment to fit the notch also. Trab skis come with special hardware that you retrofit onto any skin.

- Yes, like many of BD’s brands, BD bought a small company but kept the separate name going.

- Wow, when was that! (I thought mohair and then nylon took over from real seal skin a long time ago...)

- I’m pretty sure it was BD glue that went on Glidelite skins, but yes, BD did want the STS tail.
- The only difference now is that Ascension skins have a thicker backing (plus & minuses), which also allows the option of purchasing with the Clipfix hardware (instead of STS).

- Dynafit Zzero4 C-TF is way more precise laterally. And much stiffer AT boots are coming out (Axon this past season, with Dynafit Zzeus and others for this coming season), but they’re probably not of interest to the original poster.

Sorry for the total hijack of your thread, ayaycaptain...

I'll be trying out a pair of Havocs in two weeks. I'm taking them along to hopefully ski this peak in the Aleutian Range in Alaska.



I'm going to be at a fishing lodge and this minor peak is within hiking distance of the lodge. I'm taking the Havocs along with the hope of doing my August skiing on that mountain. It doesn't have a real name, but the owner of the lodge calls it Dream Peak because she's never quite been able to get all the way to the top of it.

I haven't ever skied on Havocs, but I wanted something short for packing for this trip and my local ski shop let me have a pair of 163cm Havocs with Fritschi FR's. Maybe I'll post a review of the Havoc after I get back.

Meanwhile, SOME DAY...

I'm going to ski on this mountain. It's Mt. Chiginagak, at 7,287 ft, and it's visible (on the rare occasions when the sun is out) right out the windows of the lodge.



In early summer, there's over 6,000 vertical feet of snow there and I really, really want to try to ski it. Here's another view I took while fishing one day. On that day, the plume from the volcano vent is really visible:



Just dreaming. :

THAT, ayay, is what it is all about!

Bob, you dog!

The Havocs I used were also 163. Not my choice of length, but that was what my friend was on.

I found them light, not floppy, mindlessly easy to turn in powder and surprisingly stable. They make a nice arc on packed snow. Not a real damp or smooth ride, but certainly a longer ski would be better. They will work just fine.

As usual, bring us your great pictures and have fun.

http://paintercreeklodgeforsale.com/The_Business.html
"A new owner wishing to maximize revenue would be able to consider all of the following alternatives:"

Why aren't they marketing it for potential use as a spring ski mountaineering lodge? The terrain looks great!

I don't see how the Petzl SnoScopic has any potential use in ski mountaineering.
If steep climbing is expected with crampons, then a real ice axe (complete with real spike for self-belay) is preferable.
If only steep exposing skinning is expected and a self-arrest pick is necessary, then Condor or Whippet is preferable.
The SnoScopic seems designed for lower-angle glacier and snowfield hiking, specifically for those who don't have ski poles. Carrying ski poles and a SnoScopic (instead of a real ice axe) seems like a very odd combination.

The original poster has been (somewhere) on at least three major mountains, and his gear inquiry prompts beginner backcountry tips. Should we also emphasize the lack of grooming, cafeterias, and trail signs?

Well, you're sure asking the right listing agent..I mean guy.

Well, I have more mountaineering and technical rock and ice climbing experience than most, and I am comfortable soloing quite high-angle ground using just two ski poles (I do own quite a few ice tools though). What tools to carry is a matter of context and personal preference. On non-technical ground where I might need to self-arrest a skiing fall, I prefer one telescopic pole and a SnoScopic, wheras you prefer a different arrangement. To each, his or her own.

So you ski down with a ski pole in one hand and a SnoScopic in the other?
Or do you mean that you ascend with a ski pole in one hand and a SnoScopic in the other, then stowe the SnoScopic for the descent and switch back to a ski pole in each hand?

Yes; the SnoScopic can save having to carry an extra tool. If I am on a steep climb and steep ski descent where I want a SnoScopic, I would ascend with one pole and/or the SnoScopic, using the SnoScopic as either a ski pole or ice-axe (piolet ancre) as the situation demands, then ski down with the ski pole in one hand and the SnoScopic in the other, using the SnoScopic as a ski pole but holding the head ready for self-arrest (with a leash). If the ascent gets into technical climbing, then I want at least one real ice-axe and for sure we won't be skiing down that way!

I think I might be the only person to have gone to that lodge and looked up at that mountain with any desire to try to ski it. It's so remote (100 miles south of King Salmon or about 400 miles sw of Anchorage) and so few fishermen come to the lodge (only about 6-8 per week) that I don't think anyone's ever considered it a "ski destination".

There's also the question of how heinous the approach to that mountain would be. It's not very far in total walking distance from a lake that is easily reached by boat, but typically the below-timberline portion of that country is almost impassible if a trail hasn't been cut. I'm hoping to check out the approach when I'm up there in ten days.

One other thing I'm checking into is how the regulations work on motorized travel there. That mountain is part of the Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge and there are some fairly involved regs about airplane or helicopter use. I want to see if there are portions of that range, particularly where "Dream Peak" is located, where you could legally use a helicopter for most or all of the uphill.

Thanks for checking out the website. That lodge is one of the coolest places I've ever been.