or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AT ski length....

post #1 of 5
Thread Starter 
I have decided to delve into AT/BC and have been doing my DD...

My question is what length ski should I consider?

My alpine boards are Rossi B2s 170s

slightly longer?

I will probably be picking up used gear to cut my teeth with..

My thanks for any input
post #2 of 5
Length is really a personal choice, so pick something you will want to ski in the conditions you envison yourself using the equipment. For me in the Rockies it's a ski that can handle anything, so even though I'm generally looking for powder I don't have a real fatty or shorty.

A longer ski with a soft tip will make breaking trail easier, but some people favor going short just because you are in unpacked snow all the time and it's easier to drag them around. It's all about the skiing, so I wouldn't stray too far from what you like for area skiing.

You may want to consider something with a little rocker in the front like the K2 Anti Piste (not the old model, just last year's or newer), which makes breaking trail in deep snow easier and handles weird snow a little better. In BC skiing you can count on the snow conditions being the good, the bad, and the ugly.
post #3 of 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post
You may want to consider something with a little rocker in the front like the K2 Anti Piste (not the old model, just last year's or newer), which makes breaking trail in deep snow easier and handles weird snow a little better. In BC skiing you can count on the snow conditions being the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Mudfoot,
I have been shopping for a tip rockered ski. The closest thing to what I am looking for is the Solomon Czar, but I don't really want a radical twin tip, nor am I convinced I need 112mm width. Do you have a pair of the K2 Anti Piste? I hadn't seen this ski as an option, probably because it is a tele ski. The dimensions etc. fit pretty closely to what I am looking for. I already have a light, short AT setup. I would want to mount some Marker Barons on them, and use them for deep days both in area & AT. From what I can gather, they are pre drilled for tele bindings. Would this be a problem for mounting Barons?

Also for someone my size, 5' 10" 155 lbs. they reccomend a 174cm length. This is shorter than I would like, & the 181cm seems more what I am looking for. Would this be a mistake? How is the flex, soft, medium, stiff?

Any input is appreciated.
Thanks,

JF
post #4 of 5
4ster:

The tele/AT ski difference is only semantics. Most of the top ones are marketed both ways. These days the only real difference is that tele skis tend to be softer flexing, but many tele skiers use "alpine skis" and many AT skiers are on "tele" skis. IMO you are much better off chosing a telemark ski for backcountry, because they tend to be on the lighter side. I do not own Anti Pistes, but know a few people that ski them AT, including a friend who owns a ski shop and has tried and can ski anything he wants. Another alpine skier I know took a pair with Fritschi bindings and alpine boots on a week long heli trip in Canada and raved about them. The predrilled K2 tele binding holes are usually a non-factor when mounting AT or alpine bindings, but check with your shop to make sure the holes on the Barons do not confilict.

I'd call the flex on the Anti Piste mediumm, and I think the 102 waist with a slight rocker in just the tips is perfect for a soft snow AT ski. Too much rocker and your skins don't get good contact with the snow. They are not the lightest skis out there, but appear to be a very good BC tool. As for powder days at the area, I'd grab them in a heartbeat.

With the rockered tips you'd want to go a little long, but it is a slight rocker so you don't want to get carried away. It sounds like you are inbetween the sizes. The 174s sound pretty short when you subtract the rocker, but the 181s may be more than you need. Check some reviews and see what people are saying. The Community Reviews on Telemarktips.com is a good source. If I were you I'd probably go for the 181s, but I tend to favor long skis because I'm tall.

I share your opinion that 112 waist for a bc is more than you want most of the time. If you figure the extra weight of the skis and fatter skins needed, you are lugging a lot of weight around that will only benefit you a small percentage of the time, but there are certainly plently of fatty bc advocates out there. If you go for the Anti Pistes be aware that the 2 year old ones with the fake wood and black tops are before they made them with rocker. There are probably many other good choices out there that I am not aware of, but the 100mm waist and slight rockered tip sounds to me like a very good ball park to be playing in the bc.
post #5 of 5
Mudfoot,
Many thanks! Your thorough post has reassured me as to all of my concerns. If I do it I think I will go with the 181cm. Since my other setup is lighter and shorter, I am not as concerned with weight for this. My thoughts with a full rocker was that it may act weird skinning, & the fatter skis may be a bit awkward. Your comment about the tip rocker being better for breaking trail in deep snow makes a lot of sense.

I am planning a trip to interior B.C. this winter that will be a mix of resort/backcountry skiing, & I am trying to keep it to one pair of skis since we are flying. These may be just the skis I am looking for.

Thanks,

JF
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home