View the most recent posts on the forum.


Author Topic: Touring skis v.s. tele skis v.s. mountaineering skis  (Read 9216 times)

Offline 300winmag

  • Stoking the Woodstove
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Touring skis v.s. tele skis v.s. mountaineering skis
« on: April 30, 2009, 03:28:55 am »
Ok, I have more skis than is "normal". Skate skis, classic race skis, backcountry touring skis (new Asnes Norwegian Army skis) and "Telemark" skis (Atomic TM22)

My point here is that for backcountry TOURING with a pulk I want my Norwegian Army 210 cm.  touring skis (& skins). They are good skis for straight tracking in unroken snow with enough sidecut for decent turning in desents at moderate speeds. Plus, as Mil-Spec skis they are very strong withoug being heavy. I got mine at Neptune Mountaineering, Boulder, CO. I doubt if they are sold anywhere else in the U.S.  Store owner Gary Neptune regularly skis in Norway and has the connections to import the skis. These are new skis, not surplus.

For backcountry steeps and turning fast I want my Atomic TM 22 skis at 190cm. and a lot of sidecut (& skins). But these are much mpre for day touring.

On both the Asnes and Atomic skis I'm using Voile' 3 pin bindings, heel cables and Voile' release (yep) bindings W/the 3 pin bindings screwed to the Voile' release plate.

And then there are the "randonee" skiers and ski mountaineers with alpine boots and randonee bindings that pivot at the toe but lock down at the heel for great control on downhill runs. Is THAT true backcountry skiing? A lot of folks say yes, IF you're doing serious steeps. For my money the lack of a flexible boot sole means they're more  difficult to tour in on the flats for any amount of time.

So... whaddya think about those young whippersnappers that think 180 or 170 tele or randonee skis are great for touring?

Personally I can't keep the Atomic TM 22s going straight in untracked snow. Their sidecut makes them wander all over. Thus my Asnes touring skis for covering distances with a pulk.

I feel that touring skis make for much more efficiency and ease of use for their intended purpose but shorter, wider "tele" skis are a compromise ski that does neither touring nor ski
mountaineering well. Learn to turn better on touring skis and you don't need the new "tele" skis.

Eric



« Last Edit: April 30, 2009, 02:28:13 pm by 300winmag »

Online kinguq

  • Supporter
  • Living Large At -40
  • *****
  • Posts: 567
  • Det finnes ikke darlig vaer, bare darlig klaer!
    • View Profile
Re: Touring skis v.s. tele skis v.s. mountaineering skis
« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2009, 02:09:25 pm »
I agree with you in general, in fact I use quite narrow metal-edged touring skis (Asnes Marka) with virtually no sidecut for backcountry touring. I do not think that wider skis gain me any significant floatation advantage under real-world conditions. They are difficult to telemark in, but realistically, what percentage of the time will I be going downhill?

Other things being more or less equal, I will go for the lighter ski every time. A skier has to lift and move the ski thousands of times per day, and weight makes a huge difference.

If I want to tele ski, I have the full setup, but really that is just for climbing up and skiing down. I would not want to ski any distance on them. They take the joy right out of touring, for me.

Best,

Daniel.

Offline yardsale

  • Hauling Sled
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: Touring skis v.s. tele skis v.s. mountaineering skis
« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2009, 07:29:26 pm »
Not possible to give a helpful answer without knowing what kind of terrain you wish to travel over and what percentage of the time you are hauling a sled vs. what percentage is spent skiing, and is ski time spent touring around over low angle terrain or are you needing good control (ie turning ability) over higher angle terrain. Care to give a little more info?

Offline K.

  • Warming Up
  • **
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
Re: Touring skis v.s. tele skis v.s. mountaineering skis
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2009, 12:18:24 pm »
Never get tired of this topic. The more skis you have the more you can do; your season will start earlier, end later and have fewer off days in between. This is particularly important the way things have been going in the snow department in central Ontario lately. I have a pair of Tua's for lift areas or other hikeable steeps with the plastic boots, a pair of Fischer Sbounds for backcountry/moderate steeps with leather boots, E99's for light touring (they still handle extremely well on open powder slopes, but as soon as conditions deteriorate they get a little hard to manage), and track skis. Compared to bikes or canoes, I suppose it isn't that hard to acquire several sets of skis.

As to whether certain skis are right for certain terrain and snow combos, if you're faster than the next guy then your choice was better!

Neptune Mountaineering... definitely worth a visit if you're in Colorado and looking for some equipment. The only thing made in Czechoslovakia that I've ever owned came from that store.

Offline pablo

  • Coming in From the Cold
  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Touring skis v.s. tele skis v.s. mountaineering skis
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2010, 10:30:42 pm »
Then again... there's a lot to be said for being able to ski virtually anywhere on one pair of skis... this has been my pursuit for the last 15 years.  I grew up in Steamboat Springs, CO and have spent my entire life on skis.  The proliferation of all sorts of specialized outdoor gear though (and the resulting environmental impact of all these "improvements" and the discarded "old" gear they create) really troubles me.  I remember the venerable "pinheads" of yesteryear ripping it up on the steeps, bumps, groomers, and backcountry on long, double-cambered skis and leather boots.  I've reached the point where I can handle an acceptable variety of lift-served terrain as well as backcountry powder and touring on my Fischer E99s (210cm).  The purity of the telemark turn is truly evident with this responsive, lightweight gear, and I can tour all day long on these skis.  I can even keep up with my 10 year old when he skate skis on the groomed xc trails here in Wisconsin! (for now anyway:))  These skis have limitations on the steeps for sure, but that's ok... there's just more challenge available to me.  I've had them since '93 and won't retire them until they break.  Let's hear it for an uncluttered gear shed!  Anybody know where I can find one of those old Neptune Mountaineering stickers: "Pinheads from Hell"???

Offline michel

  • Warming Up
  • **
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: Touring skis v.s. tele skis v.s. mountaineering skis
« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2010, 03:08:47 pm »
I have the same ski and use them on none groomed bush road & lake .they work very good ,slower but more stable in soft snow than regular cross country ski.

Offline yardsale

  • Hauling Sled
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: Touring skis v.s. tele skis v.s. mountaineering skis
« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2010, 07:03:24 am »
Pablo,
I still ski on some Karhu 10th Mountain, the bc alternative to the E99 but just about the same ski.  These skis tour well and can turn ok not because of great sidecut but because the shovel of the ski is so noodley that it will just flex around the turn when you put it on edge. I think flotation depends on the square footage of the ski footprint, period.  A long skinny ski and short fat ski with the same surface area will have  the same flotation.  However the skinny ski displaces less snow and will consequently have less resistance going through the snow than the wider ski.

Offline pablo

  • Coming in From the Cold
  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Touring skis v.s. tele skis v.s. mountaineering skis
« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2010, 11:36:10 pm »
Those Karhus are great skis.  I picked up a pair used a while back.  Amazingly, they turn very similarly to my E99s... at least on groomers.   Since the two skis are about the same for lift-served skiing, I just keep the 10th mts as dedicated "gravity slave" boards... that way I don't have to keep scraping the kick wax off of my E99s...  You're right about the flex creating it's own sidecut...  Both skis will turn on a dime if you really lean on them.  I'm not a fan of the heavy shaped skis... they turn themselves.  I love the feel of a lighter, skinnier ski responding to a properly executed tele turn... Gotta love simple ski gear!
« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 10:58:40 pm by pablo »

Offline snowflake ?

  • Coming in From the Cold
  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Touring skis v.s. tele skis v.s. mountaineering skis
« Reply #8 on: February 01, 2010, 11:55:30 pm »
Pablo, or others,
 How weight sensitive are th E99s ? Can one order on line if you can't find them locally and trust that they will fit (not drag the wax pocket or worse) any suggestions on sizing would be appreciated. waxable or waxless?      Thanks  j
 My $ on the kid by the time he's 12. 

Offline yardsale

  • Hauling Sled
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: Touring skis v.s. tele skis v.s. mountaineering skis
« Reply #9 on: February 02, 2010, 08:16:27 pm »
Snowflake,

I am not sure either ski is made any more although you can find used ones around. They are both waxable

Offline yardsale

  • Hauling Sled
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: Touring skis v.s. tele skis v.s. mountaineering skis
« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2010, 08:22:55 pm »
I am wrong. You could get them here http://www.xcskishop.com/catalog/view/?id=285
among other places. Pricy though. If I had to pick one ski for everything it would be the Fisher S-bound Rebound or the softer Atomic Ranier.

Offline pablo

  • Coming in From the Cold
  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Touring skis v.s. tele skis v.s. mountaineering skis
« Reply #11 on: February 02, 2010, 10:56:52 pm »
Can't really answer the question about the weight sensitivity of the E99s... I know they are still available (although mine were purchased new in 1993, so I don't know how similar they are to the new ones??).  At the time I purchased mine, I selected them based on my height, not weight.  I'm 6'1", and the skis are 210 cm.  I weigh around 180, and don't notice any issues with a dragging wax pocket (although I'm far from a nordic expert on packed trails).  I do know that if I wax too lightly I do have to "pop" the pocket into the snow to get good stick... I seem to get good glide too.  Overall I feel their flex is really just about perfect. 

I really prefer waxable skis over waxless.  They perform (both stick and glide) so much better under most conditions, although some days they do require a bit of fussing to nail the wax.  It really depends on your temperment.

Hope this helps??

Offline snowflake ?

  • Coming in From the Cold
  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Touring skis v.s. tele skis v.s. mountaineering skis
« Reply #12 on: February 02, 2010, 11:47:42 pm »
 THANKS ! it helps a lot,  I've had a pair of Epoke 900 205s  so withyour input I'll go with a 210 e99  Fisher...  What's skiing without wax???   Thanks again   j

Offline yardsale

  • Hauling Sled
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: Touring skis v.s. tele skis v.s. mountaineering skis
« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2010, 06:19:23 am »
My preference for no wax is no doubt colored by the highly variable conditions we have here on the East Coast. Right now the wax of the day is blue Klister outside my door. uggh.

Offline chimpac

  • Hauling Sled
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
    • View Profile
Re: Touring skis v.s. tele skis v.s. mountaineering skis
« Reply #14 on: February 03, 2010, 09:24:41 am »
I have only done down hill skiing and need a discription of each type of ski in the title so I know what you are talking about. I am trying to find used skiis and I like the idea of one ski to go out and break trail in soft deep snow, climb moderate hills or travel well on packed trails.I also want to keep my feet warm on the skiis and when I stop to camp.