La Sportiva Vapor Nano Ski – The Review – 2015 Updated


Post by WildSnow.com blogger | April 23, 2015      
2015-2016 Nano is virtually the same, has protective coating over the white coloration and a stronger binding mount plate, all for a price of about 15 grams.

2015-2016 Nano is virtually the same, has protective coating over the white coloration and a stronger binding mount plate, all for a price of about 15 grams.

We got our hands and feet on a pair of 2015-2016 Nano. Wonderful. La Sportiva did not fix what worked. The pair of planks average out at 1215 grams each, virtually same weight as before (1,200 grams). Nearly zero weight creep! Freshman version chipped easily through the white paint topskin. New version has a plastic coating. Overall finish is decent and they ski just like the originals reviewed below. I used the tip hole for mounting a Montana skin tip anchor. Word from La Sportiva is they’ll be “branding” Kohla skins to go with their skis. So long as they don’t force customers into Kohla’s “Vacuum” skin adhesive, that’ll be ok. The Vacuum glue is more a specialty item; in our opinion it’s not tacky enough for colder temperatures.

There have been some questions about Nano’s durability. My take: the market is wanting a genre of skis that sacrifice some durability for weight savings. Nano is in that class. Know what you’re using, and use it appropriately. Skis such as these are not designed for things like resort bump skiing, or backcountry conditions such as frozen avalanche debris. They’re human-powered powder and corn harvesters, pure and simple.


Original review:

One of many test days on the Vapor Nano, this time on frozen and semi-frozen corn, Independence Pass Colorado.

One of many test days on the Vapor Nano, this time on frozen and semi-frozen corn, Independence Pass Colorado. Click images to enlarge.

If you human power your skiing, the bias is there. Hand us glycogen craving maniacs a pair of skis that hardly register on the scale; we want to like them. A lot. You have been warned.

Consider La Sportiva Vapor Nano. Presently these planks rate as our NUMBER ONE lightest ski for running surface vs. weight, and 3rd lightest on our ski weights vs length. Those weights are amazing on paper — and in real life on your feet or backpack you notice a very real difference in comfort and efficiency.

I’ve used the Nano for quite a few days now — the feeling they give going uphill is nothing less than endorphin inducing. Sometimes I just laugh at the audacity of it all. I mean, how light in weight is this stuff going to become?

Consider Moore’s Law, the simplistic algorithm of tech stating that computer processor power will double every two years. Moore’s Law has held true for decades and is resulting in a bounty of cyber induced wealth we’ve only begun to experience. Is there a Moore’s Law of ski weight?

My favorite touring ski in 1987 was the Dynastar Yeti, a classic European style mountaineering plank that incorporated Dynastar’s race technology. They were super edgy on steep hard snow, something I needed at the time as I was in the middle of skiing all the Colorado 14,000 foot peaks and had to use a plank that would get me safely down some icy stuff I’d normally not bother with. You’ll laugh at this unless you’re a skimo racer: dimensions of the Yeti in my collection is 88/70/79. That was considered somewhat wide at the time, with alpine ski waists hovering in the mid to upper 60 millimeter range. Now, all skis from that era appear ridiculously skinny.

Out with the old, in with the new. Yeti from 1980s with La Sportiva Nano. Skinny Yeti weights 1472 grams per ski; much wider 180cm Vapor Nano comes in at still significantly less weight of 1,188 grams per ski. Factoring in the widths, that's a full halving of ski weight over the last 25 years or so.

Out with the old, in with the new. Yeti from 1980s with La Sportiva Nano 2014.

(Note, 2015-2016 180 cm Nano weighs 1,215 grams, slightly more but not enough difference to change my take on halving times for weight.)

In any case, I entered the Yetis into our ski weights comparo chart. They score at a kludgy 108 for surface/weight, while Nano scores 60. To be generous, let’s say that’s 26 years to drop from score 108 to 60, or a very rough halving rate of a quarter century. That’s not exactly the scorching pace of Moore’s Law, but still, we are now cruising around with planks that in the sense of surface area and subsequent performance are about 50% lighter than what we used in the 1980s. For the future, that means that perhaps skis will become about 2% lighter per year (in fits and starts, depending on innovation). I’m not sure I got this napkin math done right, but you get the point. Every few years, the latest touring skis will be noticeably lighter than older models: bounty that keeps on giving.

Circling back to my point of “how light will they become?,” clearly we are not near the end. New materials and designs are on the horizon. Examples: graphene carbon is so strong as to be nearly miraculous (with interesting electrical properties, skis as batteries?), and since the steel edges in a low mass ski are now a big percentage of total weight, design engineering could perhaps come up with new ways to include edges that still worked but saved significant mass.

Trimming length is an easy way to save weight as well. A disappointing consequence of rocker geometry is that skis got longer, but perhaps engineering will result in a reversal of that trend, and those of us who stepped up to 180s or 190s can eventually drop back down five or ten centimeters.

Back to the La Sportiva Vapor Nano. Here we have a ski that incorporates a great deal of carbon, along with modern width and rocker. So how do they ski downhill?

First, it’s important to realize this is a TOURING ski. It is not in my view intended to be a “quiver of one” for those seeking a plank that’ll pound bumps at the resort one day, then slink through backcountry powder the next morning. Second, we don’t want this to be the most durable ski in the universe. We want it to be light. I truly doubt the Nano is as strong as some of the heavier touring and alpine skis out there. So, a simple take: If you want beef, get beefy skis. If you want to enjoy lightweight touring, rock something like Vapor Nano. Accept they’re perhaps on the less durable side of the equation, and behave accordingly.

In terms of skiing down, my observations:

Powder: Plenty fun, a bit less snap than I expected from a carbon ski. I felt the bindings could have possibly been mounted a centimeter back or so from recommended neutral position (more on that below). You can feel the pronounced tail rocker and big tip giving you lots of options in exactly what type of turn you choose to execute.

Hard snow: I tested on frozen corn, always a good way to truly evaluate what a ski does on the hardpan. This is not a hardpack ski. Unless I was in the sweet spot and below a speed limit, I’d get some chattering and that general feeling of ski that isn’t really designed for the situation. I’m not sure how much of that has to do with geometry as opposed to construction. But with 33 cm of tip sticking out there in front, and 27 cm of tail rocker, unless you’ve got the Nano adequately tilted you’re looking at a lot of material floating in space off the snow, vibrating or whatever.

For me this is a non-issue in a ski touring situation as I don’t make a habit of skiing ice, and some detuning of the tail edges did help. If I’m on hardpack, I just ski the plank in a way that works. Usually, that simply means obeying a speed limit. So what if I get to the bar or car 20 seconds later than I would on a different ski? Point here, this is not a hardpack ski — if you need to prove your manhood you might want something more designed for straight lining.

'The big tip DADDY'

‘The big tip DADDY’, lots of ski floating out there in the ozone, helps in soft snow but does nothing for you on hardpack except vibrate. (That’s a Montana brand climbing skin anchor attached to the tip, in case you’re wondering. I’ve been testing those, they’re working nicely.)

It seems weird for my next point to be part of a review, but more things than weight are changing in the ski world. On hardpack Vapor Nano is NOISY! If you had a long descent of hard snow, it’s not far fetched to recommend ear plugs to prevent hearing damage. Seriously, I’m thinking of bringing a DB meter next time I go out. Sherlock Holmes note: The noise does sound almost exactly like a Goode brand ski, leading one to wonder, are they made in the same factory?

Crud and mank: This is the one area where actual physical weight of the ski can make a difference (as opposed to damping characteristics and such that we sometimes mistakenly attribute simply to the ski being heavier.) So what can I say? In the mank they feel like a lightweight ski. Stay on top of them and keep turning, you’ll do fine. Pick up speed and straightline, not so powerful.

Due to the amount of tail rocker combined with tail protector, you may have up to 3 cm more ski behind your boot than with other models of skis.

Due to the amount of tail rocker combined with tail protector, you may have up to 3 cm more ski behind your boot than with other models of skis. I cut off as much of the tail protector as possible, resulting in a tail bobbing of about 1 cm, which combined with a remount back 1 cm yields a more conventional boot position. As this ski is unusually light and also has an unusual mount, I’d emphasize a demo day before purchase.

Breakable crust: The big tip and tail rocker help, but the amount of ski behind your foot is fully 3 centimeters or more than what you’ll usually have with other skis. This is probably due to the tail geometry; lots of rocker and taper mean more tail behind the optimal boot location. In breakable crust, all that tail makes it hard to cheat and swivel around and it feels kind of odd during jump turns as well. I think I can get used to it, but it’s definitely different.

On the Nano.

Floating on the Nano.

Uphill take (with a bit of down thrown in)
Position of foot on ski appears to meld well with the sidecut, and as noted above I found the Nano skied fine (with reservations) at neutral boot position as indicated by factory ski markings. Yet due to the shape and rocker of the tail, once you mount your bindings you’ll have 3 or centimeters or more of extra tail than a similar length ski in most other brands. Perhaps I’m too sensitive, but with my 178 cm testers the added 3 centimeters confused my kick turns. On the down, in manky conditions where the tail fully engaged I felt too far forward on the ski. Again, on both soft and hard snow that was in good condition the mount position felt fine, so this brings up an interesting dilemma. Do you mount in optimal position for the down, or tweak things for the up? Your call, but it’s a question that Nano might bring up for you, as opposed to other choices in skis with more conventional geometry.

Nano tail rocker is about 27 cm for our 180cm testers.

Nano tail rocker is about 27 cm for our 180cm testers. While not a ‘full rocker’ up to the boot area, that’s a significant tail rocker profile and results in the running surface and sidecut engaging in different ways depending on snow type and ski style.

Conclusion: La Sportiva Vapor Nano is a joy for ski touring: incredibly light, still with adequate width for just about any snow conditions. Extra tail behind boot position takes some getting used to, but is there for a reason. White color scheme is ideal to prevent icing and subsequent weight increase. Standard “K2” style tip and tail holes are mandatory — we appreciate not having to drill them ourselves. Recommended as a touring ski (not a quiver of one for resort/sidecountry/backcountry), with emphasis on soft snow but they’ll get you down the hardpack. Our hope is this type of specialized ski continues to be available and not compromised by the needs of the freeride community who have other choices for planks aligned more closely with their needs.

My testers scale at average 1,200 grams per ski (2015-2016 weight is 1,215 grams per ski), catalog dimensions 180 x 130/103/120.

If you want to shop, Cripple Creek Backcountry might have Nano for sale.

Comments

60 Responses to “La Sportiva Vapor Nano Ski – The Review – 2015 Updated”

  1. Charlie Hagedorn May 30th, 2014 9:44 am

    Great review!

    Thoughts on lifetime? Is this a ski that will last 100 days? 300?

    Is this a ski that will survive a little billygoating?

    How much weight do you think you could have in a pack, with tip and tail on logs/streambanks before you’d become concerned about durability?

    Thanks!

  2. Jim Milstein May 30th, 2014 9:55 am

    Your napkin math looks pretty good, Lou. My calculator math gives a little under 2.3% per year decline to go from a score of 108 to 60 in 26 years.

  3. Mike Montmorency May 30th, 2014 10:50 am

    The noise issue is interesting and is not only a problem with the super light weight carbon skis. I skied Rossignol Soul 7’s last weekend on some refrozen hard pack and was amazed at how loud they were, I was wishing I had ear plugs on. Lou, do you have any ideas on exactly what component or combination of components is making some of these skis so loud?

    Thanks.

  4. Andy May 30th, 2014 11:43 am

    It’s interesting that we keep hearing about La Sportiva’s binding placement. I know there were concerns about the GTR mount recommendation.

  5. Eric May 30th, 2014 11:46 am

    As an engineer in the microprocessor industry, I feel the need to clarify. Moore’s law actually predicts that the number of transistors in a given area double each year. In the past that meant using the extra transistors to roughly double the speed of a single processor core (hence the misconception), but that doesn’t usually hold these days.

  6. Lou Dawson May 30th, 2014 12:12 pm

    Thanks Eric, feel the need, scratch the itch, help out with clarification!

    Whatever the case, my point is that the average weight of skis has gone down for years, and has some sort of average “halving” time. Just as with Moore’s Law, the question is, when will it stop? Ever?

    Lou

  7. Lou Dawson May 30th, 2014 12:17 pm

    Andy, the binding location is caused by the amount of tail rocker going past normal sidecut termination, so it basically makes for extra ski behind the foot. It looks a bit weird but in most situations seems to not be an issue. Where it bothered me the most was when kick turning or carrying skis on pack. By cutting a centimeter off the tails and mounting binding a centimeter back, the effect is pretty much eliminated. With my smaller boot size, going a centimeter back puts the actual heel of my foot about the same place I’d be with larger boots on the standard mount. I need to ski more with the new boot position, but I’m thinking it’s no big deal. Lou

  8. Lou Dawson May 30th, 2014 12:28 pm

    Charlie, I don’t think the ski is particularly fragile, I didn’t mean to give that impression. But with my ear to the ground I’ve heard of some breakage that was caused by perhaps pushing the ski to do a bit too much — so I wanted to make the point in support of La Sportiva that this is perhaps not the most durable ski out there — it’s instead adequately durable and the LIGHTEST.

    In terms of bridge strength I wouldn’t worry about it. Mine have two sets of holes already, and I’ve been using them for bridging rocks and doing stream crossings, no problem.

    What’s difficult about the whole durability question is that just because a beam weighs 1,188 grams instead of 1,500, who’s to say it makes any big compromise in durability? For example, without worrying about flex, I’m sure engineers could make a 10 cm x 180 cm composite beam that could suspend hundreds of pounds without any fear of breaking. So the trick here is how well did they work ski performance into the mix, and was there much compromise of durability?

    Ultimately, consumer testing will tell the tale.

  9. purplesage May 30th, 2014 1:05 pm

    Lou, can you talk a little bit about mounting bindings on these skis?

  10. Lou Dawson May 30th, 2014 1:11 pm

    Hi Purple, sure, the screws felt just as solid as most other skis, I used epoxy as always, noticed some core material adhered to the screws when I took them out, which happens with foam cores and leaves a larger hollow, which I usually fill with epoxy during a remount. Let me know if there is anything else you need to know, happy to oblige. Lou

  11. AndyC May 30th, 2014 2:09 pm

    Nice review, Lou. I bought Cho Oyus w Speed Radicals as an aid to helping the recovery of my hip & knee. I liked them so much I sold my 7 summits and my Manaslus. I’ve got a few days now on them in various kinds of spring snow. Then I got a little windfall of cash, always nice. And I debated about buying the La Sportiva Nanos. I have been using my Stokes as my crud ski this spring. I decided I wasn’t all that jazzed by th 106 waist, especially for firm snow sidehilling and, like your reviewer, thought it could use a heavier boot than the TLT5/6 Mountain–altho it skis very well with the TLT6 with the TLT5 tongue and an aftermarket Booster Strap–to get the most out of it. I decided to get a little smaller waist and chose the Volkl Nanuq because I really liked the Volkl Mantra on which it is based; I realized it would not be the beast the Mantra is. Anyway, I have skied the Nanuq and it was satisfactory, but I need some deep snow/crud time on it. The Nanuq is light (not ultralight like the Cho or Nano) and I hope I don’t regret not getting a little heavier ski. After skiing the Nanuq in refrozen ski, snowshoe, boot tracks, and rain runnels, I sure didn’t want a lighter ski :-)

  12. Charlie May 30th, 2014 2:17 pm

    Totally agreed that durability is a hard problem, and that it’s very hard to test. Load testing to failure (stating both the breaking force required and the total energy stored in the ski when it breaks) would be a reasonable proxy, but will never tell the whole story.

    I love using light skis for the longest, farthest, and hardest tours, but if they break, delaminate, or pull out, they’re far worse than a ski that weighs 1-200 g more….

    Agreed that user-testing is the best test!

  13. Lou Dawson May 30th, 2014 2:26 pm

    Charlie, yeah, like I’ve said a million times, weight is not a direct indicator of strength. Plenty of heavier skis have had durability problems over the years. On the other hand, I’d agree that when a ski breaks the mold in terms of weight, one should at least consider durability issues. Lou

  14. Phil May 30th, 2014 5:18 pm

    Do the Nano’s have a full metal edge?
    Or is it partial like the new BD carbon models (I believe the edge ends a few inches before the tip and tail on the BD models?).

  15. Lou Dawson May 30th, 2014 5:41 pm

    Hi Phil, the nano tail edge goes to the tail protector, the tip does stop a few centimeters before the end of the ski, and thus does not wrap around the tip. In my opinion, the tail edges need to go to the end, but the tip does not. If I have a chance, I’ll include a photo of the tip, should have done that, thanks for reminding. Lou

  16. See May 30th, 2014 10:25 pm

    I’m guessing switch from wood to lower density cores is as significant as glass to carbon in terms of weight reduction. And I’m not sure I understand what the benefit of forward mount is if not skiing backwards.

  17. Lou Dawson May 31st, 2014 5:14 am

    See, I’d agree. It seems that weight reduction in skis is taking several forms. Mainly, less material due to the use of stronger materials, but also lighter core as well as what type and length of steel edges.

    In terms of the “forward mount” I tried to say in my review that it just “looks” forward, due to extra tail rocker/length. The boot is actually in pretty much the normal spot when placed related to the ski sidecut.

    With a nod to different mounting positions, the Nano does have a series of marks on the topskin for optional mount positions.

    Mount position is something easy to obsess on, in many cases it’s not a big issue, but with the boot this far forward it’s definitely something to consider. Kick turns do feel a little strange when the tip rises up and the tail of the ski is back there in the way… Having the tip rise up so easily isn’t a bad thing, but I don’t like having that extra tail in the way on a 180 cm ski.

    Lou

  18. sedgesprite May 31st, 2014 8:32 am

    How did the Nano fare in icy sidehill climbing?

  19. Lou Dawson May 31st, 2014 8:00 pm

    Sedge, no problem, but I’m using good quality skins that are cut close to the edges. Rocker can indeed influence how skins hold, but I didn’t notice much of an effect. Lou

  20. Daniel June 1st, 2014 5:56 am

    sounds all like too much of a compromise to me…
    I am on 1500gr skis with TLT speeds at the Moment, which is the “light” of a few ears ago and plenty light for 34yr old guy and climbs up to 7500′ vert.
    Lou, is the Nano indeed a notch or two flimsier on the down than say Cho Oyu or Denali? Or am I wrong here?

  21. Silas Wild June 1st, 2014 6:16 pm

    Hey Daniel, I tested both the 176cm Denali and 180cm Nano at Copper Mountain, CO in early February, boot top powder, and packed powder groomed slopes. For me (age 65, speed limit 35mph,) the Denali had better edge hold. It has less rocker and is a “beefy” 90 grams per ski “heavier.” I would not call the Nano flimsy tho.

  22. Mark Worley June 2nd, 2014 10:26 pm

    More carbon does equal louder, specifically on hardpack. Glad you could review this ski and pick out some of the details that some of us, such as myself, sometimes simply don’t observe as critically as needed, i.e. kick turns with longer tail.

  23. Lou Dawson June 3rd, 2014 5:30 am

    Mark, you’re probably just better at kick turns then I am (grin).

  24. Lou Dawson June 3rd, 2014 5:33 am

    Silas, I’d agree on your take. And yes, Nano is not “flimsy,” it’s just not a hardpack carver as much as some other skis, I’d call it more specialized to the soft side of the equation, and thus the perfect ski for harvesting human powered pow. Lou

  25. Blake June 3rd, 2014 1:00 pm

    Good to see your review Lou.

    I got out on these skis for a 5-10 days this spring thanks to Cripple Creek Backcountry. I’ll offer a short review of my brief impression. Had they come in before the Power of Four, I would’ve raced on them! They are lighter than the old Snowwolfs I use from time to time.

    I was amazed at how light they were. The ski felt non-existent when paired my orange Maestrale boots on the up. I felt the weight of the boot with every step more than anything. I was worried that the more days I got in on them, the harder it would be to enjoy touring on anything heavier.

    On the down, it was a nice relief to have a boot that overpowered the ski. I have been skiing the 105 waisted La Sportiva Hi5 and I feel like that is the upper range for the orange Maestrale.

    The skis are super fun. Despite being a similar shape to the Hi5, they ski completely different. I keep thinking it felt like a track shoe or basketball shoe underneath because they are so light they are super responsive. The ski is a bit thinner than the Hi5s and so I felt a little closer contact to the snow. It reminded me of the MGB I drove in high school – you get a bigger thrill with smaller turns at lower speeds.

    I did feel the need to be more aware of the ski and was less comfortable straight lining or blowing through crud than on the Hi5s. I was mounted at +1 so that probably affected the stability that I felt. The ski is so light though, that if it grabbed in some crud or crust then it was easy to just pop out of it and set a new track.

    I did seem notice that it wouldn’t bite as hard making a perpendicular (to the slope) speed check or stop. I didn’t get it on any icy couloirs but it wouldn’t be my first choice for those conditions. I’m guessing that because of the lighter weight, it just doesn’t bite as hard into real firm ice/snow.

    I did get a resort day in on them and they handled pretty well there. I do have some concern about pushing it hard through a nasty spring slog with dry patches, rocks, debris fields, and log and creek crossings. I’m 185lb without a pack/gear. They are a pretty stiff ski (with all the carbon), but I’m more interested in a classic ski touring shape for the spring that is designed for demanding ski mountaineering.

    Overall, I’d use this ski to compliment a larger powder/resort oriented ski and a classic spring ski. I think it skis great for most spring outings and is a blast in winter powder. I’m not too concerned about having the lightest setup out there, but the weight savings with this ski is substantial. I could definitely see less fatigue with more outings. It’s a super fun ski and I think would work great with some of the lighter boots out there.

  26. Erik Erikson June 3rd, 2014 10:25 pm

    First: I really think its a good thing that skis are getting lighter and lighter each year. But nevertheless everyone should think about if he or she really always needs the lightest set up out there (and spending lots more money on it and maybe buying less durability).
    Me for example: If I had the time do as much touring as I want to I´d for sure always use a very light rig, just to save energy. But having a quite regular job, during the week I can only do one or two short tours. On this occasions I love to take my coombacks, skinning up quite unhurridly and seeing the additional weight maybe as a little extra training for longer tours, knowing I have lots of time for recovery anyway.
    Even on many longer weekend-tours the heavier weight is ok. Of course there are really long days with many vertical meters especially in the spring time, were I´d go as light as possible. But as I said: Probably I am fitter on this occasions due to having used a heavier ski on many shorter tours before, where the additional weight really dont hurt.

  27. Jason Gregg June 12th, 2014 6:07 pm

    I went for these Lou. I would have loved something like a 184 length choice but didn’t think the 180’s would offer enough float, so ended up with the 188’s. My production 1st year Manaslu’s are finally retired as my daily drivers. I won’t be able to find out until next winter but it’s going to be interesting to see if I can control these with my TLT5P shoes, I know that they weren’t quite enough boot for me with the Hi5’s in that length, so keeping the fingers crossed.

  28. gareth roberts October 1st, 2014 4:01 pm

    Hi Lou–Looking for quiver of 1 and choosing between the La Sportiva Nano and the Dynafit Denali. Will probably mount new ski with Ski Trab Race with adjustment plate. But may just use a Dynafit Speed.

    62y/o, 165# Prefer powder, not bagging too many peaks these days. Style? -Not much but I have been skiing a long time. Winter skier. I like it cold.
    Mostly I ski backcountry in Crested Butte and Canada. Currently using Voile Drifters with Dynafit Verticals and Manaslu’s with Verticals.
    I like touring the Colorado huts, so intend to use the new ski for that option as well as laps and outings.

  29. Lou Dawson 2 October 1st, 2014 4:31 pm

    Nano

  30. Gustav November 11th, 2014 2:01 am

    Hi!
    So Lou, have you are anyone you know of experimented with rubber on top of the ski?
    When making skis they do that since the rubber works as well on top of the ski as in it according to the skimakers.
    I’ve thought of trying myself with rubber on my lighter skis for more dampening. And if it do works, maybe the lighter skis could work a bit better on hardpack =)

  31. See November 11th, 2014 8:32 am

    I’m not Lou, but… old Rossignol 4S (among others).

    Rubber on the deck usually seems to involve a harder layer above, both to protect the soft material and to subject the rubber to shear.

  32. Gustav November 11th, 2014 2:43 pm

    Sure but my question still remains….

  33. Lou Dawson 2 November 11th, 2014 2:50 pm

    At the Grand Teton National Park HQ you can check out the skis Bill Briggs used to ski the grand. On those skis he taped a strip of rubber or something like that, for dampening. There you go Gustav! Lou

  34. GeorgeT April 23rd, 2015 10:32 am

    The Nano’s best attribute is pushing the technology for future skis. I demo’ed the Nano last winter and did not purchase, but I fully appreciate pushing the technology and the future trickle down. See you on Indy Pass very soon.

  35. Eric Steig April 23rd, 2015 1:30 pm

    Hang on … So the Nano is 50% lighter for the same width. But how much more surface area do they have? The Nano’s way 1200 g. How much did those Yeti’s weigh? I’m guessing about 70/104*2*1200 = 1600 g. About 30% heavier. Still a lot, but not twice as heavy!

  36. Lou Dawson 2 April 23rd, 2015 4:20 pm

    Eric, I’ll go back through this when I have time, but I’m pretty sure my intent was to compare the weight per square centimeter of surface. In other words, I compared my chart score. Lou

  37. See April 23rd, 2015 9:09 pm

    I would much prefer chipped paint to having the face of some historical or cultural cliche on my skis… any idea what the weight penalty is for hi def graphics?

  38. Eric Steig April 24th, 2015 2:09 am

    Lou — I didn’t mean to suggest your calculations were wrong, I was just curious what the actual ski weight difference was. What’s cool is that although we are going wider and wider, we are still getting lighter!

  39. Lou Dawson 2 April 24th, 2015 5:19 am

    Clear Eric, I’ll get the weights for you. Thanks for being here. Lou

  40. Lou Dawson 2 April 24th, 2015 6:07 am

    Yeti: Unrolled length 180 cm, 1472 grams, 88/70/79, year 1986 super edge grip on steep icy routes, average in soft snow, I used them for a bunch of extreme skiing, owned 5 or 6 pair. They were the real deal. Lou

  41. Kristian April 24th, 2015 7:06 am

    Skis like the Dynastar Yeti and the Atomic Tour Guide were surgically precise on the extremely steep tight down.

    Lou what ski(s) would you recommend now for ski mountaineering?

  42. Mark Worley April 24th, 2015 7:09 am

    I appreciate that you really notice the extra 3 cm of ski tail as I wouldn’t be as likely to pinpoint that somewhat unusual design iteration. As to the white topskin, I agree it helps, but I still get some icing on a similarly whitish ski–just not as much. As to loudness on hard snow, yes, the carbon skis make very obvious sounds non-carbon boards just don’t.

  43. Terrance April 24th, 2015 11:19 am

    Lou,
    I would love it if you would adopt the policy of including in your ski reviews a photo of the tip and photo of the tail just like above. I find those so helpful being that I live far away from ski shops and most manufactures websites or youtube videos are not as informative. I truly appreciate your fantastic work.
    Terrance

  44. Ed April 26th, 2015 12:53 pm

    To say that the first year Nanos chipped easily is an understatement. Mine got a 3 inch gash from a ski pole tip that skittered over the ski top when trying to release a Dynafit toe piece (at -10 degC). That was a new one on me. Looked the pole tip over for razor sharp burrs but it seemed normal. Gash was filled with epoxy and after letting set up a bit, zig-zagging a razor blade over the repair to remove any excess (the way you work a granite counter-top chip) and some Canadian tire auto paint to hide the Rx it’s so-so. I’m thinking of gluing about 6″ of plastic sheet or something as a wear layer at least in front of the toe pieces. After a couple of years these are gonna look like they’ve been to war. Or I wonder if Madsens Boot Toe Armor Coating would work?

  45. Wookie April 27th, 2015 1:28 am

    These look great – but the only place I was able to find them on sale was at shops in the States! (I live in Europe)
    Does anyone know if they were on a limited release basis this year or something? and will they be available more generally this fall?

    They didn’t even have them at a La Sportiva shop near me…..I was thinking of driving down to Italy to look there….

  46. Lou Dawson 2 April 27th, 2015 7:58 am

    Wookie, the word I got was “they were not for sale in Europe.” I’m not sure exactly how that translates to Italian or German, but I think it communicates the gist of the situation (grin).

  47. Terrance April 27th, 2015 12:25 pm

    Wookie,
    I bought a pair of skis from Norway which were not for sale in the US. If you contact a retailer in the US that has the NANO and see if they would package them and you can contact an International carrier like DHL to pick up in the US and deliver to you. I had to fill a customs form, but that was about it.
    Terrance

  48. Wookie April 28th, 2015 3:48 am

    Thanks for the info!

    Terrance – thanks also for your tip – but I thought I’d add my experience in doing this in case anybody else is thinking of doing it.
    I have often ordered stuff outside of the EU – yes – you get it, but the shipping negates any good deals in most cases. Worse still – although I have heard of cases where the products go through customs without being held up, it has never happened to me. I have always had to pay a 20% import duty (something like that) on the items being shipped. This has made even great deals at american shops turn into money sinkholes.

    So I’ve stopped doing it….

  49. Alex P July 31st, 2015 4:13 am

    Has anybody mounted a binding with a 3 screw heel unit on those yet, and skied some? Over at Skimo a shop assistant figured that a) of course there are limits to design, but b) the combo Dynafit Speed Superlite and ski with 100-110mm under foot should be ok, if the ski has decent strength in the binding area. Wondering about the Nanos in that regard..
    Thanks!

  50. Lou Dawson 2 July 31st, 2015 6:55 am

    Alex, much of binding/ski retention has to do with an excellent mount job as well as style of skiing. If you adjust binding RV to a tuned setting rather than just cranking them to 11, mount well and are not huge, I’d say the latest version of Nano would do fine with a 3-screw heel. Otherwise you’re just attempting to make apples out of oranges. Lou

  51. Wookie August 1st, 2015 3:27 am

    I can’t speak specifically for the Nano – but I’ve used superlights exclusively on all my skis for some years now – including 120mm wide “lightwieght” skis that are more commonly seen with SUPERBEEF XXL-AWESOMENESS bindings. (Yes – I have a bias.)
    In any case – I’ve never had any issues. I mount myself – and while I do a careful job – (thanks to Wildsnow for the excellent how-tos!) I would bet that a good shop would do it as good or better than me – so I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
    As reference – I am about 6 ft tall, and weigh between 70 and 75 kg….I think thats about 160lbs. I would call that a typical ski-touring frame. I ski on TLT6s mostly – but use my setups also with a Technica Cochise and a set of Mistrale RSs as well.
    I ski mostly relaxed, with short segments of stupifying panic.
    I have my DIN (not DIN – right Lou?) set to 6. I don’t lock the toes skiing and I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve had a truly early release.
    I know others have had markedly different experiences. Its one of the reasons I’m glad I’m not a binding designer. I just thought I’d post it to encourage you to give it a go. Using the lighter weight gear has totally changed not only where I ski (further in) but also my enjoyment. A Nano with some light boots and some superlights would be fab, in my opinion – and I am sure that with a little skill, you can still ride them very hard.
    Sometimes reading the boards – one can get the impression that lightweight gear is only suited for races and survival skiing. My experience has been otherwise – so if you like the idea – try it out. You won’t be displeased!

  52. Wookie August 1st, 2015 3:29 am

    Need to correct one thing: The Cochises don’t pair with the superlights – they are too big and the superlights are not adjustable. But I used them in the past with a set and it was fine.

  53. Lou Dawson 2 August 1st, 2015 6:41 am

    Hi Wookie, thanks for the perspective. What do you mean by “pair” the Cochise? Lou

  54. Alex P August 1st, 2015 7:22 am

    Lou and Wookie,
    thanks a lot for your perspectives!
    Wookie – that’s very encouraging. I’m currently about twenty pounds more than you, but that’s a further incitement to get rid of those 😀 Same 6′ and on TLT5Ps, which are just a great boot. TLT Verticals Bindings set at DIN 9.
    good skier, medium wide turns where i can, rarely fall, no hucker. I might just give it a try!

    BTW, Lou – i really love the narrow last on the TLT5! Combined with the stiffness of the carbon shell, i can drive even large skies no problem. AFAIK, the 6s have already gotten a wider last . Anything comparable available or on the horizon?
    With narrow
    ankle, stiff, and light?
    If or once i need to replace the 5s due to rivet slop).

  55. Alex P August 2nd, 2015 8:07 am

    Lou :

    couple more questions for you :
    skins – on skis this wide and light, what skins do you use to stay with the “light” theme? Split or one sided skins?

    and secondly tail length – you did seem to have remounted 1cm back from neutral. how is that working for you?
    do you think, holding delta has an influence on the “feeling too far forward”? what ramp angle of any have you set up with your bindings?

    and finally – you wrote”Extra tail behind boot position takes some getting used to, but is there for a reason”. reading through your review of the ski, i couldn’t really detect that reason being elaborated.. 😉 what would you say is the reason?

    of course, experiences from others here very welcome as well!

    thanks!

  56. Wookie August 3rd, 2015 2:19 am

    Hey Lou: what I meant by “pair with the Cochise” was – the TLT6s fit in the Superlights, but the Cochise cannot be used on the same pair of skis. The Superlight is not audjustable, it really is made to only fit ONE PAIR of boots. The difference in shell size between the TLT6s and the Cochise is too great to make it work on one pair of skis.
    The way I wrote it at first, it made it sound as if I was able to mix and match the boots as I pleased on one pair of skis. I didn’t want someone to get the wrong idea. Still – I have used ALL my boots with superlights, just on different skis. They work great for me – and I’ve taken to buying up sets of them whenever I can get a good deal – because I use them on all my touring setups.
    While I am sure other people have good reasons for choosing other heavier bindings – I don’t get any extra value out of them, I feel. The Superlights give me all the performance I need in a very light package.

  57. Lou Dawson 2 August 3rd, 2015 6:51 am

    Hi Wookie, ok, very clear now. The bindings without length adjustment are indeed one of the cleanest tech binding designs, and always potentially the lightest. A hassle to mount but often worth it. I’d prefer to have 4 screws and a normal or normal+ width binding heel base, however. Lou

  58. Ed November 19th, 2015 8:35 pm

    So second season on the Nano’s, coming up – at suggestion of a ski shop here, had Radical bindings re-mounted two (2) cm back. The mfgrs mounting position made the skis last year feel like I had way more real estate back there than I wanted – a B train with a pup kinda feeling! The two cm back has made these ski (gasp) like the Wailer 112’s I had along for comparison (sorta). Really playful in about a foot and a half of fresh.
    Like tennis shoes on the way up and fun on the way down (am skiing them with my old TLT 5’s – felt like lots of boot enough). Wow. These are now dialled in. And the La Sportiva skins were great – both glide and lots of traction for the up (this at about – 10 C). Good light rig.
    The 2 cm back has made huge difference for me in the festiveness index!

  59. Eric Rentschler December 1st, 2015 8:46 am

    Got a new pair of Vapor Nanos ready to mount-up. It was good to hear from Ed on his experience with going 2 cm back.
    Does anyone else have any tips or opinions on optimal binding mount locations for the Vapor Nano?
    Also, it would be interesting to see modifications to Superlite 2.0 bindings for more heel lift while climbing. I’m thinking just drill and tap threads into hinged climbing post and add a screw and lock nut. Might have to bend screw to have it align properly with boot heel. Could experiment with different heights. I just haven’t bought the cool aid yet that the Superlite climbing posts are high enough for me as-is.

  60. Eric Rentschler December 4th, 2015 10:29 am

    FYI: B & D is currently working on a higher heel lift accessory for the Superlite 2.0. This will be similar in nature to their existing “Nubbin” product that attaches to the heel riser on Radical bindings.

Got something to say? Please do so.





Anti-Spam Quiz:


If you need an emoticon for a comment just copy/paste off the following list, or use text code you might be familiar with.
:D    :-)    :(    :lol:    :x    :P    :oops:    :cry:    :evil:    :twisted:    :roll:    :wink:    :!:    :?:    :idea:    :arrow:   
  
Due to comment spam we moderate most comments. Please do not submit your comment twice -- it will appear shortly after approval. Comments with one or more links in the text may be held in moderation, for spam prevention. If you'd like to publish a photo in a comment, contact us. Guidelines: Be civil, no personal attacks, avoid vulgarity and profanity.
Welcome to Louis (Lou) Dawson's backcountry skiing information & opinion website. Lou's passion for the past 50 years has been alpinism, climbing, mountaineering and skiing -- along with all manner of outdoor recreation. He has authored numerous books and articles about backcountry skiing and is well known as the first person to ski down all 54 of Colorado's 14,000-foot peaks, otherwise known as the Fourteeners! Books and free ski touring news and information here, and tons of telemark info.

All material on this website is copyrighted, the name WildSnow is trademarked, permission required for reproduction (electronic or otherwise). This includes publication and display on other websites by whatever means. PLEASE SEE OUR COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK INFORMATION.

Backcountry skiing is a dangerous sport. You may be killed or severely injured if you do any form of ski mountaineering, skimo randonnee and randonnée skiing. The information and news on this website is intended only as general information. While the authors and editors of the information on this website make every effort to present useful information about ski mountaineering, due to human error the information, text and images contained within this website may be inaccurate, false, or out-of-date. By using, reading or viewing the information provided on this website, you agree to absolve the owners of Wild Snow as well as content contributors of any liability for injuries or losses incurred while using such information. Furthermore, you agree to use any of this website's information, maps, photos, or binding mounting instructions or templates at your own risk, and waive Wild Snow its owners and contributors of any liability for use of said items for backcountry skiing or any other use.

Switch To Mobile Version