Alex skiing towards the Eagle Glacier during a 40-mile day on race skis in the Chugach Mountains. Photo by Eric Dahl
Stuck on Zoom, yakking about skinny skis
By Emily Sullivan and Alex Lee
When most folks think about skiing in Alaska, their minds conjure up images of spine lines, helicopters and powder billowing over head. Even most hearty full-bearded Alaskans seem to think that 115mm underfoot full metal jacket ammunition is needed to get out in the mountains. In truth, TGR moments are rather rare here. Skiing and riding in Alaska is usually as much about the wilderness experience as it is about the turns, and light gear opens up an incredible amount of terrain, making for great adventures in big mountains.
Much like kimchi, snapchat, and soft shell pants (all trends tend to reach AK behind schedule) Alaskans are late adopters of the increasingly popular skinny ski trend in the backcountry. Skimo gear is almost counter-culture here, as evidenced by ridiculing stares and sass thrown our direction when we take toothpick skis and race packs out into big terrain. Yeah, we might look silly out there in the raddest backcountry terrain on the planet, but we sure have a lot of fun.
Stuck at home, bleary-eyed and jonesing for snow we–WildSnow ‘light-is-right’ correspondent Alex Lee, and Voile Ambassador and fellow AK speed-weenie Emily Sullivan — find ourselves talking about about our shared proclivity for taking skinny sticks into big mountains over Zoom from across town in Anchorage. Being that we are somewhat housebound with insatiable mountain addictions, at least nerding out on ski chat beats watching Tiger King for a second time…
Alex: Hey Emily, I know we both had big plans on little skis this spring. Just because objectives have to be tempered these days, talking about skiing doesn’t…
Emily: Definitely. So, what do we mean by ‘little’ ski anyway? Anything 80mm and under?
Alex: Well hang on a minute – what if I take out 88s on pow day?
Emily: Point taken. There’s a ratio of snow softness to ski width to be considered. Your 88s are little skis on a deep pow day–especially because you ski them with Sytrons and 145 gram bindings. I’m a believer in light skis because I want to ski more than one lap per day. Preferably, like, five or six… or nine in the spring! Whatever ski allows me to tackle maximum vert in a given day is usually what I choose. Sometimes on deep days that means I go light and wide. It’s all a spectrum.
Alex: I agree, I mean even if light gear won’t save your soul, it will save your hip-flexors. Ninety-percent of the day is spent on the up, plus I like pizza and beer. Besides, the days here are darn short most of the winter – more than 7,000 ft vert means moving pretty quick. Light skis open up all sorts of cool options.
One of my favorite tours last year was a one-and-done day. I had a work meeting at noon. The sun rose at 10 a.m., I met Malcolm and Trish at 9 a.m. An hour and forty-five minutes and 3900 feet later, we were on top of Granddaddy peak. I felt like I’d just been run through the laundry, but I even had time to tuck in my shirt before arriving early for the meeting. Kinda makes me wonder why every boreal skier doesn’t drop gear weight- why do you think so many AK folks are reluctant?
Emily: Fear of the unknown. My heavy-metal friends are hesitant because they believe that they can’t ski as fast or as aggressively on little skis. While that might be true, there’s an implication that you need big skis to ski big lines, which you and I both know is false! People are rad — a friend skied the Orient Express on Denali last spring on her BD 76s.
Alex: That’s awesome! Plus, shedding weight opens up distance.
Emily: So true — FKT’s on local long-distance traverses have been slashed dramatically in recent years by folks catching on to the skimo trend. I’ve certainly benefited from adopting the light-is-right mentality: on my first day out on my Voile WSPs (63 underfoot), we did the Turnagain Traverse, skiing all of the popular roadside peaks from Eddie’s to Magnum in a day (Alex’s idea!). We encountered just about every type of snow–I was able to hold my own on the downhills, and my little gear really saved me on the slogs.
Emily skiing her WSPs on the Turnagain Traverse.
Alex: I know that any skis are going to feel heavy once we can head for the hills again, at least little skis will make for an easier reentry. Also, I am starting to think the ‘light is right’ mentality translates to bread-baking (70% hydration), beer drinking (Miller Lite), and neighborhood walks (my dog is 12)…
Emily: Maybe, all I know is that the sooner we flatten the curve, the sooner we’ll have something better to write about…
44 comments
The virtues of lighter and narrower skis on the way up are clear. But what about the way down? Lots people mention of wanting to charge hard, or get rad, but how about those of us with extremely modest skiing skills and ambitions? I don’t need to get (big)air, or ski super hard, but I do want to make smooth turns down most of the run.
Sure, there are people who ski difficult terrain and snow in super light gear, but there are also people who ride gravel bikes on mtb trails. I don’t have the skills and guts for that, so I stick to my (heavy) mtb.
Is the same not true for skiing? I worry that a narrow, super light ski, will mean I end up snow plowing and side slipping the entire descent if the snow is bad or the terrain is tight. Do you not find this is true?
I see several backcountry lodges suggesting their clients only bring ski’s over 110mm. I assume this is because they have noticed that, despite the extra weight on the way up, the clients have a better (safer?) time overal, on the wider gear.
There is also the fact of asymmetric optimization. Every bit you go lighter and narrower on the way up, has a linear relationship to your performance and enjoyment on the way up. On the way down, this is not the case. A slightly narrower and lighter ski might make almost no difference, yet go to far, and you end up not ‘skiing’ at all on the down (watch me on backcountry nordic gear, lol ).
So if you put the two together, I think you end up with a very asymmetric, non linear equation of ‘total fun’ vs ‘ski size’. , Something like a hockeystick shaped graph
Hey Slim,
I’ve only been skiing for ~5 years (converted from splitboarding), and I am not a super technically advanced skier myself. But my go-to skis these days are 80 underfoot. I’ve used my 63s on big days in real terrain and variable snow, as noted in the article. Sure I had to sideslip or snowplow in breakable crust, but my enjoyment factor was still high. My 80s really hit the sweet spot for me for being able to enjoy both the uphill and the downhill. A lot of companies are making skis these days that are both light *and* versatile–skinny but with good soft snow profiles. Do I use my 80s on deep powder days? I typically enjoy 92s and even 108s for those, depending on where/ what I’m skiing. That said, I did a 8k day on deep, low density powder this March on my 80s and had an absolute blast. There was a long approach and a lot of uphill, and I’d say I had a much more enjoyable day on my light skis than I would have lugging up the 108’s!
@Emily, that is a good point you bring up, about ski shape/construction vs width.
One of the reasons I bought the Wayback 106, is that they have a nice rockered profile that releases the tail easily and feels loose and surfy, which I need/enjoy.
The narrower ones do not have this shape, instead tending towards a more ‘frontside’ shape, with less tip and tail taper, and no tail rocker.
Could you mention some of the narrower skis that have a ‘soft snow’ shape, that you know of?
Hi Slim – you make a great point, but I do not think the weight-fun relationship is so asymmetric though. I notice folks on really heavy set-ups sometimes don’t get the benefit of all that weight on the down because their legs are so cooked after a run or two up. Lighter gear can actually make for better downhill on some days. This comes down to what you mean by light – If I have 65 underfoot race skis in the mountains, I might have to do some snowplowing, but something like an 88 underfoot ski with a lighter boot and binding (my everyday set-up is BD Helio 88s, modified for tip-rip skins, with 145 g bindings and Sportiva Sytrons) is pretty darn light, but totally fun on the down. That said, it also depends on goals for the day and sometimes, big skis in big mountains make all the difference, thankfully folks are making those lighter these days too (I skied the G3 SLAYr a bunch this winter and they’re a rad darn light 114 underfoot ski). As Bruce Lee may have said, “its all about finding balance.”
@Alex,
One of the reasons I am interested in this article, is that in general, many supporters of wider/heavier skis (like Trollanski), mention that they need that gear in order to provide the aggressive skiing style and speed that they enjoy.
And yes, let’s limit the extremes, let’s say we look at 74-110mm, waist skis.
I was curious about it from another side, people like me, who are happy to enjoy a conservative approach to the descent.
Do you think it is also perhaps terrain dependent? Is the terrain you guys ski up in Alaska fairly open? The reason I ask, is that part of the reason is that I like my wide, rockered, tapered, ski’s because I am confident I can make the turn before the next tree or rock. If it is wide open, I might have the guts to let less-turny skis just run, and carve a wide turn.
So again, to be clear, asking this as someone with limited technique, who often reverts to bad movements in many conditions.
I am all for lighter gear, but I do not understand why narrower skis top out below 180 cm in length. I am 6’4″ and 230 lbs. I ski with my 108 mm skis most often, not because I need the width but for the 192 cm length. I would love a narrow pair of skis, but for my size they would need to be longer than 185 cm at least. So maybe a lot of people are skiing with the heavy metal because the short skis simply do not work for them.
Find a used pair of shorties, you’d be surprised at how it changes the sport. I’m 6’1” 200lbs and would not be caught dead on anything under 185cm and 115mm for years because they wouldn’t ski the way I wanted. And that is true. Skinny skis won’t go mach ten on 50 degree slopes, but that’s not why you own them. Intended use drives the weight/width conversation. Do my skinny 170cm skis rip? No. Do they make a 40 mile possible? Yes. Have the 190+ big board but have that shorty setup to go explore!
Agreeing with Eric about giving short skis a chance. I am 6’3″ and weight roughly 230lb as well. When I started skiing race skis 161 length with 65 width I was surprised at how well they skied. It does take a little getting used to and I wouldn’t suggest riding them on a deep wet powder day (did that in 16″ of new snow during a race) but they ski surprisingly well. I have taken those same little skis for long approaches or more traverse style skiing. I do also have longer and wider skis for those deeper days or smaller mileage.
My old AK Launchers at 90mm under foot and 120 at the tip might just be ready to be remounted again as a narrow light bc ski when during their time in the spotlight they were a big time soft flexing powder slayer.
Great little article here. I ski 85’s most of the year and occasionally rando race skis in the backcountry. I’d argue the skier must change their downhill form for these lighter skinnier skis. Some may call it the “rando hop.” Hitting a big powder day on a lighter setup is still very enjoyable, even more so when your friends with 115’s and shit bindings are maxed out by the second lap. A lighter setup underfoot also allows for more civilized tour snacks as well….a bordeaux, some hard cheese, crisp crackers. Perhaps others can chime in.
Typo! Shift bindings! my apologies
Haha, I thought it was on purpose, lol!
(And btw, I am not against the Shift, have 1 pair in our family, and will add more)
Due to the good old fashioned humor, we’ll leave that SHIfTTY typo up 🙂 I ran a pair on a resort accessed backcountry setup this season and loved ’em. Though I’d never spend a day touring in them without a mechanical bump.
Alaskans are a strange tribe. I joked with Brian Harder once (another lycra-wearing transplant) that Alaskans love to ridicule skinny skis in the winter, but then will turn around and trail-run topless and in nut-dangling short shorts as soon as the sun comes out–damn the mosquitos. Whatever…we’ve all got our local’s only idiosyncrasies that make no sense and look pretty goofy to others unless you are part of the tribe. We love our trucker hats, Buffs, and flannel shirts out here on the west coast but I definitely rocked the neon tight pants and a wool head band when I lived in Europe. It’s all pretty silly what we do to look cool when you break down our sport…walking uphill with planks on our feet so we can slide down.
With that said (@Slim) the trick to having the most fun is to find the absolute lightest set-up that you can still ski well going down. If that takes beef boots and heavy bindings, so be it. But I bet a lot of good–and even average–skiers out there would be surprised how much more fun the sport is if they lightened up.
This post hits on something I have really been wondering recently now that I have been only touring with the resort closures. For my resort setup I am on race boots and relatively burly skis, but ski my 88mm ski on most days . For touring I am on the Atomic Hawx, ATK raider 12, Line Sick 104. In that setup I can climb around 1400ft/hr. I have been so curious lately if I would be able to tolerate the downhill performance of something like a backland, sytron, alien rs for a boot pair with a ~1kg ski. Unfortunately, I have no idea how I can answer that question as it is hard enough to try out any touring gear.
As a guy who is fortunate enough to try everything having worked at a gear shop and now testing gear for this site, I can say it certainly is a personal preference that is honed in with experimentation. I am more “surfer” at heart as Trollanski says below. But with that in mind I want to A. be less tired when my wave comes, B. catch more waves in a given day, and C. catch far away waves. What myself and partners have honed in on is a light boot but not race (the ones you mention or perhaps a shade heavier that doesn’t use BOA), a very minimal binding, but a heavier ski (heavy touring or light alpine designs). I have skied sub kilo, sub 90 skis and hate them. But also now hate touring in something like a reasonably light Tecnica 0G. Im currently loving the Elan rip sticks, comparable to your Sick days, which weigh in over 1600g in a 180cm 96mm width. Driven with the Sportiva Skorpius that has a Maestrale liner in it. The light boot is totally workable provided the leg strength and form is there, the ski density simply cannot be faked or overcome without sacrifice or “tolerance” as you say. Anyway, if you can demo or borrow some light stuff I’d highly recommend doing so to figure out just how light you can go. But if you’re itching to pull the trigger on something, start with the boot, then work to a lighter binding. One of my partners is a LINE ambassador and charges the Sick 104 with a TLT5 without tongues in.
Gary, I think we have very similar taste, and that is an awesome insight to start with the boot. I just got the Sick Day 104’s after being on some lighter skis and deciding it wasn’t worth it. I just don’t tour enough to have multiple touring quivers, but maybe next year I can. What boots would you recommend trying out? Why no boa?
Right on Kyle. I have really been digging the Sportiva Skorpius CR lately, hit the search bar above for my review. Stock without power straps for powder season, Maestrale liner and power strap now for steep skiing and heavy spring funk. The Scarpa F1 has a better cuff feel and forward lean, therefore probably skis a bit better for most folks. Walks significantly worse. Alien RS (or forthcoming F1 LT, search for Adam F’s review) are really marvels. You’ll probably hate them the first few days on the descent, but once you learn how to pin the forward lean and stay there, they are very ample skiers for how amazingly light and free-pivoting they are. Hoji Pro tour is not super light, but has an incredible range of motion- worth a look at the top end. Re BOA, I feel like I can ski any of these 90 flex boots hard with “real” skis so long as my foot is clamped tight and there’s some support at the bottom end of the flex (progression). I find that BOA allows the lower shell to bulge more than buckles do and doesn’t offer the same tightening leverage that a buckle and heavy cable system does. Not a problem if you prefer a little wiggle in the foot and can get power you need out of a tight cuff. Hope that helps! Find a snug fit with good heel pocket and top of foot and go from there.
Fellow Alaskan Skier here,
I really enjoy skinnier skis but it does warrant a discussion about what the mechanical differences are between lighter and heavier skis. I have been touring exclusively on 88’s for two years in all conditions/circumstances including 40+ mile traverses, steep couloirs and powder skiing. My skis are Dynastar Mythic 88’s and are in the upper range of the skis discussed in this article and are not SkiMo style skis.
Race/SkiMo style skis can save you a lot of weight per step and allow you to make more laps. That said, they are constructed differently than wider and heavier backcountry and alpine skis. They tend to be shorter, skinnier and have a capped construction. Also, their internal sandwich structure does not usually include metal plates underfoot and often uses foam in the most lightweight models. All of these elements save weight, but also make sacrifices in:
• stiffness (no sidewalls, or metal layers)
• edge-hold on steep hardpack (no sidewalls)
• floatation in powder (less surface area)
• speed (shorter length)
• durability (lighter-weight internals/foam)
You can put in more laps, ski the steeps and slay the powder, but it might feel like more work on the downhill. Your powder skiing will require more quad strength and technique. Like a blown strut in your car’s suspension, a lighter ski will also be more prone to deflection in chunder. If you have a foam-core ski, then your ski may break if you hit a rock going too fast, or hit a drop with a pack on. For day trips, this is not as big a concern, but on a multi-day trip in the greater ranges, this would be catastrophic.
Alex and Emily are totally right that it’s surprising what you can get away with when you trim down your kit. And there are more options than ever. But keep in mind the tradeoffs, especially if you are a less-experienced skier. Free-Ride style skiers and Downhill Ski Racers ride heavy equipment for a reason. My sweet-spot lies in the skinny end of the middle!
As a self avowed gear junkie, i have explored every facet of the width/weight spectrum from BD Megawatt w Marker kingpins/ Atomic Hawx XTD 130 boots; to Salomon QST108/shift, to Atomic UL65 and Backland UL boots w race binders. My go-to for darned near any situation that requires more than one gratuitous lap of deep pow is my Fischer Travers CS or very abused and stinky Atomic Backland Carbon boots (both around 1050gr) coupled with either my Movement X-series 89 mm or Zag Adret 89 skis (both about 1050 gr) Movement if there is any chance of a pucker fest as they actually hold a great edge; Zags for anything deep, manky, cruddy as they have some magic floaty shape that i have never been able to submerge. Binders are ATK/Hagan cores…..this to me is the ski-everything go-anywhere 10,000 ft big day set up. The super skinny 65 mm UL’s are wicked fun in their own way, but i quite frankly don’t notice the weight difference as much as i enjoy the better float of and skiability of the 89 mm set up in all conditions. Learning to ski the light boots and “skinnier” skis has been a tremendously rewarding pleasure and i feel like there is nothing i can’t do on these that i can on the fat boards, just maybe at 3/4 time, but that’s ok too. I spend a lot of time going up, may as well prolong the time down.
Makes me think of the most fun i ever had driving. I have owned/driven some pretty sporty cars but somehow am always underwhelmed because at near legal speeds, they are so calm and collected there is no visceral feedback. The greatest thrill ever is taking my old 65 microbus and driving a twisting backroad at the speed limit! It takes every bit of skill and driver input i have to keep from oversteering or feeling like you are about to roll over. I never end a ride without being totally exhilarated and with a smile on my face! And so it should be.
All I can add is that I have never been held back by having 78 mm skis when everyone else is on 115+
62 mm though.. definitely getting too skinny for our heavy PNW snow
Yay for skinny skis! I have spent a lot of this Tahoe “winter” on 75mm Trabs with Dynafit/Plum bindings. The light set up is great on the uphill and requires me to resurrect my old school downhill chops. The best thing about my rig is the amazing hard snow performance.
2000 gram skis and 500 gram bindings and Maestrale or similar have been my go to setup for years. They are only heavy when I see a lighter setup ahead of me. Nowadays I only ski 8-10 days in the backcountry a season, often solo. The rest are spent chasing my 4yr old all over our little hill. I know I’d really like covering more ground on a lighter setup but I have one and I just don’t use it often at all. Once a year maybe. I try my best to choose days with care, making sure the skiing will be good and then go hammer out 5-8k of high quality skiing. Ive has terrific days chasing friends on much lighter gear for 9+ grand. I like skiing fast and I like to noodle sometimes too. I could keep rambling but better not. Kiddo #2 will be here before morning. I think my point is that skiing is just so extraordinarily fun and part of that for me is covering ground and another part is going fast. Can’t do both on light skis, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t still be fun.
Hope you guys don’t mind too much my being a bit blunt, but I’m kind of old, and it’s my prerogative. There is no question that light gear helps open up more vert and long missions. And you haven’t lived if you haven’t FELT how SWEET skinny skis slice and dice the corn! Hands down superior to the big squish-boards. However, I think a SURFING comparison is in order…..Quote from Laird Hamilton….’we are just searching for the feeling we got on the first wave we caught’….After a while, the bar has been set so high, that FEELING is achieved with a Tow In with a Jet Ski for a 50 foot wave that lasts ONLY 20 seconds.
I count myself among those BIGGER is better most of the time. As an expert, if I want to ski lines that are spicy and challenge me, when they are holding quality snow, a big, floaty, stable platform is the way to go. Just Youtube search Jeremie Heitz or Tof Henry. Their skis are 112 to 115mm’s. A 105 FEELS VASTLY superior to a 95 to me. There is a SAFETY ADVANTAGE to being able to charge at speed. You get to experience MAXIMUM STOKE, you wisely limit your time of exposure on said terrain, and exit speeds to stay out in front of the sluff-train are often 60 to 70. Basically the most fun you can have! Throw in some mandatory air, and you have attained NIRVANA. All I need is 500 vert of the gnarliest terrain I can handle to feel totally fulfilled…Luckily, one of my favorite zones is LOADED with 1000′ lines, so I usually make 4 runs and work into more exposure if warranted. This works out to BEST DAY EVER on light 112’s, 1.5 lb bindings, and a strong set of boots. If you are not operating on that level, and/or GET THAT FEELING at lower speeds, on smoother slopes, and smaller skis, then you have realized the goal. Fully loving your experience/existence.
No need to overly justify the gear.
Because to best skier is the one having the most fun….
And all due respect to the greater community of shredders out there ALL GOING BIG!!! in their own way!
Now having said that….spent most of the year on the SPLITBOARD.
SURFING!
Let me just chime in with some thoughts which may be in line with some of the points made by trollanski but maybe without some of those pictoresque references to surfing (i don’t surf and I am european btw).
In the skitouring world the beautiful and diverse range of setups being used (which end up spawning the also diverse set of “philosophies” and interpretations of the sport) thrives on the diversity of people’s experiences.
This whole process and the decisions regarding gear that derive from it could be synthetised as “IT WORKS FOR ME THOUGH” in the sense that people like Alex and Emily when motivating their choices in gear do not have any kind of hidden agenda revolving around converting people (and thank God they don’t because it would become quite frustrating and boring) ; they simply say that with their setup they still have fun.
I whole-heartedly respect this since I enjoy the diversity in setups and since I am a gear nerd and naturally curious about what people use.
This approach stems from personal experience: if anybody converged on it like a universal law (as some of the comments here make it out to be) then the whole thing would become stale, boring and inherently flawed.
Had everybody in the 80s and 90s sheepishly adopted the “WORKS FOR ME THOUGH” approach there would be no Fritz Barthel, no dynafit binding and in general none of the progress which has allowed for better boots, better bindings and better skis. This progress has been both “uphill” and “downhill”-focused (there’s been good products all around, from the first scarpa alien to the first vulcan, all the way to the newer products being offered nowadays).
The whole point about not having downhill legs that are up to par to the “bulky” setup that someone decides to ascend with is also flawed: of course there might be a need for an “adjustment/breaking -in period” that the user is willing to undertake in order to get acquainted with his gear and maybe build some stamina/fitness for using it proficiently. I don’t see how people who don’t have technique or “the legs” for carrying a heavier setup up AND down would want to endure this kind of torture for more than a day: in my personal experience whenever they realise that such setup is wrong for them they just switch to something else or become more proficient (on the up and the down) to enjoy their own gear. Simple as that.
Kudos to the authors and WS for starting an interesting discussion (i hope)
To all commenters, I so appreciate your insights! Keep ’em coming. And thanks Alex for your sharing. Lou
Skinny as in „1000-1100g sturdy 80mm“, I definately would, for resort uphill, long missions and hut to hut late in spring. Provided I had enough room in my quiver. Race skinny 160cm/65mm, not so much…
80 climb great, 90 really well, 100 just fine, but any wider and you pay unless its pow all day.
Thing is, 90mm have become so light and widely accepted, the skiability outweighs possible further weight savings for most mere mortals and not so specific applications.
Oh, and one more question, what about low angle powder?
Do you find that narrower skis can provide enough enjoyment on low angle powder, to make that fun? I think that is an important consideration as well, because it can help bias our terrain choices to safer areas.
Ideally we could all try this all out for ourselves, but with the variability of snow and terrain, it is very hard to try a decent number of skis in all the different conditions.
I think that’s the biggest drawback of the super light end of the ski spectrum unless you prefer to fire of countless rapid turns and ‘pump’ down the slope. Totally a consideration for those of us in Continental snowpacks who spend half of our season avoiding persistent slab issues. Give me a beefy race style boot and binding with a 105-110ish light weight ski anytime for maximum low and moderate angle powder harvesting and enjoyment.
Thanks for touching on the touchy topic (“ratio of snow softness to ski width to be considered”) that could be titled the Theory of Skinny Ski Relativity. That is: any ski is skinny [or fat] according to a specific sub-demographic of our beloved backcountry ski culture. The side-country BroBrah gawks at anything under 100mm as a nordic ski not worthy of their radder-than-you skiing style. “Those chopsticks wouldn’t last me through an appetizer of eggrolls.” – said Chad in the local ski hill parking lot as he fist-bumps his bro Brad. They both skied one 500 vertical foot lap from the top of the resort and are now beelining it to some happy hour somewhere.
Then, light-is-right RandoNerd thinks your 95 underfoot skis are extraneous weight as he backseat boogies past you in boot-top powder. He looks like a turtle braced for impact as he skis downhill, but he doesn’t care what the snow’s like because he’s here for the perfectly cut kick turns and Strava KOMs. His lunch is a leaf of romaine lettuce and half a salted watermelon GU. Does he even have a shovel in that kid-sized backpack?
Either way, my point is [aside from ripping on ski touring microcosms] that there’s no right answer. Skis, ski gear, ski styles are all different flavors of ice cream. Pistachio isn’t any better or worse than Rocky Road. Put a pair of race bindings on 115 underfoot powder-harvesters. Put brakes on your race skis. As long as you’re having fun and letting out a hoot and/or holler every once in a while.
I’ve been interested in trying in a lighter setup (boots, bindings, and skis) for the really big days for a while, but like Kyle, I find it’s really hard to test touring gear without spending several hundred dollars. I know a lighter setup won’t charge through variable snow like a heavier one, but I suspect that for 50 degree jump turns the low swing weight might actually improve downhill performance. Can anyone with experience comment?
Hey Powdah, see my reply to Kyle for a general take, having the opportunity to have skied every class of gear out there for the site. In specific to jump turns, yep I find a light ski super fun to lift and flick around and much easier/improved in the jump part of the turn. The difference is that once the tips hit the snow, and you power through to the the tail, the deflection comes in to play. When it comes time to pop again for your next aerial turn, the softer skis can give less pop (unless loaded with carbon, then the whole deflection thing again…). Classic trade off scenario– but part of the turn is better, part worse. I think you’ll also feel the need to jump turn more often or at lower angles, instead having enough faith in the ski to drive it.
Once you focus on the floatation aspect, things become totally dependant on skier weight first and ski construction/mount second. Joe Average‘s lighter wife may float on her 75mm efficient ski just as well as he does on 100mm planks. Same train of thought, heavy skier, narrow ski no option…
As a Alaska-Colorado hybrid skier – this is a silly discussion/argument. Anyone with a little (or a lot) of grey hair can remember that we used to charge on 205cm skis that were 65mm underfoot. It took a lot of skill, strength, and finesse in any type of powder. Some of my most memorable days and projects were spent on Rossignol 7G skis. I even ridiculed “clown skis” early on; “fat” skis were for neophytes and weaklings.
Nowadays, I don’t have anything less than 115cm in my quiver. Powabungas (135 underfoot) are one of my favorite weapons! Much like skis have changed, so has my skiing style. This is where the crux is: I’d much rather charge down in big fast turns than noodling my way down on toothpicks. It really comes down to what you want to do. Is 5 more minutes on the uphill really that much of an issue for a day trip?
The goofiest part of modern touring is Skimo… possibly the most contrived sport in recent memory (other than competitive rollerblading). The skis/boots are worthless on a stout project, the “rescue” gear has nothing to do with actual use, and is mostly found on people skiing up groomers on the resort.
Why make a contrived discussion on Alaska about what boils down to a simple decision: pick the right tool for the right job!
I love the different perspectives reflected here. As others have remarked elsewhere, skiing is a broad church, may it always remain so. As a physically large skier, on the far side of middle age, with more fitness than technical skills, I feel more comfortable with wide, rockered, easy to ski shapes, heavy bindings with reliable release functions, and boots with grip walk soles. That’s how I feel safe and secure in the mountains, and, therefore, how I can relax and enjoy the myself. Which brings me to a question: can anybody help me assemble a short list of supportive but forgiving 95-105 mm skis, in the 1600-1800 gram range, with rockered, easy-to-ski shapes? Lou, what about the skis you’ve been riding…those easy-to-ski planks that work with your fused ankle? We’re waiting for more reviews for the “mature” or “mellow” skier 🙂 All the best to the team, and keep up the great work in these trying times!!!
Bruno,
I just got a pair of K2 Wayback 106 (ok, 1 mm over your 105 limit ), and they are ~1600g in 186cm. Not to extreme shape, some tail rocker, but low, some stiffness, but not crazy stiff. Some tapering in the tip, but not crazy, basically, just like my favorite ice cream: full fat vanilla!
Might work for your criteria?
Louie has a first look on them here, Blister has a review, Alpin.de has a short review.
As a 63 year old who likes to keep up with much younger skiers, I embrace bludgeoning with technology what I lack in skill and fitness. Therefore, I ski with lighter weight gear than most others here in Idaho, and keep up just fine. I own three pairs of skis. Mirelli race skis, Atomic UL 78’s, and Vapor Nanos. All with race bindings. My Fischer Carbon Travers boots work well with all three pairs of skis. What to use when? For deep, heavy snow, say, 50cm (rare here but it happens), or just plain miserable breakable mank, the Vapor Nanos float and make it fun. Rando races, or training for them? Yeah, the race skis. The other 90% of the time, including fun 30cm powder days, the UL 78’s for sure.
Here’s an interesting article from Powder Mag on making a wise binding choice. https://www.powder.com/gear-locker/how-a-close-call-in-la-grave-changed-my-thoughts-about-bindings/?utm_source=email&em_hash=69e2504204926557abfe3d90023d69f4&fbclid=IwAR2d1-8OQxHJNxgG6G79x8yRA0w06cFrTKQ9N653Bp1wiMA4bxRsm_gNO-E
I know Alex’s point is that he’s not teeing off every time out in AK, but you also need to do the analysis of what the consequences of a broken ski or binding or boot could bring. A casual day can become an overnight epic with bad timing. Is it worth being 5 minutes faster if the chances of gear failure are much higher? AK’s SAR system is nothing like Colorado’s SAR. Everything is a little bigger and harder in AK. Even Hatcher Pass or Turnigan should be respected by the transplants that think just because there’s a road nearby, SAR is going to be similar to what is available in the lower 48. There’s nothing wrong with nerding out over grams, but you also need to do the big big/secondary effects analysis of what equipment failure can bring, especially in AK.
I am certainly in the skinny and light crowd. I’ve got a ton of skis, but I’m actually going to get rid of my fat planks over 100 – because I just haven’t skied them in a couple of years. (I go touring 3-4 times a week. Without Covid.) Note that I DO use wider and metal gear for resort skiing – but the overall benefits of light gear are so great for touring that I will always choose light gear over heavy for all kinds of skiing if I am touring up.
Yes – you do ski differently. If you are not a great skier – this may be a bit of a trick to learn, but on the other hand, everyone, from couch potato to Killian Jornet, will feel fresher and more agile on the lighter stuff. For me – the difference was phenominal on my very first go with the light stuff – and although I guess I’m a relatively good skier – I found I was able to do stuff because of my energy levels that I hadn’T done outside of the resort before. You will learn to ski in slippers and on top of balsa boards….and it will be easier than you imagine.
Multiply all this by several orders of magnitude if you go back for a second lap. Now – I know that some of you reading this are thinking: I never do that, doesn’t apply…..but if you try these things, you probably will. It is a huge difference. You’ll go for a couple laps, come home and do yard work. For real.
Also – there is one bit that I disagree with. Fat, heavy planks are almost always considered “more stable” for tough lines. On anything that is iced up – or really steep, or both, which is often the case, I’d rather be on a pair of 177cm 82mm wide planks that grip and can swing around inside of a toilet stall, than on a pair of 189/120 powder boards. Often on my tours, about 85% of it is a wide open field with bunnies and unicorns hopping through it, but to get to that, or out of it – there is one genuinely dangerous section as described above. I plan my equipment needs not based on what happens the most, but rather around the consequences of what could happen if something goes pear-sheaped.
The longer one does this – the more likely it is you will move to light gear. Some of that is age, sure – but more of it is smarts. If the people you think are good are on light gear, then maybe you should be to.
@Wookie, well said about optimizing for the most difficult part of the day!
Great article by Alex and Emily . Thanks. For reference I ski about 10-15 mellow resort days a year with my child and average around 40 days or more backcountry . Im not claiming to be a “extreme big mountain charger” but I do get out there quite a bit. Ive used a good amount of 100 mm waisted skis as my daily drivers but after using the Backland 85 for a season ( last season) and getting out in the BC quite a bit on my 65 mm race skis I doubt I will go back to fatter skis again. The skinnier skis are WAY faster going up. In all conditions ( except DEEP POW ) I prefer the skinnier skis. POW is honestly not something I’m super attracted too ( I know. I know… ) and its not something that I end up skiing more than a half dozen times a year anyway. I usually find myself in variable conditions were the skinnier skis just work well. The skinnier skis of today are NOT what they were in the past ( I do NOT recommend remounting old skinny skis as it defeats the purpose ) . The newer ski designs of today make skinnier skis WAY more capable and down right fun. Edging on the up and down is superior over a fatter ski in my experience as well. My current daily driver is the HAGAN Ultra 82 which is perfect for my needs and just a joy to be out touring on. So surprising what an modern 8o ish mm waisted ski can do. So fun. Just my experience Ive been using tech bindings and soft boots for 15 years or so ( so nothing new there).
I’ve skied 96mm my last and current setup which cover me happily almost all the time in my continental windier snowpack with variable conditions. However, I’ve recently started dabbing west of my home in a secret garden of insanely deep snow. This winter I sampled to back to back ~50cm light dumps that I could barely move on the 96mm skis. Skiing steep trees so I could actually move and learning about sluff management in the land of deep tree wells made me realize that flotation and speed is not only a fun issue, but a safety one! I’ve recently acquired some DPS Wailer 112 Tour1 so I can keep up with the crowd in this area (where the locals seems to all ski 120+). Some day I’d love to add some 170cm ~80mm skis to the quiver but for now, 96 will be good 75% of the time, with the fatter for those special trips to the next town west.
90-100 ist the jack of most trades, for sure. I 2nd the thoughts on 80-90mm Modern skis beeing really capable, too- Whenever I stay somewhere in the alps, hosts’ own skis in the garage seem to be Backland 85, Dynafit 90 something or the like (provided theiy tour at least some). Those guys with classic austrian skiing skills, you know. Ski patrol ist on similar stuff, as well. With 110mm-class Boards, I don’t even have much problem on the down in hard snow or anything, but going in up sideways for a significant amouant of time in unbuckled boots on hard snow can be annoying. I have had only a handful of pure powder ascents in like 10 years…
Bottom line, many things work!
And snowpacks can be really, really different!
Comments are closed.