Contemplating AT Setups

[Brock Tice]

I started touring this past spring and have had an AIARE 1 class and probably eight uphill outings including both inbounds and backcountry. I am currently skinning/skiing with 2019 Blizzard Rustler 11s on G3 Alpinist skins, Atomic Shift 13s, and Lange XT Free LV 130 boots.

I'm a bigger guy, strong, and with good cardio capacity. With this setup I clock about a 5.6 denominator in the Munter equation uphill, and 17 downhill. I started running the numbers, and I knew this setup was kind of heavy, but compared to some options out there it's *really* heavy. Almost 10.5 lbs (4.8 kg) per leg.

I love being able to use it all in the gnarliest inbounds stuff with confidence, but I'm contemplating a lighter setup for days when things are more hard-packed. If I'm doing OK with this stuff now, how much does weight really matter for me? I can outpace the (limited number of) people I've toured with so far pretty easily. I'm not doing skimo racing. Should I just sit tight until the weight is more of an issue?

For now I'm contemplating swapping my 2016 K2 Pinnacle 105s to Shift bindings as well, but they are actually not much lighter, it would only be about 0.1lbs/leg less, surprisingly. I'm also eyeing some used Blizzard Zero G 95s which would make a much bigger difference. What do you think?

 

[Ken_R]

Where are you going to be touring the most?

 

[Analisa]

^That. Likewise, what kind of mileage/vert have you been doing?

 

[Slim]

I think weight still matters, even if you can already ascend the vert you want right now.
I find it much easier to push myself hard climbing on the road on my road bike than on my Mtb. I think it’s the subconscious considering of: on the mtb, no matter how hard I push, nothing happens, whereas on the roadbike, if I push hard, you feel the ’jump’, so it’s much more satisfying.

But, I think there is more to focus on besides just weight:

 

[Slim]

Which skins do you have? I believe they have max speed, max grip and all round versions right?

If they are one of the slower gliding versions, then switching to a ’glidier’ skin will also make a difference. This along with a binding with true flat walk mode and easier transitions than the Shift, and to boots with better walk mode (more range of motion, less friction in walk mode), and easier trainstions, will make skinning more enjoyable, especailly on flatter sections and rolling tours.

That is the way I would look at it, comfort and ‘enjoyment’, more than pure weight, since, (at the moment), ascent speed is not an issue for you.

Making skinning on flatter parts more pleasant opens up more options for destinations that are further from the trailhead, or rolling tours, versus straight up and down. This just presents more options for fun, as well as safety, being able to pick objectives that are safer from an avalanche standpoint.

As far as switching the Pinnacle 105 to Shifts, I don’t see the benefit, as you mention, only a tiny bit lighter(although the skins would be lighter too since they are narrower), so a bit bigger weight savings.

Inbounds, which do you prefer/when do you prefer the Pinnacle 105 vs the Rustler 11?

Do you have other inbounds skis?

If one of the above is mostly used in soft snow, how about putting a Tecton binding on it? Still strong enough to ski inbounds well, but tours better and is a fair bit lighter Than a Shift.

Then, indeed, some kind of 95mm ski with a pure touring build(weight) and lightweight tech binding would be a fun addition.

 

[nemesis256]

I would be careful with going TOO light. Those Blizzard Zero Gs look way too light to me, and this is coming from someone who's 130lbs. I've got Salomon MTN Explore 95s and I find those are a good balance between lightweight and still heavy enough to not sacrifice on the ski down.

I agree with Slim on checking out the Fritschi Tecton.

 

[Brock Tice]

Thanks for the replies! To briefly answer the questions, I'm normally touring about 4-6 hours, up to 6 or 7 miles, with 2000-4000 of vertical. The area I usually go is the Williams Lake Basin next to Taos Ski Valley, with steep chutes.

I don't have any other skis that are even close to suitable at the moment.

I have the old Alpinist skins, before (afaik) they did the different options (Alpinist+). They are nylon only. I had considered the Tectons, I've skied downhill with guys that wore and liked them. I tend to use the Rustlers in softer snow and bring out the Pinnacles when things are more skied out.

One thing I was considering was to just make the Pinnacles a faster setup, with a hybrid skin and lighter bindings, or do the same with another lighter, narrower ski.

I appreciate the pointers, as I lack much experience in this area but I'm looking to improve my choices.

 

[Slim]

Aha @Brock Tice , Good info.

Putting a Tecton on the Rustlers would make sense, it would save weight, give you easier transitions and still ski just as well. But, it doesn’t make much sense financially . Since you mentioned the weight doesn‘t bother you much right now, it doesnt seem worth it to spend ~$600 to drop ~150g/foot. So I would only do it if you don’t mind spending the money.

To be clear, I would not suggest buying a new, lightweight ski and then putting a Tecton on it. They are not the cheapest touring binding, and, much heavier than most. I see their value in offering alpine level of capability for the descent, with good touring performance, for 50/50 use.

I would not put tech bindings on the Pinnacles. They are still quite heavy skis, and you would lose your ‘hard hard snow -inbounds‘ set up.

And the only money you would save would be in the the ski’s, still buying bindings and skins.
Ski’s can be found on close out, or lightly used for pretty good prices, sometimes even with bindings.

I agree with @nemesis256, if you are a big guy, and doing fine with the weight you have right now, you should probably stick with ski’s that are on the heavier side of touring weights.
That said, all reviews state the Zero G series ski’s are very strong ski’s. In fact, I was going to say that they don’t resemble the ski style of the Rustlers in any way, except brand. The Rustlers are supposed to be loose, playful and easy to ski, no review of the Zero G ever mentions those characteristics

 

[Analisa]

I’d probably skip it. I would probably pounce on a Sheeva 10 or 11 with a Shift if I had the DIN setting for it. Coming from a Pandora 95 with Radical ST2s, I wish they were heavier all winter while doing tours in the 2-4k range, and wish they were lighter all spring for 4-7k days. Or anything with long carries, especially if they call for crampons, overnight gear, glacier gear.

There are definitely ways to cut weight, but there's usually a trade off for how they handle. The Pinnacles are ~75g lighter than the Rustlers? And then 100g per foot for a Tecton over a Shift? I don't think you'll notice a weight difference as small as 400g. Personally, I haven't been able to sense much of a difference with similar weight swaps between my Pandoras, old Cham 87s, and a borrowed pair of Backlands + Shifts I've been on since my binding broke. (And for my size/lighter gear, 400g is a bigger percentage variance).

The Zero G 95 would definitely be lighter, but would also ski lighter. Then a lighter boot & binding also make sense, since you don't need the quite the same power transfer. Do you have the option to demo? At “home” or if you travel? I'd want to have a clear idea of where I wanted to land on the weight/power spectrum and know what aspects in a ski/boot/binding I'd be okay with sacrificing before investing in another setup.

 

[Rod9301]

I’d probably skip it. I would probably pounce on a Sheeva 10 or 11 with a Shift if I had the DIN setting for it. Coming from a Pandora 95 with Radical ST2s, I wish they were heavier all winter while doing tours in the 2-4k range, and wish they were lighter all spring for 4-7k days. Or anything with long carries, especially if they call for crampons, overnight gear, glacier gear.

There are definitely ways to cut weight, but there's usually a trade off for how they handle. The Pinnacles are ~75g lighter than the Rustlers? And then 100g per foot for a Tecton over a Shift? I don't think you'll notice a weight difference as small as 400g. Personally, I haven't been able to sense much of a difference with similar weight swaps between my Pandoras, old Cham 87s, and a borrowed pair of Backlands + Shifts I've been on since my binding broke. (And for my size/lighter gear, 400g is a bigger percentage variance).

The Zero G 95 would definitely be lighter, but would also ski lighter. Then a lighter boot & binding also make sense, since you don't need the quite the same power transfer. Do you have the option to demo? At “home” or if you travel? I'd want to have a clear idea of where I wanted to land on the weight/power spectrum and know what aspects in a ski/boot/binding I'd be okay with sacrificing before investing in another setup.

Agree with everything but that lighter bindings do not transfer power well.
I ski a 300g binding, the salomon mtn, and it's better than any other bc binding i had.

 

[Brock Tice]

Unfortunately there's nothing I know of close by where I can demo this stuff, might have to work it into a trip or something if I wanted to do that. Denver is only 5 hours away by car, I'm sure there are some places near there I could find some demos.

 

[Brock Tice]

I haven't been able to sense much of a difference with similar weight swaps between my Pandoras, old Cham 87s, and a borrowed pair of Backlands + Shifts I've been on since my binding broke. (And for my size/lighter gear, 400g is a bigger percentage variance).

This is the kind of sanity check I was looking for.

 

[Slim]

Yes, I think, like @Analisa said, if you are spending money, it probably needs to make a big difference.
And, the biggest difference is probably on longer tours, (spring) trips where you end up carrying the skis partway and on flatter sections, and sections with shorter pitches.

So I’d think the most useful addition to your quiver would be a ski below 1600g or so, with a very lightweight binding like the Salomon Mtn* @Rod9301 mentions, and some skins with good glide. Then, next year, add lighter boots (1000-1500g) with better walk mode.
That way you will really have something that makes a noticeable difference, not only in big weight savings (3lbs/foot), but also better striding, more gliding and faster, easier transitions. That will make a different kind of tour more appealing, that maybe is not very interesting right now.
That, I think is worth spending money on.

Cripplecreek has demos, and have locations in Vail and the Aspen area.

Neptune Mounteering in Boulder has rentals, not sure about demos.

*well regarded in Outdoor Gearlab and Blister reviews.

 

[Brock Tice]

Look what came in the mail today...

 

[Rod9301]

Don't go too light on the boots. I personally like the Technica zero g pro, skis well.

Even though it wasn't ideal for my foot, I have a high instep, after some work, it fits well.

 

[Brock Tice]

I took them out for a test ride today in-bounds. These skis demand precision but they're not too hard to drive. Been having a blast and liking the greater degree of feedback from the tech bindings. It sure was nice hiking Kachina Peak to have 6lbs less to carry.

 

[Pequenita]

It sure was nice hiking Kachina Peak to have 6lbs less to carry.

As a lightweight, it's a no-brainer for me to go light (plus, the likelihood of my breaking equipment is slim). Glad to hear you noticed the weight, too!

 

[Brock Tice]

A lightweight I am not, but I did appreciate the reduction.

 

[Ken_R]

Look what came in the mail today...

I loved the Zero G's although I only demoed the 105's. They had Dynafit Rotations on.

The MTN Bindings are solid.

 

[Brock Tice]

The MTN Bindings are solid.

I put them through the paces today. High speed carve turns, bumps, steeps, sharp turns in trees, zero issues.