• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Kore 105 as a touring ski?

Alexzn

Ski Squaw
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
1,956
Location
Bay Area and Truckee
Is anybody skiing Head Kore 105 as a dedicated touring ski? I have plenty of dedicated resort skis in my quiver, so I am not looking for a 50/50 ski (maybe if I ever go to Chamonix again, but I am not buying skis for that scenario:). I am trying to put a reasonable backcountry setup for Tahoe. 6 ft, 190lb, strong skier, current daily driver is 184 Kastle MX99. I own a pair of Kore 117 as my powder skis, so I am familiar with how this series skis, I am just not sure whether I should go with a real backcountry ski instead of a 50/50 like the Kore. I like a stable ski and can ski aggressively but I always dialed it down in any backcountry situation for extra margin of safety. I am pretty set on Shifts for bindings, and definitely will get some medium-stiff dedicated touring boots, so a super-light setup is not the goal. The goal is something that wont tire me out on the way up, but also something I can still enjoy on the way down. Thanks!
 

Gary Stolt

Mr. Style
Team Gathermeister
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Posts
478
Location
Franklin, KY
I ski the Kore 93. Love the ski. Floats well enough in powder, in fact, I've not skied my powder skis since purchasing the Kore. I would certainly think that the Kore 105 would be an excellent back country ski for you. hard to go wrong with that ski.
 

Rod9301

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Posts
2,443
Great skis, no resin to get a light bc ski.

You should though look at the mtn binding.
 

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
@Alexzn , have you watched the 50 project? That’s a YouTube series by Cody Townsend. He’s a Tahoe skier, sponsored by Salomon, and is your size too. One of the videos is about gear.



The Kore will be heavier than a dedicated touring ski. A lighter ski will tire you out less on the way up, allowing you to save more energy for the down. However, a lighter ski might be harder to ski (fast) on the way down, especially in poor snow conditions.

Besides weight, camber, tip rise and width also affects skinning. Think of XC skis: the more a ski looks like that, the easier it will skin.
Narrower skis glide better, and are easier on steep side hills.
Higher tip rise glides up and over deep snow and logs easier, without requiring you to lift up the ski so high.
More cambered skis spread your weight out better over the length of the skis, so you have better glide in soft snow, instead of sinking in the middle.

It is probably impossible to know how the weight and shape of the Kore 105 plays out vs another ski unless you can actually compare two skis over a variety of snow conditions.

The Sierras are known as a spring skitouring Mecca, so a slightly heavier 105mm ski for midwinter stuff (Kore 105) would make sense to me combined with a lightish weight, narrower true touring ski for spring conditions.(K2 Wayback 88, Volk BMT 90, Technica Zero G, Salomon Mtn 95, etc)
 
Last edited:

Mothertucker

Sweep Dodger
Skier
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Posts
1,946
Location
Desolation Row
I think the Kore would be just about perfect for what you describe. Eyeing a pair of 93s myself.
 

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
@Alexzn ,

You said, you have decided on the Shift, but can @Rod9301 and I give one more push to reconsider?

I own the Shift. It is a great piece of engineering. However, it’s whole “raison d’etre” is 50/50 use, or backcountry freeride. You said you don't need 50/50, and you keep it toned down in the backountry. It is heavy, and awkward to transition. You also need to step out of the binding to transtion. It lacks a high riser. Ease of use is a big consideration in AT gear.

If you really feel that the binding is going to affect how hard you can ski, or you want the security of lateral release at the toe, get a Fritschi Tecton. It skis as well as a Alpine binding (=Shift), and also offers lateral toe release. However, it is ~150g/foot lighter, and has much easier transitions, and more riser heights.
If it was only lateral toe release that made you lean to the Shift, get the Fritschi Vipec Evo.

Otherwise, consider @Rod9301 ‘s point, the fact that Cody Townsend mostly skis the MTN binding, not the Shift, the discussion on Blister I linked above, the Outdoorgearlab AT binding review and many other sources. Light Tech bindings ski well enough for most people in real backcountry scenarios.
Light weight, ease of use and reliability, are more important than ski performance of a binding.

Think of the difference in weight between a Shift and a ATK Raider 12 (https://blisterreview.com/gear-reviews/2020-2021-atk-raider-12-majesty-r12)(350g): That is around 500g/foot. That‘s the difference between a normal, light resort ski, and the lightest touring ski! Which combo do you think will ski better in poor snow, resort ski and tech binding, or touring ski and Shift?

@Brock Tice discussed the effect a lighter set up had for him:
 
Last edited:

Mothertucker

Sweep Dodger
Skier
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Posts
1,946
Location
Desolation Row
^^^This is what I would do as well, I would go with a lighter touring binder. You will have to decide which binding fits your usage best.
 

Rod9301

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Posts
2,443
I am impressed by the great marketing job Salomon has done in cubing m convincing prior to buy the shift, despite pre release problems that could seriously injure someone.
 

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,490
Location
Colorado
I am impressed by the number of backcountry skiers who continually ignore the lack of lateral release at the toe as a serious safety concern that could result in life threatening injuries. Lateral toe release is what saves you from breaking a tib-fib and is one of the key safety features of alpine clamps.

Now -- personally, lateral toe release is only one of many safety aspects -- including predictability of release and reliability of the binding. What safety features matter the most depends on the skier, the terrain (consequences and remoteness), and a bunch of other factors.
 

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
@jmeb well said.
You don’t have to say ”personally”.
Objectively: ”lateral toe release is only one of many safety aspects -- including predictability of release and reliability of the binding.“

Subjectively: “What safety features matter the most depends on the skier, the terrain (consequences and remoteness), and a bunch of other factors”
 

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,490
Location
Colorado
@jmeb well said.
You also don’t have to say ”personally”.
Objectively: lateral toe release is only one of many safety aspects -- including predictability of release and reliability of the binding. What safety features matter the most depends on the skier, the terrain (consequences and remoteness), and a bunch of other factors.

Yeah...I should've been more specific that personally, it's not the most important feature for me. But I understand why it could be to others. Especially if you're skiing aggressively in the backcountry in areas that recieve heavy traffic and are pretty easy to access.
 

markojp

mtn rep for the gear on my feet
Industry Insider
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,604
Location
PNW aka SEA
Of the Kores, I'd use the 99 as a one and done touring ski. Non-Head product that isn't touring specific, the Armada Tracer 98 and 108 should be high on the radar.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Alexzn

Alexzn

Ski Squaw
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
1,956
Location
Bay Area and Truckee
Well, I value lateral release at the toe a lot. I also value elasticity (I am pretty picky about my Alpine bindings and try to ski only STH or Pivots), but of course I realize BC is a different game. Curious about durability and functional tradeoffs of Tectons. What I like about Shift (in theory!), is that when you ski downhill, your boot is clamped in fully alpine style, no pins. But I get and seriously value the weight argument.
FWIIW, my previous "BC" setup was a pair of old Dynastar ProRiders with old Duke16 (i.e one the heaviest alpine skis and the heaviest BC-capable binding), so anything will be an improvement from that point on.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ron

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,490
Location
Colorado
Well, I value lateral release at the toe a lot. I also value elasticity (I am pretty picky about my Alpine bindings and try to ski only STH or Pivots), but of course I realize BC is a different game. Curious about durability and functional tradeoffs of Tectons. What I like about Shift (in theory!), is that when you ski downhill, your boot is clamped in fully alpine style, no pins. But I get a seriously value the weight argument.
FWIIW, my previous "BC" setup was a pair of old Dynastar ProRiders with old Duke16 (i.e one the heaviest alpine skis and the heaviest BC-capable binding), so anything will be an improvement from that point on.

If you're touring more than 40% of the time, I'd lean Tecton. Skis very close to the Shift. No common issues with pre-release. Save a coulple hundred grams per ski. And still get a lateral release at the toe (albiet, not alpine style.)

There's also the new Duke PT which--in hand--feels very burly. I haven't skied it. And marker has a kinda shit history when it comes to first year touring products.
 

Ken_R

Living the Dream
Skier
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Posts
5,775
Location
Denver, CO
Is anybody skiing Head Kore 105 as a dedicated touring ski? I have plenty of dedicated resort skis in my quiver, so I am not looking for a 50/50 ski (maybe if I ever go to Chamonix again, but I am not buying skis for that scenario:). I am trying to put a reasonable backcountry setup for Tahoe. 6 ft, 190lb, strong skier, current daily driver is 184 Kastle MX99. I own a pair of Kore 117 as my powder skis, so I am familiar with how this series skis, I am just not sure whether I should go with a real backcountry ski instead of a 50/50 like the Kore. I like a stable ski and can ski aggressively but I always dialed it down in any backcountry situation for extra margin of safety. I am pretty set on Shifts for bindings, and definitely will get some medium-stiff dedicated touring boots, so a super-light setup is not the goal. The goal is something that wont tire me out on the way up, but also something I can still enjoy on the way down. Thanks!
^^^This is what I would do as well, I would go with a lighter touring binder. You will have to decide which binding fits your usage best.


I would definitely consider a lighter (and more importantly simpler!) binding for touring. I really like how pin bindings like the G3 Ion and the Dynafit Rotation ski even inbounds. The transitions are effortless and just simple. I am not a fan of "hybrid" touring bindings like the shift and the more you tour the more you will know why. They absolutely do have their place though. For someone who wants a one ski setup for everything (mostly inbounds use with touring capability) they are awesome.

The Kore 105 is a stout ski that is awesome for heavier skiers that ski with authority. I would totally consider it as a solid mid-winter touring ski.
 

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,166
Location
Gloucester, MA
150 grams is 1/3 of a pound. I would say you will feel it, but it won't be a deal breaker. A pound would be a deal breaker.

I personally would not use the Kore 105 as a touring ski. The weight (heavy for a touring ski) combined with the more directional performance would not appeal to me for deep backcountry snow.

My suggestion is decide which of two approaches: a lightweight ski (salomon mtn 95 and 400g touring binding, Sal. mtn, or any other) or a wider slightly heavier ski 4FRNT Raven, Line Sidk Day 104 and a shift. I have the Blizzard Zero G 108 and shifts. I use it more 50/50 and I love it for sidecountry. I rarely go off into the backcountry, but wouldn't hesitate to use my setup for that. If I was doing mostly backcountry, I would go with the lighter setup. I am also East Coast, so I wanted something good on ice and the Zero G has good edge hold. Its a very stout ski and does better on firm or packed conditions versus powder, but I find it skis very well overall.

Keep in mind skins make a big difference in energy expenditure going up hill. I am changing from a Black Diamond Glidelight mix skin to a 100% mohair Pomoca Race 2.0 skin to get better glide and less resistance.
 

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,490
Location
Colorado
Are you really going to feel 150 g weight difference?

150g alone -- kinda. Every step you're lifting that. Plus, after skiing a number of lightweight skis, I'd rather that 150g be in the ski than in the binding. I'd rather ski a 2000g ski with a 300g binder than a 1500g ski with an 800g binding -- from a pure ski-feel perspective.

Thing is, you add 150g to the binding, then you want it to drive a more powerful ski, so you add 150-200g there, then you need a bigger boot to drive it all (except the remarkable ZeroG Pro which is crazy good for it's weight.) And suddenly, you're at 500g more per foot as you chase power up and up. That's a lb and that makes a difference.

I can certainly tell the difference between my "heavy" setup of Vipecs (~1100g per pair), 1650g skis, and Atomic Hawx boots vs my "light" setup of Speed Radicals (~700g per pair), 1600g skis, and TLT6s.
 

Rod9301

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Posts
2,443
A light weight binding like the mtn can drive any ski, no matter how stout or heavy
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top