Gear Mid-90’s touring skis

[karlo]

@Analisa , @Slim, so taper helps prevent hooking of the tip, which is good in cement? And, splay is a more pronounced rocker, good for getting lifted and staying on top of the cement?

But, taper reduces early tip engagement on ice, preventing as early a turn? And, higher splay has no effect on ice, between two rockered skis, so long as location of rise is the same?

Earlier rocker ride means lower effective edge; the rise starts closer to the center of ski?

 

[Rod9301]

In reference to the Kastle TX98:


The Zero G 85’s did well in all the abovementioned conditions, except I didn’t encounter slush. The cement, not so well.

Re Kastle TX90:


Re Kastle TX98:


In the Zero G 85’s, I was too busy trying to stay up or picking myself up to be terrified

Looks like I’m saving some weight elsewhere, increasing the weight budget for skis. If the Technica’s work out, I’d be looking for a sub-1735g ski, rather than a sub-1500g ski.

I like my Kingpins. I can’t tell the difference between them and my Marker alpine bindings. Anything that skis like them, but lighter? I’ve read that very light bindings don’t ski the same. There’s mention of Shift, MTN, Dynafit 2.0

I doubt you'll feel much of a difference between the kingpins and the mtn

 

[jmeb]

I doubt you'll feel much of a difference between the kingpins and the mtn

I absolutely can. The difference between an alpine heel and the floating tech heel (even Mtns very good iteration of it) is noticeable, especially on firm snow. It has more power and more dampening. Even the Vipec skis better than the Mtn thanks to its toe elasticity and lack of lateral release in the heel.

To me, the weight (and reliability) of the Kingpin isn't worth the more powerful heel for dedicated touring skis. For a dedicated touring ski, a Mtn or ATK strikes a great balance of reliability and skiability.

For a ski that was going to see lifts regularly, I would choose a touring binding with an alpine-style heel every time. But the Tecton is lighter and safer than the Kingpin.

Here's the thing -- we all pretend we want the best skiing setup possible. But ultimately, a little downhill performance given up is not a big deal for 99% of skiers. In fact, you'll ski better if you're less tired by carrying less weight. If Cody Townsend can rip as hard as he does in this video on Mtns, they are solid enough touring bindings for 99% of skiers.

 

[jmeb]

It's probably worth reading this even if you don't want any of the bindings. It gives you a good idea of how a variety of factors in lightweight bindings come together to effect ski performance.

And unlike almost every other person/review you see spouting off opinions about bindings, these folks actually isolated the performance to the binding, by A/B/C/D testing them on the same ski during the same day.

https://blisterreview.com/gear-reviews/lightweight-touring-binding-shootout

 

[Slim]

@Analisa , @Slim, so taper helps prevent hooking of the tip, which is good in cement?
And, MORE splay is a more pronounced rocker, good for getting lifted and staying on top of the cement?

But, taper reduces early tip engagement on ice, preventing as early a turn? And, higher splay has no effect on ice, between two rockered skis, so long as location of rise is the same?

Earlier rocker rise means SHORTER effective edge; the rise starts closer to the center of ski?

Pros or cons of taper would be hard to predict, but it think in general, more tail taper and or more tail rocker helps release the tail, which is most beneficial in ‘cement’.
More tip taper might help the tip be less hooky, and almost certainly will help the tip release easier, probably good in cement, bad on ice.

The effect of rocker on effective edge is not as simple as that picture makes it out. After all, you only have an ‘effective edge’ when the ski is on edge, at which point even a full rocker ski would have a long effective edge. it is true, that rocker will reduce the pressure on the far end of the effective edge, which in some ways might feel similar to s shorter effective edge, but so would a less stiff ski...
I think what people are talking about is effective running length when the ski is (nearly) flat. A ski with deep rocker lines will pivot easier than a ski with the same length but full camber.

All this is to say, that you can not simply predict a skis behavior from a limited number of specs. This idea was really brought home to me listening to. Recent Blister podcast, where they talk about building ’Blister ski’ and mention that in one prototype step, all they change is the stiffness, and the ski completely changes character from chargey and straight line to turnsy and slarvy. You would think that would be a matter of taper of rocker, but all that stayed the same, only the layup changed.

With that out of the way, @Analisa ’s point still stands:
On ice you want the ski edges and tip and tail to dig in and bite, and you want the them to initiate a (carving) turn almost immediately, and with a short radius .
In slushy, crusty or other nasty snow, you want something where the tips don’t pull you into a turn right away, and you want the tips and tails to release from that stuff.
Those too are pretty opposite Requirements, so compromises will have to be made.

 

[Analisa]

@karlo going back to the boots comment, the Tecnicas are Grilamid for the clog and carbon fiber injected Grilamid cuff. Really impressive strength for weight, but fairly stiff and not as progressive in flex as a lot of the inbound plastics. Coming off the Mtn Explores, I'd also keep the Zero G Tour Scout (green version, Grilamid shell, PU cuff) and maybe the Zero G Tour (orange version, PU shell & cuff) on your radar as well.

Also lots of Grilamid/Grilamid combos on the market - Hojis, Maestrale RS (or non-RS, for equal weights in Pebax). Spectre 2.0s work for a lot of proficient but not particularly hard charging friends (buckles can be a little fiddly though, and the 1.0 had a lot of durability issues, so I'd work with a shop that really has your back for those).

How was your initial boot fit? Did you get to try anything else on or was there a reason your fitter thought the Sollys were the best choice?

 

[karlo]

Current setup
Blizzard Zero G 85 171: 1120g per Skimo
Kingpin 13: 758g per EVO
MTN Lab, 26.5: 1551g per EVO
Total: 3429g

MTN Explorer 95 possible setup
Salomon MTN Explorer 95 177 18R: 1480g per Skimo
MTN binding w leash: 325g per Blister
Technica Zero G, 26.5: 1315g per EVO
Total: 3120g
Keep the Kingpins: 3553g

Kastle TX98 possible setup
Kastle TX98 178 21R: 1400g per Outdoor Gearlab
MTN w leash: 325g
Technical Zero G, 26.5: 1315g
Total: 3040g

Keep Kingpins: 3473g​

Outdoor Gearlab wished they has sized up, https://www.outdoorgearlab.com/reviews/snow-sports/backcountry-skis/kastle-tx98
Kastle TX98 188 24.3R: 1370g per Kastle + 50 realism = 1420g???
Total: 3060g
Keep Kingpins: 3493g

The Technica boots makes a huge difference; expands possibilities.

 

[karlo]

How was your initial boot fit? Did you get to try anything else on or was there a reason your fitter thought the Sollys were the best choice?

Thanks. I'll keep the other boots in mind.

Back in 2017, the MTN Labs were, I think, written up to be the closest thing to an alpine boot in performance at a near-touring weight. I am gathering that the Technical Zero G Tour Pro now fills that spot, at a much lower weight??

As to the boot fit of the MTN Lab, best I could find. Very good bootfitter in Killington would not do it. Worried about a punch needed near a buckle. But, they carried the MTN Lab as a favor to the Salomon rep, not normally carrying touring boots. A fitter in Telluride, that fits touring boots all the time, did the fitting. It's not the best I've had. But, it works. For <300m at a time no blisters. Blisters on the recent Chliean volcano tour.

Anyway, I chose the boot, not the bootfitter.

 

[Analisa]

Back in 2017, the MTN Labs were, I think, written up to be the closest thing to an alpine boot in performance at a near-touring weight. I am gathering that the Technical Zero G Tour Pro now fills that spot, at a much lower weight??

Anyway, I chose the boot, not the bootfitter.

There’s a lot to unpack here. I’ve seen reviews write “Most like an alpine boot” more than a few times, but that doesn’t really mean anything. There are over 500 boots on the market, each with minor to major differences compared to the ones next to it on the shelf. Sure, 4-5 years ago when the Vulcan hit the market, it was truly unique for being stiff enough for the 130 flex alpine boot customer while so much lighter than anything else on the market, such a claim mattered. When I first got fitted 4 years ago, the advice was literally “find a boot that skis how you want it to, then figure out how to make it work.”

The market looks vastly different in a very short period of time. The ZeroG is a great line of boots with a lot of accolades, but they all take the word count to repeatedly note what their feet are like and that not all boots will fit all people and that fit is the paramount factor in any boot. There are enough boots on the market where a good fit, strong downhill performance, and lightweight are all attainable unless you have a hella wide foot and get stuck in a Scott Cosmos.

Bootfit out of the box really matters with touring boots since the plastic is so much thinner, so there’s less room for modifications.

 

[karlo]

Bootfit out of the box really matters with touring boots since the plastic is so much thinner, so there’s less room for modifications.

I'll have a chance to see the bootfitter in Telluride in March. No one I know in the East knows touring boots well.

 

[jmeb]

The Technica boots makes a huge difference; expands possibilities.

The MTN binding saves over 400g per foot, almost 2x what the boot saves.

 

[Analisa]

@karlo I’d give the Mountaineer a call and chat with them about what they have in stock. They’re a Dynafit Competence Center, one of ten in the US. They’re pretty recognizable names in touring - like Cripple Creek in Colorado or Ski Mo Co in UT. I send a lot of first time tourers to Pro Ski (our comp center in WA) since they have the largest selection of touring gear and run an international guiding op out of the same business. They sell a lot of gear to everyone from newbies to sponsored race athletes and are unique in that they can get real time feedback about setups if customers end up in their intro to touring or avy classes. Even if you’re not interested in Dynafit’s gear, it’s generally a sign of a high bar and a lot of knowledge.

I’m also curious how long you’re spending in the skintrack to cover ~900-1000 ft of gain?

 

[karlo]

The MTN binding saves over 400g per foot, almost 2x what the boot saves.

This was just a tally of where things might be. The MTN's and others that were suggested save quite a lot of weight.

My boots have room for comfort improvement, so I will certainly for-sure change the boots if greater comfort can be achieved. In the case of the bindings, I like the Kingpins and I am looking at it strictly from a weight point of view. I'm seeing that I might be able to stay within current weight with the Kingpins. But, then, I could go to heavier skis (Katanas??) if I go to something like the MTN bindings

 

[karlo]

@karlo I’d give the Mountaineer a call and chat with them about what they have in stock. They’re a Dynafit Competence Center, one of ten in the US. They’re pretty recognizable names in touring - like Cripple Creek in Colorado or Ski Mo Co in UT. I send a lot of first time tourers to Pro Ski (our comp center in WA) since they have the largest selection of touring gear and run an international guiding op out of the same business. They sell a lot of gear to everyone from newbies to sponsored race athletes and are unique in that they can get real time feedback about setups if customers end up in their intro to touring or avy classes. Even if you’re not interested in Dynafit’s gear, it’s generally a sign of a high bar and a lot of knowledge.

I’m also curious how long you’re spending in the skintrack to cover ~900-1000 ft of gain?

Great idea. I am heading up that way first weekend of November. I will stop at the Mountaineer.

As to how long to skin 900-1000 ft, I wasn't keeping time, which shows how inexperienced I am. If you read the Chilean Volcano trip report, 0.5 liters of water consumed going up and back down to tree line, compared to the 2 liters I should have had? I would have to ask my guide what our pace was. I know I was a lot slower after my left glutes blew out on the third day (see me standing on my left leg in my avatar). Better the days after, but it still slowed me down.

Then, there's the question of how long I am spending at transitions. I was always the last one ready. Like, I think I'm ready and start taking photos, only to discover that I hadn't changed my glasses and donned my helmet and goggles, while everyone else can't wait to get off an overcast windy summit. Dam good thing that last volcano, the summit was calm and sunny and no one was in a rush to get off it. There is definitely room for improvement. My team should wear more layers and enjoy the moment, the long moment

 

[karlo]

I’m also curious how long you’re spending in the skintrack to cover ~900-1000 ft of gain?

I came up with an estimate. 900ft is about 300m? On the last day, while the rest of us took lifts to the top of Corralco resort and skied a bit while waiting, our guide and the Norwegian did that gain in about 1h 40m. The guide had estimated that the two of them would do it in 2h. I’m assuming I would have done it in 2h 30m minimum, pretty slow.

 

[cantunamunch]

Interesting. Any idea how steep it was and how much they zigzagged? Those numbers strike me like they covered a lot of run to get that rise.


BTW, one of the downsides of taper is that it sinks your heel in loose snow - making the ski sit steeper than the nominal skin track line.

 

[karlo]

Interesting. Any idea how steep it was and how much they zigzagged? Those numbers strike me like they covered a lot of run to get that rise.

Here's the Norwegian near the summit of Lonquimay The photo gives you an idea about the angle of slope.

Here's me on the same slope roughly; also near the summit

Yes, the photo of the Norwegian is staged. He was kind enough to stay close to us. He is mainly a backcountry skier, hardly ever going to a resort except on holidays to the alps. I'm mainly an Eastern resort skier. Then, there was the Reno Nevadan that trained 2-3 hours a day every day for a few months before the trip. Then, there was the Argentinian windsurfer that hadn't skied in 5 years, but in pretty good shape for a guy who had a bad head cold until the last couple days.

Here’s the route taken up Lonquimay, without switchbacks. I saw the two going up the resort. I don’t recall them doing any switchbacks.

 

[cantunamunch]

I see, so they were basically easy-pacing well below their ATs on a direct line up.

Yes, the photo of the Norwegian is staged. He was kind enough to stay close to us. He is mainly a backcountry skier, hardly ever going to a resort except on holidays to the alps.

That reminds me of a story - herself was going to a yoga class and one of her classmates was going to do a boat-served fjordsidecountry ski trip. My first response was "Wait - what? She's going to Norway for a BC ski trip and she's not doing aerobic training?" Apparently her boyfriend saw no problem with that.

She went. She was slow. She was miserable - and bailed on at least 4 of the days they had.

 

[Ken_R]

One thing that makes a big difference in the skiing feel of pin bindings is if the heel is designed to be "gapless" or snug against the rear boot fitting or not. Newer bindings like Dynafits ST/FT2's and G3's Ion and Zed are designed that way and take away a lot of the loose, suspended on pins, feeling of the heel since the heel is pressed forward into the boot by spring pressure as the ski bends. To me the difference is dramatic when compared to older Dynafit style pin bindings that require a gap so the binding is able to release the boot properly when the ski is bent. The newer bindings feel much more precise on hard snow.

 

[karlo]

I've not judged how a ski performs by its looks before, except width and length. And, presence of rocker and absence of rocker.

@karlo So these are the Pandora 94 (left) and 104 (right), both in the same length and mostly to scale (ish). The rocker on the 104 takes up a larger percentage of the ski than the 94. That’s the rockerline. Some people call it a long rocker or deep rockerline. Splay is the distance between your tips when you put your skis base to base. At least in this picture, the splat between the two doesn’t look drastically different.

That’s why hardpack/soft snow performance is so much more nuanced than “is the ski fat or nah?”
View attachment 82388

I don't see that. Looking at the tip, then gazing down, they both seem to converge at about the same point. Looking at the tail, then gazing up, they also seem to coverge at about the same point. How should I be looking at this?

@karlo , just to clarify a bit more on what @Analisa showed, splay is the height at the end of the ski, rocker refers to the end(s) of the ski being lifted of the snow from somewhere closer to the center.
Pretty much any modern all mountain, touring or freeride ski has at least tip rocker. Heck, some backcountry Nordic skis have rocker!

View attachment 82390

Here are images of Kastle TX98 and Salomon MTN Exlporer 95.
This is what I see. Comments please.

The TX98 has a wider waist, confirmed by specs
The TX98 has a higher radius, confirmed by the 21 vs 18 stated radius.
The MTN has more tip taper? Less hooking in heavy snow?
The MTN has more tail taper, narrowing to a narrower tail-end of ski? Easier release of tail in heavy snow?
The TX98 has less tip rocker, with skis touching further forward? Less float to rise out of snow than the MTN, except maybe the wider tip compensates?
The TX98 has more camber, the two skis more spread out at the center than the MTN; better for ice and hardpack?
The TX98 has more tail rocker, converging further away from the tail-end than the MTN? Better slarving?
The MTN has more tip splay, the two tips being further apart that with the TX98? Better float? Along with more tip rocker, a lot better float?
The TX89 has more tail splay? What would this do?

Outdoor Gearlab feels that the TX98 skis short. Why would that be? Looks like a long "effective edge" to me. But, I'm not sure I am looking at the right thing.