Gear Mid-90’s touring skis

[jmeb]

@Ken_R makes a good point on the gap-based binding vs "kiss" gap bindings. Although it isn't necessarily a "new" binding vs "old" thing as there are many new bindings coming out with heel gaps (Mtn, ATK varieties, etc) as well as some now 5+ year old bindings with kiss gaps (Ion, Vipec).

Some new intriguing kiss gaps bindings are the the Marker Alpinist and the Fristchi Xenic. Both of which are <300g bindings.

No one is going to be able to tell you fine differences between the TX and the MTN unless they've skied them both. The way all those design characteristics come together into how a ski skis is more than just the sum of its parts. The MTN is most likely a good bit damper simply due to its size.

 

[karlo]

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.

For sure, being accustomed to the aerobic requirements is necessary. But, it is also outright strength, which I don't think yoga imparts either. I discovered that when my, as I also discovered, my-not-yet fully rehabilitated left glutes gave out. Would I do it again? Yes. First, I now know where they give out and I would go on tours where I can sit out elevation gain I can't do, waiting for the others to return. Makes me the good court photographer. Volcano tours are great so long as the objective is not a hot springs at the bottom of the opposite side. Second, I now know what strengthening I need and have started doing so. But, in any instance, at least until I have rebuilt strength, I know I can't be on 85 width skis and fighting so hard to maintain fore-aft balance. That fight was miserable.

 

[karlo]

No one is going to be able to tell you fine differences between the TX and the MTN unless they've skied them both.

From looking at them side by side, would you say there is little difference? By appearances, they are the same type of ski for the same intents? If so, I think I won't be able to tell the difference, except that I think I like the smaller radius of the MTN.

 

[Analisa]

@karlo - the reflectivity of the edges doesn't help - sorry about that. I've noted about where the contact point is on both. Having skied these back to back at the K2 Friends & Fam event in both the 172 and 165 for each, I'm definitely a comfortable 172 in the 104 and would probably "round down" to the 165 for the 94. This year's sidewalls are blue, but the 84 and 94 are likely swapped on this year's product pages.

And agree with @jmeb - specs only help you narrow down categories. Like the Bent Chetler 120 and Backland 117 look like they have a ton of overlap with only 3mm difference at the waist. But the Bent is mounted around -3 from true center vs. -9.5 or something like that for the Backland. The flex pattern (which images won't show you, and also impacts the turn radius since it gets shorter the more you flex a ski) also really differs between the two. The Bent has a really symmetrical flex where the shovels ramp up flex and tail ramp down in roughly the same pattern. Backlands are a lot more directional with tails that are stiffer than the tips. Once you're shopping in the same class (like Bents vs. Armada JJs), stats stop being helpful and the best thing to do is track down a demo.

 

[Rod9301]

From looking at them side by side, would you say there is little difference? By appearances, they are the same type of ski for the same intents? If so, I think I won't be able to tell the difference, except that I think I like the smaller radius of the MTN.

The smaller radius of the mtn makes it less stable at speed in firm uneven snow, which is why i sold them.

 

[karlo]

The smaller radius of the mtn makes it less stable at speed in firm uneven snow, which is why i sold them.

I’m a short turn medium turn skier. Too bad I missed the opportunity

 

[Snowflake2420]

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.

+1

I have the Zeds on a pair of Voile Superchargers and the Zeds have been much more enjoyable than earlier setups I had with Dynafit TLTs and FTs. I believe the ramp angle is also less with some of newer tech bindings, which I find to be "closer" to my alpine setup feel as much as that is possible while still being on a tech binding.

I can see this thread is focusing on a few skis, but I've really enjoyed the Voiles as a backcountry only ski.

 

[karlo]

I've noted about where the contact point is on both.

The ski on the right has what is called “earlier rise”, which also reduces effective edge? And, all else equal, that means better flotation and less tip hook?

 

[karlo]

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.

Are MTN bindings hapless?

 

[Ken_R]

Are MTN bindings hapless?

I think they are not but I am not 100% sure.

 

[karlo]

I think they are not but I am not 100% sure.

can't tell if you are kidding at my expense. I meant gapless.

 

[Ken_R]

can't tell if you are kidding at my expense. I meant gapless.

Not kidding, at least not this time I got the typo no worries.

 

[jmeb]

Are MTN bindings hapless?

no they are not. Read the review from blister I posted above for a good overview

 

[karlo]

Perusing Powder today, I noticed the new Marker Kingpin M-Werks

https://www.powder.com/gear-guide/the-best-new-bindings-of-the-year/

540g without brakes, 620g with. Not 300g, but still much less than the Kingpin 13

 

[Rod9301]

Perusing Powder today, I noticed the new Marker Kingpin M-Werks

https://www.powder.com/gear-guide/the-best-new-bindings-of-the-year/

540g without brakes, 620g with. Not 300g, but still much less than the Kingpin 13

Crazy to even consider marker bindings after the problems they had with the kingpins.

 

[karlo]

Crazy to even consider marker bindings after the problems they had with the kingpins.

what problems?

 

[Rod9301]

what problems?

Breaking, pre releases.
Tgr has a thread on this.

 

[jmeb]

what problems?

Kingpin had a series of issues, toe pins shearing off, toe pins falling out, and heel tracks breaking. Recalls were issued.

Frankly, writing off a brand entirely after one bad product is a bit silly IMHO. If that was the case, there should be no way anyone should recommend a tech-binding product from Salomon as their first entry into the market were boots with pin inserts that were completely unsafe and resulted in multiple injuries. They went back, fixed things up, and now have two class leading tech binding products in the Shift and MTN.

There are lots of positive reviews of how well the new Marker Alpinist skis given it's weight. There are also a lot of people skeptical of Marker products after the Kingpin debacle. Sometimes this crosses the line into FUD. No one knows durability and reliability until something has been out for multiple years.

 

[4ster]

I have been skiing a pair of Goode Wasatch skis for a number of years now. Seem to do pretty well in a variety of conditions. I ski the 177cm at l believe 1220 grams...

I am not sure if they still make them, so may be difficult to find.

 

[karlo]

Re the Kingpins:

Breaking, pre releases.
Tgr has a thread on this.

I found the TGR thread. That's a bummer for those affected. Luckily it was only the 17/18 model year and that was recalled. The sets I have are earlier than that and later than that and I've not had any problems whatsoever. The time I needed them to release, they released. Still the Kingpin M-Werks, though lighter than the regular Kingpins, are still quite a bit heavier than the 300gm bindings. I'll see what I lose in the boots and skis, to see if I have headroom.

I have been skiing a pair of Goode Wasatch skis for a number of years now. Seem to do pretty well in a variety of conditions. I ski the 197cm at l believe 1220 grams..

Wow, I like that ski. 1220 at 197, amazing, for how old a ski? And, I like the tips, from before they became "tapered" (I am picking up vocabulary here.) And, those turns! Those are exactly the types of turns I like making, not the 40 mph gs or super-g turns; exactly what I'd expect from a ski that looks like this. How'd you get a 197 cm when the choices are 169, 177, 185? What model year is that one? What I found is the 2017