UKH

I'm moving to Inverness for a couple of years and am looking to get a set of skis. Ideally I want to be able to ski into crags (if suitable conditions), go to the Alps and do a bit of touring with friends and also have the ability to do some lift assisted skiing when it takes my fancy.

As it stands, I'm fairly competent on piste but not done much off, so it wil be a bit of a learning experience. I'm not looking for anything amazing, as there will probably inadvertently be rocks involved somewhere at some stage...

I broadly understand the difference between dynafit and other bindings. Are dynafit bindings the way forward for this sort of use? Additionally what size/width skis would be a good start? I'm about 6ft; some friends had suggested between 170 and 185 would be about right for a punter like me.

Thanks.

Oli

In reply to Oli:


Fairly rare!


Yes.

In reply to Oli:

Ski to climb? Never happens......

Dynafit ? The way to go.

In reply to Oli:

Well I went through a phase of skinning / skating / skiing into crags, particularly places like carn etchachan. I would leave the skis and paraphernalia at the top, decend an easy gully and then climb up strap on and ski out. It was faster but it was also much more fun.
I stopped doing it as the person I would do it with mostly climbs abroad now and rarely climbs in scotland.
Dynafit kit is very good. Fritschi is also very good. If I were you I would buy what ever appears first and cheapest on the second hand market.
James
P.s. Ski mountain boots are fantastic for snowor ice, a bit clunky for mixed but as with everything it's more about whose foot is in the boot, rather than the boot.

In reply to Oli:

Definitely Dynafit style bindings. Fritschi have small benefits (no special boot fittings needed, you can change to walk mode on flats without taking off skis which is sometimes nice), but the lightweight of Dynafit is really worth it. For ski length, I wouldn't go much less than 180. Modern "rocker" skis curve away from the snow at the front, so they're effectively shorter than the length in must conditions.
For what you describe it's more about the journey than the downhill ski, so get lightweight gear, a ski width of around 90 is enough. Definitely not more than 100.
Dynafit have upgraded all their boots and bindings this season (mostly just colour) so you should be able to get good deals on last season's gear.
A setup example is k2 wayback 96, 184cm. Dynafit radical st binding, Dynafit tlt6 mountain boots.

In reply to Oli:

>I'm about 6ft; some friends had suggested between 170 and 185 would be about right for a punter like me.

Skis don't really care all that much, on how tall you are. But they do care on how much you weight.

I'm between 70 and 75kg, and my skis are between 180 an 195cm. For touring oriented rigs, I generally look for a flat tail (ie. no twintips) and 180 to 185cm.

The more you plan on touring, the more dynafiddles make sense.

More on the skis. You should really look for a waist of 90 to 110mm and preferable a long turn radii (like 20+, preferable closer to 30m). That is for skiing around the world and emphasis on coming down. You can get misery stixes (I have a few) that are shorter and narrower, great on flying up mountains but not so much fun coming down.


As for getting scratches from rocks... A wise man once told me, that all skis are rock skis .

Sport-Conrad often has last years skis on rather good prices (between 100 and 250 Eur). And remember, skis do wear out but usually the binders last longer (as in numerous skis).

In reply to Oli:

My Dynafiddles lasted two trips then I binned them as they were just too fiddly in deep wet snow and iced up something chronic. Very nice bindings in ideal conditions though, and Ok if you are very patient and have a very low blood pressure!

Switched to Fritshi eagles which are trouble free but a bit heavier.

That's for AT touring: for crag approach I have a dedicated set of 130cm / 95 waist skis with modified Silvretta 555 bindings which will take a variety of boots: some trips are climb orientated, some trips the ski has greater importance and that will dictate which boots use. I use the 130's if I intend to climb with the skis, otherwise I'd use my 170 touring skis.
And yes, the ski 'knows' what you weigh [with sack], not how tall you are.

In reply to Oli:

Take a look at Down Skis. They have 2 dedicated lightweight touring skis: YW8 89 in 172cm and the YW8 102 in 179cm & 186cm

http://www.downskis.com/skis#yw8

And they're pretty 'cheap' in terms of what you can pay for decent skis. I haven't skied them though but a mate of mine has a pair of Down skis and rates them highly.

Failing that, and if money is no object, get a pair of Whitedot R.98's (or R.108's for those deeper days) in the Carbonlite versions for added weight saving (or in their standard versions if weight isn't an issue)

All the above have a rockered tip, flat tail and a large turn radius with slight camber underfoot.

Dynafit style bindings are also the way to go. The TLT radical is probably the most popular as its pretty light and caters for 90% of the british population who go ski touring. Or Plum (ploom) bindings with their forward facing breaks.

In reply to Oli:
Well I'd have thought if you aren't a great skier (punter) then you may be better off with fritschi bindings bearing in mind you may be falling over quite a lot carrying a climbing pack as they release a bit easier then dynafits.

In reply to Oli:
Picking up on the the OP - sounds like you might want one ski setup to fit all...

Tricky. You might have to compromise in some respects, as I'm sure you can appreciate.

If you're are more serious about the downhill - and the reality of rock/heather/ice scottish conditions (plus going overseas to resorts) - you might want something more heavyweight. For example, I myself (170cm/70kg) have a typical "combat" and piste bashing setup based on an old pair of Iki Movements (178cm long/117-80-107) for which I don't care too much about the bases, and (crucially) Marker Dukes for simple, solid and secure side-country/off-piste. But they are as heavy as anything.

If you are serious about being able to walk in when, ideally, the conditions are right, then the modern lightweight setup based on dynafits makes sense. For travelling fast and enjoying good conditions I have another setup based on the shorter=lighter BD Stigmas (168cm long/114-80-104) and Fritschi Vipec's. These are a joy to skin up (although the binding can be a faff sometimes to get in and pop out of). However, coming down if you hit any Scottish "boilerplate" they will chatter rather disconcertingly, and breaking through crud takes a change in style. All part of the fun.

The guys at Alpine Guides have some great advice on various ski setups http://www.alpine-guides.com/skiing/advice/choosing-a-ski-setup.html

Also, lots of good ski-touring clubs about these days - who can hire you out gear to try. This seems a nice club, and ideal for someone moving to the Inverness area: http://www.ibsc.org.uk

And as a final pointer - Telemark Pyrenees are good for gear http://www.telemark-pyrenees.com/en/ and seemingly have one of those "Black Xday" sale on (at least until tomorrow...

In reply to Oli:

I cant offer any ski advice but what you are after doing sounds very similar to what i fancy having a go at. I'm in elgin so if you fancy a day out, give me a shout. Also, as mentioned above, have a look at the inverness backcountry snowsports club, they look to have a good setup, i just joined this year so we'll see how it is. I'm an average skier, average climber but like a good Scottish adventure.

Chris

In reply to timlukins:

Thanks everyone.

I think you're right in that I want something I can do a bit of everything on. I've got a greater understanding of what I need to be looking for in skis and can see there is a bit of a split over dynafit bindings - some clearly don't get on with them!

I will keep an eye out on eBay and various other places and see what pops up for sale. Other than weight, are there any other significant advantages of dynafit?

In reply to Oli:


Yes, power transfer ( https://www.wildsnow.com/379/backcountry-skiing-binding-flex-tests/ ) and also more moving weight as opposed to static weight. With frame buildings, every step you lift majority of the weight up, where as with dynafits (or similar) it's only the boot that you'll be lifting.

They are more fiddly though, than say Marker F10 Tours...

In reply to Oli:

G3 ions seem to be the easiest tech binding to get into, much easier than Plum and Dynafiddle that I've used in the past, and they appear easier than my friends' vipecs. I imagine Kingmakers are as easy, but they're heavier and pricier.
I've used the ions for 2 seasons now and love them. I got into touring via plate bindings like the F12s, Barons and Freerides, like many I imagine, but to others just getting into it, I'd advise go straight to the new generation of tech bindings if you have compatible boots: it doesn't look like they are any significant advantages of the plate bindings anymore.

One comment about the oft quoted phrase that the ski doesn't know what height you are: is this really true? Unless you have a constant, dead-centered upright stance, centre of mass is going to make a big difference in 2 skiers both 75kg, one 6ft and the other 5ft8. As the former, I've tried to go shorter to lose weight on skis, and found them harder and less fun to ski. I now wouldn't bother with less than about 184 for tours with any amount of downhill.

In reply to damowilk:


Weight has a much greater impact than the skiers height. If you're tall and thin or short and stubby... You might need to think a bit more. But in general you should think more about the weight. After all tall or short, you're still connected at the same spot to the ski. And to be honest, unless you're doing Super-G or something, the center of ones mass doesn't change that much (be the skier tall or short).


Oh, and "Short skis suck, and long skis truck."

In reply to HeMa:

Maybe we need some experiments with helium balloons and weights on skiers