First touring setup - Any opinions on these skis?

H

harambe

New member
Hey all,

I've read a bunch of posts on this forum already, but figured I would post something more specific to me.

I'm trying to build my first touring setup and have bunch of skis I'm trying to decide between. Profile is a lighter aggressive skier at 5'9" and about 135lbs, currently ride 180 Soul 7s in the resort (Sierra mountains), spending almost all of my time on the blacks/double blacks.

The things I like about the 2016 Soul 7's with my Pivot bindings is the fact that they're light and maneuverable. I can glide on powder days but also catch air and rip a line of bumps. Obviously they aren't great in hard pack or crud, but I still have fun on them.

Looking for a BC ski under the $1k price range that will handle some charging. I don't really see myself using this ski at the resort since I have my 7's for that. Probably will be touring more in softer snow and after fresh dumps as opposed to wind blown and cruddy. Since I'm on the lighter side, I probably want to stay on the lighter side of skis, but want to make sure I don't go so light that the ski isn't fun. I didn't start looking too much into bindings yet, but will probably be aiming for something like the Fritschi Tecton's because I'm overly paranoid about a pre-release while charging.

Here are the skis I'm trying to decide between, in no particular order. I can get a pretty good deal on the Helio 105s and the Backland FR 102s. I'm just not sure if the Helios are too light and will feel like more of a traverse oriented ski rather than a fun riding ski.

Head Kore 105

Zero G 108

Volkl VTA 108

Atomic Backland FR 102

Atomic Backland 107

Black Diamond Route 105

Black Diamond Helio 105

Voile SuperCharger

Let me know what you think. Thanks!
 
I'd go with something narrower honestly.

It's the sierras.. what happens after a storm? the pow consolidates pretty densely... I generally don't find myself ever touring on anything wider than about 103..

Today I was out on a pair of Icelantic Vanguard 97's and it was awesome.. and I was skiing 5 day old freshies... that's about all you'll ever really need in maritime snowpacks.

I'll give you some other options instead.

BD Route 95. (go if you want a damper yet heavier version of the helio)

BD Helios 95. (go if you want a snappier, lighter version of the route)

Black Crows Camox Freebird (not the lightest, but skis really really nicely)

Blizzard Zero G 95 (much more useable as an everyday touring ski than the 108)

Dynastar Mythic 97

K2 Wayback 96

Honestly, any of these will be good... I've skied the entire lot of them, and they all have their pros and don't have a terrible amount of cons. Take your pick. You'll enjoy the snot out of them, and they'll all be much lighter and usable than the list you provided.

Springtime corn is what you live for skiing backcountry in the sierras... any of these will absolutely win at that endeavor.
 
Thanks for the feedback, it definitely makes sense. I'm thinking about going with the DYNAFIT BEAST 98 in that case (deciding between 170 or 177). It's a little heavier than skis of comparable size, but the reviews for both powder and hard pack performance are outstanding. I read another great ski in this width is the Kastle TX 98, however that one's much more expensive. For bindings I'm thinking the Tecton 12's or the Shifts, but am leaning towards the Tecton's as they are lighter and will still have great downhill performance.
 
the beast 98's are a good ski. Yeah. a bit heavier, but they perform really really well.

Can't really go wrong with the Tecton...
 
I would go with the Tectons. I bought the shift and have been having issues with it, vertical play in the toe and trouble getting it to stay locked into walk mode while going uphill. Also getting into the toe when going up on the tectons is much easier than the shift.

**This post was edited on Jan 18th 2019 at 1:28:54pm
 
13985434:DingoSean said:
Today I was out on a pair of Icelantic Vanguard 97's and it was awesome..

Blizzard Zero G 95

Dynastar Mythic 97

K2 Wayback 96
Click to expand...

I've tried the Mythic 97 yesterday (mounted with Kingpin), and I really enjoyed them. They felt light enough going uphill and super solid, yet easy enough to ski, on the way down.

How do the Vanguard, Zero G and Wayback compare to them? (considering I'd probably use the Shift I already own)

Not super easy to find demos to try those around where I live...
 
14005393:BrawnTrends said:
I've tried the Mythic 97 yesterday (mounted with Kingpin), and I really enjoyed them. They felt light enough going uphill and super solid, yet easy enough to ski, on the way down.

How do the Vanguard, Zero G and Wayback compare to them? (considering I'd probably use the Shift I already own)

Not super easy to find demos to try those around where I live...
Click to expand...

the Zero G 95 is pretty similar, albeit with a longer turning radius..

the Vanguard and the Wayback are mostly just damper.

Either way, using a shift on those seems counterproductive. The shift weighs way too much.
 
Thanks for the info!

14006552:DingoSean said:
Either way, using a shift on those seems counterproductive. The shift weighs way too much.
Click to expand...

Well of course I would prefer to have a lighter binding, but the Kingpin felt pretty great on the way up with the Mythic 97 (which felt great on piste too) and I already own a pair of Shift, so that would make me save a considerable amount of money for a second pair of narrower 50/50 skis.
 
Choose a ski you like. You can t do much wrong there. Radius of 30m upwards is awesome when the conditions are bad. Ice, hard pack, avalanche debris and so on because they ll jsut go straight and are therefore pretty predictable. Weight isn t too important. If you have the chance to test some go for it. That s the best way to find a ski that suits you.

If you haven t decided on the binding yet, I d throw the G3 Ion 12 into the mix. Currently I have over 100 days skiing and touring on mine and it holds up like a beast. The ski is a lowdown 102 (41m radius here) and I ski almost exclusively steep and technical stuff. Ascend between 500-2000 vertical meters. So a reliable binding up and downwards is pretty much required. I lock my front toe though. If you want to use your ski for something else you can stop reading here.

Why ion 12?

Tecton was too new (not too keen to gamble with my life. I want to use a proven concept), Beast too heavy and no flat walking mode, Radical 12 was considered as well but the Ion looked and felt sturdier, Vipec is good too but I have fritschi trust issues regarding their 16 and 17 vipec models, Kingpin aka king-with-no-pins, shift: too new not proven, atk raider 12/14 a bit too pricey and the plum yak was considered as well. It was a close race between plum yak, radical 12 and ion 12. Went for the g3 because I got a good deal.

Enjoy the touring and stay safe out there!!

I am all around happy with my choice. Really reliable and I had no issues yet. It s a 16/17 model.
 
14006630:_faaa said:
Weight isn t too important.
Click to expand...

Haha this is very much dependent on your goals...

Last thing I want is to bring a heavy ski setup to a trailhead in order to summmit a 4000m peak..
 
Well I ended up keeping the Shift on the CT 3.0 for deeper days and I got a pair of 2017 Faction Agent 90 in 174 for dirt cheap that I mounted with Dynafit Speed Turn 2.0. The skis are a little on the soft side, but they're light enough (under 1300g) for what I need them for.
 
14007034:DingoSean said:
Haha this is very much dependent on your goals...

Last thing I want is to bring a heavy ski setup to a trailhead in order to summmit a 4000m peak..
Click to expand...

I wholeheartly agree on that. It s always a hassle to find a balance between ascend and descend. I am fine with a setup that weights 3,5kg per foot (boot + binding + ski +skin). I use it for everything. Short tours out of a resort, 4000+m peaks, multi day touring, steep skiing etc. obviously it doesnt perform that great in some areas. (*cough* blasting resort or deep days. 102 has it s limits). A touring setup is always a tradeoff if it s your only one.

thinking about that: I still haven t mounted my radical on my steeple 112
 
I have a pair of Helio 105's and they actually rip pretty well in most backcountry scenarios I've skied. I've also skied them in resort quite a bit and they handle fine on hard pack at speed, but anything chattery doesn't feel great, but the kingpins might also be a contributor to that. They're ridiculously light but it makes maneuvering in trees really easy. I just hope I don't snap them with how I ski, but after probably 80 days of touring, they're in great condition other than some topsheet chipping. I would also consider the helio 95 if I were you.
 
Stick with something around the 105 range, especially if you are in the Sierras, personally tour around Tahoe, I ride the K2 Mind-bender 108, with the Atomic shift, Great setup and no regrets. Yes the ski has metal, but Im 6'4 190, and ski pretty hard, so I don't mind the heavier ski. Stay away from the Blizzard Zero G and the Black Diamond skis, bc they just aren't enough ski. Yes they are light, but what you gain in the uphill, you definitely will feel on the downhill, just because they are so light and floppy. Head Kore 105 and the Atomic Backland 107 are the skis i would go for, just because they are more ski, and you will get more bang for your buck, with out sacrificing much weight. Also, Line just released the Vision seres, and they come in a 105ish, and that is a rad ski! Freestyle oriented, and plenty wide, but they are light enough for the BC. Nothing wrong with using a freeride ski for the BC, just makes the downhill way more fun IMO. Also, the lighter skis, like the Zero G and the BD Helio will cost you more, bc they are lighter, so steer clear of those. Do your thing, but if you arent too worried abt weight, go for something that is just gonna be a fun ski all around! But the most important piece to your setup is your boots forsure. MAKE SURE YOU GO TO A SHOP AND GET THEM FITTED BY A BOOTFITTER!!! Get a hybrid and get it fit right and you will be stoked, unless you want sore feet. Thats all i gotta say, good luck on your purchases.
 
14030153:dannydevito. said:
Stick with something around the 105 range, especially if you are in the Sierras, personally tour around Tahoe, I ride the K2 Mind-bender 108, with the Atomic shift, Great setup and no regrets. Yes the ski has metal, but Im 6'4 190, and ski pretty hard, so I don't mind the heavier ski. Stay away from the Blizzard Zero G and the Black Diamond skis, bc they just aren't enough ski. Yes they are light, but what you gain in the uphill, you definitely will feel on the downhill, just because they are so light and floppy. Head Kore 105 and the Atomic Backland 107 are the skis i would go for, just because they are more ski, and you will get more bang for your buck, with out sacrificing much weight. Also, Line just released the Vision seres, and they come in a 105ish, and that is a rad ski! Freestyle oriented, and plenty wide, but they are light enough for the BC. Nothing wrong with using a freeride ski for the BC, just makes the downhill way more fun IMO. Also, the lighter skis, like the Zero G and the BD Helio will cost you more, bc they are lighter, so steer clear of those. Do your thing, but if you arent too worried abt weight, go for something that is just gonna be a fun ski all around! But the most important piece to your setup is your boots forsure. MAKE SURE YOU GO TO A SHOP AND GET THEM FITTED BY A BOOTFITTER!!! Get a hybrid and get it fit right and you will be stoked, unless you want sore feet. Thats all i gotta say, good luck on your purchases.
Click to expand...

After looking at blister reviews the sick day series looks like another good option. They can sing only praise about the 104. Sorry to hijack the thread but I'm starting to eye up a touring setup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top