Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Cletus

  1. we did Orizaba pretty quickly, I guess day 6 of the trip, but it's only only a 2 day climb. Was living at 5k at the time. Flew in and slept one night in D.F. at 8k or so, then traveled to Malinche as well for a day hike. Then to Reyes, and had one night there (10k?). Up to the hut and pitched a tent nearby, 14k. Half day to 16k, bit of a nap, then summit and back down to town the next day. Didn't hurt at all. Nice peak.

  2. I ride these with alpine binders on em, and I absolutely love them. They're so light, I am thinking of throwing some Freerides on em and making em my next AT setup when I slay the current rig. Do it, you won;t be sorry.


    FYI: 5'10" 175-180lbs -> 183cm

  3. what a funny little thread

    boy, haven't been around here in a while

    personal preference ok, but I grew up in Boulder, and lived in Bend for the last odd years, and I gotta say, I love Boulder, always will, but dood, you're delusional.


    Bend - better snowpack, better backcountry, ZERO traffic and lines at the mountain, and more bottomless days. Yeah, sure, it don't have the CU hotties around, but 6 inches at Bachy is thick enough to float ya; 6 inches of dust on crust in CO isn't shit. And facking forget the 3 hour drive on I-70 on a weekend afternoon. When I lived in Bend, I used to go ski before work because Bachy was only 25 mins up the road. Sure as shit can't do that in Boulder. Admittedly, the climbing is a lot better. But even then, smiffytufftuff has a special place in my heart.


    Oh and steepy (whassup A!), Bachy aint big mountain in the slightest. Now, go across the street to BT, and you can scare yourself all you want!


    peace yo, OBC (original bend crew?) reprasent!

  4. regardless that is a sick setup, can't believe you want to part with it. If I didn't already have it I would buy it


    No, I love the setup. Love it. But I now have a fatter softer setup for pow days, which means these get used only in variable b/c days, for longer tours, and while climbing volcanos in the spring...and if that's their new purpose for me, I'd rather have slightly less ski. Actually, what I'd really like to do is sell these off and put together the exact same setup again, only at the 177cm length. I would keep the Freerides and just work on getting the 177cm R.EXs, but then someone has to drill another set of holes in these 10.EXs, and I'd just as soon try to find someone who wants the setup as a package, for their own good.


    But yeah, rockin setup. I just want it a little smaller.


    Anyway, re: boot size: I'm a 10 street shoe, about 27.0 in AT boots, 310 mm Denalis. Alpine boots are Nordicas, 27.5 shell, 315mm. Euro that's like 42.5 or so, I think. So yeah, that conversion above is a bit off.


    Somebody buy my skis!

  5. 01-02 Atomic 10.EXs 184cm, puchased March 02

    Fritchi Freerides size Medium, boots up to 330mm or so

    Ascension Clipfix Skins trimmed for skis


    Put two seasons of PacNW volcano corn skiing on these, awesome setup. Used, but NOT AT ALL used up. Camber on these skis is still AS good as the day they arrived, bases are pristine with only one repair (not at the edge), done so well that I now have a hard time finding it. Topsheets are plenty scuffed from touring and carrying on packs, etc, but the bases are in great shape. Freerides are forward mounted 1.5 cms for a 310mm boot, in order to make the ride a bit more manageable in AT boots. Slap a larger boot in there, say 320-325mm and they'll effectively be mounted just a smidge ahead of the line, perfecto. Put an alpine boot in there and they rip. The Freerides are scuffed up a bit as well, and the heel elevators are dinged up from pole usage in switching from touring to skiing, but its all still totally good to go.


    I am only getting rid of them because I have a wider/softer backcountry pow setup now, the corn/mountaineering season is 5 months away, and I could use the money in the meantime. I'm willing to sell skis and binders seperately, but I wouldn't recommend it. The current mounting is the second drilling (I started with them mounted on the line before moving them up), and it's a foam core ski, so a third set of holes wouldn't be so great.


    These make a perfect setup for a skier looking for a wide-but-not-superfat, in and out of bounds, one-ski-can-do-almost-everything ride. It's light for touring, stiff for hardpack, crud, and groomers, fast, and has some good float for all but the super deep. And you can ride them in alpine boots or AT.


    Make me an offer, I want to sell these!

    Shipping from Oregon in the next couple days, or I can deliver to SLC and possibly CO within the next two weeks.


    Post replies here.




  6. You've already nailed the top of the list.


    Whitewater, 10k from Nelson

    Red Mountain, just up from Rossland

    Kicking Horse + Fernie, by Golden

    and of course, Banff/Lake Louise, which is big and touristy.


    WH20 is small, but gets great snow and has amazing b/c. Local vibe is big. Relatively high elevation. Older lifts, good feeling, great town (Nelson). I love this place, and have been back each of the past two seasons.


    Red is a bit bigger, steeper, has great trees, little cliffs, everywhere. One fantastic hike-to venue with great steeps and pow. However, Red is a little lower, and can get foggy.


    I've never been to Golden, but it's supposed to be the best of the bunch from a terrain perspective. A little more of a real town, and famous for fresh meat mondays at the local peeler bar (strip club), and 4k vert or something ridonkulous. Looks bitchin. But like you said, it's way up there if you're coming from Skiattle.


    go git em tiger, spray on!

  7. glacier said:

    Was talking with a ski instructor buddy on ski lengths today (I'm shopping for alpine, all-mountain). With respect to the above posters' comments - the shaped ski length you want is based on the 'effective length' of the ski - that is, the length of the edge based on the amount of sidecut. So you'll want to look at not only the width of the waist of the ski, but also the relative width difference between the waist and the tip - e.g. greater difference = more effective edge = recommended shorter ski.


    Just one more thing the muddy the waters.


    If you actually read the above posters comments, you'll see that they are basically the same as yours, and actually give a ballpark answer instead of a vague calculation. wink.gif More often than not, "modern shapes" have sidecuts that result in longer running lengths, which in turn mean shorter skis, by around 10-15cms.


    This really isn't that hard. If you ski a straight stick in 190, you should be on a wider curvier stick in about 175-180, unless you want to make slalom turns (go shorter) or rip deep pow and turn a lot less (go longer), are particularly light (go shorter), or heavy (go longer), the ski is super stiff (go shorter), or a wet noodle (go longer), etc, etc.


    No, wait, it is that complicated after all - what about twin tips? Oh shit, the turned up tail is going to change the effective running length, so I'm going to have to do all my calculations over!!!! I take it all back. Disregard everything I said! laugh.gif

  8. P.S.


    5'10" 180-185lbs.

    Tele setup is 180cm, 84 underfoot (Fischer Big Stix 84).

    AT skis are 184cm, 84 underfoot, and I want to downsize to 177cm (Atomic 10.EX).

    All around alpine skis are 181cm, 80mm underfoot.

    My only pair of skis at the 190cm mark are reserved for epic POW days in bounds and for when I go to Utah, Tahoe, and other places where you can point em and let them run.


    My 2 cents.



  9. How much should you dial back the length of a ski as the waist width increases?


    From old school skinnys to modern mid-fats with shape? About 10-15cm, depending on aggressiveness, intended usage, weight, etc, etc, etc. From relatively modern skinnys (like the Supers) to fatter boards, maybe a little less, but still a pretty significant decrease. 10cms or so.


    I'm currently on 188cm Super Stinx (70mm), and am considering Crossbows (82mm). Should I be looking at the 179 or the 187cm? I'm planning to use them in the backcountry, and probably some off-piste at the lifts.


    Almost certainly the 179. The combination of b/c usage and your height/weight makes a 180cm by 82mm ski just about right, unless you are SUPER aggressive or haul ass solely in open bowls, etc. The shorter length is better for touring (weight), and better for varied conditions, which I assume you'll be hitting in the PacNW b/c (trees, bowls, chutes, etc).


    What are the consequences of choosing too short or too long?


    Too short = loss of float, loss of stability at speed, less platform for landing burly hucks wink.gif

    Too long = loss of control/manueverability, more weight, etc.


    The real question is what type of terrain and snow conditions you plan to use this setup for. If the answer is "whatever's out there," then the 179 Crossbow is a great choice. Light, stable, not too fat, and the shorter length allows short hop turns for dicey sitchmos, easier kick turns while skinning, etc, etc. If the answer is POW POW POW, and nothing but POW, then you've got the length right, about 180cm, but why not go fatter underfoot? Today's fatties are remarkably responsive. In that case, if you like Black Diamond, look into the Crossbow's new big brother, the Havoc, at 88mm underfoot. Be warned, however: once you go fat, you'll never go back. Or so they say. smile.gif

  10. its been pretty effen sweet down here actually


    went up today though and the 8 inches of new was sludge. Bat guano.


    I'm meeting a buddy up at Hood Meadows tomorrow though, little change of pace, right? Keep an eye out if any of you are going up, would love to meet and greet. Red jacket (always), tan pants, red boots. Most likely on big black skis - right ski will have cc.com stickers on it (larry and a snaffle). Feel free to heckle us if you see us.