tslease_19 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 I'm looking to get into an AT setup geared toward climbing and I am wondering what the best way to go is. Im more interested in a setup thats light for the approach and retains decent skiabilty for the descent, but nothing extreme. I was thinking of Dynafit bindings because of the weight savings, however, seeing the weight of the Dynafit compatible boots I was thinking it might be better to go with Naxos or Fritschis and use my climbing boots (Scarpa Omegas). It seems like this would both save weight and be better for the climbing itself. I am also wondering about skis...everything seems to be geared towards fat skis for the descent....if I am more interested in the benefits of skis for the approach would it be a better setup to go with a narrower lighter ski? Such as the BD Nunyo's or Atomic MX 11's on sale right now. Thanks for any advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 I would not want to ski anything in Mountaineering boots. That would suck. I really wouldn't want to ski in mountainering boots and a full pack. That would suck balls. I've got Dynafits that were fitted to MX-7's and Scarpa Matrix boots. In all, it was light and skied well enough for a newb like me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Couloir Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 I would not want to ski anything in Mountaineering boots. That would suck. I really wouldn't want to ski in mountainering boots and a full pack. That would suck balls. I've got Dynafits that were fitted to MX-7's and Scarpa Matrix boots. In all, it was light and skied well enough for a newb like me. I definitely second that. I thought originally that because I wasn't descending hardcore--just trying to get back to the car and not having to walk out--that my Verticals would suffice. Not so. I recently got some Mega-rides (Dynafit compatible) and it makes a WORLD of difference. On top of that, they climb well and are as light as my Verticals. I am using Frischi's, but I am considering switching to Dynafits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowell_Skoog Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Dynafit makes some light boots (like the TLT4) that are, of course, Dynafit compatible. The TLT4 definitely skis better than a mountaineering boot. But mountaineering boots can take you far, if you learn how to ski them. The Silvretta 500 is the best binding for mountaineering boots that I know of. It's lighter than most other full-frame bindings and the toe and heel will fit just about any boot. The Atomic MX:11 is one of a long line of light, traditional-dimension AT skis. I've skied several skis in this line (Tourcap Guide, TG10, TM11) and have liked them all. These are the skis I use when I want to travel far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerJ Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 At the risk of repeating what was said, my climbinbg oriented setup is the light Dynafit boots (TLT4), Dynafit bindings and Atomic TM22's. I've climbed a couple of routes last year on Hood (Leuthold and Reid Headwall) just fine in the boots. I think those boots are lighter than Scarpa Alphas. However, due to the higher cuff, they offer less ankle flexibility. I don't like this setup for a day of backcountry skiing because the boots are pretty soft and I use different boots and skis for this But as an approach\descent this is this setup is great. -r Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
letsroll Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Second the Dynafit bingings. I climb in megarides and they climb quite well, I personally don't notice the "extra" weight. The higher ankle cuff makes the harder climbs more interesting some times, but tell you the truth on steep snow and ice they work great. Lean into the cuff take the pressure off the calves to drop the heal. On mixed and rock climbs I have used them but at that point I rather climb in leathers. Cross over to the dark side you will not regret it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccallboater Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Like Lowell, I also like my Silvretta 500's. I also ski in Lowa plastic mountaineering boots with my latest addition, a pair of Intuition liners that also fit my Veloce tele boots. I think they were intended as liners for snowboard boots. But they work just fine. One discovery that helps with the turns: using a light velcro strap around the upper cuff of the mountaineering boots gives them some additional lateral stiffness, while still retaining the ability to French crampon up stuff when the skis are on your back. I use the same velcro strap around the liners on my tele boots. A "power strap" I believe it's called. Skiing in mountaineering boots forces one to ski with good technique, but it works. My legs feel more tired after a long descent though. I also have a pair of lighter single leather climbing boots that make skiing quite a challenge. But if the intent is just to skin up some long snow slog or logging road to a climb, and turns are secondary, then I wouldn't hesitate to take them. That's the beauty of the Silveretta 500 versitality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weekend_Climberz Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 I found to my surprise that my Silvretta 555's will fit my plastic boots. I haven't skiied in them, but probably will try it soon just to see if it'll work. I've climbed a bit of WI3 in my Garmont G-Lite's and they seemed pretty well suited for the task. I would want to do much more than WI4 in those beasts though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tslease_19 Posted March 4, 2007 Author Share Posted March 4, 2007 Alright, thanks for all the advice and replies. Being a snowboarder trying to get into this I didnt realize there were so many different types of equipment out there for randonee. Ive decided to go with either K2 Ascent 8611's or Dynafit Tourlite Tech skis. The K2's are a 167 and about 100 bucks cheaper, as well as a little lighter. They are the 04 model (yellow and black) and seem to have gotten good reviews. The Dynafits are 180's and a bit heavier. Im leaning towards the K2's based on price mostly, but wondered if anyone had any thing to say about either pair. In terms of the sizing, I'm 5'9'' and about 160 lbs, so as far as I can tell either size will work. Thanks for all the help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccallboater Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I've got the K2 8611s and I like them. But they definetely do not have the bigger sweet spot that the wider, newer skis seem to have. However, in soft snow or easier conditions it doesn't really matter. Anything works. I'm about your size and I use 167's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccallboater Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I got a load of light-hearted abuse for using my "skinny" 8611's and mountaineering boots last weekend, surrounded by fat ski AT and tele folks while skiing and climbing Williams peak in the Sawtooths. Trip report soon... Mountaineering boots with crampons were the perfect combination when we had to tramp a half mile across the 40 degree S face of Williams. The afternoon slushy corn was easy to ski, though I avoided the steeper couloir skiing that a couple of the other guys managed on the N side of Thompson. Impressive work there. The rotten snow under the 6 inches of consolidated surface snow made for miserable thigh-deep wallowing in the afternoon. It also showed what little snow pack we actually have for runoff in Southern Idaho this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I've got the K2 8611s and I like them. But they definetely do not have the bigger sweet spot that the wider, newer skis seem to have. However, in soft snow or easier conditions it doesn't really matter. Fat skis are better in powder and mank. On ice narrower skis are generally better. Go to Europe and try to find a ski wider than 85mm at the waist, or longer than 180cm at a hut. You won't unless you dragged it up there. A majority will be ~75-80mm at the waist and 170cm long. These would make quite good climbing skis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhamaker Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 I weigh 130lbs and ski on the lightest cheapest 150cm's I can find in the kid's dept. One of my tele skis have a big side-cut, great for soft snow, but not good for ice, esp while skinning on a side hill. I ditched my old Silveretta 404's for a dynafit set-up. I like it. Though I'm Jonesing after a pair of Scarpa articulated boots. The temps here are mild, get the smallest shell you are comfortable in, wear overboots for those January ascents of Rainier (not an issue this yr : ) If you like your plastic climbing boots too much to part with them, detatch a cuff off an old old ski boot and buckle it over your climbing boots. NOTE: Skiing w/ an overnight pack takes 5 yrs off your skiing ability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.