chris54 Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 I'm looking at getting a randonee setup next winter. Since they can get pretty pricey I'm going to buy a used setup. I'm wanting them for back country approach and ski descents. Is it better to put more money towards the boots or the ski and binding setup? Thanks Quote
DPS Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 Excellent article here: http://cascadeclimbers.com/ski-board/ski-intro Quote
chris54 Posted June 19, 2011 Author Posted June 19, 2011 Thanks DPS Great article has a ton of great info. Quote
lightD Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Get the boots right first. You can fix a lot of things in the backcountry. But is your boots suck and you're in pain for the whole tour, well its tough to fix that. Also, boots that fit right and match your goals and skill level are going to make whatever skis you end up with work a lot better. Start trying boots on now. See what fits. There are probably some good deals to be had this time of year. Quote
DPS Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Get the boots right first. I think you really need to decide what binders you will be using which may limit your boot choice. Quote
Maine-iac Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Get the boots right first. I think you really need to decide what binders you will be using which may limit your boot choice. Why do you say that? Most, if not all touring, boots are compatible with both dynafit and normal bindings. Unless you buy a dynafit or tele specific boot you shouldn't have any problems. The big question that I think you face is are you touring to ski something or are you touring to climb something. That will make a difference in the type of boot you buy. I would not want to wear a super lightweight touring boot to ski something gnarly, but that is just me. Make sure you spend some time with the boots because doing a 10 mile tour then walking 5 miles on the road really sucks if you boots are not anything but a slipper on your foot. Then think about the binding, spend a little to make sure it is not some plastic POS, then get your skis. Quote
DPS Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Most, if not all touring, boots are compatible with both dynafit and normal bindings. When I switched to Dynafit binders three or four years ago there were fewer manufacturers makling Dynafit compatible boots than Fritchi compatible boots. Perhaps that has changed? Quote
Dane Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 I would agree with LightD and DPS, get good boots first. "Good" when it comes to AT boots will (should imo) likely include being Dynafit binding capable. AT stuff has quietly made some huge changes in just the last couple of seasons. Bigger than the leashed/leashless and huge clearence transition in ice tools. There are super lwt boots being used now on lwt fat skis or super lwt skinny ski that both walk and rip. Game changers in the industry and the sport. Tech bindings (read Dynafit/Plum/RT/La Sportiva here) have also risen to the challenge. Are you kidding me? 117g for a binding! Same stuff you won't easily find 2nd hand but it is possible. Much of what is currently being sold as "cutting edge" is now obviously dated. More and more new boots are ignoring the DIN toe and just going to a Dynafit capable toe. Shouldn't be a problem as most used boots will take both, If you are buying new I would be sure to ask. This thread needs some stoke http://coldthistle.blogspot.com/2011/06/it-is-guy-having-most-fun.html http://www.powdermag.com/stories/40th-anniversary-bill-briggs-ski-descent-of-grand-teton/ Quote
mccallboater Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Totally stoked on my new Scarpa Maestrales. $600 was a huge bite for me to swallow, though they are less expensive than some of the competitors' offerings. They probably don't climb as well as the new $1K dynafits the Dane raves about, but they climb way better than any other AT boot I've ever had. The 45 degree fore-aft range of motion, and the super comfortable lace up liner makes front-pointing manageable. Plus they can handle just about any ski I would want to climb uphill with. This should probably be in the Rants and Raves forum, huh? Quote
Dane Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 "They probably don't climb as well as the new $1K dynafits...should probably be in the Rants and Raves forum, huh?" Dynafits TLT5 Mtns could be had for $550 online a bit ago Haven't checked again after I got mine. I tried to make a point of not raving about one brand of boot, ski or binding...(although i did mention the tech bindings) just that things have really changed in a very short amount of time for AT skiing. My kit including skis, boots and bindings is less than 11.5# total. On anything I can ski or climb it isn't the gear holding me back. Good review on the Meastrale: http://www.wildsnow.com/2951/scarpa-maestrale-boot-review/ Maestrale weight 3 lbs 6 oz size 27 40 degrees of cuff rotation TLT5 TF weight 2 lb 5 oz size 27 60 degrees of cuff rotation Quote
mccallboater Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 "I tried to make a point of not raving about one brand of boot, ski or binding...(although i did mention the tech bindings) just that things have really changed in a very short amount of time for AT skiing. My kit including skis, boots and bindings is less than 11.5# total. On anything I can ski or climb it isn't the gear isn't holding me back." All good points. I erred on the side of skiing power over climbing ability in my choice, and when I was shopping, the TLT5's were a bit to dear anyway. BTW, I tried to climb in thrift store Scott Superlights way back when, with predictable results. I never hesitate to bludgeon with technology what I lack in skill and fitness. But I'm also guilty of being a cheapskate. Quote
Dane Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Fair enough, I prefer to buy performace than earn it any time possible Scott Super Lights? I had friends try to use them with Vibram soles glued on back in the late 70s. One even took them to Nepal for some hard technical climbing. He blew his knees out on that trip. Funny everyone was quick to point at the Scott boots as the culprit. This was a season before Koflachs came on the scene. Kolflachs are hard on your knees as well. More likely the big loads and over training than the boots in retrospect blowing his knees out. The TLT5s certainly climb and ski better than any of the Scotts did. But even in that format the Scotts were warm enough and climbed well enough to take them a long ways off the road. I keep reading "they lack ski performance" in reference to the TLT5s. But can't find anyone actually skiing in them that bothers using the extra support offered by the removable tongue And it is now the boot of choice by more than a few, where, "you fall you die". Seems counter intuitive if the TLT boots don't perform at tthe highest levels. Up to a 105mm x 188cm fat ski I am happy (raving) with the resulting performance of the TlT5s. Quote
lightD Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Thanks for the stoke Dane. The Briggs photo is classic. TLT5s are next on my list to complete my 'lightweight' summer rig. It will come in at just over 11lbs for all skis, binders and boots. Far easier on the body and I hear the the TLT5s ski really well from some friends I trust. More on that soon I hope... Quote
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.