Skis

a) What's the BIG deal? Size really does matter.

b) Snowboards: some do's and don'ts in mountains....mostly don'ts.

c) Tele-what? All my friends do it.

d) Randonee: I just wanna have fun..... in the mountains.

Bindings

a) AT bindings: A selection guide. Light is right....mostly.

Boots

a) Comfort vs control: Do I have to make a trade off?

SKIS: Unless you've been living underground or maybe the tropics you couldn't have missed the ski revolution that has occurred (actually it is still occurring) over the last few years. It all started in the late 80's when the first "shaped" alpine skis were introduced. Shaped skis have a figure that mimics an hourglass, in fact, some of the more radical side cuts look a bit like Dolly Parton. These shaped skis were found to turn much more easily than the old school of nearly straight sided skis. This enables middling hacks like yours truly to carve like a world cup skier. Soon manufacturers were cranking them out and we, the eager skiing public, were left to sort the wheat from the chaff . Then the snowboards came and introduced a whole new definition of what could be done gliding on snow. The ski makers were a bit slow to catch on but soon realized that a wider ski could give the user a better tool for handling all sorts of snow conditions. These wider skis didn't make a difference on groomed runs, but boy, what a difference in the variable snow that we find in the backcountry. Nowadays there is an amazing array of skis combining both shape and width in about every conceivable combination. How do you sort through this maze without busting the bank?

Let's get one thing straight right off. Size does matter, and so does shape. Here a few guidelines that may help you understand the whole ski selection thing.

~Big (wide) skis are easier to turn in more snow conditions than skinny skis.

~The bigger (wider) the ski, the less side cut that seems to be needed to get then to crank around.

~Bigger skis do not need to be as stiff as narrower skis to handle poor snow conditions.

~Big skis weigh more (in general) than narrow skis and that is both good and bad. More on this later.

Do you want a Telemark or Alpine Touring/Randonee or an Alpine ski? Life is full of compromises and trade offs, and so is ski selection.

~The telemark ski thing is largely marketing hype. Sure, some tele skis are a bit softer than their alpine cousins. The K2 World Piste is softer, but otherwise identical to, the K2 Shuksan but in reality most manufacturers don't make much distinction other than in print.

~Some companies do make softer women's specific skis. This can be a very good choice for lighter/ smaller and less aggressive skiers or those wanting skis for only perfect powder days.

~Alpine skis tend to be heavier than their touring siblings since they are not meant to be lugged uphill by you. Weight is a big factor, affecting your performance as much as the skis' performance. If you are struggling to keep up with your friends while shuffling 10lb skis uphill all day, you may not be able to enjoy their benefits on the downhills if your legs are toasted. This can put the fun meter in the negative zone, especially on multiday tours. In touring, "light is right". That said, heavy skis tend to get pushed around less in bad snow conditions.

~Skis with stiffer tips also tend to get pushed around less than ones with softer tips.

~Softer skis are more "turny", especially in powder conditions.

So how do all these seemingly contradictory items help you in making your ski selection? Knowledge is power and while there are no easy answers, here a few guide lines for selecting skis:

~Most important is your skill level. Less experienced and weaker skiers should opt for softer, more forgiving skis, since they will be easier to initiate turns with and turning is what it's all about.

~ Usage should be the next big determinant. Are you primarily using them in area or just off the groomed? Then you probably have a bigger selection (harder choice) due to the full range of alpine "all mountain" skis out there these days. If you are planing for touring specific skis, your choice is narrower. Are you looking for skis to add to your quiver? Maybe a powder day noodle. Or, more reasonably, are you looking for the best all-a-rounder you can find.

~ Length: Most of the touring skis can and should be shorter than the old alpine length standards. Many models of touring skis are only made in lengths that the manufacturer can sell a lot of so it can be hard to find short enough skis in a wide selection. Currently skis are sized by weight, not height. The ski doesn't know how tall you are, but it can tell how much weight you are standing on it with.

~If you are already a somewhat accomplished backcountry skier and looking for good ski for all conditions, keep this little pearl of wisdom in mind:

It is easy to ski well in perfect conditions so a ski that performs well in dreamy powder but is too soft to ski the crud and wind crust is not going to help you in tough conditions. Opt for a ski that helps you master what you are worst at.

~ The best methods yet devised for ski selection are trial and error (use some demo skis) and input from skiing friends. Here's a compilation of our personal ski preferences:

We think bigger is better, in general. Big, turny skis keep us out of the snow better, and allow us to have more fun when conditions aren't perfect. Here's what we ski on:

~Larry: 5'6", 140 lbs, 40 years old, a strong and aggressive skier. Can ski on telemark, randonnee, and in any conditions. Larry loves his 178 Dynafit Manaslu calling it one of the most versatile skis he has ever been on. The rockered tip does an amazing job at keeping the skis on the surface in any snow conditions. He still has a soft spot for hisKarhu Jak BC's and has Dynafit Vertical bindings on both. The majority of Larry's telemarking these days is done in the lowlands of the Methow Valley on the Karhu Guide with 3 Pin bindings and Garmont Excursions. For Boots larry uses the Garmont Radium for touring and the Garmont Adrenalin for Heli guiding.

Anne: ~ 5'6", 135 lbs, 40 years old, patroller at Crystal Mountain for 9 years. AMGA Ski Mountaineering Certified Guide.  Tours 40 plus days a year.   A graceful, competent skier; loves her K2 Shuksans in 167 mounted with dynafit bindings. This is her "favorite ski of all time" She calls this a "great all mountain ski". She is on her third pair. For Boots Anne uses the Garmont Mega Ride with an intuition liner(very key to upgrade the liner...).  For Patrolling and hill skiing Anne loves her K2 Miss Baker's mounted with Fritschi 's.  Anne will be skiing the Dynafit Manaslu with dynafit bindings for the backcountry this year.

~Paul: 6'0",170 lbs, 43 years old; a strong and graceful skier; Prefers to telemark on his K2 World Piste, but recently got some Karhu Jak BC's with Dyanfit Comfort bindings for an A.T setup and is usually seen touring on them. Likes to ski fast and go big. For boots Paul uses the Garmont Mega Ride.

~Katharine: 5'7", 135 lbs, 37 years old; Loves her K2 Phat Loves and Dynafit Tristep bindings withDynafit Aero 3 boots. She also used lighter Dynafit boots on the approach to Denali (up to 16,000'). For teli she stays with the lightweight theme: Scarpa T3 boots and Shuksan skis. Katharine likes to keep the gear light and the legs strong to climb fast and cover lots of ground all day long.

~Ray:6'0",160 lbs, 38 years old:   Has worked as a ski instructor, repair technician and sales rep (Tua and Karhu).  Once had a passion for telemark skiing bordering on the religious.  But aging knees made him realize the efficiency and power of a locked heel with Dynafit Comfort bindings.  Mounted on a FAT, light ski - currently the Karhu BC 100 of a few years ago - and driven by a Scarpa Spirit 3 he feels it gives him a great combination of touring ease and downhill performance.  Ray skis his turns big and fast.

~Scott: 6'0", 170lbs:55 years old. Scott writes "I am skiing on Mt Baker Superlights,  Dynafit Tourlite tech bindings,with Dynafit ZZero  or Scarpa F1 boots.  The Superlights are all the ski that the Mt Bakers are but less weight.  Still love my F1s in all but the nastiest snow.  The ZZeros are slightly stiffer than the Megarides but this could be the case of a new boot versus an old one.  I'd put them both on the same level as great boots.

~Michelle: 5'6", 135 lbs 37 years old, After skiing on lightweight telemark gear for many years, Michelle tried A.T gear a few years ago and has never looked back. She currently skis on K2's Mt Baker's with Fritschi bindings. For boots Michelle uses the Garmont Mega Ride.

~Mark:5'9" 150lb 30 years old. Patrolled at Crystal Mountain Resort for two years now works as an AMGA Certified Ski Guide in Cascades WA and the Chugach AK. Likes to ride a hearty fat boards for in-or-near area skiing using a 178cm wood core titanium top sheet Volkl Gotama mounted with Marker Dukes. This is a good set up for the big radius turns and stomping technical terrain with a crew. When touring the distance he stays mid-fat but switches to a lighter weight wood core Jack BC 100 mounted with Dynafits Comforts for floating casual powder bowls or edging on moderate technical glacial descent. This year in the Chugach he chose a to go all-mountain-freeride with 174 K2 Coombas mounted with dyafit TLT Vertical FT 12 bindings.  For technical steep firm conditions like on Denali or on Antarctica he recommends going with a 178 G3 Rapid Transit. For boots Mark uses the Dynafit ZZero 4 TF (Thermofit) Alpine touring and loves soft-up and the controlled-down.

~Jeff:5'9", 155 lbs, 36 years old. Ex- ski instructor and ski racer. Prefers high speeds with very little turn shape ("wiggly turns are so inefficient").  Like many of the guides Jeff has a quiver of skis for a variety of conditions.  His backcountry set-up consists of a pair of Karhu BC 100’s for the soft days (his go to ski 90% of the time) and a pair of Karhu Spire BC’s for the firmer ski mountaineering objectives.  For the heli and off-piste days Jeff prefers something a bit wider.  Currently Jeff’s favorite ski for pure downhill in soft snow is the K2 Pontoon.  The amazing width (130 under foot) and reverse camber combine to make it the best ski, bar none, for deep snow.   And for those “firmer” days riding off-piste or with the heli Jeff skis a pair of K2 Combas.   For bindings Jeff goes with the Dynafit Comfort on his backcountry skis and the Fritschi Free Ride on his Heli/Off-Piste skis.  For boots Jeff skis with a pair of Garmont Mega Rides in the backcountry but beefs it up a bit for the gravity fed days and goes with a pair of Salomon XWave 10’s with aftermarket vibram soles.

SNOWBOARDS: Baggy clothes aside, snowboards and the back country are not a great mix, as many compromises and concessions are required from you and your ski-equipped tour mates. Having both feet locked into the board severely limits your back country travel options. Traversing to a new fall line is very hard without losing a lot of height. Crossing a short flat section, while only a minor inconvenience to a skier, can be a major obstacle to a boarder. Options for uphill travel are limited to: 1) A split board that takes a bit of time to assemble and break down at the top and bottom of each run but is still the best solution if you must use a board, 2) A pair of shorty approach skis worn while carrying the board on your back for the uphills; essentially doubling your weight and potential equipment problems. 3) Snowshoes for the uphill, again carrying your board. This still has the weight issue, coupled now with the unpleasant fact that snowshoes wreck a ski uptrack, potentially incurring the wrath of any skier you encounter. If you're thinking of breaking your own trail, be advised that snowshoes are much more work in soft snow than skis.

If all this sounds like more hassle than it's worth, you have reached the same realization as virtually all back country skiers. Boards are fun on the downhills but are really not a good choice as a back country tool.

TELEMARK: Telemark is a region of southern Norway, renowned as the birthplace of a particular style of ski turn developed there in the middle of the 19th century by Sondre Norheim. This turn was developed to provide more fore and aft stability in an area known for variable and wind hammered snow. It took into account and compensated for the inherent limitations of the skis and freeheel bindings of the day. By assuming a stretched out leg position, a skier could angle the front ski relative to the back one, and coax the skis into a turning mode. With skis having no side cut and flimsy bindings that could not withstand any lateral loading, this type of turn prevailed through the first few decades in all forms of skiing and racing. That clever Norheim also invented the Christiana turn (named after the local name for the capitol of Norway) at the same time; this involved a similar stemming type of maneuver to turn the skis but without the fore and aft straddle of the Telemark turn. With the development of skiing in the western Alps, a new technique arose in Arlberg, Austria. This "Arlberg style" started with the stemmed skis of the Christiana and progressed into something we recognize as a parallel turn. The Arlberg technique effectively obsoleted the telemark by the 20's. The telemark style was resurrected from the dustbin of skiing history during the 70's in the US by skiers rediscovering the joys of back country travel in winter. The nordic equipment of the day may have been lighter, but otherwise ski/boot/binding design had not really progressed much since the 30's. The soft boot/binding combo was hard pressed to turn reluctant, straight long skis. Along with the explosion of the popularity of cross country skiing in the 70's, partly spurred by Bill Koch's US silver medal the 1976 olympics, the touring movement took off with the skiers showing the manufacturers the way. Through the late 70's and 80's, back country use of tele gear flourished, despite the turn's and equipment's inherent flaws. It was the best way to cover long distances in the mountains. Skis remained straight sided and often had a double camber to accommodate nordic kick wax, neither of which helped them turn. Some adventurous souls adapted the lightest alpine skis to back country use. Boot makers began to make stouter and stiffer models to help skiers force skis into turns. The stiffer boots, however, had a negative effect on touring on flats and uphills, as they lost flexibility and hence comfort.

In the 90's, plastic replaced leather for boots, making them even stiffer with better control, but sacrificing touring in the tradeoff for turns. Bindings evolved into more rugged affairs in an attempt to allow some heel lift for touring while holding the boot firmly to the ski in turns. This has been a real engineering challenge that is still not perfected.

The telemark turn, executed on modern equipment, bears only passing resemblance to its namesake, which was awkward and contrived. Today's version has a definite grace and fluidity, the kinaesthetic of which most adherents rate highest on their list of why. There's a certain amount of nostalgia for the roots of ski touring and its nordic tradition that the telemark turn embraces and embodies.

Many Telemarkers enjoy the ability to make parallel or telemark turns on their freeheel gear. A telemark turn requires more strength and skiing skill than a parallel turn, given the same conditions. That is why you see even skilled tele skiers reverting to parallel turns when things get nasty or legs get tired. The tele turn is especially effective in variable snow where the split stance provides the fore-aft stability that is inherently lacking with a free heel.

The same things that make telemarking so appealing is also limiting its use in the back country. It is much harder to become skilled at, requires more strength and younger knees. Making lunges down the fall line all day certainly takes more energy than rolling your ankles on A.T gear. With the modern stiff boots and bindings, the user is at a real disadvantage to alpine touring equipment in the touring mode, especially if breaking trail in deep snow.

ALPINE TOURING/RANDONNEE is an outgrowth of the popularity of ski mountaineering. This style of touring flourished in the western Alps between the wars, when Silvretta introduced a hinged cable platform binding that allowed a stiff mountaineering boot (not unlike the alpine ski boot of the day) to be used. Since the sole didn't flex much, if at all, and it was possible to lock the heels for descent, the boot/binding combo offered a lot of rigidity for turns while allowing free pivot of the foot for striding. These bindings allowed skiers to use alpine skiing techniques with their inherent efficiency on the descents. This binding design eventually evolved into lighter and more sophisticated models, eschewing cables (with their tendency to break) altogether, and incorporated adjustable release mechanisms like real alpine bindings, to save torn knee ligaments and broken bones.

The freedom of binding flex during the walking mode makes a surprising difference to, and advantage over, modern stiff telemark equipment. The slightly Frankensteinesque method of walking caused by the rigid sole and forward hinge point of the AT binding is the only real drawback in touring mode. This same pivoting freedom at the toe allows the ski tip to ride up while breaking trail in deep snow, whereas modern telemark boots force the tips to dive at each step.

So if you want a good efficient tool for fun backcountry travel, go straight to AT gear.

A/T or RANDONEE BINDINGS have come a long way from the steel cable contraptions that were popular until the early 70s and mostly used by climbers for access to alpine routes. Paul Ramer of Boulder, Colorado, developed a revolutionary A/T binding in 1975 that was light weight, had a release function like an alpine binding and had a climbing post on the heel, making steep ascents a breeze. Your author had the dubious distinction of being one of Ramer's guinea pig testers in the winter and spring of 1976. Paul built these contraptions in his garage to a very high standard, but like the first generation of many clever designs, they required a full set of tools whenever you ventured out on them. Despite several refinements the Ramer died out in popularity due to intense competition from Europe. Ramer was ahead of his time.....too far ahead. The idea of alpine touring had not caught on in the US. Telmarking on skinny skis was all the rage. But those crafty Euros were a couple of steps ahead of us and since randonnee skiing was so popular in their high alpine terrain they copied several of the Ramer's better features. This competition led to a refinement in A/T binding design. Today the major players are Naxo, Silvretta, Fritschi and Dynafit.

The first three all share a similar design and are called a plate style of binding. The ski boot (or climbing boot in the case of the Silvretta) is attached to a plate by heel and toe bindings very similar to alpine bindings. The plate has a hinge at the toe that allows the foot to pivot around the toe and a slightly awkward walking motion. The heel of the plate locks down to the ski for descents so the feel is just like alpine skiing.

The Dynafit binding is a novel design introduced in the early 90s that completely does away with the pivoting plate. The stiff sole of the boot replaces the plate. Small fittings are molded into the toe and heel of the boot. This necessitates the use of Dynafit compatible boots but several companies are making them now. These little fittings allow the toe to pivot on the front binding and the heel of the boot to lock into the rear binding for downhill skiing. Despite the compact and seemingly delicate appearance of the Dynafit, they have stood the test of time and many experienced backcountry skiers swear by them. Your author is still skiing on a pair obtained in 1993! These little gems have literally hundreds of days of use and abuse. So what are the pros and cons of the two styles of bindings? Weight, weight, durability and, did I mention weight, are the main advantages of this elegantly simple binding. As an added benefit it has the toe pivot closer to your actual toe position than the plate style, hence you get a more natural stride while walking.

The downside to this binding is that it is not quite as user friendly as the plate style. It requires a bit of foot-eye coordination to get your boot into the bindings. Putting them on in the dark can be near to impossible. The release function is not quite as sophisticated as the plate style but I have never heard of any accidents due to this. The ski brakes for Dynafit are pretty poorly designed and clearly they were an afterthought and not representative of the otherwise excellent design of the bindings.

The plate style bindings offer ease of use as their biggest advantage. Anyone can easily step into them on their first attempt, making them a breeze at the top of a hard packed slope where one can lose a Dynafit equipped ski. They look and act like an alpine binding, making them a favorite among cross over skiers. Their release functions just as well as any alpine binding and they make excellent choices for ski patrollers and folks who spend a lot of time skiing lift served areas. Their brakes in general are just as good as alpine brakes.

Drawbacks: Weight! The lightest of these weighs twice as much as the Dynafit set up. That really adds up on a big day or multiple days of touring. The forward position of the toe pivot makes for a more awkward walking feel. You can become accustomed to this, but if you ever switch to Dynafit, you'll notice how much more natural the Dynafit feel is.

BOOTS are the interface between skier and ski. Fit is the number one consideration here. A comfortable boot will allow you a snug fit and more control. A sloppy fit will not only result in less downhill control, but can lead to some really nasty blisters, which is a real bummer when they happen on the first day of a several day trip. If you choose Dynafit compatible boots, you are more limited in your selection, although several companies produce very high quality boots that can be used in both Dynafit and plate bindings. The volume of your foot is one of the primary fit determinants. Some manufacturers use a "high volume" last so that virtually any foot can fit inside it. Scarpa, in general, fits this category. The problem with this is that if you have a low volume foot, you may get a better fit by putting your foot into the boot box, rather than the boot. These high volume boots tend to have a wide heel and a voluminous ankle. That said, Scarpa does produce a very nice women's specific boot called the Magic, which is a lower volume boot. It also has a thinner plastic shell, making it lighter than the men's version; it loses some stiffness with this construction, but for lighter female skiers, this is not a big factor. The Dynafit boots tend to be fairly high volume and very weight conscious and thus not quite as performance oriented as some other brands. Garmont has burst onto the scene in the last few years, having been a major player in the telemark world. They produce some very fine AT boots that tend to be lower volume and stiffer, but still comfortable. One of these is the MegaRide, which several of our guides wear. To achieve the best fit, try to get a boot with a heat moldable liner - the generic term for these is "thermofit". Scarpa, Dynafit and Garmont boots all come with thermofit liners, which can be molded to fit even the most unusual shaped feet and will truly give a custom fit. These liners do pack out with use, but they can be reheated several times.

To sum up: The best advice I can give you is to try as many ski/binding/boot combinations as you can before you buy. Ski area demos is a great way to accomplish this. If you have to prioritize, the bindings are the least important, then boots, then skis. There is a lot to learn, and seeking advice from competent back country tourers can save you a lot of grief.

Feel free to email us with specific questions!