|
tarzan420
Feb 12, 2005, 11:04 PM
Post #1 of 19
(3938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 678
|
I'm looking at getting into Ski touring (w some mountaineering) and am trying to decide on equipment. I'm looking at a setup that will also work for light duty-telemark skiing, as I'm getting started w/ that business.
Right now, I'm looking at a 3-pin and tele-cable binding, like the Voile Hardwire 3 pin and a touring style leather boot, like this one, but I'm looking at others. Combined with a ski like the Fischer Outtabounds Crown.
Comments, suggestions?
|
|
|
|
|
cgailey
Feb 12, 2005, 11:27 PM
Post #2 of 19
(3938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 585
|
How's it going.
For light telemarking and mountaineering, you would be much happier with a soft double plastic boot like a scarpa t-3/4, or garmont excursion. You will have much more control over your skis, you'll have warmer feet, and you won't have to take a snow covered boot in your bag at night...only a liner. In addition, climbing with leather tele boots sucks...well, climbing in any tele boot sucks...but plastics are a little more stable and better for use with crampons. I have leather touring boots and wish I had doubles every time I'm out for all the reasons listed above.
As far as a binding goes, the hardwire is a little overkill for touring...just the 3-pin cable binding is plenty sufficient...$85 at REI.
Your ski choice is excellent, but also consider the Atomic Rainier, which has a little more shape than the outtabounds for easier turning.
Don't forget skins...those waxless kick zones work well on low angle stuff, but are useless when you are really climbing. Also carry a liquid glide wax for the kick zone....they can get iced up pretty easily when you are touring as snow conditions change a lot in as little 500 vertical feet.
Have fun out there!
|
|
|
|
|
farva
Feb 13, 2005, 4:53 AM
Post #3 of 19
(3938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2004
Posts: 88
|
Yeah, those boots are way to wimpy for the 3 pin hardwire. You need plastic boots to drive those properly.
If you are interested in ski mountaineering, you may also want to consider AT (randonee) gear & not tele. The sole of AT boots are rigid which are better suited for mountaineering & are designed to take crampons alot better than teleboots (teleboot duckbills get in the way of the frontpoints).
|
|
|
|
|
braaaaaaaadley
Feb 13, 2005, 5:48 AM
Post #4 of 19
(3938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2002
Posts: 576
|
If I were you I would get just at t-3 typed boot and just the three pin toeplate binding and screw the cable attachment. In my expierences the cable does nothing except slow you down putting on and getting off your ski's. Be careful to make sure that the rocker launch with the boot and binding is not too great... to fix this problem just put the binding on a wedge or add a little heighth to your riser. My rock ski touring setup is a voile 3 pin binding w/o the cable and older garmont t-3 equivilent boot. I have skied pretty steep stuff at a resort with this setup so in my opinion its a pretty good compromise between downhill and touring. Goodluck with your setup.
|
|
|
|
|
cgailey
Feb 13, 2005, 11:03 AM
Post #5 of 19
(3938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 585
|
In reply to: If you are interested in ski mountaineering, you may also want to consider AT (randonee) gear & not tele. The sole of AT boots are rigid which are better suited for mountaineering & are designed to take crampons alot better than teleboots (teleboot duckbills get in the way of the frontpoints).
This is true to an extent...AT boots are more conducive to climbing as long as they are the light, more flexible type (i.e. scarpa laser/matrix or equivalent). There is a way around the "duckbill" issue...some crampons such as the BD sabretooth have adjustable toe bails which eliminate any front point clearance isssues. The new sabretooths now have three toe bail positions, but even the two position older models like mine allow for full frontpoint use on telemark boots. The caveat to all this is that with the "duckbill" you have an extension off the front of your foot which makes for funky feeling frontpoints (when you are standing on the frontpoints) and puts more pressure on your calves. In essence, it effectively lengthens your foot and makes for a little more awkward walking.
However, having the forefoot flexibility of a telemark boot makes for much more efficient touring than AT gear.
AT gear is preferable if you are a proficient alpine skier who wants to venture into the backcountry a little more and bag some peaks along the way. Most people whose main interest is mountaineering go this route for the reasons listed above as well as the fact that alpine turns are more powerful and predictable in variable conditions.
If you are simply interested in telemarking, it would be worth your while to consider what your ultimate goals are. I can tell you from experience that learning to tele whilst touring sucks, and taking laps at the resort on light touring gear is also not the most fun. Ideally, a middle of the road setup is the way to go. Medium stiff boots that allow for enjoyable resort skiing while still being efficient tourers, medium stiff and width skis that will perform reasonably well on hardpack but not be a bear to haul around while touring, and adjustable telemark bindings like the hammerhead that you can easily switch cable tension on. It takes time to develop skills, and wasting time falling on your face in the BC is no way to learn.
In reply to: If I were you I would get just at t-3 typed boot and just the three pin toeplate binding and screw the cable attachment. In my expierences the cable does nothing except slow you down putting on and getting off your ski's.
The cable does make a bit of a difference when it comes to skiing. Of course, any dedicated pinhead will steer you away from cables, and you would be just fine without them, but you will get better performance out of your setup with the added tension that a cable provides. The cables can be easily removed and the binding used as a stand-alone 3-pin, which is ideal for touring, but when you want to crank a little more, toss the cables back on. Problem solved. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
farva
Feb 14, 2005, 4:32 AM
Post #6 of 19
(3938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2004
Posts: 88
|
In reply to: However, having the forefoot flexibility of a telemark boot makes for much more efficient touring than AT gear.
What? You obviously know nothing about modern AT gear. I both tele & AT in the backcountry, and AT is significantly more efficient for uphill travel due the free pivot instead of fighting plastic boot bellows & cartridges springs with every stride. Why do you think Karhu came out with the 7tm tour binding? To make a telemark binding that tours like an AT binding (free pivot).
|
|
|
|
|
cgailey
Feb 14, 2005, 8:52 AM
Post #7 of 19
(3938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 585
|
In reply to: In reply to: However, having the forefoot flexibility of a telemark boot makes for much more efficient touring than AT gear. What? You obviously know nothing about modern AT gear. I both tele & AT in the backcountry, and AT is significantly more efficient for uphill travel due the free pivot instead of fighting plastic boot bellows & cartridges springs with every stride. Why do you think Karhu came out with the 7tm tour binding? To make a telemark binding that tours like an AT binding (free pivot).
I know plenty about AT gear, and you are dead wrong. The natural flexibility of light tele gear is far preferable to any AT setup, the exception being the dynafit system with bellowed boots, which illustrate my point perfectly. Why do you think that the bellowed AT boots (i.e. the Scarpa F1) are such a hit with the euro ski mountaineering racers? Because they are more efficient than traditional AT setups.
The benefit of adjustable bindings is that you don't have to fight the cable tension, and a soft bellowed or leather boot creates hardly any resistance.
The 7TM binding you refer to is just an improvement to an already superior touring setup :P A free pivot is nice, and improves efficiency in the binding you speak of, but it by no means is more efficient than 3 pin bindings and boots when coupled with a stiff soled AT boot.
|
|
|
|
|
farva
Feb 14, 2005, 3:33 PM
Post #8 of 19
(3938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2004
Posts: 88
|
In reply to: I know plenty about AT gear
Obviously you don't. I toured on Fritschi's for 5 years & they tour significantly easier than just about any traditional tele binding. Go ask this question on telemarktips.com. They will set you straight. Yes, the F1 with bellows enhances the stride comfort (I have a pair) but the ease of touring is 95% from the free pivot & 5% from the bellows. I can move just as quickly in a pair of Lasers on the dynafit bindings. The Karhu binding is the same deal. The standard 7tm tours like any modern tele binding (like crap) . The new AT style free pivot makes ALL the difference. It's NOT the bellows
|
|
|
|
|
cgailey
Feb 14, 2005, 7:46 PM
Post #9 of 19
(3938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 585
|
In reply to: In reply to: I know plenty about AT gear Obviously you don't. I toured on Fritschi's for 5 years & they tour significantly easier than just about any traditional tele binding. Go ask this question on telemarktips.com. They will set you straight. Yes, the F1 with bellows enhances the stride comfort (I have a pair) but the ease of touring is 95% from the free pivot & 5% from the bellows. I can move just as quickly in a pair of Lasers on the dynafit bindings. The Karhu binding is the same deal. The standard 7tm tours like any modern tele binding (like crap) . The new AT style free pivot makes ALL the difference. It's NOT the bellows
Not talking about standard tele bindings, where cranking down the cables is the norm...and I still disagree...
I guess everyone has their own opinion based on experience, but I find light Tele gear to be more efficient than AT.
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Feb 14, 2005, 8:25 PM
Post #10 of 19
(3938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
cgailey,
You sound like a tele skier talking out his a__.
Like farva, I have used both tele and AT set-up's
and the AT's always outperform tele set-up's.
This is due to a simple mechanical advantage
created by moving the fulcrum further away from
the weight of the skier. AT will also be preferable
for mountainering due to the fact that you will
be carrying a heavy pack which is just suicide on
a tele set-up.
|
|
|
|
|
cgailey
Feb 15, 2005, 6:42 AM
Post #11 of 19
(3938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 585
|
In reply to: cgailey, You sound like a tele skier talking out his a__. Like farva, I have used both tele and AT set-up's and the AT's always outperform tele set-up's. This is due to a simple mechanical advantage created by moving the fulcrum further away from the weight of the skier. AT will also be preferable for mountainering due to the fact that you will be carrying a heavy pack which is just suicide on a tele set-up.
As much as I'd like it to, my a*@ doesn't talk...
I have no problem with AT gear..I have a setup myself for mountaineering...so I am not discounting the merits of said setup (read my other posts, you will see). However, I will still maintain that a 3-pin binding and light tele boot is more efficient under most circumstances...serious climbing and heavy packs, as you said being the exceptions. On distance tours over glaciers, particularly low angle glaciers, pins and leathers or soft plastics are the way to go for efficiency, especially when pulling a sled. For crampon use and all the other crap, sure, AT is superior, which is why I have an AT setup for my mountaineering boots. But I can say that that setup is much more cumbersome and less efficient than my light touring gear.
|
|
|
|
|
yannbuse
Feb 17, 2005, 9:08 PM
Post #12 of 19
(3938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2003
Posts: 112
|
Interesting topic, i started an earlier thread on a smilar matter. Im also in the market in finding an appropriate AT setup and perhaps tele setup. However this weekend im renting a Telemark setup to get a better understanding and to determine whether it is an aspect i would like to take up to ultimately lead into my backcountry addiction.
I was wondering however that after the previous posts discussing the optimal set up, ie AT vs Tele; what reach telemarkers have over people with an AT setup and vice versa. I take it that since telemarks are not appropriate for steep inclines and heavy packs, they would not be the number one choice for a high atltitude 6 day ski tour, lets say in the Mont Blanc Massif where there are steep inclines and descents. In addition, i take it the boots are not favorable for some alpine climbing that is on an approach towards your descent. In essence, i think the AT setup would be more appropriate.
So, at one point does a telemark setup become more favorable than an AT setup. Would it be for day excursions, 1-2 night, when packs are light? is a telemark setup lighter, therefore covering ground faster? Or is it that people prefer the actual telemark feel over the alpine style descent?
For those who have both setups.... which setup do you use/prefer for a specifc purpose?
Thank you for your time
YAnn
|
|
|
|
|
farva
Feb 17, 2005, 11:43 PM
Post #13 of 19
(3938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2004
Posts: 88
|
I own both. Since AT gear has improved so much, I use AT in the BC and tele gear at the resort.
Here's a list of reasons to use AT:
More control (steeps, crusty conditions, heavy packs etc)
More efficient climbing
Releaseable (some tele bindings also release)
No kneepads required
Lighter (if you choose dynafit)
Ski crampons that work
Better climbing bars (Fritschi has 4 or 5 settings. tele has 2 at best)
AT Boots work better with crampons
Easier entry & exit (Fritschi)
Reasons to tele:
The tele turn is alot of fun
Better face shots as you typically get down lower
|
|
|
|
|
yannbuse
Feb 24, 2005, 1:45 AM
Post #14 of 19
(3938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2003
Posts: 112
|
I figured i would follow up. So this weekend i finally rented a telemark set up and had a go at it. It only took 4 or 5 runs to get the hand of it and by my second day i was hitting the bumps and park with them. Although it was only the second day that i felt that i was really getting low enough for some of those superb turns (and to understand why knee pads can be needed!!).
Now im sure that i will eventually buy a tele set up. I totally understand what people mean by the feeling behind 'the tele turn', it is so sweet and feels almost like a natural motion with the mountain. Although the feeling was sublime i needed a little more to reason the pruchase of a new tele set up. So i came up with a couple reasons...
It seems like with the AT set up you can tack a more aggressive ascent and descent. (although i just saw a telemark video, which totally blew my mind) So it seems like with the AT set up you are actively searcing for that sweet line. In other words with the AT set up, i would pick especially hard descents and lines, as well as choose ascents requiring alpine climbing (b/c of the boots over tele boots)
With the Telemark set up i plan to use it for 2 or 3 night hut based adventures, where i would try to cover distance, ie covering a range. In trying to cover distance i wouldnt be so obligated to taking lets say the optional 55 degree 500m long couloir on the route, but instead enjoy the moderate skiing with great tele turns. I did have a question though, farva mentioned that the AT set up is lighter, im having trouble understanding this, maybe the dynafit bindings on a light ski is lighter than a tele binding on a light ski. But what about the boot? one thing surprised me this weekend with the Tele boots, was how low the cuff was and how much lighter than what im used to. So considering, boots binding and skis, which set up is actually lighter? im under the impression that the tele set is. Another point i noticed was that i didnt like the front pointing at all in the tele boot, so i would try to use an AT set up where routes are going to require much fron pointing.
Anyways, after my great experience im sold and can't wait for the end of the season to get myself set up. Thanks for the advice!
Yann
|
|
|
|
|
farva
Feb 24, 2005, 2:13 AM
Post #15 of 19
(3938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2004
Posts: 88
|
Cool. Glad you figured out which one you like better. I agree the tele turn is pretty fun. The weight comparison between AT & tele really depends on what equipment you buy. Plastic AT & Tele boots are pretty close weight wise. Dynafit AT bindings are lighter than just about all of the modern tele bindings, so that is where the weight savings come into play. You can certainly have a very heavy AT setup (Scarpa Denali / Naxo bindings) or a heavy tele setup (Scarpa T-Race / Bomber Bishops) etc. It all depends on which specific models of each you are comparing them too.
|
|
|
|
|
yannbuse
Feb 24, 2005, 2:50 AM
Post #16 of 19
(3938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2003
Posts: 112
|
Im glad you mentioned something about the bomber bishop tele bindings. Prior to going out on tele i was very skeptical of the strength of the binding, simply because i can have my alpine bindings set at DIN 8/9 and pop out for no reason (couple nasty accidents have occured because of this). So when looking at the tele bindings i thought, wow, what a flimsy little thing. I put up previous posts noticing this issue and was told not to worry. But sure enough on the second day i broke the binding. So i started looking at other options, altough Bomber is not an option for me ($320!) i was wondering if that type of binding hinders the actual technique in the tele turn and whether it provides any added benefits.
thank you for your time
Yann
|
|
|
|
|
farva
Feb 24, 2005, 3:21 AM
Post #17 of 19
(3938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2004
Posts: 88
|
Heavy or light, they all tele on the same principle, applying pressure to the ski via the ball of the back foot. Burly (plate) bindings make that easier & transmit alot more power to the ski with less effort. Lighter bindings usually require a lower stance to get that pressure going. Your binding selection should be based on what type of skiing you want to do. Resort skiing: Get big boots, burly bindings & high performance skis. They may spank you a little at first, but you will grow to love the control the provide. Backcountry: weight is a factor. If you are going a long way, then lighter gear is in order. If you want one setup for everything then you must compromise. If the later situation suits you then I'd go for the Voile 3 pin Hardwire. They ski well inbounds & you can hike on just the 3 pins in the BC to reduce uphill friction & then engage the compression cartridges for the descent. This also gives you some redundency in the BC, should somthing break on your heel springs in the middle of nowhere. They are also pretty light. The Karhu 7tm tour is also pretty sweat, but it is alot heavier & more expensive. That's my .02
|
|
|
|
|
pepsbandit
Feb 24, 2005, 3:47 AM
Post #18 of 19
(3938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2004
Posts: 175
|
Please read this!
I... er', My parents, bought me a light touring set-up for no apparent reason other then me being a completely spoiled only child. Anyway, I went with Fischer Outabounds with a no-cable three pin set up with ultra soft BCX9? (Rossi). Anyway, great for x-country, but if your seariously wanting turns, go with the Fischer Boundless Crown, get some kick skinns for the steeps, get the Voile Hardwires, and get Scarpa T3s or T4s!!! Please don't blow the money like my poor :( parents. Anyway, I'm never letting them make another mistake like that again, I'm working now and buying my own crap. So good luck, OUtabounds are great skis, but more for touring then turning. And if by the any stroke of bad luck, my non climbing-non skiing parents read this... i really do like the outabounds, I just cant turn those things! But I'm working real hard to crank some nice t-turns for you, I promise
|
|
|
|
|
cgailey
Feb 25, 2005, 11:16 AM
Post #19 of 19
(3938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 585
|
In reply to: Heavy or light, they all tele on the same principle, applying pressure to the ski via the ball of the back foot. Burly (plate) bindings make that easier & transmit alot more power to the ski with less effort. Lighter bindings usually require a lower stance to get that pressure going. Your binding selection should be based on what type of skiing you want to do. Resort skiing: Get big boots, burly bindings & high performance skis. They may spank you a little at first, but you will grow to love the control the provide. Backcountry: weight is a factor. If you are going a long way, then lighter gear is in order. If you want one setup for everything then you must compromise. If the later situation suits you then I'd go for the Voile 3 pin Hardwire. They ski well inbounds & you can hike on just the 3 pins in the BC to reduce uphill friction & then engage the compression cartridges for the descent. This also gives you some redundency in the BC, should somthing break on your heel springs in the middle of nowhere. They are also pretty light. The Karhu 7tm tour is also pretty sweat, but it is alot heavier & more expensive. That's my .02
I agree with this...good advice.
A great place to go to see a review of some bindings is telemarktips.com...it offers a quick tutorial on what "active" bindings are; the "burly" ones farva is talking about.
To the OP...glad you like tele...
Rip it up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
