Just returned from 11 days of great skiing in Troms/Lyngen. Took my Rustler 10s with Alpinists and did not regret it. Not even on days wit 2000+ meters of climbing. Skied with a very fast group- solid ski made total sense. My light/narrow skis are Kastle TX94, which feel much less "loose&easy" but have significant advantages uphill. Any ideas for a 90mm AT ski that is more "loose" aka tail rockered than the Kastle? I was thinking DPS Pagoda Tour 90, but the price tag...
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Wow, doing 2k on almost 2000g skis are impressive!
I skied Rossignol Escaper 87 on couple of skitours this spring, It feels playful enough for me, also its not super light ie 1400gr per ski. I guess dynastars m-tour 90 will be exactly same skis. Also, Ive been on hybrid boots ie 1900g per boot (atomic hawx ultra xtd 120), which I think helps ski better a lot.
I hear atomic backland 88 (90 in 176) ski also quite lively.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Thanks! I can get both Rossi and Dynastar at a good discount, but am wary because of the flat tails- guess the tail rocker is what makes me prefer the Rustlers, among other traits.
We did 15k of climbing in 10 days, weight was a non-issue, but then again, everything started at sea level. For high alpine and hard snow (up), I still like to have a 90mm ski... ideally with a looser tail.
There is a little bit of tail rocker on Rossi/Dynastars, but not as much as on all mountains freeride skis.
I actually own salomon qst 94 (1800g per 180cm ski) with tyrolia attack hybrid (820g uphill), I really like them as resort hybrid setup for the Alps, much better than salomon shift in my opinion.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Salomon QST is probably a good call for a loose feeling ski that can still be used properly. Don't know if they do an "add lightness" version.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
When researching the La Machines, I came across Skitrab Neve 93, can anybody comment on these?
After all it is free
After all it is free
I can’t give you first-hand impressions of the Trabs, but I have a friend who works in a local mountain ski shop and he really likes them—they’re one of the brands they stock and sell a lot of.
What I would say is that most Trab skis have a flat tail and a more traditional shape.
You could also look at the Zag Ubac 89, OGSO Swiss (though they might be a little narrow for you), or one of the Black Crows lineup.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
I have some Blizzard Rustler 10s. Absolutely amazing skis.
The double wood core & metal laminate means they ski well - but not particularly light for touring.
Got shifts on mine - a bit heavy but ok for shorter tours / short freeride skins etc.
It is the tip and tail rocker that gives them the loose / surfy feeling.
Though Blizzard, above all other brands, seem to have nailed concept of rocker.
If you want similar feel the obvious suggestion is Blizzard Hustle 9.
Same ski but lighter - according to marketting, a hybrid of zero-g and rustler.
Others to look at
Nordica Enforcer 94, Atomic Backland 88, Salmon QST echo.
Think they all come in at ~1.5kg (which is light enough... but you can go lighter!)
I tour on some Movement Apex (tip and tail rocker) but they don't make those anymore.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
I had the QST Echo and hated them- I seemed to overpower the floppy tips, don't know.
After 10 days of really long and intense tours, the weight of the Rustler 10s is not even a problem, but a bit narrower would be nice. Less weight is a bonus then.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
danbre2022 wrote:
After 10 days of really long and intense tours, the weight of the Rustler 10s is not even a problem, but a bit narrower would be nice. Less weight is a bonus then.
Hustle 9 is your answer ....
Rustler 10 (1.8kg) is "ok" for touring - especially with pin bindings.
But you will notice the benefit of lighter skis and boots on ascent.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
if anyone knows a source for a Hustle 9?
I do own a pair of Kastle TX94 but the difference on the down is more dramatic than my non-existant problems on the up. This may look different in actual freeze/thaw conditions and ice climbs, which I was spared this thime around in Lyngen. We had incredible Powder most days
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
I think Blizzard discontinued Hustle, also they been here for only one or 2 years.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
impossible to find in a 180
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
@danbre2022, ring "Anything Technical" Kendal, my Hustle 9 came from them. If there are none left they will suggest a similar ski.
These are 87 waist but wider ones are available at a weight penalty.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
ed48 wrote:
Wow, doing 2k on almost 2000g skis are impressive!
Not really. I've just bought a new splitboard which is coming in at a little over 2kg per foot, that's without soft boots. I never weighed my old set up, but it's certainly heavier and even on that I've done plenty of 2k days and even 1 3k day.
Don't get me wrong anyone doing 2000m in a day is doing more than the average tourer. But it's not anything special either.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
I agree- 2k vert is usually just putting in an extra hour or two.
These are 87 waist but wider ones are available at a weight penalty.
I have mounted a few of these, would not consider them playful/loose from hand flexing and looking at the shape
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
boarder2020 wrote:
ed48 wrote:
Wow, doing 2k on almost 2000g skis are impressive!
Not really. I've just bought a new splitboard which is coming in at a little over 2kg per foot, that's without soft boots. I never weighed my old set up, but it's certainly heavier and even on that I've done plenty of 2k days and even 1 3k day.
Don't get me wrong anyone doing 2000m in a day is doing more than the average tourer. But it's not anything special either.
The difference between a light / heavy touring set up can easily be ~1kg for boots and skis.
Now : the rule of thumb is that 1kg on foot is equivalent to ~3kg on the back (you move the entire foot every stride).
Even if you are very fit you would notice an extra 3L of water (i.e 3kg) in your back pack
This paper estimates 1% of extra effort for every 100g of weight on the foot.
Expending an extra 10-20% of effort is significant - especially over longer or multiple days.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11332-024-01191-y?utm_source=copilot.com
FWIW: I have done 2000m days on heavy kit.
It is do-able. But much harder.
I can definitely feel the difference between my hybrid setup (qst94+tyrolia hybrid) and dedicated skitouring setup (rossi escaper 87+ tyrolia almonte), which is about 1kg difference per foot. Actually the lightness feeling on foot is day and night.
The other aspect what you limiting factor is. For me, Im doing well first 2 hours on lower altitude, then when we get above 2k and 3-4h more of climbing, I need to stop for a little break almost every 20-30 steps, and this is no different which setup Im using. I guess if you are super fit and well acclimatized, then skis weight will play more noticeable role.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
I can't help too much with this because I've only really just started touring - also on Rossi Escaper 87s. Have you looked at Atomic Bent 90s? 1,600g. I ski these as my day to day ski and I've often seen them recommended to use with a hybrid binding.
I completely agree with @ed48 though about altitude. I live in Andorra, but spent 6 weeks at back in the UK the other summer during which I did a lot of running and cycling. I entered a trail race that was a few days after returning to Andorra. I was absolutely wrecked once we got above 2,000m to the point where the sweep runner caught up with me at about half way. Once I got below that again, I was running completely fine and managed to finish about an hour in front of the last placed runner. It took about a month of running here to get used to the altitude.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Altitude is a valid point! Very much why I contemplate keeping a light AT ski in my quiver. If it wass all Norway Fjord to summit, weight would bother me less.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
@Haggis_Trap, I don't think the results of that paper are anywhere near as significant as you think. Even the authors suggest this change may only "possibly" lead to increased performance.
Changing energy cost is not equal to change in performance. For normal ski touring where you are exercising well below 2nd lactate threshold changing energy cost will potentially make even less difference. You burn a few less kcal and your HR will be a bit lower.
Just from a logical point 20% improvement doesn't seem at all realistic. If I take a normal ski tourer walking up a route at their casual pace in 3hours, switching them to the lightest ski mountaineering gear you really think at a similar effort they then do the climb 36min faster? No, It's perhaps just a little easier.
Let's be more modest and say you improve performance 10% (even this is huge). You go from a 3 hour tour to a 2:42. It's a nice saving, but does it really move the needle of a normal ski touring day? Of course if you goal is racing/performance or you are doing huge days or long traverses it makes a difference. But for the average tourer doing the odd 800-1200m day at a pretty relaxed pace I don't see it. Very few people's limiting factor on a normal ski tour is pace/time.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
been going back and forth over this...
a) AT-capapable twin-inspired ski
b) sufficiently tail rockered AT ski
think I want to go route b), since my other Skis already qualify for a) except weight.
Shortlist: (can see this selection in a local shop this saturday)
Atomic Backland 95 (enough tail "rocker" to qualify here?)
Atomic Backland 102 (massive overlap with the Rustler but would share skins and ski crampons)
Dynastar M-Tour 100
DPS Pagoda Tour 90 CFL (massive €€)
BC Camox Freebird 178 (had the then stiffer version in 183 and liked it except the length)
What dou you guys think?
again, the idea is to have something that skis a notch less business like than the TX94, especially in mushy mank and breakable BS snow where the TX94 pushed my into jerky emergency hops.
Thanks!!
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Haggis_Trap wrote:
danbre2022 wrote:
After 10 days of really long and intense tours, the weight of the Rustler 10s is not even a problem, but a bit narrower would be nice. Less weight is a bonus then.
Hustle 9 is your answer ....
Rustler 10 (1.8kg) is "ok" for touring - especially with pin bindings.
But you will notice the benefit of lighter skis and boots on ascent.
Oddly the hustle was heavier than the Rustler, never understood.
Our pick this past year on weight and price were the Armada Locator skis. Worth a look.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
@danbre2022, …don’t forget that the women’s Backland’s fill in some of the size increments. A number of us males in our pod travel on Backland 98s since they have a nice balance of surface area and low weight - and since the Grom and I are both around 65kg they really suit. Graphics are fine.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
no bad idea! but they top out one before reaching my weight/height class.
anybody with first hand accounts on M-Tour, Backland, latest Camoc Freebird, maybe Pagoda Tour 90?
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@danbre2022, no personal experience of using Camox Freebird. However, in my group of seasonaire oldsters there are 3 examples of the ski which snapped. All just in front of the toe piece. Black Crows had zero interest in any of them. The newest was about a month out of warranty.
If you are over about 11 stone and/or ski a lot, I wouldn’t touch them.
Other no doubt have nothing but good things to tell.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Funny, just today hand flexed a pair and thought, will these support me with a full pack...
The last pair of BC Camox fb I had was pretty stiff to the point of being planky (and too long)
My inpression is BC make nice shapes but rely on pretty basic/generic construction to keep OEM manufacturer cost down. My two Serpos had good edge hold for about 4 weeks each, no matter the tune. But I could easily be totally wrong.
Anybody have an optinion on complementing my Rustler 10s with Backland 102s? Guess they could share crampons and skins. How do these hold up in firm snow?
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
@danbre2022, my do-anything ski is the Nordica Unlimited 104 in 186cm, at 3.5kg/pair. I'm mentioning it because I got it precisely as a narrower, lighter and much cheaper version of a DPS Wailer 112 - a playful, or "loose" ski which still allows for very good edge grip and some harder-charging turns when needed (bonus point that it has a similar 5-point but less crazy profile / rocker).
I've done up to 1800m vert /day around Arolla, which allowing for altitude is probably equivalent to more than 2k vert in Lyngen (though my usual days are more around 1k or a bit more).
In 94mm and 179cm (don't know your height/weight to assess whether that length would work), they would be 3.2kg/pair. I think that's a significant weight saving on the Rustlers. I can't comment on how they ski relative to the Rustlers (and I would assume that you'd feel a difference), but the 104s feel well dampened and game for some fast turns. I've skied them in pretty much every snow condition there is, and they've been anywhere between lots of fun and just fine - never felt that I'm just surviving the snow. Perhaps the highest praise I can give them is that, for the time being at least, I'm not looking enviously at any other skis.
Re Backland 102s, a good friend skis them and loves them. We have different BSLs so I couldn't test them to compare against the Nordicas, though.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Intersting suggestion. I have mounted a few of the 94s for friends. Very high camber- has this been reduced or is it less dramatic in the 104?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Went to the pretty awesome Sport Schindele today. Backlands just did not appeal to me enough, high camber in the 95 and the 102 still bit stiff I thought. BC Camox Freebird has recently evolved into a noodly people pleaser it seems, unbelievably soft in 178. I could even swear the pair I flexed yesterday was a bit stiffer. Stiffness spread bigger in soft skis?
Scott Explorairs seemed quite nice middle of the road. No K2s in the right size. DPS Pagoda Tour 90 in 179 very appealing and just the right flex, but no way I spend 1200€. Then Dynastar- M-Tour 90 very "classic" with a firm flex and rearward mount. M-Tour 100 with a nice, medium and round flex, bit of tail rocker, 1379g measured. Trusty Ski maker, and ski rando magazine review reads just right. Took these home!
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Backland 95 worked very well for me in Tromso last year, was pleasantly surprised how well it skied funky snow.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
