Why I bought an AT setup...after 35 years of only skiing Tele

[bauerb]

I know that after reading the subject line of this thread, people may be expecting the story of: my knees can't take tele anymore, or I've gotten older and Tele is too hard or I'm not fit enough...this is not any of those stories.

I realize that I did not include in my review of the Summit Cone 106 my experiences touring. what "touring" has meant to me in the last month is: skiing straight uphill at a ski resort. about 2500ft vert in about 2 miles, with some pitches that are quite steep.

for the record, I started skinning uphill for training purposes, not to explore the backcountry. my full time hobby is long distance trail running races, and I wanted to continue training while in Montana. what that means is that my touring is much closer aligned to Skimo racing than backcountry exploration. that does not mean that I am a good skimo racer, but it does mean that my goal is going uphill as fast and hard as possible. this is why I generally refer to my skinning experiences as "uphill" not "touring".

Before arriving in whitefish, I had never skinned, not even once ( I made a video that shares my first experience). when I arrived, I had exactly 1 week to prepare for my first skimo race.

I learned everything I know about skinning uphill by watching and talking to the hardcore community of uphill skiers out here.
Observation 1: skiers going uphill are 90% on AT gear, not Tele. but among all skiers going downhill, prob 99.9% on alpine gear( including AT). my guess for the reason is not a shocker: more skiers know how to ski alpine than tele, so choosing touring and uphill equipment was aligned to their skills going down.

I probably skinned uphill about 5 times before buying an AT setup. so my short review of uphill on Tele.
1. the summit cone 106 has a massive surface area and I had bought full length skins. this means that the surface area of skin to ground contact is huge. but that much surface area is really not required for the conditions I was skinning in. my biggest problem as I tackled the uphill learning curve was technique. you can have all the skin surface area in the world, but if you are not properly weighted over the ski, you will fail on steeps. I have the bruised rib to confirm that.

so why did I buy an AT setup? it came down to a couple of basic things:

1. my very old Scarpa TXPro boots do not fit well. I bought them used years ago. and while fine for skiing downhill, I simply could not get my heel locked into place going uphill...even after going to a really great boot fitter in Whitefish and having some pads added to the liner

2. the ankle flexibility in the Scarpas is not great, even in walk mode.

3. the OutlawX tour mode is good, but not as resistance free as a tech toe binding like the Meidjo( which I have never used) or just about any tech toe AT binding

4. I began to understand that for skinning uphill, I simply did not need a ski as large as the Summit Cone 106, 182cm.

5. Whitefish has an amazing consignment shop focused on all kinds of ski, backcountry and mountaineering gear. I got lucky and they had a set of skis, bindings and skins for sale, for less than a nice pair of new bindings

having learned a very literal "painful" lesson about boot fit, I decided that I would buy new AT boots. for 30 years I have only bought used gear. in fact, this was going to be my first pair of new ski boots since I raced nordic in high school.

there are some really good shops in Whitefish that are small, but extremely helpful and knowledgeable about AT. I went with Great Northern.

the first thing I needed to decide was what kind of AT boots: 1) skimo oriented 2) 50/50 uphill/downhill 3) downhill oriented with a walk mode. I realize that there are fancier names for these 3 categories, but I don't remember what they are.

I first tried the skimo boots. as expected, very light, extremely flexible in the ankle, but also extremely narrow and rigid feeling....like a sports car.

then I tried the Atomic Hawx. which is the 50/50 boot. after the skimo boot, the Atomic felt plush. plush felt good. I got some $50 liners to go with them. but then decided to skin in them before doing anymore fitment.

My ankles were already destroyed with blisters from the Scarpas, so it was not exactly a great starting point for any new boot. but after skinning once, I felt some heal slip and went back to the shop to get some heel lock pads added to the liner. this solved the slippage problem.

so you might ask, if my stated goal was to go uphill fast and hard, why did I buy heavy-ish boots? the answer is comfort. I will never be a serious skimo racer, but I do plan to do races when possible. but since my primary goal is training and conditioning, weight is not an issue. in fact, I suppose you could argue that a couple of extra pounds going uphill is actually better.

as far as the K2 Mt Baker skis. they are fine going uphill, but do not ski downhill as easily as other newer skis. but since my goal on them is going uphill, they do the job of going down well enough.

that leaves the bindings. they are an older set of Dynafit ST. they do their job just fine, but there are a couple of things I have learned and discovered:

1. when you are going straight uphill on steep terrain, heel risers are your friend, especially when using a 50/50 boot that has good, but not extreme amounts of ankle mobility. I see other skis with 1-2" more inches of heel riser, and I want that.

2. adjusting the amount of heel riser is awkward on the ST. you have to bend down fully and rotate the binding with your hand. this is not easy. there are other binding systems that you can flick with a pole to adjust the risers. thus would be handy.

I have been a pure Tele skier for the past 35 years. my tele skiing is very good and my alpine skiing is not nearly as good. I enjoy making tele turns. Alpine turns are strictly utilitarian for me. they are a tool I use, but not really enjoyable.

so what does all this mean?
1. if I want to get in some hardcore training, I'll go uphill on the AT
2. if I want to enjoy a day of lift served skiing and making sweet turns in great snow, there is no debate. 100% tele.

I have discovered in the last month that I get more fulfillment from skinning hard uphill than I do from skiing down. there is an exception however: on epic fresh powdery snow days like yesterday, skiing tele is awesome. but if conditions are average, its likely to be skinning uphill day for me( like today).

btw, I know that there are lots of great Tele options for going uphill, so you don't have to choose between AT and Tele.

[lowangle al]

Well I guess in addition to the uphill benefits you'll get, you will be practicing your alpine turns which will get more fun the better you get.
BTW, did you have heel risers on your tele skis? If not I can see why your ankles are torn up.

[bauerb]

yes, my OutlawX have 2 diff height risers that aren't too bad.

[spopepro]

The crux really is always the boots, isn’t it?

I did my 3600’ of vert this morning in t2eco boots and x2 switchbacks in bounds. While this is a perfectly fine combo for even steep skinning (steepest was prob 30deg, no switchbacking needed) it is simultaneously 2.5kg heavier than just the boot/binding combo of the two people who passed me *and* less stable on the pre-dawn groomed ice on the way down. It’s not a big deal... I’m not racing, just out for fitness and fun...

I’ll probably get an at setup before next season. The stability at weight it provides is light years beyond what current tele boots can provide. Being able to front point in crampons will also be a plus. And the magic “T1lt” or whatever scarpa is going to call it has been 2 years away for the last 5 years...

[The GCW]

Lower weight is a huge benefit.
Locking in the heal for steeps is huge, -for Me.

I don't have any technique for tele skiing steeps, yet I know plenty of people who scream on them, -in and around A-Basin.
Guys that make the ground rumble, when they ski by, when they put on their leather's. Some of them also Alpine and further use A.T. backcountry gear in bounds, side bounds and out a bounds.

And no matter which means are used to attain the desired effect: FUN, We all get it in different ways.

However, make no mistake: When I'm skinning, hiking a Ridgeline with skis on pack or Nordic backcountry skiing up hills, I never wish for more weight. -Same goes for cycling up the pass!

And another thing: I only weight about 134 lbs. so if My bike weighs 14.9 lbs (illegal for pro's), another person's bike can be 2 pounds heavier and still be lighter for that rider in proportion to that person's body weight.

*transfer that consideration to spopetro's post where He may have over 2.5 lbs more on each leg, while skinning. I'm not racing either, but...

At My weight, I ALWAYS have to consider weight to help keep up.

[bauerb]

if I were racing, I would get a skimo setup. for training purposes, I think of the the extra weight as "strength training".

back when I was a Cat 3 road cyclist, my race weight was 185, and it was hard for me to maintain that low a weight. I had to have a super strict diet. much lighter guys would fly past me on the uphills, but I had the advantage going down. the sweet spot for me was criteriums. I could put down the power and didn't have long ups to deal with. of course there were always guys, particularly Cat 4/5 with more money than discipline and they would talk about spending hundreds or thousands to shave 500g...but when you looked at them, you'd think: stop eating donuts and shed 10lbs, its free.

[The GCW]

I can relate:
-My only chance of holding Your wheel on flats or descents is to draft You. And if You get 2 bike lengths, it's over. Sometimes (often actually) I have to work harder on flats and descents!

But what fun.

[joeatomictoad]

...of course there were always guys, particularly Cat 4/5 with more money than discipline and they would talk about spending hundreds or thousands to shave 500g...but when you looked at them, you'd think: stop eating donuts and shed 10lbs, its free.

Mmmmmm, doughnut.