Light boots and wide skis. What is the limit?

[Nitram Tocrut]

So I've wondered for some time what is the limit on what leather boots + cable binding can handle "comfortably"? In my case, not for backcountry XCD type stuff, but for actual inbounds skiing. Because it's actually really hard to find a narrow waisted ski these days. For under 80mm, there's racing skis and mogul skis or Nordic-type skis. What I'd like is a modern geometry twin tip ski... but 70mm or so.

The Rabb is tempting in so many ways... but it looks to me like a ski that would perform terribly on the hard pack man made snow I have available to me reliably. I want the Rabb... but sturdier

Also, what's the "upper" limit on bindings for leathers? I was always under the impression that bindings that have a heel throw / catch (like switchback, vice/axl, 7tm, etc.) require a plastic boot -- but I'm seeing people here maybe implying otherwise?

The previous Rabb was not too good, for me, on hard snow in the resort. The new one is stiffer and most likely better adapted to hard snow but I doubt it’s the ski you want if you will mostly ski in resort… well for most resorts around here. But I am still waiting for @lilcliffy report on the new Rabb. As for leather boots and switchback, I tried the Alaska and they were too soft for me. But I also have an old pair of really stiff Alico and it’s a great match.

[comradeporcupine]

Hm, yeah, I'm still intrigued by the Rabb. I'm not ruling out making a sudden, uh, Xmas present for myself

Re: binding, the boots I have are like these:

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/165188200260

Beautiful stiff leather Garmont boot, with two buckles. Though mine are in better condition than that, and also were a lot cheaper than that listing They're a lot stiffer and more robust than the Crispi Svartissens I have, and I suspect stiffer than the Alpina Alaska. So yeah, I'm curious.

I guess one advantage to the Switchback is that the hardwire can be removed if it doesn't work out. And then I could find myself some T4s or similar.

[Nitram Tocrut]

Hm, yeah, I'm still intrigued by the Rabb. I'm not ruling out making a sudden, uh, Xmas present for myself

Re: binding, the boots I have are like these:

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/165188200260

Beautiful stiff leather Garmont boot, with two buckles. Though mine are in better condition than that, and also were a lot cheaper than that listing They're a lot stiffer and more robust than the Crispi Svartissens I have, and I suspect stiffer than the Alpina Alaska. So yeah, I'm curious.

I guess one advantage to the Switchback is that the hardwire can be removed if it doesn't work out. And then I could find myself some T4s or similar.

Those boots look similar to my Alicobut maybe not as stiff. I can drive the Rabb with my T4 in most conditions. Those are the boots I used for the one time I tried the Rabb in a resort. They were ok on softer snow but I had a hard time where the snow was harder. Although, I must repeat that was with the previous Rabb.

You need the rod and cartridge with the Switchback at any time. You need the Hardwire if you want the option to remove rod and cartridge https://www.voile.com/voile-hardwire-3- ... nding.html

[Inspiredcapers]

Another option is using a Lurk. I was on my BC120’s (120/86/108) with Switchback X2’s and 75mm Transnordics for a couple of hours this afternoon playing on forestry roads and mountain bike trails. The Lurk gives me the extra stability I need for that kinda environment…like a third leg. It lets me get in the back seat if I really need it and adds a bit more of a pivot for tighter corners. I’m not 100% sure how they’d be in groomer territory (I don’t think speed would be something I’d personally pursue) and I’m pretty sure crud would be an ankle turner but many inches of powder on semi-packed base was a lot of fun. For what it’s worth I kickwax almost 70cm underfootish on my 182cm skis and glide the rest. Traction uphill is just okay, I guess it works for yo yoing for a couple of hours (an X-skin would be soooo handy.). I ski about 60% of what I did today on the Gammes, I definitely tighten up my telemark(ish) turns on the BC120’s. I strongly suspect the BC120 is more ski than required for this kinda stuff (maybe more Ingstad or black FT-62, maybe Rabb-68…the original FT-62 didn’t fare well here).

When I was just using poles yesterday I didn’t feel as stable. The X2’s were better than I expected and definitely add a degree of stability (I don’t have them cranked super tight). I suspect the free pivot thing feels similar to what a Tech binding would feel like if there were leathers available while I’m doing my uphill/flat terrain strides (there’s a bit of kick n’ slide in there too).

Cool lurk video…



He’s definitely NOT wearing leathers but this video is Hellish fun. I totally identify with the sudden cessation of forward motion at 1:40…

I haven’t given up completely on finding a good plastic boot so I’ll keep having fun with the Transnordics. I’m pretty sure I need more expert guidance on my telemark technique, sometimes I feel I’ve got it and other times I’m more WTH was that?

[mikesee]

Those skis are clearly trying to kill you.

I'd be happy to dispose of them for you. You should hang onto the bindings to run on some other, narrower skis.

I was very happy to find those skis posted for sale on one of these forums about 2 or 3 years ago. The only substitute for me for a scaled ski would be a V6 in the longest length.

What length are your Charger BC's?

[lowangle al]

Chargers are 181cm. I had them out again last night. They were fun but the tracking was an issue, and I was happy to switch back to my Vectors.

Inspiredcapers, that was some good skiing in that video. What I saw was a well centered skier not using the lurk as a third leg. Don't use it as a crutch. What I did like about what he was doing was what I call "leading with your shoulder" as opposed to squaring your shoulders to the fall line which is how we are taught to ski. I think that leading with your shoulder gets a little more weight over your lead ski giving it more control. It is something that can make a difference at speed. I first noticed it in "Powder Whore" videos where they are bombing big lines.

So I've wondered for some time what is the limit on what leather boots + cable binding can handle "comfortably"? In my case, not for backcountry XCD type stuff, but for actual inbounds skiing. Because it's actually really hard to find a narrow waisted ski these days. For under 80mm, there's racing skis and mogul skis or Nordic-type skis. What I'd like is a modern geometry twin tip ski... but 70mm or so.

The Rabb is tempting in so many ways... but it looks to me like a ski that would perform terribly on the hard pack man made snow I have available to me reliably. I want the Rabb... but sturdier

Also, what's the "upper" limit on bindings for leathers? I was always under the impression that bindings that have a heel throw / catch (like switchback, vice/axl, 7tm, etc.) require a plastic boot -- but I'm seeing people here maybe implying otherwise?

I think you are right to want to keep it under 80, around 70 might even be better. I'm wondering what width to go with with my T4s at the resort and I think less than 85mm.

[Montana St Alum]

What I did like about what he was doing was what I call "leading with your shoulder" as opposed to squaring your shoulders to the fall line which is how we are taught to ski. I think that leading with your shoulder gets a little more weight over your lead ski giving it more control.

If you are on steeper terrain, try standing sideways perpendicular to the fall line. Rotate your body such that your shoulders are facing downhill and you'll likely find that your weight naturally shifts onto the downhill ski, while your hips shift into the hill increasing the edge angle.
If you rotate your upper body such that your shoulders face more toward the uphill side, your weight will naturally shift onto the uphill ski with your hips shifting away from the hill reducing the edge angle.

Facing your shoulders down the fall line enables you to angle your edges into the hill while offsetting that by leaning your upper body away from the hill. Rotating your shoulders uphill, or in the direction of the turn, makes that more difficult. These situations occur biomechanically, I think, because in a ski stance, your hips tend to go in the opposite direction from your shoulders to maintain a central center of gravity. Shoulders into the turn is a technique that doesn't create more problems in powder because powder tends to pack into a flat platform under the skis, but I don't see much benefit either and as conditions shift to more on piste/steep/bumps it creates some major difficulties.

I'd argue that, while there are times when it doesn't hurt to lead with the shoulder (powder), I don't believe that is generally a useful technique. In my experience, on steep terrain, particularly in the bumps, when people "overturn" or "spin out", it's usually because they did not square their shoulders generally downhill.

I'm not opposed to any technique that someone favors, but this is the reason I generally argue against the double pole plant. That technique generally makes it more difficult to face downhill and is also a more time consuming effort that reduces the quickness of changing edges.

For me, the exception would be in a deep carve across the fall line on less steep terrain, but that's just so I can look uphill for oncoming traffic. Skiing switch, it's why I look over my outside shoulder, as it helps drive my knees and hips into the hill rather than away from the hill - though I don't have the confidence to do that on more than about a 15-20 degree slope - and likely never will!

[GrimSurfer]

Really clear explanation. Enjoyed reading and learning from it.

[lowangle al]

MSU, I think you're reading too much into this. Nothing about how my skis turn changes at all. It's just a slight change in stance. It's definitely not something for the bumps or those tight radius turns that we both like, but it has a different feel that I like and it can help control the lead ski by adding just a little extra weight to keep it in line. Which can be a good thing, especially in a sketchy situation, because that's ultimately the ski that determines whether you go between the trees or into one.

I tele skied over 25 years without trying it. It wasn't until I broke my leg in 2011 and bought the PW videos to kill time, and saw what they were doing, and tried it the next season. I like it on all my gear, from my skinniest dbl camber to my powder boards. Basically the turn is the same, maybe it's just a way to ride it out.

[Montana St Alum]

I agree the physics of the ski as it turns is fairly constant.
Whatever you do with your body to make it happen, is valid, for sure.
My son in Alaska insists on planting his right pole to turn left and his left pole to turn right.
If I could ski the terrain he skis, I'd give him a hard time for that outrage.
I settle for telling everyone he's adopted.