fix my approach ski setup, please

My Fischer Outtabounds 160cm paired w/Silvretta 500's do well in powdery flats but suck for everything else. I think the mounting job might be a part of it, but I think it's probably too much plank for the boots and/or my ability. Also, I'd like to have a setup I could carry on the climb. I can't imagine doing that with my current setup.

I'm thinking about getting the bindings mounted on a shorter ski... say, around 120cm. Perhaps such a setup paired with some knee cords could get me by with for most approach applications? I've considered hack-sawing some old freebie skis down.. i have a feeling there's gotta be a better way.

I'm relatively new to the winter thing and just moved to the Pac NW. I plan on climbing in the Canadian Rockies (1st time), Montana, the Cascades a lot over the next year. Any considerations relevant to the conditions in the latter venues may be relevant.

Thanks!

Karhu metas
Look em up on the net I think this is what your looking for

Short.... have the skins... The binding hinges like an AT binding
And they have a snowboard type binding that ratchets to fit any boot
Much better support when your using mountaineering boots

I use mine for all my approach needs they ski extremely well for what they are and at
130 under foot they float pretty darn well

Well, the conditions you encounter dictate the ski, so I would tell you this:

It's probably the skis! Go fatter! And forget carrying anything on a climb except snowshoes. Approach skis gets stashed.

If you take the little time it takes to learn to ski tour and get a real ski, you'll be amazed at how fast and easy skiing can be. Don't be afraid to get a pair of real skis!

There really isn't an ideal set up for everything, it's pretty damn hard to carve good turns wearing regular mountaineering boots and not worth the risk of injury. This is especially true on icy slopes.

What most folks go for is flotation first and glide second in an approach ski that isn't being used on a well worn track (i.e. Smuggler's Notch in VT.). If you plan on covering more distance, go with a fat and longer ski (Karhu 10th Mountain), if you plan on more difficulty go with fatter and shorter (Karhu GuideXCD). Either ski in an appropriate length and with skins will handle deep powder.

Had some kind of Fischer skis a few years back (Outtabounds Crown--don't remember) and they were WAY too narrow in the waist, I'd constantly sink or break through crust underfoot and it was very frustrating. Went with a 10th Mountain (about 186) and a Silvretta binding and holy cow what a difference!

That being said get a pair of skins for whatever ski you end up liking (wait to buy these until you're sure you like the ski!) and don't be afraid to use snowshoes when snowshoes are best.

iceman777 wrote:Karhu metas Look em up on the net I think this is what your looking for Short.... have the skins... The binding hinges like an AT binding And they have a snowboard type binding that ratchets to fit any boot Much better support when your using mountaineering boots I use mine for all my approach needs they ski extremely well for what they are and at 130 under foot they float pretty darn well

Don't think that these are available any more.

The Metas are no longer made. You might be able to find them on closeout somewhere though. The bigger issue with the metas is that you need a boot that flexes in order to skin with it. Many mountaineering boots and obviously plastics don't flex so they don't work. The old Karhu Guides or Tenth Mountains rock with silvrettas. Unfortunately, these aren't made anymore either. However, they are now being produced by Madshus. The Tenth Mountain is now the Epoch and the Guide is the Annum. They are the same skis, just a different top sheet.

Funny I have used all kinds of mountaineering boots w/ my metas and never had any issues w/skinning unless the going got steep than all bets are off and I stand corrected they are 110 underfoot 120 tipand 130 tail Also Ive never experienced the binding issues some people claim to have ..

I have used this set up to ski Dragons tail col and down the flat top mt trail in RMNP,, on the approach to and from AMU , On Pikes Peakand just about everwhere else you can use snowshoes/skis/splitboard ..

Snowshoes suck no matter what, if they didn't nobody would be buying approach skis.Snowshoes are for people who cant ski and even thanhere enough to make you learn to ski .

Kevin has you on the right path if you cannot find the metas even though I totaly dont agree w/his comment about the boot issues as ive never experienced it with the boots I use La sportivas or scarpa phantoms hell even my old yellow "koflacks sp?" work great.

GO with short skis learn to ski them well esp survival skiing and cary em up w/ you it's much more fun even if you have to skip hucking your meat down the thing you just climbed and taking the easy way down than it is post-holeing up to your nuts.Sometimes Ill cary my Goode carbon 82s and wear my meta rides to climb in this setup has taken me through some pretty wild country.

Cheers

I tried Hagan Nanooks.

They looked like a good solution. However, they wouldn't work with any of my ice boots. (Binding was only compatible with my AT/Ski boots)

I've got a pair of Hagan 130cm skis mounted with Silvrettas that work well. They're a bit heavy, but can be carried on a climb if necessary.

If you get a kick-ass powder set-up, you won't want to go climbing anymore.

coldfinger - thanks for verifying that it's not completely my ability... gives me some hope i'll find something that works better. Also, thanks for the warning about injury... i nearly learned that the hard way with a backward fall w/my current setup that kinda tweaked my knee.

coldfinger wrote: If you plan on covering more distance, go with a fat and longer ski (Karhu 10th Mountain), if you plan on more difficulty go with fatter and shorter (Karhu GuideXCD). Either ski in an appropriate length and with skins will handle deep powder.

- my google search for "Karhu GuideXCD" came up w/skis came up with minnimum 165cm... is that the length you were referring to as your short ski? Thanks in advance!

Kevin Sainio wrote:The Metas are no longer made. You might be able to find them on closeout somewhere though. The bigger issue with the metas is that you need a boot that flexes in order to skin with it. Many mountaineering boots and obviously plastics don't flex so they don't work. The old Karhu Guides or Tenth Mountains rock with silvrettas. Unfortunately, these aren't made anymore either. However, they are now being produced by Madshus. The Tenth Mountain is now the Epoch and the Guide is the Annum. They are the same skis, just a different top sheet.

Thanks for the beta w/what the current skis are now. So when would a short ski w/Silvrettas be a better application than the Metas? My guess is that the Silvretta + 130cm-ish ski would be heavier.

iceman777 wrote:Sometimes Ill cary my Goode carbon 82s and wear my meta rides to climb in this setup has taken me through some pretty wild country. Cheers

so you wouldn't recommend the Silvrettas w/a short ski? Kong also makes a similar ski to the meta... kong.it/doc301.htm . Ever checked these out before? Also, what do you consider "short", because the shorter ski Kevin suggested (Madshus Annum) is at least 165cm. My intuition tells me that would be a lot of plank to make even a mild turn in mtn boots, but then again, i don't know shit... although I do know that climbing with them would be... character building! orscrosscountryskisdirect.c…

THANKS EVERYONE!

Whenever I have used skis for approach use, it is always about getting to the climb and the skiability of the ski doesn't really matter. For that, the Kong skis look sweet. Thanks for sharing the link. However, if you want a ski that is more versatile, that is better for "the down", a more conventional ski length would be way better. Your size and weight would determine that. It all depends on what you want to do. Personally, I like a ski that I can do a lot of different things with, so my choice would be a Madshus.

I think that the only reason to get a short (130cm or less)ski is if you plan to carry them with you on a climb. Otherwise, a longer AT ski and a Silvretta binding would be more versatile.

AmandaM wrote:If you get a kick-ass powder set-up, you won't want to go climbing anymore.

End of discussion

bump

AmandaM wrote:If you get a kick-ass powder set-up, you won't want to go climbing anymore.

Phillip Morris wrote:End of discussion

LIES AND DECEIT!!!

Don't listen to the non-believers, they just need to learn how to climb.

dirtbag wrote:coldfinger - thanks for verifying that it's not completely my ability... gives me some hope i'll find something that works better. Also, thanks for the warning about injury... i nearly learned that the hard way with a backward fall w/my current setup that kinda tweaked my knee. - my google search for "Karhu GuideXCD" came up w/skis came up with minnimum 165cm... is that the length you were referring to as your short ski? Thanks in advance!

That Outtabounds ski is totally NOT designed for anything other than hard crust and groomers, the fatness at tip and tail is solely to give it MAJOR sidecut and make it turn easier. It sucks for anything else as I found out.

Just thinking that if you're going to spend the $$ on a Silvretta binding, you best get a real touring ski. That binding is KICK ASS in terms of its ergonomics and performance for kick and glide and it's nice to be able to either lock the heel down or use the heel riser for skinning up steeps slopes. I like waxless just b/c they'll get you through a lot of gentle climbs and tricky spots w/o having to skin up. Just go to the nearest ski shop you trust and learn up!

Don't listen to people slamming snowshoes, there are places where they are the way to go. Yes they are slower but then you wont wreck your knee 5 miles from the road as its gets dark at 10 below!

There really is no such thing as a 1 ski quiver (don't care what any ski maker says) so don't feel like you need just one pair, just figure out where you want to go, find folks that go there (hopefully at a ski shop, instead of blowing internet trolls) and tailor the setup to the terrain you're most likely to cover.

coldfinger wrote: That ski is totally NOT designed for anything other than hard crust and groomers, the fatness at tip and tail is solely to give it MAJOR sidecut and make it turn easier. It sucks for anything else as I found out. Just thinking that if you're going to spend the $$ on a Silvretta binding, you best get a real touring ski. That binding is KICK ASS in terms of its ergonomics and performance for kick and glide and it's nice to be able to either lock the heel down or use the heel riser for skinning up steeps slopes. I like waxless just b/c they'll get you through a lot of gentle climbs and tricky spots w/o having to skin up. Just go to the nearest ski shop you trust and learn up! Don't listen to people slamming snowshoes, there are places where they are the way to go. Yes they are slower but then you wont wreck your knee 5 miles from the road as its gets dark at 10 below! There really is no such thing as a 1 ski quiver (don't care what any ski maker says) so don't feel like you need just one pair, just figure out where you want to go, find folks that go there (hopefully at a ski shop, instead of blowing internet trolls) and tailor the setup to the terrain you're most likely to cover.

Thanks coldfinger... I've been to ALL of the ski shops near Bellingham and have only found one (the Mt Baker Ski Shop) that had any idea why the hell I'd want to ski in mountaineering boots. Unfortunately, the guy I need to talk to is only there one day per week. Anyhow.. thanks again everyone for your input.

AmandaM wrote:If you get a kick-ass powder set-up, you won't want to go climbing anymore.

Phillip Morris wrote: End of discussion

wurd. I only climb to get my mind off powder when there is no snow, because I don't live in a powder country. We are entering the in-between season here out East, not enough snow, not cold enough for ice and almost too cold to climb. If I wasn't sick with cold, I'd be going bonkers about the T-day forecast (rain, low 40s).

I tracked down a legit pro climber that knows their shit (i'll leave the name out for their privacy) and accosted them with my questions on approach skis. This is what they told me. Hopefully this helps the next person w/the same questions I had:

ME:
I just moved to the Pac NW and plan on climbing in the Can Rockies and Cascades this winter/spring/summer :D What approach ski setups (to be used with mountain boots) do you use for the above applications?

BADASS:
The bindings you want are the Silvretta 500. In Seattle you can order them from Pro Mountain Sports or Pro Ski Service (probably Feathered Friends too). They probably don't stock them normally. Older Silvretta bindings will work fine as well, if you find a used pair.

For skis I would recommend 150-165cm. Really short I know, but it will make skiing in your climbing boots easier. And old-school width, not fat skis (hard to put fat skis on edge in climbing boots). They don't have to be anything fancy. I used to go to ski swaps and buy old kids' skis for this purpose.

Drill holes in the tips of the skis, big enough to pass through 5mm cord. Set up some adjustable straps that go from the tip of the ski to a strap around your leg, just below the knee. You use this for the ski down, because it simulates a high-back ski boot. Sounds weird, but it works well.

ME:
Appreciated! I gotta ask though, is it often that you find yourself in snow conditions and terrain that calls for a lighter setup you can carry up with you on the climb?

BADASS:
Sometimes in the Alps, but not often in the Cascades. It just depends on the route, though. You won't want to try hard climbing with skis on your back.

Also, the 100cm skis that are popular and useful in Chamonix (where the approaches are mostly downhill) wouldn't work very well in the Cascades, when you are often breaking trail through deep snow