AT/BC Ski - Longer or Shorter?

Quotes because I won't be doing a ton of touring.

However, toying with the idea of throwing together an AT setup to expand my horizons.

Looking at Nordica Vagabonds at the Start Haus Blemish Sale.  $199 would get me a ski that's 107 under foot.  Would throw a set of Marker Barons or Atomic Trackers on them to give me a ski I can play with for some limited touring, while having a fatter ski for powder and inbounds crud/mank.  For the time being I'd use my Nordica Hell and Back Alpine boots, but may pick up a pair of lighter AT boots at some point.

My current skis are Nordica Helldivers at 186cm.  I'm 6'4", 185.  Start Haus has the Vagabonds in 177 or 193.  For a ski I'd use for powder and limited "touring" would you go shorter or longer?

Any other general thoughts anyone has are appreciated, as I don't know much about AT setups.

Nice post - I was going to ask something similar, as my dad and I are considering a touring set-up to get into the sport (we strictly alpine ski, and I board too).  Looking forward to the responses on this.

Go long. Short skis suck long skis truck

Better floatation with longer boards too

I like the idea of longer for more float in a powder ski as well, and with my height and experience  (harkening back to the days of 205s) I can handle the 193s.  Just have no idea when throwing on skins and touring if longer is better or worse.

JTG4eva! wrote

I like the idea of longer for more float in a powder ski as well, and with my height and experience  (harkening back to the days of 205s) I can handle the 193s.  Just have no idea when throwing on skins and touring if longer is better or worse.

Definitely agree with long.  I had a similar dilemma.  I am 6 ft and weight 170.  Currently riding on BD Aspect 176cm 90 underfoot.  This is a great all around light weight touring ski.  I had the choice between 186 and 176.  I chose 176, and now wish I went with the longer option.  Mainly, I find that this ski is not very stable at mid-speed on firmer snow... with very little powder opportunities this year, the ski has shown weakness at high speeds.  I'm thinking it's a bit too short for me.

As for better or worse going uphill... I'm not sure.  No complaints... my current rig performs really well on the uphill.  I would imagine a longer ski makes it more difficult to execute a good kick turn.  The length may also add some weight, but if your not going to be doing a lot of touring, then it shouldn't matter that much.  

Instead of a tour  "ski you can play with " reverse that logic. Why not get a good touring setup including boots and also use at the resort . Aren't you touring to go after soft snow? Any good setup will work just as good at the resort on a pow day. If the resorts suck you have the setup to stay away and ski what you are ultimately after. Don't you already have some crappy groomer ski anyway?

You can also use that long ski floatation logic on the skinning aspect. Although very minimal, it does make a slight difference if you are the lucky one to be breaking trail in 2ft of pow

skimore wrote

Instead of a tour  "ski you can play with " reverse that logic. Why not get a good touring setup including boots and also use at the resort.

This is the route that I took... I had been primarily riding a snowboard for about 15 years, and then started skiing again 4 yrs ago. I ride 50/50 resort/backcountry.  In my opinion, it's the most practical way to go when funds are limited.  A set of AT boots will pay significant dividends on the uphill.

Longer.   Better for up, flat and down in the bc.  Most importantly, rocker.   Rocker allows a longer ski that floats better because of more surface area, and that turns like a shorter ski.   Rocker adds lift when breaking trail, less need to work harder consciously lifting the tip to set a track.   Also longer is faster in tracks already set, which means less time getting to your stash.  

It's been said before.... Short skis suck.  

Why would you buy a touring ski in a different fashion than you would buy a regular ski? Just buy the best ski for the snow and terrain you'll typically be skiing... be it resort, sidecountry, or backcountry... but what conditions be it hard pack, powder, or spring corn.

Some touring skis have the holes cut out of the tips to better fashion a sled out of. Okay. Lack of turned up tail or twin tips helps with skins but lots of skins work with full twins. Light weight? Eh... it's all about the down. Besides, you'll save more weight on AT boots and tech bindings so if you aren't going that route you obviously don't care about touring weight so whatev to a light weight ski. But if you like touring, you might as well get the tech binding and AT boots now as you'll get them eventually if you are into it.

Any ways, get what ski you think works best for your intended use, typical snow condition and terrain type. Lean towards something with enough adaptability that it is not a one trick pony. But don't worry about it being a "touring" specific ski. You can slap a touring binding on any ski you want to. Only you can answer the specifics from there.

I'am no expert in this field.
Got a new set up this year 180 Blizzard Buschwackers with Salomon Guardian 16 AT bindings.
Some said this was a weird set up.
I could not be happier. These skis almost turn themselves. The bindings are just as tough and responsive as any alpine binding IMO.
I will be looking for new boots this end of season.
Anyway good luck on your search

riverc0il wrote

Why would you buy a touring ski in a different fashion than you would buy a regular ski?

Good question, and I get your point.  This idea is still in the conceptual stage, so I appreciate the input.  That said, I'm not looking to replace my current alpine set up.  I'm happy with that, and I'll continue to use it for most of my resort/inbounds skiing.  I'm looking to 'add to my quiver' so I have something I can tour with on occasion, will serve me better on the elusive powder day, and give me a change of pace ski to play around with once in a while.  I wouldn't choose something like the Vagabond at 107 for my everyday inbounds ski, but it sounds like it might be a good choice for a tour with my friend, a powder day at a resort, a day in the slides, or a trip to Tuckerman's.

I'm not looking to buy my "touring" ski any differently than I'd buy a regular ski.  I'm targeting a fatter ski for side/backcountry and powder.  Beyond that, if Start Haus had them in a 186 (my preferred size) I'd be all over it.  The 'longer or shorter' has to do with the fact that they only have them in 193 and 177.  I'm trying to keep the cost down, so a blemish for $199 in a 193 works better for me than spending twice that on a non-blemish in 186.

Thanks again, and keep the valuable input coming.

The discussion sounds more like backcountry ski, than touring ski. For a touring setup, you might be carrying a heavy pack for an overnight, or going a rather long distance to a hut, or village to village. For long distance you want lighter and better glide. You get both of those with a longer ski and as narrow a ski that will work for you. Wider than 75 or 80 mm really cuts down the glide.  This assumes you don't need flotation and are on a broken trail that is compacted or condensed snowpack.

Agreed, I'm not looking for a true touring rig, rather an AT setup for backcountry.  Pardon my bad terminology.

It was quite obvious what you were after and it is called alpine touring anyway

JTG4eva! wrote

Quotes because I won't be doing a ton of touring.

However, toying with the idea of throwing together an AT setup to expand my horizons.

Looking at Nordica Vagabonds at the Start Haus Blemish Sale.  $199 would get me a ski that's 107 under foot.  Would throw a set of Marker Barons or Atomic Trackers on them to give me a ski I can play with for some limited touring, while having a fatter ski for powder and inbounds crud/mank.  For the time being I'd use my Nordica Hell and Back Alpine boots, but may pick up a pair of lighter AT boots at some point.

My current skis are Nordica Helldivers at 186cm.  I'm 6'4", 185.  Start Haus has the Vagabonds in 177 or 193.  For a ski I'd use for powder and limited "touring" would you go shorter or longer?

Any other general thoughts anyone has are appreciated, as I don't know much about AT setups.

I'll disagree with the collective here because it entirely depends on your objectives. If all of my trips were 18mile slogs to Chimney Pond, hell no would i be on a 186. If touring to you is a 700 vert skin up the resort before work, then get the dampest funnest ski you can dream up since you won't notice the weight as much in that short window.

I went for a kind of middle route -- well, first of all, I only ski on tourable setups -- but my main pow skis are of the ultralight CF variety and have been for the past year. They are not as good in a resort with poor conditions, but with pow they are dreamy and I ski them as long as I would otherwise.

YMMV. Get whatever looks appealing to you.

(I am still holding on to a Black Diamond pow touring ski btw, turn radius was too long for me  )

Again, the quotes, meant to imply not real touring, and I did state I was looking to put AT bindings on.  Shouldn't have been that confusing?

Do appreciate the input, and I'm looking for the skin 700 ft of vertical AT deal, with a once in a blue moon longer tour to a 'Dacks slide.

The Vagabond seems perfect, but still the 193 dilemma.  Get a little longer ski to save a couple hundred bucks?

JTG4eva! wrote

Again, the quotes, meant to imply not real touring, and I did state I was looking to put AT bindings on.  Shouldn't have been that confusing?

Do appreciate the input, and I'm looking for the skin 700 ft of vertical AT deal, with a once in a blue moon longer tour to a 'Dacks slide.

The Vagabond seems perfect, but still the 193 dilemma.  Get a little longer ski to save a couple hundred bucks?

yeah, if you want to ski the Vagabond in a 193 inbounds anyway.

Decided to resurrect this thread and get some current thinking.

First off, it's fun to look back on this one (for me at least).  I was asking some of the wrong questions at the time, and I got plenty of great advice, some of it prophetic!

Let me say that I survived my lack of knowledge and my cringeworthy questions more than a year and a half ago to end up in a great AT setup that I absolutely love.  I ended up with a burly ski and a beefy frame binding that has tackled Tuckerman's, is fun to play with in the resort, and has gotten me multiple long backcountry days in the PNW, days which have included hours long tours to goods deeper in the backcountry and shorter laps just outside of resort boundaries.

The advice many of you guys gave to "buy a ski I'd like to ski on" for use with the AT bindings was spot on.  However, some of you also said I would eventually end up going for a lighter weight tech setup if I got into the backcountry thing, which I have.  Hence this resurrection.....

So, the tech bindings were delivered today.  My initial intent was to throw them on my El Capos and call it a day.  But then I got to thinking.....which usually gets me in trouble.  Anywho, instead of break up a setup I love (El Capos with Barons), why not take the Dynafits and put them on a lighter ski that will serve me better on longer tours to reach powdery and steep backcountry descents?  If I can find another ski I'll like to ski on for less than $300 that will complete my lighter weight AT setup I may just do that.  My last day out in the PNW started with a nearly two hour skin to reach the base of our target, followed by 1,200 vertical foot laps up and down.  Sure, it was only my second day of the season, but the weight of my current setup killed me.  I'm excited to go lighter for future backcountry adventures out west, as well as for some long approaches in the Daks!  I've got some potential skis in mind, but I wanted to kick a few things around and get some current thinking.

Width under foot.  If you were targeting a ski to be used primarily for powder days in the alpine backcountry, days which will include a fair amount of touring, what would be your go to width?  The guide I ski with out in Washington recently got new skis....106 under foot.  He tours and skis for a living, and as far as he's concerned 100 to 110 under foot is all you need.  Sure, he's not skiing Utah powder with a snorkel, but the PNW gets its share of powder.  I've also read some opinions on TGR that skis of 110 plus are less than optimal for touring.  What are your current thoughts on width?  I was looking at a few things in the 117/118 range as a dedicated powder setup, but now I'm thinking a lighter ski (some kind of big mountain charger sans metal) of 104 to 108 might be the way to go.  Slightly narrower ski = a little less weight, too.

Ski length, another thing to revisit.  My El Capo are 193.  Thinking something in the 184/186 range for the ski to pair with the Dynafits.  I'm comfortable at that length and again....slightly shorter ski = a little less weight.  Sure, a longer ski may glide better when touring, but I won't be doing many long, flat tours where glide is a priority.

Any other things I should consider in completing a lighter weight tech setup?  Hope you guys don't mind rehashing some old ground in a newish light!

I am back down to my single 106mm ski for all conditions, inbounds and touring. Five years old, indestructible, versatile.

If I had to change anything for touring only maybe I'd add a hair more tiprocker. I wish I had more time to demo. Those Fischers look awfully sweet with 3D tips. Or the libtech nas could be intriguing. But I'd probably just go with a tried and true praxis backcountry in carbon (not another ultralight - I found that to be too specific for the northeast).

My personal take: use a ski that works decent in all conditions...firm, nasty, and powder.   For your objectives, I wouldn't go long or short.  For reference, I tour on a 104 waisted ski that has a traditional camber profile.   I used this ski living in CO and also now living back east.  It's solid on firm snow, and though it doesn't have the super surfy feel of more modern shapes in powder, it still is a lot of fun in powder.  You're generally skiing more reserved and slower in the backcountry anyways, so I actually like a traditional ski in the backcountry.  You never know what kind of nasty conditions you're going to get...I really wouldn't want to put in a big day of effort to ultimately find that the snow is quite firm, and then have to ski down on a soft, floppy, wide ski.