Good Touring Ski Options

**H-man** · 05-28-2004, 05:02 PM

During my up coming summer trip to Austria, I will be looking around for good ski deals. As i've stated before, I am in the market for a touring set up. I'm going with Freerides for binders after much consideration and will most likely start out with my alpine boots then transition to AT boots.

I am a pretty big dude, 6'1" 240lbs. I'm a fix heal kind of guy that skis weekly on the East Coast, but makes it to Europe and the west every year for a few weeks. I don't huck, love powder first and steeps second.

I'm looking for input on good ski options, particularly Austrian skis just because they will be the best deal in the up coming trip. I ski Atomic 11:20 and Sugar Daddies now. I leaning toward a mid fat for a touring ski but heavy on the fat.

All replies/ideas welcome.

Thanks Mags!!

**FigureEleven** · 05-28-2004, 05:37 PM

Blizzards are Austrian... and they rule. The Titan 9.2 is 92 at the waist and only comes in a 188. I wouldnt go any smaller either. I weight a hell of a lot less and ski in the 190 - 200cm range. Also, touring is for powder, so dont go any smaller than 90 at the waist. The Titan 9.2 is fairly light weight but skis nice and burly. It would be a killer AT setup.

**laseranimal** · 05-28-2004, 07:58 PM

you might even want to think about the blue noodle its fat and light and since you're only using it as a touring rig it might work

**Rascal King** · 05-28-2004, 08:41 PM

If your're thinking PR, go motherships, its fatter, lighter and has a wood core and not some sh*t ass foam core.

**bad_roo** · 05-29-2004, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by Rascal King
If your're thinking PR, go motherships, its fatter, lighter and has a wood core and not some sh*t ass foam core.

If you're thinking motherships, go Karhu Jaks, much the same ski but cheaper and with a notch in the tail for skins.

**Idris** · 05-29-2004, 04:48 AM

Easy, take the binding and plate off your sugar daddies, and mount the freerides directly to the ski...I think comish did this a while back.....

**CantDog** · 05-29-2004, 01:29 PM

188 Voile Carbon Surfs would be nice

**Rascal King** · 05-29-2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by CantDog
188 Voile Carbon Surfs would be nice

Yea, they're pricey and I know people who can snap the skis with there bare hands due to the amount of glass ratio over carbon fiber.

Originally posted by bad_roo
If you're thinking motherships, go Karhu Jaks, much the same ski but cheaper and with a notch in the tail for skins.

Dont know abou thte Jaks being cheaper, you can get some used motherships for around 200 and they are easier to find.

**Hicks** · 05-30-2004, 02:43 PM

Like always, it strongly depends on what you intend to do.
For just occasional short touring you are probably o.k. with one of the aforementioned suggestions, I wouldn't even consider AT boots.
But for real mountaineering over a couple of days or longer without lift access in all snow conditions: go with a full AT setup and select a ski which is first of all light rather than fat or long. Most reputated ski manufacturers got these skies, check on their web sites for details.

**fez** · 05-30-2004, 08:32 PM

teledaddies

**seldon** · 05-30-2004, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by fez
teledaddies

I've heard good shit about using regular sugar daddies.

But then again, I'm just a 150lb gaper who skis on Scratch BCs and likes to wear his Flint SC around the house (san francisco) to make himself feel hardcore

.

PS. I broke my toenail today kicking a soccerball on a beach - so now I have non-hardcore toegnar. But you didn't need to know that I didn't break it landing just slightly in the backseat on a 100' gap jump. See?!?! I'm cool TOO! My toes are screwed up TOO! Can I join your cool-people club?

**verbier61** · 05-31-2004, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by Idris:
Easy, take the binding and plate off your sugar daddies, and mount the freerides directly to the ski...

Exactly! use the money you spare for good AT boots, skins, beacon, etc.

**comish** · 05-31-2004, 10:08 AM

Yep, I have about 14 days of touring on my bastardized Sugar daddy's. Unfortunately its pretty hard to mount the Fritschi's right to the ski. The bindings are a little wider than the channel so you are either cutting a bit of ski material or making custom risers = my solution.

I used some fine cutting boards (Mrs. comish's favorite for the front, who knew?) I was able to find one 2mm higher for the rear to solve the pesky ramp angle which it really does help.

So far so good. My take on it as a touring set up is they are great for pow touring and short to medium tours. A bit heavy for really long tours or strapped to your back for a long time. I have actually skied more spring snow with them and they are surprisingly enough very good even with the width.

Someday I will get a really cheap beat up pair of smaller/shorter skis for spring chuting (thinking Rex's) and put dynafits on them. Otherwise I'm staying with SD's w/ Fritschi's for my winter/pow touring rig.

Oh ya, Teledaddy would be easier since you wouldn't need to go through my custom riser shenanigans and are very very slightly lighter since they have no risers (compared pairs this weekend)

**H-man** · 05-31-2004, 01:38 PM

I thought about tele daddies but an a little worried that they are to soft for a guy my size. Same worries about the PR's. The sugar daddies are an option. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this years comes without the base plate. If I had only waited one more season on the first pair......

How would the Motherships compare with the PR's for stiffness and such? Anyone ski them?

The Blizzards sound interesting also. Anyone, Bueller, Bueller?

**Rascal King** · 05-31-2004, 01:53 PM

Pocket Rockets Suck! They dont even come close by comparision to the motherships.

**divegirl** · 06-02-2004, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Rascal King
Pocket Rockets Suck! They dont even come close by comparision to the motherships.

I'm not a 240 lb guy, but Pocket Rockets do not suck. I mounted mine with freerides, have used them in the bc one day now (I'm new to it) and they performed wonderfully. I've used this setup at resorts a few times now, and I have no complaints. But, alas, to each their own! I'd say demo a bunch, first.

**comish** · 06-02-2004, 07:10 PM

I thought about tele daddies but an a little worried that they are to soft for a guy my size. Same worries about the PR's. The sugar daddies are an option. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this years comes without the base plate. If I had only waited one more season on the first pair......

I'm pretty sure the tele daddies are the same stiffness as the Sugars so wouldn't worry about the soft issue.

The Sugar's do come without the base plate next year. My home made risers seem to be working pretty well so far.

The whole set up is fine for short - med tours and excellent for pow, but I am thinking about a lighter dynafit set up for future E. Sierra spring tours.

**Jiffy** · 06-03-2004, 02:49 PM

your to big for the TD's.
Im 6'3 210 & they just work for me.
they are defiantly softer than the SD's w/plate.

That said: i have skiied mine everywhere, in every condition, including mucho lift served, and love them. but it defiantly took getting used to them.
they ski shorter than the 183 they are.
pressuring the tips with send you ass over head.
back seat driving will send your head up your ass.
you just kinda gotta stand in the center and let the ski do everything.
next year they go back to being a dedicated bc ski where they belong.

**Spamhelmet** · 06-03-2004, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by H-man
During my up coming summer trip to Austria...

Is Völkl austrian? IF it would be, how about Karma´s tele version?
It´s supposed to be the same ski as Karma, just sans the 1(2?) layers of titanal. Lighter, softer... would think that parkrats could be intrested in that one too?

**joshbu** · 06-03-2004, 05:18 PM

I happen to have a pair of 191 Atomic 10.EXs with Freerides and skins cut to match for sale. No edge cracking. They bring way more burl than either the PR or the Mo'ship. The only reason I'm selling them is that they're just too much for me (6'1" 170) unless I'm 100% on top of them.

Willing to cut a great deal. PM me.

**Rascal King** · 06-03-2004, 05:20 PM

More burly than the mothership. ahhahahahahaha. Wood verus Foam, hahahahhaha,, skinny verus fat, hahahhaha.

**joshbu** · 06-03-2004, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Rascal King
More burly than the mothership. ahhahahahahaha. Wood verus Foam, hahahahhaha,, skinny verus fat, hahahhaha.

Yup. Metal layers have a way of doing that.

I would classify the 10.EX as a midfat.

Just out of curiousity, how much is LINE paying you? It's probably not enough. I have to say that you really are the "Rascal King." You're clearly the least objective ski reviewer EVER.

**Rascal King** · 06-03-2004, 06:31 PM

Rascal King.........do it again. hahahah, i pitty you people who ski on mid fats.

**Jumper Bones** · 06-07-2004, 04:09 AM

Don't mind RK, aka Agent_Skid, he's 12 and has "LINE" tattooed on his forehead and ass.

Where are said 'used motherships for 200 bucks'? What's the URL/where can they be found?

Is the Jak twinned too, upturned, or did they flatten the tail?

**Rascal King** · 06-07-2004, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Jetter
Don't mind RK, aka Agent_Skid, he's 12 and has "LINE" tattooed on his forehead and ass.

Where are said 'used motherships for 200 bucks'? What's the URL/where can they be found?

Is the Jak twinned too, upturned, or did they flatten the tail?

Your're stupider than I thought.