# Skinning the trail...



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

I'm a big guy also (6'-4" 215lbs) so I know about heavy weight on skins. I have toured extensively in the states, some it Canada, europe and Mexico and have skied my whole life (42 years) so I have some knowledge. Your skin track should be nowhere close to 30 deg. That is like going straight up a mild black diamond ski run. You are better off with a much flatter skin track. It is the equivalent of using a long wrench vs a short wrench. Either way the same work is done but one requires more force. If you cannot talk a bit while going up you are going too steep or pushing yourself too hard.
Your ski length and width seem ok. I'm on a 185 cm 95 cm waist ski and I still sink deeper than my light buddies. Its just the price big guys pay. I think a wider/heavier ski might make it harder than it needs to be for you. I would stay away from the 170 cm ski for a guy your size. The 140cm waist will be hard to edge on hard snow skins and will be hard to control with any binding except the Duke on hard snow. If you only anticipate powder skinning/skiing then disregard the ski waist comments, but I would not go that short. Any ski that short will be designed for a lighter skier and will flex too much for you.If you find yourself in the backseat, a short twintip ski can squirt out from under you and leave you on your ass. You have a lot of mass and height and you should probably be on the largest ski in any given model. 
I have never used a half skin, and no one I know uses one. They are for very low angle approaches where glide is important. It sounds like you want to go up (30 deg?) so I would stick with a nylon skin as opposed to a mohair skin. Nylon sticks better but does not glide as well. At walking pace, glide is not that important but a lack of climbing ability will drive you nuts. Have fun and be safe.


----------



## bobbuilds (May 12, 2007)

Thank you for your reply, I agree with what you said. I did not know that shorter meant softer, but I do understand that if we are talking overall weight displacement again I agree. However I do still wonder about going wider to compensate for length. and I am all about the powder in the BC. I know that I have to traverse different conditions to get to it, but it is my main objective to ski powder when I am out there.

edit note: I might be misjudgeing my angles of approach. I will switch back more and try not to exhaust myself during the climb.

bob


----------



## randomnature (Jun 10, 2007)

*I can't resist*

What do you think about people who snowshoe or boot pack in the skin trail?


----------



## bobbuilds (May 12, 2007)

fine with it. so long as they don't end up with their pants down stuck in a tree, while their 8 year old looks on. After all this is the backcountry.....


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

Bob, If you want a shorter ski, I would definitely shop around for the stiffest one you could find. Shorter skis are not necessarily softer, but your mass is concentrated on a shorter length so the ski may flex more. A short soft ski will also have no tail to lean against if you end up in the backseat. I recently gave a pair of BD Zealots to a friend which were 182cm x 110mm and were very stiff, but you may want fatter. A 110 is a pretty fat ski for a touring setup. Just curious what bindings you are using?


----------



## bobbuilds (May 12, 2007)

Right, a shorter ski leaves less to displace the weight. I was sure that is what you meant. I am also thinking wider to help keep the length down?

I am on an AT set up of Marker dukes mounted(at the line) on Head mojo 105's 181 length 130/105/125(close).
I looked at all the fat skis. The reason I was looking at these skis in the shorter length was to help displace the weight while skinning, and control my speed during the descent. I understand I will benefit from a stiffer ski like an all mountain It is what I am after now. I see how the softness of a ski would hurt me on the skin trail and when I sit back on my tails. On a side note, do you think going forward of the line is a good way to get more out of the tails? 

I will also benifit from time on the trail, I appreciate your help
bob


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

Bob, I once bought a pair of Nordica beasts 188cm x 92mm wide which were mushy soft and I ended up remounting forward since the tail end was so soft. I gave them to a friend who weighs 140 lbs and they did not have enough spine for him! If you get a shorter, wide ski I can't emphasize enough getting a stiff pair. The stiffer flex will ski better for you and will be less likely to crush through the skin track as the ski doesn't flex as much.
Good binding choice as a big guy. Does the Duke have a brake 140mm wide?


----------



## bobbuilds (May 12, 2007)

I think they have a 130mm brake avalible. I was going to for-go the brakes and use a coil cable to my boot for the wide ski though. I will be looking for the stiffest of the fats.

Speaking of fat, the ruller of all fat skis, and a new local ski/board maker, check out..

www.rockymountainunderground.com its called the fat girl... good luck pushing her down.

I talked with a rep today and the stuff looks good. they have demos avalible. I am sure they are going to be solid.


----------



## dasunluva (Oct 13, 2003)

Just a heads up, don't attach yours skis to yours boots in the backcountry. Ski connected to you in avalanche = Anchor. You want those babies to come clean off in the event.


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*Ski size and weight*

Interesting topic. I've used shorter and have gone back to an old pair of XXX bandits with 191 length. They were last made about five years ago, but the stiffness and length seem to work with my 6'1" 200 #'s. People give me a hard time when they see me on a old non touring ski, but it works. I've tried alot of other stuff and have come back to this.


----------



## d.e. (Apr 5, 2005)

I picked up a pair of Voile Asylums with Freerides this year. I love them. Good torsional stiffness. Great touring set-up (couple of pounds lighter than my Sickbirds w/ Titanal III) for a ski this fat. I'm 5'10 225 and I went with the 175's. Plenty of ski ( they float really - 116 underfoot) and really responsive for me. A bigger guy could go 185 or 195 and not feel weighed down. Glidelites 130 for wall to wall carpeting. I've skied on groomers and they carve great, a liitle chatter on hardpack. Great touring days in the BC on them so far. Plus they're one of the more reasonably priced new skis out this year.


----------



## bobbuilds (May 12, 2007)

dasunluva said:


> Just a heads up, don't attach yours skis to yours boots in the backcountry. Ski connected to you in avalanche = Anchor. You want those babies to come clean off in the event.


excelent point, it had not occured to me. Good thing you pointed that out or I would be in the spring run off.


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

For normal to fat skis you can just use the stock breaks and stretch them before mounting. For super-fats you might need to purchase the wider breaks. And even then you may need to stretch the breaks more.

D


----------



## bobbuilds (May 12, 2007)

thanks Derk, how have you been man? I have been up your way quite a bit this season. We should get some turns in if you like. Oh, and I am ready for westwater next year... We should tell that story...140lb man and a 40 gallon playboat save 320lb log... er Bob from swimming skull rapid...last eddy before the hole...epic trip. keep me in mind for this year.


----------



## dograft83 (Jun 16, 2008)

Has anybody tryed the new skis that have reverse camber? I would think that they would float really well on the way up and alot of fun on the way down


----------



## sgleason (Apr 12, 2005)

dograft83 said:


> Has anybody tryed the new skis that have reverse camber? I would think that they would float really well on the way up and alot of fun on the way down



This may not be super helpful, but I chatted with a guy a few weeks ago who had a pair of dual camber skis. I think they were Armada ARG skis...I could be wrong on that. He said they were great for touring and big snow days (obviously). He did say that he has another pair of dual camber skis (I don't know which ones) that toured like crap. He always had to break his own trail because there wasn't enough purchase on a skin track. So, I guess it depends on which ski it is. I can easily see how they might not hold on a track since there isn't as much surface area laying down on the snow.


----------



## jasonatthebasin (Jan 17, 2009)

randomnature said:


> What do you think about people who snowshoe or boot pack in the skin trail?


Everybody should have access. Just because we have skis and skins makes us no better or deserve more. It is everybody's national forest. No bad attitudes in the BC please. If that's what you're looking for, join the Yellowstone club.


----------



## nemi west (Jun 22, 2006)

jasonatthebasin said:


> Everybody should have access. Just because we have skis and skins makes us no better or deserve more. It is everybody's national forest. No bad attitudes in the BC please. If that's what you're looking for, join the Yellowstone club.


have you ever been to the Yellowstone Club?


----------



## jasonatthebasin (Jan 17, 2009)

nemi west said:


> have you ever been to the Yellowstone Club?


Had a run in with a group that claimed they are members. Real bad attitudes, better than you, holier than thou types. Maybe I should not generalize, but then again....... It was a point I was making. The back country is not some sort of club for the elite; if someone feels the urge to stray from the lifts, return to the soul of whatever they do, more power to them. No matter how they access. And I'm not trying to defend myself as a boarder or something. I ski. And I'll posthole just for the workout.


----------

