Glide Lite Skins?

After years of hiking around Paradise and up to Camp Muir many times, I got some snowshoes so I could hike all year around.<br><br>Now I want to get some skins for my 185 Pocket Rockets and also some Alpine Trekkers. I am considering 120mm Glide Lites because the tip and tail setup looks promising for the PR's. However, I keep reading comments regarding durability compared to the Purple Ascension skins. My question is, has anyone been disappointed with the Glide Lites?

One of my ski partners uses Glide Lites and another uses the purple (Clipfix?) and I use G3s. The Glide Lites seem to climb the best. The G3s stay on the best. Whichever you get, make sure to get them wide enough to cover the whole ski. <br><br>Enjoy

Welcome to the site Ruxpercnd!<br>In my humble opinion. If you have the money to spend on Trekkers ($180) spend a little more and get set up with skis and Freerides or Naxo-something along those lines. <br>My personal years of experience messing around with the Trekkers is not worth getting stuck out some where as the sun is setting and you are slipping out of the Trekkers for the umpteenth time and still need to get 1000vf over the summit in calf deep pow. Also the added burden of weight and pack space make them inconvenient. Everyone I know-including myself has had this experience on that set up. If that does not match your liking I can sell you some Trekkers for less than half what you will pay for them retail. As for the Glide lites they are great. The rear clip fits the twin tip and the clip fix (purple) will not work on the twinners.<br>Good Luck- Let me know if you need some grief and I will sell you a pair of Trekkers.<br>JDB

Thanks for the input Joe... y'all make me feel comfy regarding the glide lites...<br><br>Now about the Alpine Trekkers. I realize that a randonee or telemark setup is for serious backcountry work. I just want to tool around Paradise and Muir Snowfield. Also, I may want to climb a little in the Crystal Mt. "Back Country". Anyone would agree that trekkers pose extra weight in combination with regular alpine bindings. But you make it sound like they are almost useless. Really?<br>Is there some place and use for those trekkers? I may just pack the skis and snowshoe up.

Ruxpercnd-I assume that once you get out you may get the fever for more adventures. I guess that if you are just trolling around figuring if this hiking thing is for you then that is cool-the Trekkers are really not useless-I used them for many years, although they have limits. Such as they slip around in the binding-depending on what binding you have. I assume you have Solomon bindings, they work best for the Trekkers. When you go to kick turn they are awkward and may come out of the binding. The metal bales on the frame tend to stretch out and come loose on the boot. <br>Having Trekkers rather than not doing any touring-I would rather have Trekkers. <br>I would like to see you out on skins rather than shoes. But I don't know your budget. A) You can travel more efficiently on steeper slopes and skins are easy to pack compared to snow shoes. Unless you create your own trail-snowshoe tracks on skin tracks suck for others that are skinning.<br>I just want to save you some time and frustration that I experienced. I assume you may be new to backcountry travel-Travel safe- learn about avalanche snow conditions-have a beacon, shovel and probe. Most importantly know how to use them! <br>If you have any more questions ask away!<br>Joe

Well, buy Joedabaker's cheap Trekkers, and slog to Muir with them. The next day, rent some AT gear and slog to Muir. Then form your own opinions. If all you want is a taste of the bc, try em! Just remember that if it feels like a horrible horrible slog, the gear might not be helping. And if you really do like the backcountry, then you'll be sufficiently motivated to buy new gear, and you can sell the trekkers to some other poor sap. So go for it!