Best BC Ski for Randonee

I just bought the Dynafit Freeride Carbon 10's. The width, not a lot of sidecut, and light while not being too stiff is what attracted me. Ha. Now I just hope what I think I want transitions into just what I need on the slopes in a few weeks. I bought them from Marmot for 498, but I saw them for a little cheaper on another website, not sure which one though. They were 479, normally 599.

Anyone have a chance to ski the new Atomic Kailas? Looks like Atomic's answer to all those Havocs flying out their factory door - 88mm underfoot, slightly softer forebody, no upturned tail . . . I guess 88-90mm underfoot is the new definition of "mid fat" !

Re: Best BC Ski for Randonee
« Reply #46 on: 09/12/06, 11:18 AM » | Reply with quote 

---

I have a pair of Havocs as well, and they rip in pretty much any condition, especially crud. I don't care for the twin tip for touring, however - the tail of these skis is effectively three or four inches longer than the skis they replaced (184 R:EX) so I step on my own downhill ski every time I make a steep uphill kick turn.  Also when you're booting up something steep and jamming the skis in the snow as a self-belay device, the tails tend to deflect and not penetrate the snow.  I couldn't really think of a good reason for the upturned tail until I watched Doug Coombs in the Otter Body Experience video rapping down backward (note K2 stickers all over the skis).

Thanks for sharing the video.  I've been skiing on twin tips( Line motherships 182's with dynafits  and Armada JP -Julien, 191's  with freerides)   in the backcountry for four seasons.  The twins seem to me to have about equal advantages and disadvantages.  The main advantages are the ability to comfortably move backwards in tight spots and side slip like a falling leaf,  not sticking the tails in while skinning during steep kick turns or when the skins slip, and the tails release easier and help with back seat recoveries. You are right about the extra length interfering with walking and the difficulty planting the skis, especially in hard conditions, not to mention the irritating rooster tails they throw up in every one's faces unlucky enough to be behind me.  My next pair of skis will be non-twin tip Karhu BC 100's. They are light for the size (7.6 lbs,186 cm) but the twins will always see service.  I am also thinking about the new Karhu Guide waxless ski which is supposed to ski pretty well on the downhill compared to other waxless skis. 

Does anyone know if the K2 Chogori is the same ski as the older Summit 8611? Several friends have Summits and like them a lot.

Not sure if they're the same ski Lowell, but I know that Adam at Pro Ski still had a pair of Summits in the shop as of a month ago. Probably pick them up for a song. My wife skis them and finds them difficult, but manageable, in glop and mushy springy conditions. Their weight makes up for a lot.

Lowell,

I saw the two skis at Marmot and wondered the same thing. My guess at the time was that it is the same ski repackaged. I saw at least three versions of the 8611 on the used rack and I doubt that K2 would eliminate a ski niche, other than in name if people like it.

Marcus,

My wife also skis the 8611, but as a tele ski. Though I made the choice for her at the time, she loves it for that purpose. I think it fits well her stature and weight and also the rather light boot she is skiing with.

She just went rando, or will be going rando when the snow comes, this year, with new skis and boots. Here she opted for the K2 Shuksans and because the Garmonts that she got were not dynafit compatible, she is went for the step-in style AT binding. Again, as she gets on these skis for the first time, I think that she will appreciate the sweet even flex of the Shuksans, yet they seem to be reasonably stiff torsionally. Lots of lift served skiing to be done with the kids and I think that she will drive that wider setup well. For true backcountry, I think that this will also work well, even if it is a little on the heavy side.

One comment I had at the shop was whats up at Garmont, that none of the women's boots are Dynafit compatible. Did some marketing guru do a study suggesting that adding Dynafit is a waste of time for women? Does it really save cost that much? If you bother to make a women's boot, then by default you are stating that women and men's boots are designed differently than they are implying that the men's boots likely would not be appropriate for many women. ( I personally find that dubious, it should have to do more with the relationship of foot size and typical weight, within a boot class based on the type of skiing and agressiveness. In other words you would expect that a size 14 megaride should have thicker plastic and be stiffer than a size 6, since the weight and ht of two different size skiers would create much different leverage forces.

If I owned a boot company, I would offer all models with and without dynafit comp. and then charge more for the ones with to cover the added cost.

Alan