Always helping with my other questions. Trying the QST X (still a debate as I love the idea of the VWerk Katana or HL BC 110 - timing won’t work for this season). At 170lb and assuming a HEAVY 20lb pack I would then need only 1900g per ski. So my QST X + Alpinist?! Seems light for a ski I’ll need to really work on steep places like Silverton. No?
I feel like boots need to be factored in as well. I have tecnica cochise 130's that are right at home anywhere, but my zero g peak carbons I have to really mentally drive forward.
Absolutely. I talk about mass and boots in a video about F1 lts. I feel like it goes without saying that we are in total agreement and that anybody that wants high performance skiing is essentially going to be in a four buckle boot, or a cabrio three buckle type competitor like the hoji, roxa, etc. Essentially, any boot that is under 1300 g is not going to enable higher performance skiing simply because a boot that light is not going to be able to handle the forces on a heavier full length ski. And 1300 is certainly going to be the limit and specifically for lighter weight skis. More realistically 1500 to 1700 is going to be the minimum of what can handle skis that I'm talking about at speeds above 30 mph and in snow types other than perfect.
@@thicccboyztv I agree, though I've also seen some people going to a 1250g boot, but putting in a more substantial liner like a zipfit. For better fit and better ski performance on a lighter boot. This brings more comfort on longer / big ski mountaineering days. But for 90% of the touring you do, if a Dynafit Radical and 1700g ski is hampering your ability on the up, you just need to get more fit.
@@3Drewski the whole light boot with beefy liner is kind of just a misunderstanding of how skiing stuff works that seems to have come to existence or popularity because of Cody Townsend, who tours in sun in full goretex. Reality is a light boot, plus a heavy liner is the same weight or more as a scarpa Quattro which unbuckled will walk better than a light boot with a zipfit, which impedes the natural walkability of the light boot (I've owned a zipfit). And the Quattro will also provide more support and stiffness than a 2 buckle with a zipfit. Liners improve the transmission to the boot which can feel like it improves stiffness, but it doesn't alter the material stiffness of the boot. In other words. Liners don't actually improve flex, they just improve access to the flex depending on fit. But if you got a heavier boot that fits well to begin with, and walks as good as a two buckle, it will walk better and ski better than a 1200g boot with a beefier liner. Anyone who disagrees simply hasn't skied in a heavier boot that walks well.
Good choice! The BMT is the highest performance actual "touring" ski I've been on. The katana v werks is a light resort ski, which is just a different level of performance. For lighter weight people though the BMT is totally adequate.
I think you are actually selling the heavier skis short: you said: “do you want a 20 % reduction in weight, for a 50% decrease in downhill performance”. However, that sentence, we are comparing system performance (on the down) to ski spec on the up. The real question is: how much performance (effort) do you lose on the up with the heavier ski. In the case of a 100kg system weight (skier, pack, clothes, boots, bindings) saving 500 g is only 0.5% more weight to haul up the hill. Now, many people will say that weight on the feet matters more than weight elsewhere. This is debatable, but let’s say it counts 4x. Then, you are still only looking at 2% more work to ascend with the heavy skis. So even if one doubts the improvement on the descent is really 50%, let’s say it’s 10%, that’s pretty conservative. In the worst case scenario, we are looking at a 10% increase on the down, for a 2% decrease on the up!
This may seem a bit off topic but, do you ever poke yourself in the eye with your ski poles? You have probably adjusted to them but the swing weight must be very different compared to a short pole and the modern style that they allow, that is more akin to no poles and the wasted. energy used in pole planting. They would seem to make you use a taller stance and higher center of gravity. Adjustable poles are pretty easy to deal with.
I have never once hit myself with my pole, and in fact, find them useful for many things that people don't think about. Obviously if I am in the resort I have normal poles and I do appreciate them if the only thing I am doing is skiing. However, for me the back country is a much more multi-faceted environment pun semi-intended. Having a pole like this allows me to plunge it upside down without any interference into many different snow and even some types of ice So there are a lot more scenarios where it is useful in gaining vert when you can plunge them and then use them to pull yourself up. It is also useful as a makeshift dead man anchor If you are sussing out stability on a slope by yourself and do not have anything else to belay off of. It also is considerably stronger than any adjustable pole and therefore is much more useful in rescue scenarios and makeshift sled building. Another thing that they are surprisingly useful for that people don't think about is skiing in tight trees. By raising the pole slightly like you are boxing, the top half of the pole pushes eye level branches out of the way and protects your face. They also allow an extremely efficient double polling technique on the flats like XC racers use which is extremely nice when they need arises. Not to mention the fact that there is one less thing to break and that you can adjust infinitely and on the fly without touching anything. As far as center of gravity, that is entirely dependent on where you grip them and I know people that have marked them at their traditional pole height so that they grab them there which would theoretically mean you would have the same center of gravity. I suppose that my planting technique is slightly different where I do not have the shaft pointed at me but rather with my wrist slightly cocked outwards but the tip of the pole hitting the same spot so that if it was to hit something it deflects away from my body. Also like skimo racers a longer pull allows you to extend your arm like a tricep pull down further behind you, which is a more efficient way to skin/stride and is more of a full body movement rather than the way people typically skin with limited range of motion and no real use of the upper body other than for balance. I tend to ski pretty balanced and neutral and certainly don't feel like I need poles to ski, So for me it is a no-brainer being more in the realm of an all around tool rather than something I need for skiing. Mid shaft these poles can support a grown man's body weight if suspended horizontally. There is no adjustable pole that can do that.
@@thicccboyztv I like the branches out of your face trick. Perhaps it is that i have a harder time putting myself in your boots with that extra foot of ski pole in your hands. Thanks for the informative videos.
Always helping with my other questions. Trying the QST X (still a debate as I love the idea of the VWerk Katana or HL BC 110 - timing won’t work for this season).
At 170lb and assuming a HEAVY 20lb pack I would then need only 1900g per ski. So my QST X + Alpinist?! Seems light for a ski I’ll need to really work on steep places like Silverton. No?
I feel like boots need to be factored in as well. I have tecnica cochise 130's that are right at home anywhere, but my zero g peak carbons I have to really mentally drive forward.
Absolutely. I talk about mass and boots in a video about F1 lts. I feel like it goes without saying that we are in total agreement and that anybody that wants high performance skiing is essentially going to be in a four buckle boot, or a cabrio three buckle type competitor like the hoji, roxa, etc. Essentially, any boot that is under 1300 g is not going to enable higher performance skiing simply because a boot that light is not going to be able to handle the forces on a heavier full length ski. And 1300 is certainly going to be the limit and specifically for lighter weight skis. More realistically 1500 to 1700 is going to be the minimum of what can handle skis that I'm talking about at speeds above 30 mph and in snow types other than perfect.
@@thicccboyztv I agree, though I've also seen some people going to a 1250g boot, but putting in a more substantial liner like a zipfit. For better fit and better ski performance on a lighter boot. This brings more comfort on longer / big ski mountaineering days.
But for 90% of the touring you do, if a Dynafit Radical and 1700g ski is hampering your ability on the up, you just need to get more fit.
@@3Drewski the whole light boot with beefy liner is kind of just a misunderstanding of how skiing stuff works that seems to have come to existence or popularity because of Cody Townsend, who tours in sun in full goretex. Reality is a light boot, plus a heavy liner is the same weight or more as a scarpa Quattro which unbuckled will walk better than a light boot with a zipfit, which impedes the natural walkability of the light boot (I've owned a zipfit). And the Quattro will also provide more support and stiffness than a 2 buckle with a zipfit. Liners improve the transmission to the boot which can feel like it improves stiffness, but it doesn't alter the material stiffness of the boot. In other words. Liners don't actually improve flex, they just improve access to the flex depending on fit. But if you got a heavier boot that fits well to begin with, and walks as good as a two buckle, it will walk better and ski better than a 1200g boot with a beefier liner. Anyone who disagrees simply hasn't skied in a heavier boot that walks well.
Thanks man, was considering the BMTs but now im gonna swing for the v-werks
Good choice! The BMT is the highest performance actual "touring" ski I've been on. The katana v werks is a light resort ski, which is just a different level of performance. For lighter weight people though the BMT is totally adequate.
@@thicccboyztv im a 95kg mamas boy
@@Winsto25 I'm actually just about to post a video specifically about the katana.
@@thicccboyztv LFG
I think you are actually selling the heavier skis short: you said: “do you want a 20 % reduction in weight, for a 50% decrease in downhill performance”. However, that sentence, we are comparing system performance (on the down) to ski spec on the up.
The real question is:
how much performance (effort) do you lose on the up with the heavier ski.
In the case of a 100kg system weight (skier, pack, clothes, boots, bindings) saving 500 g is only 0.5% more weight to haul up the hill. Now, many people will say that weight on the feet matters more than weight elsewhere. This is debatable, but let’s say it counts 4x. Then, you are still only looking at 2% more work to ascend with the heavy skis. So even if one doubts the improvement on the descent is really 50%, let’s say it’s 10%, that’s pretty conservative. In the worst case scenario, we are looking at a 10% increase on the down, for a 2% decrease on the up!
Preaching to the choir. The only time light skis are fun is when you arent there to ski.
This may seem a bit off topic but, do you ever poke yourself in the eye with your ski poles? You have probably adjusted to them but the swing weight must be very different compared to a short pole and the modern style that they allow, that is more akin to no poles and the wasted. energy used in pole planting. They would seem to make you use a taller stance and higher center of gravity. Adjustable poles are pretty easy to deal with.
I have never once hit myself with my pole, and in fact, find them useful for many things that people don't think about. Obviously if I am in the resort I have normal poles and I do appreciate them if the only thing I am doing is skiing. However, for me the back country is a much more multi-faceted environment pun semi-intended. Having a pole like this allows me to plunge it upside down without any interference into many different snow and even some types of ice So there are a lot more scenarios where it is useful in gaining vert when you can plunge them and then use them to pull yourself up. It is also useful as a makeshift dead man anchor If you are sussing out stability on a slope by yourself and do not have anything else to belay off of. It also is considerably stronger than any adjustable pole and therefore is much more useful in rescue scenarios and makeshift sled building. Another thing that they are surprisingly useful for that people don't think about is skiing in tight trees. By raising the pole slightly like you are boxing, the top half of the pole pushes eye level branches out of the way and protects your face. They also allow an extremely efficient double polling technique on the flats like XC racers use which is extremely nice when they need arises. Not to mention the fact that there is one less thing to break and that you can adjust infinitely and on the fly without touching anything. As far as center of gravity, that is entirely dependent on where you grip them and I know people that have marked them at their traditional pole height so that they grab them there which would theoretically mean you would have the same center of gravity. I suppose that my planting technique is slightly different where I do not have the shaft pointed at me but rather with my wrist slightly cocked outwards but the tip of the pole hitting the same spot so that if it was to hit something it deflects away from my body. Also like skimo racers a longer pull allows you to extend your arm like a tricep pull down further behind you, which is a more efficient way to skin/stride and is more of a full body movement rather than the way people typically skin with limited range of motion and no real use of the upper body other than for balance.
I tend to ski pretty balanced and neutral and certainly don't feel like I need poles to ski, So for me it is a no-brainer being more in the realm of an all around tool rather than something I need for skiing. Mid shaft these poles can support a grown man's body weight if suspended horizontally. There is no adjustable pole that can do that.
@@thicccboyztv I like the branches out of your face trick. Perhaps it is that i have a harder time putting myself in your boots with that extra foot of ski pole in your hands. Thanks for the informative videos.
Move to Utah and you can go lighter 🙂
😂 in the same terrain a heavier ski will always outperform a light ski regardless of snow. More mass=more speed.