Cross Country Skis?

I know nothing about cross country skiing. I primarily ice climb and am thinking about using skis for approaches. Maybe you can help me with a few questions.

-Can I use my ice climbing boots with cross country skis?
-Those of you who ski in and out of climbs, what set up do you use?
-Is skiing in and out that much better than snow shoeing?
-Any other advise for a novice?

Thanks

-Yes
-lightweight ski between 160cm-185cm length and 85-110mm width underfoot, with or without fish scale grip. Bring skins regardless for when it gets steep. Silvretta 500 bindings.
-Yes. GOD YES.
-Don't snowshoe. Ever.

From what I've seen, the standard approach ski setup is Silvretta bindings (models 404, 500, etc) mounted to an alpine touring ski or telemark ski, with skins. Silvrettas works like crampons in terms of boot interface - thus they work with ice boots. They're discontinued though, so they're hard to find, and sadly I don't think there are any other bindings that compare. Regarding planks, you'd probably want an AT or tele ski over cross country ski for flotation. Cross country skis are probably too narrow to be much use in deep snow.

That said, there may be other creative solutions to attaching skis to ice boots, but I'm pretty sure the Silvretta route is the easiest.

Regarding utility of skis for approaches, it really depends on the nature of the terrain. Skis shine in lower angle terrain, especially when distances are greater (efficiency is a big benefit of skis over snow shoes). Likewise, skis tend to be a pain for steep stuff or terrain with intermittent coverage. For example, skis are useless for approaches to most climbs around Ouray and NY/NH (where things tend to be short/steep and/or rocky, making snowshoes the ticket if snow is deep). On the other hand, skis are pure gold for getting around AK glaciers. I have a Silvretta setup and it's really only been useful in AK and bit around the Cascades.

Other advice....one of the main challenges of using approach skis is skiing out with soft ice boots and a pack - not awesome (especially if you suck at skiing like me).

Thanks so much. Exactly the advise I'm looking for.

So far those Silvettra 500s are proving hard to find. Any advise where to locate these for sale?

I think the perfect do-it-all approach ski to marry to the silverettas is the Rossignol BC125. Sure, its a bit heavier than a super-light AT ski, but if your approach is more rolling than sustained uphill slog, you'll be skiing without the skins mostly, and you'll kick and glide much more readily.
Plus, it will be slower on the downhill, what with the fish-scales, which will be a blessing in disguise when you realize just how little ankle stiffness a standard mountaineering boot actually provides.

Haunt your local gear recycler, hit gear swaps, watch ebay. So far as I'm aware, they aren't available stateside anymore.

i have a pair of silvretta 500s i would part with for $160 shipping included.

clint

clint helander wrote:i have a pair of silvretta 500s i would part with for $160 shipping included. clint

That's a good deal. I bought the bindings for something like $250 on closeout years ago and sold them for about that with skis recently.

PM sent

Clint, I'm interested in those 500s. I sent a PM. Let me know how we can make this deal happen.
Thanks

PayPal payment sent. Thanks

clint helander wrote:-Yes -lightweight ski between 160cm-185cm length and 85-110mm width underfoot, with or without fish scale grip. Bring skins regardless for when it gets steep. Silvretta 500 bindings. -Yes. GOD YES. -Don't snowshoe. Ever.

Perhaps Clint is a much better ski tourer (tourist?) than me, but there are many situations I've been in where snowshoes are easy and skis would be worthless hell. The most recent was a short, steep downhill through thick timber and deadfall. The snow was about waist deep, and the deadfall just above that. The snowshoes floated nicely in the snow (which was incredibly hard to posthole), and it wasn't hard to mantle over the logs and branches every thirty feet. Since the logs still had branches, skis would have to be removed at every log crossing.

When the skis work, they are not only more efficient, they're more fun too. That said, I'm not getting rid of the snowshoes any time soon.

For the record: I stopped using the Silvrettas in favor of a Dynafit setup. They make the skiing both up and down infinitely better, and climbing in good touring boots is actually a bit nicer than in plastic mountaineering boots.

- Yes
- I used 192cm Fischer Crown 99s, NNN BC bindings, Alpina BC boots back in Maine. Rolling terrain, non-groomed trails (I wasn't skiing off trail trees very often), and bucket loads of ice. In CO I used Atomic Tele ATs, Ramers and ice boots. Now, in WA, I'm using 187 Wolf Blacksmoke AT skis, NNN BC bindings, and Alpina Alaska boots. I haven't used this setup much, so we'll see how it works. (Note: This is not an ideal set up, I'm asking a lot of the boot & binding, more below) I am exceedingly familiar with NNN BC bindings, moderate steep tele technique, and rather soft XC boots, and I'm willing to carry a pair of snowshoes for the steeps. I use 36" Tubbs snowshoes, with a fully rotating binding, which is pretty much what you need for snowshoes in dry snow, unless you want a clump of snow whacking you in the back of the head every step.
- XC skiing is way more fun than snowshoeing on flat & rolling terrain. (Why? It's all in the double camber putting less surface on the snow, lowering friction, allowing glide) On the steeps, on ice, and in the trees, it can get scary. A modern back country/ randonee / tele set up is way more forgiving on the downhills, but won't really glide in the way a true double camber XC ski does. I've spent a ton of time on Fischer Crown Tours, 99s & Karhu XCDs and they're a blast on moderate terrain. The longer the ski the better the glide, the more fun... until you get into the trees, and then all that length is scary.

- You can, kind of, "ski" downhill on snowshoes if the fluff is deep enough.
- Floation increases with the surface area of the ski or snowshoe.
- Stability increases with the width of the ski, Glide decreases
- Glide increases with the length of the ski, Turn Control decreases
- Endurance increases in inverse proportion to the weight on your foot
- Your choice of ski (Randonee/ AT vs. XC) depends on the steepness, the type of snow, and how much time you're going to spend in the trees.
- Your choice of binding is more dependent on how wide a ski you need to drive into a turn, and how much control you need over that turn (Trees & steeps will require a sturdier binding)
- Your choice of boot depends on how beefy a binding you need to control, and what you can find that fits
- From what I remember, CO has pretty soft snow, which means a wider ski is better (nothing like stopping for a rest and falling over sideways because your skinny skis slice into the snow at rest)
- A wider ski will respond better to a sturdier binding & boot.
- A sturdier binding & boot will weigh more...
- Your terrain is probably the biggest factor of all: If you can take rolling trail terrain to the base of a waterfall, go with the XC skis. If you can XC up a shallow creek side trail, and then shoe up a steep hill to the base of your pillar, good fun. If you have a long crud busting approach up through the steeps, and then a powder ride down after your climb, randonee skis are going to be a happier choice.

I think these are the best books on the subject:
- Paul Parker's "Free Heel Skiing"
- Allen & Mike's "Telemark Tips"