Ski Gear - advice/sanity check

MP friends!  I don't have anybody in person to really consult for this so I come to you!

I am about to pull the trigger on a ski set up for me and my girlfriend.  I have pretty much been resort skiing all my life, but have never done any touring.  My girlfriend is new to skiing but is getting fairly solid. I am looking to get a setup that is more for climbing access in/out rather than for skiing big lines.  There have been a few discussions recently about similar topics, but the conversations pretty quickly pivoted to skiing in mountain boots, which frankly sounds horrible and I don't think she would at all be comfortable with yet. Realistically, I have only seen folks do this in the wild a small handful of times as well, so skiing in mountain boots is not something I am sold on. On the other hand, most info online seems to be very ski oriented.  Carrying two pairs of boots wouldn't usually be ideal, so I am looking for a boot that can reasonably get up moderate technical climbs (eg. Mt Hood Reid Headwall).  

This is the setup that I am about to buy:

• Arcteryx Procline boots
• Fischer Hannibal 96 skis
• Fischer Hannibal 96 skins
• Black Diamond Helios 110 bindings

If you can climb WI3-4 competently just buy light, mobile backcountry ski boots and climb moderate alpine in those and ski down.  Proclines work fine, I still have beat up TLT 5's that work great on WI4, I actually really like how immobile the ankles are in some ways compared to climbing boots on ice.  Skis just depend on what you ski most or get a couple, if you ski mainly spring lines/volcanoes then 96 underfoot should be ok.  Any potential of deeper snow maybe go closer to 105 and just try to buy light skis rather than heavier performance or 'big mountain' ones.  

I would go for a way skinnier ski 

Seems like if you are planning on skiing get yerself some ski boots.

Seems pretty good. Similar to what I ski (Fischer Travers, Salomon MTN explore 95, Salomon MTN binding).

However, lightweight doesn't equal easy to ski. There is a misconception with that and many people getting into ski touring/Skimo.

I would recommend a ski/binding combo that is a resort oriented ski with a tech binding that has elastic travel. I good example would be Blizzard Rustler 9 w/ Fritschi Vipec. Boots like the Procline can power this setup no problem, and climb well. A boot like the Atomic Hawx Ultra would be even better, although clunkier for actual climbing. Still suitable for climbing any cascade volcano route. Really lightweight boots like the procline, Backland, Travers, etc. are a big departure from normal ski boots, and can be hard to ski with.

A heavier damper ski and boot will handle the ultra variable conditions you will find on cascade volcanoes better than lightweight skis, and ultimately be easier to ski and save you energy in the end (while having more fun). The really light stuff is best skied by skiers with perfect form, skiing in complete control. You can pick from the 3 categories (skis, boots, bindings) and mix and match to get your exact weight saving ratio to good skiing necessary for you. Another way to go could be replace the Hannibal with a ski from the Ranger series.

For what its worth, I manage a ski shop (10+ years experience) in the PNW and have done 30+ ski descents off at least 5 separate routes on Mt. Hood,  + ski descents of Ingraham Direct, Fuhrer Finger, Denali West Buttress, and climb/ski linkups like N ridge Baker to CD descent, Mt Hood N face Gullies to South Side Descent, multiple Devil's Kitchen Headwall ascents to ski descents from the hogsback.

I'm going to assume that you have tried on the Procline and that it is a good fit for your foot...

If you haven't, I will just say that buying a boot based off of stats you've read on the internet and recommendations from strangers will most likely be a waste of money. Go to a shop that sells touring boots and actually get something that fits your foot. Consider it a bonus if the Procline actually happens to be that boot.

Signed,

A bootfitter

Christoph- Thanks for the detailed info, that is much appreciated.  I'll give the Travers and Backlands a try as well.  It's been hard to identify what boots are better for climbing than for skiing, which is exactly what I am looking for.  The lightweight ski and boot setup is my primary concern, I am assuming that these will be pretty unstable.  I just wasn't certain if they would be overly unstable all combined together.  It sounds like it's not way out of line, which is a good thing.  Again, I really appreciate the feedback!

Luke- Thanks for the feedback as well.  You nailed it on the head with spring lines/volcanoes.  We climb Hood frequently in the winter, but that thing is mostly groomed haha.  

definitely try on different boots as suggested. I had the proclines for a few months and just could not get them to fit right. Additionally, I thought they really didn’t ski very well. The lateral movement on the ankle is tempting for ice, but I’m now in a pair of Fischer travers carbons, and they are seemingly just as good on steep ice and handle much better on the down. 

the other discussion was about  ski accessing ice climbs not   back country skiing. for back country skiing you want whatever MODERN AT set up that you can afford.    Boots that fit are the most important part of he whole deal. 

For a "skiing is the primary objective" setup, then AT ski boots are the way to go.  You're never really going to be climbing anything steeper than you're able to ski (though I'm sure someone will chime in with some oddball exception to this rule).  So unless you are the kind of skier who can ski down waterfall ice, ignore anyone who is talking about a boot's ability to do technical ice climbing. 

I really like my Hannibal 96’s and I even ski them at the resort sometimes. However, I would caution you on the Profoil skins for them (unclear whether you’re getting normal skins or the profoil). They do work, but they can be a bit of a pain sometimes. I’m not getting rid of mine, but I wouldn’t get them again. 

I have a pair of Voile Objectives 171 with dynafit speed turn bindings and arcteryx proclines. the set up is very versatile for me and encompasses my fitness uphilling/ ski to climb easier stuff in proclines/ spring skimo set up and it rocks. the proclines climb up to WI4  for me fairly well though there is a trade off in the sensitivity and ankle mobility of course. the voile objectives are great skis - light, snappy, and forgiving but stiff enough to make jump turns in exposed terrain. could also don some spandex and join the uphilling crowd and do just fine.

I also have a set of silvrettas on a pair of beater skis and they are terrifying to ski in my climbing boots in anything more than a rolling mellow approach and descent.

I would put in a vote for the Helio 180 instead of the 110. The extra material in the toe and heel piece makes it a more capable binding for skiing downhill. And the Helio 145/180 heel release is much more progressive so you'll get fewer pre-releases vs the 110. And finally nailing the heel position during a mount is really hard on the Helio series and often leads to the boot "catching" on the binding in tour mode which is really frustrating and having the adjustability in the heel piece that you get with the 180 is the only reliable way to avoid this.

I'd be a bit concerned with the Helio 110. Make sure you find out if the fixed release value is correct for your boot size, weight, and how you ski.

Graham Johnson wrote: I really like my Hannibal 96’s and I even ski them at the resort sometimes. However, I would caution you on the Profoil skins for them (unclear whether you’re getting normal skins or the profoil). They do work, but they can be a bit of a pain sometimes. I’m not getting rid of mine, but I wouldn’t get them again. 

I actually didn't see that there were two versions.  It looks like I get a discount on the regular ones, so that is what I would default to haha.  Out of curiosity, why don't you like the Profoils?

The profoil (at least the generation I have) are hard plastic that can’t be stuck glue to glue so they have an easily lost little plastic sheet you need to stick on first when putting them away. And even though the glue is super strong they don’t stick to the ski that well. Just an all-round fiddle. They grip and glide fine, and I think they’re great for spring touring where it’s a bit wet as they don’t absorb water. 

I found the Proclines to be absolute crap for climbing steep terrain.  Others love them, so obviously it's subjective.  The flexible midsection and lack of any kind of rigid tongue resulted in horrendous heel lift for me.  At the very least, I'd definitely recommend that you try on a pair and very specifically walk around and front point on stuff in the ski shop in tour mode.  There are a ton of other good boot options worth considering; for example I am very happy with my Backlands, the TLT family is well regarded, and one of my partners uses the Scarpa F1 and likes them.  Try them on and make sure you try to mimic front pointing.

(Edit: My setup for similar objectives to yours is Backlands, Mtn Explore 88 skis, and mtn bindings.  I have a separate setup of Maestrales, Soul 7s, and Dynafits for general backcountry skiing).

For AT I am currently skiing on Scarpa F1 boots, Movement Race Pro 78 fitted with Marker Alpinist bindings (without brakes). I can't comment for ice climbing but for general ski mountaineering including crampon use on steep snow the Scarpa F1s work fine. As for the skis they are extremely light and I have no complaints as far as downhill is concerned - but I'm nowhere near extreme.

Like others have said there are boots that ski better than the arc teryx  that are still light enough to climb in like the Atomic Backland and the Dynafit TLT 7 or 8

I have the backlands for long distances but they still don't ski very well compared to my maestrales that I use when skiing is the goal (and especially can't hold a candle to my inbounds boots)

If skiing is the goal steer away from the super ultralight stuff, find the middle ground, but if climbing is the goal well then go for it.  Your GF might have more trouble if she is newer to skiing.  It takes a higher skill level to be able to ski tricky terrain in a crappy boot, especially with a pack on, you drive a lot more power into the tongue when you are carrying a lot of climbing gear on your back, and in my experience UL boots don't suffer backseat riding.

As for skins I've never skid the fischer skins but did have the glue on another brand fail on me ruining a tour.  After that I looked into who has the best glue and many reviews pointed to black diamond, so now I have a set o the BD ultralight skins, the glue has been great going on 4th season now I think with only minor touch ups, and they are a mohair mix so they glide way better than my old nylon skins.  People like the tip clip on the g3s but I have a friend have glue trouble in 1 year, all tip and tail connectors work well enough and all the skins have enough traction, so glue really is the biggest thing to me.  Doesn't matter if your skins have 5% better glide if they don't stay on the skis, and the mohair mix ones I have sure glide well anyway.

I don't know if G3 has updated their glue but I had a pair with terrible glue issues, and have seen others with G3 skins that have heinous glue problems. I steer clear of G3 skins now, but have heard they reformulated the glue which maybe addressed the issue? They did warranty the pair that i had...

I have not had any issues with black diamond glue, pomoca glue, and i even have a pair of skins from climbingskinsdirect.net that are still alive and going strong after 6 or 7 years of heavy use. pretty incredible. apparently they are out of the game these days which is a bummer...

That’s for all the info folks. It’s seriously appreciated!