Splitboard or Ski??

lol, split vs ski, hate to do it.  Buttttt....I'm entering my third season of ice climbing and looking to go higher.  I'm interested in the climb & ride/ski opportunities in New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont.  I began skiing when I was young and was an intermediate, but I picked up snowboarding in high school and I'm an advanced/expert rider with side country experience.

If I pick up a set of skis, what would I be in for in terms of a timeline of training to prepare for safe descents of the "easiest" routes on Mt. Washington (I'm a level 4 beginner now, fine on greens, blues are so/so)?  

And should I bother with skis, as I'd be able to jump on a split and have few limits?

With skis, can I down size and go shorter and narrower to aide in easier turns?

The last time I skied was in Zermatt.  The intermediate runs over there seemed to outrank our average blue in terms of slope and I didn't have much fun on those.  I might have had skis that were too wide/long.

I prefer the splitboard option because I can easily do it all my climbing boots.  My skiing partners I go with typically bring 2 pairs of boots.  Although you could climb ice in your ski boots (just maybe not at your limit) or you could get an old set of Silvretta bindings and ski in your climbing boots.  Since ice climbing is my goal on these kind of missions, I prefer to use the absolute best gear for the ice even if it means suboptimal splitboarding/skiing.  Although I have been surprised at how well a splitboard will handle wearing Scarpa Phantom Tech boots!

Former advanced ski instructor and dedicated CO backcountry skier here. If blues on the resort feel  so-so right now, I’d stick with a splitboard for now. I’m assuming those blues are groomed, and probably East Coast grades (no offense, but in reality resort runs in the East tend to be less steep for the nominal grade). The other variable would be snow conditions — on Washington you’ll want to be prepared for anything from perfect smooth pow to shitty breakable crust to scary windboard to sugar. If you’re comfortable on a snowboard, stick with what you know in order to be safe and have fun.

If you do really want to learn skiing, slightly (slightly!) shorter skis will be easier to turn. Aim for something that’s about as tall as your nose. Anything shorter will probably suck when you get better. For East Coast ski mountaineering, 80-90mm underfoot should serve you well. Don’t go to 100mm or bigger unless you want turning to be harder in firm conditions, and have the fitness to drag a big ski up a climb.

Skis will be more efficient, *if* you become very proficient with them. Being able to skate across flat terrain, rip skins with skis on, transition without worrying too much about icing, and knowing how to sidestep through awkward rocky terrain are all valuable. But all those are somewhat advanced skills (well, not skating) that won’t help you if you’re a relative newcomer to skiing. And a dedicated splitboarder can absolutely keep up — my best BC partner was a splitboarder, and he had zero issues keeping up on big days because he was the best damn splitboarder I’ve ever met (RIP, Pat).

Honestly, if you want to be efficient traveling across snow, either skis or a splitboard are miles better than booting. Fuck snowshoes. Just make sure that whichever side you face going downhill, you spend hours and days and weeks and months and years getting dialed with your equipment.

peterfogg wrote:

Former advanced ski instructor and dedicated CO backcountry skier here. If blues on the resort feel  so-so right now, I’d stick with a splitboard for now. I’m assuming those blues are groomed, and probably East Coast grades (no offense, but in reality resort runs in the East tend to be less steep for the nominal grade). The other variable would be snow conditions — on Washington you’ll want to be prepared for anything from perfect smooth pow to shitty breakable crust to scary windboard to sugar. If you’re comfortable on a snowboard, stick with what you know in order to be safe and have fun.

If you do really want to learn skiing, slightly (slightly!) shorter skis will be easier to turn. Aim for something that’s about as tall as your nose. Anything shorter will probably suck when you get better. For East Coast ski mountaineering, 80-90mm underfoot should serve you well. Don’t go to 100mm or bigger unless you want turning to be harder in firm conditions, and have the fitness to drag a big ski up a climb.

Skis will be more efficient, *if* you become very proficient with them. Being able to skate across flat terrain, rip skins with skis on, transition without worrying too much about icing, and knowing how to sidestep through awkward rocky terrain are all valuable. But all those are somewhat advanced skills (well, not skating) that won’t help you if you’re a relative newcomer to skiing. And a dedicated splitboarder can absolutely keep up — my best BC partner was a splitboarder, and he had zero issues keeping up on big days because he was the best damn splitboarder I’ve ever met (RIP, Pat).

Honestly, if you want to be efficient traveling across snow, either skis or a splitboard are miles better than booting. Fuck snowshoes. Just make sure that whichever side you face going downhill, you spend hours and days and weeks and months and years getting dialed with your equipment.

Thanks for your thoughts - much appreciated.  I'm certainly leaning towards a split, but the efficiency of skis is tempting.  I don't have any visions of taking on the steepest of the runs on Washington, but rather I have an eye towards a few of the lesser slopes (Cog is 30 degrees, Left gully/Hillmans are 40 or so, GulfofSlide is 20s-30s).  Some of my self-evaluation does come from skiing intermediate runs in Zermatt - which were quite steep, maybe even comparable to easier east coast black diamonds.

What would it look like in terms of training to progress from so-so on ungroomed/late-in-day and/or steep blues to being capable of backcountry on the likes of Washington?   

Could one make it down 40 degree slopes in silveretta 500s and Baruntses and then better enjoy a ski trail descent that starts at the base of the climbing/skiing zone?  Or is that pushing a soft boot setup too far?

One thing I forgot to add -- take an Avy 1 course with a local guide. They'll know exactly what's up on Washington, and be able to see you in person and give you advice that you might not even thought to have asked about.

I guess the thing that I think of with skiing on Washington is that with its notoriously fickle weather comes unpredictable ski conditions. I'd find some runs around your level of comfort, where you know you can get down them comfortably on a good snow day. Then just focus on skiing them in the shittiest conditions possible. If you overhear someone on the lift say, "man, I just came down <insert blue run here> and it was hot garbage!", then make a beeline for that run. Focus on getting as much mileage as you can on crappy snow.

That's not to say that all BC snow is bad, but if you're at the end of a climb, you're tired, and it's getting late in the day, skiing down should be the least of your worries. It should feel casual, no matter what the mountain throws at you. That's why you train garbage conditions.

If you're not planning on doing anything especially steep (> 45 degrees) you probably don't need to focus on technique that much. The basics stay the same until you hit that magical point where you're going more down than across with each turn.

As far as skiing steepish slopes on Silvrettas and climbing boots: I'm the wrong person to ask. My skiing is done in plastic ski boots with real bindings. I'm sure even the silly-softest of the skimo boots is better going downhill than a leather climbing boot. There were a couple threads in the last year or so on climbing in ski boots, if that's something that interests you.

peterfogg wrote:

One thing I forgot to add -- take an Avy 1 course with a local guide. They'll know exactly what's up on Washington, and be able to see you in person and give you advice that you might not even thought to have asked about.

I guess the thing that I think of with skiing on Washington is that with its notoriously fickle weather comes unpredictable ski conditions. I'd find some runs around your level of comfort, where you know you can get down them comfortably on a good snow day. Then just focus on skiing them in the shittiest conditions possible. If you overhear someone on the lift say, "man, I just came down and it was hot garbage!", then make a beeline for that run. Focus on getting as much mileage as you can on crappy snow.

That's not to say that all BC snow is bad, but if you're at the end of a climb, you're tired, and it's getting late in the day, skiing down should be the least of your worries. It should feel casual, no matter what the mountain throws at you. That's why you train garbage conditions.

If you're not planning on doing anything especially steep (> 45 degrees) you probably don't need to focus on technique that much. The basics stay the same until you hit that magical point where you're going more down than across with each turn.

As far as skiing steepish slopes on Silvrettas and climbing boots: I'm the wrong person to ask. My skiing is done in plastic ski boots with real bindings. I'm sure even the silly-softest of the skimo boots is better going downhill than a leather climbing boot. There were a couple threads in the last year or so on climbing in ski boots, if that's something that interests you.

Thanks, I appreciate the info.  Yeah, I believe I saw those threads you speak of - I'll revisit.  

Splitboard is likely inbound, but I think I'll explore a cheap touring setup to at least go up some resort stuff.  

Are Salomon Guardians on some random 10 year old sticks enough to mess around on low angle snow?

If you're just approaching the skis you would choose can be vastly different than what you would use for backcountry skiing. Short, mid-fat, lots of sidecut, +/- fish scales, Silvrettas. Approaches often mean mostly skinning both ways. Rossignol made a ski that worked well for this, the BC100 and BC125. Andy Kirkpatrick has a few blog posts that also cover this topic. 

If you want something to handle technical descending or enjoying pow turns on the way out then that requires more ski, more skill, and mostly more boot like a real touring or skimo boot. A set of older Dynafit TLT5/TLT6 (they still make a boot similar to the TLT6 but renamed) can climb pretty darn well. 

You can also consider a hard boot split set up and have the option to use a touring ski with the same boots.

I have two seasons of skiing under my belt, all with the initial intention of expanding my climbing range. I am happily skiing every double black at the resorts outside of monster ice moguls, which i can ski, but very very unhappily. Anyways, my goal this year is to be able to ski the easiest lines at Tucks and in Huntington. I have not skied on Silvrettas, I wouldn't even dream of it for steep and consequential technical skiing. By now I think modern light touring boots ice climb well enough that they are the preferred option when both the skiing and climbing is technical and you want one pair of boots.

Jake woo wrote:

I have two seasons of skiing under my belt, all with the initial intention of expanding my climbing range. I am happily skiing every double black at the resorts outside of monster ice moguls, which i can ski, but very very unhappily. Anyways, my goal this year is to be able to ski the easiest lines at Tucks and in Huntington. I have not skied on Silvrettas, I wouldn't even dream of it for steep and consequential technical skiing. By now I think modern light touring boots ice climb well enough that they are the preferred option when both the skiing and climbing is technical and you want one pair of boots.

Sounds like you made good headway - zero to tucks by third season (unless you had some prior skiing experience?).  I've got a split setup for the time being, but will plan to put together or buy a cheap used setup for uphill at the resort to get some training in.

Thanks! I have no prior experience, but I have the benefit of living very close to Sugarbush. I probably got 30+ lift days and 50 uphill days over the season, about half of which are resort. The others are side country or backcountry on lower angle glades, into/out of Smuggs to climb, and in and out of Huntington via the hiking trails and the Sherb. Literally mileage will get you there. I think your plan makes sense.

Related, I have cold feet and I'm not sure how i'll manage this season in lightweight touring boots. Likely need some combo of heated socks and overboots. TBD. So being able to splitboard in real double boots could be a huge benefit for you there.

Jake woo wrote:

Thanks! I have no prior experience, but I have the benefit of living very close to Sugarbush. I probably got 30+ lift days and 50 uphill days over the season, about half of which are resort. The others are side country or backcountry on lower angle glades, into/out of Smuggs to climb, and in and out of Huntington via the hiking trails and the Sherb. Literally mileage will get you there. I think your plan makes sense.

Related, I have cold feet and I'm not sure how i'll manage this season in lightweight touring boots. Likely need some combo of heated socks and overboots. TBD. So being able to splitboard in real double boots could be a huge benefit for you there.

That's a lot of days!  I guess I don't really neeeeeeeeed skis until I make it over to Chamonix and have those long approaches.

I do both. I would recommend skiing. 

I'm a splitboarder who has come dangerously close to switching over to skiing a few times, but my reasons were mainly the up-and-down annoying spots that don't seem to be too much of a concern to you. Splitboard binding technology has gotten pretty good where you won't be too far behind a competent skier on transitions, especially switching to tour mode. As someone else said, it's probably a better compromise to ride in mountaineering boots than to climb in ski boots. I'd be curious how stiff boots like the Fitwells do on technical ice climbs; I think they work with fully automatic crampons but I could be wrong. 

In general, it sounds like sticking with what you're good at is the answer.

I faced this exact dilemma last year. In NH, same kind of questions and background. Snowboarded well, ice climbed a lot, did some missions carrying two pairs of boots (I have no idea how people snowboard in mountaineering boots. You have zero toeside edge support) 

I switched to skis and bought really light ones - much much lighter than beginner skis, and very light boots. Salomon Mtn 88s with race bindings and old TLT 5s. I think this was a great decision and skied lots of bc my first season, wth zero ski experience beforehand. Skied mount Adams in WA this spring, climbed damnation in ski boots etc. Ab big part of the decision was that getting a split setup that is comparably light to skimo skis was outside my budget. If you only care about performance, maybe you can get slippers and a really light splitboard. But take it from somebody who really hesitated before switching: learning to ski was a blast and I think it was the right call. 

Marlin Thorman wrote:

I prefer the splitboard option because I can easily do it all my climbing boots.  My skiing partners I go with typically bring 2 pairs of boots.  Although you could climb ice in your ski boots (just maybe not at your limit) or you could get an old set of Silvretta bindings and ski in your climbing boots.  Since ice climbing is my goal on these kind of missions, I prefer to use the absolute best gear for the ice even if it means suboptimal splitboarding/skiing.  Although I have been surprised at how well a splitboard will handle wearing Scarpa Phantom Tech boots!

Marlin, what’s your setup for this? Did you have to modify the phantom T’s?

Gear Guy wrote:

Marlin, what’s your setup for this? Did you have to modify the phantom T’s?

I have a Neversummer and a Voile splitboard and have used both of them with ice boots.  I run a Spark R&D Surge binding.  I have used them with Phantom Techs, Nepals, and Spantiks all without any kind of modification.  And I probably have 50+ days in the backcountry using one of the above boots on a splitboard over the last 5 years.  The Phantom Techs and the Nepals are a bit narrower in the heel so if you are trying to be really aggressive in a turn you might get a little boot shift in the binding (the Spantiks have less).  Obviously they aren't quite a good as a snowboard boot but I feel like I don't notice the lack of performance unless I am trying to toe side edge on icy/hard terrain for a while or trying to be very aggressive in riding steep terrain.  If you are demanding the max from your setup make sure to tighten the binding straps as tight as possible as this will prevent some of the potential movement.  Overall I have never had any major or serious problems with using them.  I would look at the whole question of what setup and boots to use like this.  What is the main objective.....ice climbing or backcountry skiing.  If the goal is to ice climb and you are using the split as a means of transportation to and from so you don't have to snowshoe or post hole then this above setup works great!  If your objective is to ski/snowboard steep terrain or lots of powder and there is a possibility of a pitch of climbing somewhere then I might reconsider to something else.  But I have found that all of my ice climbing lies clearly in the first camp and as such they have worked great for approaches and descents in Montana, Idaho, and Alaska.  

Phantom Tech

Phantom Tech heel view, note the extra space on the side.

Spantik heel view, less space.

Snowboard boots heel view....note there is no space for movement.

Fitwell boots suck. I had them. Rode with a crew that had them. We all hated them. We really tried to love them. But, they suck. Heavy, uncomfortable, seemingly designed a “soft boot” to have all the downfalls of a hard boot.

Any superlight skimo boot with both climb better and ride better than a Fitwell boot.

As a split boarder who avoided hard boots and now loves them… i would make the leap to say - just get good at skiing and do that. Unless you want to split and surf pow… if your objective is to safely navigate in the mountains, effectively and efficiently… ski.

Its safer for your party to be on skis. A rescue is dependent on change over time. I get out with skiers who can put their skins on and off without removing their skis. Skis are painstakingly designed to hold an edge both when descending and ascending. A stiff skiboot will outperform in dangerous icy conditions.  and this one reason why I like to split with a crew that splits. Honestly its an added risk.  But super fun to surf on mountains… 

Marlin Thorman wrote:

I have a Neversummer and a Voile splitboard and have used both of them with ice boots.  I run a Spark R&D Surge binding.  I have used them with Phantom Techs, Nepals, and Spantiks all without any kind of modification.  And I probably have 50+ days in the backcountry using one of the above boots on a splitboard over the last 5 years.  The Phantom Techs and the Nepals are a bit narrower in the heel so if you are trying to be really aggressive in a turn you might get a little boot shift in the binding (the Spantiks have less).  Obviously they aren't quite a good as a snowboard boot but I feel like I don't notice the lack of performance unless I am trying to toe side edge on icy/hard terrain for a while or trying to be very aggressive in riding steep terrain.  If you are demanding the max from your setup make sure to tighten the binding straps as tight as possible as this will prevent some of the potential movement.  Overall I have never had any major or serious problems with using them.  I would look at the whole question of what setup and boots to use like this.  What is the main objective.....ice climbing or backcountry skiing.  If the goal is to ice climb and you are using the split as a means of transportation to and from so you don't have to snowshoe or post hole then this above setup works great!  If your objective is to ski/snowboard steep terrain or lots of powder and there is a possibility of a pitch of climbing somewhere then I might reconsider to something else.  But I have found that all of my ice climbing lies clearly in the first camp and as such they have worked great for approaches and descents in Montana, Idaho, and Alaska.  

Phantom Tech

Phantom Tech heel view, note the extra space on the side.

Spantik heel view, less space.

Snowboard boots heel view....note there is no space for movement.

Thanks!

Stupid question.  If I put my setup my lynx crampons with toe bails, would it be safe to use them on a boot without a heel welt?  If so, what would the limit of this be (steep boot pack, slabby AI2)?  Presumably with the strap tight, they would be secure.  Maybe not, I've never tried using a heel lever on a boot without a welt.

Lion Forest wrote:

Thanks!

Stupid question.  If I put my setup my lynx crampons with toe bails, would it be safe to use them on a boot without a heel welt?  If so, what would the limit of this be (steep boot pack, slabby AI2)?  Presumably with the strap tight, they would be secure.  Maybe not, I've never tried using a heel lever on a boot without a welt.

I have used crampons with a rear heel lever on a pair hiking boots before.  It wasn't optimal but it worked alright for light glacier crossing on a backpack trip.  Honestly I think the crampon performance would have more to do with how stiff a boot is.  If you are using a really stiff ski or snowboard boot I suspect that it would climb just fine (although probably a little clumsy compared to a compact ice boot).  The biggest problem I see would be if your boot isn't stiff and bends when frontpointing then a heel lever would help keep the crampon tight to the bottom of the boot instead of allowing it to gap down.  But it should be pretty easy test.  Just put the crampon on the boot you want to use and stand with your frontpoints on a step and see how much gap/stability you have.  Or if you want to test for a longer period try using a chainlink fence or a ladder to frontpoint up/down/across.  Depending on the stiffness of the boot you could probably climb within a grade of your normal ability I would guess.

Peter Fogg, what we lack in resort steepness here in the north east we more that make up for  with the quality of out on slope resort ice  with most trails including green circles and blue squares graded WI1  by 11am on a holliday blackout day.  and often after one of our pleasant weather events a good portion of the mountain is WI2 ;)