Spring skiing on the vertical smile from David Young on Vimeo.

Jon Lamb and I got out for some truly enjoyable backcountry skiing on March 25th. I was very surprised at the snow quality, as most places I had skied were pretty sloppy. We'd had some rain and warm weather and everything was pretty manked up - except for the North facing goodies we found in this video. The first run even had some legitimate powder even if it was only 4 or 5 inches. It ended up being a really great day of touring even though I was somewhat reluctant to head out in the morning. It seems like, to me anyway, any day of touring is better than a day in the resort.

Farewell Twintip, Useless Vestigial Appendage of My Ski

I've hinted several times that I'm not really a fan of twintip skis and I've also hinted that I have a way to deal with them, so here it is. One reason I waited to put this out there is that I wanted to get some days on the modification to test longevity. It seems to be just fine. As you've probably guessed, I cut the damn things off. I'm not the first one to blog about this, I've seen it on several other sites, but I've been thinking about doing it for years. I just finally got around to trying it earlier this season. People always ask me if the skis ski any differently, to which I always answer “no.” Done correctly, there should be no possible way that the mod can affect the skiing of the ski. Think about it, the upturned tail is never really in contact with the snow anyway. You are not changing the running length of the ski. It shouldn't alter the mounting point either because, again, you aren't changing the running length of the ski and the mounting point, if traditional, should be based on running length and center of sidecut, neither of which is changed. If you mount for a progressive stance, you aren't concerned about optimizing the turning, you're concerned about rotational balance and predictable switch skiing, in which case you probably want the twintip anyway. For the rest of us, the twintip is a nuisance. I've covered it before, but if you missed it, here it is again:

You can't stick the tails in the snow, which is downright dangerous in some transition areas

You can't fit the skis in the racks on the gondola, which is not dangerous but makes you look like a neophyte

They throw up an irritating rooster tail, which will not win you any friends

They don't work well with most climbing skin tail hooks

Your skis will constantly tip over when leaned against the wall

And finally, if you've ever tried to tele on twintips you've probably gotten caught with the tail of your left ski on the wrong side of the tail of your right ski; not comfortable.

People are fond of saying that twintips release more easily from the end of the turn, to which I reply “bullshit.” That can be engineered into the ski in other ways, namely shape of the tail. If the tail tapers back from the contact point, it will release easily. If it gets wider back from the contact point, it will hang on for dear life. Okay, what about people who say that twintips allow you to slide back and forth when negotiating tight chutes or maneuvering in the trees? Well, that's true, but a slight kick tail accomplishes the same thing, and I don't remember constantly burying my tails in the days before twintips which, let's not forget, weren't that many days ago. The real reason we are all being sold twintips is because the manufacturers and their marketing departments are selling them to us. Fine, we'll just cut them off.
I took a ski that I really like, the Line Prophet 90, and hacked a bunch of the tail off. It was pretty simple, I just figured out where I wanted it to end, measured down, put a line across both skis in the same spot, and cut them off with a hacksaw. The only difficulty is getting through the edge material, which is pretty hard, but with a nice fresh blade it didn't take much effort at all. I went pretty conservative on this first try, when I do my next pair I'll take more off. You want to leave a little upturn, but if you leave too much it kind of defeats the purpose. I left mine pretty straight across the back, partly because I didn't feel like messing around with shaping it, but it actually worked in my favor. When I lean these things against the wall or my car, they stay there, they never tip over fall on the ground. 90% of the scratches on my car were caused by skis falling over. I looked at some other sites where people had cut tails off of skis to see what they did about sealing the end and it turned out that most people did nothing. Epoxy won't get into the grain of the wood much and ends up chipping off. I thought that I might use some exterior grade polyurethane, and I think that's a good idea, but I never got around to it. The good news is that I've been using them all season and there doesn't seem to be any issue with water infiltration or delamination. Now, one word of caution: it undoubtedly voids the warranty, so if you're one of these guys who constantly breaks skis and sends them back, you probably shouldn't do it. Personally, in my career of skiing hard and often, I've had only one legitimate warranty return, so I'm not too worried about it. One of the other guys in the shop did the same thing to his Nordica Blower's, also with good results. Another guy in the shop had a great idea. He said I should send the leftover tails to Line with a note that says “thanks for the extra parts, but I didn't need them.” I may do that, maybe we should all do that to get the point across.

Salomon Shogun Test Ride

I had a first look at the 09-10 Salomon Shogun today and so far, I like what I see. This is a ski that Salomon was lacking in their line last year and now they have a pretty solid lineup. As far as backcountry/sidecountry skis go, they now have three models ranging from 88-111 mm at the waist and covering a range of rocker styles. The shogun at 100 mm in the waist will be the most versatile of the three, wide enough to float you without being a handful on the cat track back to the lodge. The ski is fairly light, looks real pretty, and even incorporates sustainable technology in the form of bamboo construction. About which I care very little. Not that I'm anti green or anything, it's just that I feel like making bamboo fat skis is a day late and a dollar short on that front. Anyway, the ski performs beautifully in a variety of conditions, although I didn't get a chance to schralp any powder on it. The good news, in my book, is that it ripped on the hard stuff, quite a feat for a 100 mm ski. I'm pleased to announce that the era of versatile 100 mm skis is here. 100 is the new 85, you might say. Anyway, the thing felt plenty solid, was stable at speed, and made a variety of turn shapes. It felt like it had a little less effective sidecut than the K2 Hardside that I skied earlier in the week, which is a plus for some people. I personally like as much sidecut as I can get, as long as it doesn't toss me around in powder and crud. That's my own opinion though and judging by the prevailing design philosophy in the category, other people disagree. To each his own. While we're on the subject of personal opinions, the one thing I really don't like about these skis, and the other models in Salomon's free ski line, is the twin tip. I know there are countless arguments for and against the extra tip, but for me it's just a pain in the ass. It makes it hard to stick the tail in the snow during transitions from skinning to skiing, impossible to fit in the ski carriers on most gondolas, annoying for anyone to ski behind you due the rooster tail, and requires extra attention when affixing many climbing skins. As for the positives, well, I can't think of any. No worries though, I have a method of fixing it that I'll detail in a later post. At least on this particular ski the twintip is moderate, what Salomon calls semi twin. I may have to add this ski to my quiver for next year, although I have to keep reminding myself that I don't need to own every 100mm waisted ski there is.

The Hardside

I've been trying to test some of the new skis coming out next year that might be appropriate for my chosen style of skiing. K2 has a pile of great skis next year (2010) for those of us that like to earn some or all of our turns. They have done away with their separate lines of telemark and AT skis and created one big category called Backside. I had the opportunity to test one of the backside skis, the Hardside, for a couple of days in pretty representative conditions and I was impressed. It's one of the more exciting K2 skis I've skied in a while. The Hardside is the narrowest model in it's category, but still features a very respectable 98 mm waist, perfect the kind of skiing we usually do around here. K2 has two basic constructions within the backside category. Models with the word side in the name, such as the Hardside, feature vertical sidewall, metal laminate construction to improve harder snow performance. Models withe the word back in the name, such as the Coomback, feature torsion box cap constructon for lighter weight. One interesting feature is that most of the skis feature some form of rocker, more or less rocker depending on the intended use. Because the Hardside is relatively narrow and of the more hardsnow persuasion, it features minimal rocker, what K2 calls 5/15. This means 5 mm of rise, starting 15 cm back from the traditional contact point. Check out my previous post on rocker for a more confusing discussion of the topic. Anyway, this amount of rocker felt pretty good to me on this ski. I skied it in some fairly deep, soft, spring snow, where it was very predictable, and also on some very firm, frozen snow, where it held well and felt solid. The ski seemed to initiate turns very easily, more easily than the Coomba from last year that I own. The 174 cm Hardside that I skied has a claimed turn radius of 21 or so meters, and that is in the range that I like for versatility. I could definitely see myself owning this ski, but I do want to try some other K2 models as well. The Side Stash, in particular, which has a similar construction but in a wider profile with a 108 mm waist. That might be just the ticket for this skier who bounces back and forth between the backcountry and the resort. K2 is also releasing a line of climbing skins for next year that will integrate with the tip and tail holes in the backside skis. I'm looking forward to testing those as well. Finally, kudos to K2 for making all of these skis with a flat tail. Twintips are everywhere on skis in this width range and I, for one, would prefer they not be on my skis.

Rocker Primer

I'm talking ski rocker here, not heavy metal rocker, although I have recently seen mötley  Crüe  in concert. I'm planning on writing about some of next year's skis that I've been testing. I like skis that are versatile enough to ski the resort in the morning and then do some touring in the afternoon, so these will be my primary focus. In order to better understand some of the technology in these skis I put together this little primer on rocker. I've noticed that many people are a bit confused by it. Rocker is essentially a bending of the ski in fore-body and sometimes the tail. If you hold a pair of rockered skis together at the waist, the tips will be splayed apart. We used to throw away skis that were bent like that, but now it's done on purpose. Interesting. Anyway, I'm a big fan of rocker, which is sometimes called "early rise" or reverse camber, depending on the manufacturer. The idea is that with tip rocker you can ski a more aggressive position in powder or difficult snow conditions, pressuring the front of the ski like you would on hard snow. The rocker makes it difficult for the tips to dive, and you can ski more efficiently without having to worry about keeping wait back on the tails. With rocker in the tail of the ski, you get an effortless pivoting ability in soft snow and crud that is very confidence inspiring. The only downside is that by shortening the distance between the contact points of the ski, you are reducing edge length and this can make the ski feel squirrelly or even downright terrifying on harder snow. The trick is to get the right amount of rocker, both in the height of the bend and length of the bend, for the type of skiing you want to do. If, for instance, you plan on using the ski only for stepping out the door of a helicopter in Alaska, then you want all the rocker you can get. If you are looking for versatility in an Eastern ski, then the situation is a little more delicate. Too much height in the bend makes it more difficult to initiate a turn on hard snow. It effectively removes much of the ski's sidecut and requires strong pressure on the front of the boot to get the turn started. Kind of like a GS ski from the late 80's. Too much length in the bend and there just isn't enough edge contact for the ski to feel stable on hard snow. But if you get it just right, everything comes together and you get outstanding soft snow performance and surprisingly good hard snow performance. I think many manufacturers have gotten this combination dialed for 2010 so we should have plenty of good skis to choose from. The photo is of a 2009 Salomon Czar, which for comparison sake has a lot of rocker.

Rendezvous Backcountry Tours Kicks Ass

Last week I went on a five day guided hut tour with Rendezvous Backcountry Tours and it was the best vacation I've ever had. Rendezvous operates out of Driggs Idaho and has a network of yurts on National Forest land in the Tetons. They have a variety of programs available, from unguided hut rental to fully guided and catered. We went fully guided and catered and it was such an amazing value I'll definitely return for more. Our group of five (originally six, but we had a last minute cancellation) was accompanied by two uber-professional guides who did everything possible to make sure that each of us could focus all of our energy on skiing powder. I never realized how long and demanding the work day is for a mountain guide. The two of them, Derek and Lynne, were up at 6:00 am and barely had a chance to sit down until 9:00 pm. On top of that, they broke trail for every bit of the nearly 5000 vertical feet of skinning we did every day. I never broke trail once during the five days and neither did any of my companions. They also prepared all of the meals, presided over the never ending task of melting snow for drinking water, kept the woodstove stocked and attended to our medical needs (my sprained ankle and several other's various blisters.) The food itself went way beyond our expectations. Elaborate meals, delicous appetizers, wine for dinner, plenty of hot drinks to keep you comfortable, hearty lunches on the trail, and my favorite, ice cold cans of Budweiser at days end. Oh yeah, and we didn't have to carry any of it, as Rendezvous employs porters to ski the provisions in to each of the huts in advance. I almost felt guilty about my complete lack of domestic responsibility. But, ultimately, a trip like this comes down to a matter of energy. No matter how fit you are, the limiting factor in how much vertical you can ski is how much energy you can expend. And the less energy you burn carrying gear, breaking trail, and cooking, the more you have for schralping Teton powder.

Ahh, the powder. The weather and ski conditions could not have been any better for this trip. One of our guides, Lynne Wolfe, is an eminently qualified avalanche educator. She is also a very accomplished mountain guide, guiding for climbers and mountaineers as well as backcountry skiers. It gave me great peace of mind to have her evaluating snow stability for us. I also learned a great deal just from observing the way both guides conducted their business. Living in New England, I don't have a lot of opportunities to hone my avalanche safety skills. This is one reason to employ a guide, but another, equally important reason from my perspective, is that they can find you the goods. As I said, the weather was really perfect for our trip but I got the impression that these two would have been able to find us excellent skiing even if things had been less perfect. They seemed to know every canyon, gully, cornice and couloir in the entire area as well as which aspects would be good, where the wind affected snow would be, where the deepest and steepest and still safe shots would be. We got the goods, every day. The unfortunate paradox of backcountry skiing is that the locations and conditions that you most want to ski are often those most likely to kill you. It requires a bit of restraint. Of course you want it to dump two feet every night during your tour, but if it were to snow that much at once it would severly limit the steepness of terrain that you could ski, at least in the short term. We were lucky in that a week or so prior to our arrival the area underwent a thaw freeze cycle that solidified the snow pack and cleared up any (or most) lingering stability issues. Thus we only had to worry about issues occuring at or near the surface. We were also fortunate that a few days prior to our arrival it started snowing 3-5 inches every night, a trend that continued for the first few days of our trip. This added up to enough snow for us to consistently ski powder up to or over our knees. Face shots occured regularly. Best of all, we got to ski some steep shots, and if you're from New England, you desperately want to ski steep shots when you head West. The real draw of the backcountry though, is the solitude. There is no competition for those face shots. The only people we saw for five days were people in our group, with the exception of being passed by one of the super-human porters on his way to deliver an enormous pile of food to one of the yurts. There was no jostling in the lift line, no throwing elbows on the high traverse, no rushing to beat someone else to a secret stash. Just a relaxed good time sharing incredible skiing with some friends. Sure you had to work for it, but it was well worth the effort. I should also mention that at the beginning and end of the trip we skied at a couple of ski resorts, resorts that had ostensibly been privy to the same weather patterns as the backcountry we skied, and the conditions were no where near as good. The reason being that at a ski resort 5 inches of powder lasts from approximately 9:00 am until 9:45 am. Not so in the solitude of the backcountry. Had we wanted to, we could have mined one ridge for days in the Game Creek drainage that we were skiing. We didn't though, because there were too many other ridges to explore. I'll try to add some other details about the trip in the next few days. If you want to check out my photo gallery, it's here. I also have some photos and videos from one of the other group members, Paul, including the video below of Geoff shredding the Teton gnar. At some point we are going to make a photo/video presentation with all of the stuff we got, including some helmet cam footage. I'll try to get more stuff up as time allows.

What am I?

OK, I've been thinking about this "backcountry" term and how painful it is becoming. I remember back when I first decided to dedicate my life to skiing, in the early nineties, the word du jour was "extreme." For a few years you could say extreme and skier in the same sentence and still have some dignity. Eventually the word devolved into a marketing term that could only really be used to describe caffeinated beverages. I fear a similar fate for backcountry if something isn't done soon. As a lover of the language, it saddens me to see such a useful word become useless. The problem is that the term backcountry is very concise and efficient and I can't think of a word to use in its stead. Maybe wildslide is the answer. I could consider myself a wildslider I guess. Anyway I got to this point because in my last post I described myself as a backcountry skier and ever since I have been cringing. I know that backcountry really means more than what it is typically used for these days. I'm rationalizing it in my own defense because I have at certain times actually skied in the backcountry. But what I do on a daily basis, here in VT, cannot accurately be described as backcountry skiing. Or extreme skiing for that matter. No, perhaps unconventional skiing would be better. Given that most people think of skiing as an activity that takes place at a specific ski area, serviced by ski lifts, eschewing these things would be considered unconventional, would it not? Or how about traditional skiing. In the early days of skiing as a sport (not as mode of transportation) the practitioners must surely have skied much as I choose to ski now, away from the crowds and accouterments of modern ski areas. You can say earning your turns, which has a nice ring to it but is somewhat cumbersome. You could describe yourself as a turnearner maybe. There are other popular terms floating around these days such as sidecountry and slackcountry both of which are used to denote skiing that is done from a ski resort but outside of the resort boundary. I do this a lot but I've not heard of anyone claiming to be primarily a sidecountry skier and until I do I will not claim to be one either. I suppose there is a certain romance in being a backcountry skier and I am certainly the type to fall for that sort of nonsense. But to truly be a backcountry skier I think requires actually getting into the backcountry, and I take that to mean wild places without motorized or mechanized access. Not the easiest thing to do here in populous New England, but certainly possible. what is a backcountry skier to do when the very sound of the word he most identifies with sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard? Perhaps the thing to do is go skiing.