Best BC Ski for Randonee

Cool, oftpiste, lots of good info.

I would not run myself down for wanting light skis for climbing. If one wants to do 3 to 5 or more nice kilovert runs in a tour, weight on your feet is significant. Unless one just must ski hard and fast all the time, I have come to the realization that one can randonnee ski very well and enjoyably on carefully matched lighter gear. Along with that, I categorize lift gear and randonnee gear as different uses and not completely interchangeable unless a serious weight penalty in the bc is incurred.

On another site, I read of some 6 lb. Goode skis according to the purchaser. That person also said that he broke his Goode ski, but it was replaced by Goode.

Again, it is impressive Jonathan_S that you know more than I about my skis' performance, that I have skied on about 8 days in spring and summer and you have not skied,  and of course, know more about Trab skis' performance, which I have never skied, and you say you have never skied. And are you saying that my personal experience on my skis is not as accurate as what you read in a magazine? Ok.  I am not promoting my Chogori skis for anyone other than myself, just sharing my experience.

I suggest that you go back and reread what I have actually written, instead of mischaracterizing my prior statements and resorting to sarcastic overstatement.
If you want a shorter summary of my position:
- Asserting that the 70mm K2 is comparable to the 79mm Trab (in anything but weight) is not all convincing; and,
- The 70mm K2 is 30% heavier than the comparable 73mm Trab (i.e., lightest version of the three models that share the same dimensions).

Jonathan_S may I say that I like my Chogoris so far?

I do not recall that I dissed the Trab ski, just the hype in online Forums of the "US Distributor" and other strident responses of posters. Is it against the rules to compare a China-made K2 to a Trab? And what is the problem with China, is that a negative in your view?

It looks like we have differing comparisons- I look at tip and tail, you focus like a laser beam on the waist. Ok, you're right, so right. Happy now? If I promise to not mention or think of Trab while on my K2 skis, will you be happy?

The strident responses that I have seen from four different individuals here and elsewhere about Trab skis are certainly interesting.

Jonathan_S may I say that I like my Chogoris so far?  I do not recall that I dissed the Trab ski, just the hype in online Forums of the "US Distributor" and other strident responses of posters.  Is it against the rules to compare a China-made K2 to a Trab? And what is the problem with China, is that a negative in your view?

Once again, please reread my prior posts.  Specifically:
1.  Regarding the Chogori I had previously written, "From the available reviews . . . the 70mm Chogori sounds pretty good" and "I'm not saying the Chogori is a bad choice" (which can be reasonably interpreted as my saying that the Chogori is a good choice).
2.  I never did accuse you of dissing Trab.
3.  My only China reference was positive: "China outsourcing seems to keep prices down."

Ok, you're right, so right. Happy now? If I promise to not mention or think of Trab while on my K2 skis, will you be happy?

As before, I do not understand why you have to resort to such sarcastic remarks.  All my statements in this thread have been entirely civil and are available for anyone to review as such.  I also do not understand why you keep attributing various positions and statements to me that I simply have not made. 

ah.. Ahumm.
Great points, all.
Nonetheless, we seem to be experiencing some minor, seemingly unproductive thread drift here.

In hopes of not offending anyone, can we get back to the main focus of the thread which was, as I read it, in your opinion, what is the "Best BC Ski for Randonee" skiing?

Seems like a good topic to have broadly explored on this site, eh?

I really appreciated hearing about the pros an cons of some of the newer skis out there for backcountry. It gives me some things to consider when I get ready to replace something in my quiver or when the spring deals come along, which is when I prefer to buy skis.

I'm somewhat of a dirtbag with my quiver at the moment... I'm using primarily a pair of the old Tua "minty hunks of love" Sumos, as my "skinny" summer skis and the "ol' yaller" Work Stinx as my fat boys for winter. Both are mounted up AT with dynafits. And on both the bindings mounted about 2-3 cm forward of the recommending mount point. I find that it makes turn initiation easier for me and with my slower skiing style I lose nothing on the top end (old people seldom ski fast )
I usually take the Sumos over my somewhat older K2 Explorers for summer skiing, probably just due to the legendary Tua round flex... I just like how they ski a smidge better (oh -- yeah, and they're also lighter than the exploders... old people like lighter ).
The Work Stinx, with 88mm underfoot, just hold my prodigious geriatric weight out of the snow better, which helps reduce the number of huge craters that I seem to so easily create in the new fallen winter snow.

Anyone else have some favorites they'd like to offer out as their day-to-day bc working tools and the reasons why they are the chosen ones?

I really like my TMXs, so much so that I bought another pair at an ubeatable price when I had the opportunity.

For me, the best backcountry skis are whichever ones are attached to my feet above several thousands of vertical feet of powder or corn.

PRAY FOR SNOW!

In 2001 I picked up some Hagan skis @ MEC in Vancouver during a pre-Christmas trip to Whistler. They are stiff and stable randonnee skis, but most interestingly, the Hagen ski is relatively inexpensive. If cost is a consideration, Hagan skis are one to consider.

While looking at gear online I noticed the following description:



Hagan Alpin Carv Skis

Weight: 2.78kg (170cm)

$178.93 USD

Made in AUSTRIA


Stiff for its length, this is a classic, easy handling, European style touring ski. For good touring / skiing performance, select skis that are 5cm shorter than your height, or perhaps a little shorter.

* Cap construction.
* Coex top sheet, polymid GFK laminate, and aircell foam core.
* Steel edges tuned with ceramic disc grinders.
* HM-PE running base.
* Dimensions are 107 - 71 - 94mm (tip - waist - tail).


www.mec.ca




FreeRando
by Ski Trab

Price: $535.00
Sale price: $499.00

Fun. The ultralight freeride ski that saves weight without sacrificing performance. Torsion Box construction using Quadraxial Carbon Reinforced Glass produces exceptional torsional rigidity while remaining longitudinally soft, delivering a responsive ride with exceptional float. The High Molecular Density sintered base improves glide and resists gouging. Stategically Placed Rubber eliminates chatter & 52 HRC Steel Edges add to the already great edge hold. The FreeRando is the most versatile, light freeride ski around that rips in all conditions!

Features:

* Weight: 2.58 kg pair (171cm length)
* Dimensions: 108-78-93

randogear.com/


In regard to gear in general, I like to stop at MEC in Vancouver during a Whistler trip. Last spring I found a nice light Gore Tex parka reduced to about 1/3 of retail

I’ve always wondered about Hagan skis: granted their 71mm ski is 32% heavier than the lightest 73mm Trab, but still, the price is an outrageous deal.  Too bad they lack a U.S. distributor . . . and too bad that MEC won’t ship Hagan to the U.S. even though they wouldn’t be infringing on the terrority of any U.S. distributor?  (Unfortunately, the one time I’ve been fortunate enough to visit Vancouver, although the early July skiing on Rainier was still great, the MEC store had put away *all* the ski gear!)

In 2001 I picked up some Hagan skis @ MEC in Vancouver during a pre-Christmas trip to Whistler. They are stiff and stable randonnee skis, but most interestingly, the Hagen ski is relatively inexpensive. If cost is a consideration, Hagan skis are one to consider.
While looking at gear online I noticed the following description:

Hagan Alpin Carv Skis
Weight: 2.78kg (170cm)
$178.93 USD
Made in AUSTRIA
Stiff for its length, this is a classic, easy handling, European style touring ski. For good touring / skiing performance, select skis that are 5cm shorter than your height, or perhaps a little shorter.
* Cap construction.
* Coex top sheet, polymid GFK laminate, and aircell foam core.
* Steel edges tuned with ceramic disc grinders.
* HM-PE running base.
* Dimensions are 107 - 71 - 94mm (tip - waist - tail).
www.mec.ca

FreeRando
by Ski Trab
Price: $535.00
Sale price: $499.00
Fun. The ultralight freeride ski that saves weight without sacrificing performance. Torsion Box construction using Quadraxial Carbon Reinforced Glass produces exceptional torsional rigidity while remaining longitudinally soft, delivering a responsive ride with exceptional float. The High Molecular Density sintered base improves glide and resists gouging. Stategically Placed Rubber eliminates chatter & 52 HRC Steel Edges add to the already great edge hold. The FreeRando is the most versatile, light freeride ski around that rips in all conditions!
Features:
* Weight: 2.58 kg pair (171cm length)
* Dimensions: 108-78-93
randogear.com/
In regard to gear in general, I like to stop at MEC in Vancouver during a Whistler trip. Last spring I found a nice light Gore Tex parka reduced to about 1/3 of retail

Good info...
Seems like either one of these would be good successors to my Sumos.

If you want some 193 cm bright red Hagan Valdez Extreme, 107/ 75/ ?, 1700 gm, Ron, you can have them for almost nothing...I took the Tri Step bindings off of them, but you could actually have the Tri Steps if you really want to live dangerously and risk injury. I have been on Dynafit since 2001 and the only (sking DH) release that I have experienced was while on the red Hagans in a (stupidly) high speed carve on a hard refrozen 25 degree slope the Tri Step toe opened one side and the ski skipped sideways until I finally crashed and slid, happy to have BD self- arrest poles and a helmet. I drove straight to Pro Ski after that and bought (sale) Shuksans and the improved Tri Step...which actually worked a little better. I could have just put the new bindings on the Hagans, I guess, but a guy does not want to run out of skis and the Shuksans were 30% off, they were practically paying me to take them...

The 193 Hagan skis are quite stiff and stable if one likes to plow through anything in a stable fashion. Or they would be good for a young flexible cliff hucker whose testosterone still outweighs his orthopaedic deficit. I think of them as rather "insensitive to powder" of the Wenatchee Mtn. variety. They just motor through crud, mank, glaunch, or carve boilerplate. Perfect for the greater westerly Cascades.

I really like my TMXs, so much so that I bought another pair at an ubeatable price when I had the opportunity

Speaking of which, does anyone have direct experience with both the T:MX/R:EX and their current incarnation (same footprint), the Kongur?
The Kongur seems to be available cheap, probably because most people hated the graphics . . . I've also heard reports that they don't ski the same as the older skis . . .

i've always been curious about Hagan skis...I remember a long time ago (ten years maybe)...I was working in a climbing shop in Oregon and we had a Climb High (i think) catalog...they were distributing Hagan boards...a lot of them were really inexpensive and one in particular seemed way ahead of its time, the Dolphin...I think it had a 120mm waist or something absurd like that.

Greg, I've got a pair of REX's and Kongurs.  The REX's are 184 and mounted with hammerheads as my resort setup and the Kongurs are 177 with dynafits for all-around backcountry skiin'.
I like them both a lot, but between the different bindings and length its tough to tell what difference there is in the skis themselves.  If I could've found the REXs as cheap as the Kongurs were going for I would've bought them instead since the REX's do seem a bit stiffer, but I'm still really happy with the Kongurs as a lighter-ish weight backcountry setup.  (I'm not a good enough skier to get away with skiing ultralight skis, I'll stick with the mid-fat, mid-heavy skis for now).

I took the Tri Step bindings off of them, but you could actually have the Tri Steps if you really want to live dangerously and risk injury. I have been on Dynafit since 2001 and the only (sking DH) release that I have experienced was while on the red Hagans in a (stupidly) high speed carve on a hard refrozen 25 degree slope the Tri Step toe opened one side and the ski  skipped sideways until I finally crashed and slid, happy to have BD self- arrest poles and  a helmet.

Yipes, scary story - the first year of those TriStep toes certainly had lots of problems.   But my understanding is that the heels are exactly the same as on the current Comforts.  So they could still be useful if anyone wanted to transform a pair of regular TLT bindings into Comforts (although an extra 5mm toe shim and longer screws would be necessary to keep the same delta).

The heels are part of my current Comforts. I ordered and bought the new toes for $200. The old red heels color coordinate with the red graphics of the FR 10, giving a splash of color and unique appearance for my rig. It is so important to properly accessorize.

If you want some 193 cm bright red Hagan Valdez Extreme, 107/ 75/ ?, 1700 gm,  Ron, you can have them for almost nothing...I took the Tri Step bindings off of them, but you could actually have the Tri Steps if you really want to live dangerously and risk injury. I have been on Dynafit since 2001 and the only (sking DH) release that I have experienced was while on the red Hagans in a (stupidly) high speed carve on a hard refrozen 25 degree slope the Tri Step toe opened one side and the ski  skipped sideways until I finally crashed and slid, happy to have BD self- arrest poles and  a helmet. I drove straight to Pro Ski after that and bought (sale) Shuksans and the improved Tri Step...which actually worked a little better. I could have just put the new bindings on the Hagans, I guess, but a guy does not want to run out of skis and the Shuksans were 30% off, they were practically paying me to take them...
The 193 Hagan skis are quite stiff and stable if one likes to plow through anything in a stable fashion. Or they would be good for a young flexible cliff hucker whose testosterone still outweighs his orthopaedic deficit. I think of them as rather "insensitive to powder" of the Wenatchee Mtn. variety. They just motor through crud, mank, glaunch, or carve boilerplate. Perfect for the greater westerly Cascades.

Glad you didn't get hurt on the crash, Rando, and thanks for the kind offer of the skis.  But, (sigh) I doubt anyone who is trying to figure out how to fit his walker to his skis is a candidate for any ski with "Valdez Extreme" in it's name. 
From a more practical point of view, even at a steal of a price I doubt they would fit my geriatric skiing style; I tend to ski pretty soft skis and I haven't skied anything that long since before the first shaped skis came out.  I tend to agree with your implication, those skis need a young, testosterone crazed, jock to get the most out of them.

For what it's worth, I have thoroughly enjoyed my BD Havocs for the past couple seasons. They're 88 in the waist, so do just fine in all types of soft snow for my 140 pds, but do very well on hard snow, also. Add Freerides and they're not exactly light, but a pair Dynafits will go a long way toward levelling the playing field. ;D

I have a pair of Havocs as well, and they rip in pretty much any condition, especially crud. I don't care for the twin tip for touring, however - the tail of these skis is effectively three or four inches longer than the skis they replaced (184 R:EX) so I step on my own downhill ski every time I make a steep uphill kick turn.  Also when you're booting up something steep and jamming the skis in the snow as a self-belay device, the tails tend to deflect and not penetrate the snow.  I couldn't really think of a good reason for the upturned tail until I watched Doug Coombs in the Otter Body Experience video rapping down backward (note K2 stickers all over the skis).

Speaking of which, does anyone have direct experience with both the T:MX/R:EX and their current incarnation (same footprint), the Kongur?
The Kongur seems to be available cheap, probably because most people hated the graphics . . . I've also heard reports that they don't ski the same as the older skis . . .

Last year at Marmot's demo night I skied my R-EX (w/ 7TM) and my buddies TM-EX (w/ Targa's) back to back with the new Kongur (with BD O?). I have to say that the difference was subtle but noticable. The non-Kongur's seems to have more 'life' to them, even though they were 3 & 2 years old, respectively. I prefered the BD Xbow to the Kongur...but don't think their are any of those available for cheap.

Is the extra 'life' worth any money? Guess that's one of those 'it depends' things...

I just bought the Dynafit Freeride Carbon 10's. The width, not a lot of sidecut, and light while not being too stiff is what attracted me. Ha. Now I just hope what I think I want transitions into just what I need on the slopes in a few weeks. I bought them from Marmot for 498, but I saw them for a little cheaper on another website, not sure which one though. They were 479, normally 599.

Anyone have a chance to ski the new Atomic Kailas? Looks like Atomic's answer to all those Havocs flying out their factory door - 88mm underfoot, slightly softer forebody, no upturned tail . . . I guess 88-90mm underfoot is the new definition of "mid fat" !

Re: Best BC Ski for Randonee
« Reply #46 on: 09/12/06, 11:18 AM » | Reply with quote 

---

I have a pair of Havocs as well, and they rip in pretty much any condition, especially crud. I don't care for the twin tip for touring, however - the tail of these skis is effectively three or four inches longer than the skis they replaced (184 R:EX) so I step on my own downhill ski every time I make a steep uphill kick turn.  Also when you're booting up something steep and jamming the skis in the snow as a self-belay device, the tails tend to deflect and not penetrate the snow.  I couldn't really think of a good reason for the upturned tail until I watched Doug Coombs in the Otter Body Experience video rapping down backward (note K2 stickers all over the skis).

Thanks for sharing the video.  I've been skiing on twin tips( Line motherships 182's with dynafits  and Armada JP -Julien, 191's  with freerides)   in the backcountry for four seasons.  The twins seem to me to have about equal advantages and disadvantages.  The main advantages are the ability to comfortably move backwards in tight spots and side slip like a falling leaf,  not sticking the tails in while skinning during steep kick turns or when the skins slip, and the tails release easier and help with back seat recoveries. You are right about the extra length interfering with walking and the difficulty planting the skis, especially in hard conditions, not to mention the irritating rooster tails they throw up in every one's faces unlucky enough to be behind me.  My next pair of skis will be non-twin tip Karhu BC 100's. They are light for the size (7.6 lbs,186 cm) but the twins will always see service.  I am also thinking about the new Karhu Guide waxless ski which is supposed to ski pretty well on the downhill compared to other waxless skis. 

Does anyone know if the K2 Chogori is the same ski as the older Summit 8611? Several friends have Summits and like them a lot.

Not sure if they're the same ski Lowell, but I know that Adam at Pro Ski still had a pair of Summits in the shop as of a month ago. Probably pick them up for a song. My wife skis them and finds them difficult, but manageable, in glop and mushy springy conditions. Their weight makes up for a lot.

Lowell,

I saw the two skis at Marmot and wondered the same thing. My guess at the time was that it is the same ski repackaged. I saw at least three versions of the 8611 on the used rack and I doubt that K2 would eliminate a ski niche, other than in name if people like it.

Marcus,

My wife also skis the 8611, but as a tele ski. Though I made the choice for her at the time, she loves it for that purpose. I think it fits well her stature and weight and also the rather light boot she is skiing with.

She just went rando, or will be going rando when the snow comes, this year, with new skis and boots. Here she opted for the K2 Shuksans and because the Garmonts that she got were not dynafit compatible, she is went for the step-in style AT binding. Again, as she gets on these skis for the first time, I think that she will appreciate the sweet even flex of the Shuksans, yet they seem to be reasonably stiff torsionally. Lots of lift served skiing to be done with the kids and I think that she will drive that wider setup well. For true backcountry, I think that this will also work well, even if it is a little on the heavy side.

One comment I had at the shop was whats up at Garmont, that none of the women's boots are Dynafit compatible. Did some marketing guru do a study suggesting that adding Dynafit is a waste of time for women? Does it really save cost that much? If you bother to make a women's boot, then by default you are stating that women and men's boots are designed differently than they are implying that the men's boots likely would not be appropriate for many women. ( I personally find that dubious, it should have to do more with the relationship of foot size and typical weight, within a boot class based on the type of skiing and agressiveness. In other words you would expect that a size 14 megaride should have thicker plastic and be stiffer than a size 6, since the weight and ht of two different size skiers would create much different leverage forces.

If I owned a boot company, I would offer all models with and without dynafit comp. and then charge more for the ones with to cover the added cost.

Alan

Hi Alan,

Agree completely on the boot analysis -- I wonder if they have to license the dynafit inserts for each line of boots that they make. My wife fit well in the Mega-ride, so she's got dynafits on all her skis. She loves the Summits as well, since they're so light and easy to move around, though she's got a pair of Karhu Jils for her winter/glop skis.

I've heard from a couple sources that the Chogori is stiffer than the Summit 8611. The dimensions of the two skis are almost identical. The Chogori is very slightly heavier, as well.

I recently bought a pair of Trab Duo FreeRando skis.  Here are some impressions, describing my selection process and first runs at Crystal today.   

First a disclaimer: I don't think anyone would hire me as a ski tester.  My tastes are unusual (I actually LIKE skiing in mountaineering boots) and I haven't skied a lot of different skis.  I used a single pair of Ramer Grand Tours for 10 years (1987-96) and more recently I have been skiing on old-school, mountaineering-oriented skis made by Atomic (Tourcap Guide, TG10, TM11, Limit, etc).  My 175cm Atomics are narrow (96-67-86) and light.  I like them a lot and expect to continue using them when conditions are appropriate. 

This year I decided to look for a second, wider pair of skis for winter conditions.  After prowling the shops, I decided that my requirements were: 

1. About 80mm under foot. 

2. The other dimensions must be enough wider than my Atomics to make owning two pairs of skis worthwhile. 

3.  They should be almost as light as my Atomics.  After weighing a lot of skis, I decided that I wanted a ski that weighed less than 1500 grams in a 175cm length, unmounted. 

These requirements proved hard to meet.  I was attracted by the flex and dimensions of the K2 Shuksan, but I wished it was lighter. I was also attracted by the K2 Summit (no longer in production), but I wished it was wider.  The Goode Carbon 82 was intriguing, but I was leery about its durability and the 176cm model was stiff as a plank.  I also worried that it might actually be too light.  (It's also obscenely expensive.) I was also attracted by the Head Alpinist, but I didn't have an unmounted ski to look at. 

Lock Miller at Marmot in Bellevue encouraged me to consider the Trab skis. When the FreeRandos arrived at Marmot a couple weeks ago, I took a good look at them and decided to buy a pair. Specs: 178cm, 110-79-96, 1400 grams per ski.  Interestingly, I found that the 178 and 171 lengths weighed almost the same (within an ounce) according to the shop scale.  I was happy that the 178cm length incurred almost no weight penalty. 

I was skeptical of the "duo" tip and split tail at first, thinking that they would be a hassle for fitting skins.  But the tip and tail connectors provided by Trab work really well.  It's the slickest system I've seen.  The tip of the skin is fixed by a rotating latch that fits into the curved notch in the ski tip.  The tail of the skin is fixed by a clamp that slips through the slot in the ski tail and clamps the ski.  I think it's best to size the skins so that the tail clamp is in the middle of the slot.  That way you can accomodate a little stretch or shrinkage of the skins in the field.  I like not having any rubber tensioners, which can be hard to work in the cold.  I tied a bit of ribbon through a slot in the tail clamp, making it easy to manipulate both the tip and tail connectors wearing gloves.

I spent most of the day today skiing the lifts on my heavy resort gear.  (Crystal had 12-18 inches of new snow--excellent skiing.) In the afternoon, I switched to the Trabs, skinned up one of the lifts and took a few runs.  (I'm using Dynafit TLT4 boots with Comfort bindings.  I'm 6'3" and weight about 170 lbs.)

The skis are really light.  I'm delighted that they have completely satisfied my weight requirements.  The snow today was quite good, and probably any ski would have been okay, but I think you can tell something about a ski even in good conditions. The thing that impressed me most about the FreeRandos was how easily they turned.  I was skiing cut-up powder, and I think they turned easier than my Atomics would have done.  For me, nimbleness and turnability is a good thing.  I could tell that they floated better than my narrow skis would have, but I'll have to ski some untracked snow to know more.  I let the skis run in some longer radius turns, and they felt stable enough for my needs. 

My initial impression is that I'm going to like these skis. We'll see how they do in more varied conditions as the season progresses. 

Lowell, thanks for the Trab report.

So I now have: 164cm Duo Free Rando, 5 lb 14.5 oz, 2680g, for winter conditions with Dynafit Comfort (+ brakes, second spring removed for easier heel unit manipulation in tour mode) and Scarpa Matrix; and, 164cm Duo Sint Aero, 4 lb 10 oz, 2100g, for spring/summer with Dynafit Comfort (no brakes) and Dynafit TLT4 Evo.

Unfortunately, I also now have, via our avy rpt: “Last week's rain, warm temperatures and fog eagerly ate our precious snowpack down to ....well...nothing.” So any on-snow report is going to be limited to pre-operational hours skinning for awhile!

Otherwise, initial thoughts (besides the beautifully perfect finishes and also light weights, amazingly so for the Duo Sint Aero) are mainly the secure feeling of the skin attachment system combined with the very light weight of the attachment hardware. For the tail cam lever slots, at first I was going to attach a webbing loop, but now I’m thinking instead about two 75-pound-rated cable ties, taped together, and also taped over at the connector part to keep the loop from getting smaller.

I'm looking to upgrade my 170cm Tua Hydrogen's with something wider and shorter, yet lightweight and versatile in the backcountry. There's a very short list of skis that qualify, one being the Trab Freerando. Lowell, I was very interested in your comments. Please keep us posted as you learn more about your new skis. Or PM me.

The next question would be what length. I'm thinking the 157s, but Mark at Wasatchskis recommends 164 cm.

Jonathan_S, what do you think of your 164s? You don't find that's too short? If you don't mind sharing, how much do you weigh and how tall are you?

Great discussion. Thanks everyone. I'd love to hear comments from the gals out there (I know you're out there) - in addition to hearing what all the husbands and boyfriends think.

I'm only 5'8" & 145lbs, and my skis tend to be on the short side even given those #s.
Other skis in the quiver include:
157cm SL race
176cm GS race
170cm R:9.22 lift-served non-race
168cm R:Ex sidecountry Diamir setup
162cm Mira all-around bc (now relegated to rock status)
160cm rando race
Given that quiver, the 164cm Trab skis (instead of the 171cm) seemed like the straightforward choice for me.