question for ski mountaineers

I need to purchase a new pair of skis for a variety of reasons that will work for spring/summer volcano season.  I have other competing interests to volcanoes and I've got my model ideas and you've probably got your favorites and those debates are endless so to avoid that mess I'm just going to ask a couple very specific questions.

1.  Assuming magic skis where weight is not an issue, what is the widest (waist) ski you would be willing to use on a big peak in may/june conditions?  Assume low-positive to flat camber.

2.  What is the heaviest ski you would be willing to lug up a volcano?  Assume the ski makes espresso, does your taxes, and is otherwise worth it at it's weight....but at some point you have to draw the line.  Weight per pair (ignore bindings).

3.  What is the shortest ski you would be willing to use?  Weird question with modern ski shapes but lets assume a full length contact (aka traditional) ski.  Please give your height.

Thanks for any help and I hope getting this info from the really experienced folks will help a larger community than just me make informed decisions from the rapidly expanding (but exciting) decision tree of backcountry skis.

Spring volcano skis can also be too narrow.  In early spring, ripper corn up top means sloppy glop down low.

At 6', 170 (summer)-180 (winter) lbs, ski often, but not always well. Here are skis used extensively past and present:

* 174 Sahale (~102-70-95): long enough to be skiable, competent on perfect corn, and too narrow to float in the glop. Fabulous on the up.

* 173 K2 Enemy (110-75-98): worked as a starter ski, but short.

* 184 Kongur (114-84-108): my favorite ski ever, but requires on-the-ball technique, so

* 177 Kongur (115-84-107): workhorse mountaineering ski. Most benefits of the 184, but lighter and easier to ski. Perhaps a little narrow.

* 177 El Hombre (135-105-125): about as wide as I'd want in spring. Floats breakable/slop/crapola well. Holds a reasonable edge. Too stiff for me in some conditions, but great when driven.

* Next up in the endless hunt is a pair of used 185 Kailas. Softer, wider, lighter than Kongurs, with the sidecut of the 177, but hopefully retaining edgehold.


Waist-wise: whatever works for you in all Spring conditions, from icy sastrugi to slop. For me, I suspect 90 mm would be perfect. Shovel width matters for float in glop.

Weight-wise: I like ~3-3.5 kg/pr before bindings.

Length-wise: I don't ski fast. I look for a competent ski that's easy to handle. My 184s delivered pure joy when conditions were right and skied with authority, but were hard on tired legs in tight spots. Not too short, not too long.

For spring tours, I look for a neutral ski that's guaranteed to do what I ask in tough conditions. The Sahales were a spring mountaineering experiment - they're great on the up, but finicky on the down. After a bad crash with them in knee-deep slop, I only use them when conditions are predictably firm.

~20m sidecut seems to work well, and can still rip. Don't forget ski crampon compatibility. Wider means heavier skins.

Figure out what you'd like to do on a spring tour, and you'll know what kind of ski you'd like; they're tools.

1. 105mm still works in lots of conditions, but I'd go narrower for firm conditions. No experience wider.
2. ~4kg/pr. Why go heavy if a 4kg/pr ski gets it done?
3. 173, but prefer longer. 6'.

I need to purchase a new pair of skis for a variety of reasons that will work for spring/summer volcano season.  I have other competing interests to volcanoes and I've got my model ideas and you've probably got your favorites and those debates are endless so to avoid that mess I'm just going to ask a couple very specific questions.

1.  Assuming magic skis where weight is not an issue, what is the widest (waist) ski you would be willing to use on a big peak in may/june conditions?  Assume low-positive to flat camber.
Depends on conditions...105 mm if consolidated at top, 115 to 120  if its still mush season.

2.  What is the heaviest ski you would be willing to lug up a volcano?  Assume the ski makes espresso, does your taxes, and is otherwise worth it at it's weight....but at some point you have to draw the line.  Weight per pair. Depends on bindings..if dynafit I've got friends that use S7's.10 lbs but I'd draw the line at 9 lbs.... if Fritschii......naw don't use Fritschi or barons

3.  What is the shortest ski you would be willing to use?  Weird question with modern ski shapes but lets assume a full length contact (aka traditional) ski.  Please give your height.
6ft-2" I would be 182 to 184, I used a shorter pair 176 but they were too short for me, even in hardpack.

Thanks for any help and I hope getting this info from the really experienced folks will help a larger community than just me make informed decisions from the rapidly expanding (but exciting) decision tree of backcountry skis.

1. 120 at most. If fully consolitated, the widest I'd go is 110, but I'm almost always on 105 in the summer.
2. 9ish #s
3. 178 (5'8", 140#s

I may be old school, but I would never go wider than 90mm underfoot.  I agree with Charlie about the Kongur.  It is also my all time favorite ski, although I prefer the 177 to the 184.  I ski it year round because I just can't stand hauling around a heavy ski and will sacrifice float for easier up hill travel.  The Kongur excels on spring and summer volcano tours where something stiff and light is often necessary. It's my ideal ski and I would recommend matching it's dimensions, stiffness and weight in something newer.

For me, the reason to use a wide heavy ski is so I can go faster in the soft (winter) snow. Summer skiing has hazards like sun cups, chunks, hard spots, rocks. All those hazards plus the fact that the snow isn't generally soft bottomed makes me not want to go super fast. Plus there isn't really a floatation requirement in summer, so I don't see any reason to use a wide ski in the summer. Last year I bought a pair of 160cm Voile Vector BC to use as my summer ski. For me they are perfect for trail carry, uphill travel, and they ski great too. I carried a wider heavier ski on Rainier a couple years ago. In hindsight, I don't see any advantage (in summer) to that heavier ski than the little Vector I now have. The short Vector is 92mm under foot and weighs less than 6# for the pair. I use three-pin cable bindings on the Vectors.

1 110ish
2 <8lbs if possible
3. 185ish

6'1 165

Have skied: old gotamas, bluehouse districts, dps wailer 105s, wailer 99's and many others.

What I think is ideal for the way I like to ski: 100mm underfoot 185-190cm, flat to slight camber, stiff, slight rocker tip,  stiff, and most importantly DURABLE. My current favorite is the w99, it's slightly heavier than my old 105's but far more versatile w/o being too heavy. Full disclosure: I work for DPS, but I think my generalities hold true for other skis as well.

Which volcano?

For me personally, it would be 95mm (but I'd rather take 85mm or 75mm), 3,000 grams/pair without bindings (but I'd rather take 2,600 grams/pair - or less), 178cm (but I'd rather take 169). It depends a lot on how fit and tall you are, and how balanced a skier.

This is all awesome info folks, keep it rollin in!

Greg, if you want to get specific with different answers for different big peaks, go right ahead! As for the other question, I had folks stating their own height to give their answer a framework. For ability let's assume the hypothetical me is somewhere north of awesome ;D (meaning, remove that as a variable).

Here comes a curveball....

In the spring/summer, the skiing is mostly on consolidated snow, so the mechanics of skiing is mostly ski EDGE oriented, not ski SURFACE AREA oriented... Meaning you are ON the snow, not IN the snow..... and the parameters of buying a specific ski for those conditions are completely different than buying a winter snow ski......

I am over 6'2" and about 210lbs. In winter snow, all of my skis are 185 +, with the exception of my "bump skis" which are 182cm.  My go to skis in soft condtions are 193cm early tip rise, 112mm underfoot, big mt ski design, so I normally ski on a long, challenging performance ski.

In the spring, I ski a short superlight ski about 80mm underfoot. It's a 170cm dynafit seven summit.  It weighs 5.6lbs for the pair. It's superlight, manuverable, and holds an edge well. When I bought it, I was looking for ~180cm length, but decided to give it a try purely for the reduction in weight.  On hardpack snow, there's no performance penalty using a shorter ski. It's lighter, kick turns easier and 80 underfoot gives you much better edging leverage than 110 underfoot....

I don't see any reason to drag extra weight uphill in the spring, especially if it's a rockered tip that never even touches the snow or extra width that reduces your leverage when you anglulate to set your edge......

......my $.02....

Meaning you are ON the snow, not IN the snow..... and the parameters of buying a specific ski for those conditions are completely different than buying a winter snow ski......

......my $.02....

I agree completely.

I agree completely.

And I agree with your agreement. For me, it's all about narrow, light, stiff and short for a volcano ski.

Since the objective is Volcanoes which have (depending on your timing) a long to very long climb involved, it may be a question of weight being the foremost consideration. On long days, I've been carrying Volkl Norbert Joos & with bindings hit 3lbs 9oz each. They ski well in almost everything and great corn/ firm snow ski but they're a tad skinny. I wouldn't hesitate to take them up a cone. But looking around, there are many good choices with some girth and pretty pared down weight too. I don't personally think much over 90 waist & maybe 125 or so tip would prove a benefit (deep glop the exception). I consider the weight important because long, sometimes committing trips where reserve energy could make a big difference is worth a small compromise in skis. Hope this helps !

Oh, just to clarify a bit, the dimensions I referenced are what I consider appropriate for a 3 season "mountaineering" ski that will handle the higher variabilities in the stretch seasons. If you are just doing Volcanoes, light, modest profile, good lateral stiffness for edgehold, and just soft enough so they aren't "punchy" on the front end. Length can certainly be shorter, just keep stability in mind . Lots of somewhat older, used boards come to mind for this and they'll be reasonable.

Jonn-E, I'm 5'8" and about 165. I'd be willing to take a bigger ski to Adams' south side, for instance, since I'd typically be able to skin the entire way to the summit. Shorter and lighter for a summit ski of Baker or Rainier where the skis are typically going to be on your back for a while and you're going to be carrying a bunch of mountaineering gear as well.