New to Backcountry. Have some questions

ViolentSkiBladeSo I had my first taste of BC a couple months back and I am moving to Colorado next winter. I know I need some Avy training and beacons and such. But I have more of a question regarding gear. Would 116 underfoot be too wide a ski? Would it be a weight issue while skinning? Gimme ya thoughts!

CiaocippoWell it really depends on how much effort you want to put into it, what's the difference in height of the tour and how you see this discipline.
For instance here in the Alps backcountry skiing is seen mostly as an 'aerobic' sport with high differences in altitude and the focus is mainly on the uphill part, thus the equipment is generally really light (Dynafit skis are as thin as 70mm)
But if you take your time and you're not worried about going fast uphill then yes, a 116 underfoot is perfectly fine (as long as the ski is not heavy: armada locators are an example) and you get some lightweight bindings.

At the end it all comes to this: you wanna perfom better uphill or downhill?

saucemastrscottyReally depends on which ski and what kind of binding ur gonna be using, along with how fit u are and what u consider heavy. Personally I found 116 jjs with frames to be too heavy for longer tours and was way behind my friends on tech bindings despite being in pretty good shape. Overall i think binding matters more than ski

CrunnchyPissFartnah 116 is perfect, as long as they like aren't full on full rocker boards and somewhat on the lighter side

I tour on 122's like a psychopath though, its fine but def flying a lil close to the sun

check out Bigski Mtn products for skins tho, they make some mean stuff.

what bindings do you have/are thinking about?

CiaocippoWell it really depends on how much effort you want to put into it, what's the difference in height of the tour and how you see this discipline.
For instance here in the Alps backcountry skiing is seen mostly as an 'aerobic' sport with high differences in altitude and the focus is mainly on the uphill part, thus the equipment is generally really light (Dynafit skis are as thin as 70mm)
But if you take your time and you're not worried about going fast uphill then yes, a 116 underfoot is perfectly fine (as long as the ski is not heavy: armada locators are an example) and you get some lightweight bindings.

At the end it all comes to this: you wanna perfom better uphill or downhill?

ViolentSkiBladeThank you for the super helpful response! I care equally about getting uphill and downhill with good performance, and I definitely see where the setup i have in mind is lacking in uphill performance. But you tell me, some 116 underfoot Sego Condors, pivot 15 cast bindings, and FT acsendants. Too heavy?

ViolentSkiBladeGood to know! I will check em out. Ill just tell ya the setup i have in mind. It would be some 186 cm 116 underfoot sego Condors, pivot 15 cast bindings, and some FT ascendant boots. Overall I know the boots and the bindings will be decently heavy.

ViolentSkiBladeThank you for the super helpful response! I care equally about getting uphill and downhill with good performance, and I definitely see where the setup i have in mind is lacking in uphill performance. But you tell me, some 116 underfoot Sego Condors, pivot 15 cast bindings, and FT acsendants. Too heavy?

CiaocippoSkis and bindings are fine (personally I'd prefer a slightly narrower ski to save some weight since I find myself skiing 20% of the season in deep snow and 80% not. But, again, this is a personal preference and if you're send big jumps etc then go for the 116)
FT boots look too heavy for me. If you already own them don't worry, if not I'd go on something like Scott Cosmos Tour or Scarpa's Maestrale.

Monsieur_PatateCheckout Cy's well written gear intro guide: https://www.newschoolers.com/news/read/A-Newschooler-Guide-Backcountry-Ski-Gear

A couple of years old but not much has changed so it's still very accurate.

**This post was edited on Apr 6th 2022 at 12:41:45pm