AT vs Tele

I've got a pair of new skis with no bindings on them and since I've been doing an increasing amount of back / "slack" country stuff the past few years I was planning on trying out AT bindings... but the more I think about it I'm leaning towards just going all out tele.. only thing is I've never been telemarking and was wondering what is the best way to learn if I like it enough to put the time into making the switch? Are there places that will let you rent the gear for a weekend?? What are good places to learn?? Do any resorts or private instructors offer lessons (my home mountain is Kmart)?? Do I have to buy a tie dyed t-shirt :grin: Any info would be appreciated, thanks.

Both REI end EMS (the larger stores) rent tele gear. They probably also sponsor some learning trips as well. I don't tele so I haven't looked into it further than that.

I've started pondering the AT vs tele question myself and came across this recently (here at AZ?): Magic Mountain "earn your turns" program (which among other things mentions rental availability).

I've found that teleing is a lot more fun on soft snow (including true packed powder, but emphatically not including consolidated McSludge), whereas I can actually enjoy myself on hard snow if I've got my heels locked down and my edges tuned. I picked up tele skiing mid-March last year and I'm confident in my ability to handle just about any on-the-map terrain in the East (MRG's upper-level stuff being a notable exception), and I can have a blast in the woods or on softer, groomed snow. However, more challenging snow conditions just aren't as much fun on my tele gear; I suspect that getting better could help, but the stability of an alpine boot and a fixed-heel binding is tough to beat in some situations, which is why I went from planning to mount my Anti Pistes with O1s to mounting them with Naxos instead. I'm still going to put O1s on a pair of Crossbows as a touring setup, though.

You should go to Mountain Traveler. They have a store on Rt4 down by Applebee's and they put a new store on the access road next to Johnny Boys and believe they started doing rentals from that location this year. Great people there who are dedicated to tele.

Hit up one of the New England Telemark festivals:

http://www.netelemark.com/

Come to Sugarbush for tele or AT clinics, plus backcountry skills.

John

Although AT can get you into the BC faster (no learning a new turn), you will ultimately be more satisfied with Tele. You will never be bored again. Can't say the same for P-turns. A couple of recent developments makes it an even better choice:

- Un-latching springs. Used to be that AT could stomp up the hill vs. a similarly conditioned Tele ascender. Not so any more. Newest generating bindings create the same no-resistance forward hinge action that AT provides. Since Tele gear is a bit lighter, this has allowed Tele to not only catch up, but supersede AT on hill climbs.

- Burly bindings (please don't call them 'binders'). An accomplished former Alpiner can lay down very good P-turns when needed. Makes for fun when conditions are less than optimal for Tele. I won't say I can beat an Alpine set up in the gates or anything, but I can sure can come close to matching their turns on packed steeps or crudish snow.

Go out an demo some gear. Give it all day, and you will start to get the feel. All of a sudden, a light goes off, and you are hooked for life.

TeleProphet

I started tele skiing this year and I am having a blast. been out on my tele skis about 8 times already. When the snow is hard is it a bit harder to do. tele all the way

Tele really revitalized my skiing. It opened the doors for me to be able to enjoy a challenge on slopes less than double black diamonds, and also allowed me to explore BC opportunities. Learning a new turn was such a sweet experience for me, yet I felt comfortable knowing that I could rely on the trusty parallel turn if things got sketchy.

Perhaps renting some tele gear and taking a lesson would give you a good understanding of which binding and turn choice suits your needs best? Mad River Glen has rentals and lessons as do many other mountains in New England.

Personally, I was faced with the same decision a few years ago and ultimately decided on alpine as I did not feel like taking a major step backwards in technical prowess for a few years while accessing earned turns (call me short term and instant gratification oriented). Additionally, I do not suffer from a need of more challenge than alpine already presents. Finally, it was of financial benefit because I only needed to purchase a binder (neeners TeleProphet!) that would accept an alpine boot to get going instead of binding and boot with tele plus investment of time and perhaps lessons to get proficient enough to challenge the terrain I most enjoyed.

To each their own. You earn em' either way and that is all that ultimately matters as you've made the hardest decision already to invest in the equipment and get away from the lifts. You gotta go for which ever option makes the most positive impact on your skiing and lifestyle on your terms. Consider the reasonable options and logistics presented but do not be swayed by either side suggesting that one is better than the other.

"Fix the heel. Free the mind"

If you are bored with alpine, then go ahead and tele. But if you want to ski backcountry in New England, with its tight, tight lines then the ease of use and performance of an AT setup is the way to go (IMHO).

As to the reletive weight of equipment. It's a myth that tele is lighter. Check the specs., you may be surprised.

Powdr said:

- Un-latching springs. Used to be that AT could stomp up the hill vs. a similarly conditioned Tele ascender. Not so any more. Newest generating bindings create the same no-resistance forward hinge action that AT provides. Since Tele gear is a bit lighter, this has allowed Tele to not only catch up, but supersede AT on hill climbs.

Click to expand...

Well, actually most tele bindings weigh about twice as much as a set of Dynafit's.

The difference in weight between average tele bindings and Freerides or Naxo's is pretty close (3.5 lbs - 4.5 lbs).

If I'm in avalanche terrain I want skis that release from my feet.

In tele's defense, releasable bindings are on the horizon for telemark skiers and east coasters will rarely find themselves in avi terrain unless heading out west or ascending certain peaks in winter conditions. The weight difference is certainly minimal and Marc makes a great point about the Dynafits. Lots of beefy tele rigs for sure and lots of light weight AT options.

I think RivercOil kind of hit the nail on the head with his first post. But if you are bored with alpine, go for tele. I thought about doing tele for a while after I quit racing in college but decided against it because the more I got OB, the more I realized that it was a new unique type of skiing for me that presented plenty of challenges without switching my set up. Almost all my friends were tele skier back during my days at Bates skiing the River. Now I live in Alta with them and 2 have switched back to Alpine/AT setups. For me, AT allowed me to keep my alpine boots, get new bindings, and have endless new challenges in the backcountry. an AT setup is light, simple to use and most of all, it releases. There are a couple new options for good light AT tele binding from companies such as BD but again, they don't release. Plus, you will need to learn a new way of skiing. But if you are bored and you are looking for a big challenge and don't mind taking a few steps back technically, Tele may be for you.

everything posted here has been great. for what it's worth, my technical ability was affected for about a season. By 1 year later, I could tele anything I ever wanted to before, including chutes at Tux and bowls at Breck and ice at Belleayre. The only difference was it made me think more about what I was doing rather than mindlessly ripping.

However, I have yet to try AT touring so I can't say much about that other than reading these posts makes me want to try it! Good stuff here.

Extremely basic question that I think I have answered for myself in my initial research into AT gear but would like to confirm:

riverc0il said:

Finally, it was of financial benefit because I only needed to purchase a binder (neeners TeleProphet!) that would accept an alpine boot to get going

Click to expand...

So it is not necessary to buy mountaineering/randonee boots to use DIN-standard randonee bindings? How do you find skinning up in full-fledged alpine boots? I realize there's a tradeoff between weight and flexibility on the climb and downhill performance.

Also curious anyone's experience with Alpine Trekkers. From what I've read the weight and height are pretty significant drawbacks but they might work for me for a start, since my initial "BC" is likely to be a NELSAP hill and other local terrain with generally no more than 200' vertical. I do like the idea of being able to try this out for an initial investment of < $200 rather than much more for AT bindings and skis to mount them on.

polski said:

So it is not necessary to buy mountaineering/randonee boots to use DIN-standard randonee bindings?

Click to expand...

No, but you do have to adjust the height of the toe piece to be higher for the thicker alpine boot. Other than that, it's step in compatibility (assuming the right boot sole length adjustment, which is also exceedingly easy on most AT bindings).

polski said:

How do you find skinning up in full-fledged alpine boots? I realize there's a tradeoff between weight and flexibility on the climb and downhill performance.

Click to expand...

It's a pain in the ass. A set of alpine boots can weight twice as much as a pair of AT boots. However, for just starting out, it's definitely doable. But it isn't only the weight that is a drawback, it's the fact that with alpine boots, you're always forced to lean forward, where AT boots, in walk mode, have a mobile cuff.

polski said:

Also curious anyone's experience with Alpine Trekkers. From what I've read the weight and height are pretty significant drawbacks but they might work for me for a start, since my initial "BC" is likely to be a NELSAP hill and other local terrain with generally no more than 200' vertical. I do like the idea of being able to try this out for an initial investment of < $200 rather than much more for AT bindings and skis to mount them on.

Click to expand...

Weight and height are not big deals because of the Trekkers themselves. It's the boots that add weight. If your alpine bindings are not tall, you won't be any higher than you'd be on a set of Freerides. I used my Trekkers on two or three average length tours (~3000' vert) and found them to be usable. You can find them for much cheaper than $180 because most people buy them and never tour again and sell them, or buy them and then buy AT setups and sell them. I've kept mine around for my friends who are just getting into touring or just to have in case I'm on my alpine gear and I want to do some slack country. They're perfect for that.

The other thing to consider besides the initial cost is you'll likely lose far less money buying and then reselling a pair of trekkers than you would buying a full AT setup, possibly learning you don't like touring, and then turning around and trying to sell all of it. Especially if you have a friend or two that are lagging behind you, use the trekkers and then sell them to one of them, or keep them like I did. A lot of people don't like them, but I think they fit their niche perfectly, assuming you have that niche to fill. If you do buy them, though, loctite all the fasteners.

Marc, thanks much. One more question: How might Trekkers work for kids? My boys currently are 10 and 7, getting decent with their alpine skiing and also have done beginner x-c.

polski said:

So it is not necessary to buy mountaineering/randonee boots to use DIN-standard randonee bindings? How do you find skinning up in full-fledged alpine boots? I realize there's a tradeoff between weight and flexibility on the climb and downhill performance.

Also curious anyone's experience with Alpine Trekkers. From what I've read the weight and height are pretty significant drawbacks but they might work for me for a start, since my initial "BC" is likely to be a NELSAP hill and other local terrain with generally no more than 200' vertical. I do like the idea of being able to try this out for an initial investment of < $200 rather than much more for AT bindings and skis to mount them on.

Click to expand...

Certain AT bindings will accept Alpine Boots, yes. So you only "need" an AT boot if you get lighter weight, lower DIN, or Dynafit bindings. since the beefier bindings can be used with Alpine boots. That is how I got started.... BUT I decided to buy AT boots the very next season. Thus, to answer your question about Trekkers, they are generally a waste of money if you are serious about getting into earning your turns as you will eventually but AT boots. But just to get started, you can skimp on the boots (unlike Tele). You will need skins regardless and don't forget adjustable poles, good pack, emergency gear, layered clothing, etc.