Backcountry Thread

[smootharc]

Mytopo.com stuff...

excellent ground rules, looks like a good foundation for some excellect discussion.

mytopo.com looks really interesting but $9.95 per map seems a little steap. especially considering you can download very large and detailed USGS topo maps from terraserver.microsoft.com which i utilize heavily for research on lines and stashes. i am limited to not being able to print out a quality topo map utilizing this option though

...is going to make it onto a "wall collage" kind of thing, hence the print outs from them which can be large, and are of great quality.

 

[Pinnah]

JimmyG., I'm not callin you on this, I'm just wondering where you've skied over 50 degrees? I've skied some steep chit in my life, but don't know for sure if I've ever been at 50+.

David Goodman has published estimated angles for several of the routes in and around Tucks. He notes that the angles depend a lot on snow cover from year to year. That noted, some of the routes there that are listed as 50+ degrees are: The Lip, Left Gully, Chute, Center Headwall, Sluice, Cathedral, Dodge's Drop and Duchess. The steepest I've skied is only about 40 degrees and these days, don't care to push that again.

Good link for this thread. http://www.14ers.com/ski.html

I'm not so sure the western bc approach is the best for eastern woods. Heavy tele (T2 and up) and AT gear makes sense in the ravines of the presidentials but beyond that, I think their utility is greatly diminished. New England is blessed with some of the greatest terrain imaginable for backcountry skiing if (and this is a big if) you are willing to adjust your definition of skiing to the lighter side.

Somewhere between low cut leather 3 pin boots and plastic Excursions and somewhere between skinny xc skis and superlight mid-fats, there is a balance of turning and striding efficiency that makes the whole woods open up into a playground. Trips might include logging roads, hiking trails or glades. Not the terrain where AT gear helps, imo.

Here is a list of possible trips in NH.
http://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/DirtbagPinner/nh-trips/nh-trips.html

Here is my page on starting on nordic backcountry gear:
http://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/DirtbagPinner/dirtbag.html

Very different approach than what makes sense on a 14-er.

Hope this is helpful getting the discussion moving!!

 

[riverc0il]

Heavy tele (T2 and up) and AT gear makes sense in the ravines of the presidentials but beyond that, I think their utility is greatly diminished. New England is blessed with some of the greatest terrain imaginable for backcountry skiing if (and this is a big if) you are willing to adjust your definition of skiing to the lighter side.

if i understand what you are saying correctly here, i do have to disagree. there are tons and tons of options for a heavy AT setup outside of the presidentials. in goodman's book alone, lots of heavy AT options (and heavy tele for that matter) exist including cardigan, mansfield, moosilauke, greylock, camel's hump, etc. and those are only a few document mountains in goodman's book, there are a huge amount of lost ski areas and lesser known back country shots in which the power and performance of a heavy ski is preferable to a lot of skiers over a lighter setup.

granted, AT skiers will never be able to do the tours that listed in your link above. but folks opting to access the BC with AT gear are not interested in anything flat or level. flatland skiing is indeed backcountry touring and has it's own unique challenges and appeal. but i have found a heavy touring AT setup doesn't bother me when on the ascent in the slightest given the descent is worth the effort.

just all depends what type of turns a skier wants to make as to which equipment best suits their needs. which is the beautiful thing about BC skiing, the amount of equipment variations is amazing.

 

[Pinnah]

if i understand what you are saying correctly here, i do have to disagree. there are tons and tons of options for a heavy AT setup outside of the presidentials. in goodman's book alone, lots of heavy AT options (and heavy tele for that matter) exist including cardigan, mansfield, moosilauke, greylock, camel's hump, etc. and those are only a few document mountains in goodman's book, there are a huge amount of lost ski areas and lesser known back country shots in which the power and performance of a heavy ski is preferable to a lot of skiers over a lighter setup.

You are absolutely right that there is lots of bc terrain in New England where the power of heavy gear really shines and I didn't mean to suggest that all of it was contained in the Presis. Nor do I mean to diss in any way those who choose to shackle themselves, err.... use those boatanch^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hboots.

Ok seriously, while there are steep lines galore in the Greens and in the Whites, imo they are mostly restricted to lines. Just lines. Steep glades, the upper reaches of brooks, slide paths and those spots above treeline that hold more than 6" of snow. Lines to be climbed up and skied down.

But when you lighten the gear, look sideways across the line and beyond, you find out that those steep lines make up only a tiny fraction of the terrain that is enjoyably skiable in New England.

Obviously, I'm intentionally playing the role of gadfly here. Backcountry nordic skiing is never going to have the appeal of steep lines and will never enjoy the degree of popularity. It is much more about endorphins and much less about adrenilin and as such, will always be less popular. But for hacking around in the glades, gimme a pair of Liberos, skinny 90/70/80 skis mounted with plain pins. Above that and I feel totally tied down. YMMV.

 

[riverc0il]

gadfly or not, you are indeed correct that there is a LOT more accessable BC on flat terrain than the steeper lines.

having never tele'd, i can only say that switching from alpine to AT boots feels like being let free, but i wouldn't want to go much lighter. i really the sidecut and performance of the alpine skis i utilize. but again, that is the beauty of BC... so many ways we can all essentially do the same thing: escape the lifts and enjoy the beauty, challenge, and pure skiing aestetics.

 

[Treeliner]

Pinnah - I have a backcountry skiing related question regarding what I read on your nordic skiing website. (BTW I thought you did a great job with that)

I was thinking of PMing you but figured maybe other people are in the same boat as I am and/or others have opinions to offer as well.

I'm in the market for a cold weather sleeping bag and was reading what you had to say about them on your website. I'm pretty sure I'm going with synthetic as I don't plan to be using it for more than 2-3 seasons anyway. You say, "Personally, I don't like REI products and would rate them along with SlumberJack or Campmor stuff." And then, "At this point, I send most of my friends to EMS or L.L. Bean. I'm pretty impressed for the quality/price value of their stuff for most folks."

I need a Long and a price range of rougly 100-150.

The REI 0 Sleeping Bag had roughly the size/weight I am looking for - and the cheapest too. It did not, however have the Polarguard that the other two I found do.

The Slumberjack 0 Campmor sleeping bag had that weight and size I'm looking for, and had polarguard. This was in the middle in terms of price. You didn't seem to like this company's sleeping bags so I was wondering if there was a specific area that it falls short on.

The EMS Boreal 0 sleeping bag was the most expensive I looked at, met up with the dimensions I'm looking for, and boasted "Revolutionary A-Flex® construction seals in warmth better and allows greater insulation loft than the normal baffle method. It's a safe bet that most high-quality bags with continuous fiber insulation will be using the A-Flex method within a few years!" (Of course that could be marketing BS, though)

So I'm wondering how noticable the difference would be between if I spent close to $70 more on a sleeping bag that had similar dimensions. Would you recommend any of these sleeping bags? Obviously I'd like to spend as little as possible but don't want to regret it when I'm trying to fall asleep on a late january night this winter. Hopefully this wasn't too long and drawn out.

Thanks for any input!

 

[Pinnah]

Treeliner,

In 5 years or so, all three of the bags will loose significant loft. At least, that has been my experience with synth bags. So, it depends on what your goals are.

If you are just starting out and the $80 diff is money you could use getting a decent stove too, then get the REI bag. It will be functional and you can invest in a different bag down the road when you have more cash and more experience in you own tastes and prefs.

If you are looking for a high performance synth bag, the EMS will out perform the REI one. Pertex is a remarkable fabric for the outer shell. While not waterproof it is very water resistant. And Polargaurd 3D will pack as small as any synth fill. I would expect the REI bag to be noticably bulkier (unless no-name fills have really improved). Just remember, with this bag you are paying for really good performance over a short few years. Despite being better than the REI bag, it will still go flat eventually.

I would put the Slumberjack closer to the EMS bag, just by virtue of fill. Based on bags I've seen over the years, the construction will be closer to the REI bag though.

Thanks for the kind words about the web site. Just be warned that it contains my opinions. Take it all with grain of salt!

 

[Treeliner]

Treeliner,

In 5 years or so, all three of the bags will loose significant loft. At least, that has been my experience with synth bags. So, it depends on what your goals are.

If you are just starting out and the $80 diff is money you could use getting a decent stove too, then get the REI bag. It will be functional and you can invest in a different bag down the road when you have more cash and more experience in you own tastes and prefs.

If you are looking for a high performance synth bag, the EMS will out perform the REI one. Pertex is a remarkable fabric for the outer shell. While not waterproof it is very water resistant. And Polargaurd 3D will pack as small as any synth fill. I would expect the REI bag to be noticably bulkier (unless no-name fills have really improved). Just remember, with this bag you are paying for really good performance over a short few years. Despite being better than the REI bag, it will still go flat eventually.

I would put the Slumberjack closer to the EMS bag, just by virtue of fill. Based on bags I've seen over the years, the construction will be closer to the REI bag though.

Thanks for the kind words about the web site. Just be warned that it contains my opinions. Take it all with grain of salt!

Thanks for the information, it's greatly appreciated. Yeah, I'll take into consideration the other things I'll be buying and see which makes the most sense based on the economical stand point, as it seems like it may be worth it if I can afford it.

 

[JimG.]

I'm an expert skier who can handle anything inbounds with confidence and have 15 years of teaching/coaching experience. I love skiing glades and OB tree shots. In the BC, I am comfortable on just about any pitch up to 50 degrees. 50 degrees and over really gets my attention. That fear increases my focus dramatically. However, a good first turn leads to instant confidence and usually a sweet set of turns that follow.

JimmyG., I'm not callin you on this, I'm just wondering where you've skied over 50 degrees? I've skied some steep chit in my life, but don't know for sure if I've ever been at 50+.

Good link for this thread. http://www.14ers.com/ski.html

Lakeside Chutes at Breckenridge.
More than a few lines at Mt. Washington.

That's about it...anything I've been on that was 50+ was fairly short, maybe 10-15 turns, then the pitch mellowed. I've never been on anything like a sustained 2000 vertical foot 50+ pitch.

Dude, that chit does scare me!

 

[Pinnah]

having never tele'd, i can only say that switching from alpine to AT boots feels like being let free, but i wouldn't want to go much lighter.

I totally relate to the feeling of being set free.

I guess I count myself lucky that friends dragged me kicking and screaming into backcountry skiing in an era before AT gear was a realistic option. Lucky too that this was the same group of buds who I had started to get into winter camping with.

I say lucky because up until then, I was up to my eyeballs in the whole lift served skiing mindset. Many years instructing, Lange race boots, long stiff slalom skis and all that. Had AT gear been around, my initial focus would have been on skiing steeps and woods shots and I would have moved laterally to AT gear and never discovered nordic skiing, in all likelihood.

Instead, my first pair of nordic skis were used edgeless xc skis. This allowed me to get into "cross -country" skiing as an entirely different thing from my alpine skiing. I never ever ever dreamed that there might be a day when I didn't own a top of the line alpine ski rig.

But those light xc skis opened big doors in the winter bc for me. The flat Pemi in NH with its rail beds turned hiking trails was a huge winter play ground for us. Slowly, my skis got edges, got wider and then got higher boots mounted on them. I started trying to eek out a few turns and after a few years realized that my alpine gear hadn't been used much at all.

I still don't believe in tele skiing mind you. When I ski on my shaped mid fats and big T1s, every single time I think to myself, "Man, you could really cut up this mountain if those heels were pegged down." IMO, if somebody knows how to drop a hip into a p-turn and is going to use heavy gear, AT is a better choice than tele.

But nordic backcountry (Excursion boots, pins and lighter) is something almost as different from heavy tele as heavy tele is from AT. And yes, freedom is exactly the word that comes to mind.

Here's hoping for good snow this year!

 

[JimG.]

I see we're off to a good start here. Pinnah has brought a level of insight into the Nordic backcountry that I have no experience with and I found his website to be very interesting.

You know, this might be a better intro to BC skiing for some than trying to skin up an unmarked trail and then skiing down.

While I doubt I'll give up my AT gear, it's nice to see another option for enjoying the beauty of the winter outdoors.

 

[David Metsky]

I've been backcountry and tele skiing in NH for 20 or so years, and aside from Tucks, GoS, Great Gulf, and a few others, there really is no need for super heavy gear on any of the terrain described in Goodman's books. It's nice to have one some of the descents, but the question is it worth lugging them uphill.

I've skied Moosilakue, Cardigan, Camel's Hump, Garfield and Mansfield on a variety of gear, and I'm happy to report that they can all be skied on E99's and leather boots or Garmont Veloces and alpine-style skis. While daily conditions can change things, I've found that the best choice for most runs is something in between, like Excursions and Outtabounds.

Most of these trips have short steep sections and longer lengths of mellow terrain. The heavy gear is great on the steep stuff, especially if things are icy, but the new lighter gear is pretty amazing. With good snow you can really turn well. Since most of these trips are tours (unlike Tucks, GoS, etc) any choice of gear is a compromise.

On Moosilauke a few years ago I was skinning up on my heavy tele gear and ran into people on AT, light backcountry, snowshows, snowboards, approach skis, and a splitboard. Pretty much anything that slides on snow will work. It's all good, but when you have a 2+ mile rolling trip out, that heavy AT, Tele, or especially Alpine gear begins to look really heavy. It's nice to be able to kick-n-glide in or out.

If I'm planning on yo-yo skiing in glades somewhere in the backcountry, I'll often bring heavy gear since the whole intent of the trip is to get turns. On trips that cover more terrain, it's more important to me to save weight and allow me to kick-n-glide. No perfect answers, but lots of good options.

-dave-

 

[riverc0il]

And yes, freedom is exactly the word that comes to mind.

i think that statement pretty much sums up one of the big things back country skiing is all about.

 

[sledhaulingmedic]

Pinnah! Wicked good to have you on board! (I actually met Dave on Usenet, then later at Blue Hills...I guess you could say we go back a little bit.)

Backcountry is a lot of things to different people. Use some sense, and it's enjoyable, no matter how you define it.

Great to hear from you Dave.

 

[JimG.]

I've been backcountry and tele skiing in NH for 20 or so years, and aside from Tucks, GoS, Great Gulf, and a few others, there really is no need for super heavy gear on any of the terrain described in Goodman's books. It's nice to have one some of the descents, but the question is it worth lugging them uphill.

I've skied Moosilakue, Cardigan, Camel's Hump, Garfield and Mansfield on a variety of gear, and I'm happy to report that they can all be skied on E99's and leather boots or Garmont Veloces and alpine-style skis. While daily conditions can change things, I've found that the best choice for most runs is something in between, like Excursions and Outtabounds.

Most of these trips have short steep sections and longer lengths of mellow terrain. The heavy gear is great on the steep stuff, especially if things are icy, but the new lighter gear is pretty amazing. With good snow you can really turn well. Since most of these trips are tours (unlike Tucks, GoS, etc) any choice of gear is a compromise.

On Moosilauke a few years ago I was skinning up on my heavy tele gear and ran into people on AT, light backcountry, snowshows, snowboards, approach skis, and a splitboard. Pretty much anything that slides on snow will work. It's all good, but when you have a 2+ mile rolling trip out, that heavy AT, Tele, or especially Alpine gear begins to look really heavy. It's nice to be able to kick-n-glide in or out.

If I'm planning on yo-yo skiing in glades somewhere in the backcountry, I'll often bring heavy gear since the whole intent of the trip is to get turns. On trips that cover more terrain, it's more important to me to save weight and allow me to kick-n-glide. No perfect answers, but lots of good options.

-dave-

More great feedback. I guess I've been tied to my heavy AT gear because my whole intent is to find terrain I can make turns on. I have to say I've never considered the touring part of the equation as anything more than a means to an end.

I believe I will have to reconsider my mindset. I gotta get me a copy of Goodman's books.

 

[JimG.]

Bump.

Anybody been out in their favorite neck of the woods trimming, pruning, and cleaning? I've been bad...haven't gotten up to Hunter once this summer, too busy with the kids and the house.

Summer is so overrated...I'm ready for Winter.

 

[riverc0il]

i've put in a few days this summer. i hate the heat and have been pretty lazy about hiking this summer so i haven't gotten out much. i am waiting for 50 degree afternoons and some leaves to start falling before going after things a bit more.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

I was up this weekend. Finished off last year's work, replete with some new sucker lines for unsuspecting poachers, and started on some new. For the 2nd year in a row, I ended up running into work done by others in previous years that I hadn't known about. Great minds think alike I guess. Planning to go again in mid-November when the leaves are down and perhaps a little snow on the ground to best check out the lines.

Edit: Actually, this brings up an interesting point. You're working in the woods, and suddenly you stumble across someone else's work. What's the protocol? Do you leave it alone entirely? Thin out the shwack? Try to improve it based on your judgement? I've come across lines that proved to be far to tight, or poorly cut, or had some other defect and I never know if I should do something about it.

 

[dmc]

Bump.

Anybody been out in their favorite neck of the woods trimming, pruning, and cleaning? I've been bad...haven't gotten up to Hunter once this summer, too busy with the kids and the house.

Summer is so overrated...I'm ready for Winter.

Trimming up some of my favorite lines in the Hunter Slack Country this weekend..

Going to mark some routes to cliff drops too... Clear out the runway and landings...

 

[JimG.]

Edit: Actually, this brings up an interesting point. You're working in the woods, and suddenly you stumble across someone else's work. What's the protocol? Do you leave it alone entirely? Thin out the shwack? Try to improve it based on your judgement? I've come across lines that proved to be far to tight, or poorly cut, or had some other defect and I never know if I should do something about it.

One man's defect might be another man's joy. Never considered this situation before, have no idea what protocol if any exists.

I'd leave it alone and check it out again this winter...it might look different covered with snow.