Dynafit FR 10s- ski length

So, I have been looking at buying new skis for ages, and been kicking around
tons of different models and lengths In the back of my mind I had sort of
decided that I would end up buying something in the low to mid 170's for
length (a decent drop from my current 185's, which i find too long).

So here is my dilemma- I have decided on the Dynafit FR 10s, which come in
169 and 178, so I have to go either up or down from what I had hoped to buy.

I am about 6ft10, 170 lbs. I have skied downhill my whole life, an advanced
skier. I have been touring for the past 3 years, and do a mix of hiking for
turns, and true touring. I have a pair of Atomic Beta something-er-others
for resort skiing (185 inches), which I do alot of, since I ski patrol at a
hill in Vancouver. So, the new skis will be exclusively for b/c touring.

The 169s would be lighter, so I sort of prefer them for climbing purposes,
but I worry that they might not be long enough for good runs on the descent,
especially with a pack on. My current touring skis are an old pair of Hagen
beaters (also 185) that I find way too long (the tips often get hung up when
skinning through treed areas).

I guess the other question I have involves bindings- any opinions on the
Silveretta Pures, vs. the Dynafit Comforts?

Thanks!

-s-

"Simon Isbister" wrote in message
news:XhExf.79151$OU5.29163@clgrps13...
So, I have been looking at buying new skis for ages, and been kicking
around tons of different models and lengths In the back of my mind I had
sort of decided that I would end up buying something in the low to mid
170's for length (a decent drop from my current 185's, which i find too
long).

So here is my dilemma- I have decided on the Dynafit FR 10s, which come in
169 and 178, so I have to go either up or down from what I had hoped to
buy.

I am about 6ft10, 170 lbs. I have skied downhill my whole life, an
advanced


Yeesh!! That should be 5'10"

-s-

Simon Isbister wrote:

I am about 6ft10, 170 lbs. I have skied downhill my whole life, an
advanced



Yeesh!! That should be 5'10"


oh and I was about to suggest the 187cm length.

169 might be a bit short but it is a wide ski, about the same as a Rossi
B3. If you have tight trails go shorter otherwise the 178cm might be right.

Opinions seem divided - there has been a huge amount of hype from the
press and armchair pundits but folks who have skied them have been less
keen. There was a big test organized close to me last weekend, on the
positive - great for big curves in 1 meter of light powder. Okay on
hardpack, not good in forest tracks (we have a lot of woodland to climb
through around here to reach the powder). Take some getting used to if
you like tight "randonnee" style turns - one colleague compared them to
snowblades!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article ,
davidof wrote:
Simon Isbister wrote:

I am about 6ft10, 170 lbs. I have skied downhill my whole life, an
advanced



Yeesh!! That should be 5'10"


oh and I was about to suggest the 187cm length.

169 might be a bit short but it is a wide ski, about the same as a Rossi
B3. If you have tight trails go shorter otherwise the 178cm might be right.

Opinions seem divided - there has been a huge amount of hype from the
press and armchair pundits but folks who have skied them have been less
keen. There was a big test organized close to me last weekend, on the
positive - great for big curves in 1 meter of light powder. Okay on
hardpack, not good in forest tracks (we have a lot of woodland to climb
through around here to reach the powder). Take some getting used to if
you like tight "randonnee" style turns - one colleague compared them to
snowblades!

They also seem to weigh quite a bit more than
advertised. I.e. just about the same as any other BC ski
with similar dimensions.

The choice of length really depends on what you want to do,
Shorter will be lighter which will be easier to climb with.
Longer will do better in variable snow conditions and higher
speeds, but shorter will be more fun in the trees. The shorter
you go the lighter a boot you can ski them with. My personal
preference is to go as short as I can feasibly stand for
backcountry only skis, since they make the uphill so much
easier.

Either of those bindings would be fine in my experience. The
silvretta has the advantage if you're changing modes a lot as
it is a single pole flick to go from climbing to skiing and
vice versa. Dynafits require more fiddling, but you save on
weight. Pure has the advantage that it will work with more
boots including standard alpine boots. (However it requires
a "standard"[1] toe, it will not work any old welted boot
like the Silveretta 500).

_ Booker C. Bense


[1]- either the AT or Alpine standards, which is pretty much
every fixed heel ski boot but the Scarpa F1 and Dynafit tlt4.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQ81GlmTWTAjn5N/lAQGUYwP/aH4hSDfvpPPwzGCtLZiCEm5baZDiNukp
EyNi6Qv3h4uO0grh8Zg4wWDd7quaYt7ov0OBptWuDOJo26WHTY gPIZyBl0YQ4B5u
rm4ndPRcdzNiiZxzosNPgBHULQTK9nnIvVJXKBjda9s+z1/UX+TRwRkz+9SB20zf
mCu3ZwIR6RQ=
=RQqm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Booker C. Bense"
bbense+rec.skiing.backcountry.Jan.17.06@telemark. slac.stanford.edu wrote
in message ...

They also seem to weigh quite a bit more than
advertised. I.e. just about the same as any other BC ski
with similar dimensions.

The choice of length really depends on what you want to do,
Shorter will be lighter which will be easier to climb with.
Longer will do better in variable snow conditions and higher
speeds, but shorter will be more fun in the trees. The shorter
you go the lighter a boot you can ski them with. My personal
preference is to go as short as I can feasibly stand for
backcountry only skis, since they make the uphill so much
easier.

Yeah, I'm still a bit torn- I sent the order in for 178s, but they still
have to contact me about a shipping fee, and I might still change it at that
point. I have started to hear about that issue with their weight not being
accurate... how's that happen? Either way, I was able to handle a pair at
the MEC in Vancouver, and they certainly felt lighter... but definetely not
as light as I had been led to believe.

Either of those bindings would be fine in my experience. The
silvretta has the advantage if you're changing modes a lot as
it is a single pole flick to go from climbing to skiing and
vice versa. Dynafits require more fiddling, but you save on
weight. Pure has the advantage that it will work with more
boots including standard alpine boots. (However it requires
a "standard"[1] toe, it will not work any old welted boot
like the Silveretta 500).

My current touring skis (old Hagens) are mounted with a pair of 404s, so I
will hang on to them as ice climbing approach skis. I have decided to go
with a pair of the Dynafit Comforts for the new skis- I'll let you all know
what I think of the set up once they arrive.

-s-