In all seriousness though (as opposed to Friday’s post), we all know that snowboarding at a high level can be just as difficult as skiing and only the strongest riders are able to tackle the gnarliest lines when it comes to snowboard mountaineering. In addition, in the comments section of a trip report from skiing the Grand Teton a couple weeks ago, there was some chatter about a continuous descent of the Grand and some comments from some local riders stating that a snowboard could be the better tool to get the job done. They bring up some good points and I though I’d share them here in case you missed them. If you have any of your own thoughts regarding the pros/cons of ski vs. snowboard mountaineering, feel free to leave them in the comments section.
Travis Mcalpine: The Grand Teton has been skied w/o rappels. I’ve heard of people downclimbing the Chevy Couloir and I shredded the Chevy on belay (didn’t use the rope for any catches), so skiing it top to bottom (except for the uphill slope out of the Stettner) would be the next step. Congratulations…so how about the Hossack? Seen it lately?Haven’t seen the Hossack lately…but other lines of that aspect don’t seem too filled in. Never know though!
My guess here is that Travis made this descent, when he snowboarded the Chevy Couloir, in the spring. Hence, not riding it top to bottom or all the way to the valley floor, as he would most likely would have had to walk the last few thousand feet back to the car. Pretty impressive still, riding the whole Chevy Couloir, and also very humble of Travis not to claim a continuous descent…for the record.
Stephen Koch: Great write up and photos! Loved feeling like I was there. Some of the comments got me thinking about clean/ideal descents on the Grand Teton and in general, and I ended up writing a blog post about it. Check it out here.This is a good write up by Stephen and worth a read. He talks about some previous descents of the Grand and also about a technique he uses called “snowcliding”, where he downclimbs with one foot in his snowboard and the other in a crampon. It seems a little awkward to me, but I can see how it could increase speed on a descent.
Stephen Koch: The size snowboard I usually ride on steeper, more technical terrain like on the Grand Teton has generally been between 155cm to 165cm. I have on occasion ridden even smaller boards, especially where weight is a major factor (high altitude). The small boards don’t hold an edge, nor float in powder as well as longer boards. That being said, they sure do come around quickly and one can squeak through some very narrow terrain!
I have a pair of 95cm igneous skis (145/135/140 width) with adjustable Dynafit bindings that you are welcome to use.
I agree with you. A snowboard is the better tool for descending mountains (steep, snowy, icy, rocky) for the following reasons:
1. Snowboards are generally shorter than skis - less so nowadays with the continual flattening and shortening of the ski. Snowboards for an expert adult male rider are generally 155cm-165cm (the 195 cm Igneous Powder Gun is the exception!) and skis for an expert adult male skier are generally 170cm to 185cm. A competent rider (snowboard) can descend narrower terrain than a skier (skis) of equal ability.
2. Riders can completely face the mountain on their toe-side edge, which allows for increased security on steep terrain compared with skiers. It is arguably more secure to side-slip on a snowboard (especially with axes…see below) than to side-slip/step with skis because the rider can completely face the mountain with a toe-side edge.
3. Poles are not needed/used (except for RG!) to snowboard, which allows for practical and full use of ice axes (to provide an anchor point or control a slide), the main tool of mountaineers.
Let me know if you want to borrow those skis, or a snowboard!
1. Shorter skis typically hold an edge better than longer and fatter skis. Some skiers regularly ski on short 160-170mm skis. In softer snow and variable conditions, I like fatter/longer skis. But if I knew snow conditions would be firm, I could see using 160cm skis for a Grand Teton descent.
2. If a snowboarder has ice axes, yeah, I see your point about security while facing the slope. But the opposite can be said about the heal-side position as well and it seems a rider is pretty vulnerable in that stance. In addition, It is nearly impossible to side-STEP with a snowboard, which can be a very useful technique for getting over bulges and rocky steps. With a snowboard and having to side-SLIP, it seems as though the rider kinda just hopes and prays that his edges will catch again once he/she starts to slide downhill. You’re always edging with skis, the benefit of 4 edges over only 2 I guess.
3. Granted…it looks pretty core when snowboarders ride with ice axes in hand and it probably is safer in some instances…BUT whippets are useful just the same and poles are pretty much an integral part of skiing. what’s more pure? Well…I know my opinion.
For the record…Stephen commented in an email that he can “hop”, instead of side-step. It still sounds a little less secure than actually stepping with skis, but obviously Stephen has his shit dialed and recounts descents on both the Grand Teton and Mount Moran where he used this technique to claim first descents.
Gilles Sierro: Looking at what is happening in the Alps, I can sort of see Stephen’s point, but I wouldn’t take it all the way to calling snowboard a better tool for descending mountains.Gilles is a skier and guide in Europe and beyond, and you can check out his website here. It really helps if you can speak or read in French.
Randosteve ponders the west side of the Grand Teton.
Ptor Spricenieks: I personally feel that fat skis (with proper torsional rigidity) hold a better edge on the steeps. More leverage over the edge kind of thing and I thinks that’s why snowboards can hold such a good edge. I’d also say that camber and side-cut are hindrances to effectiveness on the steeps. The Megawatts so far are the superior steep ski for me, even for hard snow.
If you’ve climbed what you’re skiing and don’t need to keep poking the snow below, then skiing with an iceaxe in each hand could be pretty sweet. No mess with the uphill pole and would look really core.
I do it and love it, but isn’t snowboarding just skiing standing sideways on one big fat ski???
This comment from Ptor, a well known eccentric skier living in La Grave, confuses me a little. Mainly because I just don’t see how a Megawatt would be better for skiing steep firm snow than a ski that is narrower. Yeah, I agree with his points about camber and side-cut, and I can see how a Megawatt would do the job no problem ripping the steeps in soft snow. But for me…on firm and steep snow, a 125cm waisted ski kind of hurts my knees.
J.T. Kress: I guess it is all about what you are into. I have been skiing for forty years and riding for about 25, backcountry skiing and riding for the last 15 years. I would hate to have to pick just one. I love my AT setup for touring, but ot be honest, when hiking for spring descents in Colorado, I am often waiting on my two planker friends, especially when I just carry my board rather than pack it. On long treks into the good, I often find intermittent fields of snow that I can just throw my board down without even strapping in and within seconds I have put hundreds of yards between myself and the skiers who aren’t sure if they should take their skis off their packs to cover that patch of snow. Also, the difference in hiking in snowboard boots rather than AT, tele or alpine boots is like night and day, I feel like I am in Air Jordans. And now, I don’t care for hiking in trail shoes while packing my AT boots. I like to go light and rarely even throw my board on my pack.
Spring/Summer, I usually ride with an axe. I have taken too many slides to leace home without it. If I’m skiing something real steep, I will duct tape my tools to my poles. I have heard that whippets are handy, but I remember Lou Dawson saying there is no substitute for ice axes. I tend to listen to Lou.
Now, If we are talking about winter conditions and the goal is to ride some deep powder, I hate to say it but I’m bringing my board. I might be because I come from a skating/surfing background, but to me there is no feeling like surfing the cold smoke. You just have the sensation of floating which you can not experience with anything else.
That said, the feeling of maching down a slope on skis is about the greatest adrenaline rush that I have ever come across. I live for skiing on the edge, just at that point where one wrong move will cost you dearly. All your focus is on the here and now, and you are thinking of nothing else besides skiing.
I feel like J.T.’s first point has more to do with the method you are carrying your equipment, as opposed to what kind of equipment you are on. I as well have pulled away from other skiers when I have opted to shoulder my skis and link up patches of snow, mainly on descent, instead of putting them on my backpack. To his point about snowboard boots being like “Air Jordans” on the approach, I think objective and snow conditions could easily trump this. I mean, you don’t see people climbing Everest in Air Jordans…right? And I wonder what Lou will have in his hand when skiing down Denali…a whippet or ice axe?
One thing to note about all this, and something Stephen pointed out to me in an email, is that really…it’s probably the climbing skills of the skier/snowboarder that will most likely propel them further into the gnarly side of glisse mountaineering, as opposed to the type of plank(s) they are on. A good point, considering that all his uber-rad descents have been with…well…skiers.
Support TetonAT and get a Black Diamond Whippet
on SALE and with FREE shipping at Backcountry.com.
I’m a splitboarder/ski “mountaineer”. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that there’s NOTHING advantageous about snowboarding in a mountaineering environment (compared to skiing obviously). Like Steve said- traversing/sidestepping (or traverses involving sidestepping) are more or less impossible on a board. However- spend much time splitboarding and you know your bag of tricks grows large as you become more experienced. You learn to deal with traverses, sidestepping, and long, flat drainage descents on a board, and get these things dialed to the point that your skier pals wait on you little if at all. And while necessary, these factors aren’t the components of a descent that make skiing big lines so inspiring in the first place.
Besides sidestepping/traversing, I would say there aren’t any real disadvantageous to splitboarding as opposed to skiing in the mountains either. Plenty of crampons that work with soft snowboard boots- don’t know why so many people think otherwise. Though you’ll want to be picky in your soft boot selection. Most of the other things that come to mind are alleviated by switching in to ski mode and attempting to learn to ski the shit out of the splitboard!
Anyway….
If snowboarding has any “advantage” at all, it’s probably in the ease and enjoyment of riding variable snow conditions. Numerous times I’ve found myself in the mountains enjoying things thoroughly, riding to a safe zone to wait for my pal, only watch him/her tentatively and meekly skiing the slope I just shredded, letting out a long winded string of curses usually ending with, “Man, these condtions are F@#ked! Let’s get out of here!”, and I’m thinking about the second lap! Or to bail on a descent while still climbing, with skiing conditions being the deterring factor. In this situation, those complaining are ALWAYS skiers, for a whole myriad of reasons (some pretty funny ones in there). So, not necessarily an “advantage”, but certainly the board has proven itself to be the more enjoyable means of descent plenty of times.
Sorry for the long-winded post here. Stuck inside with a cold and whacked out on coffee. Good topic. If I hadn’t been a Cali surfer/skater kid moving to Jackson at the impressionable age of 11, I would’ve definitely turned out a skier, and sometimes wish I had.
-Nick
I’m sure I’ll get slammed for my following opinion… but I actually prefer tele skis for steep and narrow lines. I feel more confident in my low tele stance because I can lower my center of gravity to within inches of the slope as well as widen my stance (thus providing a greater sense of security). Additionally, I appreciate the ability to “toe” my edges into the slope by dropping my knee and lifting my heel… i.e. emphasizing my edging through very precise toe/ ball-of-the-foot power rather than the flat-footed general edging that AT provides. I also appreciate the manuverability that tele provides… I can side-slip, back up/ reverse, kick turn, and negotiate traverses much more efficiently and effectively.
O.K., now it’s time for your comments saying my logic is all wrong…
As an experienced snowboarder who switched to skiing 3 years ago I feel like I’ve benefitted from both sides of the spectrum. The first thing I would say is that I’m amazed at how well skills carried over. Snowboarding really is just skiing sideways or vice verse.
While I snowboarded I did a considerable amount of ski mountaineering in the Tetons; Skillet Glacier and the East face of the Middle to name the most popular. Snowboarding in the steeps was definitely easier, one edge to worry about, no crossing tails etc. The single biggest advantage was the ability to handle adverse snow conditions. Its rare that descents are perfect corn, when things get to sludgy or there’s any sort of breakable crust a board is undeniably advantageous. A board has quite a few disadvantages as well. Just visit and you’ll catch an earful on how there still really isn’t a full on snowboard/mountaineering boot. I improvised with modified mountaineering boots and so have many others but they still lack the comfort and specialization of todays a.t. boots. Touring on a split works but it is nowhere as convenient as a.t. and it loses some performance. Getting into the bindings quickly while exposed at the top can also be a bit of an issue. Most riders usually used poles to ascend but stowed them for transport, not much extra weight but its one more peice of gear you carried but aren’t using part of the time. As said earlier, having the ice axe in hand while riding was a huge plus. Last, carrying the thing while climbing can be a bit cumbersome. The board is heavier, and bulkier than skis. I used a 165 for most of my mountaineering. I never like the horizontal carry because climbing in confined places became impossible and the vertical carry always had me hitting my heels on the tail of the board.
Skiing on the other hand is far more convenient in the way of traveling. Transitions are faster the gear is lighter and better designed for travel in the mountains. I still feel like crusts were way easier on my board and I’m sketched out every time I get a nasty breakable crust. On the other hand, facing downhill, into the fall line can be a bit more of any invigorating turn. I think standing on a steep slope and waiting is more secure on skis. Two edges and two poles to solidify your stance sure beats kneeling or sitting facing down the mountain in a "turtle on its back" position.
In short, skiing has the uphill advantage, snowboarding has a downhill advantage. Just my $0.02
There are definitely more advantages to skiing vs. snowboard mountaineering especially in the winter/early spring. The biggest advantages are having a super minimal/light set-up, efficient approaches, and being able to scope things out easier…moving up/down/across slopes on a board is difficult..and you look like a retarded penguin.
Taking apart/putting together a splitboard is pretty annoying/time consuming as well.
I would opt to have a board on the descent for all the reasons mentioned above.
For late spring/early summer conditions I would opt for a board all the way.
-Hiking in snowboard boots is super comfy on dry trails for approaches.
-Most solid boards are usually lighter/easier to carry compared to most skis.
-If there is a good melt freeze cycle you can just walk on the snow without postholing/messing up a skin track.
-Snowboarding is less taking on the legs and easier for getting thru avy debris and other variable conditions.
All in all though, I opt to board…just because I am more comfortable on a board and just like it better.
Nick, I sympathise with your belief that most of the disadvantages of snowboarding can be overcome. When it comes to just the descent, nothing else. The board probably wins. However, I think everything else plays a huge role. First, the descent usually takes significantly less time than the ascent, I’d go as far as saying 1/5th. I think that most on here would agree, time is everything. Hitting the line on time while conditions are good vs. being late and having slush,or beating some nasty weather out, is huge. Equipment precision and functionality also have a huge impact on performance. I never felt like my feet were connected to the board as well as I do with my ski bindings. Sure there are plenty of strap crampons to use out there with soft boots but how much more secure and fast is it to clip them on? Another example would be stepping into my bindings at the top. I haven’t used hard/snowboard boots much so I can’t speak for their usability other than it doesn’t feel the same while turning. Plus, there’s something to be said for standing up, facing the fall line and “facing it like a man.”
Having spent much of my time in the mountains riding with splitboarders (me being a skier), I have seen the limitations of the snowboarder in the mountaineering environment, and don’t envy it one bit. To me it seems almost safer to have two edges instead of one, and allows for quicker reaction and maneuverability in harrowing situations. In addition, I’ve been in the situation where I’m playing assistant to the splitboarder, helping them get into their board on a steep firm slope, and scouting traverses and lines first with the intent of judging whether or not my snowboarder partner will be able to make it. Admittedly, I have definitely been that skier following the snowboarder down a slope of breakable crust, watching him shred the line only to watch my tips hook up on every turn…in this sense perhaps snowboarding can be argued as a more surefire (and maybe more enjoyable?) means of descent on a spicy line with breakable conditions? This of course is a very specific instance…
And Matt- I can see where you’re coming from on getting low to the ground in your turns, but don’t you think that the potential for variable conditions and narrow terrain (often common in the skimo environment) trump the advantages you see in having a free heel? And with regards to toeing in on your edge, I think having a fixed heel doesn’t necessarily prevent you from toeing your edge, but simply makes it more predictable with less to think about (less moving parts, easier to feather the edge or really slam the brakes on depending on the situation). Anyhow, I’m not saying one way or another, just wondering…it seems like your take on tele relies on ideal descent conditions and terrain. And in terms of all the buggery, I don’t feel like AT skiers would have any harder of a time with side slipping, etc…unless you were comparing skiing in general to snowboarding.
That is a great point that a super efficient/bomber snowboard mountaineering set-up hasn’t even been made yet. Some companies have tried, but i’m not that impressed. We need a hard boot and lightweight dynafit type of binding that is specific for snowboard mountaineering. Who is gonna make it?
Sam- getting your system dialed and knowing how it works in a variety of conditions is huge! I feel that my system is pretty dialed these days, and I feel comfortable saying that the system isn’t the problem, it’s folks that don’t get it dialed. As far as your various musings on split technology:
- strap crampons: Like I said before, it’s about having your system dialed, just like any mountaineering experience. I’ve learned to judge when I’m going to need crampons and if I put them on a bit early to save myself the trouble of putting them on in some exposed, awkward spot, then so be it. You sound like you know the amt. of abuse they can hold up to.
- bindings: There have been some pretty good leaps made in split binding tech in the last few years. The newer bindings made by Spark R & D and Voile bring the binding closer to the board, and myself and most I ride with agree that it’s pretty close to the solid board feel. I know my split riding (and skiing) improved a ton when I started riding Sparks. Still room for improvement though.
- facing it like a man?
Skinning on a splitboard leaves a lot to be desired, in winter its not to bad because all the skin tracks are soft and have a level plane against the fall line. Come spring time skinning on refrozen corn on steep side hills is nearly impossible with out split crampons. (they add weight but make things less frustrating)
Splitboard transitions do not take longer than skiing transitions!! While this is not true while in Rando Race mode I am not a Rando Racer at the top of a decent, I take out some food and water eat it and drink it. Crack a few jokes, have brief discussion about safety and everyone is transitioned and ready for the decent.
Solid boards are definitely lighter than a ski setup.
When is gets steep and hard, maybe four edges would be better than two, I have only ridden terrain steep enough for comparison.
My last point is that Mr Koch’s uber rad descents are with bad ass climbers which further confirms his point that the big mountains are more about climbing than descending. If decending rad lines was the only goal of ski/snowboard mountaineering we would all ride big powder lines in AK. For me its about being in a place, both in the mountains and in my soul.
I once heard someone say that the best skier/snowboarder is the one the has the most fun. Not what gear they ride on.
Brian, you might get your transition done quicker than your skier pals, but the split transition isn’t faster. Just physically impossible. More steps involved.
very good points and thanks for participating in the discussion.
someone once told me that telemarking was like driving with the emergency brake on. i guess from matt’s opinion, maybe this is actually a good thing when it come to skimo.
transitions…no way a splitboard takes the same amount of time as skis. i’m all for stopping and smelling the roses some times…but othertimes the weather really forces you to get to downhill mode as fast as possible.
bryan…isn’t that an alex lowe quote???
Yes, Alex Lowe quote variation. And this is a really interesting discussion, though i feel it lacks the informed opinions of splitboarders who are actually currently out there getting things done in the big mountains. Which speaks to how few there actually are that are interested in these sort of pursuits and getting their systems dialed enough to enjoy the whole experience.
And Bryan, maybe you should work on your skinning technique? It’s certainly not impossible to skin across an icy slope on a splitboard, even w/out split crampons. I do it with some regularity. It can suck, but in the end it’s fine and far from impossible.
It might be an alex lowe quote, but he is not the one that said it to me, I can’t remember who told me, but I figured whoever it was is not the originator of the quote.
Obviously in a head to head race transitioning a splitboard is slower, and yes steve sometimes you do need to get down quick, but its never been an issue with any of my ski partners. However thinking of your video of the nugget line, it could be the difference. My point was that its not much longer and you should be enjoying the day anyways.
528 I’ve logged plenty vert on icy sidehills, you are right its not impossible, even you think it can suck, I’ll work on my technique.
528
Among a multitude of other reasons, I got tired of dialing things in and just wanted to get out and ski so I switched.
i feel like my quiver would be incomplete if it didn’t include both skis and a snowboard. i don’t have a split, so if skinning is involved i’m skiing, if there’s no skinning/traversing i’m usually snowboarding. i’ve never been on top of a line with the board and wished i had skis, but i have been on top of some things with skis and wished i had my board (usually super deep pow or breakable crust). i guess that kinda sums it up for me. rando steve, can we see some more baby pictures?
snowboarders enjoy suffering a little more. we’re all equal in my eyes.
a snowboard for the lifts and rando skis for the backcountry, surfboards for waaaaves, bikes for trails, cruizers for pathways and running shoes for the off season.
Couldn’t resist chiming in here…
Ryan - are you referring to any specific situations ;)? Come shred some steep lines and we’ll test your hypotheses!
I take my splitboard up and down pretty much anything, and it does get the job done. That said, I would agree on several disadvantages. First, it is slower with transitions, though that only seems to be a problem if yo-yo-ing short laps. Second, for long, undulating descents it can be a bit less efficient since in ski mode one can’t get down and sidestep as quickly (though the difference is slight with practice). Most importantly, in situations where you have to unstrap and don crampons on a steep, icy slope, I would much rather have two edges - that way I can rely on one edge to secure my position while I remove the other ski. As far as sketchy, exposed traverses and the like, I think technique can make up for any differences with skiers, but who wants to (intentionally) ride that crap anyways?
None of those reasons means that I would rather ski - I simply enjoy surfing the mountains, though I appreciate those who prefer to ski. With the current binding technology and soft boots, one can get up virtually anything (I’d even do some mellow ice climbs in soft boots) and will probably encounter issues only in situations such as a multi-day traverse. No comment about hard-boot setups - I’m still unconvinced.
As of yet, I haven’t found any terrain that a splitboard can’t handle, so if I just stay in a little better shape than my skiing buddies, it’s never a problem.
Viva la shred!
Nomad- are you referring to my thinking that snowboarding is better in variable conditions than skiing? Not a hypothesis, just truth…remember the Sphinx?
Ryan - actually, I was just curious during what trip(s) you were “playing assistant to the splitboarder”. I’m sure there’s a fun story behind that!
Nice post Nomad. I can vouch for him. He’s doin’ serious lines. Just check this TR where he slays most Sierra lines in one 6 day trip that most of us Californians take a career to check off: http://www.splitboard.com/talk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8878
I’m mostly posting to vouch for Nomads perspective because I’m very familiar with the terrain he’s ridden on his board, and believe the perspective of an “exclusive” snowboarder (or at least a “Primarily” snowboarder) was a welcome addition to this conversation.
Ultimately I could argue that depending on the context the answer might be that neither board NOR Ski is the right answer. When climbing ice, certainly, PMBS, Crampons, Ice axes, rope and Harness is a better setup than Skis OR boards, and when descending, it’s not hard to argue that an anchor, rope, harness and belay device might be a better setup than board OR skis. The point being: discussion about HOW to use these tools (and in what situations) is more productive to the pursuit of mountaineering then asking WHICH of these tools is generally “better”.
I ride my board in steep terrain because it’s fun, and because I’m way more confident on it that I am on skis. I’m not convinced that either boards or skis are superior–it’s whatever you’re good at. If you can keep up on the climb and make it look good on the downhill trip, then you’re using the right tool.
Getting around the splitboard gear challenges hasn’t been that hard for me–I use approach skis with Dynafit toepieces and a conventional snowboard with Ibex plate bindings. My transitions are faster, I have way less weight underfoot, the AT boots take crampons easily and climb better than soft boots, and the confidence of riding a solid deck when consequences could be dire is priceless.
By the way, I made a “complete” descent of the Ford/Stettner with Zahan a few years ago–he skied the Chevy on belay and I rode it on rappel. Far from graceful, though. To send it rope-free, making turns top-to-bottom–that’s the Grail.
AJ
Nomad- my “playing assistant” to my splitboarder pal occurred only a couple times, both being on a steep firm slope where in order for him to get into his board safely I had to stabilize it for him…after getting my skis on myself. Just the nature of the beast- it’s safer of course to manage one boot into a ski while the other is secured, and then have an edge to utilize while getting the other ski on than it is to deal with strapping into a snowboard in the same environment…or so I have observed. By no means do I intend to lump all splitboarders into this category though! Specific instances… BTW- looks like you and John had a great trip down south!
Josh- that’s not really what we’re talking about here…sure, mountaineering tactics have their time and place as a means to an end, but the goal is to ride…be it on skis or a board.
Ryan,
That’s exactly the point of my post. This discussion is about a vague topic, and the argument being presented are subjective (IE…Skis are better because of faster transitions, or boards are better at descending variable snow). So to say one is “better” then the other is merely an opinion that’s colored by your tool of choice.
The conversation was spurred by the question: “What is a better tool for descending the Grand”, but morped into a general discussion about pros and cons…so I was glad to see a snowboarder that I know climbs and descends bigtime routes represent.
Ryan - you know I’m just ribbing you for being so elusive this year! Actually, I once found myself (due to stupidity) in a situation where I was on a very firm, steep slope and had to get help from a skier to safely remove my board. Never again!
AJ - I have to completely disagree with you. Despite the hardboot advantages, I would never want to carry approach skis on the way down, plus the floatation in deep snow seems like it would be awful. Just my 2 cents…
i’m loving the discussion here guys! from my view…as a skier and one who knows a few “splitboard mountaineers”, it seems like only a matter of time until soft-booters make the switch to hard-boots and a dynafit split-rig. at least that is what i hear and see. i’ve never really toured with a rider that uses approach skis either…but it seems an odd choice when there is the splitboard option. i mean, for me…it would seem silly to approach wearing one pair of skis…and then switch to the ones i carried on my back for the way down.
As a Splitboard mountaineer in the Pacific Northwest I have tour almost exclusively with skiers until recently. While there are some benefits to having one solid plank I must admit there have been multiple times where I have been envious of my double planked friends. BUT on that same note they have been envious as well so I thought I would add in some pros and cons.
Sorry if I’m just repeating some things from above.
Pros of Splitboarding compared to Skiing
I think the biggest advantage is dealing with variable conditions. Anything from dust on crust to a foot of mank can be rode with relative ease.
While I hate to admit it we can side slip almost anything. I have been in upper 50 degree water Ice and made it down while my skiing friends had to down climb.
The ability to face the mountain with Ice axe in hand which was previously noted.
I found that Splitboarders are more aggressive with there skin tracks as the skins have more surface and hold better on the snow.
Cons of Splitboarding compared to Sking
Traversing either in the form of riding or skinning. The disadvantage is obvious while riding, but I have found that the edges on ski’s hold better on boiler plate ice then the splits (crampons do make a difference though).
Skis have four edges instead of two which makes a huge difference in making turns on steep slopes.
The ability to down climb on a billygoat style lines. Yes we can but slide but who wants to do that on a 50 degree slope.
Transitioning is a pain compared to just ripping off your skins and locking down the heels. Especially on steep slopes.
This all being said I am a snowboarder first and a mountaineer second. For me it’s all about the downhill.
I am a snowboarder with over 15 years of snowboard mountaineering experience, including first snowboard descents in Colorado, Canada, and Alaska. Cool discussion here, and it’s great to see everyone being so civilized. My opinion is that folks should ride what they like, tele, AT, snowboard, it should be about what is fun for the individual, and not what is “better”.
That said, a couple of points should by emphasized: these days a good splitboard set up can tour nearly as well as a good AT setup-the real drawback to the splitboard is the lack of good purpose built boots from the manufacturers. I use highly modded AT boots (modded for different flex in snowboard mode) with Dynafit Tech toe pieces on the board for touring mode, these tour the same as a fat ski.
It is clear that snowboards descend steep lines fine, the routes of Stephen Koch in the Tetons, Jerome and Dede’s descent of The North Face of Le Triolet, and Marco Siffredi’s descent of Le Nant Blanc on the Aigulle Verte cannot be argued with. Skis have the advantage for sidestepping, snowboards have the advantage when a sideslip is needed through an unturnable section, as one can self belay with an axe (or two if necessary). Snowboards also handle variable conditions better than skis, with the possible exception of the skis under the most expert of riders.
I totally agree with Ptor regarding sidecut and camber (and suspect this is appropriate for skis and snowboards) current snowboard designs have too much sidecut, and this is a liability on truly steep lines. Someday soon I will pony up for a custom split with less sidecut to test this theory. I just got a rocker/flat split, and cannot wait to get it set up and try it out on the steeps. For overall efficiency, sure, skis have the advantage-if maximum vert is the sole goal, then skis rule, but the differences are not as large as one might think.
I love backcountry snowboarding, and snowboard mountaineering, and have no desire to ski. That said, I love riding with skiers, and have no argument with those that prefer to ski. I do not need “help” from my skier partners, and I would suggest that any snowboarders who do may not be at the same skill level, or have their systems as dialed, as thier skier friends.
I don’t know Steve, the vast majority of splitters I know are actually borders BECAUSE of the softboots. I agree it’s just a matter of time before serious snowboard mountaineers “try” hardboots, but many of us have tried it and switched back. Stiffer softboots and snug fitting strap crampons, along with Sparks/Voile Lightrail bindings seem to offer the best compromise. As mentioned above though…I think our holy grail boot tours like a hardboot and descends like a softboot. Surely a feature like “walk mode” that allows side to side flex in a hard boot would be a welcome evolution to us splitters, but until then (which, see below, I’m not holding my breath)I think many are firmly in the softboot camp.
That group of splitters in the South Lake area (mentioned in Nomads TR I linked to above) included about a dozen very accomplished splitboarders, and only one of them (as far as I can remember) was on hardboots. Of course that one rider is also one of the worlds foremost snowboard mountaineers (IMHO), but all the others, including another of the worlds foremost snowboard mountaineers (IMHO) were on softboots.
I’d probably fully agree with you if a hardboot maker ever took the time to engineer a hardboot that is exclusively meant for splitboarders, but given the investment and resources it would require coupled with the limited marketsize, I think most of us have mostly given up on that ever happening.
I do acknowledge though, there are a few of my splitboard bretheren that are sold on hardboots and will never go back…I just think they’re in the minority (at least out west, and from my experience).
I’m with Kyle - snowboarder first and mountaineer second - though I do enjoy a nice alpine climb. Actually, the one time I required help from a skier I was working my way down an unknown couloir (therein was my mistake) and got too close to an un-negotiable cliff before needing to unstrap. The skier lent a hand by helping set up an anchor which I was unable to do in my precarious situation. Lesson learned.
I agree with all the comments about the soft/hardboot combo holy grail. I look forward to the unlikely day it appears!
Then again, if you check out Greg Hill’s compatriots, they’re definitely doing just fine on hardboots and keeping up with the uphill master.
Steve, I would agree with the two or three others on this post who’ve said that soft boots sort of define the nature of snowboarding and what makes it enjoyable. I disagree that it’s only a matter of time before serious snowboard mountaineers make the switch. AT boots are certainly not necessary for ski mountaineering. I (plus others posting here I’m sure) can vouch for soft boots w/ the right crampon being just fine in any ice climbing situation encountered in ski mountaineering. Most people that promote switching to AT boots and a dynafit touring/plate snowboard binding setup on a split do it out of their preference for the feel of an AT boot while skinning.
Awesome discussion, I’m glad a few more current splitboarders are contributing.
i’m listening 528…and guess that is why this sparks binding thing is so welcomed?
528:
“Steve, I would agree with the two or three others on this post who’ve said that soft boots sort of define the nature of snowboarding and what makes it enjoyable”
You are entitled to your opinion, but I totally disagree with this statement. What’s to like about toy boots, made in China or Taiwan, that start breaking down the first day you ride them, strapped into a contraption designed to give them enough support, where your feet are getting crushed by the straps, that do not climb worth a damn?
Do not get me wrong, and I think this is the critical distinction here, I like my boots to flex laterally and medially, as well as having controlled progressive forward flex. I have not tried a single AT boot that works for me in stock form; they are too stiff. But, with a little ingenuity, some AT boots can be modded to flex however one would like. My current boots (modded) are very similar in flex to one of the stiffer soft boots (Malamute/Driver X). Yes, it takes a high level of commitment to start cutting up a $700.00 AT boot in hopes that one can get it to work, but it can be done. At this point I no longer ride my Driver Xs, as I prefer the hard boots for all conditions (not just mountaineering descents), both on the up and the down.
I would say that the nature of snowboarding is defined by the sideways stance, not by the use of toy boots. Ultimately, I feel the idea that “hard boots” have to always be stiffer than “soft boots” is innaccurate, although I understand that most riders probably have no experience of a “hard boot” modded to provide a nice snowboard style flex. Unfortunately, I suspect the attitude that most snowboarders hold towards hard boots is holding back the development possibility of a really good, freeride/split/mountaineering boot.
I too consider myself a snowboarder first, and I would not choose to ride hard boots if I thought they were compromising my downhill performance in any way. That is why I spent a lot of time modding my boots until I got them to the point where they would ride without compromise, in a direct comparison with my Driver X/Spark set up.
Obviously everybody is different, which is one of the best things in life, so everybody’s brain reacts differently to the same terrain/equipment interface. That said…it’s all good, skiing freeheel, sideways, backward and forwards.
However, Steve, your knees hurt with the megas on hard snow/steeps precisely for the reason I stated, the monster torque which is generated around the longitudinal axis of the ski (and is why they limit it in WC racing skis in order to minimize injuries from the forces of going mach chicken) Eric Pehota enlightened me to steep skiing with fat skis. yeah at first it was weird but it was just a matter of getting used to skiing steeps on ultra fat skis (using your hips more just like in all other terrain with fats) and then the snowboard advantage (of the variable snow thing that everybody mentions) diappeared. You can hold an edge as good as good or better than a snowboard and then there is no difference when he snow becomes variable. Plus you get the performance when you can open it up and safety for avalanche scenarios (flotation, mobility, less penetration, outrunning sloughs/slabs). There’s nothing worse than being forced into small turns by small skis when the terrain opens up or the steeps are powder or you need to make an air over a shrund. But the other main advantage for me is the large rocker on the tip, which navigates rough features like runnels and crust pockets with ease and gives an added dimension to the steep turn because you can lean way forward throughout the turn which I find gives a much quicker turn. remember how 200 slaloms used to be a quick steep ski. 188 is really short! Also the tail rise is important in tight spots for easy sliding backwards. The smearing/buttering advantage of fats enables stalling turns and easier sideslipping to keep the motion going through tight spots like snowboards do. Specifically with the megas, once equipped with dynafits, the weight is so low it makes no difference to me and far outweighs the need to increase uphill speed by using floppy toothpick skis. So unless one prefers skiing sideways, which is totally cool, I say there is no advantage of snowboard over ski-mountaineering.
P.S. I live in La Grave, because it’s boring and there’s nothing to do here. Everybody should go to Chamonix where it’s real and important. And I’m not eccentric, just crazy.
Barrows, it sounds like you spent a great deal of time (and money) getting your system dialed and adapting equipment to make it suit your needs and situation- which is what this discussion is all about! I’m sticking to my Driver Xs for now though, 100-day pieces of shit though they may be.
Here’s something interesting- to me at least :)- Anyone climbed the upper exum as a means of accessing the summit of the Grand for a ski descent? First person I heard of this from is a snowboarder who’s ascended/descended a couple of times this way. His use of soft boots was a primary factor in making this decision. It seems like this (or rock climbing in general) might be easier in vibram soled softboots such as the driverX than an AT boot, though I’ve heard of at least one skier doing it this way too.
I’d say until someone’s put in a lot of miles and become proficient at both skiing and riding that it would be really hard for anyone to have an accurate opinion. The same with the whole tele/AT war.
Really great discussion. This spring I have gone back to hardboots after 7 years in softboots for snowboard mountaineering. I am still working out my stance with the hard boots. My hardboot stance was roughly 45 degrees on each foot compared to 15 and zero or minus 5 on back foot for soft boots. My stance now with the Scarpa F1 Rendonee boots (baffled toe for flex make these very comfortable to skin / hike / climb in) is about 35 degrees each foot. It has been a gradual process to get back to the steeper angles, but I like it and it brings back so many memories and feelings from years of descents and general riding in hard boots (1988 to 2003…’87 was in Sorels). I imagine that with the hard boot modifications mentioned above by Barrows, he is able to ride in a “softboot” type stance? I stayed in soft boots for the past seven or so years because I liked the surfy feel. My ability to safely travel in the mountains (in my mind) was severely limited as I was unwilling to use traditional soft boots in the mountains for the obvious reasons mentioned above…lack of Vibram sole (some softies have them now) for rock climbing, too soft to safely kick into all snow conditions or sidestep on firm snow without crampons, don’t like the feel of soft boots in strap crampons on firm snow/ice…sloppy and insecure, so basically I stayed out of the mountains for any steep/firm descents during that time. I did guide in soft boots and splitboard and on skis during that time. So yes, I skied more and enjoyed my ability to more around the mountain going up or sideways with greater ease and security. But every time I was descending on skis, in less than ideal conditions or in powder, I was longing for my snowboard. My splitboard setup now is a super light (no top sheet!) Rome board, Dynafit toes for the up with the Scarpa F1 boots, Voile pucks and sliderplates with Burton Race Plate Bindings - minus the base plates…custom drilled and mounted to the sliderplate, fat crampons from B and D Ski Gear (http://www.bndskigear.com/fatcrampons.html) that work with the Dynafit toes. B and D also has metal crampon holders to replace the weak plastic Dynafit crampon holders and crampon “locks”, to keep them down when in steep/lifter mode. Skinning on a splitboard on firm terrain with hardboots is WAY safer and more comfortable and less taxing physically than with soft boots. Holding an ice ax when riding coupled with the ability to completely face the slope is a huge advantage of snowboarding vs. skiing. Skiers have died from slipping on icy slopes without the ability to swing in an ice ax (Hans Saari for example) or not carrying one because it is awkward to swing in when standing with your feet perpendicular to the slope. A whippet is not an ice ax! I am slower than most skier with the transition from splitboard to snowboard. That being said, the Scarpa F1’s sure help with their rear throw to tighten and lock in the forward lean all in one. I did a descent with AJ and he rips both up and down with his short skis and solid board/hard boots. I used that system for years but am super stoked to ride a splitboard to not carry the weight of an extra tool when one can do both! Sure - the GT descent we can all aspire to is a complete, ropeless one. A monstrous belief in ones ability to succeed, huge huevos or ovaries, willingness to try and exceptional conditions will be needed for that. I would love to shoot video if anyone wants to give it a try…and I will buy drinks after, so long as you survive…but will definitely be drinking either way. Wondering if, on the belayed descents of the Chevy, there was any sideslipping or if turns were made the entire way. If sideslipping is “OK” then all it will really take is for someone strong enough to lock off with one arm holding an ice ax and lower/sideslip through the crux. This is what I have done on numerous descents when conditions allowed or didn’t allow…depending on how you look at it! Have fun and come home. That is success.
I think ptor’s point is interesting…and can see where he’s coming from in terms of skiing variable conditions…rocker with minimal sidecut helps immensely. I however found that sort of ski (specifically megawatt and lotus 120) to be too skiddish and not precise enough on firm steep snow where there may be consequence…unpredictable to a degree, and the sort of thing where having a 100mm cambered ski would feel much more secure even if they do suck (relatively) at riding variable conditions. Some skis we’re seeing now introduce a big rocker with sidecut and camber underfoot, and not overly fat (110ish)…which I think might be the way to go so as to allow skiers more freedom in variable snow conditions.
ptor- do you ever feel like edging the megas on steep firm snow is insecure?
Ptor speaks the truth, as always
when will it be nice. ideas ideas.
RyanM, I have not yet felt the edging on steep firm snow is insecure. Quite the opposite, but that’s just me. However on moderate angle hard snow is where there is better skis than the megas. I just feel they are the best overall for me. As I get older, I avoid icy steeps like the plague. But again, everybody is different and has their favourite board(s)!!! It’s just seems that very few people have really tried fat skis (that have good tortional stiffness) on the steeps. Before, I would only use Big Daddys on the steeps which is pretty well a Zealot like thing.
StephenK (long time no see mon!), I agree that a whippet is not an iceaxe. Besides that being something ‘captain obvious’ would say, I’ve never skied with a whippet because I’ve always thought that if I really need a whippet then I should be using an iceaxe. I don’t mind skiing with an iceaxe in hand for passages and I’ve navigated icebulge cruxes with lowering myself with one. Sure seems easier to arrest or do something with an iceaxe on skis than heelside on a snowboard!!
Riding or skiing onto icy patches is a whole ‘nother topic.
Nathan, Troy Jungen does both snowboard and ski mountaineering really well, although he grew out of snowboarding. He always thought that the surf was a better steep tool but that was before fat skis. He also teles at a high level but prefers AT for serious descents. I would consider his opinion to be ‘rather’ accurate!
the weather travo? this is week four of canceling my weekend plans because of it.
528: Great comments here, I have no desire to argue, and as Ptor mentions: “it’s all good”! That being said, I cannot imagine how someone might think a snowboard boot climbs rock better than an AT boot? The bulk and rounded edges of a snowboard boot always made them feel really imprecise and insecure when climbing rock. I am much more comfortable climbing rock in an AT or mountaineering boot, with its lower bulk, more precise fit, and actual Vibram sole with edges. Of course, a manufacturer could make a snowboard soft boot that climbs better, and there are those who have managed to have a cobbler put a climbing midsole/sole on a snowboard soft boot.
Stephen: Yes, I ride a fairly conventional stance in hardboots: 27-30 degrees front, and 12-15 degrees rear, with around a 21″ width. I am 6′1″, and generally ride boards around 166-170 cm. I also use 2.5 degree inward cants on my bindings this really just puts my boot shafts at neutral (my boots have built in, non-adjustable positive cant). I generally ride the same stance in softies, as I like to have my hips turned a little more forward for vision on the steeps, and to avoid any possibility of toe/heel drag being a problem (I have seen too many riders with too much overhang on the steeps!).
Stephen, with the bellows on the F-1 do you have to run any shims, or are they only necessary when locking the heel down on a ski? I am considering trying a pair of F-3s as my next boot to work with.
Oh yeah, RE the OT: I have not climbed/descended the GT, but I suspect the continuous, ropeless, descent will happen one day. It will likely take the perfect combination of a very skilled rider(s) at the top of his/her game, mentally and physically, along with the absolute perfect conditions. I think those things will be what matters in the continuous descent being done, and not whether the tool is AT, Tele, or snowboard.
Another thing I’ve been thinking about lately is the performance limitations in ski-mode of the dynafit bindings. As wonderful, solid, light and close to the ski as they are, they will never provide the nice allocation of force to the ski that say a Salomon does. This is due to the transfer of force from ones leg/boot into the toepiece of the binding being right at the toe whereas with an alpine binding, the spot the force actually is transmitted to the ski is foreward of the boot toe (e.g; look where the pivot under the Salomon toepice is relative to the toe of the boot). The effect is that there is more force applied to the front of the ski with an alpine binding (turn initiation and swing weight amortisation) because of the longer radius in the torque around the pivot between the heel/legbone and the binding toepiece/ski contact point. i.e. there is a longer lever there so your force input has more effect. Bottom line, the Dynafit style of binding will never deliver the performance (and therefore security as well as effectiveness on steeps and ice) while skiing as an alpine binding will. I find this becomes very obvious when skiing high speed in powder with the Dynafits on the same ski as I have with alpine bindings (the difference is there in hard snow too). the Dynafit version is more nervous and harder to keep the ski tracking.
The point? When does weight and performance (and thus pleasure and safety of descent) overtake lightweight efficiency? Who wouldn’t love to feel that nice clack of stepping into an alpine binding at the top of a heart pumping line if it wasn’t for the weight?If the objective is days of long travel, that is much different than just one extreme or bold descent. Freeriders (for lack of a better word) that are performance based understandably refuse to ski on Dynafits, Dukes or anything else and some that aren’t completely helified still go to great efforts with trekkers to shred their line. Downhill prowise merits consideration even though for the most part, that style of skier is missing half the sport by not going up much. AT and freeride worlds are merging more and more, especially with slackcountry popularity and of course every skier wants to ski more strongly and confidently in their own style. The simple titanium adapter plate to make any alpine binding tourable that we’ve all been thinking of is soon to become a commercial reality making the Dukes obsolete and fritschis ridiculous. How much is the uphill speed worth compared to performance and peace of mind when engaging challenging and exposed terrain? Maybe a few turns instead of sideslips for the pride of continuity? Everybody has their own priorities of how they want to approach glisse-mountaineering. Just as some snowboarders are concerned with lack of performance in soft boots and stagnant split board technology, some skiers too are still dissatisfied with AT gear which is generally far below the performance of Alpine gear. It seems there’s still a ways to go in both worlds.
528 - Two partners and I reached the top of the Grand (we skipped the summit block) via the Upper Exum 2 years ago, to then descend the Ford on skis. I’ve only recently begun websiting, but am slowly backfilling some previous descents. This link here details our approach (http://tetonsandwasatch.com/wordpress/?p=1196), which is the same approach Jessica Baker used for at least one of her summit ski descents. If you want more info on that approach, feel free to e-mail me.
Barrows: i recently picked up a pair of the F3s but have not spent enough time in them to know if I will need shims. After a couple test runs at end of year they seemed pretty solid without. I believe the flex of the side stance minimal to that of the parallel ski/binding setup of a ski. That said…
Stephen: in your mountaineering experiences have you ever had an alpine binding pop open while snowboarding?
I have used a voile mountain plate, Ibex/burton raceplate and an F2 and have not had this hapeen yet..knockin on wood as I type. I have watched my buddy come out of the bomber binding on the second fork fork of the headwaters at moonlight and go for a quite a ride. I believe that the bails were not really compatible with G-rides and engineered for more of a carve/race boot.
regarding climbing the exum ridge to ski the grand. honestly, it just seems weird to me and i’m not sure why people do this. my guess is that they are not confident enough in their ice abilities…or…that it is so late in the season that maybe climbing the stettner is too dangerous. this would most likely be late june….like in adam’s link.
i feel climbing the stettner and chevy is much more straight forward than doing the whole wall-street/exum thing. imho of course.
Steve - you’re right of course, the more direct route up the Stettner and Chevy makes more sense and is much more straight forward.
The reasons you list for why a party might ascend via the Exum are good ones. Additionally, climbing the Exum is the route left to a party which includes a person who has a large bone growth at the top of their humerous, which makes movement of the elbow above shoulder level impossible or incredibly painful. Let’s just say no one from our group will be claiming the ‘first descent’ with this condition, although one of our party did/does have this condition.
I always thought there would be two distinct advantages to using the upper Exum for a ski descent of the Ford. First, you wouldn’t have to carry two ice tools. You could get away with a superlight alpine axe. Also, you could get away w/ carrying superlight crampons as you wouldn’t encounter water ice on the Exum. These two weight savings seem pretty major, especially if you’ve done the route a bunch and are comfortable doing it w/ a tiny rack such as stoppers and a few hexes maybe. Obviously it’s less direct, and maybe less “pure”, but then again so is rappelling (and snowboarding in the first place according to some).
i guess if you were completely sure of conditions you could get away with one ice axe on the exum, but a lot of folks I know would feel confident on the stettner/chevy with one tool and a whippet…conditions pending…most likely later in the season, but not too late!!! on my last ski on the grand i used next year’s neve aluminum crampons from bd. they are lighter than this year’s version and the anti-ball plates are sweet. if you keep your heel down…they can work for the ice.
there is a lot of extra futzing around to get to wallstreet….and much more rock…which is sweet in AT boots (kidding). anyway, you have to deal with the hand that is dealt to you, so if exum is the way…then do it!
First, please pardon my english.
Excellent subject, I tend to agree with a lot of what Ptor wrote. Fat skis (alldo not uber fat like him, i ski 98 under foot K2 Hardside for the steeps) alpine Binding better than Dynafit for “perfo freeriding”.
I personaly never used a whippet either and maybe due to my background and job feel confident enough with poles and a traditional ice axe. (sometimes carriing a second one in my back pack, a Simond Fox Carving wich is short (43cm) and light.)
BUT I think that when it comes to commiting to lines where you put your life in the balance, it all comes down to what you feel most confortable with. I like a fat ski so my boot digging in to the mountainside is’nt an issue, fine, maybe someone prefer to ride sideways, that’s fine to me too….
Some of the sickest lines ever have been opened on skis, some on a board, but all of them have been descended by true pationned and commited mountainers. Everyone of them has developped a specific quiver and know how, picking up stuff from other people along the way and sometimes develloping there own techniques.
But what appear to me as sure is that i would nt, in a million years, be given “THE SUPER! STEEP QUIVER” of someone else on top of a line…
Hope it make sense.. if not just blame another damn Euro .
Well said Gilles. I agree that it’s ones personal evolution through experience which leads them to their own refinements and personally optimal tools for what they want to do. It’s great to hear everybody’s opinion so we can try new things when it’s appropriate.
Ptor…long time indeed. Enjoying writing with you here…turning on snow together better!
Regarding the Whippet, I have a KSO (Keen Sense of the Obvious) thanks to my mother…that being said though, I think many skiers who don’t have much alpine climbing (ice ax) experience may rely on it more than is safe. It is important to know the limitations of your tools. With ice axes, one is able to penetrate (with sharp picks and an experienced swing/s) the hardest snow and ice.
luke…I have popped open bindings/come out of the race plate binding ONLY while using the Dynafits that are not meant to take a bail…the ones with a shallow and rounded toe rand. Otherwise, with boots made with a DIN type toe I have NOT popped out of a plate binding.
Regarding climbing up the Exum to save weight on gear…not my thing as I love ice climbing and more importantly, like to climb what I ride to intimately know what I will be encountering and where during the descent - hidden or unexpected ice, barely covered rocks, etc. I think it is accurate to say that not climbing up what they descended significantly contributed to how most dead skiers/riders who died skiing or snowboarding extreme terrain met their end…Saari on Gervasutti, Siffredi on Everest, Gouvy on Aiguille Vert, among many others…
There are a few descents that I did not climb before descent for either laziness or safety…Black Ice Couloir (Laziness…took the short route to the upper saddle vs. the long route via the Valhalla Traverse and up the BI) and the Gervasutti Couloir (Safety…big hang fire) are a couple of examples.
It seems like most things in life are a balancing act. The risks inherent with going into the mountains are part of my balancing process. Personal responsibility! When I blame others (usually if I don’t like the way it turned out), I realize with hindsight, it is from my own fear and insecurity.
And it looks like Arne Backstrom died while descending something he did not climb…
Well put Stephen.
Yup, I have to agree with Stephen here:
“is accurate to say that not climbing up what they descended significantly contributed to how most dead skiers/riders who died skiing or snowboarding extreme terrain met their end…Saari on Gervasutti, Siffredi on Everest, Gouvy on Aiguille Vert, among many others…”
While it seems to be considered “old school” to climb the line you intend to ski these days, it can be very risky to drop into a steep exposed line without intimate knowledge of the conditions on that day.
I have a great deal of respect for Stephen K. especially for the style in which he made his Direct North Face Everest attempts, and am glad he is still with us, while other talented riders are not.
RE Arne Backstrom, from what I have read, I cannot tell if his fall was due to his ski coming off (equipment failure) or his ski came off due to the fall? In any case, this is a terrible tradgedy, and my condolences go out to his family and friends.
barrows…i’m not sure i would call a ski coming off “equipment failure”.
Ptor, I’m a little confused by your reply to my post. If he(Troy)does/has done both then he would have a more informed and therefore accurate opinion. I didn’t mean to pick him out individually and in fact can’y even find his comment, my apologies if I offended anyone. You can gain much knowledge from observation but ultimately, I believe, until you have had the tool(s)(including say a snowboarder trying both hard and soft boots or a skier trying fat or skinny, rockered or cambered) on your feet and have used them in a number of different scenarios ultimately it’s all conjecture on how well you might be able to use it is all I was saying. Me, i’m into all of it, all the pros or cons, the only advantage i see to sticking to only one discipline is it makes it easier to decide what to ride/ski on any given day. Anyway, probably I just missed something or we’ve both had some miscommunication. I hope you are making turns or doing something fun today. Great discussions by the way, Rock on…
Steve, yes, of course you are right. That is why I have a question mark on that sentence. The details of exactly what happened are not entirely clear at this time (to me)-
I still do not understand if Arne’s ski coming off caused his fall, or if he lost control, and while attempting to aggressively regain edge purchase lost a ski.
Not being a skier I am not sure, but I suspect it would be customary for most ski mountaineers in “no fall” terrain to be setting their bindings to extremely high retention settings (or in the case of Dynafits, using the touring lock for the toe piece) as I would expect any release would be highly inconvenient.
I know that the idea of one of my boots popping out of a snowboard binding really scares me, and I take extra steps to insure this does not happen when riding in exposed areas.
Thanks for your site, I really enjoy it.
Nathan, I was only making reference to Troy to illustrate that there exists an example of an “expert opinion” already having put alot of miles in at all disciplines. he hadn’t made a comment here. I didn’t know if you were refering to the commenters here or in general.
Barrows, if your comment pointing out that climbing your line is considered “old school” these days is true, that’s f@&§ed up! If people keep these archaic notions of “new” and “old” school around, then it will only hinder them from seeing the bigger picture.
Reason #4…non release bindings!
I’m still bummed that I had to leave my non-releaseable self-made prototype extreme skiing bindings in Zanskar when I got sick and rescued. They were really good and gave me the best confidence besides racing bindings when skiing the steeps. I used them for 3 years with great success.
ptor…i’m interested to learn more about your non-releasable bindings. were they for touring?
stephen…couldn’t non-release bindings also be a bad thing? say…in an avalanche?
granted…we are talking about ski/snowboard mountaineering here and skiing the steeps, where there might be less avalanche hazard, but i don’t think one can totally remove avalanches from the equation since there are still wet slides and soughs to deal with…not to mention what might be encountered on the lower slopes.
If climbing your line first is old school , then i’m afraid i’ll allways be old school..
I d be really into this non release binding to ski the steeps. If you care about potential release beeing a mather of life or death, then you re skiing something where avalanches are no more a topic..(too steep to hold pow and be skiable or just too exposed to wander in if ANY avi danger.) in my opinion at least.
Only since reading Barrows post did i EVER hear that climbing your line was Old School…thats a totally F’d up point of view that I hope does not really exist! Is the rock I live under really that remote?
Around here its simply how high end lines get ticked by high end skiers ( with the Bollywood Heli-bro exception, of course). .
Climb it, see whats up, lay down your hand…simple.
Ptor, Rando, Gilles …would you guys say that the ‘old school’ point of view is actually prevalent in your communities now?
Of course I am talking about true mountaineering objectives…not tram ride-45-minute tour-and-drop lines that receive traffic when in condition.
If your a skier it is better on skis….
If your a snowboarder it is better on a snowboard….
Good to see there is no lack of passion.
gringo…i don’t think it is old school at all and i’m not sure where barrows is getting that idea from. different variables play into whether i climb the route i ski…with familiarity of the route, ease of going a different way, avalanche and objective hazard of climbing the route to name a few.
gringo: to me it s absolutly not old school, but i can only speak for myself.
the ONLY exeption i see (in my case) is objective hazards. that’s the one thing that could have me ski a “serious” line that i didn’t climbed. But then it would spend some (lots) time looking at it from as many angles as possible and try to keep an eye on it all winter if possible to know the most i can about the snowpack history. (hope its understandable..)
Randosteve: great subject! sometime i ll have to learn to write in english
Snowboarding is so easy even I can do It!
Seriously, A day doesn’t go by where I or my ski partners don’t wonder aloud how much fun that days objective would be on a snowboard rather then skis. I used to take my snowboard heli-skiing and use it for rest days, or to annoy my buddies who were on skis. I have been seriously thinking about getting a split-board.
Ug
My prototypes were based on the Silvretta sytem with the carbon rails. I took off the heel assembly (forcefully) and had a buddy machine aliminum blocks that utilized the track sliding length adjustment screw. The heel had a machined seat and the closure was a rear crampon closure I scabbed from some old foot fangs. So it toured very well and skied excellent except for some excessive flex from the rails. the machined piece could have been refined in shape to be sleeker and lighter. Ultimately they did kind of release from the toe as the toe bail of the Silvrettas is no attached on it’s pivot. I released twice on wipeouts, but never while skiing hard. I was sponsored by silvretta at the time and as such had a few pairs to play with. After I sent them pictures of what I had done, they never spoke to me again. Ha, ha cupcakes!
Non-releaseable is always debateable but it has it’s purpose. Vallencant used to mount non touring crampon style closure bindings for expeditions. Light, simple, secure. Not an “everyday” binding but I agree with Gilles that this kind of useage is really specific when avalanche hazard is not a concern. I’d say wet slides and sloughs on the steeps is definately when you want your skis to stay on. However, just for consideration, snowboarders and telemark skiers have been non-releaseable for years.
RE: my "old school" comment. I am old school, and in almost every circumstance I prefer to climb a line before riding it, the main exception being lines that might have too much hangfire to risk being in for long enough to climb. Nothing wrong with being old school, I am actually just plain old!
In any case, my point was not to offend anyone, but certainly there are a fair amount of descents being done where the line was not climbed first. This topic first came up in this thread because someone suggested that the GT could be skied by climbing the Upper Exum and then just dropping in the Ford Couloir. It was even suggested that folks might do this because they lack the climbing skills necessary to climb the Chevy! I would suggest that a person desiring to ski/ride something like the Grand Teton should learn to become a competent alpinist first, patience is a very desirable trait in an alpinist.
Here in Colorado, ever since Davenport’s second descent of the Landry Line on Pyramid Peak, it has become common for people to climb up from the North side of the mountain, and then drop the Landry route on the East side. One still climbs the upper crux this way, but there is a lot of steep, exposed, terrain, and a very narrow (and conceivably icy) exit couloir below that does not get previewed by this strategy. So far everyone has made it down safely, but there have been some close calls.
I don’t want to beat a dead horse here, but this has been a great discussion so far and it’s kind of fun to keep it going. I kind of have to call BS on the notion that motivation for climbing the Upper Exum comes from a lack of alpinism skills or whatever. What takes more skill: Swinging some tools into a short section of low-angle water ice or climbing a couple thousand feet of fifth class rock, including the infamous friction pitch, with a board/skis strapped to one’s back? I’d say climbing the Upper Exum in ski mountaineering regalia is probably more difficult that dealing with a bit of low angle ice while booting up the Stettner.
But I’m not speaking from experience on this one. And also, having said that, I think climbing the Ford/Stettner clearly makes the most sense for most people planning a ski descent of said route. It would be cool to hear from someone who’s done it both ways, but all the people I know who’ve done both don’t contribute to this forum.
yeah 528…reality and what people think can be totally different. pretty sure someone who has done both has already commented in this post…though not about climbing the exum for a descent of the ford/stettner.
i think the objective hazard of what is above you also plays a big part of why people might climb the exum as well…since most of those attempts are done very late in the season when the sun comes up early and heats things up quick.
I’m going to have to side with skis on this one. I do both and i feel way more confident on skis on steeper, tight terrain than I do on my snowboard. With today’s modern powder skis you can get a wide skis that has a tight (under 18m) turn radius that making them super nimble. Having poles in my hands also gives me the ability to probe the snow and climb if need. I love riding pow on my board, but i reserve that for wide open bowls, and inbounds conditions.