Most rando race skis are a bit over 160cm to meet the ISMF rules for men, but rando race skis are available as short as 150cm (to meet the ISMF rules for women).
Although the Hok ski-like . . thing is a bit shorter, the overall efficiency and control over a long tour is going to be far easier with rando race gear.
BTW, I do indeed have a ski-like setup for messing around with backyard fun and the sort.
But for longer and especially multi-day tours, rando race gear is far superior to any of these ski-like . . . things (especially when paired with heavy tele boots and no resistance-free pivot that means you're driving with the parking brake on).
An interesting example is the Elk Mountain Grand Traverse. This is a *NORDIC* backcountry race, that for years was naturally raced on nordic gear. Now it's dominated by rando race gear, even though the course features none of the demanding descents for which rando race gear was designed.

Jonathan,

No doubt you have plenty of experience with rando skis and backcountry touring using them. I'm not dismissing them at all but simply pointing out some differences. Doubtless you have a lot of time and money involved in them and that seems to be coloring your responses. I'm willing to try new things. Your contempt for the Hoks is evident with the appellation "ski-like". One could say that a snowboard is ski-like but these certainly are skis, not ski-like. You also dismissed my point of East versus West. Come to WV or PA and try some longer skis in our woods and varied terrain and snow conditions. I've done it and its not that fun. The Hok fills the niche of a product designed for the backpacker who occasionally needs to cover snow in a more advantageous way. It is not for the backcountry skier who occasionally needs to hike.

Edited by vdeal on 12/15/2011 08:16:52 MST.

"Your contempt for the Hoks is evident with the appellation "ski-like". One could say that a snowboard is ski-like but these certainly are skis, not ski-like."
-- Contempt? No, just referring the company's own website, which uses the term "skishoeing" and quite clearly puts the focus on other than the efficient long-distance transportation that BPL is supposed to bring us:
*****
"We believe that backcountry skiing is wherever you choose to go, whether it’s out the back door for a quick tour in the woods, or to your nearby park, hills or mountains."
"We felt there was a great potential for skis designed for what we like to call ‘pocket backcountry’, the skiing many skiers have ready access to close to where they live. In both Quebec (Francois’ home) and NE Washington (Nils’ home), skiing out the back door or close to it offers us excellent and easy access to the winter world."
*****
For that kind of backyard fun it's certainly great (and cheap too). Would be ideal for stuff right near my house (in addition to somewhat similar gear I already have for that).
But for "lightweight wilderness travel" that is supposed to be BPL's focus? No.
*****
"You also dismissed my point of East versus West."
-- I live in southern New England. I know all about tight confines for skiing.

Wow have we ever moved a review thread to chaff? It seems like we are straying from the point and the niche this equipment is meant for. The pro rando argument is valid and has won over many of my tele friends for the weight and performance reasons(though you will have to pry my nordic gear from my cold dead hands).

What sounds cool about the Hoks to me is they are more manueverable and slower than my skis which would make me feel like a hero and open up terrain that I am very tentative in now. They also seem very simple and fuss free which I like. This is why waxless skis appeal to me for winter travel as opposed to skins for up and down(which is super fun too). Would I buy them as opposed to saving for some short(relative), wide, single cambered, waxless skis? I don't know but I feel like it is not a fair comparison. I sure would like to play around on them though.

Fellows,
I am much out of my league when the discussion turns to rando and tele skis.
But I do know my local woods and the woods of western PA where I backpack.

Everything is tight. The trails are narrow, sometimes with no room to execute a turn unless it is a very sharp turn, where the consequence of error is harsh.
The snow is not always deep and there are downed branches, roots and sometimes rocks lurking just below the surface. Some little ravines are far too steep and rocky to use any skis at all. They must be carried and not tangle me up in overhead branches.

And my skills are just not that good. In Ohio we don't get 6 months of snow. We get maybe 3 months, and maybe much less if a warm rain interrupts. I don't get that much chance to practice.

So I need to descend slowly. I need a ski that will slow my progress downhill. I cannot do snappy linked turns with trees whipping by because I'm going to hit one. Or trip over a downed branch.

I need skis that will grip well enough to let me stride and climb instead of doing an inverted snowplow which sometimes won't work because the trail is too narrow to allow long skis to spread out enough.

I need to get my foot around brush without ending up straddling both sides of a 6 foot sapling.

Snowshoes do this admirably. But slowly. Maybe, just maybe, these very slow skis will allow for some ski-like experience without me seeing my life flash before my eyes.

Thanks,
Marty Cooperman
Cleveland, Ohio

They're too expensive for bushwacking. Period. I don't like thrashing expensive gear.

I love my used dynafit, tlt bindings and boots, there's nothing better. But I can't buy new boards every season, so this might be a really good option (with a tlt binding, of course) for BC travel in my region (not too much snow, plenty of rocks).

There are obviously robust arguments on both sides here, and if nothing else this discussion will provide future readers with a place to start when making their own decision. My personal opinion is that while superlight alpine gear is at the forefront of technology at the moment, and will no doubt influence heavy nordic gear in a beneficial way, nordic (distance oriented) and alpine (vert oriented) gear will remain separate. Some of these reasons have been touched on here, some in the article, and some in neither. I stand by my statement that for many users skis like the Hoks and a freeheel rig will be the best way to cover miles in the backcountry.

Edited by DaveC on 12/15/2011 11:32:27 MST.

I don’t see how restricting my posting to my expertise in on-snow travel gear constitutes trolling. (By contrast, I *read* articles and posts on other topics.)
It is a well-known fact (among those who have actual first-hand experience in the field – both figuratively and literally) that rando race gear excels not only in alpine backcountry terrain but also nordic backcountry terrain. (Witness the demise of nordic gear in the *NORDIC* backcountry Elk Mountain Grand Traverse race.) The European rando race market is driving impressive innovations in cutting-edge gear (as well as rendering used gear from only a few seasons ago very cheap), and although that gear is designed for competition in the alpine environment, a side benefit is its suitability for lower-angle lightweight backcountry travel.
The only exception to the superiority of rando race gear for BPL’s "lightweight wilderness travel" is xc skate gear under certain conditions in the Eastern Sierra and AK (although that requires excellent fitness, technique, and route planning).
BPL is seriously undermining its credibility by publishing an article that recommends a heavy backyard plaything setup to “cover miles in the backcountry” and that dismisses rando race gear out of apparent lack of familiarity.

The consensus seems that the universal binding is not preferable. Even the Hok website recommends the 75 mm binding as first choice for control and stability. Just curious if the Alpina Blazer boot which has a 75mm 3-pin binding would be appropriate. The binding, however, is described as fitting the 'older' type of 75 mm 3 pin binding. Is there a new type and an old type? Most of the other 75 mm boots I see are heavy and burly.

Jonathan stated:

"Contempt? No, just referring the company's own website, which uses the term "skishoeing" and quite clearly puts the focus on other than the efficient long-distance transportation that BPL is supposed to bring us

But for "lightweight wilderness travel" that is supposed to be BPL's focus? No."



You state that BPL is about efficient long-distance transportation and lightweight wilderness travel. The mission statement of BPL is:

"Our Mission
"To promote multi-day, backcountry travel in a self-supported ("backpackable"), lightweight style."

So, yes BPL is about lightweight wilderness travel. I don't recall ever seeing where that necessarily involved long-distance. In fact, most places in the eastern US are not going to be long-distance unless you're on a long trail like the AT, LT, etc. To denigrate a product because it is not suited (in some people's opinion) to long-distance travel does a disservice to this discussion.

How can multi-day backcountry travel in a lightweight style not add up to long distances?
Oh, that's right, if you have a really wide ski with inefficient bindings that amount to driving with the parking brake on the entire time, then you won't get all that far . . . but then again, the reviewed setup isn't even lightweight in the first place anyway.

As I've written before, the Hok looks like a great product for backyard fun (and it's cheap too). But even just going by their website's own copy, it obviously doesn't match up with BPL's focus (although rando race gear sure does, even though it's developed for competitive pursuits in more technical terrain).

I suppose the Hok would be an intriguing option if rando race gear didn't exist, but, well, it does.

Gosh folks, can't we just get along?

I skied a little bit about 40 years ago, and it just isn't for me. As a matter of fact I don't even know what skins are. I do know that the article is Dave's opinion, even though it has a "BPL Recommended Label."

Sounds like the set-up works for him and will work for others. And there are options, although more expensive. A simple statement, like if you want XYZ, you might consider this set up, that include these features and benefits.

Now I don't know anything about mountain bikes either. I suppose a $89 WalMart bike would not hold up well and not do a lot of things well. I suspect a $500 brand bike might do everything I need and not kill my bank account. And there are people who probably own $5,000+ titanium mountain bikes that are the cat's meow. So the heavier and less feature rich $500 bike would probably do everything and more than many people would want, even though it may not be the lightest, fastest, most maneuverable, and coolest product available.

Should we criticize someone who has a 3lb big box backpack with a total base weight of 7 pounds? No, especially if it works for them and they are happy. If they ask for help in choosing something different, we can chime in.

Be nice everyone!

Nick, yes, if the focus were along the lines of, here's something that's rather heavy and inefficient compared to the optimal gear on the market for this kind of application, but hey it works, well, works good enough (however defined) -- then sure.
But instead the article dismiss rando race gear for backcountry touring applications, implicitly concluding that it would be worse that the reviewed gear for the kind of skiing described here.
So in other words, using your own analogy, it's basically saying the $500 brand bike is far better than the $5,000+ titanium mountain bike (even though the actual differential is greater when it comes to ski gear, and in reverse of that posited by the review).

Jonathan,
Not knowing what Rando gear is, I wonder if you could give an example of a ski, boot and binding that illustrates what you're talking about.
I've not heard of Rando ski gear before and it sounds interesting.
Thanks,
Marty Cooperman
Cleveland, Ohio

Information on rando race gear is unfortunately hard to come by in North America, but both the information and available selection are growing at a rapid rate.
The bindings are unfortunately very pricey:
http://www.wildsnow.com/5916/backcountry-skiing-bindings-lightweight/
However, Dynafit Speed / Classic is typically available used for a little over $200 -- twice as heavy as rando race bindings, but then again that's still adding only around ten ounces or so (per pair).
You can also try to find close-out specials on last year's Dynafit Low Tech Lite, or get the Dynafit Low Tech Radical from a European etailer (as for some odd reason it's not available in North American this year).
For boots, in this context (both budget & lower angle), the best option is get some used Scarpa F1 boots from between $100 and $200 then essentially modify it into the F1 Race:
http://www.wildsnow.com/2180/scarpa-f1-backcountry-skiing-boots/
For skis, if you want a patterned base, you could go with a model from Fischer, Alpine, Rossignol, or Madshus. These are widely available and pretty cheap, even new.
Full-on rando race skis are absurdly light (a little over three pounds, per pair), although also pricey:
http://www.wildsnow.com/4228/rando-race-gear-review-2/
These are probably the least expensive readily available in North America:
http://www.dynafit.com/product/ski-1/race-performance
http://store.haganskiusa.com/products/Hagan-X%252dRace.html

So correct me if I am wrong. Rando gear is designed specifically for racing, is very expensive, and is not readily available in the US?

"Rando gear is designed specifically for racing"
-- The design goal is the ultimate in efficiency for the alpine environment. So is it overbuilt for lower-angle backcountry touring? Yes, but it's still way better than any other options (especially the gear reviewed here). As I noted before, rando race gear even now dominates a *nordic* backcountry races, for which participants previously used nordic backcountry gear.
-- Now, if high-tech gear were specifically designed for the lower-angle environment, it would be even better yet for that context. But no market for cutting-edge nordic backcountry boots & bindings. So instead, the Euro rando race market is so competitive and innovative, the overbuilt gear still outperforms the nordic gear.

"is very expensive"
-- It all depends what you get.
-- For example, a used Dynafit Speed binding is adding weight, but you'll pay a little over $200. Want to lose another 10 ounces or so? On eBay, it will cost you another $100 or so if combined with some used rando race skis. New, it will cost you much more.
-- Boots, as I wrote in a prior post, a used Scarpa F1 is somewhere between $100 and $200. A used Dynafit TLT4 -- which is easy to hack down into essentially its even lighter MLT4 -- goes for even less, but for the low-angle context, I think the bellows on the F1 has the edge over the TLT4/MLT4.
-- Full-on rando race skis, you can sometimes find used Atomic TM:11, MX:11, and MX:20 for really cheap. New full-on rando race skis are similar in price to alpine downhill skis.
-- Or, if you want a patterned base ski (heavier just because they're not as current in their designs), those are way cheaper, and available used for cheaper yet.
-- Skinny used nylon skins are very cheap. Mohair are pricier, although if you go in with a buddy, just buy a pair of wide BD mohair skins then split them down the middle. Or go with kicker skins. Or kick wax.

"and is not readily available in the US?"
-- All of the items described above were written from a U.S. market/buyer perspective. Total hit for a used setup with a patterned base ski is something like $500 for the above. Not cutting-edge rando weight, but lighter than the review gear, and much better performance on both the up, down, and flats.

For roughly double what I'd pay for a new Hok setup, I could get a used rando setup that's some unspecified amount lighter. In addition, I'd be committing to boots that are impossible to hike in should I find myself in conditions where skiing is impossible or impractical, thus requiring me to carry spare shoes that would likely cancel out any weight advantage I'd gain with a rando setup. That weight differential, of course, could be preserved if I were willing to spend even more for yet lighter rando gear. I gotta say, I'm not really feelin' it.

I understand really loving something and wanting to evangelize for it, but I don't understand why you are resistant to the facts that
(1) not everyone wants to or can spend more,
(2) there is no single system that is the best for everyone in every condition everywhere, and that
(3) people have different needs and desires for their outdoor excursions that are not always compatible with the absolute lightest or absolute most efficient gear.

Would you be less incensed if the Hok billed itself as a "sliding snowshoe", or some other name that didn't contain the word "ski" or suggest that it--a hybrid piece of equipment--should be compared with pure skiing setups? That seems to be the root of your beef, given that you haven't been posting on snowshoe review threads about the inadequacy of snowshoes in allowing efficient long-distance backcountry travel.

Traveling into backcountry, setting up basecamp, and staying put for several days is one way in which "multi-day trip" is not synonymous with "long distance trip."

Wow, leave this thread for a little while, and all hell breaks loose. :)

A few things come to mind. Jonathan confirms, in a round about way, what was said in the intro. The industry is driven by several forces, and they don't generally result in gear that is great for the person who just wants to get from here to there in the winter. For example, great cross country racing gear trickles down to the average groomed skier. Similarly, we have really light Randonee gear, made for racing, that works well for general use. Not all of the improvements come from the extremes, fortunately. As I said in an earlier post, waxless bases are much better than before, even though they aren't used by racers.

In some ways, this gear is like really good waxless skis: Maybe it isn't the best of the best, but it is still really good, and should appeal to lots of people. Even though I'm in the West, I agree with the earlier post, in that the great appeal of these skis is their short size. Anyone can make short skis, of course (some call them Skiboards) but these are a great compromise. They have just enough camber to glide and just enough rise to prevent face plants (especially in the Spring, where sun cups can be murder on a short ski) while still maintaining a good edge. They do all this in a package that is nice for hauling. The ability to haul skis like this is a huge bonus, and should not be dismissed lightly.

Here are a couple examples of why this product should appeal to a lot of folks. I make local references (to spots in Washington State) but don't worry if you've never heard of these spots. They aren't that interesting (just nod along as if listening to your niece talk about boy bands).

The first example is Kendall Lake, close to Snoqualmie Pass. This is a favorite for lots of folks in the winter. Some ski this with sturdy gear, so they can make turns up high. Others, like myself, ski it in moderate cross country gear (light boots and skis with more sidecut than the super skinny stuff used in the tracks). But most of the people on this road use snowshoes. I often pass these people going up and down. Despite the fact that I'm faster and using less energy than the average snowshoe user, I notice more and more snowshoes every year. My gear doesn't cost much more (if any) than the snowshoes, so I'm sure that's not the biggest factor. No, the big factor is skill, and a willingness to fall down once in a while (I'm not that skilled). Most of these folks just want to be up in the mountains, and snowshoes work fine. Most of them don't want to spend the time to learn to ski (the hardest part is matching your ability to the conditions). If you suggested to them that they can spend a big wad on Rando Race gear, it just won't happen. Even the cost of standard Randonee or Telemark gear will raise some eyebrows. On the other hand, buying a pair of three pin boots, along with these skis doesn't sound so bad. Plus, you could save yourself even more money by just getting the universal bindings. Those have the added advantage of being easily transferable to anyone else.

As much as I would like to see the permanent skin replaced with a waxless base, I don't think that is the most important addition. The big key, to me, is having ski crampons. To go back to that example again, I was on that road last weekend. Unfortunately, even though we had a good start to snow season here, we are experiencing a little drought right now (it's been a couple weeks since we've had a lot of snow). So, the road was very icy. I expected this, and brought my snowshoes. I did see a few skiers, but most of them had sturdier equipment (sturdier than I own). I only saw one with skinny skis, and she was carrying them down. I commented on that, and she said she did just fine going up. This makes for a great case study of why these skis, with crampons, would be really popular. Glide up, and, at worse, walk down. No need to carry your skis, just put them in "snowshoe" mode, and you'll be fine. If you are a beginner (or even if your not) and the terrain (or the conditions) get too nasty, just put on the crampons, and go down.

This leads me to my next example. For this weekend, I plan on visiting a mountain that starts with moderate logging roads, then hits a wooded trail until the summit. I will be traveling with a couple of friends of mine. They both snowshoe. I would love to bring these along, and glide my way up the moderate sections, then attach the crampons when things get nasty. I could easily sell a couple pairs of these, given that experience. As it is, though, without crampons, I'm not so sure. Even if I had these (they are on order) I'm not sure I want to attempt the dicey sections with these. I guess I can always take them off and plunge my way down, but I would much rather have snowshoes (for those sections). On the other hand, it is quite likely that it will be icy for almost the entire trip. If that's the case, then we'll carry our snowshoes, and wear Yaktrax (or equivalent). The ease with which these skis can be carried would prove to be very useful, if that happened. In other words, if I add crampons to these, I may never snowshoe again. That's saying something, and I like it.