What's faster on packed, gradual terrain; skinning or booting up with skis on back?
We hiked a well-packed gradual trail in New England (Mt. Moosilauke in NH) and debated what would be faster - skinning up on AT skis or just boots with skis on your back.
Argument for skis on the back is the idea that 1 pound on your foot is equal to 5-6 pounds in your back.
Trail was gradual and the snow was quite packed.
This post was sourced from https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/q/7882. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
1 answer
6 of one, half dozen of another. A lot comes down to how easy it is to hike in the ski boots you are using.
The problem with hiking is that it only takes a short stretch of unpacked trail to lose any gain in time and you can't take advantage of any brief downhill stretches. Even with skins you can get a bit of glide.
On the other hand, if the trail has been boot packed, skinning can be difficult and in hard crusty conditions, boots and crampons are generally faster.
I'm not sure I buy the 1lb on the feet vs 6 on the back argument. If you're moving your skis up and down that much, you need to work on your skinning technique. Also half the time, half the weight of skis is just resting on the ground vs you having to support it.
This post was sourced from https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/a/7883. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads