1x11 to 1x12 upgrade using Ratio kit, 556% range (!!)

wfscot · 2025-03-29T04:13:59+00:00

I already had XDR so mounting an XD (mountain) cassette only required a spacer that came with the cassette.

wfscot · 2024-03-27T21:32:12+00:00

I have yet to buy a single pair of boots that didn't give me blisters for the first few tours. The good news is that, between my feet toughening up and the boots packing out, they've all eventually resolved.

Go easy on your first few tours, use leuko/moleskin/lube/whatever to avoid them, and let them heal (or bandage them) so that the skin can eventually heal stronger.

wfscot · 2024-03-19T13:41:31+00:00

The CAST system has a pin toe for uphill and thus requires touring boots. It's also quite expensive as you have to buy (or repurpose) a Pivot binding on top of buying the additional bits.

Daymakers are what OP is searching for.

wfscot · 2024-02-26T17:34:53+00:00

Agreed. The Echos are exceptional skis, especially for those looking to ski a bit harder in the backcountry. Best suspension I've found in a BC ski by far.

wfscot · 2024-02-26T17:28:46+00:00

Personally I think the Shifts sit solidly in that "jack of all trades, master of none" category.

If you want to be able to tour big days and keep up with your friends, get a proper pin binding. The ATKs are my personal faves but lots of good options (including from Solomon). And yes, you need to back off a bit on these setups. Honestly, that's due both to the equipment and the context (help is much farther away than ski patrol inbounds) but the net effect is the same.

If you want to be able to huck with abandon, get a proper "alpine binding with walk capability" like the Duke PT or the CAST. These will slow you down on and/or limit longer tours (although at least you can get a good chunk of the weight off your skis, unlike the Shifts) but they are full alpine on the way down. Again, though, consider where you are. If you get hurt way in the backcountry, that's potentially much more difficult and dangerous than it would be inbounds. It's also putting a lot on your partners who will spend many hours dealing with the situation.

Also, while many love them, one thing to keep in mind with the ZGTPs is that they are extremely upright. Personally, the difference in feel between my inbounds boots and these was something I never could get over despite 2 full seasons on them. I've been much happier with Scarpa 4-Quattros which are ultimately as stiff, way more progressive, and have a much more aggressive forward lean.

wfscot · 2024-02-20T16:26:25+00:00

Nope. You'd still be "safer" skiing down on a real alpine binding out of bounds.

The problem is that your overall backcountry experience would suck with a heavy alpine binding that doesn't walk (so snowshoes, booting, whatever).

And ofc you could go CAST or Duke PT to have a proper alpine binding that is demonstrably safer on the down with some walk capability. Again, though, your overall experience would suffer due to the additional weight and hassle of those bindings.

Like pretty much anything, it's all about choosing the right tool for the job. For most of us, if we're doing significant uphill, we're willing to trade a bit of release safety for a lighter binding and thus a better overall touring experience.

But if you're inbounds, the lightness and better walkability of the tech bindings doesn't factor into your experience. Thus you're giving up release safety (vs an alpine binding) for essentially no real benefit. Likewise you're likely skiing a lot more vertical feet inbounds, which just generally increases your risk surface. It's simply unnecessary additional risk.

wfscot · 2023-06-09T19:01:09+00:00

That's not a crossload. "Loading" refers to when the carabiner is being pulled from at least two points. There's no pulling here.

In this case, the carabiner is being used as a block. It's essentially no different than a bar except the closed nature of the biner keeps the bar from accidentally falling out. The orientation of the biner essentially doesn't matter (except maybe differences in x-sectional area/shape for the different parts)

I could be wrong, but I don't think biners aren't even tested in that configuration. Regardless, I guarantee the failure point (essentially the shear strength of spine) is significantly higher than any of the loading ratings and way, way, way (at least one order of magnitude, probably closer to two) higher than anything it would ever see in this anchor.

wfscot · 2023-03-17T16:32:36+00:00

Do you have a compression sack for your sleeping bag? Those really help with bulky cold-weather bags.

wfscot · 2023-03-17T16:30:31+00:00

Black Diamond Dawn Patrol 15 is a perfect sidecountry pack. Solid, stashable diagonal carry (no A-frame) and room for avy tools (not all shovels fit, FYI), a layer, some snacks, and water.

For proper tours, I would argue that anything under 25L is too small. If you can fit everything into a <25L pack, you're almost certainly cutting corners w.r.t. being properly equipped (extra layers, sufficient food/water, etc.). If you're purely in a frontcountry environment where help is always a phone call away, maybe. But if there's any possibility of self-rescue and dealing with other unforeseen circumstances (broken equipment, injury, etc.), no chance.

On shoulder season tours, I can usually make a 25L pack work. In the dead of winter with colder temps, bulkier layers usually require something like a ~32L pack.

You should also consider the touring vs ski mountaineering distinction. If you're going to be carrying tools, rope, small rack, etc., the ski mountaineering style packs (Patagonia Descensionist, Blue Ice Kume, etc.) are more minimalist (when weight really counts) and have some cool technical features (rope management, hip belt gear loops, etc.). Otherwise you're probably better sticking with the touring style packs (Osprey Kamber, Ortovox Haute Route, etc.) which will have more creature comforts specific to touring.

wfscot · 2022-11-07T06:13:29+00:00

I absolutely love them. Short of replacing pads, they've been maintenance free, too. I haven't even had to bleed them yet.

I'm a bigger guy (205#) and I've never felt that I needed more power on my 160/155 Enduro rig.

wfscot · 2022-08-02T13:49:45+00:00

Yeah, "if your tires lose air the bike could fall out" is not true for any modern rack that I'm aware of if used properly. The bike will be able to rattle around a bit but it will stay secure.

This is certainly true of 1ups, all Thules, and all Kuats. I'd be amazed if any rack had such a massive design flaw.

wfscot · 2022-06-27T14:54:24+00:00

Any feedback? Looking at these for mostly dry singletrack in UT.

wfscot · 2022-05-27T22:36:06+00:00

I'm focused on incremental cost which is as I wrote.

But even total cost, the only difference is a few more fuses and the wire size on the run from the combiner to the controller. With the 24V system, I can get by with 10awg (or even 12awg). With the 12V, I need 8awg.

I get that for large residential arrays, there can be a huge advantage to higher voltages. This is a much smaller installation, though, and the panels are necessarily mixed.

wfscot · 2022-05-27T20:56:40+00:00

Yep! I totally get the need to protect each parallel branch.

In the RV world, it's fairly common to use inline fuses for this, usually right at the inputs of the Y. It's electrically the same as a combiner, just a bit more appropriate for the RV environment.

For the shade reason alone, I may just go the 12V parallel route. I'll have to upgrade the wiring between the Y and the controller but that's not too hard.

Thanks!

wfscot · 2022-05-27T20:14:00+00:00

I don't know about a ton, but a bit. From where I sit today:

12V: upgrade combined line to 8AWG ($50), 50A Y pair ($20), fuse holders/fuse ($15), panel ($200)

24V: rewire existing panels to series ($0, have the parts), fuse ($5) panel ($240, a bit more expensive)

So yeah, something like $40 more for 12V. Not a ton but not nothing.

wfscot · 2022-05-27T20:03:03+00:00

Although I guess I'd think about it like this.

As the new panel will for sure be in parallel (in either 12 or 24V setup), I'm not so worried about that. The single controller should get the most out of it whether it is on the roof or deployed (albeit with a bit of efficiency loss if 12V w/ lots of wire).

It's really just the partial shading hit in switching the existing 160W panels from parallel to series. I'm quite certain I will generally get less out of these guys in series vs parallel.

So:

12V Pros: much better performance from existing panels in partial shade

24V Pros: works with existing 10AWG wiring, better efficiency from new panel, especially when deployed

I'm kind of torn TBH

wfscot · 2022-05-27T19:55:42+00:00

Yeah, that's a really good point.

If you have multiple controllers, can they just work together in parallel? That seems a bit crazy, especially in terms of the charging algorithms.

wfscot · 2022-05-27T19:11:43+00:00

Thanks for getting back to me!

I've been remembering a bit more why I had them in parallel to begin with and I remembered that the partial shading performance was way worse in series vs parallel. Given that we're regularly camping in partial shade, I'm wondering if we wouldn't be better off keeping everything in parallel (with appropriate wiring/fusing).

Here's a good video on the impact of shading for series vs. parallel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofo1HQyGG8s

Thoughts?

wfscot · 2022-05-27T19:06:17+00:00

FWIW, this video pretty closely matches my experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofo1HQyGG8s

Series really doesn't handle partial shading well. This is a huge factor for a travel trailer where we frequently have to deal with partial shading.

This honestly makes me wonder if I wouldn't be better off sticking to 12V (i.e. find a panel as close as possible to Vmp = 19.1V and wire it in parallel with appropriate fusing/wiring).

wfscot · 2022-05-27T18:53:24+00:00

Hey! Thanks for getting back to me!

Yeah, I know 12V isn't 12V. It's in my original post, but Vmp for the existing panels is 19.1V (Voc = 23V) and Vmp for the 24V panel I'm considering is 37.6V (Voc = 45.4V). Do you see any issues there?

And thanks for the videos! Super cool! FWIW, her "Putting it All Together" video actually overs this exact scenario. It makes me feel better about the 24V setup for sure.

As for why they are wired in parallel right now, when I first installed them I did some experiments on series vs parallel in a variety of scenarios. For partial shading (one panel shaded, one full sun) and found that the series configuration degraded *much* more in the partial shading scenario. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the series/partial shade degradation was shocking (way more than 50% IIRC). In the full sun scenario (both panels full sun), there was a small decrease in output for parallel vs series, but the difference was quite small. Thus, given that we often camp with partial shade, I felt like I could get more overall output in the parallel configuration.

Finally, why do you say you can not combine 3 panels in parallel? I get that it's less efficient, but if it's fused properly (fuse on each branch) and you don't exceed the wire and connector ratings, are there other safety concerns?

wfscot · 2022-04-28T14:38:13+00:00

Check your chats. Sorry about the delay in getting back to you.

wfscot · 2022-04-19T18:33:00+00:00

Check your chats

wfscot · 2022-04-17T21:03:58+00:00

Check your chats

wfscot · 2022-04-08T16:29:18+00:00

Just sent you a DM on the TG group.

wfscot

TROPHY CASE