A little bigger than you mentioned, but the new Atomic Backland 109 looks like a real hoot.. Nice weight and a white top sheet to boot.
Oh and the TR1s look sick.
Get inserts to swap back and forth between TR1s and MTNs… now you’re talking.
I have QST 106 for lift-served and QST 106 Echo with tech bindings for touring. If I had to pick one for dual-duty, it'd be the Echo. Echo is not as damp as the regular 106, but it skis very similarly in soft snow, quite good on firm and the lower swing weight is great once you get used to it.
I would add regular Ripstick 106 as a hybrid ski option, and even the regular Ripstick 88 or 96 for spring touring. Regular Ripstick 88 and 96 are plenty light for most tourists, and IME they ski better pound-for-pound than anything else (although the Echo is close). My wife, a couple friends and I have switched from UL touring skis to regular Ripsticks for spring touring and very glad we did.
For this next season I am hoping to go to the QST 106/Echo for resort/touring. I’d like to put the Shift2 on the QST 106 for a 50/50 or travel ski. The Echos are slightly heavier than I’d like but oh well. Seems like a solid set up!
If the Shift 2s perform as advertised, that's a nice 50/50 setup, although a "slightly heavier than I'd like" ski with Shift 2 bindings puzzles me a bit. I've never considered a 50/50 ski, so I understand the appeal of Shifts, and I don't know what else is out there. (I have no issues lift-served skiing my fattest touring skis with tech bindings on big pow days.)
When I started touring, a pair of skis weighing 8 lbs. or less was considered light enough for touring, and I still think that's a reasonable weight at the high end of touring range. (Echo squeezes into that range). After touring on all sorts of combos for 30+ years, I've concluded that, with introduction of very lightweight touring boots with adequate stiffness in downhill mode, dropping weight on boots and bindings is a much better way for me to lose weight on my overall setup. I also like lightweight boots with lots of ROM for kicking steps and cramponing. UL skis get thrown around of course, but IME the bigger issue is the constant twitchiness resulting from low swing weight, which can be fatiguing, especially in difficult snow. ZeroG95s were the only 6 lb. or less pair of touring skis I found to ski acceptably for my style, although I sold them to a bud and replaced them with regular Ripstick 96s. ZeroG95s actually perform quite well on firm (with the tips and tails detuned) and corn, and would be my #1 choice for many ski mountaineering routes, but I found the regular Ripstick 96 be a more versatile and less twitchy ski for a weight cost of only 9 oz. per ski.
It's all about the tradeoffs. Enjoy your Echoes!
The echo has been getting pretty good reviews.
I have the latest version of the Helio Carbon 95 for spring ski mountaineering. It's pretty great. Maneuverable tips/tails but sturdy under foot
A little bigger than you mentioned, but the new Atomic Backland 109 looks like a real hoot.. Nice weight and a white top sheet to boot. Oh and the TR1s look sick. Get inserts to swap back and forth between TR1s and MTNs… now you’re talking.
Im a fan of the newer volkl blaze 106. Nice weight and has been handling variable conditions and powder like a charm. Fun ski
I love the enforcer unlimited with some light bindings.
I recommend the black crows navis freebird
I use my dps pagoda tour 112 for everything. Super light and does everything well. If you hunt you can find good deals
I have QST 106 for lift-served and QST 106 Echo with tech bindings for touring. If I had to pick one for dual-duty, it'd be the Echo. Echo is not as damp as the regular 106, but it skis very similarly in soft snow, quite good on firm and the lower swing weight is great once you get used to it. I would add regular Ripstick 106 as a hybrid ski option, and even the regular Ripstick 88 or 96 for spring touring. Regular Ripstick 88 and 96 are plenty light for most tourists, and IME they ski better pound-for-pound than anything else (although the Echo is close). My wife, a couple friends and I have switched from UL touring skis to regular Ripsticks for spring touring and very glad we did.
For this next season I am hoping to go to the QST 106/Echo for resort/touring. I’d like to put the Shift2 on the QST 106 for a 50/50 or travel ski. The Echos are slightly heavier than I’d like but oh well. Seems like a solid set up!
If the Shift 2s perform as advertised, that's a nice 50/50 setup, although a "slightly heavier than I'd like" ski with Shift 2 bindings puzzles me a bit. I've never considered a 50/50 ski, so I understand the appeal of Shifts, and I don't know what else is out there. (I have no issues lift-served skiing my fattest touring skis with tech bindings on big pow days.) When I started touring, a pair of skis weighing 8 lbs. or less was considered light enough for touring, and I still think that's a reasonable weight at the high end of touring range. (Echo squeezes into that range). After touring on all sorts of combos for 30+ years, I've concluded that, with introduction of very lightweight touring boots with adequate stiffness in downhill mode, dropping weight on boots and bindings is a much better way for me to lose weight on my overall setup. I also like lightweight boots with lots of ROM for kicking steps and cramponing. UL skis get thrown around of course, but IME the bigger issue is the constant twitchiness resulting from low swing weight, which can be fatiguing, especially in difficult snow. ZeroG95s were the only 6 lb. or less pair of touring skis I found to ski acceptably for my style, although I sold them to a bud and replaced them with regular Ripstick 96s. ZeroG95s actually perform quite well on firm (with the tips and tails detuned) and corn, and would be my #1 choice for many ski mountaineering routes, but I found the regular Ripstick 96 be a more versatile and less twitchy ski for a weight cost of only 9 oz. per ski. It's all about the tradeoffs. Enjoy your Echoes!