Bill Porreca

Bill Porreca

Wasatch, UT

    New Feature

    Browse Your Followers or See Who You're Following

  • #6of 20358

William's Passions

Alpine Touring
Trad Climbing
Camping
Backpacking
Trail Running
Mountain Biking
Snowshoeing
Ice Climbing
Alpine Skiing
Mountaineering
Sport Climbing

William's Bio

Backcountry.com’s Gearheads are your instant connection to gear knowledge. They’re passionate outdoor experts hell-bent on helping you find the right ski, saddle, or pro. Follow their adventures and exploits.

As a self proclaimed calf model, I have to constantly keep my training up. I use ski mountaineering as a primary means but also hiking and all sorts of climbing.

Let me know if you have any questions you can always give me a call 1800-409-4502 my extension is 4181 and I work Sun-Thursday 1:30pm-10:00pm. Follow me to learn about the gear I use or articles I have written. If the phone is not your thing feel free to email me at bporreca@backcountry.com.

Bill Porreca

Bill Porreca wrote an answer about on July 30, 2014

Mathew,
164 cm seems really short for you. I am around the same size and ski similar terrain. If you ski aggressive and like to go fast size up to the 180 cm. The ski does have rocker on tip and tail so it should ski a littler shorter. Maybe it might toss you around at first if you havent ever been on a ski that long but, with your weight and skiing ability you shouldnt have a problem controlling that ski. Just be prepared for the possibility of an adjustment period. Its worth it for the added stability at speed on some of those wide open faces.

(0)

 

Bill Porreca

Bill Porreca wrote an answer about on July 29, 2014

Originally I thought it did not have any insulation. It might not be durable enough still but, it could be warm enough with just a fleece sweater. You would have to try it out to get it dialed. If you were doing quick day trips then the durability doesnt totally come into play. I would only worry about it on bigger expeditions where you only bring one jacket. If you are on a day trip and it rips definitely easier to fix.

(0)

 

Bill Porreca

Bill Porreca wrote an answer about on July 29, 2014

So I got a second opinion. It's not because the screw length or size, they are almost the same for many different bindings. Our guy who mounts them said the risk of them pulling out of a ski that was made to be lightweight is greater due to the make up (material) of the ski.

(0)

 

Bill Porreca

Bill Porreca wrote an answer about on July 28, 2014

Ive used these for ski touring and they are just fine, never really had a problem with getting snow in my boot. Ive boot packed with them in deep snow and that allows some snow in there never enough to make me truly upset. After one particular bad post holing experience I bought a piece of bungee. There are two grommet-ed holes at the end of the book. I tied a loop of bungee on put it under the boot so there is no way the pant could be pulled up but, there is still stretch so its not constricting.

(1)

 

Bill Porreca

Bill Porreca wrote an answer about on July 27, 2014

They make a 110mm that's the one you want. We just do not have them in stock right now. We are probably getting new ones but, they probably wont be for that sale price. I know it stinks to have to buy an accessory but, at this deal you still save money http://www.backcountry.com/marker-royal-family-replacement-brake?ti=U2VhcmNoIFJlc3VsdHM6bWFya2VyIGJyYWtlczoxOjE6bWFya2VyIGJyYWtlcw&skid=MRK000I-ONECOL-S110MM. Still almost $100.00 bucks off a brand new binding. Plus if we (Backcountry.com) end up further discounting it we will just match that price within 30 days. I would then put the brakes you didnt need up on Gear Trade or Ebay to see how much you could get for them.

(0)

 

Bill Porreca

Bill Porreca wrote an answer about on July 27, 2014

A shop may be able to put the bindings on but, I wouldnt personally trust it. The Manaslu is a light weight ski this is a big beefy binding. Ill get a second opinion but, I am pretty sure that light weight skis like this are not thick enough to handle the bigger screws that the Beast uses to handle its intended uses. I would wait till this season's new stuff comes out. They are releasing a Radical 2.0 that uses a lot of the Beast's technology, just in a smaller lighter version and a smaller DIN. Or if you absolutely needed them now get a pair of the Radical FT12's. Take a look at their new line up - http://www.wildsnow.com/11958/dynafit-new-bindings-2014-2015/. I used the Vertical FT12's on these in the 187cm and they held up fine skiing many conditions including hard bumps and high speed groomers. I never did drop anything but, wouldnt dropping cliffs or jumping just be more fun on a beefier ski? If you really want the Beast for the 16 DIN take a look at their Grand Teton ski. Heavier and Bigger but definitely a more fun ride if you are skiing this binding the way they intended it to be skied.

(1)

 

Bill Porreca

Bill Porreca wrote an answer about on July 27, 2014

They will fit you just wont have as much purchase if you should need them. I wouldn't let it get over 10mm of difference. This is their biggest brake and on the DPS Site they actually recommend it so I cant imagine it wouldnt work. http://www.dpsskis.com/en/accessories/bindings/look-pivot-18.html

(0)

 

Bill Porreca

Bill Porreca wrote an answer about on July 27, 2014

These come with a 110mm brake which I think is too big. If you set a high edge you may "dock" or hit the brake on the snow throwing you off your turn in a bad way. They make a smaller brake we just do not sell it directly with this binding. We are sold out of all the 90mm's http://www.backcountry.com/marker-royal-family-replacement-brake?ti=U2VhcmNoIFJlc3VsdHM6bWFya2VyIGJhcm9uOjE6MjptYXJrZXIgYmFyb24&skid=MRK000I-ONECOL-S110MM which is what you need. They will then bend each side 1-2 mm to make them fit perfectly.

(0)

 

Bill Porreca

Bill Porreca wrote an answer about on July 27, 2014

Its hard to not have a reference. I would say if a 1 is like their Capilene 3 and the 10 is the Classic Synchilla or R4, the R2 is something like a 4-5. The layers under the pits is the R1 and that is like a 2-3. I bought this as a present for my roommate and he loves it. He primarily uses it to drink outside in the cold and lift serviced skiing.

(0)

 

Bill Porreca

Bill Porreca wrote a review of on July 24, 2014

Wear it climbing then right to the bar!
5 5

Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer
Fit: True to size

5'8" 200 lbs the Large fits me perfect. Since I dont own a lot of "nice" shirts this was a great compromise for me. I can still climb in it and be active outside but, get away with wearing it out to dinner or at the bar. Lasts long doesnt stain easily, I have one in almost every color long and short sleeve.

(1)

 

0 Comments

Bill Porreca

Bill Porreca wrote an answer about on July 24, 2014

I would say go with the 185cm. This ski has more rocker in it than the Enforcer, I think the 175cm would ski too short for you. You're Enforcer also has titanium in it making it a bit stiffer than this ski. Even though this ski is wider I think you will be able to maneuver the 185cm just fine.

(3)

 

Bill Porreca

Bill Porreca wrote an answer about on July 24, 2014

You are going to think this boot is soft, no doubt in my mind. Its a great boot but, it chooses lightweight and walk ability over aggressive ski ability. As far as beginner backcountry users go I started in something more aggressive and eventually moved to something lighter and less stiff. The more I went out the more I started to travel farther and longer and needed a boot that would accommodate that. First boot I toured in was a race stock Salomon in a Marker Duke Binding, today I couldnt imagine lifting that to put in my car. Take a look at something like this http://www.backcountry.com/scarpa-freedom-sl-alpine-touring-boot?ti=UExQIENhdDpBbHBpbmUgVG91cmluZyBCb290czoxOjE4OmJjc0NhdDUxMTAwMDQx&skid=SCR0267-ONECOL-S305

(2)

 

load more