Vector replacement- ideas? V6/UltraVector something else?

This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web. We have fun here, come on in and be a part of it.
User avatar
LoveJohnny
Posts: 1348
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:11 pm
Location: Quebec / Vermont

Re: Vector replacement- ideas? V6/UltraVector something else?

Postby LoveJohnny » Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:37 pm

No, I'm not working for Voile, but really, why not go for the Objective? Like 171cm...? They are like 1cm narrower than the Vectors...

If I can handle the 178cm Objectives with cableless pins or NNN, I'm sure you would *LOVE* them with T4s...! The difference is not huge, but big enough to add a lot of fun. (I honestly could not handle the Vectors properly with the same floppy leather setup...)

The Objective is "Somewhere between our WSP and Vector skis"...

There's plenty of options out there... But you won't find something lighter than the Objective.. Which means, super freaking easy to turn and control... Even with Birkenstocks... 8-)
/...\ Peace, Love, Telemark and Tofu /...\
"Your heel (and mind) is not really free until you cut the cable..." -Me

User avatar
Woodserson
Posts: 574
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:25 am
Location: New Hampshire

Re: Vector replacement- ideas? V6/UltraVector something else?

Postby Woodserson » Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:05 pm

LoveJohnny wrote:No, I'm not working for Voile, but really, why not go for the Objective? Like 171cm...? They are like 1cm narrower than the Vectors...

If I can handle the 178cm Objectives with cableless pins or NNN, I'm sure you would *LOVE* them with T4s...! The difference is not huge, but big enough to add a lot of fun. (I honestly could not handle the Vectors properly with the same floppy leather setup...)

The Objective is "Somewhere between our WSP and Vector skis"...

There's plenty of options out there... But you won't find something lighter than the Objective.. Which means, super freaking easy to turn and control... Even with Birkenstocks... 8-)


Last season I so wanted an Objective, but I could not find at a pair that met my economic feasibility (and then they sold out). SO I bought the K2 Wayback 82's 118-82-105 instead for $225. They are very nice, but could use more rocker up front. I'm kind of poking around for a mid-90 waist ski for effortless floating and such.

Johnny, maybe I come up and try your Objectives and you can change my mind!

User avatar
LoveJohnny
Posts: 1348
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:11 pm
Location: Quebec / Vermont

Re: Vector replacement- ideas? V6/UltraVector something else?

Postby LoveJohnny » Sun Sep 03, 2017 12:33 pm

Sure! All my skis are community skis...! 8-)

I really, really like the smooth flex of K2 rockers... But that smooth flex unfortunately comes with added weight. Lighter skis are usually a bit more stiff due to the materials used to achieve that light weight. You can't have it all...

But when it comes to maneuverability with minimalist boot/binding combination, weight is the most important factor for maximum control... I can't tell you how much I love the Objective for everything powder. I wish they would make a 130cm snowshoe version!
/...\ Peace, Love, Telemark and Tofu /...\
"Your heel (and mind) is not really free until you cut the cable..." -Me

User avatar
lowangle al
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:36 pm

Re: Vector replacement- ideas? V6/UltraVector something else?

Postby lowangle al » Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:12 pm

Woodserson wrote:
lowangle al wrote:Whatever ski you decide on get the shortest length recommended for your weight for downhill performance. That's the mistake you made with the Vectors.


The 180cm Vector is for 140lbs or above... I'm 160 naked...


You went for the longest ski recomended for your weight. I weigh about 175 and I got the vector bcs in 170 cm which had an upper weight limit of 180 lbs. I wasn't sure they would work but they did, and when I got the waxable version I went with the same size. If I didn't already have a bigger pair of powder boards I probably would have gone for the 180s.

User avatar
connyro
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 12:46 pm

Re: Vector replacement- ideas? V6/UltraVector something else?

Postby connyro » Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:25 pm

I'm at 180lbs and ski the 180 Vectors. I feel that they are the appropriate size for my mass. I don't think I would want them any longer...

rongon
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Vector replacement- ideas? V6/UltraVector something else?

Postby rongon » Fri Sep 15, 2017 1:45 pm

My $0.02...

After a couple of seasons on my Vector BC skis, I can say that they ski really well in a 'too short' length. I'm about 185 lbs and ski my Vector BCs in 170 cm. Yes, they're shorter than recommended for my weight, but no, they don't fold up under me and they do float well enough (I don't mind getting deep into whatever powder there is to be had). I've skied them out west in boot-top powder and they did just fine (if a bit slow, but that's fine for me too).

I have Switchback X2 bindings on them, I'm in Crispi CXP (3 buckle) boots.

I do a lot of my skiing in miserable conditions in the Catskills and Adirondacks. If I'm skiing something fairly steep, then I bring this setup. If the day involves more mellow terrain but more miles, I bring my old Annums (175 length) with original Switchbacks. Same boots as above.

The Vector BCs' edge hold is much, much better than the Annums'.

For skiing narrow, hardpacked ski trails, I enjoy bringing out my Dynastar Legend 3800 skis (172 length, 75mm waist, no rocker) with old-school Voile Hardwire bindings. Again, same boots.

So I have to ask, why not go with Vectors in 170 cm length?
--

User avatar
Woodserson
Posts: 574
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:25 am
Location: New Hampshire

Re: Vector replacement- ideas? V6/UltraVector something else?

Postby Woodserson » Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:30 pm

rongon wrote:
So I have to ask, why not go with Vectors in 170 cm length?
--


Thank you for the good description. I would say yes, but I am held back by budgetary constraints at the moment. They are $ and no good deals. I looked hard at the end of last season, but out of stock everywhere. Not a lot come up for sale used either.

User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:20 pm
Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada

Re: Vector replacement- ideas? V6/UltraVector something else?

Postby lilcliffy » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:59 am

Hey Woods-
It has been almost twenty years since I needed/wanted to be up to date on this class of ski...

What I have observed/experienced is that as the "Telemark" boot-binding tech has advanced, it has become "easier" to drive skis with a flex that used to be beyond the reach of an equally-weighted Telemark turner...

(This issue- in my mind- and in my muscle memory- is at the heart of what Harris is explaining in his Tele vs Alpine thread...)

In short- "Telemark"-focused skis have seemed to disappear- backcountry-downhill skiers using backcountry/AT skis regardless of whether they are using Telemark or AT tech.

SO- it seems to me you are right on the mark with your original post- you want a ski with both a softer, but ALSO a rounder flex than the Vector.

This issue has as much to do with the total complex of the physics of the "Telemark" turn (including the boot-binding context) as it does snow conditions. I have found myself shocked at what I can flex and pressure when I have a high-cuffed, stiff Telemark boot on and a very active binding...

I don't know anything about the Ultra Vector- I seriously doubt that it is as soft and round flexing as the V6- unless it is intended to replace it?

Can't speak for specific skis- but I don't think you have the length wrong- I think you are right- you want a different flex- smooth, soft and round.
The pursuit of XCD balance: cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry

User avatar
Woodserson
Posts: 574
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:25 am
Location: New Hampshire

Re: Vector replacement- ideas? V6/UltraVector something else?

Postby Woodserson » Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:11 pm

I bought something-- the Line Sick Day 94, 172cm 2018, 131-94-117. I was able to get it for a fair price. It came down to the Atomic Vantage 95C Women's 170cm due to size, shape, flex, and price with very favorable reviews. Then I went to pick them up and they had some heft to them, more than I expected, but they were very sweet and actually a little stiffer than I expected.

However, I saw the Line Sick Day 94 and lo! they were lighter, with a softer, rounder flex and a bit more rocker. In my gut I knew these were the skis I was looking for they called for me from across the room and I listened to their song. I had to part with more $ than the Atomics, but it was the right choice and the crew at the local shop I went to were happy to work with me on the price a bit.

I'm very happy! A mid-90 waisted ski with rock/cam/rock and a smooth soft flex in the size I wanted at the price-point I could afford. Can't ask for anything more (except lots of snow)


Return to “Telemark Talk Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 14 guests