This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
http://telemarktalk.com/
I don't, either, to be honest. If I know there's hills to be climbed I'll have skins on, or I'll be out on my beloved Nansens. I definitely wouldn't have my Gammes shorter either!
My wife loves her Crispi Stetinds... adequate for a bit of this
This is really good advice. One time when track skiing with my wife I accidentally skied off on her Madshus M50's. She has 190cm and me 205cm. My unbiased reaction since I had no idea they were hers was how good and fast the skis were. They felt great. Easy to ski. I'm about 180-185 plus day pack and water and when kick is fleeting I have to concentrate on the 205's. I wouldn't trade, but lack of kick is the most frustrating part of XC skiing and exactly when a longer ski is slower. I have these Fischer Backcountry Crown skis that are cheaper ($25 like new!) edgeless extruded base skis in 215cm that I use in spring and when I'm lazy for waxing and hitting some logging roads. They are softer skis and I get great kick in spite of the length. They feel good to ski and almost (fishscales) fast because of it.Smitty wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 8:41 amOP is right in the middle of the weight category for 190 cm, and at the edge for 200 cm. But with the original question being framed as 200 cm vs 210 cm, I still recommend the shorter of the two (200 cm).
It's not a ski I would recommend anyone "go short" on by any means, that's not the design intent. And I think it can make sense to skew longer vs shorter if you're on the edge between sizes, depending on your preferences and use case. But that's essentially what OP would be doing by going 200 cm. Upping to 210 cm is a pretty big jump for the weight.
There's a point where too much ski length (and associated stiffness) for your weight will inhibit speed due to lack of grip on the kick. Or lead to more drag because you have to extend your wax pocket way out to make it sufficient. It can also be more fatiguing if you really have to focus your kick when on variable snow with no tracks to hold you laterally when transferring weight.
To each his own for sure. And of course, depends on the conditions you're skiing then on. But I think lack of grip is definitely harder to overcome and more frustrating than lack of glide.
This confirms two things that I've said on here. One was yesterday, to paraphrase, "good kick trumps good glide" as far as efficiency goes.wabene wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 9:18 amThis is really good advice. One time when track skiing with my wife I accidentally skied off on her Madshus M50's. She has 190cm and me 205cm. My unbiased reaction since I had no idea they were hers was how good and fast the skis were. They felt great. Easy to ski. I'm about 180-185 plus day pack and water and when kick is fleeting I have to concentrate on the 205's. I wouldn't trade, but lack of kick is the most frustrating part of XC skiing and exactly when a longer ski is slower. I have these Fischer Backcountry Crown skis that are cheaper ($25 like new!) edgeless extruded base skis in 215cm that I use in spring and when I'm lazy for waxing and hitting some logging roads. They are softer skis and I get great kick in spite of the length. They feel good to ski and almost (fishscales) fast because of it.Smitty wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 8:41 amOP is right in the middle of the weight category for 190 cm, and at the edge for 200 cm. But with the original question being framed as 200 cm vs 210 cm, I still recommend the shorter of the two (200 cm).
It's not a ski I would recommend anyone "go short" on by any means, that's not the design intent. And I think it can make sense to skew longer vs shorter if you're on the edge between sizes, depending on your preferences and use case. But that's essentially what OP would be doing by going 200 cm. Upping to 210 cm is a pretty big jump for the weight.
There's a point where too much ski length (and associated stiffness) for your weight will inhibit speed due to lack of grip on the kick. Or lead to more drag because you have to extend your wax pocket way out to make it sufficient. It can also be more fatiguing if you really have to focus your kick when on variable snow with no tracks to hold you laterally when transferring weight.
To each his own for sure. And of course, depends on the conditions you're skiing then on. But I think lack of grip is definitely harder to overcome and more frustrating than lack of glide.
Haha, well said.lowangle al wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 2:31 pm
This confirms two things that I've said on here. One was yesterday, to paraphrase, "good kick trumps good glide" as far as efficiency goes.
The second was about 15 years ago. "If you want to be a better skier, wear your wife's skis"