Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

For years the telemark industry has been pandering to the backcountry at a cost to the front and slack country, and that is where the AT industry is killing our trade. I know a bunch on here are BC die hards, but there are no small number of tele heads out there who mainly resort ski, and ski these condition on their regular less-than-pow days, and the ski technology is screwing us with the BC only focus. Try finding a resort slope tele ski. No-one makes them. 100mm underfoot is a huge off powder board to work. And it sucks in the bumps. So what ski is out there for us routinely lift serviced types looking for a go to addition for the quiver? I'm thinking the Hart F17 Classic. It is springy and it edges well. It just might be the telemark version of the alpine slalom ski for a regular day, resort area ski. Thoughts?

For groomers I like a ski around 85 in the waist, of course my daily ski is 98 underfoot and I've only skied fresh snow this season. Bit of a snob this year on what conditions I'll ski, after 50+ seasons I'm OK with that.

IMO, skis are skis, regardless of how they are turned. THere's plenty of them you can mount up tele.

Only skied one tele ski I liked in all these years. all the rest were Alpine skis mounted tele. Still not missing super soft tele specific skis. It is not that hard to find a ski that fits any skiing style nowadays.

Harris wrote:For years the telemark industry has been pandering to the backcountry at a cost to the front and slack country, and that is where the AT industry is killing our trade. I know a bunch on here are BC die hards, but there are no small number of tele heads out there who mainly resort ski, and ski these condition on their regular less-than-pow days, and the ski technology is screwing us with the BC only focus. Try finding a resort slope tele ski. No-one makes them. 100mm underfoot is a huge off powder board to work. And it sucks in the bumps. So what ski is out there for us routinely lift serviced types looking for a go to addition for the quiver? I'm thinking the Hart F17 Classic. It is springy and it edges well. It just might be the telemark version of the alpine slalom ski for a regular day, resort area ski. Thoughts?

I wouldn't get caught up in trying to find a "tele" ski as I think the major ski companies have stopped tele specific branding. Simply look for a flat deck all mountain ski with an even flex. The Dynastar Legend line comes to mind or the Cham line for a more modern design. I recently mounted up pair of 95 waist Liberty Sequence that are a ton of fun.

Harris wrote:the ski technology is screwing us with the BC only focus. Try finding a resort slope tele ski. No-one makes them. 100mm underfoot is a huge off powder board to work. And it sucks in the bumps. So what ski is out there for us routinely lift serviced types looking for a go to addition for the quiver?

WTF, you serious?

Ski technology is not screwing tele skiers.

No one makes tele skis, period. Resort specific or backcountry. Alpine/tele -- no difference in terms of ski choice. Just get a mid-80s ski, Fisher Motive? Rossi E88?

I hear you Harris. I have to agree with you: I'm ****ing sick of seeing BC skis everywhere. It seems like all ski makers are only focusing on that stupid BC craze... Phallus-shaped 12lbs full rocker skis. And people are buying!!! I just can't stand that anymore. Gonna kill someone. Good quality, skinny and long frontside skis are almost impossible to find, unless you're willing to spend a grand.

But honestly, "Telemark" skis were a hoax. Pure marketing. A ski is a ski is a ski, no matter the type of bindings you mount on them.

Just grab any downhill racing skis and you'll have the finest telemark ski you can ever dream of.

I always wanted a pair of F17... After all, those were the skis used by James Bond...
Please grab a pair and write us a review...!

Mogul skis are super cool, and they make very sweet tele skis if you're into smooth turns... The F17 is a good example, but you could also take a look at Dynastar Twisters, Volkl Wall Moguls or K2 CaBrawlers...

Personally, I really hate Rossignol Experience skis but you might love them... (I sold my E88 two days after getting them)... Soft enough for bumps, slight rockered tips for easy turning and stiff enough for intermediate carving.

y'all sound like a bunch of wine sippers.

guzzle.


Nothing being made that's fat is for BC. You cant travel 15 miles to and from a place on fat flat lead weights.

If all you are doinf is skinning straight up some ridgeline to the straight downiest place, then young and strong can get there if you put shackles on them. But that aint Backcountry. They done screwed all the names up. And I aint young and strong.

I want old ski profiles a little more than tongue depressors. I am a bow legged hillbilly but don't these new designs kinda force kinda a "wide stance". A lot of frontal area too. tips don't turn up much. EXCEPT for powder, most of the new skis look like they kinda suck. And what are they using for bindings? They suck too.

Nobody can run with that kinda weight in the BC, and nobody can do BC on what are now running skis. I saw a used set of extremes (boots) the other day, and I should of bought them. By modern standards an extreme is a damn hot boot. And you can't say nobody could ski them, they went downhill quite well at the speeds you actually reach in the actual backcountry. Not downhill, lift served anything, backcountry. There is no such thing as lift served backcountry, look around. If you ain't walking, if you are seeing a lot of snowboarders, if you are seeing a lot of people and no dogs, you aren't in the backcountry.

Everybody loves the perfect ski for the trip they do, but nobody seems to be emphasing mine. And whats with the gear costing much more than equivalent downhill gear? That ratio used to be reversed. I mean THOUSANDS for skis and bindings that only fit one boot, A boot that easily cost 500 more. I think everybody want to be the ski manufacturer to the Rich, and nobody want to sell gear that would actually sell to enough people that the areas were again being used as a mass recreation. In the 70's ski areas got big popular. Now not so much. Wonder why?

I want a glu-on set bottom kit. Something that would let you plane out a small channel and fill it with a decent kick strip good enough to run laps on a 500 foot hill without needing to completely skin up and kill all hope of glide and liteness.. Anybody know where I can get ptex step? MAKE the damn things myself outta old goodwill remnants. They never did produce enough step bottoms, nobody really wants to walk any more.

Anybody seen a used pair of head 360 or comps? In black? Anybody?

Rox I don't drink wine but I'm chugging the kool-aid you're serving up - totally agree w/ your post.

The modern ski-mo race scene is interesting to me - they're basically re-creating 80's and 90's telemark. Super lightweight gear focused on "the up" and traveling the backcountry. This had to happen after tele gear morphed into heavy equipment intended for resort skiing, which transitioned into heavy AT gear, which progressed into ridiculously wide and heavy skis.

It's all good with me. It has the effect of lowering the price on the telemark gear I use - leather boots and skis that are 70 or 80mm at the tips, not the waist. I bought two pairs of wonderful ski boots this year - leather Crispis for under $200, and beautiful, solid Alico's (army surplus) for $75. the last pair of tele skis I bought brand new was $250 and before that $180. Got some super teles bindings for $43 each from STP.

If you can just learn to navigate the downhill with your heels loose you can buy gear that competes with state-of-the-art $2000 ski-mo rigs!

LoveJohnny wrote:I hear you Harris. I have to agree with you: I'm ****ing sick of seeing BC skis everywhere. It seems like all ski makers are only focusing on that stupid BC craze... Phallus-shaped 12lbs full rocker skis. And people are buying!!! I just can't stand that anymore. Gonna kill someone. Good quality, skinny and long frontside skis are almost impossible to find, unless you're willing to spend a grand.

But honestly, "Telemark" skis were a hoax. Pure marketing. A ski is a ski is a ski, no matter the type of bindings you mount on them.

Just grab any downhill racing skis and you'll have the finest telemark ski you can ever dream of.

I always wanted a pair of F17... After all, those were the skis used by James Bond...
Please grab a pair and write us a review...!

Mogul skis are super cool, and they make very sweet tele skis if you're into smooth turns... The F17 is a good example, but you could also take a look at Dynastar Twisters, Volkl Wall Moguls or K2 CaBrawlers...

Personally, I really hate Rossignol Experience skis but you might love them... (I sold my E88 two days after getting them)... Soft enough for bumps, slight rockered tips for easy turning and stiff enough for intermediate carving.

You know exactly what I'm saying'. I think you are spot on with the idea of going with alpine racing skis. I've been drooling over the Atomic Redster SL FIS skis for some time. But they come with that damn rail mount system.

Honestly though I think a differential side cut ski for tele (more sidecut on the outside edge) might be the one avenue not yet thoroughly explored by ski mfgs. That and a lot more camber for pop. And as far as off-piste it would be nice to have less rocker skis with taller tips to compensate for the drop knee ski tip dive. Not as radical as the old skinny skis, but not as flat as the standard today. Just exploring some thoughts.