Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

D'hostie wrote: The camber is actually fairly stiff, so I wouldn't worry too much about 10cm for glide characteristics.

Hum... not mine. At least the version that I got a couple of years ago... I wouldn't call them stiff, specially when you compare with others (mainly Rossi & Fischer).

Rod,

Red or blue graphics?

Red ones tended to be softer underfoot than the blue.

Not sure about the new ones. My thought would be to stick to something wider with better traction and turning unless you are an old-school tele-curmudgeon.

D'hostie wrote:Rod,

Red or blue graphics?

Red ones tended to be softer underfoot than the blue.

Not sure about the new ones. My thought would be to stick to something wider with better traction and turning unless you are an old-school tele-curmudgeon.

Red ones. They are faster. Sometimes, I am an old school tele-curmudgeon, sometimes not... The guy is just asking what size he should take... Your énoncé in bold is what we call a sophism...

Rodbelan wrote:
Red ones. They are faster. Sometimes, I am an old school tele-curmudgeon, sometimes not... The guy is just asking what size he should take... Your énoncé in bold is what we call a sophism...

Well I think then this answers your discrepency and the fact that neither of us know what the camber is like on the new BC55 begs to question how they will actually perform, and why I suggested perhaps looking elsewhere.

Not sure about your second comment... are you insinuating something?

No, no... It is just a fairly banal remark:
If I say:« If you think this way, then you definitely are like this»... then, I might be using a logical strategy that is called sophism in philosophy...

rongon wrote: Let me ask you all this -- If I'm used to skiing a pair of Rebounds in 179 cm length, and I like them well enough for skiing in others' tracks and going off-trail, how would the Glittertind skis compare if I chose 190 cm for those?
--

If you're into downhill stuff, I would stick with the Rebounds... I mean, the Rebounds are way easier to turn than the Glittertinds... But the Glitts will be faster for XC for sure... Glitts are super cool for bushwacking and off-trail skiing, but they are not very good for turns, no matter what Barnett once said 10 years ago in an off-topic conversation. (Which was misinterpreted as some kind of holy scripture by some people...)

I would go for the long Glitts... With long skis, you get that powerful feeling that you can bust through anything, especially when bushwacking or skiing other peoples crud... As long as you don't need to turn much...

I'm 140lbs and I find the 200cm Glitts too short...

Has Madshus updated any of their backcountry Nordic touring skis- other than names and or topsheets?

I have put some miles on the blue Glitt- the previous model to current. I wasn't aware that they had changed the flex/camber of the current model?

What I can say is the recent blue Glit is most definitely a double-cambered xcountry ski. It is VERY stiff underfoot for a backcountry ski (MUCH stiffer than the E-99 for example). Gamme the Elder's test suggests it is every bit as stiff underfoot as the Asnes Amundsen!!!
https://www.utemagasinet.no/Test/TEST-Ski-for-fjellet

If I take Steve Barnett's word for it- in his book "Cross Country-Downhill"- the blue Glitt has a completely different flex/camber than the one Barnett was describing. The flex of the Glitt that Barnett describes sounds more like the smooth even round flex of the current Asnes Nansen, than it does the current Glitt.

The tip of the blue Glitt is incredibly soft and feels disconnected from its extremely stiff double camber underfoot. To be honest, I don't really understand the flex pattern of the blue Glitt- I MUCH prefer the flex of the current E99 (I tested both before I decided).

IMO- the current Glitt is a XC ski and should be had in a length that takes advantage of its double camber for XC-focused BC skiing.

If one wants a narrow Nordic ski for downhill skiing- then I would be looking at a different ski with a smoother, rounder flex. The only ski that comes to mind immediately is the Nansen- perhaps Alpina's Discovery series?

I would get the Glitt in a XC length for your weight.

lilcliffy wrote:If one wants a narrow Nordic ski for downhill skiing- then I would be looking at a different ski with a smoother, rounder flex. The only ski that comes to mind immediately is the Nansen- perhaps Alpina's Discovery series?

I had two pairs of Alpina Discovery skis... They are the stiffest skis I have ever seen... Seriously, they are stiffer than my downhill world-cup titanium racing skis... I will never understand what are their primary use. Simply put, they are WC downhill racing skis, with scales.

LoveJohnny wrote: I had two pairs of Alpina Discovery skis... They are the stiffest skis I have ever seen... Seriously, they are stiffer than my downhill world-cup titanium racing skis... I will never understand what are their primary use. Simply put, they are WC downhill racing skis, with scales.

Wow! I have never tried any of Alpina's backcountry skis.

LoveJohnny wrote:

lilcliffy wrote:If one wants a narrow Nordic ski for downhill skiing- then I would be looking at a different ski with a smoother, rounder flex. The only ski that comes to mind immediately is the Nansen- perhaps Alpina's Discovery series?

I had two pairs of Alpina Discovery skis... They are the stiffest skis I have ever seen... Seriously, they are stiffer than my downhill world-cup titanium racing skis... I will never understand what are their primary use. Simply put, they are WC downhill racing skis, with scales.

I have a pair--the're good for climbing, navigating trails destroyed by dogs and snowshoers and skiing on firm, ungroomed trails. I don't do much downhill.
They fit in tracks, but are too stiff fo follow tracks around turns. So I ended up getting a pair of track-oriented skis for the limited amount I ski in tracks up until now.