What is the ultimate compromise ski?

[phoenix]

Merrell (Karhu) XCD-GT's have been my standard for around 20 years now, skied with 3 pins and leather boots. I now have the Scott Excursions, but haven't tried them on the XCD's yet.
Yesterday was my first day out this winter, and I had my first day on both my Objective's (waxless), and the Scott's. The set up worked beautifully. Snow was about a foot of fresh snow over the last few days, pretty much no base though.

As mentioned, with seasoned skills those Merrell's will go a lot of places you might think they won't. And they kick and glide nicely.

The Objectives turned with a mere thought, are delightfully light, and from this brief try, seemed to be pretty trail friendly. Haven't tried these with my leathers yet, but looking forward to that soon.

Anyway, these two skis represent, more or less, two very versatile 3 pin options. Up to the individual which suits their needs and preferences. I know there are other skis, as others have named, in these categories; these two are what I know and use (currently - been at this for 35 or so years).

My home turf is in the Adirondacks and Green mountains. Those XCD's have skied everything from rolling trails to the higher elevations to frozen lakes and streambeds, in a lot of different conditions.

Just my two cents.

[fisheater]

Where I live and for my goals, I have to say that Voile Vector BC with 3-pins is the ultimate compromise for touring and turning. I suspect I may choose the Objectives if I had experience skiing them. On thing that'a nice is that they can work on groomers reasonably well. They also work well on hardpack, deep powder, crud, etc. I also really like how these skis climb. I know, they are heavy and are only for shuffling, etc but I don't really see those as negative issues for where and how I ski.

IF I skied in flatter, more mellow terrain, I think the Fischer 88s would be the ticket.

Connyro, if I lived where you live I would be skiing a Vector as well (at least I think that). I think if I skied up your way, my next trip up I would mount my heavy Atomic Powder Cruise skis (130-104-114)

For my terrain I think the new rockered Ingstad is the ticket. For me I would prefer a wax ski, but I need to learn how to use klister. That being said, I agree, you can't go wrong with a Fischer 88.

[D'hostie]

This list reads an awful lot like the lion's share of a former valued member's quiver. Well, at least you're better than RC at sockpuppetry: it took 19 posts to figure out who you are while Ron takes only a post or two. Why not just come back and post under your original name? IMO, we'd all be richer for it.

Well let's assume I am who you think I am in which case assume the old account does not work anymore. And whoever I am or am not, in terms of internet conversation, is that even really relevant? Aren't you hiding behind some kind of avatar? Do I really know who you are? Does it matter you know the details of my personal life relevant to ski equipment? Seems that causes more harm than good...

[connyro]

This list reads an awful lot like the lion's share of a former valued member's quiver. Well, at least you're better than RC at sockpuppetry: it took 19 posts to figure out who you are while Ron takes only a post or two. Why not just come back and post under your original name? IMO, we'd all be richer for it.

Well let's assume I am who you think I am in which case assume the old account does not work anymore. And whoever I am or am not, in terms of internet conversation, is that even really relevant? Aren't you hiding behind some kind of avatar? Do I really know who you are? Does it matter you know the details of my personal life relevant to ski equipment? Seems that causes more harm than good...

okey-dokey.

[Verskis]

I have an initial question- that Merrell XCD GT- which era of the Karhu XCD GT is it? Domensions? Camber? Just based on your description of its unwillingness to respond to you pressuring it- it sure sounds like a double-cambered ski...

I don't know the era, pretty early I suppose. The dimensions are 62-54-59, and the camber is pretty high but not super stiff, except for the last few millimeters. So I guess they are double camber. I have them "too short" for me, I am 181cm and about 80kg, and I have 180cm skis.

Next- sounds like the KAR is very similar to the Hok- the Hok is a powder ski- the Hok is a dream XCD ski in deep soft snow- virtually useless otherwise.

Yes, that is true for KAR as well. I don't like them on the hardpack, but even a little soft snow does wonders for them. Yesterday we got maybe 3-4cm of fresh snow and the KAR was like night and day compared to previous day. It tracked better, turned better and even the glide was much better. Now I could enjoy some lower angled hills as well. They were manageable with the leather boots, but I think downhilling would have still been easier with the plastic boots.

First assumption- you want something short enough that it is maneuverable in dense forest and steep slopes? 160-180cm?

That's true, I'd like to have them short enough to be manouverable in dense forest. I even enjoy climbing up tight and rocky sketchy steep hills with the KARs because they are so nimble. But in the other hand, I'd like to have the same skis perform when skiing narrow hardpacked hiking trails or skiing through untouched snow, so the length really needs to be a compromise. 160-180cm is the range that I have thought as well.

Second assumption- you want enough camber-tension and XC tracking to be reasonable XC skiing? (Obviously giving up some XC performance due to the need for a short length).

Yes, I would like to enjoy the ski when XC skiing on the hiking trails, so some XC performance is needed. But I am willing to trade quite a lot of XC performance for easy turning. Again, compromise between the two, but maybe slightly biased towards the turning, because with my beginner skills I need all the help I can get with that.

Third assumption- you don't want a waxable base? Prefer a skin instead of waxless scales? Snow often too icy and refrozen for scales? Would you consider a kicker skin instead of an permanent skin? Asnes' and Fischer's integrated skins are amazing- BUT, you do need to take them off on the downhill.

This is your only assumption that is not really true. I really don't have much preference yet regarding the grip system (wax, scales or skins), but there are some facts and requirements that need to be considered:
-Our weather and snow is really unpredictable these days. I can not generalize that the snow is most often dry, wet or frozen, because it can be anything on a given day
-I would prefer minimal hassle to get out the door as quickly as possible when I have spare time to go skiing
-I don't want to adjust anything to go uphill , flatland or downhill, our hills are too small for that
-I will not use klister, ever
-I would prefer to have the best compromise between glide and grip

I know some of the above requirements are contradictory. In my opinion permanent skin inserts accomplish most of the points, but my experience with the KAR suggests that the glide is not so good in all snow conditions. Maybe smaller skin insert a la OAC XCD could perform better.
Fishscales interest me, but I don't have any experience with them. I have read they work really good in moist snow, but not so good in dry snow, and not at all on ice. I think the ice problem could be solved by using kicker skins (like Intelligrip in any ski, or Åsnes or Fischer skins on respective skis). But how is the glide of fishscales? And how do they grip on hard packed snow?
Waxable skis could also be good, if I kept some cold wax on them all the time, and using Intelligrips or other kicker skins when the conditions are icy or wet.

Fourth assumption- you need a ski that is soft enough to pressure and flex it with as little as half your weight. The downhill-focused solution to this is, of course, a single camber (like the KAR), but this does not solve your XC desire.

Mostly true, but like I said above, I am willing to trade XC performance for easier handling, so I would rule all the double cambers out. I think I would prefer single camber or camber-and-a-half despite the lower XC efficiency.

1) A short BC double-cambered ski like the E99/Gamme 54/Glittertind. If this ski is short enough there will not be a an effective wax pocket, and you will be able to effectively squash it and pressure it with only half your weight- while still offering some XC kick and glide pop. The draw back is still that this ski will still be super stiff underfoot and will not have a nice round reverse flex for turns...The other potential problem with these skis is that the stiffness underfoot renders waxless scales virtually useless in difficult snow- IMO. For example- it is much easier to engage the scales of the softer E-109 Crown, than it is the stiffer E-99 Crown. Fischer needs to add the Easy-Skin to the E99/E109 Crown...

I am not interested to go this route, because my Merrells fill this niche already, and I am looking for something that is easier to turn.

2) A camber-and-a-half ski. Examples that I own include: Ingstad(Combat Nato)/Eon/E-109. Of these three the Ingstad/Combat Nato is my personal favourite- but I am using this ski with a more of a distance-focus than your context- mine are 210cm. They still have a wonderful downhill flex, with a very wide turn radius- and at 210cm, with their full-length stability, they are deep snow XC machines. No waxless option with the Ingstad- just the integrated skin. The Eon is much softer over all than the Ingstad and E-109- the Eon has a wonderfully soft, round flex, with soft, open tips- and although it is very soft- there is still some tension underfoot for XC skiing. The Eon can be had with a waxable base or the Omintrack waxless base (the Omintrack scale designe works great on warm wet snow- ONLY). The E-109 is really the highest performing XCD ski of these three- with more XC stiffness and tension underfoot than the Eon, and wonderful rockered tips for downhill turns. The E-109 can be had with the Offtrack Crown waxless base (E-109 Crown), or the waxable base with integrated skin (E-109 Tour Easy-Skin). Both the Eon and the E-109 suck in truly deep snow when XC skiing- the combination of the sidecut and very soft tips make them completely unstable in truly deep snow. To me- the Ingstad/Combat Nato is the best overall (XC and D) of these 3- but it is only available with a waxable base with integrated skin.

The Eon intrigues me. I wonder if it would offer what I'm after in 175cm length? I haven't thought much about the E109, I have an impression that it is too XC focused for me?

Other skis that I have skied on earlier version of that deserve consideration:

Fischer Traverse 78: reports suggest that is stiffer and more cambered than the previous S-Bound 78? Used to be a camber-and-a-half ski.

Fischer Excursion 88: have skiied the previous S-Bound 88 MANY times- the flex of the E-88 in the shop appears to be the same- single-cambered (but it is stiffer than the Eon). Based on its camber and sidecut- the E-88 seems fairly narrowly tuned towards soft fresh snow...Don't know what the E-88 is like on dense snow...Many of the skiers on this site have the E-88- would be worth asking them!

The potential advantage of the T-78 & E-88 is that you have both the waxless scales and the integrated skin system.

Excursion 88 is pretty high on my list as well!

You mentioned before that you would be able to test the OAC XCD? Do it- it might be the ultimate quiver-of-one compromise ski for your context.

I need to do this! Wish I could test all the skis that have been mentioned...

The XCD GT appears too wide and soft to offer much on dense/hard snow- it seems very narrowly tuned toward deep soft snow...

Skiing yesterday with my KAR on 3cm fresh snow over hardpack made me believe again in fatter skis, so I am not ready to single the XCD GT out quite yet


Thanks lilcliffy for your very detailed answers!

Maybe the top choices would be Eon (waxable or waxless) 175cm, Excursion 88 179cm or maybe OAC XCD160. Still, I'm a bit fascinated to bump up to Epoch or S Bound 98...

[lilcliffy]

Where I live and for my goals, I have to say that Voile Vector BC with 3-pins is the ultimate compromise for touring and turning. I suspect I may choose the Objectives if I had experience skiing them.

Hey Connyro- great to hear from you!

If you did not have your abundance of deep cold powder snow, would the Vector BC still be it?

I have been seriously considering the Vector BC for a long time, (ended up buying the Kom instead- couldn't resist the price!)

The Vector BC (and- probably safe to assume the UltraVector BC- Voile knows what they are doing) truly is an amazing backcountry ski. And I agree with you- my limited skiing on it suggests enough camber and effective edge hold- plus width, rockered tip and round flex- that it performs as a downhill ski in a truly amazing range of snow conditions!

AND- as you mentioned- the Vector BC is the most outstanding waxless-scaled traction machine I have ever experienced or seen- it outclimbs every waxless-scaled ski I have ever seen.

You mention the Objective...Is a major focus of my deliberation as well...The Objective- IMO- renders the mid-fat Nordic skis obsolete (e.g. Guide/Anum, S-112, BC 110, S-98, Epoch)- lighter than all of them- wider- fully-rockered tip, effective edge underfoot- yes, it is almost 3 times the price of the Annum...

BUT- for me- I would still think I might want a Telemark binding on the Objective....for snow and terrain conditions that are too difficult for XC "shoes"...

In which case- if I want the power and flexibility of a Telemark binding- why not move up to the next level of the Vector? That is where I always end up...

Also- would you want the Objective if it only comes in lengths of 178cm?

[lilcliffy]

Merrell (Karhu) XCD-GT's have been my standard for around 20 years now, skied with 3 pins and leather boots.

Hey phoenix- great to hear from you too!
What dimensions are your XCD GTs?

My home turf is in the Adirondacks and Green mountains.

Spectacular country, forest and terrain! I was in the Adirondacks for a meeting at the Ranger School in August- hadn't been in a VERY long time! I live in southern QC until I was 10- my parents used to make one multi-day XC skiing trip in the winter- used to alternate between the Adirondacks and the Greens- my mind is full of memories of my sister and I flying down steep woods trails- with my parents far behind hoping we were still alive! My sister- once she reached mach speed- used to sit on the back of her skis and then flop over on to her side if she needed to stop! We were definitely skiing that terrain with XC skis! I learned how to step and jump turn- VERY quickly!

Good to hear that the ski season has arrived for you. I thought it FINALLY arrived couple of weeks ago- turned out to be an evil tease...

You are west of this extreme North-South jet stream that is set up...The long-range ski forecast looks very good for you...not so much for me...

[lilcliffy]

I don't know the era, pretty early I suppose. The dimensions are 62-54-59, and the camber is pretty high but not super stiff, except for the last few millimeters. So I guess they are double camber. I have them "too short" for me, I am 181cm and about 80kg, and I have 180cm skis.

That is a double-camber ski. I need A LOT of space to pull off a true telemark on a double-camber ski. I use step, jump and alpine turns if I need to ski a tight line with them.

My double-camber skis are all over 200cm long...

I have never tried it- but I think I would need to ski like a 160cm double-camber ski to be able to consistently make linked short radius turns on backcountry snow...

Yes, that is true for KAR as well. I don't like them on the hardpack, but even a little soft snow does wonders for them. Yesterday we got maybe 3-4cm of fresh snow and the KAR was like night and day compared to previous day. It tracked better, turned better and even the glide was much better.

Have you read this excellent review of the KAR vs. Hok?
https://korpijaakko.com/2013/02/18/oac- ... omparison/

Now I could enjoy some lower angled hills as well. They were manageable with the leather boots, but I think downhilling would have still been easier with the plastic boots.

I am using my Hoks exclusively with leather boots- and only when the snow is right- I use a "tiak" single pole when downhill skiing with it- so I am never really making carved turns with the Hok- striding, smearing, surfing...

I actually would like to try the Hok with a 3-pin cable binding- and put my Telemark boots on it...BUT- I like to be able to switch between it and other touring skis- without changing my boots...

That's true, I'd like to have them short enough to be manouverable in dense forest. I even enjoy climbing up tight and rocky sketchy steep hills with the KARs because they are so nimble. But in the other hand, I'd like to have the same skis perform when skiing narrow hardpacked hiking trails or skiing through untouched snow, so the length really needs to be a compromise. 160-180cm is the range that I have thought as well.

I talked to Nils Larsen (Altai Skis) quite a bit when trying to decide on the Kom- he prefers the 162cm Kom for skiing tight lines in the woods. He told me that he really only appreciates the 174cm Kom above tree line- open skiing...

The 160cm length of OAC's XCDs initially turned me off- but 160cm really does make sense for a backcountry ski made for the boreal forest!

Yes, I would like to enjoy the ski when XC skiing on the hiking trails, so some XC performance is needed. But I am willing to trade quite a lot of XC performance for easy turning. Again, compromise between the two, but maybe slightly biased towards the turning, because with my beginner skills I need all the help I can get with that.

Totally understand this- and whether it is "beginner" skills or not- MANY Nordic skiers-myself included- want setups that deliberately compromise XC performance for downhill turning- xcD.

Even my distance-oriented XCd skis do in fact compromise some XC performance for downhill turns- otherwise I would forked out some cash for 270cm deep snow XC skis a long time ago!

xcD in the boreal forest means short with enough downhill flex to easily turn them- tip rocker and sidecut also help!

-Our weather and snow is really unpredictable these days. I can not generalize that the snow is most often dry, wet or frozen, because it can be anything on a given day

Can relate- this is increasingly the case here too- damn that "Chinese Hoax"!

-I would prefer minimal hassle to get out the door as quickly as possible when I have spare time to go skiing

Can relate to this as well. Grip waxing has developed a intensive high maintenance reputation- ENTIRELY DUE TO HIGH-PERFORMANCE TRACK SKIING!!! Grip waxing for touring and backcountry skiiing is alot more straight forward- pretty easy to get quick at- and A LOT of fun! The basic premise is the magic secret that grip wax acually glides as well as grips- so as long as you have enough grip- grip wax will glide better than any skin or scales- and if the smow is sticking to the wax, scrape it off and cork in a harder wax.

-I don't want to adjust anything to go uphill , flatland or downhill, our hills are too small for that

Well removable skins orf any kind (included Asnes/Fischer integrated skins) need to be removed when making downhill turns I'm afraid- so you may not like them. BUT- because I use kick wax- I only use the kicker skins when I need that EXTRA traction- so, they are off most of the time!

Permanent skins obvious only need some regular waxing maintenance- but they are always on.

Scales fit this bill- but depending in the ski- and the snow- and the degree of steepness- scales can be very limited. When it comes to scales in the BC- IMO- the wider, lower camber, and softer flex the better. Stiff cambereed skis with scales have VERY limited traction. The width, camber, flex and layout of the scales on a ski like the Vector BC take waxless scales to their very impressive limit of traction IMO.

I know some seem to think that scales plus kicker skins don't make sense- BUT I think they do- especially for the kind of highly variable snow you are describing. The E-109 Crown would rock with the addition of the Easy-Skin attachment... (HINT-Fischer!)

-I will not use klister, ever

I must personally admit that klister is magic on refrozen snow...I have forced myself off the track with it- gotten over it- love it...

-I would prefer to have the best compromise between glide and grip

YEAH!

In my opinion permanent skin inserts accomplish most of the points, but my experience with the KAR suggests that the glide is not so good in all snow conditions.

Can't speak for the KAR- but the above comparison tests suggests it has more camber and is mounted at balance point- I would make a strong bet it has much better glide than the Hok. Regardless- the KAR is short, fat and has a huge wide skin on the base- clearly intended to sacrifice glide for grip...

Maybe smaller skin insert a la OAC XCD could perform better.

I am thinking you are right when it comes to kick and glide- both the skin and the camber on the XCD likely give better K&G performance than the KAR.

But how is the glide of fishscales? And how do they grip on hard packed snow?

This depends on SOOO much. Different skiers will say they love scales- others will hate them- others (like me) use them when the snow perfectly fits them. Whether scales work effectively utterly depends on the complex of snow and the specific ski on foot. Hard-packed snow that allows the scales to bite is fine- but icy, frozen hard-packed snow- don't think so- klister or skin.

Waxable skis could also be good, if I kept some cold wax on them all the time, and using Intelligrips or other kicker skins when the conditions are icy or wet.

This is an excellent setup- and it has become my primary XCD setup with my Asnes skin-locks. BUT- again, I do take them off on the downhill.

Mostly true, but like I said above, I am willing to trade XC performance for easier handling, so I would rule all the double cambers out. I think I would prefer single camber or camber-and-a-half despite the lower XC efficiency.

This is good sense- despite what the puritans say- (BTW- truly double-cambered skis are more "modern" than you think- (share an origin with effective kick wax and performance XC) I doubt VERY much that Sondre's Fjellskis were double-cambered...

I am not interested to go this route, because my Merrells fill this niche already, and I am looking for something that is easier to turn.

Yeah- I suspect it is your primary challenge on the downhill with the Merrels...

The Eon intrigues me. I wonder if it would offer what I'm after in 175cm length? I haven't thought much about the E109, I have an impression that it is too XC focused for me?

The E109 in a short enough length would be ideal. I like it better than the Eon- better XC ski- and just as easy to turn with those rockered tips! I always find the Eon wanting as a XC ski- but I weigh 185lbs without a pack- and I push my skis hard. The Eon finds the XCD balance with its very soft flex- the E109 finds its balance with more tension (but easily squashable tension) underfoot, and open rockered tips. (The descriptions over in the review board of the new rocker-tipped Ingstad are more like the E109 than the Eon). If you weigh anything, the Eon feels dead as a XC on dense snow.

Excursion 88 is pretty high on my list as well!

again- actual owners of this ski can speak to it better than I- but it strikes me as pretty narrowly soft snow focused in its flex...

I need to do this! Wish I could test all the skis that have been mentioned...

Yeah- I know man- I know.

Skiing yesterday with my KAR on 3cm fresh snow over hardpack made me believe again in fatter skis, so I am not ready to single the XCD GT out quite yet

I don't know man- the video I watched shows a fat VERY soft powder ski- the skier is shuffling along a trail with flippers on his feet- once he is out on the fresh soft snow- that ski came alive!

Thanks lilcliffy for your very detailed answers!

You are most welcome- thanks for the great ski conversation- good material!

Maybe the top choices would be Eon (waxable or waxless) 175cm

You weigh 80kg? I think you would prefer the E109 or Ingstad- especially in a short length. A 175cm Eon is going to feel completely dead on the flats at your weight, I would predict.

Still, I'm a bit fascinated to bump up to Epoch or S Bound 98...

Need to make your own call on this class of ski- I personally find them underwhelming- prefer the Annum/S-112 for soft snow- and the Eon/E109 for more XCD balance, and variable snow/terrain.

The current Traverse 78 may be really, really close to the E109 in a similar length...

[connyro]

Where I live and for my goals, I have to say that Voile Vector BC with 3-pins is the ultimate compromise for touring and turning. I suspect I may choose the Objectives if I had experience skiing them.

Hey Connyro- great to hear from you!

If you did not have your abundance of deep cold powder snow, would the Vector BC still be it?

No. I would be more into something much narrower like the F 88's, Eons, etc. In recent years, I've been hitting the skinny skis as much as possible. They are super fun for open areas and mellower tours. But each time I get out into the deep snow/deep woods on skinnies, I wish I had used the Vectors. Long lengths are great for floatation (210 Asnes USGIs), but our woods are extremely tight and rugged, so short and fat (180) are MUCH more maneuverable, especially with the aggressive scales that make climbing actually fun and open up even more terrain that on skinny skis, I would not think twice about skipping. The Guides are cool, but IMO don't compare to the Vectors for climbing and floatation. I still maintain that the Vectors tour better than the Guides too.

I have been seriously considering the Vector BC for a long time, (ended up buying the Kom instead- couldn't resist the price!)

I don't blame you! Koms are great skis that fill the same niche as the Vectors. For me, I don't prefer lengths that short and the Koms don't have that almost magic tip rise that the Vectors have. Koms climb, tour, and turn very well considering what kind of ski they are.

You mention the Objective...Is a major focus of my deliberation as well...The Objective- IMO- renders the mid-fat Nordic skis obsolete (e.g. Guide/Anum, S-112, BC 110, S-98, Epoch)- lighter than all of them- wider- fully-rockered tip, effective edge underfoot- yes, it is almost 3 times the price of the Annum...

Also- would you want the Objective if it only comes in lengths of 178cm?

Agreed 100%. My Guides are still in good shape so I can't justify the Objectives at this point. I think that they would replace both the Guides and Vectors in my quiver- if they came in lengths longer than 178 (I would want them in 190).

[phoenix]

lilcliffy, I just caught a snippet of the l-o-n-g post above, regarding the Merrell XCG-GT's. They are the absolute same ski as the "previous" Karhu's, just a cosmetic change to Merrell. There was a period of a couple of years (around 1998 or so) when Karhu, Merrell, and Trak names were pretty much interchangeable: the changes were in ownership issues, not product change. Corporate identity crisis.
The XCD's are what Karhu called a "camber and a half". They were/are a traditional ski, and not made to be skied short; I'm all of 130 lbs, 5'7", and ski a 190 very comfortably. That's coming down from 200's I had for the first few years on that model.