Powder touring ski options

[treehugger]

Welcome, treehugger!

First of all- sounds like you want to XC ski- not looking for downhill performance at this point?

True. I have limited ski skills. Love touring around the local wilderness and gliding down mellow hills but the steep stuff I'll stick to a snowboard (At least for now)

Secondly- what is the "powder" like- is it cold, dry very deep snow- true "Champagne" powder? Or is it moisture-rich?

We get pretty light powder in large amounts during major storms. We get a lot of sunshine which can condense with loose surface. Conditions vary greatly depending on altitude.

Also- you mention considering the "Rossi 76"- not familiar with that ski...do you have specs or a link to a description of it?

Typo: Asnes Nosi 76 (108/76/98) Nice proportions.

Y

ou mention that Fischer's BC-Nordic skis are locally available- do they have the S-Bound 112 or 125 in stock? Is there any chance you could actually try them out?

Unfortunately can't find anything wide to demo that isn't AT, which is big here due to steep BC terrain.

I can imagine the snow being deep, dry and fluffy enough that you might need something at least as wide as 90+mm underfoot to actually float on it...

Love the idea of big wide boards but don't want to move to stiffer binding boot yet so think that limits me to FT62/S-B 98/Epouch widths? Right?

As another note- the S-Bound 98 will not offer you more float than the 88- it is the same width underfoot. At 185lbs, I much prefer the 112 for "powder" XC skiing...

Thats what I thought. Only gaining width in tips for turning? Still think 88 could be smart choice.

You can use the Alaska boot on any ski! But- there is certainly a limit to the width of ski that you can drive with a boot as soft as the Alaska!

Personally, I am very comfortable on steep terrain in boots like the Alaska- and I can certainly ride- and drive- skis like the Eon/Ingstad/E109 with that boot. And although I am sure I would love my 68mm Storetind with the Alaska- on ideal BC snow and moderate terrain- I chose to put a 75mm binding on the Storetind precisely because I can unlock its full downhill potential with a Telemark boot.

But again- if you are not looking to ski steep terrain, then the Alaska BC is perfectly fine with a wide powder ski.

What about Annum 78 (109/78/95)? Would be great if I could handle them with the Alaska/NNNBC. Was thinking they might be too much.

[lilcliffy]

Annum and Alaska- yes. I am skiing my 195cm Annum with my Alaska BC- it is an excellent deep, soft snow ski- and I can handle it and make open surfy turns with the Alaska on moderate slopes.

And BTW- I don't think that Johnny is the only one skiing the Objective with the Alaska- pretty sure that Phoenix is using the Alaska on the Objective as well.

The Objective is not only much wider- but, I would think it has a more supportive flex- the rockered tip on the Objective allows it to be stiffer than the Annum.

The Annum is still an excellent ski- and excellent value.

[paulzo]

Cliffy - yes i think you are right, rainier=rebound. And i thought my rainers are 88/68/78, though my memory could be off, and seems to be if the site you linked to is correct. Since the OP mentioned those numbers i assumed similar skis, but they of corse could be completely different flex even if same size.
But another 8mm in the waist i would not expect to make a lot of difference, not with tips and tails the same size.

[treehugger]

Annum and Alaska- yes. I am skiing my 195cm Annum with my Alaska BC- it is an excellent deep, soft snow ski- and I can handle it and make open surfy turns with the Alaska on moderate slopes.

The Annum is still an excellent ski- and excellent value.

I think the Annum is a great option based on want I'm trying to do. Appreciate all the feedback from everyone. Still need to decide if I would be better off getting the Excursion 88 first, as a all around performer powder ski. I would like both just a matter of which I should get 1st.

If any one else has any additional suggestions I will be thinking about it for a few weeks as I get some more experience.

[greatgt]

Rebounds and Ranier did have the same dimensions as far as my memory goes...88-60-78....Still from what I read they were NOT the same skis in different top sheets....However if they were....I'd get the longest made....189 for the Rebounds....There was a Salmon ski that was the Rebound with a different top sheet....Broke that ski too....As did Teleking who had one of mine and one from Telerock who had broken his as did The King a bit later!!!!! They couldn't hold up to the torque we put on them...If I were to recommend a ski it would be the e109, the old kind....have not gotten the new one yet so can't say if it's worth the money....They really cruise well in the best Nordic sense and turn, even for an oldie like me, beautifully....Grow on a ski like that and you will be on a life long trip.....TM

[phoenix]

"And BTW- I don't think that Johnny is the only one skiing the Objective with the Alaska- pretty sure that Phoenix is using the Alaska on the Objective as well."

Yup, I do.. some of the time. I have Spike 3 pins on the skis; and I have a pair of Excursions I also ski 'em with. The Alaska's are great on gentle/moderate stuff and decent snow; steeper and/or funky conditions and not so much. I go with the Excursions if I want more assurance.
I have very confident parallel skills, and survival turn skills, so I like the comfort and lightweight of the Alaska's for less committed stuff and can usually pull something off to get by. Been surprised a few times with the lack of power though. The Alaska's have good torsional rigidity to the soles, but are really very soft in the uppers, and forward flex. Doesn't help that I have a narrow foot and slop around in them some.

[treehugger]

The Alaska's are great on gentle/moderate stuff and decent snow; steeper and/or funky conditions and not so much. I go with the Excursions if I want more assurance.
I have very confident parallel skills, and survival turn skills, so I like the comfort and lightweight of the Alaska's for less committed stuff and can usually pull something off to get by. Been surprised a few times with the lack of power though. The Alaska's have good torsional rigidity to the soles, but are really very soft in the uppers, and forward flex. Doesn't help that I have a narrow foot and slop around in them some.

Thanks. This kinda confirms 2 things for me. I should be able to handle a fairly wide ski as long as I stick to mellow terrain where I can take advantage of the float without the challenges of loss of control of soft boots. Also that I would be able to handle more varied terrain with the excursion. Both good options. Leaning towards excursions as they may allow me to progress more. May come down to which I see a deal on 1st.

[phoenix]

Treehugger, I just saw a listing for Excursions on the Boulder Craigslist - $105! Lots of sizes available, I think they're new boots, a couple of year old model (standard liner, not a thermo).

[treehugger]

A year since I sought advice I know what I want but finding difficult to get it done.

Objective 117/84/102 5 lb (178). Johnny’s logic is hard to resist! But if this was just a bit narrower I would have more confidence spending $700. This might be the ultimate deep powder nnnbc ski but I think more practical for me to have a few other skis first, so gonna past up this beauty for now.

FT62 97-62-86 4lb 8oz
If these were available in US I would have to get one. This would be perfect if it was wax less.

Ingstad BC 84-62-74 4lb 9oz
When I saw these were available from REI I decided that this really the ski I should get. Not as wide as I was looking for in deep powder but think this would great for everything I want to do. Also could still get a wider powder ski later if I felt the need. Unfortunately REI doesn’t have 199 and Neptune only has wax version or I would order it and be done (for now). I guess I should consider wax version as it could possibly provide more flexibility? Need to get a better understanding as to specific conditions where wax or wax less has an advantage but from what I’ve read wax less sounds better for what I’m doing.

S-Bound 98-69-88 5 lb 6.4oz and the Epoch 99-68-84 5 lb 9oz. I’m sure I would be happy with either but feels like a compromise compared to above choices. Good chance if I see either on sale I would grab a pair.

Annum 109/78/95 5 lb.12.5 oz Mainly considering based on recommendation from lilcliffy and reasonably priced. Not sure these are even still available? Keep thinking if I’m going this wide why not get the lighter Objective. And then I feel like I’m caught in a loop.

One thing I’m sure of is if a thinner objective was available that would be it. Well, unless Asnes makes a wax less FT62 available.

[Woodserson]

The Objective is so easy to turn, so light, so shmearable, with a round smooth soft flex. With scales.

Just sayin'