Paging Phoenix with an Objective question

[paulzo]

Since I know from various posts that Phoenix has Objective BC's and seemingly pretty wide experience to go with them, I'm directing this question to him, but if anyone else has input I'd love to hear it.

Here's the scenario: Me - not a very good skier. But considerable experience with multi-day tours in the Sierra for many years. I've skied more with a pack than without, I don't get out much except for the one 7 to 9 day spring tour. Basically I'm a backpacker using skis to get around on the snow, rather than a skier out looking for stuff to ski down. The typical situation is a lot of relatively mellow touring combined with a few steeper downhills getting down off of high passes, all in spring conditions - usually really nice corn. I don't go out in the winter except to goof around on a day trip and even that is pretty rare, and in those cases I don't care what skis I'm on.
My current skis are Atomic Rainiers, and they have taken me across the Sierra, over 12,000 foot passes, and they've been pretty good. I get a little kick and glide on the flats, even with a pack if it's less than about 30 lbs; they grip pretty well on the up, and I get down the hill reasonably well. I can do easy blue runs at the resort on them if it's not icy, but only in pretty much survival mode. They are nice and light. But I've been thinking I would like a ski that is more capable on the downhills so that I can perhaps expand my horizons, as I am running out of mellow terrain that is also high country.
So I hear about these Objective BC's, and I see they are just about as light as my Rainiers, and by all accounts much more capable on the down. Closest thing I have seen yet to what I wish for, which is a Rando race ski with a patterned base (Voile WSP-BC - if only) My questions have to do with the rest of the tour; am I going to be working noticeably harder on the flats and the gentle ups with a ski that is substantially wider than my Rainiers and has basically a downhill camber? Will they track decently on the flats or be squirrelly? Essentially I am wondering whether I will be trading touring performance for downhill performance. These long tours are mostly hours of flat and uphill combined with minutes of downhill, so I have always felt that leaning toward the touring efficiency makes sense - but being able to ski more of the down because I have a more capable ski, rather than having to walk down the steeper stuff (as I am not too proud to do) might make for overall better efficiency and also save me some moments of stark terror - as well as opening up new territory for me, as I mentioned earlier.
So, thoughts?

[lowangle al]

I don't have Objectives Paul, but my thoughts are that the less skills you have the more you need a quality alpine oriented ski for the down. As far as touring, my Vectors are faster and better gliding than my other no wax xc skis, and they have the same bases as the Objectives. You will also benefit from a ski that is shorter(than the Raniers?) and rockered for herringboneing and sidestepping. They may not track as well if you are using a light boot, but I don't think you would have a problem with an Excursion or T4 type boot.

[paulzo]

Thanks Al - My boots are excursions - somewhat modified. My Rainers say 180, though they measure more like 176.
That's nice to hear about the Vectors. With those being somewhat wider that the Objectives, if you find them to be good gliders then the Objectives should be even better. May I ask what your other waxless are, just for the sake of comparison?

[phoenix]

I can't provide a comprehensive comparison between the Objectives and your Atomics, having never skied them. Nor have I skied many waxless skis, mainly some various Karhu's. I can say that the Objectives have better grip and better glide than anything I've tried, and are pretty quiet to boot. They track pretty well, no complaints there for me. They turn with ease.
To note; they are still avery lightweight ski and as such will get bullied a bit in heavy snow or chop. And I only weigh around 130lbs, so while the camber seems perfect for me, heavier folks might have a different experience. As far as will there be a trade off between these and the Atomics, well, probably... as you said, it's a single camber, and 20mm wider. That said, the pattern, and sintered bases, are excellent, which adds to the glide.
Hope this helps.

[paulzo]

Thanks, Phoenix - what length did you say you have? and If you don't mind, which Karhus have you skied?

[phoenix]

I have the164's, ans kinda wish I had the 174's... just never skied so short as 164. Karhu's, I have the OLD Kodiak's (1/2 metal edge) waxless; have also skied a couple of the XCD series circa 2009; Guides, and GT's I think. Also maybe a few spins on some old Fischer touring skis, maybe a recreational Rossi touring ski somewhere.

Like I said, never been much of a fan, but I do have some knowledge base, having been a Nordic ski tech and salesman for 20 some years, and worked at touring centers for several years (hence the occassional run on whatever was on the rack).

[paulzo]

So you are right in the Voile recommended range for the 164. I'm about 152 and almost always carrying a multi-day pack. Looks like I could go 171 or 178 according to their recommendations, and be in the range. Probably I'd lean to the shorter ski, as that has always been the way I've gone in the past.

[lowangle al]

Paul I have two versions of the Karhu xcd gt in no wax and I also have the waxable ones. When I compare either of the waxless xcds to the waxable ones I can feel the drag and it bothers me, and it takes away from my skiing pleasure.

I also have the vector in the waxable and smooth based version. The waxable are typically faster but I don't feel the drag while skiing the vector bcs like I did on the waxless xcds and I still enjoy skiing them.

I never did a side by side comparison but the one day last year my wife and I decided to take the XCDs instead of the vectors thinking they would be more efficient and there wasn't any good snow for turns anyway. We were both sorry, we didn't notice any benefits in speed and would have been happier on the vectors. I guess what I'm trying to say is, that as far as waxless skis go Voile is the sh#t. Never tried Asnes though.

[fisheater]

Paul I have two versions of the Karhu xcd gt in no wax and I also have the waxable ones. When I compare either of the waxless xcds to the waxable ones I can feel the drag and it bothers me, and it takes away from my skiing pleasure.

I also have the vector in the waxable and smooth based version. The waxable are typically faster but I don't feel the drag while skiing the vector bcs like I did on the waxless xcds and I still enjoy skiing them.

I never did a side by side comparison but the one day last year my wife and I decided to take the XCDs instead of the vectors thinking they would be more efficient and there wasn't any good snow for turns anyway. We were both sorry, we didn't notice any benefits in speed and would have been happier on the vectors. I guess what I'm trying to say is, that as far as waxless skis go Voile is the sh#t. Never tried Asnes though.

Al, I am attaching a link to a thread I started, it didn't go anywhere, but I figured out why my single camber FT 62 holds a wax pocket. I have never seen or flexed a Vector, but I wonder if it doesn't work along similar lines. Appreciate your thoughts even if they are I puffed the peace pipe too often in my youth. Cheers
https://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2277

[lilcliffy]

What kind of snow are you going to be on with the Objective?