Size and Ski Question

[ianjt]

Welcome and Happy New Year! Great to read another post from a new member seeking Nordic ski touring adventure!!

I am 6’ 4” and weigh 185.

You are 6 inches taller than me but we weigh the same.

I don’t want any crazy steep descents, but I’d like to tour around off trail in central Idaho. I’m interested in fun descents, but nothing like alpine touring. I plan to do maybe some groomed trails/logging roads, but mostly out the back door in powder.

When you say "groomed" trails- do you mean groomed XC track or do you mean snowmobile track?
Do you need/want a touring ski that will perform well on a groomed/consolidate surface as well as deep powder snow?
Or- are you considering different skis for these different snow conditions?

When you say "fun descents"- do you mean feeling stable and safe, or being able to downhill ski and make linked turns?

I am pretty settled on Fischer BCX 6 boots, but I will order Alpina Alaska’s in hopes that I might fit in them. I suspect that I won’t, from what I’ve read.

Both very supportive BC-XC boots.

I like NNNBC bindings, but I wonder if the 3 pin optional cable provides downhill control that would be nice. I’ve seen varying opinions on this.

I know that some disagree but my experience is that the heel cable does provide more downhill control (over plain-jane 3-pin or NNNBC) in a telemark turn as it produces heel-lift resistance. With no desire to start a big debate on this again- in my limited exoerience- if you are looking at just plain-jane 3-pin (e.g. 3-pin mountaineer/super telemark) I don't find any greater downhill control between 3-pin and NNNBC- to me in this context downhill control is more boot related (I personally prefer both the XC and downhill performance of NNNBC over plain-jane 3-pin). In the skiing context that you describe- IMO/IME- the chief advantages of 3-pin are:
1) the addition of the cable- telemark turns and the added backcountry security of the cable if you have a 3-pin boot failure.
2) the option to switch your BC-XC boot out for a Telemark boot.

I cannot decide on skis.

Get it. This can be particularly hard with your first ski. If you give us a bit more detail regarding "groomed" vs "powder"- as questioned above- we should be able to help you narrow the field!

I have been looking at: Rossignol BC 90,

I don't think you will find any generation of this ski in a long enough length for your weight and intended skiing. There are at least two very different versions of this ski-
- the older had a waspy 60mm waist, and a full double camber- terrible design IMO- I found it miserable when I tested it. Too short to offer true double-camber XC performance- too much stiffness and camber for climbing and turning.
- the more recent version of this ski is a Fischer Excursion 88, without Fischer's excellent waxless base, and Easy-Skin insert.
IMO/IME- Rossi's "Positrack" waxless bases suck.

Fischer S-Bound 98,

Haven't tested the recent Easy-Skin models. However I personally am not crazy about this ski. could be a weight issue- I much prefer the S-Bound 112.

Excursion 88,

Excellent and incredibly versatile BC-XC touring ski. I agree with Woods- in a short enough and equivalent length it turns as well as the 98. It tracks much better than the 98. In a long enough length the 88 offers decent XC performance on all snow conditions. I have a 199cm 88 that I particularly enjoy on warm spring snow. The 88 is currently the widest ski I have tested that still performs well on dense/consolidated snow. My mind tells me that at 68mm underfoot the 88 should be much better in deep snow than an "E-99-class" ski (e.g. E-99/Gamme 54/Glittertind) but my experience tells me different. I much prefer my Gamme 54 BC in all snow conditions over the 88. I am sure that if Fischer made the 88 in even longer lengths it would crush the E-99 class ski in truly deep snow (but longer than 199cm it would probably need less camber in deep snow.) The 88 is an incredibly versatile BC-XC ski (despite not fitting in a groomed track), however, it is redundant in my quiver.

and Madshus Epoch

Although almost identical in sidecut to the S-98- the Epoch (which is the last gen Karhu XCD 10th Mountain) has no tip rocker, has a single camber, and a soft, round, smooth flex. In an eqivalent length it is much easier to pressure into a turn than the S-98. IMO/IME- that soft round flex makes them miserable as a XC ski though for anyone that weighs anything- they are totally dead and useless when XC skiing on dense/consolidated snow, and they are completely unstable when XC skiing in deep soft snow and suffer from the dreaded "pool cover syndrome". I have a 195cm Epoch here that I find completely useless when XC skiing in powder. I much prefer the wider Annum- the Annum equally sucks on dense/consolidated snow, but at least it supports my weight in deep soft snow. My experience suggests that lighter skiers love the Epoch on fresh soft snow- it has been my oldest son's favourite ski for years.

I originally settled on the Epochs, but then read that they might not be appropriate for someone in my size range.

Is there any reason that you would consider the Epoch but not the Annum or S-Bound 112?

I like the S Bounds, but they do not receive good reviews in hardback/groomed situations.

The S-Bounds (98/112) are stiffer and have more camber than the equivalent Madshus XCDs (Epoch/Annum)- theoretically one would think the S-Bounds would be better when XC skiing on dense/consolidated snow, but I find them miserable- they are too short and have too much sidecut. All of these skis shine on fresh soft snow and moderate terrain. Reach for the wider Annum/S-112 if you weigh as much as we do.

The Excursions seem to lean more toward groomed trails and less downhill performance.

The Excursion is designed to be highly versatile as a BC-XC touring ski- similar idea as an E-99-class ski but a different approach-
- one compact (E-88)
- the other long and narrow (E-99)
The more compact 88 might have some advantages if you are skiing tight, steep trails...
The E-99 class ski will offer as much float and stability (if you get it long enough) and will be a much faster XC ski...

I can find very little about the Rossignols.

My experience is that in the past- the best of the Rossi BC skis are Fischers with cheap bases.
I have only handled and flexed the brand new models (BC 80/100/120).

Considering my weight, and what I am after in terms of the experience, what suggestions would you all have?

Need more infor on snow conditions; "groomed" vs "powder"; terrain and tree cover.
I am assuming that the snow is cold and dry in Idaho?

Solid information, thank you! I went ahead and ordered the Excursion 88 with the BCX 6 boots and appropriate bindings. REI has 10% if you order in sets of 3, so it saved me quite a bit of money.

Yes, Idaho's snow is cold and generally dry, especially this time of year. From what I have gathered, the 88s seem to be a good middle ground in what I am looking for. As I ski them, and learn more about the sport, I can branch out to fit more specific needs.

[MicahE]

I personnally own both the E99 and 205 Ingstad and I love them both but I’d I had one to choose I would pick the Ingstad as they float better in deep snow and also they are easier to turn for me.

I'm trying to decide between these two skis, are your versions of these skis both current generation? I gather they have changed, perhaps recently (past couple of years) and that the current ski differently than last gen.

Me: 210 lbs, first BC setup, Alpina BC-1600 boots, mixed terrain including deep snow, mixed quality of snow. My other ride is old skinny skis w/ slipper like boots that work well for trails.

Thanks

[lilcliffy]

On DEEP SOFT SNOW- the current Ingstad BC will do everything an E-99-class ski will do and MORE.

The current Ingstad BC is finely tuned for deep soft snow- and steep/hilly terrain.

The Ingstad BC- though still offering considerable XC tension underfoot- has less camber and stiffness underfoot than the E-99-class ski. Easier to pressure into turns and climb in deep soft snow. However- mush less efficient as a XC ski on consolidated snow.

The Ingstad BC has a lot of Nordic tip rocker- wonderful for downhill skiing. The Ingstad has a stiff supportive tip- so it is stable and efficient in deep snow- but it has a very short glide zone on consolidated snow.

(The last-gen Ingstad- still made as the Combat Nato- has no tip-rocker and therefore offers similar performance to an E-99-class ski- though the Combat Nato is wider and less cambered- better in deep snow- less efficient as a XC ski on consolidated snow (though more efficient than the current Ingstad BC))

The current Ingstad BC certainly does float better and turn easier than an E-99-class ski. But an E-99-class ski is still very good in deep snow and is much more efficient when XC skiing on dense snow.

One is built for BC-XCD versatility: the E-99-type ski.
The other narrowly tuned for BC-XCD skiing in deep snow and hilly terrain.

[MicahE]

On DEEP SOFT SNOW- the current Ingstad BC will do everything an E-99-class ski will do and MORE.

The current Ingstad BC is finely tuned for deep soft snow- and steep/hilly terrain.

The Ingstad BC- though still offering considerable XC tension underfoot- has less camber and stiffness underfoot than the E-99-class ski. Easier to pressure into turns and climb in deep soft snow. However- mush less efficient as a XC ski on consolidated snow.

The Ingstad BC has a lot of Nordic tip rocker- wonderful for downhill skiing. The Ingstad has a stiff supportive tip- so it is stable and efficient in deep snow- but it has a very short glide zone on consolidated snow.

(The last-gen Ingstad- still made as the Combat Nato- has no tip-rocker and therefore offers similar performance to an E-99-class ski- though the Combat Nato is wider and less cambered- better in deep snow- less efficient as a XC ski on consolidated snow (though more efficient than the current Ingstad BC))

The current Ingstad BC certainly does float better and turn easier than an E-99-class ski. But an E-99-class ski is still very good in deep snow and is much more efficient when XC skiing on dense snow.

One is built for BC-XCD versatility: the E-99-type ski.
The other narrowly tuned for BC-XCD skiing in deep snow and hilly terrain.

Thank you, that makes sense.

[satsuma]

Micah E.--I was out shoveling 2-3 inches off my sidewalks in Walla Walla this morning . I might check out the golf course later. If not, later this week looks promising.

[MicahE]

Micah E.--I was out shoveling 2-3 inches off my sidewalks in Walla Walla this morning . I might check out the golf course later. If not, later this week looks promising.

Yes, we got a couple of inches as well in Pendleton. Last night I went skiing on the levy and through the ungraveled streets back to my house. Wasn't quite enough, had to apologize to my skis for doing that to them...hehe. The forecast for the week/weekend doesn't look good here in town, probably will all melt away or just turn to icy slop. We went to Andies Prairie last weekend and it was the most snow I've seen in a long time. Was too deep to walk through without snowshoes and our friends, who skied at Horseshoe, found it too deep for their gear as well. They said the snow was knee deep between their legs while skiing!

I've got a set of 199 Excursion 88's and magnum bindings waiting for me in Hood River. We're passing through there on the way to a funeral this weekend. I'll buy them when we pass through, they'll mount the bindings over the weekend, and we'll pick them up on our way back. It'll be a bright point in an otherwise sad weekend.

Really looking forward to being better set up for powder, et al, even if these skis are a compromise and not stellar at any one thing.