- Posts: 95
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:09 pm
- Location: Lower Ice Coast
- Ski style: Wanderer - XCD, telemark - Never have alpined...
- Favorite Skis: Fischer Rebound, Madshus Annum, Voile Vector BC, Dynastar Legend 3800, Dynastar Cham 97 HM
- Favorite boots: Asolo Extreme, Crispi CXP
- Occupation: I work to live
First, background info:
I'm in 3-buckle Crispi CXP boots. Due to fit issues I won't be changing out of those anytime soon.
My preferred bindings are Axl or Switchback X2.
I'm on the Ice Coast. I'm looking for my 'Big Trip Out West/Slides/Tucks' ski. For steep stuff.
I would prefer lighter weight, but I've found my smooth-based 170cm Voile Vectors to be too light (I'm kinda heavy for my height, so they're not a stable enough platform in rough conditions).
I hate twin tip-style skis. The mushy tail just does not work for me. I often need to scrub off speed quickly to avoid obstacles, so I like having enough of a tail to do hard stops, rooster tail moves. The Vector feels good for that.
I have a pair of Dynastar Cham 97 HM in 172 length. I like them just fine except for their very short turning radius (14m). I'm hoping for something similar but with less extreme sidecut, tip/tail taper.
I'd rate myself an advancing high-intermediate skier. I ski steep stuff for fun, and I love to tour for turns. I have my lightweight stuff dialed pretty well (I love my Madshus Annum+Switchback, and also have Vector BC+Swithback X2).
Given the above, which of the following would be good choices for a 'big' backcountry telemark ski? Any of these not good? Why?
- Rossignol Soul 7 HD
- Elan Ripstick 96
- Elan Ripstick 106
- Dynastar Legend X96 (in a longer length than I have now, maybe 177cm)
- Dynastar Legend X106 (wider = straighter?)
- Head Kore 93
- Volkl Mantra
Are any of these too much ski for Crispi CXP/Switchback X2 for variable backcountry conditions?
At 5'7" (170cm) height and 190 lbs, I've been skiing these last few years on ~170 to 175cm length skis. Do you think I'd be better off on ~180cm length skis?
Should I be looking at skis with ~85mm waist instead? (That would certainly be cheaper!)
Thanks in advance.
PS - I have (and love) XCD stuff too--leather boots, pins and Fischer Rebounds. But that's a completely different thing...
1) The Crispi's, in and of themselves, should be able to handle any of the skis you mentioned... it's more about whether they're compatible with you style and skills. Given your self assessment, the boots are most likely appropriate. As an example, I've found my (2 buckle, too roomy for my skinny feet) Excursions comfortably navigate my 88 waisted K2 Waybacks).
2) As far as the skis, and where and how you ski... I've read nothing bot glowing feedback own the Elan's,and I believe a 96 waist should be plenty. The Mantra's are heavy and damp; I'm certain they would blow thru anything, and hold an edge on anything, if sheer power is appealing to you. I'd think the Cham's would be in the same category. Can't say anything about the Rossi's, though historically they tend to be damp and smooth; probably more forgiving than the Mantra's.
3) All the above said, it again comes back to your preference/ ability/techniqe. The Crispi's I've tried on (years ago) had delightful (to me) flex, reminiscent of leathers. Loved the flex, they just didn't fit my feet. This flex would be more suited to a "riding", rather than "driving", style. My impression is that may be more familiar to you, given your self description. A bigger, stiffer boot would only help your skiing if you are advanced in your skills, or adept with parallel technique.
4) Back to the skis... personally, I've found I can ski anything, well, with an 88 waisted ski, so far... Wasatch or New England, whatever conditions... though a bit wider might be nice for deep and light days. I have skied the "test piece" runs at Snowbird and Alta with 88 or less, and Tuck's with maybe a 78 waisted ski... super wide may not always be a plus for technical stuff, IMHO.
5) Keep in mind that when I post late in the evening I've had time to.. ummm.. unwind a bit, so apologies for any glaring inconsistencies or nonsensical statements in the response.
6)Maybe those with more first hand experience will chime in. Better something than nothing.
Most of their use has been going up and down trails, fire roads, and wider draws where their nimbleness really shines. I haven’t had a lot of opportunity for deeper powder this year but the couple of times I found it I had fun. When I kickwax underfoot loosening off the buckles on my boots makes for an effective enough kick n’ glide when I’m going uphill/short sections of flats. Not much glide with the skins, thankfully I’ve been able to avoid using them when I’ve got the wax right. I’ve resort skied them a few time and find them incredibly responsive in less than ideal conditions.
For reference I have the 180’s- I’m 6’ tall, 185 pounds, and consider myself an intermediate skier.
- Posts: 466
- Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:53 am
- Ski style: Very stylish
- Favorite Skis: All of them; old, new...
- Favorite boots: T2X & T4 for off piste; BD Axis for groomers; Merrell for XCD
But anyway, let's try to answer your questions...
Well, not that easy. The one that seems pretty obvious and strait forward: do the 3B Crispi/SwX2 combo fit the bill for the skis listed? Definitely...
For the rest... Hum. It all depends. The way you think about all this leads you to realize that a ski is never a perfection for all conditions. It is always a matter of compromise.
If you plan on doing a lot of touring, go light! Your Voile is probably a pretty good choice/compromise... And it is already in your quiver. I would reconsider the boot though... The CXP is heavy. I think you should go that way; there is a light boot out there for you, with a great fit, I am pretty sure... Even a 2 buckle one could do (T4 for exemple). The new thermo liners makes them easy to fit properly.
célèbre et ancien chant celtique