This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web. We have fun here, come on in and be a part of it.
Oh! my bad, didn't see this... This is definitely the one I have seen, the wider one. I couldn't match a 85-72-80 profile with what I remember from the skis... From what I recall, they had different graphics from the actual MEC picture too... But hey, I might be wrong, my memory is over saturated with useless stuff...
That makes way more sense. The MEC pic looks suspiciously like the previous narrower version to me actually.
If you look at the MEC site- the XCD GT is available for "pre-order"- so, I think that the photo is of the standard XCD (narrower).
The video that Satchel posted is definitely of the new GT model- the graphics and the profile/width are totally different.
The performance of the ski in that video - both the XC shuffle- and the downhill turn initiation/radius- really threw me off...It did not compute with the camber and profile of the standard XCD...
Based on the video- and the boot/binding- those are incredibly light and responsive skis- clearly designed for floating and smearing around down through steep glades...
LJ- your comparison with the Objective is an obvious one...I also asked MEC if the all the specs posted (especially weight) were accurate.
Based on what is posted on the MEC website:
OAC XCD GT UC ($419CAN)
length: 160cm
sidecut: 116-86-116mm
weight per pair: 1.05kg(2.31lbs)
core: foam
base: "unicoat" (OAC's own base tech), with permanent integrated skin
VOILE OBJECTIVE BC ($695USD)
length: 164cm
sidecut: 112-80-97mm
weight per pair: 1.90kg(4.19lbs)
core: wood + carbon-glass
base: sintered base- with waxless scale insert
And for an alternate comparison-
ASNES TIND 85 ($715CAN) ($568USD)
length: 167cm
sidecut: 118-85-103mm
weight per pair: *2.59kg(5.71lbs) (*weight of the 176cm model)
core: wood + carbon-glass
base: sintered base- with skin-lock insert
Hmmm- I am decided that this is the field I am looking at...
May even up leaving my T4s in the closet...
The durability of the Voile/Asnes construction likely is vastly superior to the foam-cored- and permanent-skinned- OAC...
But that is a HUGE price differential...The XCD GT is currently priced at a lower point than the standard, narrower XCD!(?)
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
Oh, I should have watched that video before talking...
Yep, these are the ones I had the chance to see last winter... Fatter and with whitish graphics... They are really beautiful skis...
But I don't believe they weight 1.05kg a pair... That would be freaking amazing for a freaking low price!!! Pretty sure that's for a single ski, so the pair would be 2.1kg, a bit heavier than the Objective...
My main concern is the drag on the descent...? But there is only one way to know...
/...\ Peace, Love, Telemark and Tofu /...\ "And if you like to risk your neck, we'll boom down Sutton in old Quebec..."
They ain't yer grandaddys XCD-GTs like the ones I've been skiin for over 30 years but they look like nice skis. I have two big questions, How much are they? Do they only sell them with that binding. I saw that they make skis for kids too, which is a good idea with those bindings saving you on boots.
lowangle al wrote:They ain't yer grandaddys XCD-GTs like the ones I've been skiin for over 30 years but they look like nice skis. I have two big questions, How much are they? Do they only sell them with that binding. I saw that they make skis for kids too, which is a good idea with those bindings saving you on boots.
If MEC pricing is to be believed, Looks like they are 419 CAD which equals about $327 USD. That is the price SANS bindings.
From looking at pics and watching the videos, i don't see why you can't mount whatever binding you like on there within reason. But I gotta say the footage of that dude shredding the trees in Sorels makes a pretty strong case for their integrated system.
lilcliffy wrote:
I would be mounting a NNNBC binding on this ski.
In the past, I would have been putting a 75mm binding on a downhill ski like this...
But- watching the lightness and responsiveness of that ski- I would put the NNNBC-Magnum binding on it.
Bahhhhhhh. Don't tempt me! Making me want to get the recently-discussed Fisher 78s, these, and then use my step Dad's classic XC skis (he's got a quiver of 5 or 6) for groomed track days at the XC center.
This disease is powerful. I own exactly zero skis and am already building a mental quiver.
