Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

LoveJohnny wrote:

Young Satchel wrote: OAC XCD 160 GT UC: Width - 116-86-116mm

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have contacted MEC for an explanation...

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!(?)

I like his smooth tele-turns in the snow boots and strap-on bindings. It seems to work well, it must be fairly easy to turn them.

doh! he found the rocks at 1:40! This is like fishscale ski laps, I'm guessing the skins provide better grip in deep, light snow versus scales.

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...

Hopefully I hear back from MEC or OAC regarding the weight specs on the XCD GT.

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have X-Trace binding- I bought it with my Hoks.

I like the utilitarian convenience of the universal binding- but for some reason I find they hurt my feet for any extended skiing....Not sure why...

They do work very well.

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.

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.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk