Madshus Annum Sizing

[motel 1.5]

Greetings from Maine!

I'm new to the forum and just starting to get into XCD so have a few questions about sizing some Madshus Annums. For a bit of background I'm an expert alpine skier, grew up on skis and was a pretty hardcore ski bum for a number of years. I'd say I'm more of an advanced-intermediate XC skier, also grew up on nordic, but moved away from it for a long time so I'm pretty rusty.

I'm 5'8" 160lbs and vacillating between the 175cm and 185cm Annum's. I'll be skiing these primarily on mid-low-angle trips in NH and ME; mostly exploring the local woods but also linking up some longer trips when the conditions are appropriate. Ski's will be mounted with Voile 3 pin cables and driven with a pair of two buckle Andrew leather boots. I have a Dynastar Cham HM 97 AT setup, a pair of Fischer E99's and a few other beater XC skis so looking to find something to slot in between.

I'm leaning towards the 185's just because the thought of a 175cm nordic ski seems off to me, but having a shorter ski that I can throw around a bit quicker is appealing. If anyone has any direct experience skiing these in the east coast woods I'd love to hear your opinions.

[Johnny]

The 175 will be easier to control on the down... But if it's mostly for "exploring", I would go for 185, it will give you more stability and better glide...

[lilcliffy]

Welcome Motel 1.5!

I have used this ski (Annum/Guide) in all of its incarnations and have tried it in all of its lengths.
My family alone has one in every length.
For reference, I am 5'10" and 175lbs without a pack (and often do have a pack).

Back in the day, I viewed this ski as a Nordic-downhill ski tuned for fresh soft snow- and therefore, favored the 175cm.
Looking back I was never thrilled with the Guide/Annum as a downhill ski unless the conditions were ideal- gentle to moderate terrain and soft fresh snow. I have ended up with a personal preference for this ski at 195cm. Can I ski very tight steep lines with it at 195cm- no- but I get much more float, stability and XC glide- plus as long as I am on moderate terrain I can ride wonderful open turns with even the 195cm.

My point is that if you are not reaching for the Annum as a downhill ski, then I would seriously consider the longest length (185-195cm).

[motel 1.5]

Thanks for the feedback! That reinforces what I was suspecting but also makes me think that perhaps I want a different ski.

I do think that downhill performance is a pretty high priority for this setup so I’m now considering the Voile Objective BC. I’ve been doing some reading on the forum and it seems like many people are really enjoying this ski of late while I don’t hear too much about the Annum. I’m taking that as a sign!

I’m now back to where I was before with sizing I’m leaning towards the 171cm. It seems like that will make for a very agile setup and if I don’t like it I can always throw some AT bindings on it for spring ski mountaineering.

[lilcliffy]

Downhill-focused? Yes to Objective BC versus Annum- it is both wider, lighter and more stable than the Annum!
"Local woods"- so skiing trees- 5'8"? I would recommend no longer than the 171cm.

You might even consider the 164cm- especially if you want to downhill ski tight lines in the Northwoods...

[rongon]

Came across this thread today.

I love my Annums for wandering in tight woods and for making turns in powder. Although I have skied hardpacked trails of some steepness in the Annums, they are not ideal for that--better for soft snow conditions. I use them as a lightweight earn-your-turns ski with Voile Switchback bindings and Crispi CXP boots (3 buckle plastic). I'm kind of short and heavy at 5'7" 190 lbs but the 175 length seems to hold me up well enough. I'm thinking of picking up a pair in 185 length next time.

Voile Objective BC looks like a solid step up, but the Voile website states mounting them for telemark voids the warranty.

ATTENTION: These skis are intended to be used with AT bindings.
Voile Objective BC Skis mounted with telemark bindings or quiver killers are not covered under Voile factory warranty.

Is that a deal breaker? Or just ignore it and mount 'em with whatever you please?
--

[fisheater]

There are not many reports of Telemark bindings ripping out of Objectives. I think the problem is that skis have become much lighter, and there are still guys that want to mount Hammerheads on 5, with T-Race boots. Those guys rip bindings.
I haven’t heard of problems with T-4’s and T-2’s and even Switchback X2’s

[phoenix]

I'm 5'6-7", 130 lbs, and ski 164 Objective BC's. I love the ski, and I wish I'd gotten the 171's. Like yourself, an established downhill background, and also quite experienced in xc/xcd, etc. Never skied the Annum - even though my girlfriend's pair has been sitting around next to my skis for a few years... also sold and worked on Annum's and their predecessors since they appeared.
I just have the feeling the Objective is the better ski. They do seem to climb better than the Annum's, judging side by side with the GF's. Slightly stiffer flex, and definitely better torsional rigidity. Light, agile, responsive. Most of my skiing is out for a couple/few hours touring and turning, and I'm quite pleased with 'em.
I'd say definitely go 171's; the 164's ski very well but just plain feel too short. I'd also suggest mounting them a couple/few cm farther back than than the midsole recommendation... but that gets into personal style and preference.
I ski mine with 3 pins, and either Alaska 75's or Excursions. Softer boot is sweet for touring, and turns in smooth conditions, Excursions when I want or need more solid DH control.