wide waxless skis

[QuentinDemo]

Seems like the 184 cm SummitCones are pretty darn close to the same dimensions as the 184 cm Voile UltraVector BCs — 133/97/119 and 133/98/116, respectively. Presuming they're similar skis in this sense, my questions to the group then seem to be:

1) am I likely too big for the 178 Objective or 174 Kom to have decent touring performance? and
2) if not, is there a considerable difference in touring efficiency (and DH performance) between all these skis?

[spopepro]

I think the objectives will ski pretty different than the other skis--not because of shape but because of construction. They are light, have a cap construction, and while the edge is full-size it doesn't cover the full length of ski. Which makes it great on the flats and ups but it is not much of a help in heavy cut up snow or ice. I think it's a great ski in a sweet spot that makes reasonable compromises in both glide and stability. I think the 178 objective will do ok, the Kom I think (think... TBH I've only been on Koms that I knew were way too short) will feel slow and inefficient. The ultravector and vagabond will be much more stable in a wide variety of downhill conditions with only a penalty in weight. That matters more to some than others.

[Nitram Tocrut]

Seems like the 184 cm SummitCones are pretty darn close to the same dimensions as the 184 cm Voile UltraVector BCs — 133/97/119 and 133/98/116, respectively. Presuming they're similar skis in this sense, my questions to the group then seem to be:

1) am I likely too big for the 178 Objective or 174 Kom to have decent touring performance? and
2) if not, is there a considerable difference in touring efficiency (and DH performance) between all these skis?

I am just about the same weigth and height as you and the 178 do feel short for me. It don’t think it affects the turning habilité but sure limits the touring part. I also have a HyperVector 184 BC and they tour better despite them being wider but they are not as easy to turn. The metal edges around the shovel probably result in a stiffer tip and I can really feel it... but they sure offer better flottation. If I had to do it again, I would probably buy a ski like the Annum, S112 or Rossignol BC100 which are most likely more appropriate for the terrain where I live and do most of my ski. I will keep the Voile for those time when I will go skiing some bigger mountains with lots of snow.

It would be great if Voile would offer a longer Objective. As for Åsnes, it seems that they won’t enter the wider WL market. I guess they prefer to concentrate on what they do best instead of entering what I think is a niche market. I own a business and I know that is not always good to answer to all the customers needs as some already offer that and it would not make sense from a business point of view... and also a personal point of view as I would not have time in the winter to enjoy this great season

[lilcliffy]

Seems like the 184 cm SummitCones are pretty darn close to the same dimensions as the 184 cm Voile UltraVector BCs — 133/97/119 and 133/98/116, respectively. Presuming they're similar skis in this sense, my questions to the group then seem to be:

Just wondering if we can confirm that these are similar skis- yes they have similar sidecut- but are they similar in rocker-camber profile and flex?

1) am I likely too big for the 178 Objective or 174 Kom to have decent touring performance? and
2) if not, is there a considerable difference in touring efficiency (and DH performance) between all these skis?

This is the reason I asked my question above ↑

[QuentinDemo]

Just wondering if we can confirm that these are similar skis- yes they have similar sidecut- but are they similar in rocker-camber profile and flex?

SummitCone lists the Vagabond's rocker/camber profile as: Rocker: 18% Camber 3mm, Tail 5%. I have no idea how to interpret this information, nor can I find similar data about the Voile, but let me know if that has any value for the comparison.

[lowangle al]

There is a thread on here by voilenerd comparing the Vagabond to theV6. It sounds to me like the Vagabond is more similar to the Ultravector.

There is a guy up here who has them and I'd be willing to switch skis with him if we can get together. Are you up for that Ian?

[lilcliffy]

There is a thread on here by voilenerd comparing the Vagabond to theV6. It sounds to me like the Vagabond is more similar to the Ultravector.

Thanks Al- I remember that now. Very helpful.

[QuentinDemo]

From the thread Al flagged:

I got the Vagabonds. Same as the Pariah but with scales and lighter wood core. The flex was leaps and bounds stiffer then my hypervectors especially the tails. I did a few runs and then took my V6/vectors out the same day. Dramatically stiffer on the Summit Cones. My boots are t2s and also got some bumble bee T1s. Some guys love stiff skis, I dont.

So, seems like the Vagabonds are significantly stiffer than the Hypervectors at least (not sure how that translates to the Ultravectors). Am I correct in assuming that generally greater stiffness correlates with better K&G performance but presents more difficulty going downhill? If that's the case, maybe the Vagabonds would be better for my purposes?

[ᚠᚨᚱ ᚾᛟᚱᚦ ᛊᚲᛁᛖᚱ]

There is a thread on here by voilenerd comparing the Vagabond to theV6. It sounds to me like the Vagabond is more similar to the Ultravector.

There is a guy up here who has them and I'd be willing to switch skis with him if we can get together. Are you up for that Ian?

I am trying to plan an outing this Saturday. I have a buddy I'm meeting up with to let him try my Fischer 88s and the Vagabonds. We went out a while back and he just had his skinny track skis. Even after I broke trail for him he had an awful time, so I'm trying to redeem backcountry skiing for him. I'm currently planning on doing this at the Symphony Lake Trailhead near Eagle River. I'll give you a call later today.

[riel]

So, seems like the Vagabonds are significantly stiffer than the Hypervectors at least (not sure how that translates to the Ultravectors). Am I correct in assuming that generally greater stiffness correlates with better K&G performance but presents more difficulty going downhill? If that's the case, maybe the Vagabonds would be better for my purposes?

Doesn't that depend on the snow?

A softer ski will bend better with soft, fluffy snow.

However, a softer ski might have the tip and tail flop around uselessly (or worse) on hardpack, while a stiffer ski may have more of a usable edge in those conditions.

Where the optimum in-between compromise point is for you will depend on both your weight, and the snow conditions you typically ski on.