Skis for firm-ish conditions edgeable with Madshus Xplore boots?

[lilcliffy]

http://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.p ... ac3f6d1b7b

An earlier thread with similar context↑

All of the standard Nordic "hybrid" skis are not torsionally rigid enough- IME/IMO- to truly stand up and hold an edge at speed on hard pack (examples- Fischer S-Bound; Karhu/Madshus XCD).

I cannot speak to the hardpack performance of the Asnes Falketind 62X or Rabb 68, as I have not tried them yet in that context- however, these skis are moot for you, due to a smooth wax base.
The only current Asnes ski that might fit your context is the Nansen WL.
Note that Asnes' waxless scale design is much less grippy than Fischers's and Madshus'.
..........
What about the Voile Endeavor BC; or Objective BC?
This ski isn't wide by modern AT standards- but, it might be too wide to hold on edge with the boot you are considering...
OR- perhaps the Voile SR61 BC or SR51 BC?

[satanas]

There's not much availability of Åsnes skis here in Oz, possibly because their older pattern bases didn't really grip at all. I had Skiathloms ages ago (they fell apart due to the crappy painted sidewalls), and those only rarely had any grip, and weren't IME much turnier than skating skis. (Madshus Voss were much better in terma of grip, turning, flotation, durability.)

So, the chances of trying anything Åsnes are low; most people I know are on Fischer, Madshus or Voile with pattern bases and plastic boots. Of these I'd say it's V, F & M in order of turnability.

As for the current Voile skis, the Objectives look like excellent skis but I worry they'd be too wide to edge easily with Xplore; I'd be more inclined to pair them with lightweight AT boots and bindings. The Endeavors seem to be heavily(!) reinforced to withstand tele abuse, but the geometry is the same, so no benefit there. The SR61 BC & SR51 BC weren't yet up on the Voile site last time I looked, but the SR61 BC may have potential. (The SR51 is basically a shorter version to comply with minimum length fir women in skimo races.) The SR61 is maybe narrow enough it might be edgable, but the short length means not much surface area. OTOH, the snow in the Voile video looks much more like what I'd expect here than say in Warren Miller films. I'm also a bit skeptical about what people say works on TT as it seems a lot of people in North America only ski when there's powder, not an option here, unfortunately. We do get deep snow of sorts sometimes, but it's usually porridge/cement. Sigh.

PS: I saw the earlier thread, but it degenerated pretty badly after a while.

[lilcliffy]

As for the current Voile skis, the Objectives look like excellent skis but I worry they'd be too wide to edge easily with Xplore;

Yes- that is my leaning as well.
I can easily drive a 68mm ski (eg Madshus Epoch/M68; S-Bound 98; Asnes Rabb 68) with a BC-XC touring boot (ie most of the Xplore boots)- but none of these example skis have the torsional rigidity to truly carve on hardpack/boilerplate/ice.
The Rabb 68 actually is torsionally rigid enough- it is just not tuned for hardpack- with its short effective edge; rocker and taper.

Sorry that I am not helping you much!

[Krummholz]

Taken from Dave’s Nordic Backcountry page, https://web.archive.org/web/20151002150 ... tml#SLALOM

This might be a way to go depending on the supply of used skis down there. The skis he mentions are OLD but you might find some still in good condition. Or looking for something newer, as skinny as you can find, for beginners, and maybe a women’s ski that would be softer.


CLASSIC SLALOM

Summary:
Tip Width: 85ish
Typical profile: 85/65/75
Cheapest way to get into the backcountry
More turning performance than narrower skis
Too wide to fit into tracks
Touring performance varies depending on weight and camber
The Ski: Ok, slalom skis are not really backcountry skis. But, they are arguably the cheapest way to get going, so they bear mentioning.
In the 1980s and into the early '90s, the vast majority of alpine and telemark skis were made with something close to an 85/65/75 profile. This included soft flexing beginners' skis to impossibly stiff racing skis. The sheer volume of the skis that were made combined with today's huge popularity of newer, shaped skis means that yard sales, ski swaps and want adds are littered with these skis, making it possible to find these still serviceable skis for pennies. While alpine and telemark skis have been correctly abandoning this type of ski in favor of easier turning shaped skis, the classic slalom ski profile becomes relevant and applicable once again when you place it in the continuum of backcountry skis, some of which are narrower and some of which are wider.

The trick to finding a bargain here is to know what you are looking for. While I've made this point already, I must emphasize it again: 2 skis with the same profile can ski entirely different if they have different flex patterns. For backcountry skiing with lighter boots and 3-pin bindings, you really want to limit your search to skis with a soft, round flex pattern. By this I mean you want a ski that flexes easily and whose tail flexes as easily as its tip. Specifically, you want to avoid alpine skis that were designed for intermediate or advanced skiers, or even worse yet, for racers. Back in the day, skis of this type were built with stiff, snappy tails. This design worked fine for cranking short radius parallel turns on hardpack with stiff alpine boot and locked heels. But in free heel mode, a stiff tailed ski will want to go straight down the hill like a rocket. Instead, you want to look for alpine skis that were sold as beginners' skis or tele skis that were designed back in the era of leather ski boots.

Don't rely on flexing a ski by hand when trying to determine if the ski has a round flex pattern. Instead, try this trick shown to me by ski rep years ago. Place the ski tail on the floor out in front of you base down while holding the ski tip in your left hand on your left shoulder. Now, while balancing on your left foot, place the heel of your right foot on the top sheet of the ski at the center and press down with your right foot to bend the ski into an arch. By looking down along the ski edge while flexed, you should be able to "see" the flex pattern. A stiff tail will reveal itself by a tip that is bowed more than the tail. A softer tailed ski should produce a nice round and even arch.

The Terrain: In terms of touring performance, I think these are much closer to the slightly wider AT type of ski than they are to the slightly narrower Cirque class ski. Which is to say, don't expect much touring performance out of these skis. Also, the heavier the ski, the less well it will tour. Lastly, these skis will almost universally be available in waxable versions only. So, if you want to use them for backcountry touring, you will need to use kick wax and climbing skins.

If you are willing to wax, these skis work fine for hacking around in puckerbush and thus can be seen as a low cost alternative to more expensive wide backcountry skis. Especially if skied short, these skis will provide enough flotation to make hiking around in tight New England woods possible, with the acknowledgement that wider skis will do even better.

In terms of turning performance, the limit here is only on the skiing ability of the skier. Skis with this basic shape have been skied on the toughest of mountains with success. In general, these skis will do well on hard snow and will be quick edge to edge thanks to their relatively narrow waist. On the flip side, these skis are not quick turners compared to skis with more side cut and their relatively narrow waist will cause them to ski low in deep snow, instead of floating. Newer shaped designs are better in all aspects of downhill performance.

The Skier: I think this type of ski is ideal for bargain hunters In my opinion, there is really nothing to recommend this type of ski for other than the fact that you can find them for practically nothing these days. Rescue a pair of these skis from a yard sale, slap a pair of $30 Voile pins on them and you are skiing for short money. But for downhill performance, today's modern shaped skis are simply more fun and for touring, there are better choices to be made. You just need to be willing to pay for them.

The Boots and Bindings: In terms of boots, I think you really need to ski this type of ski with a plastic Excursion class boot. Leather boots can be used, but in my opinion, their 65mm waist represents the widest one can ski on hardpack snow with any amount of control. In soft snow, leather Extreme class boots will do fine, especially if the ski has a nice soft flexing tail.

[riel]

In another thread the Åsnes Ingstad skis were said to be good in soft snow, but not so much in firmer conditions.

While it is true that the Ingstad skis work better in soft snow than they do in hard snow, they aren't a bad ski in hard snow either. The tip rocker and stiffness help make the skis predictable and relatively easy to turn in various conditions.

Having said that, I have also used my Støretind skis, a precursor to the Falketind and Rabb, with narrow short skins in spring conditions. The 30mm skins grip and glide just as well ash fishscales, and with a ski about twice as wide underfoot as those skins, they don't really seem to hurt with turns, either.

You should be able to get away with a ski like the Nansen, Ingstad, or Falketind XP with either a waxless pattern or short skins. Mohair glides really well.

[satanas]

Thanks for the suggestions.

I actually have a pair of old 185cm Atomic HV3 SL slalom skis with Riva 2 bindings out in the garage, skied ~30 years ago at the resort with T2 boots. These came from a used ski sale for $60AUD in excellent condition but with quite thin edges, perhaps from a junior racer. At a telemark event in quite icy conditions I swapped these for Fischer Telepathics (aka Telepathetics) for one run and promptly scared myself as the Fishers wouldn't hold an edge due to an almost total lack of torsional rigidity and massive sidecut. All that metal in the Atomics was there for a reason....

As for skins, they're not really practical as an alternative to pattern bases here due to our wet snow, especially in spring. Even if you hot wax the skins, sooner or later they get wet and then the glue no longer sticks to the ski. We used to carry both kicker and full length skins on spring day trips with smooth bases then dry both sets out overnight in the drying room. Skins will work once or twice, but once they've been on and off a few tines they typically refuse to re-stick. This is obviously a non-issue with pattern bases.

BTW, I'm not expecting slalom ski carving performance on ice with Xplore(!), but would like things to be both predictable and not too scary. Given skating skis can hold a edge at ,~1000g/pair surely there must be something with a pattern and a steel edge at ~double that weight that can do likewise?!? What I'd like is something thst works well in non-icy conditions (deep powder excepted), and is survivable on firmer stuff without being scary or causing sore feet; this may or may not be possible without plastic boots.

[lilcliffy]

Ok-
So- assuming Asnes is out (eg Nansen WL; Ingstad WL)-
then- ignoring the Voile SR51/61 BC skis-

Some other options- in a shortish- downhill-oriented length:
- Fischer Traverse 78 (60mm)
- Madshus Panorama M62 (62mm)
- Fischer Outback 68 (59mm)

The Fischer 78 is the stiffest of the three- but as a result is more stable in deep snow- and will hold an edge more effectively. However, would need it short enough to be able to effectively pressure it on slopes.

Most Nordic touring skis narrower than this are distance-oriented, and are very stiff and cambered underfoot (eg Fischer TN66; Madshus 55).

There is also the Fischer Spider 62...
........
I still think a Voile SR61 BC would be cool to try with Xplore...

[JB TELE]

Can skimo skis handle leather boot tele without pulling out?

[satanas]

^ I'll never know! Leather boots here eventually get soaked from without and/or from within, then they freeze solid, and the result for me often tended to be frostnip at worst or else frozen feet for an hour or so in the mornings when touring. Synthetic boots don't freeze solid!

[bbense]

FWIW, I've also tried the Madshus Annum (78mm) waist skis and disliked them quite a bit compared with Voile Vector/V6 or Fisher SB98/112; they seemed like the proverbial planks to me. FWIW, I'm light and generally prefer shorter, not longer, for maneuverability - given adequate stiffness.

Those are really two very different styles of ski. Annums are a very old school pre-rocker ski with not a lot of sidecut. V6's are a very modern rocker skis for soft conditions and the fischers also have a more modern rocker profile.

You might check out Tom M's youtube channel where he experiments with Xplore bindings on very big Voile's. IMHO, that's a waste of a ski.

I guess the real question is do you need a ski with a waxless base or are you willing to either use XC kick wax or appropriate skins? If money is no object and downhill performance is the priority, you could try some of the AT skimo racing skis. Voile makes skimo skis with a waxless base, but a lot of $$$ for this kind of setup.