XCD skis on hardpack at the resort

[Lhartley]

Edit replied to wrong thread

[mca80]

Oh, I meant the backcountry forum, surprisingly I have found that 3rd forum cordial for the most part, although I posted sparingly and haven't in some time. I just don't get enough DH to warrant any forum besides this where xcd is acceptable and not shunned. Just the terrain outside my door and not wanting to travel except by ski, bicycle or foot.

[aclyon]

Met up with my ski buddy at Kirkwood, near South Lake Tahoe yesterday, for a grand experiment: could we slash and dash the groomers with XCD skis and soft boots?
Long story short: hell yes we could!

Did you bring alpine gear with you in case it was a bust? Ive been wanting to try this but Im too vain to visit the bunny hill, I applaud you!

I had been skiing alpine for most of the day and met up with my friend around 1 to switch gear. I mean my trunk is always full of gear, so yeah I could've switched. The bunny hill is very useful for practicing tele-turns-- the steeper stuff almost forces me to use parallel turns. Though I have to say p-turns on this light of gear are a whole new kind of fun!

[aclyon]

Okay, went to Heavenly today and dropped about 10k downhill on the same setup! There was some dust on crust today, and generally soft conditions, which made for a good time. I'm fully comfortable carving groomers and even taking small bumps now. i tried going in the woods a bit, also fun. i found some low angled woods and powder stash on the galaxy side, where i could plant quite beautiful tele turns. i tried some "real" bumps, i was able to finagle my way through them, but any time i tried to do real jump turns the skis would slide out underneath me during absorption. just gotta git gooder i guess!
it's amazing what an s-bound 112 is capable of. @mca80 i will definitely try the red bumper. what makes the nansen a good DH ski? it doesn't seem to have any kind of pronounced sidecut, is it very rigid with a soft camber?

looking forward to exploring all this further. and seeing how it informs my plastic skiing. so much fun. just try things, you never know what can happen...

[mca80]

Yes, stiff with round soft flex.

[timpete]

I have skied Falketind, red flexors, NNNBC, at resort downhill also. I’ve had what sounds to be the same shit eating grin having a great time as you are.

What I find is they’re a lot of fun for warm sugary groomers or light powder. Two different difficult days I had is icy groomers (so much chatter at speed!) and manky chopped up heavy powder (but that’s more the light boot and binding , and my skill, than the ski, I think).

[Oldbie]

I have skied Falketind, red flexors, NNNBC, at resort downhill also. I’ve had what sounds to be the same shit eating grin having a great time as you are.

What I find is they’re a lot of fun for warm sugary groomers or light powder. Two different difficult days I had is icy groomers (so much chatter at speed!) and manky chopped up heavy powder (but that’s more the light boot and binding , and my skill, than the ski, I think).

I've been humbled by Midwestern icy conditions on this kind of gear and at my skill level. One day or place I feel like an Austrian demigod, and then at the next outing, I'm flailing and can't do anything (though that's only happened twice, I think). But the good days are really fun--totally worth doing.

[lilcliffy]

Although I would be interested in your comparison of the on-piste performance of the S-Bound 112 and the Falketind 62- at an equivalent length, I would not expect the FT62 to be "better" on piste than the S-112- the S-112 has a much longer effective edge than the FT62- the FT62 has a shape-geometry that is clearly tuned primarily for soft (but not deep), fresh, untracked snow.

I would be more interested in an S-Bound 98 vs S-Bound 112 in your example, as I would think that the narrower 98 (68 vs 78mm) would have been even better...

Although I absolutely love the current Falketind 62 Xplore- I find it has a very narrow range of application- especially for a non-featherweight skier-
I don't think that the FT62 is a versatile design for a skier over ~150lbs...

I think that the 68mm Rabb 68 is a much more stable and effective ski.

As far as a very narrow downhill Nordic carving ski- IMO, the Asnes Nansen- in a downhill-focused length- is still the ski design to beat!

My current experience witht he FT62X is that it is best at long, stable Nordic touring length- offering superb Nordic striding touring and turning performance- in not too deep snow.

I love my S-Bound 98- I don't have a need for a wider version (ie S-Bound 112), because when I want more flotation/stability underfoot in my regional touring, the snow is cold and soft and the domain of grip wax, not scales. At least in my current local context, I fail to see the advantage of the 112 over the 98...

[aclyon]

Very insightful response, thank you!
My roommate has an s-bound 98, only problem is it's 169 cm (she is small), a bit short for me though I suppose it wouldn't hurt to try it out.
the 112 comes in handy out here in Tahoe where we do get deep snow on days that aren't very cold. it's greatest strength is actually the ability to break trail efficiently in deep snow, rather than "flotation" IME.

I'm very curious about the Rabb. I would like to hear more about it. How does it compare to, say, some of the lighter Voile offerings, such as the Objective? It has a much more pronounced side cut for sure. It seems like the kind of ski that I could ride with either a soft boot or a T4-- perhaps a 75mm binding is ideal for it. Or is it really more geared towards a soft boot? Would you put an active binding on it, such as a 22d Axl?

So interesting to hear about the Nansen, I never would have guessed that one as a good downhill ski. I would hate to get such a nice touring ski in too short of a length though. One thing I like a lot about the 112, is that the touring length for my weight and height (179 cm) is also a great downhill length. According to Asnes my touring length for the Nansen is closer to 195 cm, I could go down to 185 to make it more DH, but that's still pushing the length for DH, and at what cost to its touring ability?

Any how, tons of food for thought here, and a new lust for the Rabb.

Although I would be interested in your comparison of the on-piste performance of the S-Bound 112 and the Falketind 62- at an equivalent length, I would not expect the FT62 to be "better" on piste than the S-112- the S-112 has a much longer effective edge than the FT62- the FT62 has a shape-geometry that is clearly tuned primarily for soft (but not deep), fresh, untracked snow.

I would be more interested in an S-Bound 98 vs S-Bound 112 in your example, as I would think that the narrower 98 (68 vs 78mm) would have been even better...

Although I absolutely love the current Falketind 62 Xplore- I find it has a very narrow range of application- especially for a non-featherweight skier-
I don't think that the FT62 is a versatile design for a skier over ~150lbs...

I think that the 68mm Rabb 68 is a much more stable and effective ski.

As far as a very narrow downhill Nordic carving ski- IMO, the Asnes Nansen- in a downhill-focused length- is still the ski design to beat!

My current experience witht he FT62X is that it is best at long, stable Nordic touring length- offering superb Nordic striding touring and turning performance- in not too deep snow.

I love my S-Bound 98- I don't have a need for a wider version (ie S-Bound 112), because when I want more flotation/stability underfoot in my regional touring, the snow is cold and soft and the domain of grip wax, not scales. At least in my current local context, I fail to see the advantage of the 112 over the 98...

[timpete]

Although I would be interested in your comparison of the on-piste performance of the S-Bound 112 and the Falketind 62- at an equivalent length, I would not expect the FT62 to be "better" on piste than the S-112- the S-112 has a much longer effective edge than the FT62- the FT62 has a shape-geometry that is clearly tuned primarily for soft (but not deep), fresh, untracked snow.

I would be more interested in an S-Bound 98 vs S-Bound 112 in your example, as I would think that the narrower 98 (68 vs 78mm) would have been even better...

Although I absolutely love the current Falketind 62 Xplore- I find it has a very narrow range of application- especially for a non-featherweight skier-
I don't think that the FT62 is a versatile design for a skier over ~150lbs...

I think that the 68mm Rabb 68 is a much more stable and effective ski.

As far as a very narrow downhill Nordic carving ski- IMO, the Asnes Nansen- in a downhill-focused length- is still the ski design to beat!

My current experience witht he FT62X is that it is best at long, stable Nordic touring length- offering superb Nordic striding touring and turning performance- in not too deep snow.

I love my S-Bound 98- I don't have a need for a wider version (ie S-Bound 112), because when I want more flotation/stability underfoot in my regional touring, the snow is cold and soft and the domain of grip wax, not scales. At least in my current local context, I fail to see the advantage of the 112 over the 98...

Agree with this. I have since started telemarking on a Rossi BC125 with 3 pin + Voile hardwire binding, and now it's hard for me to think of the snow conditions where I'll use my FT62 (given where I live and ski). If I'm really trying to cover ground laterally in backcountry my 210cm USGIs are better than the FT62.

I'd trade my Falketind NNN-BC ski for a Nansen NNN-BC in a heartbeat. Don't get me wrong, FT62 is a good ski just an odd duck for the conditions I ski in.