All purpose backcountry/bushwack ski

[MikeK]

Seen as how I'm up, I might as well waffle a bit...

lilcliffy's post was what I was hoping for - basically what your conditions are. I think I kind of understand what you are after in terms of skiing. which is if I'm understanding correctly, more challenging up and down terrain that you were normally snowshoeing on. You just wish to get some speed back in your backcountry...

Well if he is correct in assessing your normal snow conditions, then I'd say stay away from the S98/112, Epoch/Annum, Vector or any those wider skis. They really won't be any fun on hard snow - see my warning in an earlier post.

He is also correct to then shift you toward a narrow ski. Even a S88 will be fat for hard snow. But my guess based on how you'll be using them is that a single camber ski (a more dh oriented flex) will be what you want. It will make dealing with the harder conditions much easier as the ski won't have to be pressured as much to go flat. As far as anyone can tell around here all the S Bounds are single camber - the S 78/88 might be camber and a half meaning they might have a soft secondary camber for a wax pocket, but I couldn't tell you for sure without feeling and sighting the skis myself. All that really doesn't much matter - what matters is you can push the ski flat and edge without a giant plastic boot, lifting your inside ski, or doing jump turns - none of that is as fun as it sounds for skiing in rolling terrain.

The Eon would be another option. Probably the only other option. Again a lot of confusion regarding this ski. The ones I currently own are soft and single cambered (I can sight them and there is no wax pocket, or if there is, it's very, very subtle). Madshus claims they are camber and a half... who knows? Maybe they changed them for recent years?

Neither of those skis IMO really need a heavy boot or binding to control them. A regular 3 pin would be very stout and leather boot should be plenty. The NNN BC Magnum would be a champ too. IMO these skis are in a realm of balance in that they lack that pesky double camber which makes them hard to turn, but they are light enough to not really be picky about what you put on them. The free pivot of the NNN will climb and tour a bit nicer as you well know, the pins will give a tad bit more control and be a little less efficient for touring. The differences aren't as big in this range as you might think because a) the skis don't glide that well due to lack of camber meaning the free pivot doesn't buy you a ton and b) they are light and soft flexing so the added mechanical advantage of the duckbill isn't necessary to edge them. You really can't go wrong IMO. I guess that's the issue with skis in that range - they are so generalized they don't shine and one thing over another. But that sounds like exactly what you want.

[StormyMonday]

Thanks StormyMonday and MikeK. How do the Excursions compare to the SCARPA T4s? The T4s are cheaper.

Ugh almost 1 AM and I'm online and wide awake, dang. Here;s a quick tip that I learned tonight - if you're removing NNN BC bindings and you can't get the cap off the top screw, and you happen to have a really sharp chisel nearby that will definitely get under it - do yourself a favor and put a thick leather glove on your non-cutting hand
Through nothing but s^%t luck I will still be able to play guitar when the stitches come out...anyways...

I haven't tried the T4 but I did ski a pair of T3s I got in a consignment shop for $20 this week. They felt like on a wider ski than my Outtabounds they would give me a touch better control, but I followed it up the next day and my Excursions felt lighter, more flexible and a lot more comfortable. I'm thinking if the T4 is softer than the T3 it may be similar to Excursions.

[CIMA]

I'm thinking if the T4 is softer than the T3 it may be similar to Excursions.

I used to ski on both T3 and T4.
T4 is definitely softer than T3. The reason would be mainly because T4 has a lower cuff.
If you attach optional power strap to T4, the difference would not be so big.

Nowadays, since I'm skiing on SNS boots and bindings only, even T4 is way too stiff for me.

[lilcliffy]

Nowadays, since I'm skiing on SNS boots and bindings only, even T4 is way too stiff for me.

I am with you CIMA- I haven't been in plastic Nordic boots in 3 seasons- I have little desire to go back.

My wife and I are planning my return to the mountains in Quebec next winter...thinking about leaving the T-4 and 3pc behind...

[lilcliffy]

ddg- I am thinking that perhaps the Fischer E99 may be an option as well.
http://www.fischersports.com/en/Nordic/ ... ackcountry

The Fischer E99 is a dedicated xcountry ski (i.e. classic lengths and relatively narrow, stiff and double-cambered). However you could go with a shorter, non-classical length for use as a XCD ski.

The E99 comes in both a waxable (E99-tour) and a waxless (E99-crown) base.

If you have no desire to grip wax skis (its really pretty easy for backcountry skiing)- then you would have to get the E99-crown. You would also need climbing skins if you are going to climb steep slopes.

Here is the truly sweet option: check out the E99-easy skin! Waxable base with a grip wax-compatible, built in climbing skin system!

IMO- the E99-easy skin would perhaps be the ultimate "all-purpose" backcountry-xcountry ski for skiing on dense snow. You would have to get comfortable with grip waxing however (perhaps you already are and I am just blabbering away! )

With a ski like the E99 the length you choose depends on the terrain and your skiing style. For example, I would want the long, classic length for xcountry performance- and have to be strategic about my downhill descents. You might want an E99 in a relatively short length to use it as a dedicated XCD ski.

I would highly recommend NNNBC or SNS-adv boots/bindings for something as narrow as the E99. BUT (I hate to keep saying "it depends"- my students hate it as well!) if you truly want primarily downhill performance- then I suppose heavier boots/bindings might suit you better.

If you end up considering a stiff double-cambered ski (like the E99) for downhill performance- I would consult with CIMA.

Couple of Canadian retailers:
http://www.mec.ca/product/5038-387/fisc ... te-unisex/
http://www.leyeti.ca/en/e99-xtralite-easy-skin-u.html

Le Yeti has the E99-easy skin on sale- but only has 190cm. This would be a classic xcountry length for your weight. This would be what I would want- even as a XCD ski- personal preference.

[lilcliffy]

The shortest length you can get an E99 in is 180cm.

[ddg]

Many thanks for all of the info lilcliffy and others. Lots to think about.

I grew up in Fredericton and have been through Stanley a few times, on bike as well as canoe. In fact, I had a nasty run in with those dams on the Naashwaak River up in the middle of nowhere above Stanley. Fortunately I survived and our "folded" Coleman scanoe was still able to get us down to Durham for pickup.

Regarding my location, for snow it's quite different from Saint John and the more southern side of the Kingston Peninsula (this year being a very rare exception as mentioned already). As you know Saint John gets more rain than snow, and even then it doesn't last as long. Based on my 10 years at this location I would not categorize the typical snow as old, hard, icy, crusty, and slippery, although probably more so than 100km north.

I live 50 km from SJ and on a ridge of hills. Just enter "E5N 4V7" in google maps and select terrain and you'll get the picture. Here's the specific link. Looks like we're at above 100m but it goes a bit higher. I snowshoe/ski along that ridge. Most of it is woodland with various narrow pathways and a few fields. You might be able to see this in satellite view.

I am not overly concerned about great kick and glide. I need to ensure that I can easily navigate the trees. As lilcliffy knows, the softwood stands in NB can be a real nightmare in this respect. It's not that I seek out the most tightly packed trees, it's just that this is very common. And there are definitely times I'm going downhill through trees. The only option AFAIK is a shorter ski, which means a wider ski, in order to maintain float. The downside is slower kick and glide on open flat areas, the upside is good climbing and good downhill. I'm guessing 180 is the right size. Sounds like I'm trying to convince myself.

I like the size and price of the X-ADV 89. I see from another thread that bgregoire is "looking to swap" his.
The S88s are looking good too.

I have no problem with waxing (may even prefer it) but most skis in this category (80-110mm) seem to come waxless.

Regarding boots, I shy away from anything too heavy simply for efficiency but I do want some decent support to ensure I can control these puppies along narrow paths through trees downhill. The T4s look like they may fit the bill but seem quite bulky. But I "can't have the cake and eat it too." However, I'm really torn between the NNN/SNS vs 3-pin. I guess since I'm not overly concerned with kick/glide the 3-pins provide more controlled setup for sliding between those trees. But I'm very much undecided on this point.

[MikeK]

Again my 0.02...

I'm confused again about your snow conditions... but say for arguments sake you opt for the S88 - probably a good choice due to it's turning prowess. It will be fine for most snow conditions. It's middle of the road, not too fat, not too skinny.

Based on your need for control - be conservative. Just go with the pin bindings. IMO it won't be a huge wash either way.

As far as boots... I'm not sure the T4 is the best idea for those skis. It's kind of overkill unless you wanted to ski on groomers at a resort. Touring around is going to be pretty restrictive... it's a fairly stiff boot for a two buckle. IMO a stiff, reinforced leather boot would be a better match for those skis banging around in the BC.

I'm not a great dh XCD skier and I'd without a doubt ski all of the terrain you mention with my S Bound 98s, 3 pin bindings and Crispi Svartisens (reinforced leather boots). The S88 is going to be even easier to manhandle being lighter and narrower... and hopefully strides better on harder snow.

[bgregoire]

[quote="ddg"]

DDG, I still have the Xadv89 skis with voile 3 pin cable and would be happy to swap out the binding for a NNN BC Manual for you. Shipping would be easy via Greyhound.

I don't really agree with Lilcliff on the E99 length thang tough (not more than 5cm shorter anyway). I've had the 185, 195 and now the 200cm. I was never satisfied with the shorter versions, especially with fishscales as the glide you come to expect from a doubler camber ski just was not there for me (I was between 150-160lbs). Sure you have a LITTLE more control on the shorter versions, but you loose out so much on the flats. Instead of going shorter, I would go fatter, upgrading to the E109 for example. The recommended length is 10cm shorter than the E99 and they offer more sidecut so better downhill control anyway. The weight is also pretty much the same too. Now, for the newer E99s and E109s Xtralites, they are using the same positive fishcales as the Sbounds. The scales end up going round 10cm further up the ski than the older negative grip versions. They are a REAL pain on the flats, SLOW!!! At that width anyway, i'd say go for WAX, the easy skin would be even better.

DDG, If you don't like heavy and moving like a robot while you K&G, avoid the plastic shell boots, especially the T4 over the Excursion. Talk to Mikek about his Crispi Svartisen instead. by the way, XADV89 are very light but soft.

[lilcliffy]

Oops- sorry Ben if I was unclear- I use classic double-cambered xcountry skis as xcountry skis first and foremost. For my weight/height (185lbs/5'10") and my skiing technique I prefer 200+cm length- preferable 210cm. I would want 210cm in the E99 and 205cm in the E109. Length= glide= efficiency= speed.

What I meant is that is that if ddg wanted to use a ski like the E99 (i.e. relatively stiff and double-cambered) as a dedicated downhill ski- he might have to go to a non-traditional short length. I have no experience with this- but I have the impression that telemarkers that are using stiff, double-cambered skis are downhill skiing on relatively short lengths. I assume that they are short in order to compress and control the double camber in a carved downhill turn. CIMA?

Personally- I prefer long lengths across the board. For my skiing style/technique I much prefer single-cambered skis as telemark (i.e. xcD) skis. The single camber allows me to control a relatively long length in a downhill turn. The long length offers excellent touring performance as well.

That being said- unless I am skiing above treeline- I have to pick my downhill lines strategically when I am telemarking through forested terrain on 195+cm skis.

IME/IMO a long single-cambered ski is going to outperform a short double-cambered ski in a backcountry-xcountry touring context.