All purpose backcountry/bushwack ski

[bgregoire]

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

Interesting, what are the current single camber full XC length skis you know of on the market today?

[ddg]

Thanks Ben. I'll PM you about those skis.

[lilcliffy]

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.

Well it sounds like you are going to be skiing mostly on soft, fresh snow through the woods and want to be able to climb and turn- primarily. Sounds like you want relatively short and fat and single-cambered- for maneuverability and climbing/turning efficiency in tight cover.

Remember that the shorter you go- the wider you need the ski, in order to offer the same flotation (i.e. length contributes to flotation as well as width). However- I seem to remember that you weigh much less than me (140lbs?)- so you can get away with a shorter ski in the first place (at least as far as flotation).

Well- IME/IMO the current Fischer S-Bounds offer the highest xcD (i.e. climbing/turning) performance on the market. IMO skis with even better climbing/turning performance (e.g. Voile Vector BC) are not xcountry skis at all- but they might suit you perfectly if you are not looking for touring efficiency.

Just remember (I apologize if I am blabbering on about stuff you already know! )- you are going to need a monstrous boot/binding if you go to a fat ski- unless you are skiing in relatively deep soft snow.

For example- in deep, soft, powder- I use NNNBC bindings/boots on the Madshus Annum (109-78-95mm) as a xcountry-telemark ski. It may be just my lack of skill- but I cannot control the Annum with light boots/bindings on either hard snow or soft snow over a solid base. I am currently skiing on the Eon (83-62-70mm) for xcountry-telemark on dense and/or shallow soft snow. The Eon is not a "climber" though- without climbing skins. I have tested the S-78 and S-88 back to back against the Eon. IMO the S-78/88 climb more efficiently than the Eon- but you still need skins to climb anything truly steep.

[ddg]

Thanks lilcliffy. Really appreciate the info.

Let's say I go for either the S88, X-Adv 89, or even E109. What boot do you suggest: X-Adv 6 or 8, Offtrack 5 BC? I mention these because there available at leyeti.

Thanks again.

[lilcliffy]

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

Interesting, what are the current single camber full XC length skis you know of on the market today?

Well- unfortunately they don't quite come in classic xcountry lengths- but the Karhu/Madshus XCD line (i.e. Eon, Epoch, Annum) come in lengths up to 195cm (my Epochs/Annums are 195cm; my Eons are 205cm). Even my mountain-setup Guides are 195cm.

IMO- in truly deep, soft snow- the Epoch and especially the Annum are excellent xcountry skis. I would buy an Annum in a 210cm length if I could get it for XCd skiing in deep pow on gentle to moderate terrain- if I could get it...I apologize, I need to repeat myself here...Hear that Madshus?!- I want a 210cm Annum!

My point, specifically (in the above post) is that when it comes to touring efficiency- its all about striding and gliding efficiency. IMO- when it comes to gliding- length trumps everything. I am not interested in touring on short skis.

[lilcliffy]

Thanks lilcliffy. Really appreciate the info.

Let's say I go for either the S88, X-Adv 89, or even E109. What boot do you suggest: X-Adv 6 or 8, Offtrack 5 BC? I mention these because there available at leyeti.

Thanks again.

Based on what you have told us about your skiing preferences- IMHO- I don't think the E109 is a good choice- it is relatively stiff and double-cambered. IMO- the E109 is a dedicated xcountry ski. Although again- perhaps it could work if you go "short"? CIMA?

The S-88 is a beautifully designed single-cambered xcD ski. I have only demoed the X-Adv 89 once- a bit underwhelming. The S-88 is a better climber than the X-Adv 88 without skins.

We have the Offtrack 5 here at home- my daughter wears it in a xcountry context. IMO it is a very light-duty backcountry-xcountry boot. To me it is a warm, version of a classic xcountry touring boot. It is a very soft and very comfortable xcountry touring boot- my daughter loves it (she's a bit amazing on skis- she can do some pretty crazy downhill stuff- even in those ultra-soft boots).

Although I really like the X-Adv 8 boot- it doesn't fit my feet- at all.

Another bit of "advice"- i you truly want to be able to downhill ski in very tight wooded cover- then maybe you really do want a heavier boot/binding? Not sure about this...but personally I pick fairly wide-angled, long lines when I am telemarking on NNNBC.

If you want to be able to force or "steer" your skis (especially as fat as an S-88) into a tight turn, in fresh snow- then you may need a fairly rigid boot/binding. This may be just a limitation of my technique- but on NNNBC I stride my way through the telemark- and need the space to do it.

[CIMA]

X-adv 89 and S-88 are different a little more than a little.
Since X-adv 89 has a narrower waist of 60mm (68mm for S-88), you may not be able to get enough flotation in powder compared to S-88. However, X-adv 89 is softer, especially in its top and tail areas, you may feel easier when you plow through in powder. Actually, two friends of mine, who once owned X-adv 89, switched to Madshus Epoch in preference to flotation in powder. In terms of flotation the wider and longer skis have edges, of course. However, in the light of total performance in my xcD activities, I settled down in S-88 (169cm) for skiing in powder and loves it. I prefer the length a little shorter than my body height. Deciding to go with NNN or SNS may be a difficult problem, but I would choose best fit boots first and then pick NNN or SNS accordingly.

[lilcliffy]

ddg- just wanted to make myself clear- my comments come from a touring perspective (i.e. long skis)- I am not skiing in the same context that you want to- so perhaps I am not helping you at all!

The reason I pick wide-angled, long lines, when making turns in forested glades, is a product of primarily the long length of my skis. I can make relatively tight turns with my long skis- but I need the space to do it (i.e. forest road/trail or open field/above treeline).

If you want to make tight turns on steep slopes, through the woods- then I think you are correct- you want short skis!

The width of the ski then only depends on the type of snow you are going to be on.

[lilcliffy]

X-adv 89 and S-88 are different a little more than a little.
Since X-adv 89 has a narrower waist of 60mm (68mm for S-88), you may not be able to get enough flotation in powder compared to S-88. However, X-adv 89 is softer, especially in its top and tail areas, you may feel easier when you plow through in powder. Actually, two friends of mine, who once owned X-adv 89, switched to Madshus Epoch in preference to flotation in powder. In terms of flotation the wider and longer skis have edges, of course. However, in the light of total performance in my xcD activities, I settled down in S-88 (169cm) for skiing in powder and loves it. I prefer the length a little shorter than my body height. Deciding to go with NNN or SNS may be a difficult problem, but I would choose best fit boots first and then pick NNN or SNS accordingly.

So- the S-88 is your powder ski? Cool- I have been meaning to ask you that question!

[lilcliffy]

X-adv 89 and S-88 are different a little more than a little.
Since X-adv 89 has a narrower waist of 60mm (68mm for S-88), you may not be able to get enough flotation in powder compared to S-88. However, X-adv 89 is softer, especially in its top and tail areas, you may feel easier when you plow through in powder. Actually, two friends of mine, who once owned X-adv 89, switched to Madshus Epoch in preference to flotation in powder. In terms of flotation the wider and longer skis have edges, of course. However, in the light of total performance in my xcD activities, I settled down in S-88 (169cm) for skiing in powder and loves it. I prefer the length a little shorter than my body height. Deciding to go with NNN or SNS may be a difficult problem, but I would choose best fit boots first and then pick NNN or SNS accordingly.

ddg- take note of CIMA's S-88s- 169cm length. CIMA has stated that his ski selection is primarily gear towards xcD- just like you. CIMA- I seem to remember your Rossi BC70s are 170cm?