Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

lilcliffy wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:41 am

- 1st/2nd gen FT62- though a bit better than the Epoch/Annnum- they are still terrible on ice

And to clarify- in my experience- the limitation of the FT62 on ice is not its stability- it is a function of the very significant rocker and its very short effective edge.

Telerock wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 12, 2021 6:49 am

Most of my falls on pay-for-ski ice were due to “booting out”; when I carved a turn and the angle of the ski against the ice reached the point where the boot hit the ice, thereby knocking the ski loose from its edge on the ice.
This can be reduced, but not eliminated, by adding “ lifts” under the binding.

This.

Nansen (or maybe NEW 21/22 FT62) + binding on a lift plate.

Lighturn wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:47 am

Thanks again to all! We are getting closer.

II will check out the skis listed! They seem long to me

@ jyw5:

How did you get your montaineering boot fixed on that Sbound 112?

Kickturns @ 175 cm Skis how tall are you?

I have old Silvretta bindings mounted on the S125.

5ft8in -- 172.5cm. makes it hard to do uphill kick turns on steep slopes. 165cm-175cm seems to be just right for me.

lilcliffy wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:45 am

jyw5 wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 11, 2021 8:22 pm

So either Nansen or Sverdrup. and 5cm shorter

Yes- my mind is here for steep descents on icy snow with XC boots...
Will be VERY keen to read your comparisons between the two!

Joe- couple of questions about the Cecile Skog you have-

- mounted at balance point with NNNBC?
- how would you describe the flex and camber of your Skog?

Gareth

My 185cm Skog is mounted at bp with nnn bc.

Not totally 100% sure if the skog is identical to nansen. but from past discussion, I seems like it. can probably email asnes to confirm.

as far as the camber and flex. I can see why it is an all arounder. as we discussed the ski in depth last yr and beyond, the evaluation is spot on. it does have that pool cover syndrome in deep snow, but given enough speed going downhill, I'm able to sometimes still make the turns and manage to float back up...whereas the FT62 (2019) sinks and dives and then I crash. The single camber allows for tolerable k&g on flats in consolidated snow. Its still slow but not as bad as the FT62 or S112. It also excels on spring crust. I really enjoyed last seasons very brief crust skiing season. most skiiers here use skate skis during this time, but I found the Skog quite nice for it...it was fast and stable and easily maneuverable...I was able to ski like a pro. I was also able to continue higher and later when the snow softens and the crust skiiers are gone. I think the single camber allows the edges to dig in to the harder snow...something the FT62 and S112 really lack.

The technology/geometry of this ski really stands out in optimal conditions. On corn, I can telehiro down the mountain. That video of Gamme on corn really illustrates how easy it is to turn in good late spring conditions.

The smooth flex makes turning easy in most conditions. I think I had the toughest time in deep snow (as expected) and then when the snow was refrozen or hard windblown or sun crust. In this instance, the ski just doesnt hold an edge ... I'm hoping the Sverdrup will do better on harder snow. I can already tell that the Skog does better than the Sverdrup on deeper snow as the tips cut through the snow better...whereas resistance is met with the Sverdrup (feels like I'm going to fall forward and faceplant).

More evaluation will be needed to see how this shorter 175cm Sverdrup performs on hard snow. My initial impressions are good. I feel like a mountain goat as the edges bite into the steep hard snow. I descended a hardpacked steep slope into a creekbed last wk with no issues vs. FT62 the next day took noticeably more effort. I still think leaving xskins on or even full skins are still needed with boilerplate snow with either ski...which I havent had to do yet this season.

All very helpful contributions! Thanks, I cannot comment everything but I am reading every word - twice at least!

Especially the description of how the ski handles the verious situations. Or would one have to say "feetles" ?

After my last post, yesterday, and just on a theoretical level, and to echo what others have already said, I started thinking about the rocker on the Svurdrup vs no rocker on the Nansen and thinking the Nansen might be the better ski (better edge hold on ice).
Theoretically…

Lighturn wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:49 am

fisheater wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 11, 2021 7:23 pm

I still don’t ski in your boots, and the is still a bunch of 70’s mm underfoot alpine touring skis that may be best for you. Good luck

Good Idea! Never thought of that since I did not know these existed! For AT 80 mm underfoot are ususally already considered "skinny".

Which skies exactly do you have in mind?

Regards

Lighturn

https://skimo.co/mountaineering-skis

I have not skied any of these. They seem short to me, but when I was young I was turning 205’s down step chutes. I have read something good about the Atomic’s on another forum. That guy was skiing on older F1/F3 boots and TTS.
Which brings me back to the limits of the boots and not the skis. The Alfa Free is expensive. Not sure how stiff soled it is yet.

Yes Fisheater,

the skimo opens a whole new window. But as you say: They ARE short, mostly 160 - 162, the long ones (!) and pricey BUT I guess they ARE stiff maybe thats why they are so short. Probably 160 is the longest loadable edge you can achieve - without adding too much beef that would just add weight, but no further grip-benefit. The narrowest are 65 mm under foot and probably there are reasons for thet too: Maximum edge pressure with minimum of bootout-risk compromise.

And yes you are right, the boots, the boots. Actually the boots are the reason I look for alternatives. I hoped to have accquired enough teleturn-competence to switch from the plastic weight and pain to something more refined. Especially since I do not do the hard - core 40 + degrees mountaineering stuff at all. Of course crampons for the Xplore would be a nice gimmic, but hey, life is also sweet besides and beneath the glaciers At the end of the skins, the tour stops.

@Lighturn Some of skis are available up to 178 cm

Re AT racing skis: The minimum allowable length for men's skis is 160cm (shorter for women), so most will be close to this to minimise weight. Some of these skis aren't too dissimilar to the SB98 in shape, but a little narrower, shorter, lighter, stiffer and more expensive. (I have a set mounted with SNS Pilot skating bindings, but didn't get to try them this year due to COVID lockdowns here in Oz.)

If you're going to ski on non-plastic boots, you really want the most torsionally rigid soles you can get; it doesn't help on ice to reinforce the upper or add plastic cuffs if the sole just twists, but ankle support helps if the sole works. As for the skis, narrower should make it easier to hold an edge with a not-so-stiff boot, but I wouldn't obsess about this, and wider reduces the chances of boot out, or sinking as far in other conditions.

Technique is important, assuming the boots and skis are stiff enough that you can employ it. There are two basic options on ice:
1. Try to do carved turns - everything will need to be stiff, and speeds might be hard to keep down
2. Give up and do skidded parallels or stem Christies - possible on much less stiff skis, as long as you don't mind going sideways

If it's really icy some sort of crampons are likely to be the best solution, or else stay away from anything at all steep.