This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web. We have fun here, come on in and be a part of it.
I may have scored big tonight. I walked into my local used gear consignment shop thinking about how my hypervector bcs are a bit too short and I see a pair of voile vector bcs (older generation of ski) with switchback bindings in a 170 length for $120. I felt like I was robbing the place.
They appear to be mounted to a similar boot sole length as my hypervectors and the expensive pomoco skins I bought for my hypervectors fit just fine.
Looking at them and reading some info online, they seem like they might be better for bottomless powder. They have more early rise tip rocker. They are also mounted farther back than my hypervectors, assuming the vectors were mounted at the factory recommended line. Less sidecut, so maybe more stable when buried in powder? What do yall think?
Based on the same hybrid rocker design (tip rocker, camber underfoot) of the Drifter and Charger skis, the Vector is the trimmest ski in the Voile line (except of course for the new Wasatch Speed Project race ski). They call it a "mid-fat" ski, but around the Skimo camp we're going to go ahead and call it "high-fat". That must mean their other skis have "excess fat", but who are we to judge. If you are looking for a stable and floaty powder ski without said excess fat, check out the amazing Vector.
New member, been lurking for a couple years trying to answer this exact question.
I’m mostly a backyard/back woods kind of XC skier. I’ve been snowboarding and skiing over 30 years, but really started learning tele turns on my Nordic setup in the past 10 years. I’ve only used NNN BC, and upgraded to the Crispi Svartisen boots just a couple years ago and I’m a big fan.
I’m writing bc I have a slightly different take on the matter due to my ski options and style:
179cm Rossignol BC 70s (70-60-65)
145cm Altai Hoks
I love the Hoks bc they’re so easy for quick laps in the woods. Making tight tele turns on easy slopes is hilariously satisfying, especially in powder. However, as you can imagine, 145 is very short and limited in stability; I have to make alpine turns on steeper slopes and too much speed gets squirrelly. I’m mostly a fair weather skier though, and prefer powder days, and the Hoks do surprisingly well in 6-10” *on the right slopes*.
The BC 70s are my main ski bc I’m a poor farmer and that’s all I’ve ever owned. They’re great in most conditions and much more stable at speed than the Hoks, albeit less maneuverable when I’m just rambling around the woods.
So what I keep wondering is how big of a (powder XCD) ski could I personally handle with the NNN svartisens? I would love a pair of voile’s, especially those White BC Vectors, but they’re definitely too much ski for NNN. Perhaps the shorter Objectives bc they’re so light? I think the best bet might be the Altai Kōms at 150 or 162 bc they’re really shaped for my backyard rolling woods short powder laps style. Those lengths sound prohibitively short in terms of a heavier boot, but being used to the NNN Hoks I just want to try the Koms so bad!
Someday I’ll upgrade to something like the T4, but I do like pushing the limits of the lighter gear.
I used to ski with the Rossignol BC 70 for corn snow and I really enjoyed it. However, I stopped using it because the bindings were Salomon SNS BC and their boots are no longer available.
In my opinion, the Crispi Svartisen boots are quite sturdy and would match skis up to 80mm at the center. If you are serious about downhill skiing, you may want to choose a ski length that equals your height.
For myself, I'm enjoying powder skiing with the setup of Madshus Epoch, Fishcer BCX6, and Rottefella NNN BC.
The flowing river never stops and yet the water never stays the same.
I may have scored big tonight. I walked into my local used gear consignment shop thinking about how my hypervector bcs are a bit too short and I see a pair of voile vector bcs (older generation of ski) with switchback bindings in a 170 length for $120. I felt like I was robbing the place.
They appear to be mounted to a similar boot sole length as my hypervectors and the expensive pomoco skins I bought for my hypervectors fit just fine.
Looking at them and reading some info online, they seem like they might be better for bottomless powder. They have more early rise tip rocker. They are also mounted farther back than my hypervectors, assuming the vectors were mounted at the factory recommended line. Less sidecut, so maybe more stable when buried in powder? What do yall think?
Based on the same hybrid rocker design (tip rocker, camber underfoot) of the Drifter and Charger skis, the Vector is the trimmest ski in the Voile line (except of course for the new Wasatch Speed Project race ski). They call it a "mid-fat" ski, but around the Skimo camp we're going to go ahead and call it "high-fat". That must mean their other skis have "excess fat", but who are we to judge. If you are looking for a stable and floaty powder ski without said excess fat, check out the amazing Vector.
I may have scored big tonight. I walked into my local used gear consignment shop thinking about how my hypervector bcs are a bit too short and I see a pair of voile vector bcs (older generation of ski) with switchback bindings in a 170 length for $120. I felt like I was robbing the place.
They appear to be mounted to a similar boot sole length as my hypervectors and the expensive pomoco skins I bought for my hypervectors fit just fine.
Looking at them and reading some info online, they seem like they might be better for bottomless powder. They have more early rise tip rocker. They are also mounted farther back than my hypervectors, assuming the vectors were mounted at the factory recommended line. Less sidecut, so maybe more stable when buried in powder? What do yall think?
Based on the same hybrid rocker design (tip rocker, camber underfoot) of the Drifter and Charger skis, the Vector is the trimmest ski in the Voile line (except of course for the new Wasatch Speed Project race ski). They call it a "mid-fat" ski, but around the Skimo camp we're going to go ahead and call it "high-fat". That must mean their other skis have "excess fat", but who are we to judge. If you are looking for a stable and floaty powder ski without said excess fat, check out the amazing Vector.
I'll sell off my hypervectors and if these vectors don't work out, I'll just sell them as well and get something a little bit skinner in a 180 length.
This reply is a little late, but man are you a thief! Nice score, how are they working out?
I haven't skied them yet. We haven't had much snowfall here, not enough for backcountry skiing. I've only been out a couple times on resort groomers using some k2 shes piste skis that I picked up recently. I'm waiting for a big powder dump to use these voiles with my leathers.
