Paging Tom M. With a question

[Stephen]

I’m trying to noodle this out along with anyone else following this.
What @lilcliffy said about wide skis makes sense — don’t really need a wide ski and it is harder to edge, which is pretty important with what your doing and wanting to control speed on descents.

In terms of what I’m aware of on Telemark Talk, it seems like @jyw5 might be the closest to what you are doing.
His endeavors are much more demanding and technical, but for SOME of the stuff he does, the need is similar.

It makes me think that a ski significantly shorter than “recommended” for the weight, and a narrower, somewhat stiffer ski might be the best option. Except @jyw5 is using leather boots and you’re wearing plastic, i think.

Maybe one of the narrower, stiffer Fischer skis (I don’t know them well enough to recommend one).
The shorter ski would give you the maneuverability you want, being narrower would make edge control easier (than something like an Objective or Kom), being stiffer might make up for some of the shortness, and also give good edge control in firm snow.

Just tossing out ideas…

[jyw5]

Nice photos! definitely miss the Westcoast lower 48.

Your spring conditions are similar in many ways to AK and also BC. kibbles and bits, crust, then to corn then finally to mash potato. If most of your ascent is when its icy and crusty and your descents are spring corn and mash, go for the most downhill oriented ski you can buy.

The Voile Objective BC skis are expensive for a reason...they are well designed and lightweight! Really tough to beat, imo. Most other skis are XC skis which you just dont need with a heavy pack. There's no kick and glide anyway on these tours.

If you can find an old pair of Fischer S125 in 165cm ...those are perfect at 6.5lbs. You don't necessarily want a flimsy ultra lightweight ski as you will get knocked around on difficult snow. I use those skis for traverses and significant mountains. They absolutely rock down corn and mash....I can ski those in climbing boots...which is saying alot!! (I regret not getting a 2nd pair before they discontinued them. They are really a one of a kind)

I fully understand being a weekend warrior...used to be one. You need the best equipment to make up for the lack of skills. heck, I'm always looking for equipment to make up for my athletic deficiencies. lol

You can keep looking for cheaper skis, or just bite the bullet and get those Objectives...they are truly awesome. Not sure what your height/weight is...be sure to get the right length.

[randoskier]

Those 88's are probably pretty much like my Rainiers. Same dimensions anyway. I expect they are somewhat different, but probably effectively thr curent version.

The Rainier/Rebound is signficantly narrower (60mm) underfoot than the Fischer 88/Outtabound (68mm) and was known for being more cambered than the Outtabounds.

I do not think you will find an Fischer Excursion 88 this season in the USA, Next season I think will be easier depending on the situation in the Ukraine.

One thing that is difficult with Nordic-backcountry skis is that there is nowhere to ski demo models. At least to my knowledge.

[randoskier]

There's no kick and glide anyway on these tours.

If that were the case then people would just use AT bindings. There is something similar to kick and glide even with a heavy pack or pulling a pulk, not pretty kick and glide- maybe UKG. I saw a American dude with AT skis going from Katterat station into the Narvik mountains; he turned back after the first cabin because the effort to do 25km flat-footed was too much of a chore and too slow for the tour.

[jyw5]

There's no kick and glide anyway on these tours.

If that were the case then people would just use AT bindings. There is something similar to kick and glide even with a heavy pack or pulling a pulk, not pretty kick and glide- maybe UKG. I saw a American dude with AT skis going from Katterat station into the Narvik mountains; he turned back after the first cabin because the effort to do 25km flat-footed was too much of a chore and too slow for the tour.

I agree with you... however, the mountains the OP is doing looks like some challenging sections for him...to optimize downhill performance, you have to give up XC performance.

I have done many tours with long flat approaches ...but one challenge here in Alaska is that many flat long approaches end in steep difficult ascents. Sometimes, AT setup still preferred because it would be impossible to ski down otherwise. On some routes, taking skis off and downclimbing is needed as the terrain is much too steep and challenging to do on skis with a pack.

So all of this depends on the skill level of our OP as well as the terrain he is going encounter. Since he is just an occasional skiier / weekend warrior... I think downhill peformance takes priority. Leather boots would be most comfortable, but maybe not so practical if its still too difficult on the descent. The decision on gear greatly depends on his capabilities.

For me, **personally**, for the terrain he is describing, I would choose Voile Objective BC, full skins, NNN BC manual, and Alfa Guard adv... if I needed more downhill performance, I would just go with my AT setup with plastic boots. If there are steep icy uphill uphill sections, bring hybrid crampons just in case.

[paulzo]

Well, I do get some kick and glide, but only if it is really flat - which is pretty much only when crossing a frozen lake - or just slightly downhill of course. Which tells me that my Rainers are pretty much optimized, lengthwise, for me and what I do. And the Excursions are close to ideal. All the control can make use of, keep my feet warm and dry for a week long trip. I do wish they were lighter and just a hair more flexible. As to bindings, I have 3 pin cables but I don't carry the cables anymore, as I can't tell any difference in control with them on. I have thought about AT boots and bindings, mostly for the weight savings but also the idea of releasability does have appeal. I went so far as to buy a pair of F1 races, thinking to try a TTS setup,but have not skied them yet and dont have any skis or bindings to go with them yet.
I realize, of course, that I am more limited by my skills than by my skis. But to develop the skills takes time that I dont have, so changing gear is really the only option for the moment.
So, still interested in any other ideas for skis that are nice and light but would be better on the down than my Rainiers.

[Stephen]

.
.
Most of the time they seem to be just about what I need, since 90% of any tour is up or rolling and they are great for that and i survive the downhills.
.
.

Maybe what you already have is pretty optimal.
Any improvement in downhill performance / control is probably going to come at the expense of directionality / tracking and energy output efficiency on the flatter sections.
Maybe you would think the tradeoff was worth it — that’s up to you.

Can you be more specific about exactly what problem you are trying to solve?

I see pictures with fairly soft snow. Once a ski is in the snow, it’s harder to turn than one that is on top of the snow.
Ski IN snow comes down to skill and technique.
The ski can’t make up for that.
Don’t get me wrong, some skis are going to be easier to control on the descents than others.
The Objective would probably be easier than what you have now.
But you would give up some of the distance efficiency and tracking of your current ski.

For me, I have found that to get the best solution, I have to be as absolutely clear about what my target outcome is as possible, which sometimes takes some deep thinking.

Maybe I’m stating the obvious and the problem and desired outcome(s) are already crystal clear.
The challenge is that there are always tradeoffs, and so one has to prioritize.
And the prioritization process determines the outcome.

There are several variables to prioritize:
- Cost
- Uncertainty about others opinions and recommendations
- Uncertainty about how the new equipment will actually perform for you
- In what conditions will the new equipment be better than what I have (this probably contains multiple variables)
- In what conditions will the new equipment be worse than what I have (this likely contains multiple variables)

I’m just trying to offer some ideas towards answering your original question — hope it helps in some way.

[randoskier]

Those 88's are probably pretty much like my Rainiers. Same dimensions anyway. I expect they are somewhat different, but probably effectively thr curent version.

The Rainier/Rebound is signficantly narrower (60mm) underfoot than the Fischer 88/Outtabound (68mm) and was known for being more cambered than the Outtabounds.

I just got the Excursion 88 Xtralite two minutes ago (finally!). First impression. Pretty straight ski, small side-cut which reminds my of my 205cm Blizzard Firebirds from 1975 which I think had 7mm side-cut. A stiff ski with pronounced camber. Killer scales for climbing which is why I bought this ski. I am transitioning from the Madshus Eon in 196cm to 189 in the Ex88. On my kitchen scale the Fischer in 189 is 2oz lighter (each) than my Eon. Pretty much what I expected; turns look like a bit of an effort, but over all it has the features combination I was looking for. I can not try them until a week from Saturday,

I asked the product manager at Fischer if there is any problem putting them in a hotbox at 55 degrees for several hours. I thought maybe the material in the Crown scales might be a problem, he said no problem. I'll have the local shop wax the ptex parts, then on the scale zone I only put a little liquid glide wax and brush it off good.

[randoskier]

Well, I do get some kick and glide, but only if it is really flat - which is pretty much only when crossing a frozen lake - or just slightly downhill of course. Which tells me that my Rainers are pretty much optimized, lengthwise, for me and what I do. And the Excursions are close to ideal. All the control can make use of, keep my feet warm and dry for a week long trip. I do wish they were lighter and just a hair more flexible. As to bindings, I have 3 pin cables but I don't carry the cables anymore, as I can't tell any difference in control with them on. I have thought about AT boots and bindings, mostly for the weight savings but also the idea of releasability does have appeal. I went so far as to buy a pair of F1 races, thinking to try a TTS setup,but have not skied them yet and dont have any skis or bindings to go with them yet.
I realize, of course, that I am more limited by my skills than by my skis. But to develop the skills takes time that I dont have, so changing gear is really the only option for the moment.
So, still interested in any other ideas for skis that are nice and light but would be better on the down than my Rainiers.

S-bound 98?

[jyw5]

In my quest for finding perfect skis, I discovered (unfortunately), that it came down to mostly skills... in the beginning all I was doing was survival skiing. As I got better, I bought more skis...but I also was able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each ski as well as the strengths and weaknesses of my own abilities.

so, identify what you don't like about your current setup.
if its the weight,...ask where you can shave off a few lbs without peformance sacrifice and huge cost penalties. If its inability to turn going downhill...well, as Stephen eluded to, turning IN snow can be harder than if you were floating on top. Getting shorter skis doesnt make it easier to turn if you are just sinking into the snow...even if the shorter ski has a short turning radius. Shorter skis also work against you on flat terrain with a heavy pack. Being on shorter skis is like a slightly better snowshoe. If you want more efficiency, you need something a touch longer or you need to reduce your load (drop weight of your pack and/or body weight). I learned this on a 4 day traverse I did in 2020. The skis were short, my pack was heavy (no choice). I trained for months and reduced my body weight and increased my strength and fitness. The skis did well for me in nearly all the conditions ...and we met just about every snow type.

If that isnt an option, the Voile Objective BC may be your best bet. Substituting something cheaper, you may find you won't get that much performance increase vs. your current setup.

Honestly, a well thought out downhill oriented AT setup is great for multiday and/or challenging excursions. Leave the ultra light gear to 1 day moderate tours. And flattish tours are great on xc cambered skis. That's why the majority of backcountry skiiers have plastic boots, AT, and wide skis...they arent efficient, they are heavy, they can be slow, but they are easy to use and friendly going downhill. Lighter gear is much more expensive, many times not as easy to use, but can be incredibly efficient if you have the skills and fitness....lightning fast going uphill and on the flats.

You must find where you are in your abilities and choose accordingly. Choose gear that is suitable for your terrain and skill level. many times, not easy to do.

what might help is if you can tell us how far you are going and how much vertical and also, height/weight, pack weight. forgive me if you already gave that info.