Comparing an XCD ski and a skinny downhill ski of similar width with leather boots on firm groomed snow.

[JB TELE]

Last season I completely gave up on plastic and switched to leather. The results in comfort and touring performance were great. I find it easier to get in the telemark position and shift my weight around in leathers than the T2's I used my first season. I'm still new to telemark skiing and I'm finally getting to a point where I can link turns, but not super well yet.

Last season I was skiing on my merrel ultra leather boots and my s-bound 98s with voile traverse cable bindings. While the s-bound 98s are great for soft backcountry snow or resort skiing on powder days, they struggle on firm resort groomers. They chatter and vibrate a lot, struggle to hold and edge, which I think is a characteristic of any nordic camber ski - the springiness that gives them good kick and glide characteristics makes them noodley on firm snow.

I enjoy both backcountry and resort skiing. This season I started searching for a better ski that would work well with my leather boots on resort groomers. A lot of posts on here suggest using very skinny skis, like 55mm underfoot, for firm snow in leathers. Other posters mention skiing leathers on wider (like 75-85mm) downhill oriented skis and that their superior torsional rigidity makes them manageable on firm snow.

I was unable to find any 55-60mm underfoot downhill oriented skis on the used market, but I did find a pair of K2 shes piste skis (110-70-95). I was skeptical that a ski this wide would be good on groomers, but I decided to give it a try. These come pre-installed with threaded inserts in a 4-hole mounting pattern (voile or G3) and I put some voile 3-pin hardwire bindings on them.

I took them out for the first time a few days ago to a local resort with very firm groomed runs and the results were great. They turn super easily and I can edge them with a lot more confidence. My turns feel smoother and if I need to make a quick, hard turn so that my skis are parallel to the fall line, I can control my downslope slide to a full stop without feeling like I'm about to lose control. With these skis I was really able to focus on improving my technique. They are a huge improvement over my s-bound 98s for resort skiing. I'm betting they will also be great for firm backcountry snow. The voile 3-pin bindings helped quite a bit too. The extra resistance in the hardwire cartridges helped me pressure the rear ski into the firm snow and the rigid construction of the hardwires made them feel more laterally stable.

There have been a few threads on here about resort skiing in leather boots. If you can find one of these old school k2 tele skis at your local thrift store or used gear shop, I highly recommend snagging them unless you don't like skis with a lot of sidecut. I would still like to try a downhill oriented ski with a 55-60mm waist, but it's hard to tell what's an old nordic ski vs an old skinny downhill ski and many of them look so old that I wonder how they perform compared to newer ski technology.

[Mattafix]

Combined with Andrews leather boots, they´re big fun to ski!

[Montana St Alum]

Interesting observations. Sounds like you hit the jackpot.

[Mattafix]

I definitely hit the jackpot the day I tried telemark skiing. Sorry for my not so good English. I’ll try my best. My telemark career went from alpine skiing to „heavy telemark“ in the resort twelve years ago. Then to the backcountry and further on to skiing over rolling terrain on lighter XCD equipment. My focus has always been getting turns on the downhill. I still do it all and really enjoy the different styles of telemark skiing. Skiing in leather boots on groomers is a great possibility to further develop your telemark turns. Sometimes I get out on my 80s Dynastar Vertical moguls skis, Voilé 3Pins traverse and Andrew TLK boots.
The torsional rigidity even of old alpine skis is so much more compared to my Fischer Boundless, e99 and Salomon xadv. There is no real difference compared to modern alpine skis. There is no way carving turns easily like on skis with real sidecut. Less sidecut and no rocker of skinny old school alpine skis need a more conscious start of the turn. All in all, they require no other technique then more modern equipment. Same thing.
I hope you find old skinny skis in good condition to have fun on the groomers and in the back country. They will challenge you and reward you.

[Lhartley]

Looks like a fun setup, I still have some of my old Elan slalom and gs skis I raced on in the early 90s and often think of throwing some 75mm's on them

[wabene]

@JB TELE would you remind me what you weigh? I keep seeing She's Piste in my length but wonder if I'm too heavy for them at 185lbs. It looks like you got the 174cm length and ski the 98 in 179. My 98 is 189 which is great but I was considering the K2 in 174, but you have me thinking that might be too short.

[mca80]

Is there a difference between the shes piste and its male counterpart in terms of flex and stiffness, or just the flowery graphics?

Is this ski ok for mix of midwest resort powder and groomers, and what size would be recommended for someone 5'4", 145lbs, using stiff leathers and cable or hardwire? There's a 160 (my height being 162) with voile hardwires on ebay that looks to be in super shape. When I skied alpine my volkls that were decent in all snow conditions were about that length albeit maybe a touch wider in the waist.

[wabene]

Is there a difference between the shes piste and its male counterpart in terms of flex and stiffness, or just the flowery graphics?

Is this ski ok for mix of midwest resort powder and groomers, and what size would be recommended for someone 5'4", 145lbs, using stiff leathers and cable or hardwire? There's a 160 (my height being 162) with voile hardwires on ebay that looks to be in super shape. When I skied alpine my volkls that were decent in all snow conditions were about that length albeit maybe a touch wider in the waist.

Yes the She's Piste are softer flexing for lighter folks. Probably perfect for you, but maybe not me.

[mca80]

Yes the She's Piste are softer flexing for lighter folks. Probably perfect for you, but maybe not me.

Well that's the weight I shoot for, right now I have quite a bit to lose. And for my short height even at 145lbs I am fairly heavy, so maybe 174 in the womens or 160 something in the mens, if I can find the latter.

[Montana St Alum]

I'm thinking that when you look at ski widths, the tip and tail width comes into play as well, when it comes to deciding appropriate widths for this application. In the case of the She's Piste, the 110 at the tip will contribute to the torsion applied to the boot much like the underfoot width does. Having a torsionally soft ski will help to reduce that twisting feedback, compared to a torsionally stiff ski.

So, a torsionally stiff 110/70/95 ski might be harder to get on edge than a 120/80/105 ski if it is torsionally soft.
It's something to consider if you're looking at skis for use with softer boot/binding choices.
Also, I think skis a little on the short side wouldn't be a problem for this sort of resort application while skis a bit long would have more of a downside to them.