From:
https://web.archive.org/web/20151002150 ... rtbag.html
CATAMOUNT CLASS SKIS Summary:
● Tip Width: Mid 80s
● Typical profile: 85/70/80
● Double camber for some touring performance
● Wide profile underfoot for good flotation
● Generally waxless bases for easy touring without skins
The Ski: These skis were made for off trail exploration on soft snow. Their minimal amount of sidecut and their double camber reveal them as touring skis, first and foremost. They were made for forward travel. But, their relatively wide 70mm width under the foot gives these skis decent flotation in soft snow. Typically these skis have long waxless patterns that allow them to climb well without the need for applying kick wax or climbing skins. Their double camber and aggressive waxless pattern make them less of a turning ski than a real telemark ski is.
This basic design has been around for quite a while now and still available. However, in recent years, more shapely skis have been introduced for roughly the same kind of skiing.
The Terrain: These skis have been very popular for a long time for we call "puckerbush skiing", by which we mean hacking around in the soft snow in the sometimes dense understory of our woods. They have the reputation of being fun and easy to turn skis provided you are skiing in soft snow. I've seen good skiers ski remarkable lines with this type of ski.
I've heard mixed reports about other aspects of their downhill capabilities. Many have reported that their significant double camber can interfere with turning performance on firmer snow. Reports on the internet indicate they some have used these skis for mountaineering expeditions in places like the Cascades where the good grip of the waxless base combined with their light weight and durability have been (apparently) prized. Noted author Andy Dappen recently reported in Backcountry Magazine that this is his ski of choice combined with light Alpine Touring boots and bindings.
In terms of their touring performance, these skis are made to move forward with confidence but not speed. I've been on tours where these skis have climbed as well as skis with skins on, with the added benefit of not having to futz with skins. But, you're not going to stride along for effortless kick and glide with this type ski. We should also add that with a wide tip of 85mm, these skis typically won't fit into backcountry tracks created by narrow cross country skis. On several occasions, I've seen people on these skis forced to trudge along outside of decent backcountry tracks with their Catamounts.
The Skier: Two years ago, I would have recommended this type of ski for people looking to play around in low angled and tight trees. However, the rave reviews I've heard from folks about the newer shaped skis make me think skis who want fun turning skis that tour well should look to these newer designs in stead. On the other hand, this type of ski is great for skiers who are looking to go from point A to point B away from tracks of any kind but who want stability, flotation and maneuverability. They would be a good match for somebody who essentially wants a sliding snowshoe.
The Boots and Bindings: I have a friend who is really good tele skiers. He skis his Catamounts with low-cut Snowfield boots. I once watched make great turns in the wood of Bolton Valley. Did I mention that he's a good skier?
Extreme class type boots with at least one buckle and some internal plastic will help us more mortal types without giving up too much in terms of touring ability. My preference though is for an Excursion type of boot.
Karhu
85/70/80
Catamount
1994 - 1998