Adding more skis to my quiver

[Mattafix]

Hey guys,
after I ripped out an edge of my waxless Salomon XADV, I’m getting my head around a new pair of skis. I mostly tour in steeper terrain on burlier telemark gear in the Austrian and Bavarian Alps. Wide skis, active bindings, and rigid plastic boots. I’ve been evolving into skiing on leathers and skinnier skis, though, what I really love (and what almost nobody else is doing around here). I bought the 192 Salomons as my first skis for more mellow terrain ten years ago. Later on I added more skis I bought used like 179 Fischer Boundless and 195 E99. I’m 5.8 and 165. I can easily turn all of my skis as long as it isn’t breakable crust. Obviously, they are on the short side, except the Salomon, which also turned very well. Boots are Ski Marchs, heavy Andrew leathers, and Excursions. Bindings are 3pin cables and hardwires.
I’ve been trying to explore what might be possible to ski on light equipment. Not steep in the sense of ski mountaineering, but I sometimes try to push it into an alpine environment where I have to use skins. Primarily, I am after the descent. I find myself on flat or rolling terrain, though, on which I have to cover some distance with a max of 10 miles. I would like to avoid all the waxing stuff because it’s not cold enough for longer periods. The snow isn’t powder for half of the season at least and you have to deal with wind blown as well as refrozen or simply very hard snow.
I will also go the scaled Voilé way with plastic boots, but I have to make decisions on the XCD path right now. I want to stick to 3pins (cables/HW) and the possibility to ski in the Ski Marchs.
My dream would be the non existing waxless Falketind XP. So my considerations are:
Skis like the Madshus M78 floats but might have not enough torsional rigidity and is on the D and less on the XC side. The same for the Koms which additionally are even wider UF as an Ultra Vector. I want to avoid Fischer and Rossignol.
There are two options my heart seems to allow:
The Madshus M68 looks good. How long should it be? I carry bags not heavier than 15 lb, so my weight on the ski is around 180. Length recommendations say 182. In 192, the XC would be increased as well as floatation, right?
The waxless Ingstad: How is floatation compared to the M68 and how is its rotational rigidity? I could add short skins to the scales. Same length questions: 185? 195?
I’ve been reading a lot but am too unsure for final decisions. Thank you for any thoughts and advice. You may also question my narrow mindedness considering only these two ski models.

[lowangle al]

If i wanted to use the lighter boots in a variety of conditions i would try voiles objectives or endeavor bc skis. I’d get them on the short side.

I have a pair of madshu 68s and I don’t think they climb well enough in an alpine setting.

[Mattafix]

@lowangle al, thank you for the advice on the Voilé skis. I will definitely add some scaled Voilé skis that I will mount light 75mm and light TTS bindings on. It’s still a gap in my quiver, too.
I know, XCD skis are not the ideal gear or the one that makes an easy option. It is more like a deliberate choice and my focus here would intentionally be to dive into XCD stuff. I know skis like the Madshus M68s are not ideal for skinning in mountainous terrain. This would (very, very rarely) be the absolute extreme the skis had to perform. The idea is to take light XCD skis into rolling and not too steep terrain to try to implement telemark turns in very varied terrain. I’m very curious about the length recommendations, since I seem to be right in between the manufacturers suggestions.

[phoenix]

"I’m very curious about the length recommendations, since I seem to be right in between the manufacturers suggestions."

There's no definitive answer for this, it really is your choice as to whether you prefer the maneuverability of the shorter length, or some extra float and glide (a little, anyway) of the longer. I've been skiing a pair of Objectives with light 75's for several years now. They're 164's, I'm right in the recommended zone for these; they ski really well and are very nimble, but I sometimes wish I'd gone for the 171's. I added a pair of HyperVector's in the 171, and the length feels right to me, though longer than recommended length.
As if that's not enough I also found a nice used Ultra Vector in 177... two sizes beyond recommended. They feel just a little long, but still ski well, and carry GS type skiing very well indeed.
All that said, I've skied longer than recommended skis for several decades, usually a size up than suggested for my weight. Boils down to preference.

[pacificnomad]

The waxless Ingstad: How is floatation compared to the M68 and how is its rotational rigidity? I could add short skins to the scales. Same length questions: 185? 195?

I'd also consider the waxless Nansen! I have both the Ingstad BC 195 (waxable) and the Nansen WL 195 and find that the Nansen inspires more confidence when descending in most conditions. The Nansen's are also just better all around BC skis compared to the Ingstad's; they offer better kick and glide performance, they are easier to edge in icy conditions, they eat up breakable crust, they seem to offer more control on fast hard packed descents, are more nimble and easier to handle than the Ingstad's. The only time I find the Ingstad's to shine is descending in really deep and soft snow. Though I think I would prefer to use the Nansen for kicking and gliding in deep snow. With a 48mm x skin I'm able to climb pretty steep climbs without too much trouble.

[Mattafix]

There's no definitive answer for this, it really is your choice as to whether you prefer the maneuverability of the shorter length, or some extra float and glide (a little, anyway) of the longer..... I've skied longer than recommended skis for several decades, usually a size up than suggested for my weight. Boils down to preference.

Thank you for your advice. For the M68 I tend to the 192 for better glide and float

[Mattafix]

I'd also consider the waxless Nansen! I have both the Ingstad BC 195 (waxable) and the Nansen WL 195 and find that the Nansen inspires more confidence when descending in most conditions. The Nansen's are also just better all around BC skis compared to the Ingstad's; they offer better kick and glide performance, they are easier to edge in icy conditions, they eat up breakable crust, they seem to offer more control on fast hard packed descents, are more nimble and easier to handle than the Ingstad's. The only time I find the Ingstad's to shine is descending in really deep and soft snow. Though I think I would prefer to use the Nansen for kicking and gliding in deep snow. With a 48mm x skin I'm able to climb pretty steep climbs without too much trouble.

The Nansen sounds like a real option! I’ve never considered it because it’s not very wide. Reading yours and other reviews it seems worth a deeper look. Thank you This opens up another thought: Now at the end of winter, prices drop and I think about a narrower ski like the Nansen and additionally a wider ski.

[fisheater]

I have a Nansen WL at 205 cm, and I have Falketind Xplore at 196 cm. I look at it quite simply, the Nansen is an XC ski you can turn, the FT X is a downhill ski that kicks and glides. The Nansen does not turn like a downhill ski, and while the FT X kicks pretty well, it certainly doesn’t track like an XC ski on uneven, off camber, consolidated snow. If the object of my tour is downhill turns, I choose FT X.
I had an S-112, it was a torsional noodle, i skied it with the Ski March boot. The ski was not up to the boot. It was also a very poor ski on firm snow, it didn’t track at all and the scales dragged terribly.

I have to speak to kick wax. This season I only used 3 kick waxes, Rex Universal Tar, Vaughti Pure Pro White, and Start Violet Oslo. I carried wax remover in the truck. One time I thought the Oslo Violet would work, but it didn’t. I went back, 5 minute clean job, and put on a mohair X-skin. I make turns on the X-skin. I carry 2 X-skin in my pack, as I wonder if I might rip one off, it hasn’t happened yet.

[fisheater]

Kastler is offering some waxless skis, Varuste price is good. I don’t know anything about the ski.

https://varuste.net/en/p131102/k%C3%A4stle-xt84-crown

[Mattafix]

@fisheater - I haven’t seen the Kästle in a shop or in the wild. To buy it online would be a shot in the dark. I’d be positively surprised if it’s a ski that torsionally is rigid. I can’t find any description of how it’s built. Kind of air core? It is pretty light weight with a low price...
I very much appreciate your insights. I’ll have to buy two pairs of skis in the long run, I guess.
Madshus M68 could possibly be a popular and inexpensive one-quiver-ski. My only fear is that I experience the same as you have on the Fischers. Anybody has experienced similar on the M68? The Nansen WL really looks appealing to me and kind of in the same category as my old Salomon. Though way more classy and of higher quality by far. To me, it’s some kind of a seductive game to try to break in more challenging ground on gear that (in a way our modern understanding seems to define it) isn’t primarily intended for this purpose. But that’s another, long story...
I’ve been thinking about wax skis a lot. I’ve never had one so it would be new territory for me. Too far from car and home, sometimes on multiday trips, I would have to carry wax in case I had to change something. It’s no continental climate here with temperatures often around just a little bit under or at zero Celsius. Kind of unpredictable. Would wax work in a satisfying way? I sometimes think I’d like to dive in waxing skis. If only to enlargen my skiing knowledge and abilities.
Being able to turn on X-skins - amazing! As a backup, if my waxing abilities wouldn’t make a good job, this might give me the confidence to try and go the wax ski direction.
I would love to ski on Falketinds X! Also the Rabb is one of my dream skis.