Ski recommendations for a XCD novice

[Manney]

No problem, @CwmRaider. We need to question everything to get closer to the truth.

Not sure how to interpret a specific pairing (Falketind + Explore). Clearly, Asnes and Rottefella joined forces and did their homework based on all kinds of things… including internal construction. Does this mean Xplore will work on any 62mm waisted ski? Different question…

The binding hole width similarities between Xplore and NNN BC is a strong argument. Ppl may argue that the pin-to-toe arrangement allows the skier to apply more torque to Xplore… which explains the 4 screws for that binding (vs 3 for the working portion of a NNN BC binding). That argument might have merit but it’s an extreme use case not applicable to most recreational skiers.

Don’t think this derails the thread… just gives OP something to consider before pulling the trigger (or having his dad pull the trigger). Lots of good value in the discussion tho…

On the ski issue, the Objective seems like overkill for a “Nordic trail” which has specific connotations. It might be a really good choice for XC DH tho… but that “DH” is capitalized for a reason. Speaks to the impossibility of an ideal one-ski-to-do-it-all quiver. Simply doesn’t exist.

So I’m more in your / @telekid camp wrt a moderately wide ski for all the things mentioned by the OP. Faster, lighter, better tracking, stable enough with the right boot for ppl of any age.

[Stephen]

I’ll just echo / add onto the Free / Xplore / Objective combination comments, since I have skied this.

It’s great in powder / soft snow, but tiring on firm / hard snow.
On firm snow, hard to edge the skis on a traverse, or on the down.

But, a wonderful combination in powder or maybe ideal spring conditions.

[fisheater]

Since there were two votes fore the Objective, I’ll throw the Falketind Xplore out there. I’ve skied next to a couple Fischer T-78’s and they did not kick and glide better than my FT X, quite the opposite. However it was on fresh powder and my wax probably just glided better. It also flat out out climbed those Fischer scales. Now wax doesn’t beat scales once the snow warms, but an X Skin sure does a nice job! I had an S-112, I definitely did not think it to be a superior downhill ski, and they are not good at all as a kick and glide ski. However they have scales, and people like scales. People should ski what they like.

[CwmRaider]

However they have scales, and people like scales. People should ski what they like.

That's a good universal truth.

I second fisheater's suggestion of Åsnes Falketind Xplore as a great waxable xcD ski, with an emphasis on the D.
Touring performance vs a narrower ski like the T78 will depend on the snow conditions. But the overall usage scenario of the OP's father is still not very clear to me. There are maybe 4-5 ski models in the Åsnes lineup (Nansen, Sverdrup, Ingstad, FT-X, Combat?, all waxable with kicker skin) and 4-5 in the Fischer lineup (T78, E88, SB98, SB112?, TN82 (waxable with kicker skin only)) which could work as of now.
I still cannot recommend Åsnes waxless models without reservation due to very circumstantial grip when using the scales.

[Erik H]

yeah, fishscales are a must for us.
regarding boots, I really don't know what to get. something good for longer tours but sturdy for making turns downhill would be ideal. I was thinking the Alpina Alaska in either Xplore or nnn bc. for skis I am now thinking about possibly Aplina's discovery 80 as they have loads of sidecut.
for the past few years, he has been using Rossignol evo glades (basically no sidecut and very little grip) with regular nnn bindings and Salomon combi boots. So really any ski with a much grippier fishscale pattern, lots of sidecut, edges, and a sturdy boot would likely make a world of difference.

[Manney]

When you say “downhill”, what do you mean? Backcountry, rolling terrain, groomed slope, lift served? If groomed, lift served… greens or blues?

How long, in distance are the average sessions? % flat, climb, downhill. How long does it take (trying to understand the pace, terrain iot determine best ski type in terms of priority… glide, climb, carving.).

You mentioned Evo Glades. Fairly narrow (for the backcountry), straight cut. What did you like, dislike about them, bindings, and boots in terms of performance? Will the Alpina Discos be used in the same terrain? Some people have regular routes, ski from back door. Others are wanderers, choosing terrain to suit equipment. Even some experimenters out there pushing boundaries.

[fisheater]

Alpina Alaska is a nice boot. It’s warm, and fairly supportive. They are pretty durable as well. I was so pleased with my BC Alaska, that I bought a pair of the 75 mm Alaska when I caught a deal on an early summer sale (pre-covid)
Guys like the T-78, they seem pretty popular. If you father could ski his previous set up this would be an upgrade. Lots of people like these skis. The Alpina Discovery 80 / Pioneer are anothe option, as well as the Madshus Panorama 62.
I can’t offer any more help, as I am inclined to wax and X-skins.

PS I have a pretty average width and volume foot. My Alaska fit like custom made. Guys with wide and high volume feet do not fit into the Alaska. FYI

Good Luck,
Bob

[Manney]

It’s difficult to pin things down. Lots of talk about skis, boots… not a lot of talk about conditions, aspirations.

An Evo Glade is an entry level (in terms of layout, design) backcountry ski. A light step up from a classic xc ski for groomed trails. Often configured for light bindings.

Shifting from a ski like the Evo or a 62 to a Discovery 80 or 78 with a full boot is going to be a substantial step. Perhaps not all that satisfying if staying on the same trails for long distances… or could be just the ticket if the OP is struggling on the trails with an outmatched set-up. Hard to tell.

If this is part of a deliberate shift into intermediate backcountry conditions, ok. If the aspiration is heavy BC with a balance of XC and D, there might be other skis, boots out there.

The other issue is that the conversation is jumping back and forth between father and son… inconsistencies in expressed skill levels. Not being critical of the OP… just pointing out that it’s hard pinning things down here.

[Erik H]

Shifting from a ski like the Evo or a 62 to a Discovery 80 or 78 with a full boot is going to be a substantial step. Perhaps not all that satisfying if staying on the same trails for long distances… or could be just the ticket if the OP is struggling on the trails with an outmatched set-up. Hard to tell.

The other issue is that the conversation is jumping back and forth between father and son… inconsistencies in expressed skill levels. Not being critical of the OP… just pointing out that it’s hard pinning things down here.

I'm thinking as you said, it should be just the ticket for him to enjoy himself more in the places that we typically go to, he does not enjoy himself much on the evo glades when it comes to going downhill.

As for my skis, I probably should have discussed that in another thread. I can see how it can be confusing

[Manney]

Dealing with terrain of any kind on a BC ski is much different than on a DH ski. Setting aside things like locked heels, rigid boots, and steel edges… probably the biggest deal is that you’re on a cambered ski. The level of difficulty edging a cambered ski is considerable. If you can’t hard carve a DH ski on blues and blacks, basic edging of a cambered BC ski is going to be quite difficult. Doesn’t matter if the ski has a steel edge or not.

Amateurs (not talking about you or anyone else participating in this thread) talk brands, base, widths. More experienced skiers talk conditions, camber, length because they know these things make more of a difference than a few mm of side cut or shovel width.

As an example, a novice BC skier will have a much easier time turning a shorter, low camber ski, regardless of the terrain. The plan form (shape) matters in more technical conditions… which can only be safely navigated with some solid skills and time in the bindings.

OTOH, a low cambered ski won’t have much pop on the flats. Ppl with really good weight transfer skills or a high fitness level may find such skis slow and unresponsive, whereas those coming at the sport from a DH perspective may find them acceptable because their level of ambition on the flats is modest.

All of this starts to matter when deciding between low camber, single camber, or camber and a half skis. Many performance oriented BC skis have moderate camber… some have camber and a half. The amount of camber usually drops with a more DH oriented ski… but these skis don’t track as well.

Most Fischer BC skis I’ve run across have a fair bit of camber… as you’ve discovered with your Adventure 62s. The Alpina Discovery 80 seems to have modest camber. Not sure about the Pioneer. Rossi BC 80, 100, 120 have moderate camber, but they are soft… so the effect is lower under foot. Altais are flat and wide. The Voile Objectives have very little camber, as you’d expect in a DH oriented ski. Asnes skis run the range… though to their credit the write up for most of their skis includes some general info on camber.

On length, many BC skis give an ideal weight range. This is usually based on camber resistance. Going down one step in length will make the ski more easily compressible on the trail… easier kick and edging.

DH oriented skis often don’t list an ideal weight range. This is because they don’t have much, or any, camber. So the weight needed to compress them is irrelevant.

It’s best to think of this as a multidimensional problem… start with the skier, trail conditions, and ambition. Move to camber, length. Then choose enough width to ensure adequate flotation when powder is encountered. You’ll always find yourself coming back to the skier and conditions though.

More reading…

https://www.psia-rm.org/the-scoop/there ... wiesiolek/

Don’t get thrown off by the term cross country skis. Backcountry skis operate on all the same principles.