Ski recommendations for a XCD novice

[telerat]

Now worries Erik H. I think we should be able to discuss options for both you and your father in this thread.

BC skis have much less camber and will, unless specific models and long lengths are chosen, feel dead compared to XC skis. They are much better than alpine skis though. Different models have different focus; some skis have more camber for covering distance and support/float in loose snow, while others are more all-round or turn focused. Modern skis with nordic rocker/early rise and taper manages to combine more properties in the same ski, but it is always a compromise and each person have to find out which properties are most important to him/her. Here are a couple of articles from Åsnes:
https://asnes-academy.com/en/choose-the ... y-bc-skis/
https://asnes-academy.com/en/choose-the ... d-sidecut/
(unfortunately they are not completely English and have some Norwegian mixed in, but I think you can get the essence of it). Good luck.

[Manney]

Agree with @telerat

Even in the BC category, there can be a lot of difference in camber. Here are two quite different BC skis. Apologies for the ghosted images… it was the only quick way I could put both in a reasonable (not claiming perfection here) scaled side by side view on my tablet.

The ski on the left is a Fisher SBound 98 (98, 69, 88) in 189mm length. It is a waxless ski with optional skins. It is a pretty popular BC ski because it is an all round performer. It has width and float suitable for a fair amount of powder.

The ski on the right is a Voile Objective in 171mm length (115, 82, 99). It is a waxless ski with optional skins. It’s a ski that is popular with DH oriented skiers. Width and float comparable to some alpine skis.

No doubt that the Objective will float better in powder. It’s wider along all points of the ski. Many people would think that its turnability is a function of its plan form… typical of a modern DH oriented ski. But that’s not the whole story. A great deal of its turnability is due to it having a low, relatively soft alpine camber.

On the flats, the SBound will kick its ass. A skier who knows what they’re doing with weight transfer will be able to out kick AND out glide anyone on the Voile on the flats. A less skilled skier might not find much difference in speed. The climb will be harder on the SBound until the skins go on.

If the DH sections are powder, the skis might be equally fast and controllable. Why? Because setting an edge is less critical on soft powder… skis will find their edge even with modest weight transfer.

If the snow is firm on the downhill, the Voile will be a far easier ski to turn. It will find its edge quickly under the feet of an average skier because of that lower camber. The SBound might struggle under the foot of the same average skier.

Advanced skiers will manage both skis equally well… they will simply adjust technique to get the best performance from either ski.

So this is where things like camber, conditions, and skier ability can result in a pleasurable, or less than pleasurable, experience on the trail.

[Erik H]

Thanks for the information, this was helpful.
Regarding my own skis I'm still considering the transnordic 66 and was wondering how stiff it is compared to my adventure 62 skis, here is a squeeze test on those:

https://youtube.com/shorts/IKor-YZdZf0?feature=share

It was pretty hard to squeeze them.
I am also considering the Asnes Nansen but I fear the waxless version might not provide enough grip for me

[fisheater]

Eric, the Transnordic 66 is reported to turn pretty good for an XC ski. Better than my Gamme which is comparable. I have a scaled Asnes MT 51 waxless. I use kick wax to help the grip, but the X-skin certainly has better grip than Fischer scales, and is smoother to ski than scales. Unless you like that baseball card in your spokes thing. Yes I’m dating myself. If you want Fischer scales have you considered the Fischer Transnordic 82? I may have read it is not available with scales.
I skied with a guy on a Nansen last year, and I think it’s a really nice cross country ski that turns. If I didn’t have a Gamme and a Falketind Xplore it would be the shiznit. However my two skis cover a much wider degree of terrain and conditions than one Nansen. I would recommend you consider the waxless version, with a 30 mm X Skin. I think you would be pleased

[Erik H]

Perhaps, I am just used to fishscales and like them a lot so was wanting something that had some, but I guess skins could be fun. As for the 82, I will look into that, I really like skinny skis so I am hesitant about getting anything too wide for myself

[Manney]

Not a big believer in a squeeze test… like how hard is hard? Really need a calibrated test and pressing down until the ski either bottoms out or is within a given height from the surface. Even then it can be confusing because not all skis are linear.

You can infer ski stiffness from the Fischer charts. That will help determine if you’re on the right track.

The only way to really know is to have the skier stand on them under supervision of a tech. That will confirm whether you can fully compress the ski with full weight and partially compress it with half weight. It will tell you how the pocket shapes out etc… which is really handy if you ever decide on a waxed ski (know that’s not what you’re looking for atm, but it’s worth highlighting just how useful it is to be fitted for skis rather than buying them off the charts.

Also, need to consider skill level and weight. Low skill… maybe go with a ski below recommended weight range. It will be easier to compress dynamically. High skill… go longer than recommended weight range to ensure the best possible speed.

[Erik H]

Thanks for sharing the chart, that will be helpful

[Manney]

No problem. Actual links here…

https://fischersports.com/media/pdf/da/ ... -Final.pdf

https://fischersports.com/media/pdf/65/ ... _22l23.pdf

What I like about Fischer is that they keep things loose. They understand that what works for one skier may not work for another. It’s all about skill level. We see this in a chart like this…

More than one weight range for a ski. If you’re lighter, but highly skilled, then you can exploit a longer ski. If you’re not, then maybe a smaller size would be best. It’s not a take-it-or -leave-it deal like most weight charts.

Experienced skiers learn this after years of practice and experimentation. It’s good to see Fisher embrace this… also, some of their classic skis come in various stiffnesses. This is exactly like how things are managed at the competitive level… going up and down in stiffness depending on track conditions.

All companies should do this… but it’s understandable when they don’t. It’s hard enough getting consumers to follow the KISS principle when the choices are limited. More choice sometimes increases the opportunity for people to really mess things up.

[mca80]

I am also considering the Asnes Nansen but I fear the waxless version might not provide enough grip for me

Have never skied Asnes waxless but many here say the grip pattern isn't very good and nearly unanimous consensus is Fischer's scales are the best.

I have a waxable Nansen. Camber is fairly low and quite soft--because of this, I find them kinda slow for xc travel, but they are a heck of a lot of fun downhill so long as it isn't super deep powder. No ski excels at everything, but Nansen does most everything acceptably--you just need to examine your priorities.

[Manney]

This is a great review of the Nansen:

https://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?t=4290

What makes it great is how @Woodserson covers the subject. He explains ski camber and its effect on skiing dynamics in a very clear manner. Includes perspectives on the influence of skier size and skill level too.