Modern Tele Ski

[bee]

I am an advanced alpine skier, but a noob telemarker. I have been procrastinating getting my own tele setup for a while mainly since the boot choices have pretty much sucked! (sorry to any old boot fans ) Now with the new TX pro, its lighter, and the ROM is now similar to my touring boots, so I'm in! I just picked up a pair of these (I sized down quite a bit from my alpine boot size if anyone is curious).
I am likely going to get a pair of 22 designs Outlaw X to put on my skis, I will mainly be in the resort on this setup, as I am still learning to telemark, and the resort is a much more conducive place to learning, but still would like to tour occasionally.

I like soft skis, especially in Tele since I am going slower than alpine. I am tall so I need a 187+ ski.
I quite like the QST 106 echo. This is my top pick right now, its soft, light for occasional tours, and has a shape I like.

Here comes my questions...

This ski has a karuba/poplar core, and I know tele bindings put much higher leverage on the ski than alpine. I am worried about pulling out as it is a soft wood, no TI or hardwood mounting plate. I have broken multiple skis before as I ski hard, but likely will not be skiing tele to a similar level of aggressiveness.

For reference, the new atomic Backland 109 has been on my list as well.
(side note: why tf are all the soft skis twin-tip or light touring skis??)

1: Is this really a concern? I want to ski this ski, but obviously I don't want to pull out on the first day.

2: Is there any other skis that you recommend that have a similar profile/shape and flex pattern to these skis but maybe have a more substantial mounting area?

3: I would just love a soft ski with moderate tail rocker and a flat area to hold my skin clip so when I do tour, it's not falling off 24/7, also I'm not going to be landing switch on tele...
A light ski would be nice but I would prefer durability and binding retention over this.
It seems as though it's either a stiff ski that holds my bindings, or a soft ski that I might rip out of (if this is really an issue).

[Montana St Alum]

Any alpine ski will work for telemark. If you're really worried about pulling bindings, put in inserts, such as "Binding Freedom". Also, go with something like a Lynx, if weight is a consideration, as it's 300 grams lighter. The Outlaw X is pretty heavy.
For inbounds, weight really isn't much of an issue.
I was able to drive the M-Free 108 pretty easily (I'm 150 pounds) on Tx Pros. And driving 185cm JJ's at 116 underfoot was also a breeze. I'm also on the Rustler 10 which has a metal top sheet but isn't overly stiff.

22 Designs uses 6 screws in their bindings, so I don't think they are easy to pull, but when I went BC, I always had inserts in, as I didn't want to post hole out of the Wasatch! Inbounds, I don't worry too much about it. Now I use inserts just because I have more skis than bindings, so I swap around some.

Just as an aside, I ski switch all the time on tele. It's stupid, has no function, or redeeming social value, so I highly recommend it.

What and where are you skiing now?

[bee]

Any alpine ski will work for telemark. If you're really worried about pulling bindings, put in inserts, such as "Binding Freedom". Also, go with something like a Lynx, if weight is a consideration, as it's 300 grams lighter. The Outlaw X is pretty heavy.
For inbounds, weight really isn't much of an issue.
I was able to drive the M-Free 108 pretty easily (I'm 150 pounds) on Tx Pros. And driving 185cm JJ's at 116 underfoot was also a breeze. I'm also on the Rustler 10 which has a metal top sheet but isn't overly stiff.

22 Designs uses 6 screws in their bindings, so I don't think they are easy to pull, but when I went BC, I always had inserts in, as I didn't want to post hole out of the Wasatch! Inbounds, I don't worry too much about it. Now I use inserts just because I have more skis than bindings, so I swap around some.

Just as an aside, I ski switch all the time on tele. It's stupid, has no function, or redeeming social value, so I highly recommend it.

What and where are you skiing now?

I agree! I was actually planning on using BF inserts, and have a Lynx at home that I will swap to for touring. My thoughts exactly!

The M-Free 108 is a good idea!
Good to hear you aren't too concerned about pulling out, especially with the inserts.

I'm in the Wasatch as well, local resort is Alta, currently skiing on Moment Wildcat 108 tour for my touring skis, Volkl Revolt 104 as my everyday play ski, and Revolt 121 as my charger pow ski

[Montana St Alum]

Cool. I'm on the Wasatch Back. Our son skis LCC, though. Yeah, I don't think you'll have any problems. My touring days are over, and I'd have gone with the Lynx, but I do like ski brakes so I'm on the Ox.

[fisheater]

@bee
I had a 10 year ski week run in Utah a long time ago. My last visit was 2001.
I was kind of out of touch with with skis to ski on piste with, well at the same time having an off piste nature. I went with a Summit Cone Pariah. I liked the way it skied and the flex so much, ordered the scaled version.
My real point is they have a 3 year pull out warranty.
Available at Fey Brothers, of New Hampshire.

There are a whole lot of people more knowledgeable about these type of skis than me. I am a decent skier though, I like the ski, they’re made in the USA, and the warranty is good.

[Salto]

I used to like stiffer skis with metal, but I'm getting more seasoned and enjoy a softer ski much more now.

Just look for lighter skis with a metal reinforcing mounting area.

I have really been enjoying the volkl blaze 94s. Just a great round flex for the tele-turn. Not for the speed demon or boilers, but other than that really nice, light, and responsive.

I personally like a lighter ski for inbounds and out. I enjoy the quicker feel and ability to manhandle when desired.

[Montana St Alum]

I agree! I was actually planning on using BF inserts, and have a Lynx at home that I will swap to for touring. My thoughts exactly!

The thing that really drove me to BF was that my son in Alaska does epic back country up there, and I REALLY did not want to worry about him pulling bindings! Now I just like the fact that I can easily move bindings from ski to ski, and I can also tap in two more holes and have the option of trying different mounting positions. Also the fact that all 22 Designs have the same hole pattern (not necessarily the same boot position) is pretty handy. I'm throwing some Ox's on a pair of older JJ's that had Hammerheads on them. I may need to do some drilling, but using the old holes as a template might help.

[rongon]

Sorry to go a bit off-topic here, or perhaps it's on-topic since the subject is recommendations for a telemark ski for downhill...

I used to like stiffer skis with metal, but I'm getting more seasoned and enjoy a softer ski much more now.

Just look for lighter skis with a metal reinforcing mounting area.

I have really been enjoying the volkl blaze 94s. Just a great round flex for the tele-turn. Not for the speed demon or boilers, but other than that really nice, light, and responsive.

I personally like a lighter ski for inbounds and out. I enjoy the quicker feel and ability to manhandle when desired.

I think you're the first person I've seen mention Volkl Blaze 94 for telemark. I noticed that it has a long rise tip and tail, going deep toward the center of the ski. Do you feel this on snow? I've found that I don't like too deep tip and tail rocker for telemark, it makes the ski feel too short. Perhaps this is not an issue with the Blaze 94? May I ask you height/weight and what length you chose for Blaze 94?

I have two friends who got Blaze 94 for their AT rigs, and they seem to like them. But like I said, nobody who's using them for telemark.

Thanks.

[Woodserson]

Sorry to go a bit off-topic here, or perhaps it's on-topic since the subject is recommendations for a telemark ski for downhill...


I think you're the first person I've seen mention Volkl Blaze 94 for telemark. I noticed that it has a long rise tip and tail, going deep toward the center of the ski. Do you feel this on snow? I've found that I don't like too deep tip and tail rocker for telemark, it makes the ski feel too short. Perhaps this is not an issue with the Blaze 94? May I ask you height/weight and what length you chose for Blaze 94?

I have two friends who got Blaze 94 for their AT rigs, and they seem to like them. But like I said, nobody who's using them for telemark.

Thanks.

I've been using the much heavier Volkl Kendo 88 for telemark and it has a similar very long and shallow rocker, and it has been an absolute dream to ski. I will say, long and shallow are difficult to engineer consistently and if you line up many difference pairs of the same ski they will have different rocker. I picked the shallowest most inconspicuous rocker possible and it's great. 85% of my days last year were on this ski. When I roll it over the entire ski engages.

One my friends picked up a blaze 86 and I was surprised how much rocker they had, more than the Kendo, and it makes me wonder if that was purposeful or part of the inconsistency I've seen.

I agree with you, too rocker much makes it ski funny, I have evolved to the point where I don't like it so much in the tail anymore like I once used to.

[rongon]

I've attached a graphic showing the side profile of two skis, the Volkl Blaze 94 and the Blizzard Brahma 88.

If you look at the areas of the skis labeled 'rise', you can see that the Blaze 94 has a long area in which the bases of the skis are not touching each other, while the Brahma 88 has much less area in which the bases are not touching each other. I think that's the tip and tail 'rocker' or 'rise' of the skis.

My question is if you actually feel that long area of rise along the running length of the Blaze 94, especially if skiing telemark style.

Click on the photo to zoom in.

??