All purpose backcountry/bushwack ski

[LooseHeel]

why do all threads turn into a personal essay about the mental issues of trying to decide which pair of four similar skis to take to the golf course?

[MikeK]

why do all threads turn into a personal essay about the mental issues of trying to decide which pair of four similar skis to take to the golf course?

Ummm... because this is internet skiing and that's all XCD really is?

Hey connyro - I liked your review. Makes a lot of sense to me, especially what skis you prefer for what. I was going to ask what you used the Guides for vs. the Vector based on your last post, but you answered already.

It seems like you get a lot more deep powder in your area compared to the lower Great Lakes... probably less thaws too.

[connyro]

Mike, In my area of the upper GLs, snowfall averages over 200"/year, and up in the hills we gets up to and sometimes over 300". And it rarely thaws much during the season so you end up with a base of snow 4-5 feet deep some seasons. The last 2 seasons had NO mid-winter thaw at all so the snow was extremely deep, unstable, and cold, to the point that is sort of sucked to ski, not to mention the record low temps we've had the last 2 seasons. It felt weird to complain about the snow being too deep, but I shit you not, it was! Right now, we have 2-3 feet of rock-hard crusty base snow that I hope will thaw into corn a couple times this week...perfect for the Guides, pins, and leathers.

[Teleman]

From what I have seen Vectors do well going up a broken trail...not so good breaking the trail....They have excellent bones for grip....They ski well in deep powder...turn well...keep you on the surface...if that is where you want to be...Still this year of endless powder any kind of ski without length had a difficult time...Got some chuckles out of Telewheels an aggressive older skier who skis at Stowe....I call Vectors "Oldie" skis....Keeps you young out in the woods....Well if you go back and look up the Ski lite XCD thread that Ron used to put up he was in the pictures...I think....Could have been after he was banned....Anyway Telewheels loves the Vectors/switchbacks...Plastic boots...Whatever the latest and greatest....BUT....his aggressive stance did him in....Vectors needed length....they had the width....Kept talking about how we needed to put the weight on the back ski....LEAN BACK....Not he , no sir ee....Not on a Vector....Naturally he went in big....I had NO ski that could deal with 4 feet of bottomless powder but why worry?....Those conditions wouldn't last.....12 weeks later....Dostie sent me a set of oldies the Classic Noodle...wide...heavy....tapered....but most important LONG....at 193....Width and length...Was able to surfatize to some extent which made skiing the bottomless easier... a 210-215 e99 would have gotten the job done also...BUT it would have been a different kind of ride....Less turning more arcing.... riding.... Uphill they did well as they were waxable...Vectors did great for bones but wax is still way better....As soon as the snow consolidated a bit...(very little)...was back on the e109's and Rebounds....Lite is right.... double camber allowed the skis to take off with little or no resistance....very fast...Go up easy and cruise the low angle like no fat boned ski can....For me there is nothing that can ski like a skinny, cambered, waxable ski....You DON'T SKI THOSE SKIS LIKE A DOWNHILLER....It's a different kind of ride...Steep...moderate...low angle they really go...TM

[connyro]

.....Don't do well crossing water courses....TM

Seriously TM, I'm genuinely interested: Why do you say that the Vector BCs don't do well at water crossings?

....not so good breaking the trail...

This has been the exact opposite of my experience. When we go out to break an uptrack in deep snow, it's usually the guy on the VectorBCs that gets the nod. I'm also curious if you've tried skiing the Vector BCs: Have you?

[MikeK]

Neither of those statements make much sense...

Not knowing any different I'd intuitively grab a vector over a e99 for breaking trail if those were my only two choices.

Water crossings suck no matter what ski you have. Maybe he meant if you have a 215cm skinny you can just bridge right over the shorter spans?

[Teleman]

Coming to a water cross....you can span the gap with the skinny double camber flexible skis way more easily than the short stubbies....As far as breaking trail the width of the fatties are a hindrance...think resistance....Slicers are way better and the double camber breaks lose and the shuffle and slide is far easier and less resistant....Going up hill is the same...Skinnies cruise up and down far more efficiently than the boned fatties....Fatties relate to a Jeep and the skinnies a rocket...TM

[MikeK]

I think I'm becoming fluent in Teleman. I probably can almost speak intelligibly with him!

Disagree about the width. Fat skis plane breaking trail if you let them i.e. unweight, stride and slide, then lunge forward. Skinnies just sink and you're pushing snow with your shins and boots... maybe even your balls if it's deep enough! Soft snow has little shear strength so the ski needs width and velocity to keep the skis up.

There may be a case where a skinny ski might work better if it's like 300cm+ long... the mechanics don't make sense to me and it surely would suck for the tight bush.

[connyro]

Coming to a water cross....you can span the gap with the skinny double camber flexible skis way more easily than the short stubbies....As far as breaking trail the width of the fatties are a hindrance...think resistance....Slicers are way better and the double camber breaks lose and the shuffle and slide is far easier and less resistant....Going up hill is the same...Skinnies cruise up and down far more efficiently than the boned fatties....Fatties relate to a Jeep and the skinnies a rocket...TM

Thanks for the response TM!

I guess it matters how wide your water crossing is;)

Using your analogy, I would much rather drive a jeep in the woods than a rocket! And rockets are not particularly efficient on the up, but it could be argued that they are efficient on the down...right before they crash to earth! You guys sure seem to have fun though!

[connyro]

...Fatties relate to a Jeep and the skinnies a rocket...TM