|
|
|
|
|
|
Turns All Year Trip Reports
(1) Viewing these pages constitutes your acceptance of the Terms of Use.
(2) Disclaimer: the accuracy of information here is unknown, use at your own risk.
(3) Trip Report monthly boards: only actual trip report starts a new thread.
(4) Keep it civil and constructive - that is the norm here. |
|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Help me choose a new waxless backcountry ski (Read 4311 times)
|
mtnbbud
5Member
Offline
Posts: 21
|
Howdy and thanks ahead of time. I've been using older Fischer Outtabounds skis for multi-day ski tours to lookouts, snow camping, etc. My skis are beginning to separate at the bases so it's time to start looking at a replacement. I would prefer a waxless ski since most of my time will be spent touring, but with a little bit of downhill included.
Some skis I saw at the ski shop closest to my town were:
Madshus Annum MGV Omni Skis
Fischer Skis S-Bound 112 Skis
Rossignol BC 125 Positrack Skis
Salomon X-ADV 89 Grip Skis
Any advise or opinions? I plan on using my three pin Voile cable bindings with my Scarpa T4 boots.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 02/21/12, 09:44 PM by mtnbbud »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pin!head
Member
Offline
Posts: 229
|
Voile Vector BC!
I've got a couple of days on them now and I'm really impressed. Skied them at the ski hill in recycled bootdeep and they excelled in every type of turn and held their own on the hardpack too.!!!!!!!!
Rave Review!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
David_Britton
5Member
Offline
Posts: 64
WWW
|
I went from the same fischer's to the rossi bc 125. The rossi skis like a powder ski, handling deep snow, and soft deep corn nicely. It is not very good on groomers. Believe it or not, not as good as the fischer, which if you really stomped on it, would hold pretty well under foot. The rossi is plenty light, and I found climbs steeps much better than the fischer with skins on due to the greater surface area underfoot. I also got the rossi's new last summer off REI.com for $199. Can't beat that!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JDH
Guest
Email
|
The Madshus ski is a rebranded version of the Karhu Guide. A great, versatile ski. Not too wide, not too narrow at 78 mm underfoot. It loves soft snow but also does well on logging road type trips.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Andrew Carey
Member
Offline
Posts: 1026
|
I replaced my Outtabounds with Karhu Guides (Madshus Annums); the Guides climb much, much better (I've used them 32 days on logging roads, climbing up to 3,000 vf and RTs of 12 miles) and even though I got 195 cm (vs 190 on the Ou), they turn better than the Outtabounds. I haven't tried the others.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
... want your own private skintrack? :-) better move to the yukon dude ....(B'ham Allen, 2011).
...
Andy Carey, Nisqually Park, 3500 feet below Paradise
|
|
|
Schenk
5Member
Offline
Posts: 12
|
I will second the vote for the Vector BC!!!! I have a pair of Karhu Guides too, which I also love, but the Vector is the go to ski when there is pow, corn, or mank.
The Guides (Annum) ski well also but are not as wide and don't handle the variable snow as well. They do OK on harder snows though, and seem to glide just a little bit better than my Vectors...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mtnbbud
5Member
Offline
Posts: 21
|
Thanks for all of the advice! Great information!  How good is the traction on the Vectors? From the picture I found of it's base, it looks like the pattern covers quite a bit of the ski. - That should help the traction for climbing. I sometimes resorted to skins with my Fischers when conditions weren't ideal or slopes were steep.
I was sort-of leaning towards the Madshus Annum MGV Omni, but now I'm not so sure!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Big Steve
Member
Offline
Posts: 298
|
The Fischer S-Bound skis have a negative base, i.e., little half-moons milled into the base, and stiffer camber than the Vector and Guide/Annum. The Vector, Annum/Guides and BC125 have a positive base, i.e., the fishscales protrude, and first two have very soft camber. (I'm not sure about the BC 125 camber.) So, the S-Bounds are necessarily going to glide better on low angle and flats and the others will grip better.
Of the postitive-based models, I've tried only the Guide/Annum, which has a very soft overall flex. Gawd, it glides slow on low-angle terrain. I would imaging the Vector, which has virtually no camber, is really slow on the flats. (I also Nordic ski; the drag might not be noticable to someone who doesn't do much XC skiing.) I'd like to see a waxless ski with a mild tip rocker, meaningful camber underfoot and a medium soft traditional tail.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ryanb
5Member
Offline
Posts: 50
WWW
|
I've done trips where I am on the guide and my wife is on atomic rainears and the I have trouble keeping up skiing down gently sloped roads. The guides do climb and ski well and are great for lapping small slopes but I think I can actually make better time on things like smith brook road with my flat bottom skis with skins.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
fly-by
5Member
Offline
Posts: 12
|
I've been skiing Fischer S-Bound 98's quite a bit this year and like them for rolling terrain/logging road type use. The S-Bounds have a lot more camber than the Rossi or Madshus (not sure about Salomon) which, combined with the negative pattern, give good glide. Still climb great, especially with 58mm climbing wires. I'm 6'1 and 185 and the 189s are just right.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
davidG
Member
Offline
Posts: 723
|
I think Big Steve has a good take on the OP's query. The great thing about the recent crop of waxless offerings is the opportunity to bias for the down. Totally love my BC 125's and Vector BC (and not so much the Guide/Annum) - but then, I'm in it for the turns.
If meadow skipping is the game, then the stronger cambered (and some rocker!) of either of the new S-Bounds might be a better choice, especially given the binding/boot choice. Some notables might even say they are fine for turns..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Maybe we should ban hikers from anywhere that there is a potential threat to surface water?" [courtesy Newtrout, 2011]
|
|
|
mtnbbud
5Member
Offline
Posts: 21
|
I think Big Steve has a good take on the OP's query. The great thing about the recent crop of waxless offerings is the opportunity to bias for the down. Totally love my BC 125's and Vector BC (and not so much the Guide/Annum) - but then, I'm in it for the turns.
If meadow skipping is the game, then the stronger cambered (and some rocker!) of either of the new S-Bounds might be a better choice, especially given the binding/boot choice. Some notables might even say they are fine for turns..
True - I'm more of a tourer, but I want to be able to tackle the hills.
Thanks for all the great advise. It sounds like all the skis are of good quality and the decision I have to make should be based on what type of compromise I want to make. I have been wondering if a single camber ski would be better than the camber and a half of the Fischers.
You guys are giving me great advice. I'm not that skilled making turns on my Fischers. If it helps at all, here's a link to pictures from my last trip to a lookout. They might give a better idea of a typical trip.
https://picasaweb.google.com/118426596341481498917/WarnerLO2012#slideshow/5711967821843438722
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Big Steve
Member
Offline
Posts: 298
|
All other things being equal, a single camber ski should turn in soft snow better than a 1/1/2 camber ski. But all things are not equal between these skis. Also, not all single camber skis are of the same camber. As I mentioned in my prior post, the Guide/Annum I tried was very soft, a real wet noodle. Another issue is the length of the cambered section of the ski. The BC125 has a traditional camber, i.e., pretty much the full length of the ski. The Vector BC has a rockered tip and tail and a short cambered section (which, to eye, seemed nearly flat, i.e., almost no camber).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
davidG
Member
Offline
Posts: 723
|
I was told by the Rossi rep, and it seems about right, that the 125 stands for 1 1/4 camber, which helps explain why they get a fair glide on the posi base. My vote, for the OP, of the S-Bound over the BC 125 was based on the initial interpretation that trolling for turns was a secondary consideration - sounds like further consideration is in order.
If the very fun BC 125, a 'nordic crossover', is selected, note that the obvious binding mount reference scribe is the ski balance point, typical of nordic gear, not necessarily the pin line 'must mount' location (pin line on balance point is fine for some aspects of touring, but may be less than ideal for turns depending on style - I would mount pinline 1-2 cm forward, especially if it's about the down..). No constructive comments to offer in this regard for the S-Bound..
While everything is on sale now, I know the dollars add up, but if touring for miles is in the cards, then investment in a free pivot binding will save lots of energy (for the down and climb back  ) The Rossi is definitely a candidate for something like a Switchback. The S-bound I'd be more inclined to stay with pin and cable (or hardwire).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Maybe we should ban hikers from anywhere that there is a potential threat to surface water?" [courtesy Newtrout, 2011]
|
|
|
Big Steve
Member
Offline
Posts: 298
|
I've seen a bit of dicussion on the Internet re the BC125 mounting point. It appears to be standard shape ski sidecut and traditional camber pattern. If so, I'd probably mount it center-of-ball-of-foot-on-center-of-running-surface. That's how I mounted my most recent 4 or 5 pairs of tele boards and they turned much better (quicker turn initiation) than the pins on chord center. Is there a factory boot center line on the BC125?
Question for those on BC125: I've heard that the base is extruded p-tex that will not accept glide wax. Is that true?
davidG and others, do you think the T4 is enough boot to turn the BC125 or Vector BC?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
davidG
Member
Offline
Posts: 723
|
Steve, good point about the boot.. T4 for the Rossi? yeah, but just - I'll meadowskip the BC125 with Excursions, including laps, but also boot up with T1s for resort and sidecountry - much fun. For the Vector BC, no way is T4 enough boot...
About the BC125 base, I don't know, but I hotwax it as needed and seems to be receptive. And it's considerably faster on low angle glides than the Vector BC.
Agree with BOF on CRS, but hey, it's about the turns.. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Maybe we should ban hikers from anywhere that there is a potential threat to surface water?" [courtesy Newtrout, 2011]
|
|
|
Skier of the Hood
5Member
Offline
Posts: 23
|
I purchased a pair of Rossi 125 and have used them early season around Revelstoke and Rogers Pass, and on Saphire Col during the most recent dry spell. I have them mounted with onyx bindings which i'm sure will bring some chuckles. Skis like most touring 90 underfoot traditional skis. The flex isn't as progressive as other touring skis but for 200$ I can overlook it. Fun ski to have during long flat approaches (a-slog-in valley). Stoked to use them around the cascades come spring time. When there is pow to be had though I of course use drifters :p
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Andrew Carey
Member
Offline
Posts: 1026
|
I purchased a pair of Rossi 125 and have used them early season around Revelstoke and Rogers Pass, and on Saphire Col during the most recent dry spell. I have them mounted with onyx bindings which i'm sure will bring some chuckles. Skis like most touring 90 underfoot traditional skis. The flex isn't as progressive as other touring skis but for 200$ I can overlook it. Fun ski to have during long flat approaches (a-slog-in valley). Stoked to use them around the cascades come spring time. When there is pow to be had though I of course use drifters :p
I ski my Karhu Guides with Dynafit Speed Radicals and TLT5 Mountain boots.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
... want your own private skintrack? :-) better move to the yukon dude ....(B'ham Allen, 2011).
...
Andy Carey, Nisqually Park, 3500 feet below Paradise
|
|
|
RossB
5Member
Offline
Posts: 75
|
Another one to consider is the Alpina X Terrain. I think it fits in this category.
I wouldn't want to argue with the Rossignol rep, but my guess is that BC 125 means a tip width of (about) 125. Just as BC 110 means a tip of 110, etc.
I don't know about these specific skis, but I've been impressed with the speed of Fischer's waxless bottoms. I think Atomic uses the same scale pattern (I wouldn't be surprised if the same people in Austria supply both companies).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Andrew Carey
Member
Offline
Posts: 1026
|
Another one to consider is the Alpina X Terrain. I think it fits in this category.
I wouldn't want to argue with the Rossignol rep, but my guess is that BC 125 means a tip width of (about) 125. Just as BC 110 means a tip of 110, etc.
I don't know about these specific skis, but I've been impressed with the speed of Fischer's waxless bottoms. I think Atomic uses the same scale pattern (I wouldn't be surprised if the same people in Austria supply both companies).
Some of the Atomics, Fischers, and Salomons are the same ski--IIRC the the Rainier, Rebound, and X-Adv 88 are the same with different graphics.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
... want your own private skintrack? :-) better move to the yukon dude ....(B'ham Allen, 2011).
...
Andy Carey, Nisqually Park, 3500 feet below Paradise
|
|
|
mtnbbud
5Member
Offline
Posts: 21
|
Steve, good point about the boot.. T4 for the Rossi? yeah, but just - I'll meadowskip the BC125 with Excursions, including laps, but also boot up with T1s for resort and sidecountry - much fun. For the Vector BC, no way is T4 enough boot... About the BC125 base, I don't know, but I hotwax it as needed and seems to be receptive. And it's considerably faster on low angle glides than the Vector BC. Agree with BOF on CRS, but hey, it's about the turns..
Good to know! I really want to reuse my t4's with Voile Hardwire 3-Pin Bindings. My wife wasn't too happy when I told her it was time to replace my touring skis. 
Would the T4 with the Voile bindings work with the Rossignol BC 110's?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RossB
5Member
Offline
Posts: 75
|
Steve, good point about the boot.. T4 for the Rossi? yeah, but just - I'll meadowskip the BC125 with Excursions, including laps, but also boot up with T1s for resort and sidecountry - much fun. For the Vector BC, no way is T4 enough boot...
Pardon my ignorance, but could someone explain the whole "not enough boot" concept. I come from a cross country background, and get some of it. Obviously, you can't put a regular cross country boot on a heavy metal edged ski and expect to make good turns with it. The boot is too floppy, and the ski is too heavy.
But with these skis, they look to be about the same weight. More to the point, it looks like the Vector BC is lighter than the Rossignol 125. If so, then why could you drive a BC 125, but not a Vector BC with the same boot. What am I missing?
(thanks in advance)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Big Steve
Member
Offline
Posts: 298
|
IMV, whether a boot is "enough boot" for a ski is determined by 4 factors: ski width, ski stiffness, turnability (radius, rocker, etc.) and skier skill/style
The Vector BC and BC125 have roughly the same waist width
The BC125 has more camber and a longer camber pattern, which, in theory, would require more boot.
Vector is softer and has rocker tip, which, in theory, should militate in favor of less boot
Although I haven't skied either of them, I would think that a boot stiff enough and big enough to ski the BC125 would be sufficient for the Vector
ETA: For tele, add a 5th factor: activity of the binding
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 02/24/12, 11:00 AM by Big Steve »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
fly-by
5Member
Offline
Posts: 12
|
Good to know! I really want to reuse my t4's with Voile Hardwire 3-Pin Bindings. My wife wasn't too happy when I told her it was time to replace my touring skis. Would the T4 with the Voile bindings work with the Rossignol BC 110's?
I ski T4s and Voile 3 pin w/cables on the S-bound 98s, and they are more than enough. T4/Hardwires with the 110s would be nicely balanced combination IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
davidG
Member
Offline
Posts: 723
|
Pardon my ignorance, but could someone explain the whole "not enough boot" concept. I come from a cross country background, and get some of it. Obviously, you can't put a regular cross country boot on a heavy metal edged ski and expect to make good turns with it. The boot is too floppy, and the ski is too heavy.
But with these skis, they look to be about the same weight. More to the point, it looks like the Vector BC is lighter than the Rossignol 125. If so, then why could you drive a BC 125, but not a Vector BC with the same boot. What am I missing?
(thanks in advance)
Good point and fair question. It should have occurred to me that my statement was not defensible based on ski specs. I own both of those skis (also most of the others discussed here, including the X Terrain, which I've championed here in the past - but the Rossi is a far better meadowskipper when trolling for turns). I skiied most of last year on the BC125, both bc and resort and I've loaned them out both last season and this one, and we all agree, the ski handles like a Miata. I've skiied all of this season on the Vector - it's not a Miata. And the Vector feels much better at speed than the Rossi even with a very similar running surface length. The Vector BC came from the alpine side, built with carbon, to which they added a pattern base - the Rossi comes, seemingly, from the nordic side, scaled-up and shaped for the down, including on-piste. Comments from ski engineers would be welcome here..
But what does this have to do with the boot, T4 or otherwise? Simply that the Vector skis like a larger ski - still fairly nimble, but more stable, and rewarded when given bootcuff pressure and rolled ankles. Sure, you can 'ski' the Vector with a T4, but you won't find the skis' potential with such a touring shoe, IMO.
I'm holding firm with my vote as noted earlier, in this application, for the larger S-Bound unless the OP wants to change out other gear or to bias more toward turns in which case I happily recommend the BC125 (or 123 )
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Maybe we should ban hikers from anywhere that there is a potential threat to surface water?" [courtesy Newtrout, 2011]
|
|
|
|
Thank you to our sponsors!
|
Contact turns-all-year.com
Turns All Year Trip Reports ©2001-2010 Turns All Year LLC. All Rights Reserved
The opinions expressed in posts are those of the poster and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Trip Reports administrators or Turns All Year LLC
|
Turns All Year Trip Reports | Powered by SMF 1.0.6.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.
|
Page created in 0.896 seconds with 21 queries.
|
