A few more ski questions

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
MikeK said:
I've thought about the wax. Seen as how I don't have any ski friends... well any that want to ski what I want to ski - it's just me, or me and the missus. My wife is a novice. A real novice. Never skied before this year. She's actually better than she thinks she is. Her biggest problem is the lump on her shoulders telling her she can't. Other than that she skis fine.
Click to expand...
It isn't hard to teach yourself waxing. Just read my earlier referenced tutorial (and other tutorials) and give it a try. You can even experiment on your waxless skis (although it will work better and you will learn more on waxable skis). Try skiing on a level track without using your poles--it will really emphasize your kick and your glide and show you what your skis are doing.

She isn't all that fast. She wouldn't fuss with wax - I would. And I'd have to fuss with two sets of skis. And I'd still blaze ahead and have to wait.
Click to expand...
It takes more time to take the skis off and on and get the wax out and stowed than it does to actually wax and cork the skis. So waxing a second pair of skis takes very little additional time--just use the same wax on her skis.

And I do use wax on my waxless skis. And yeah they have clumped up in packed down transition snow (near 32F). So despite how good they say they have become, they still aren't perfect. I have read there is a solution for that, but I've yet to try it.
Click to expand...
Fresh snow right at 32F is a difficult snow condition: any ski can ice pretty easliy.

I am however very German (not really, only in heritage) and very much an engineer, so it bothers me not to be as efficient as I could. Plus it's fun to say 'vokss'.
Click to expand...
Ich spreche [ein bischen] Deutsch. Electrical engineer here...

Doug
 
Last edited:
Well we'll see how serious we actually are. If we stick with it for a few more years maybe we'll get some wax skis... that is if they are still available in a few years...

I guess I'm a bit of Luddite myself (had to look that one up, not a term I hear often)... I've resisted many advances from technology that promise to make my life easier. Oddly enough my profession is to develop such things.

Anyway, it seems to me I've come full circle. First set of skis that went on my feet were waxless 3 pins back when I was in grade school. I guess I found xc a bit boring back then... once I got a chance to go downhill my ugly duckling Rossis were left in the barn to collect dust...

These days I find skiing at a resort horrific. I think I'm just turning into a curmudgeon though... at the ripe old age of 33. My feet hurt. My back hurts. I freeze my tail off on the lift. Sweat my keister off making turns on the way down. I end up on the lift with either someone who is too good to talk to me or just wants to tell me how awesome they are because they ski out west. I don't know. It's too WASPy for me. It was fun when I was a kid and my knees could handle launching off 5' jumps. I tried hitting a jump with the dead fish they call skis today and almost smashed my face into a snowbank because the boots are so soft, barely got any launch, and had that curvy ski catch an edge and pop off when I landed. Obviously carving skis aren't made for that! And to me just cranking turns seems pointless. It's like driving a sports car in a parking lot. Maybe I'd have fun on a race league where I could actually crank a turn for a reason, and see just how bad I am at it :)

Being in the woods is a lot more enjoyable. Less people, better scenery, I'm actually going SOMEWHERE...

<Rant off> Skiing in the woods is where it's at... that's all I know... wish I was right now.
 
Doug and Becca,

My mind is reeling with logistical questions on the lollipop tour.

New thread?
 
dave.m said:
Doug and Becca,

My mind is reeling with logistical questions on the lollipop tour.

New thread?
Click to expand...
OK. A new thread, continuing with the trip report thread, or email, depending on your focus.

Besides I think we have worn out the title of this one: "A few more ski questions"...

Doug
 
Last edited:
MikeK said:
I guess I'm a bit of Luddite myself (had to look that one up, not a term I hear often)... I've resisted many advances from technology that promise to make my life easier. Oddly enough my profession is to develop such things.
Click to expand...
Newer isn't always better... (My profession was also to develop new technology.)

Doug
 
Dave,

I think that is true if you're talking about on-piste and western style off-piste.

Big caveat though... I think the single biggest effect of newer skis is increased skier speed. Part and parcel with the very idea of "improvement" - to ski more difficult terrain with more control. Not saying this is bad. Or good. Just noting it.

For me, and just for me, I tried more modern wider shaped skis in the eastern woods and found a) they didn't tour as well (they wander more) and b) the speeds on descents became more of a risk than I care for. I very specifically and intentionally stepped off the conveyor belt and went back to straight 90/70/80 skis in the woods. This is a very personal YMMV thing. But above this, I find it too hard to ski under the "I'm willing to hit a tree" speed.

On piste... that's a rant for another day. Skier speeds are up and that's systemic level risk. I seek ski areas with slow speed double chairs. But, no denying... Modern shaped skis on on piste ==> blazingly fast control.

Another way of saying this is that I think there is now a pretty clear tele/xcd split. I'll grant that tele gear has been improving, but to be honest, I haven't seen a ground breaking change in what we now call XCD gear since the Extreme/Pins/Excalibur combo first arrived. OK, the Excursion is worth noting too.

Last, last comment... as an engineer, I find the best engineers are those that study the history of their domain. I'll generally take a well refined design over a "new" one.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to hear some more comments on width and sidecut in regards control vs. tracking vs. float.

I know it is probably impossible to categorize based on only those things but how much is too much?

Personally I think I like the idea of skiing in the snow rather than on it, mainly to keep from killing myself. Then comes the notion that was presented that a straight ski won't turn in deep snow as well as a shaped ski.
 
There is no clearcut line where a ski becomes "too fat, so it surfs to the top and goes too fast." This is because there are too many variables. Here are a few; there are probably more:

Slope: steepness, consistency.
Snow: depth, consistency, layers.
Skier weight.
Skiing style: forward, back, long stance, short stance, turn shape and size.

So "YMMV" applies.

Anecdotally, for me as a light (145 lb) skier, my Madshus Annum 165s generally ski in the snow; my K2 Work Stinx 168s are somewhere in betweeen; my old Rossi T4 174s (the special "no metal plate in the shovel Ski Patrol model") usually flaoted to the top.

But all three have displayed both behaviors, depending on the many variables.
 
Well seen as how I'm a bigger guy, I'm wondering if this will be much of an issue for me with a 'moderate' width ski... I suppose downsizing a few cm could help as well but that of course will be the negative for touring.

Pretty much I have no interest in going mach 1 in the woods. I don't know how we define steep but I would say anything more than 20° is pretty darn steep for the east. In tight trees 10° can look pretty steep.

I doubt I'd even attempt pointing my skis down something steeper than would be considered a blue run at most ski resorts... I know that varies wildly too, but I have a good idea in my head... and that may get ever shallower depending on how I feel turning the skis.

The touring vs. turning sidecut seems like a prickly one. My alpine skis are 127/76/108 and they catch everything. Annums are 109/78/95. 20mm difference in sidecut... so compared to a downhill ski an Annum is pretty skinny and straight.

Strangely (or not) enough, the sidecut between tip and middle is the same between and the Epoch and the Annum. Both are recommended at a 195cm for me. Obviously one is going to float better. So in theory they should tour the same... maybe in deep snow but it seems to me in a rut the wider skis slip around a lot easier.

The only ski that comes close to Mr .m's favorite is the Fischer S bound 88 (88/68/78) which is the same profile as the Outtabounds mentioned by Mr. Metsky earlier in the thread. From what I've read on the internet (which must be true*), the S bounds are stiffer and have a double camber. I've also read reviews that these skis are the perfect balance for tours and turns (probably are for the right skier). So anyway is seems as though the Madshus models are slightly more turn oriented whereas the Fischers are more tour oriented.

*the internet may be more honest than the sales people
 
Last edited:
MikeK said:
So anyway is seems as though the Madshus models are slightly more turn oriented whereas the Fischers are more tour oriented.
Click to expand...

You're well into "overthinking" territory. You've gotten lots of good advice, but it may be useful to distill it down a bit.

If you don't want to focus on downhill skiing in the woods, whatever skis/boots/bindings you buy will not be very useful at a lift-served area. Also, you won't learn tele proficiently on lightweight gear.

You don't like your 127/76/108 alpine ski... don't worry, no one makes anything with that extreme sidecut for a BC ski.

Your boots and technique, and the snow conditions, will have far more effect on how you ski than subtle differences between skis.

My suggestion is buy a beefy leather boot (maybe with buckles), the Fischer S bound 88 (or something similar) and a 3-pin binding (with or without the old school cable -- no hardwire or anything like that). This is adequate for everything, and should be enough for to figure out whether you want to head towards more XC or towards more downhill.

Accept that one set of skis cannot do everything well, and that you may eventually buy another pair for a specific use.
 
Maybe so... but I believe I've come to accept at least a few realizations and compromises.

- Resort skiing will not be ideal and probably something I won't do with what I'm after - if I do it will probably be in glades when there is good snow

- Pins are not ideal but I should have no problem demoing a switchback type binding with a T4 type boot

- Wax is ideal of touring and most climbing but seen as how the market has moved away from that except for skis that are marketed as downhill/skin skis, that is probably not an option.

- There is going to be some compromise between touring and turning due to sidecut. How much I can live with or without is debatable. I can easily demo skis on groomed terrain to see how the wander. Trying to demo a ski to see how it turns in powder may be more difficult.

- Very wide skis, like the vector, are probably not for me. I feel those are designed for fast skiers for want to stay on top of the snow. They also seem like they'd be a bear to tour with.

- I'd probably sink pretty deep on most snow even with a shovel as wide as the Annum. I'm trying to think of how many times I actually was in light powder this year though.

- Buying skis without at least some telemark fundamentals is probably not wise.

And yes, I agree... I think maybe we hit the nail on the head right off the start...

90/70/80 or 100/70/85 with 3 pin and removable cable and plastic two buckles would probably be sufficient for anything I'd want to tackle.
 
MikeK said:
- Wax is ideal of touring and most climbing but seen as how the market has moved away from that except for skis that are marketed as downhill/skin skis, that is probably not an option.
Click to expand...
Waxable touring and BC skis are available--they are simply not carried by most of the local stores.

Check manufacturer's websites and the more ski-oriented online stores (eg http://www.backcountry.com http://www.backcountry.com/classic-skis http://www.akers-ski.com/category/waxableskis.html http://www.akers-ski.com/category/bc_wax.html). A number of skis are also available in both waxable and waxless bases (eg Madshus Glittertind and Eon). If you find a model that you want to buy, Google it and you can often find suppliers and out-of-season sales.

Doug
 
Last edited:
DougPaul said:
Waxable touring and BC skis are available--they are simply not carried by most of the local stores.

Doug
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the Glittertind and the Eon wax versions. I know there used to be lots more i.e. the Voss, E99, etc... but they seem to be disappearing.

Anyway I was referring to the wider skis with more sidecut that I am looking into.
 
Lol @ Skiguy. Have you considered Alpine Touring? I have G3's and had Silvretta 500's on them; the 500's will take downhill, AT and plastic mountaineering boots. I believe the Grivel Randonnées will too. I put the 500's on a pair of Karhu (Canadian) military skis for the backcountry and Dynafit's on the G3's - my daughter has them now (she lives in British Columbia and I'm past it).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DayTrip
Crampon Fit Issue
Replies
17
Views
744
NH2112
NH2112
DayTrip
Dachstein Wool Products
Replies
12
Views
596
KRooney
K
TomK
Early Issues of "Backpacker" magazine #2, #3, #4, #13-22 from Mid 1970's
Replies
1
Views
264
TomK
TomK
sierra
Mt. Greylock
Replies
9
Views
1K
BillyGr
B
MindlessMariachi
Help me pick some new XC/BC Ski gear
Replies
7
Views
2K
cushetunk
cushetunk

Latest posts

Top