Choosing BC Skis

[IndianChris]

I saw them at Beans. They plastic bindings looked really flimsy and looked non-replaceable. The price was high for the perceived value.

I couldn't agree more. Not worth the $$$.

But Hikerfast...if your looking for something like that, maybe look into these... I've seen them mentioned on this site also. Looks as if the whole package is less than the LLBean snowshoe/skiis alone.

Practicality is always the question though.

 

[Brambor]

ebay

There is also an interesting sale on ebay for what appears to be Karhu Telemark skis but without any brand desigh. They are just white. Price is about $40

 

[mirabela]

There is also an interesting sale on ebay for what appears to be Karhu Telemark skis but without any brand desigh. They are just white. Price is about $40

These are already the subject of a longish thread here. I ski a pair of them myself, among other things. They're a reasonably versatile ski. I wouldn't call them tele skis, really. They have more camber than that. They're more like super-beefy touring skis. They can take a beating. They're my go-to setup for things like skiing five miles in to the base of a peak where I switch into snowshoes for a climb. For things like long winter hikes where a lot of the distance is flat or rolling, but where the terrain is irregular and you might be breaking trail a lot of the time, they are close to perfect. They are passably OK for more serious downhill use, within certain limits. They aren't super turny, and the tips tend to want to dive in deeper snow. If you want to swing turns in powdered glades, you'll hate them.

 

[brushhog]

Bad binding

We sold these a few years ago. At the time they had an aluminum hinged plate binding with plastic straps. The newer ones aren't any better. I had a customer tell me he found a similar type of ski that had a choice of that type or a three pin 75mm binding. Haven't done any more research on them. There is also a hybrid type of ski called the Marquette.

 

[DougPaul]

There is also a hybrid type of ski called the Marquette.

There was a thread on these entitiled "You're going to need a bigger quiver: marquette backcountry ski" last October or so, but it seems to have disappeared.

A bit of history: http://universalklister.blogspot.com/2010/12/marquette-backcountry-ski-review-back.html

A review: http://universalklister.blogspot.com/2011/01/marquette-backcountry-ski-review-final.html

More reiews:
http://gearjunkie.com/marquette-backcountry-ski
http://bedrockandparadox.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/marquette-backcountry-ski-review/

I expect the LLBean skis would be similar except for the details of their construction.

Doug

 

[Brambor]

I think they (the Karhu Military Ski) are what I am looking for. Wide and long enough skis for me that will allow me to tour in untracked deep snow. I already have Silent Spiders for rough tracked trail, and thin classics for groomed tracks. Looks like they could be good with 3-Pin Bindings and leather touring boots.

Are the Military Skis heavy for their size or just as heavy as (let's say) Karhu 10th Mountain at the same length?

These are already the subject of a longish thread here. I ski a pair of them myself, among other things. They're a reasonably versatile ski. I wouldn't call them tele skis, really. They have more camber than that. They're more like super-beefy touring skis. They can take a beating. They're my go-to setup for things like skiing five miles in to the base of a peak where I switch into snowshoes for a climb. For things like long winter hikes where a lot of the distance is flat or rolling, but where the terrain is irregular and you might be breaking trail a lot of the time, they are close to perfect. They are passably OK for more serious downhill use, within certain limits. They aren't super turny, and the tips tend to want to dive in deeper snow. If you want to swing turns in powdered glades, you'll hate them.

 

[David Metsky]

Are the Military Skis heavy for their size or just as heavy as (let's say) Karhu 10th Mountain at the same length?

While some people seem to like them, I don't believe they are particularly good choices for anything. There are much better options on the market IMO.

 

[Brambor]

elaborate

David.

Could You please elaborate further? Assuming the skis have no binding and you place them next to skis of similar category (Madshus Epochs, Karhu 10th Mountain, Rossignoll BC90) what are the differences?

While some people seem to like them, I don't believe they are particularly good choices for anything. There are much better options on the market IMO.

 

[bignslow]

does anyone know anything about the llbean boreal snowshoe/skis? they look like a ski but much shorter and wider

They look like firn gliders (or firn gleiters). They don't appear to be a substitute for "normal" skis.

Some info in: http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10223

See http://telemarktalk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=8465 for more info.

A search brings up even more info: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=firn+glider&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=

Doug

I couldn't agree more. Not worth the $$$.

But Hikerfast...if your looking for something like that, maybe look into these... I've seen them mentioned on this site also. Looks as if the whole package is less than the LLBean snowshoe/skiis alone.

Practicality is always the question though.

I have the LL Bean Boreals (or Karhu Meta, they're identical). They don't do anything particularly well and are fairly uncontrollable on downhills. Overall recommendation, save your money (or buy mine after my glowing recommendation )

I'm working on learning to ski for real on my 3-pin bindings on some waxless wide (light tele) backcountry skis now.

 

[hikerfast]

thats very interesting to learn that they are uncontrollable on downhills. i would have thought the shorter skis would be easier to handle. I'm glad I asked about this. Leaves me wondering how skis so short would be so uncontrollable, but I don't think I will be buying these. I figured the control for a lower skill skiier such as myself would have been the big advantage. I cross country ski a bit, but I have not ever skiied down anything like the moosilaukee carriage road, or the garfield trail, as some others have posted about doing.

 

[mirabela]

ssuming the skis have no binding and you place them next to skis of similar category (Madshus Epochs, Karhu 10th Mountain, Rossignoll BC90) what are the differences

The most obvious difference is that all of the skis you listed have a waxless pattern on the base, whereas the military skis you have to wax. The Epoch/10th mountain is a little wider at the tip & tail, and has more sidecut; it's a turnier ski. The BC90 has similar tip & tail dimensions but a narrower waist. Again, more turny.

 

[Brambor]

ok. good to know

Thanks for the feedback. I am actually moving into learning to wax and I do not think I care as much about the turning as I do about flotation and touring capability to get me from point A to point B (campsite). I think a decent lightweight 3-Pin binding would be nice for these. Do you ever have second thoughts about replacing your binding with a 3-Pin setup?

The most obvious difference is that all of the skis you listed have a waxless pattern on the base, whereas the military skis you have to wax. The Epoch/10th mountain is a little wider at the tip & tail, and has more sidecut; it's a turnier ski. The BC90 has similar tip & tail dimensions but a narrower waist. Again, more turny.

 

[Brambor]

Yes shorter skis have generally better control provided you judge this by using the same bindings.

I have a pair of skiboards with solid binding that I use with skiboots and the control is awesome. However the beans skis have soft plastic binding.

If you move to the left then your bindings flex to the left but your skis are still going straight

Second variable here is your boots. I remember once I mounted my hiking boots to my skiboards and went to a ski slope. I could not turn well at all because when I turned to the left the boots flexed while the skis were still going straight.

You need some kind of leverage to turn these slick planks.

thats very interesting to learn that they are
uncontrollable on downhills. i would have thought the shorter skis would be easier to handle. I'm glad I asked about this. Leaves me wondering how skis so short would be so uncontrollable, but I don't think I will be buying these. I figured the control for a lower skill skiier such as myself would have been the big advantage. I cross country ski a bit, but I have not ever skiied down anything like the moosilaukee carriage road, or the garfield trail, as some others have posted about doing.

 

[Elizabeth]

This past weekend I skied the back side of Wildcat (NH) using my 25-year-old Karhus with a half metal edge (half = middle of the ski) and a three-pin binding. They worked just fine for most of the trip. There were just a few places - particularly the untracked glades - where I was feeling envious of the folks who had telemark skis, shorter with cable bindings. The tele-skiers were having fun in the deep powder, where I felt like I was fighting my way through mashed potatoes.

I am not about to run out and buy tele skis, though. For about 95% of the back-country conditions I've encountered (including the length of Vermont on the Catamount Trail) I've found the higher camber, half-metal edge skis to be ideal.

 

[skiguy]

This past weekend I skied the back side of Wildcat (NH) using my 25-year-old Karhus with a half metal edge (half = middle of the ski) and a three-pin binding. They worked just fine for most of the trip. There were just a few places - particularly the untracked glades - where I was feeling envious of the folks who had telemark skis, shorter with cable bindings. The tele-skiers were having fun in the deep powder, where I felt like I was fighting my way through mashed potatoes.

I am not about to run out and buy tele skis, though. For about 95% of the back-country conditions I've encountered (including the length of Vermont on the Catamount Trail) I've found the higher camber, half-metal edge skis to be ideal.

Interesting post Elizabeth IMO spot on observations. Sounds as if you have a pair of the Karhu Kodiaks. One of my alltime favorites. I bet the people with the shorter skis and cables were wishing they had your skis on the flats and rolling terrain which there is a heck of alot more of than that one glade. Great example of tradeoffs which happen on almost every tour here in the East. Pick your line then pick your ski and estrapulate your ability.

 

[Bob]

Interesting post Elizabeth IMO spot on observations. Sounds as if you have a pair of the Karhu Kodiaks. One of my alltime favorites.

Ha Ha you beat me to it- I was counting back to see how old my Kodiaks were....I was going to sell them when I got my Atomic Rainier/T4 setup, but am really glad I didn't. I find I use the Karhu's much more.

 

[skiguy]

While some people seem to like them, I don't believe they are particularly good choices for anything. There are much better options on the market IMO.

Military skis or 10th Mountain? If the former I agree if the latter I disagree.

 

[bignslow]

Yes shorter skis have generally better control provided you judge this by using the same bindings.

I have a pair of skiboards with solid binding that I use with skiboots and the control is awesome. However the beans skis have soft plastic binding.

If you move to the left then your bindings flex to the left but your skis are still going straight

Second variable here is your boots. I remember once I mounted my hiking boots to my skiboards and went to a ski slope. I could not turn well at all because when I turned to the left the boots flexed while the skis were still going straight.

You need some kind of leverage to turn these slick planks.

This is exactly the problem. They have that pivoting snowboard type binding and there is just no way to get lateral leverage. I do agree that the short wide skis are more controllable, but not with the factory bindings. I've heard a rumor that the binding hole pattern are the same as 3 pin bindings, so I was considering trying that before trying to sell the skis.

 

[DougPaul]

This is exactly the problem. They have that pivoting snowboard type binding and there is just no way to get lateral leverage. I do agree that the short wide skis are more controllable, but not with the factory bindings. I've heard a rumor that the binding hole pattern are the same as 3 pin bindings, so I was considering trying that before trying to sell the skis.

The LLBean skis have a waist of 90mm and the Marquette skis have a waist of 130mm. I'd want a fairly beefy boot-binding to be able to edge either ski on hardpack. The LLBean skis come with a flimsy binding (as noted above) and the Marquette skis have a 3-hole mount. I'd put a Tele cable binding on the Marquettes and use at least a T3 or T2 plastic boot (Scarpa) with them.

But I don't think I'd get such skis in the first place...

Doug

 

[David Metsky]

Military skis or 10th Mountain? If the former I agree if the latter I disagree.

Former, we're in complete agreement.