Sidecut of Ski/Broken and Unbroken Snowshoe trails

[Remix]

I want to ask a very naive question to the experts. I am trying to sort out technique from equipment characteristics

Is it reasonable to expect that Atomic Rainiers with a 25mm sidecut (3 pin 75 mm bindings) will kick out and hit the walls of a broken or unbroken snowshoe width trail without a great deal of concentration ?

If "yes" and the vast majority of the ski experience you want to have is skiing rolling or flat, broken or unbroken trails with a very light pack , what is the maximum recommended sidecut?

The wider skis--good for flotation--seem to have the most sidecut. Any recommendations besides the heavy-as-cement 10th mountain skis on ebay-- I would like to keep under 6lbs per pair.

 

[David Metsky]

The side cut of the ski is a pretty small factor here, IMO. The real issue is the binding/boot combination, which gives you control over the skis. That, and the skill of the operator.

What do you think is going to cause the skis to "kick out and hit the walls" of a trail? Side cut is mainly a factor when turning in softer or groomed snow. In the backcountry on a hiking trail is mostly survival skiing.

 

[Brambor]

Remix

Are you asking this in respect to touring - i.e. efficiency of kick and glide? The common conversation about this is that wider skis turn better but tend to wander during kick and glide.

 

[cushetunk]

I ski Atomic Rainiers on trails like this all the time. They're fine, though perhaps slightly more "noodley" than a straighter ski. For practical purposes though, it's not a big deal.

The larger challenge is that the narrow waist is not ideal for trail breaking in deep snow. A wider platform under your foot might be better, though the Rainiers will certainly work.

 

[sardog1]

I've found that wide skis like my Madshus Annums (fka Karhu XCD Guides) often lack a well-defined center groove. When the snow is soft, there's not much wandering around. But when things get crusty on a snowmobile trail or the like, I do find myself wishing I were on my much narrower, more deeply grooved Karhu Kodiak Kinetics or my somewhat narrower, more deeply grooved Karhu XCD Equipes.

The wide design of the Annums has been an absolute boon this winter with the deep, unconsolidated powder we've had. I've been breaking trail with them most of this winter and very pleased with the results. I also had them out on a soft snowshoe trail this weekend and they were wonderful for that. I cannot recommend these too much as versatile skis worthy of your consideration for what you describe.

That sidecut comes in mighty handy when you want – or urgently need – to change direction at speed.

 

[Remix]

Remix

Are you asking this in respect to touring - i.e. efficiency of kick and glide? The common conversation about this is that wider skis turn better but tend to wander during kick and glide.

Yes kick and glide on the flats.The best way I can put it is that I needed to control the ski much more than usual, and I was not getting into a comfortable rhythm.

And to sardog's point the snow was the consistency of well packed snow..not slushy nor frozen but packed and wet on top

I dont recall it having been such a nuisance but I only ski 5-10 days per season. On Sunday night I took the bindings off to see if anything was going on.

So I googled around and found a few comments about sidecut and ski wander, and wanted to get more opinions.

 

[Gremlin]

I think it depends on your boots and bindings as David said. I found that touring control was surprisingly easy with my Dynafit four buckle boots/Dynafit bindings and my G3 all mountain skis, but this a rigid combo. Tele or 3 pin would be very different with a deep side cut I think. I sent my AT gear to my daughter on the West Coast and my backcountry skis are Karhu Canadian Army with minimal sidecut and Scarpa Inferno plast boots. I hope this helps.

 

[Brambor]

I haven't toured anything wider than Madshus Epoch but I have to say I enjoy touring with my Epochs in the backcountry. If I was invited on a trip where the terrain is mostly groomed or flat road I would probably choose narrower skis from my quiver (because they're there) but the Epochs would work just as well.

 

[David Metsky]

I generally tour for turns, so I use much heavier gear in the backcountry. But I have a pair of Fischer Outtabounds which are a bit wider than the Epochs, and mated with my Garmont Excursion (plastic) boots and 3-pin cable bindings they allow me to make turns as well as tour pretty well.

 

[Remix]

I generally tour for turns, so I use much heavier gear in the backcountry. But I have a pair of Fischer Outtabounds which are a bit wider than the Epochs, and mated with my Garmont Excursion (plastic) boots and 3-pin cable bindings they allow me to make turns as well as tour pretty well.

Thanks for all the advice- fwiw I am using a heavier Alpina Boot with a plastic exo-skeleton/75mm voile binding-- not as good as a plastic boot/cable binding but hopefully good enough for touring. I'm borrowing/renting a set of narrower skis to use if the trail is packed and slippery. Otherwise, I will have to work on technique.

 

[dave.m]

I want to ask a very naive question to the experts. I am trying to sort out technique from equipment characteristics

Is it reasonable to expect that Atomic Rainiers with a 25mm sidecut (3 pin 75 mm bindings) will kick out and hit the walls of a broken or unbroken snowshoe width trail without a great deal of concentration ?

If "yes" and the vast majority of the ski experience you want to have is skiing rolling or flat, broken or unbroken trails with a very light pack , what is the maximum recommended sidecut?

The wider skis--good for flotation--seem to have the most sidecut. Any recommendations besides the heavy-as-cement 10th mountain skis on ebay-- I would like to keep under 6lbs per pair.

Remix,

Yes. At least based on my experience.

I have a pair of Fischer Rebounds with similar sidecut to the Rainiers and I've definitely noted that "hooky" behavior. I believe the issue is the combination of a lot of sidecut combined with double camber, which puts a bit more pressure on the tips. When I stride out onto the ski after a kick, it is much easier for that ski to wander off course. This requires more concentration to keep the skis moving straight, particularly in snowmobile and snow shoe tracks, just as you've noted. Over the course of a long day, I find this tires me out, particularly the balance muscles in the leg such as the groin muscles.

I first noticed this several years ago doing the Livermore Road loop with a group. We had a tough climb up the brook to the top of the Livermore Road and were looking forward to a nice easy run out. After getting down below Tripyramid I started to struggle and several of us began swapping skis for the interest of it. Of course, when we got to the groomed section of the Waterville system, the Rebounds needed to stay in the skate lanes but by then, the group had reached a very clear agreement - straighter skis tracks better and are much less tiring. One of my partners had an old pair of Valmontes and they were real standouts, as were the old reliable E99s. Nobody wanted to be on my Rebounds.

When racking up miles, I've found much more luck on skis with 20mm or less of side cut (as measured by tip-waist). Some of my touring favorites include:
+ Black Diamond Syncrho 72/54/63
+ Atomic Telemark 80/60/70
+ Garmont Monashee 90/70/80

A few other comments...
I don't think grooves in ski bases have any effect on straight line stability. My understanding is that they were once thought to help break the suction of water but I think the common wisdom is that this is better handled with proper base structuring.

Camber always matters. Double camber is faster gliding on a hard surface but makes the ski hookier and more difficult to control, even with the same basic side cut. We skied and compared some old high camber Kazama Mt. Highs and lower camber old Karhus and E99s. The difference is easier to notice.

Lastly, skis like the Rebounds and Rainiers are a lot of fun but I tend to use them on shorter trips and just goofing around. For distance, I like light, straight and lower cambered. YMMV.

 

[Remix]

Remix,

Yes. At least based on my experience.

I have a pair of Fischer Rebounds with similar sidecut to the Rainiers and I've definitely noted that "hooky" behavior. I believe the issue is the combination of a lot of sidecut combined with double camber, which puts a bit more pressure on the tips. When I stride out onto the ski after a kick, it is much easier for that ski to wander off course. This requires more concentration to keep the skis moving straight, particularly in snowmobile and snow shoe tracks, just as you've noted. Over the course of a long day, I find this tires me out, particularly the balance muscles in the leg such as the groin muscles.

I first noticed this several years ago doing the Livermore Road loop with a group. We had a tough climb up the brook to the top of the Livermore Road and were looking forward to a nice easy run out. After getting down below Tripyramid I started to struggle and several of us began swapping skis for the interest of it. Of course, when we got to the groomed section of the Waterville system, the Rebounds needed to stay in the skate lanes but by then, the group had reached a very clear agreement - straighter skis tracks better and are much less tiring. One of my partners had an old pair of Valmontes and they were real standouts, as were the old reliable E99s. Nobody wanted to be on my Rebounds.

When racking up miles, I've found much more luck on skis with 20mm or less of side cut (as measured by tip-waist). Some of my touring favorites include:
+ Black Diamond Syncrho 72/54/63
+ Atomic Telemark 80/60/70
+ Garmont Monashee 90/70/80

A few other comments...
I don't think grooves in ski bases have any effect on straight line stability. My understanding is that they were once thought to help break the suction of water but I think the common wisdom is that this is better handled with proper base structuring.

Camber always matters. Double camber is faster gliding on a hard surface but makes the ski hookier and more difficult to control, even with the same basic side cut. We skied and compared some old high camber Kazama Mt. Highs and lower camber old Karhus and E99s. The difference is easier to notice.

Lastly, skis like the Rebounds and Rainiers are a lot of fun but I tend to use them on shorter trips and just goofing around. For distance, I like light, straight and lower cambered. YMMV.

Thanks very much for taking the time to reply Dave. This has been my experience but only on hard surfaces.

I have checked the bindings and found that one was mounted incorrectly, canted so the ski would kick out--sidecut or no side cut.

IIRC I did not have any more templates and used boot center line-- either the boot wasnt in the binding correctly or something shifted in the clamp-- bad bad bad. Im going to remount these with a template.

 

[dave.m]

Remix,

I've found a tremendous amount of variance among 75mm toes and so I find some amount of off centering from boot to boot. That is, I can get one boot centered when mounting the binding and another boot will be off slightly.

I'm not saying that an off centered binding mount is not in play, but just a reminder that even with perfectly centered bindings, the Rainier/Rebound is still a hooky ski.

 

[Remix]

Thanks Dave...just finished fixing them up. Hopefully I will get to try them out this weekend....

I have always left the cables at home in the toolbox because I always stick to flat and rolling terrain, not much turning. With regard to the "hookiness" do you think that wearing the cables will help control the ski better in flat/rolling terrain?

 

[dave.m]

Remix,

You might try "de-tuning" the tips. It's an old ski-tuning trick we used to use back when slalom race skis were long and men were men. Back in the day, one of the noticeable differences between Rossi slalom skis and K2s were that the K2s were flatter cambered and the Rossis tended to hook in soft snow. The K2s had a very stiff tail and could "hang up" and "rail" at the end of the turn. De-tuning the ski means intentionally dulling the edge at either the tip or tail or both. It reduces the edge's bite and effectively shortens the ski. It's done by running a sharpening stone at a 45 deg angle along the edge. We used to detune the tips of Rossis and the tails of K2s depending on the conditions. You might try de-tuning the first 12" or so of the Rainiers.

I find I don't get any additionally torsional response from my rigs with the Voile cables. They add a bit of forward resistance which dampens the ski tips in junky snow and puts more pressure on the tips. If anything, I think it would make the problem more noticeable or pronounced as the tips will be more active, not less.

Horses for courses. At the risk of suggesting American style consumption, my recommendation would be to look for a set of straight skis with tips in the 65mm range. They're an utter ball on long striding oriented trips. Use the Rainiers for what they're great at - poking around in the woods on and off trail where a few turns my happen.

 

[sardog1]

I don't think grooves in ski bases have any effect on straight line stability. My understanding is that they were once thought to help break the suction of water but I think the common wisdom is that this is better handled with proper base structuring.

Get your groove on, man: Groovy secrets.

 

[DougPaul]

I don't think grooves in ski bases have any effect on straight line stability. My understanding is that they were once thought to help break the suction of water but I think the common wisdom is that this is better handled with proper base structuring.

A somewhat meaningful comparison:
I have several pairs of ~65-55-60mm profile camber-and-a-half grooved skis--all track and kick-and-glide well. I also have a pair of 90-67-80mm single camber groove-less light-weight Tele skis (Tua Traverse). The most obvious difference in kick and glide on flat terrain is that the Tuas tend to slide out (ie away from the centerline) at the very end of the kick which damages my balance and wastes a good bit of energy. (The Tuas, of course, turn better.) All are mounted with similar 3-pin bindings. This was on pre-set BC ski tracks.

The comparison isn't as good as it would be if I had two identical pairs except for the groove, but it may be indicative. I have wondered if cutting a groove in the Tuas would cure the slide out problem without damaging the on-edge turning performance.

Possibly confusing the above is that I have used a pair of 80-60-70mm single-camber groove-less (Tele) Tua Cirques with a Tele cable binding in XC mode and don't recall that they exhibited the slide-out. (It was a long time ago...) I do, however, distinctly remember that they were squirrelly--they constantly wanted to turn in reaction to variations in the trail bed. (This was on a BC hiking trail without a set track so the differences in snow conditions could be a factor. It is also possible that the narrower ski sunk in a bit more which could have prevented the slide-out.)

Camber always matters.

Yep. Camber pattern too... (Ie which parts of the ski are softer or harder.)

Doug

 

[dave.m]

Doug,

I suspect that what you are feeling is due primarily to overall width, not the groove or lack there of.

Skinny skis are different than wide skis, both in terms of kick and glide and and in terms of turning. Narrower skis sink more in the snow. In turning, they require more step to initiate. For k&g, wider skis are more prone to sliding. Grooves do have a bit of an effect when the ski is flat, just as no-wax patterns do. But I'm convince a non-grooved skinny ski will track better for k&g than a wide ski with a groove. I honestly can't tell if a ski is grooved.

Easy experiment... take a pair of grooved skis and fill in the groove on 1 with copious amounts of melted glider. See if you can tell the difference.

 

[dave.m]

Get your groove on, man: Groovy secrets.

Whoa! Olin skis!! Olin, Scott boots and Spademan bindings... Rocking the 70s.

 

[DougPaul]

Doug,

I suspect that what you are feeling is due primarily to overall width, not the groove or lack there of.

Skinny skis are different than wide skis, both in terms of kick and glide and and in terms of turning. Narrower skis sink more in the snow. In turning, they require more step to initiate. For k&g, wider skis are more prone to sliding. Grooves do have a bit of an effect when the ski is flat, just as no-wax patterns do. But I'm convince a non-grooved skinny ski will track better for k&g than a wide ski with a groove. I honestly can't tell if a ski is grooved.

The Tua Traverses were flat when they were sliding out. A groove could potentially help.

Come to think of it, I have used groove-less heavy Tele skis (98/70/88mm, wider than the Tua Traverses) in kick-and-glide mode and they didn't slide out. So while width may be a factor, it alone cannot explain the difference.

Easy experiment... take a pair of grooved skis and fill in the groove on 1 with copious amounts of melted glider. See if you can tell the difference.

Filling the groove with wax is not equivalent to groove-less. Wax is much softer than P-Tex and will also wear away (rapidly if thick...).

FWIW, I used narrower grooved skis for all of my long forays into the Pemi...

Doug