No announcement yet.

Ultimate ADK BC ski?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ultimate ADK BC ski?

    Voile Objective BC.

    I have no idea actually, I've yet to ski them in the Adirondacks but using them for a number of steeper areas in western NY I've found them pretty remarkable as a DH ski. They are super light, fairly narrow and plenty rockered.

    They are a tad slow for touring, I'll say that. If you really don't have any kind of challenging descent they probably aren't worth it, but if you have a long or challenging descent, even on a trail, these suckers can pin turns even with modest boots and bindings. I'd guess they'd do real nice as a trail ski in the HPW. Or if you are breaking through deep snow - at that point they become fairly nice, but not as good as a more traditional ski design, even on a wider platform.

    • Super light for the width. 115/82/99, 5lbs per pair in 178cm.
    • Wide enough for great turns in most east coast pow. And other BC conditions.
    • Waxless base that climbs really well in almost all snow.
    • Reasonably stiff and stable, especially for the weight.
    • Ample tip rocker keeps the tips up in deep snow even skiing forward and aggressive on the skis.
    • Made in USA.

    • Only available in limited sizes. Longest size of 178cm is a quick turner but on the short side for tall/heavy skiers.
    • Really expensive.
    • Not recommended for Tele mount. I have mine mounted with a 4 hole plate and only ski them with light boots and in soft snow. With big boots and hard skiing people have pulled bindings out.
    • Poor glide. The combo of rocker, low camber and stiff, damped layup makes these feel really dead touring. Also the scales don't slide all that well. For climbing and descending, you don't notice it so much. Flatter sections are a drag though.
    • Wide, low tips don't break trail as well as traditional tips. Wide shovels and dh shape profile can make for an awkward stride.

    I mainly use mine for climbing and descending doing laps. But I also found them so nimble on single track trails, especially descending and climbing, they may be better/more fun for some skiers on trails.

  • #2
    I ski an ├ůsnes Tindan 86, as my “fat ski”. It’s waxable, so no scale drag, it’s also available in a 187. It is a bit stiffer with a poplar core instead of paulownia. I can get kick and glide in soft snow. I look at it as a deeper snow touring ski with a goal of downhill turning.


    • #3
      Interesting ski. A bit heavier, even in a 176.

      I have wax skis, and I don't use them as much TBH. These climb really well - surprisingly well. I prefer not to use skins, if I can avoid it.

      When the snow is right, I do really like my Asnes Ingstads.

      I really haven't used the skins or the skin attachment. The edges were way too sharp and grabby at first, but much better now. They are a decent, all-around BC XC ski. They do tour really nice. They have a certain smoothness to the camber that most other skis don't have. It translates into a really good kick and glide. I wouldn't really ski them on anything too steep though - unless it's really wide open and not too firm.

      Just a comparison, those skis weigh a 1 lb more per pair than the Objectives... and those are light skis (for a 200cm).


      • #4
        Nice taste in skis Montcalm. That is not the current version of the Ingstad, however the military version of that ski is still sold the ├ůsnes NATO Combat ski. The NATO durability requirements make for a somewhat heavier ski.
        I’m not a big scale guy, I think they have their place in warm snow, but in the cold snow I’ve been skiing in the last month and a half you can’t beat wax. I admit warm snow is not easy peasy like cold snow, however I still prefer wax, or even klister.
        That Objective sure is a nice ski, if they made them longer I probably would have one.


        • #5
          I think the short length is nice. It makes them a really great woods ski. Again, to me, it’s a ski for going up and down steeper terrain. For more rolling, mellow tours it is way overkill.

          I guess my thought with the OP is it’s just a really versatile ski that even a relatively novice skier will be able to ski a lot with. It’s no fuss, it excels at trailbreaking and it descends like a demon. A Nordic skier would find them too slow. A slide skier would probably find them too narrow and light. But they could definitely do it all.


          • #6
            I agree Montcalm. I was only discussing subtle differences. You’re spot on.


            • #7
              Here's my submission. For me it's as much about the binding system as the skis. I love these Fischer S-Bound skis, but the Silvretta bindings make it the do-all of my dreams.

              I don't have much experience with competing binding systems, but I can say that the stride is MUCH more comfortable than my Fritschi Freeride bindings. As for heel locked and downhill, the Fritschi is certainly more rigid, but not enough difference to matter.

              All of the boots in this picture work with these bindings. Most rigid on the left least on the right. The Scarpa denali's and the Asolo plastic shell mountaineering boots have the most hours on my feet. There is really no need to pair the downhill atomic boots with this setup as the denali's are close enough but weigh so much less.

              The two softboots on the end are Bates bora bora and Salewa. For skiing the Bates win hands down, but the eyelets broke and I have not been able to get them fixed anywhere. The Salewa's are nice because the sole can be switched from locked to flex with an allen key. Makes no difference in the bindings, but when walking it's much more comfortable.

              The one thing all these boots have in common is that they are made for my really wide feet. Except for the Scarpas which I have punched out quite a bit.

              The skis are the Fischer S-bound 112 and here are the specs
              Dimensions: 112-78-95 mm
              Lengths available: 159, 169, 179, 189 cm
              Weight: 2690 g (5 lbs. 15 oz.) / 179cm pair

              These have a negative fish scale pattern. I've only once tried another pair with a positive pattern, and only for a few hundred feet at a resort. In those conditions, the positive pattern was noticeably better than the negative.
              Attached Files


              • #8
                I used to have a pair of S-98s but I upgraded those to the ski in the OP.

                Why? I dunno - as much as I like those 98s, I felt like they didn't really excel at any one thing - too generalized. I find a better balance with a long, relatively narrow ski for XC touring and a short, modern Alpine ski for descending.

                Nothing wrong with those Fischers - for the money they are hard to beat. Voiles are twice as much.


                • #9
                  I ski the Madshus Annum. 165cm, 109-78-95.

                  Love the fish scales and the metal edges; and they turn very easily.

                  I ski them short because I like to turn in tight woods, and I am not interested in speed.

                  I have them set up with Voile Switchback bindings, which switch from free pivoting to tele.

                  I made glue free "clip-skins" for these. Great backcountry set up!


                  • #10
                    Couldn't agree more about the mermaid paradox. These skis are really generalist and don't excel at anything. But... while you can bring a second set of boots (at least I can ), you can really only bring one set of skis.

                    So, do you struggle mightily on the uphill (as I used to with my k2 resort skis, alpine trekkers and downhill boots) so you have amazing turns without being afraid for your life. Or do you glide up with half the energy on skinny sticks only to panic all the way down with survival skiing.

                    Or, do you split the difference. Mediocre touring, mediocre turns.

                    Regardless of brand, I do think a lightweight, waxless base, wider parabolic bc ski is probably the best solution for the ADKs and a lot of the north east.


                    • #11
                      Also, fwiw, I've heard many people in the forum rave about the Voile Vector BC. Not sure how it compares, just sharing.

                      Also, fwiw, I ski the 169s. Much shorter than my resort skis.


                      • #12
                        Boots are a big difference. I've never carried two pair, but man there's a difference between my leathers and my T2s. Leathers are great for climbing and I can manage them in easy snow, but T2s I can ski pretty much anything, with a large walking penalty.

                        TCD - you should check out some Voiles when your Annums wear out. For tight stuff, these are the best skis I've ever used. Also the shortest I ski at 178, and with rocker probably <170 effectively. They do pretty well in the woods. I really want to try these on some High Peaks ski trails as well. For steep trails, I don't think I could find a better ski.


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by MrKawfey View Post
                          Also, fwiw, I've heard many people in the forum rave about the Voile Vector BC. Not sure how it compares, just sharing.

                          Also, fwiw, I ski the 169s. Much shorter than my resort skis.
                          I think like the older Vectors just a tad narrow and a lot lighter. The new Vectors are pretty big skis.


                          • #14
                            What do you guys use on your "waxless" bases? So far I've only used glide wax on the non-patterned part.


                            • #15
                              With the Fischers, as you can see, the scale section is a different material. It won't really take any wax, it has a super small pores/high density and it's very, very hard (relatively). You can rub a little paste on there, but I think it just rubs right off. I think all you need to do is hot wax the tips and tails on those.
                              Last edited by montcalm; 01-18-2022, 10:47 PM.