Ultimate ADK BC ski?

[MrKawfey]

If you're sliding back on skins, ain't no scales in the world gonna git you up.
Have you thought about ski crampons? Somewhere in a buried mystery box I have a pair for my Silvretta's. I've never used them, but they are supposed to snap right on... I think.
I think they can be put on without even taking my skis off.

Now you also have me wondering if I could take a pair of big mountain skis, mill out a pocket in the base, machine a patterned insert out of UHMW (or something) and pop it in.

I really need to stop looking at these posts while I'm trying to get some work done.

[montcalm]

Well I guess that explains it, I'm not nearly the level of skier you guys are. I'm an intermediate all-around skier, but I ski everything. These days I much prefer XC BC touring and XCD lapping on small, secluded verts. I still find myself riding a lift now and again and skiing in prepared XC tracks.

I should really stress how light the skis in the OP of this thread are. They are significantly lighter than S Bounds, which are fairly light skis. They don't even feel real. It's much like picking up a full carbon canoe vs. Kevlar. WTBS, you can kind of expect similar durability. S Bounds are easy to break, they have an air channel core which if over-stressed will split easily. Objectives are Paulownia, which is like Balsa wood, extremely soft and light.

For me lightness is a big deal because you can't use softer, lighter boots with heavy, wide skis. While being a challenge on firm snow, light boots can be great fun on fresh snow and a pleasure to tour in.

We are all obviously looking at skiing from very different perspectives. I spent a few years really refining my Nordic setups and technique once getting back into it. But I really enjoy it.

[stripperguy]

I did try...

[MrKawfey]

Hahahahahaha! Oh man! You just made my day!

[montcalm]

Not to be degrading to the efforts above, but people have quite successfully both removed portions of the base and added scale patterns and machined patterns. Part of being successful with either is putting the pattern in correctly and in the correct position. WTBS, negative patterns that you get from machining just don't work that well compared to positive patterns.

I don't really have the the motivation or interest in this to go dig up everything I've read over the years on the trials and tribulations of scaling smooth base skis, but it's out there on various ski forums.

[MrKawfey]

Montcalm is right on the money, there are plenty of internet accounts of people making their own scales and getting them to work well. No reason to rehash it all here. Also at the risk of denigrating your efforts, I can see why your approach wouldn't work.

But I like the original post postulation (OPP?) and think it's worth getting back to it. But maybe there is a question to be answered first.

What is the ultimate job of the ultimate ADK back country ski? Or maybe what's special (or at least characteristic) of BC skiing in the ADKs?

Just to put a stake in the ground: One characteristic would be the long approaches with tight trails through the trees. Lots of up and down on the way vs just up.

[montcalm]

The OP title was a bit of a troll. You know, just something to grab you. I posed a question, then I put my opinion to back it up.

I really don't think they are the best - I certainly wouldn't use them for a number of ski trips in the Adirondacks. I'm also not of the motivation or ability to ski everything available in the Adirondacks. There are slides and chutes I wouldn't even attempt, no matter what ski.

[montcalm]

So my ultimate skis have been this, so far:



The Fischers on the left are the only skis I have left of that lot. They are an older E89 waxless. I use them on prepared tracks, usually at BREIA. They have metal edges but I'm not sure they are entirely warranted. When these wear out I might get something without in this skinny, double cambered type of ski.





These are my two bread-n-butter XC skis. S Bound 78 (waxless) and Asnes Ingstad (smooth bases). These are all-around non-prepared tracks trail skis. They have what's called camber-and-a-half. Not quite a track XC ski double camber, but not an Alpine camber. This is a big range. All the S Bounds have 1.5 camber, but in various weights. These are the stiffest and narrowest. I ski them the same length, both 200cm. It's as long as I want to deal with on a trail. There's some differences between these two skis but I largely ski the same sort of thing with each and use the wax base when conditions are favorable for waxing. I have taken these type of skis in deep snow for trailbreaking, but they aren't ideal. They do well in moderate trail breaking and skiing in their own tracks.

Then it's my Tuas and Objectives which are my DH focused skis. I like my Tuas because they are like a light version of the skis I learned to ski on. They feel very familiar to me, but pretty limited. Basically for when I feel like messing with wax or riding a lift. The Objectives are no-nonsense go crank some turns because it just dumped skis. In terms of ski widths today, they are kinda skinny for this, but for our general snow densities I find them great. I'm not skiing beat up crud and my own refrozen stuff. I just have zero interest in that, so I ski something else if everything is refrozen. There's just too many lines in the areas where I go for me to ski off everything. They don't get enough use by others to either.

[montcalm]

Montcalm is right on the money, there are plenty of internet accounts of people making their own scales and getting them to work well. No reason to rehash it all here. Also at the risk of denigrating your efforts, I can see why your approach wouldn't work.

But I like the original post postulation (OPP?) and think it's worth getting back to it. But maybe there is a question to be answered first.

What is the ultimate job of the ultimate ADK back country ski? Or maybe what's special (or at least characteristic) of BC skiing in the ADKs?

Just to put a stake in the ground: One characteristic would be the long approaches with tight trails through the trees. Lots of up and down on the way vs just up.

I have no issue with anyone rehashing anything, it's just simply not in my interests. For my needs there are hundreds of scaled skis that will do the job, and I linked the Ultravectors, which are probably going to be the best thing you can buy geared for scaled ski AT or heavy Tele. Voile used to make even bigger skis scaled, as can be seen by that old article I linked. They must not have sold well, or Voile decided it wasn't the direction they wanted to go. These guys are serious. They aren't skiing old ski resorts in NY, they are testing these skis on big, steep, scary mountains in the Wasatch. These are serious skis designed for people who ski up big backcountry lines. WTBS, that doesn't necessarily mean they are the right tool for NY.

I guess BC means a lot of different things to different people. Some it's skiing old, closed ski resorts - which there aren't many in the Adirondacks. Some it's skiing slides. Some it's skiing the old CCC ski trails or glades. Some it's simply XC skiing on unprepared trails.

That's a big range - and within each range is a myriad of different things to consider.

From what I know from being out-and-about and occasionally talking to people who are as weird, or weirder than I am:

- for BC XC, the two skis (S78 and Ingstad) in the previous post have a number of counterparts. They all are around 78/61/69 ±2-3mm and they all have different flexes. Cambers tend to be similar - I've measured them at around 30lbs to <1mm to flat. That's kind of that 1.5 camber range. Anyway, I tend to see a number of people with these class of skis, or the class below which tend to be double cambered and a hair narrower. I less often have seen people using the S98s and up for touring BC XC, but they can do it.

- for XCD, I've seen all sorts of stuff actually, but by far the most popular was the Excursion/T4 boot, switchback bindings and the old Voile Vectors. Some overlap here with other skis like the Annum, S112, Rossi BC110/125, etc... The Vector really is a different ski than any of those. The Objective was the successor to the old Vector where they split their line and made a smaller, lighter ski: the Objective and upped the Vector to be a cross with one of their bigger skis.

- for AT/Skimo - out of my wheelhouse really, but tons of superlight race skis out there, not scaled though. Pretty much all modern Tele is focused toward this ski as there's really no such thing as a "tele" ski anymore. Skis like the Ultravector would fall here, I suppose. They are for the lightest end of AT. And of course there are all sorts of hybrid resort/BC skis out there that try to give something that can handle both, or that is more stable for when you don't have long hikes. There's a million size classes and shapes here. 98ish in the mids seems to be the "norm" that I see for the low end. That's a big ski for me. I'd try something like that for riding lifts, but I don't do any BC skiing that really requires it. I'm not getting into avy terrain.


There's no one ski that can do all of those, but you could probably get after it with a S112. I believe the Objective would do it pretty damn well if you pushed it to. The Ultravector would be capable as well, but a big boat to push around for XC skiing.

It's sometimes better just to have a quiver...

[MrKawfey]

Probably a little inelegant of me to say "no need to rehash it".

Really what I meant was "no need to rehash it in this thread". I'm a gear modification junkie myself and it's kind of a running joke in our house. My wife even bought me a shirt that says "I void warranties" with a row of every tamper-proof screw head underneath.

I really considered making my own scales on downhill skis before buying these. It would be an interesting (separate) thread to discuss all the ins and outs of the tools, setup, angles, etc of cutting custom scales.

And also discuss why striperguy's setup wouldn't work.

[MrKawfey]

I like the way you broke down the 2 categories for ADK backcountry. Not having any experience with XC, is there really any place for the traditional super long skinny xc skis in the ADK backcountry?

What is it about them that's limiting? Is it the length, lack of downhill capability, lack of climbing ability?

[montcalm]

Probably a little inelegant of me to say "no need to rehash it".

Really what I meant was "no need to rehash it in this thread". I'm a gear modification junkie myself and it's kind of a running joke in our house. My wife even bought me a shirt that says "I void warranties" with a row of every tamper-proof screw head underneath.

I really considered making my own scales on downhill skis before buying these. It would be an interesting (separate) thread to discuss all the ins and outs of the tools, setup, angles, etc of cutting custom scales.

And also discuss why striperguy's setup wouldn't work.

Check out Telemark Talk - there's a number of discussions there and some folks who have done this, that may still be posting and willing to share expertise. Probably far too few here.

I like the way you broke down the 2 categories for ADK backcountry. Not having any experience with XC, is there really any place for the traditional super long skinny xc skis in the ADK backcountry?

What is it about them that's limiting? Is it the length, lack of downhill capability, lack of climbing ability?

It's both - and lack of trailbreaking ability. Some people still use, and like them. They are fast, under the right conditions - but I find, for me, more often than not I can be just as fast with wider skis because I'm floating more and climbing easier (less herringbone). The DH is probably faster on skinnies, but sometimes not much fun - more of a ride of terror in snow that locks the skis down.

[Fisheater]

Thanks, guys.
FWIW, that 20 degree number, I picked off the rise and distance from a USGS topo map of the specific section where the usual skin track is the steepest. I need to use the highest riser step on my Fristche Free Ride bindings. Depending on how slick that track gets, I have slid backwards with my skins in the past.
My only ski boots now are some Scarpa or other, a dedicated 4 buckle AT boot with a high cuff and stiff forward flex (120 IFRC). I can ski lift served with them all day anywhere and they work well for me.
I still can ski any terrain in any condition, but most definitely prefer powder, trees and bumps, in that order. As far as lift served goes, if all there was to ski was groomers...I would stop skiing.

I still have a pair of Rossi Scratch's, mounted with 2 ton Marker AT bindings, that I machined fish scales into the bases. That didn't work at all.
So I was hoping I could find a fish scale bottomed ski that had big mountain performance, and something a bit wider than my 84 Watea's, to handle breakable crust a little better.

After looking at the skis in your links above, I don't have much hope.
I guess that's fine, I'll practice getting better at applying and removing my skins!

Mike,
I have my own style, but I keep up with things that are a little different than exactly what I do. I?ve owned a pair of Fischer S-112, I can use kick wax and out climb those scales easily. They also have what is called an air core, they are not torsionally stiff. Yes, I can ski them on hard surfaces on a black diamond, with leather Tele boots. However the ski does not inspire confidence.
Now I read and communicate with quite a few guys that ski Voile Vectors in the mountains. I?ve read positive reviews of guys using Vectors from the Sierra to the Cascades to the Whites and Greens. These guys to carry skins for for steeper skin tracks.
Now onto sliding backwards with your skins. There are different “hair” materials. The Mohair are the most slidey, while nylon the most grippy. A nylon / mohair mix is considered a nice compromise. If you?re slipping maybe you should consider a pair of nylon skins.
I do have one question for you. Most guys when they reach a certain age opt for less steep skin tracks. How old are you going to have to be before you stop following the twenty something?s skin tracks? Once guys get to about 40 they seem to use a lot more sense when breaking trail uphill!

[stripperguy]

Haha, I ask myself that question often!
When I was in my 50’s, I skied with a buddy of mine at a Bromley in VT.
We bumped into my buddies friend, that was on staff at Killington forever, he was just 60 and as smooth as flowing water.
I was impressed with his fluidity. We skied one extremely mild bump run together, the guy looked solid, but later said that was all his legs could take.
That guy was my benchmark for years and years.
Well, I’m well past that guys age now and still ski powder, bumps and trees all day long, on any terrain. Is it my level of physical fitness? Is it my technique? Is it genes?
Likely a combo of all that and I’m just plain lucky.
If I can still BC ski in another 5 years(70 years old) I’ll be pleased.
A good ski buddy of mine continued to teach at Mad River well into his 70’s, so there’s hope.

And my skins are nylon, used only for the climb, they’re no good at gliding.