Are the narrow nordic backcountry skis miserable on tracks?

[lilcliffy]

Next question- do you want the ski to fit in the tracks- or are you going to skate with them?

Sorry- can't wait for your response to ask my next question-

You have a Rabb 68 and an S-Bound 98- yes?
If so- have you tried skating with them at the track?

[Verskis]

Great to hear from you again Verskis!

Bear with here- trying to understand your original question and objective-

My understanding is that you want to make linked turns on groomed hills at the groomed Nordic track- correct?

A question- do you have to be able to make actual equally-weighted telemark turns- or would you be content to make a vartiety of turns where the downhill/lead ski is fully-weighted?

The width of the groomed surface will require tight-radius linked turns- yes?

I ask these questions because if you want to make true evenly-weighted telemark turns- you are going to need to be able to fully compress and pressure both skis- evenly weighted-
And- this- yes- will equate to a ski that has no effective double camber- from a Classic technique perspective.
Whether this will be "miserable" depends on how fast you want to travel otherwise.

For me- when I Classic stride on the tracks- I want to fly- so I want a stiff highly cambered ski fitted to my weight and technique/skill→ this ski will not- by definition- make a true telemark turn.

Next question- do you want the ski to fit in the tracks- or are you going to skate with them?

Best wishes and happy New Year mon ami Verskis!
Gareth

Hi Gareth, great to see you again here on the forums!

To answer your questions, first of all, I do have both the Rabb 68 and the S-Bound 98, and tried to skate on the groomed skating track on both of them, but I do not really like it. Both of them seem to not track straight when sliding on the edge of the ski, which is pretty natural since the cut of the ski is intended to make a curve when pressure is applied to the tilted ski. And at least the Sbound 98 is very slow, since the skating "push" is forcing the fishscales to the ground. It's been a while since trying to skate with the Rabb, but I remember that also feeling quite slow, maybe because of the pretty generous grip waxing (for the backcountry conditions). Both are also a bit tiring for the ankles to skate with (on the leather boots), since they are pretty wide skis.

And I am not that big of a fan of skate skiing, so I'd like to kick and glide on the classic tracks instead. The desire to be able to make turns with said track skis comes when there are downhills along the groomed tracks where the classic track is pretty blown out on the curves so that it would be much nicer to just step out of the tracks on downhills and use the skating surface to descend and make some nice telemark turns on the curves. The turns would not need to be very tight, since they would not really be for speed control, only for the change of direction.
I'd like to make true equally weighted telemark turns, since they feel the nicest.
Now with my current track skis I can mostly make just step turns at faster speeds, even sliding alpine turns are too sketchy with my current equipment and skill level on anything above running pace, let alone telemark turns.

But like you said, that might be an impossible combination to have a relatively fast ski that would bend nicely for the turns.

[lilcliffy]

Cool.
Not surprised by your experience skating with the Rabb 68/S-Bound 98.

Well I think that the 3/4 edge Nordic touring skis are an option as some have already suggested- these skis are typically nowhere near as stiff and cambered as a Classic track ski- they will be slower on the track, but easier to pressure into a turn than a Classic track ski.

I would suggest considering the Asnes Ousland- but someone rececently posted that its stiff steel-wrapped tip is poor in the track. The Ousland has a lot of rocker though- Gamme the Elder's UTE test reports decent turn radius.

The other ski to consider is the last-gen Fischer E-99 Xtralite (same as Transnordic 66?)
The E99XL has a very soft rockered shovel and a soft flexible tip- I find it very well behaved in a groomed track.
The E99XL also has a poppy satisfying double camber underfoot-
I have had this ski on the classic track many times and have always been pleasantly surprised by how well it performs.
In addition- I actually find the E99XL quite easy and fun to turn- and the ample rocker gives it a shortened effective edge and feels as if it has a forward mount on consolidated snow (e.g. groomed snow).
I have the 210 E99XL, and at that length I need to fully weight my downhill ski to make a pressured-carved turn with it.
But if you got it short enough, one would be able to evenly pressure both skis in a telemark turn- trade off would be a loss in Classic kick & glide performance.
I can't really make a true equally-weighted telemark turn on my 210 E99- but I am okay with this- I can certainly turn them.
For reference I am 178cm tall and 84kg.

I don't know how the E89XL/Transnordic 59 compares in terms of camber. The only E89 I ever tried was even more cambered and stiffer than the E99XL.

You may even be able to find some left over E99/E89 XL stock- there is a fair bit left here in Canada.

[beeeweee]

One thing I have noted from Madshus' specs is that the Fjelltech M50 weighs 1780g for the 187cm, the current season Panorama T50 is 1380g for the 192cm, and last season's Panorama M50 is 1780g, size unlisted (I am assuming around 190cm). Why does the current season Fjelltech M50 have the same spec weight as last season Panorama M50? How noodly is the Panorama T50 if the heavier Fjelltech M50 is as bad as you say?

It also leads to the question of whether there is more of a difference between the MR48 waxable and MR48 Skin than just the skin insert. Theme stated that the MR48 Skin does not have any nordic rocker. Individual ski variation, or intentional design change?

It’s possible that the T50 has a new construction compared to the M50. Madshus does list the T50 as ‘new’ and historically, Madshus doesn’t really change the graphics on a ski unless something internal has changed. So if the T50 has more carbon fiber reinforcements, they may have allowed them to stiffen up the ski while reducing the weight. Madshus applies a lot of trickle down tech that are developed on their top-end Redline skis and brings those concepts to their lower end skis over time.

In terms of waxable vs skin ski, if I were Asnes, I would try to optimize the camber of the MR48 and MR48 Skin variants differently. I can’t speak for Asnes but Madshus does this on the Redline Skin skis where they make use of their warm ski kick pocket that is higher and optimized for klister, and uses this for their Skin ski that has a cold ski camber construction. The idea is that the klister optimized pocket also performs better for skin skis that require just a little more clearance to reduce skin drag but still allows for good kick.

As far as rocker goes, I don’t really know. I can check the rocker on my pair of MR48 and report back.

I can confirm that the MR48 Skin has a mild ‘nordic rocker’. However, it’s not much different than what I see when I compress my classic track skis. They all have rocker when compressed.

I think the key to soft snow handling is not so much whether there is or is not a nordic rocker. It’s more a matter of how stiff the shovels/tips are and how much it get gets deflected by the snow. So I wouldn’t get too hung up on the presence of rocker or not.

[satanas]

FWIW, I agree with those who've said 60mm is the widest that won't necessarily drag. This depends a bit on the track setting too; sometimes you might get away with 65mm or so. The widest ski I've actually enjoyed skiing in tracks is a Madshus Voss (60,50,55) which has only partial steel edges; full edges at the tip will tend to cut their way out of the track on corners rather than follow it. However, something like a Fischer Superlight (or a track ski) is much better while *in the track.*

Also, nobody seems to have mentioned boots or bindings so far, but particularly wide boots especially paired with 75mm bindings are likely to drag on the sides of the track, both slowing you down and damaging the track for those who follow. Riser plates can help with this, but it's better just to use more appropriate gear.

Re turning: This is obviously going to depend on snow conditions and technique, but modern skating gear is quite capable of competent parallel turns (on firmer snow), and with a bit of sidecut and combi boots one can tele a bit in suitable conditions. YMMV!

[Theme]

One thing I have noted from Madshus' specs is that the Fjelltech M50 weighs 1780g for the 187cm, the current season Panorama T50 is 1380g for the 192cm, and last season's Panorama M50 is 1780g, size unlisted (I am assuming around 190cm). Why does the current season Fjelltech M50 have the same spec weight as last season Panorama M50? How noodly is the Panorama T50 if the heavier Fjelltech M50 is as bad as you say?

It also leads to the question of whether there is more of a difference between the MR48 waxable and MR48 Skin than just the skin insert. Theme stated that the MR48 Skin does not have any nordic rocker. Individual ski variation, or intentional design change?

It’s possible that the T50 has a new construction compared to the M50. Madshus does list the T50 as ‘new’ and historically, Madshus doesn’t really change the graphics on a ski unless something internal has changed. So if the T50 has more carbon fiber reinforcements, they may have allowed them to stiffen up the ski while reducing the weight. Madshus applies a lot of trickle down tech that are developed on their top-end Redline skis and brings those concepts to their lower end skis over time.

In terms of waxable vs skin ski, if I were Asnes, I would try to optimize the camber of the MR48 and MR48 Skin variants differently. I can’t speak for Asnes but Madshus does this on the Redline Skin skis where they make use of their warm ski kick pocket that is higher and optimized for klister, and uses this for their Skin ski that has a cold ski camber construction. The idea is that the klister optimized pocket also performs better for skin skis that require just a little more clearance to reduce skin drag but still allows for good kick.

As far as rocker goes, I don’t really know. I can check the rocker on my pair of MR48 and report back.

I actually measurrd the rocker on MR48s. Only very subtle 5cm with a piece of paper, probably why I missed it completely


A pair of T50 in 202 arrived in mail today. Super odd impressions of the ski:

- Higher camber than MR48s. More spring, though quite soft second camber. No idea if T55 would have a strong second camber like M55 had
- 202 weights were 835 and 865g so same as 210 MR48S which I have. Far from the 690 proposed for the 192, no weight savings in this length.
- 202 is actually 202cm
- Skin connection is very loose, compared to very tight before
- Has Nordic rocker, to about 5cm after steel edge begins
- Steel edge starts way further front than MR48
- Steel edge all the way to the tail
- Has significant TAIL ROCKER when compressed
- Tip is very soft
- Skin coupling is way further than on the M55 which was already very far compared to any other Åsnes I had. Skin would end right at my BoF if bindings attached at BP

I kind of want to try them out, but kind of don't. The color and graphics are nice, darker blue than expected. Madshus text on the other ski is about 1cm offset in front, but tagged with a quality control sticker which is also offset. I find this hilarious. The skin being further front could be a good thing, or a bad thing. Kick zone of the T50 was 30% shorter than on my MR48S (skin removed to measure this), and more to the front.

Any idea how that tail rocker would affect the ski? I would suppose there really is not much reason for a soft rockered tip and a rockered tail with steel edge on such narrow ski. Possibly takes away from off track performance on hard icy snow, but also reduces track performance?

What turns me away at this point is the lost stability compared to MR48, loose skin coupling, and possibly the tail rocker. No weight savings which was one goal. Also discovered a made in China - tag on the ski. Why did I think these were made in Norway?

[Jurassien]

Also discovered a made in China - tag on the ski. Why did I think these were made in Norway?

Why indeed? - You're probably not the only one! I have three 3 skis from Madshus, 2 of them more than 10 years old. All 3 were made in China, and it's not as if they're trying to hide it - "Made in China" is clearly legible on the top-sheets.

If the Chinese can send a pair of vehicles to the far side of the moon (still working after 4 years), then they are quite capable of making planks to slide on the snow.

[wabene]

Also discovered a made in China - tag on the ski. Why did I think these were made in Norway?

Why indeed? - You're probably not the only one! I have three 3 skis from Madshus, 2 of them more than 10 years old. All 3 were made in China, and it's not as if they're trying to hide it - "Made in China" is clearly legible on the top-sheets.

If the Chinese can send a pair of vehicles to the far side of the moon (still working after 4 years), then they are quite capable of making planks to slide on the snow.

This is a good point about Chinese made skis. I have the Fjeltech M50 and the Panorama M62 and while I may prefer their Åsnes counterparts if I could ever get my hands on them, they seem well made to me. The M50 in particular has gotten used heavily going into it's 3rd season and really looks quite new. Of note the bases on these skis are the best of all my skis with great structure and they take wax really well.
I could understand why someone would pause at buying products made in that country. Pretty hard to avoid, though.

[Transplantskier]

This is a good point about Chinese made skis. I have the Fjeltech M50 and the Panorama M62 and while I may prefer their Åsnes counterparts if I could ever get my hands on them, they seem well made to me. The M50 in particular has gotten used heavily going into it's 3rd season and really looks quite new. Of note the bases on these skis are the best of all my skis with great structure and they take wax really well.
I could understand why someone would pause at buying products made in that country. Pretty hard to avoid, though.

Same experience with my Fjelltech M44. I don't love that they're made in China (and would honestly be willing to pay more for them not to be), but I did put 80+ miles a week on them all last season and most of the season before and they're holding up just fine. I glide wax regularly and the bases look almost brand new. My wife's Vosses have been abused to within an inch of their lives, still ski reasonably well, and still clean up nicely when brushed out and waxed up.

Conversely, I had to send a pair of the Åsnes MT51 waxless back because the scale patterns were differently placed by over 5cm on the two skis. Our other Åsnes skis have been perfect and Åsnes replaced them no questions asked, so just a case of bad luck. But it does make you wonder how something like that sneaks through quality control...

All this being said, my Åsnes Nansens remain my favorite ski I've ever skied, and I don't see a future where I'm without at least a pair of Åsnes skis no matter what landscape I may end up living in.

[Graupl]

I'm head over heels loving my Fjelltech M44s. Although carving a tele turn hasn't been high on my priorities with in-track and near-track activities, LOL. I hot iron universal glide wax about every other outing, and rub in some liquid glide wax right before skiing. The M44s glide just fine in-track (FYI I'm using the longest length M44 for my weight). Their integrated skins really allow a good kick, and their tall but soft camber really allows some glide (and they run well with gravity). Upon veering off tracks and into generally groomed packed powder, they still allow some turnability, their edges carve enough, and I generally find myself smiling whenever I'm on them. Typical usage is nordic centers and FS lands (whose grooming is adequate but not boutique like a paid nordic center).

For the record, I use NNN MOVE bindings on the M44s and I wear combi boots so that I have some additional ankle support for less groomed surfaces.

Yesterday I was in Rocky Mtn Nat Park on my Panorama M62s (which are also super) on some gentle-to-moderate packed snow hiking trails. Although the M62s seemed perfect, I was thinking I mighta gotten by on my Fjelltech M44s since a number of people had already packed down the trail. YMMV.