Asnes Rabb 68 over the Voile Objective BC w/Xplore

[Musk Ox]

Just to contradict @tkarhu here (with apologies!), the Swix Blue (V30) is a bit too hard for 0°C/ 32°F – you won't get any grip until you're a good few degrees below freezing. On older snow, Swix Blue is only useful when it's -5° or something.

Swix Blue Extra (V40) is a bit more versatile, but again, on consolidated snow you'll wish you had something softer unless it's like -4°C.

The temperature ranges on the tins are pretty spot on. If you can't make your mind up which one to use, it's always a good idea to go for the harder wax first and see if it works. Just to prevent icing and all general annoyance. If you have no grip, just wax forward of your wax pocket a bit before you go colder.

You can stick the Åsnes skins on over the wax, but only if it's Blue or harder than Blue.

Nice to hear about the Swix ble waxes! I have used Swix blue (or was it Rex blue, a harder blue anyway) and Rex Blue Special lately. Rex Blue Special is rated -1 to -4 ’C so can use a blue until 0’ C.

@Musk Ox Does ”Blue or harder than blue” mean a hard blue in your opinion? My x-skin bases have felt a bit messy lately, but still have worked alright after putting Rex Biue Special on top of them regularly.

Oh, sorry, yes, I'm assuming everyone uses Swix.

The consensus seems to be that you can stick skins on cold wax, equivalent to Swix Blue (V40) or anything for colder temperatures, but the Red and Violets will mess the glue a bit!

[RabbitEars]

I have both the Rabb 68 and the Voile Objective BC. Both are mounted with Xplore. My experience is that these skis are not similar. I will try to keep this very succinct as others have already shared some good information. The Rabb is a very turny nordic ski that has some ability to track when kicking and gliding. It is geared for softer snow and you would most definitely want skins to pull a pulk. The Objective BC I would say its a tour for turns downhill ski. I don't enjoy it as a nordic touring/cross country downhill ski when covering much distance. The Objective doesn't want to move forward; it wants to turn. Others mileage may vary, but those are my thoughts. Also I have used waxable skis for two seasons and it's totally doable I wouldn't get intimidated by it. Just look up @lilcliffy guide here in the forum. His instructions worked great for me.

I will say that after skiing the Rabb I am really interested in the Falketind 62. I imagine it might be the perfect XCD ski with the kick and glide of the Ingstad and the turn-ability of the Rabb.

[JB TELE]

Between the two skis, which one would be better for skiing on firm snow in leather boots? The rabb is skinnier but the objective is more downhill oriented with possibly better torsional rigidity?

[Manney]

I have both the Rabb 68 and the Voile Objective BC. Both are mounted with Xplore. My experience is that these skis are not similar. I will try to keep this very succinct as others have already shared some good information. The Rabb is a very turny nordic ski that has some ability to track when kicking and gliding. It is geared for softer snow and you would most definitely want skins to pull a pulk. The Objective BC I would say its a tour for turns downhill ski. I don't enjoy it as a nordic touring/cross country downhill ski when covering much distance. The Objective doesn't want to move forward; it wants to turn. Others mileage may vary, but those are my thoughts. Also I have used waxable skis for two seasons and it's totally doable I wouldn't get intimidated by it. Just look up @lilcliffy guide here in the forum. His instructions worked great for me.

I will say that after skiing the Rabb I am really interested in the Falketind 62. I imagine it might be the perfect XCD ski with the kick and glide of the Ingstad and the turn-ability of the Rabb.

Interesting observations… thank you for sharing.

My views are similar. A lot about a ski’s nature is learned on two types of surfaces… hard and icing (but not icy) surfaces and moderately deep snow. One tests tracking, the other versatility.

So many AT oriented skis are utterly hateful in either condition. Many ppl never get to realize this because they either stick to a limited range of conditions or are skiing groomed hills. Those who do truly tour for turns… skiing out at least five miles or more, doing their hill work, and touring back to home or the car park… know there is some truth in this.

Skis with some length, some width, modest side cut, good rocker, and a steel edge do reasonably well across the board. None of them have a radical parabolic shape common to AT or the relatively flat shapes of freestyle skis. But gosh, do those skis sell… the industry knows how to sell “look” and the ppl buying them don’t know what their missing because most of their distance is covered by a lift.

[Try this at home… when you hit the snow, bring an activity tracker with a mapping function like Strava etc. if you’re skiing groomers, 40% of your distance will be on lifts (you can see this thru the mapping function). If you’re in the back country, 0% is on lifts… you might have 5% or less walking to and from an access point. But 95% or better is some form of active skiing. The raw wilderness portion of that 95% is where you’ll learn the most about your skis.]

[Nitram Tocrut]

Between the two skis, which one would be better for skiing on firm snow in leather boots? The rabb is skinnier but the objective is more downhill oriented with possibly better torsional rigidity?

For what it's worth I skied the Rabb with a leather boot on different snow conditions twice in a resort and hard surfaces were no fun at all... might differ for a better skilled skier but the Rabb would not be your ski or choice. Last spring I took the Rabb and the green/white FT on some corn on an hard artificial snow base and I rapidly switched to the FT. They felt more stable despite them being narrower but longer. From my limited experience I would say it takes a really skilled skier to ski the Rabb in conditions not better suited for it

[lilcliffy]

Between the two skis, which one would be better for skiing on firm snow in leather boots? The rabb is skinnier but the objective is more downhill oriented with possibly better torsional rigidity?

I cannot speak personally to the Objective-

the Rabb 68 is not tuned for hardpack- though I think it might be fine on spring corn...

the Rabb 68 is supremely dreamy on fresh snow over a consolidated base.

[Nitram Tocrut]

Between the two skis, which one would be better for skiing on firm snow in leather boots? The rabb is skinnier but the objective is more downhill oriented with possibly better torsional rigidity?

To add to my previous comment... I skied the Objectives with the Ski March and they were lots of fun on deep snow but I don't think they would do good on firm snow... Well, my answer is that from my experience both skis are not tuned for firm snow. But my experience is with the first generation Rabb and I had the chance to flex the new version and they were stiffer and I think with more torsional rigidity but that is just a feeling.

What I am simply trying to say to the OP that from my experience with both skis they are not the best choice for firm snow. From my own experience and skills

[Manney]

I skied the Objectives with the Ski March and they were lots of fun on deep snow.

I did not keep them as they were unfortunately too short

Interesting. Trying to reconcile these two thoughts. What was the basis for rejecting the skis because they were too short?

[Nitram Tocrut]

I skied the Objectives with the Ski March and they were lots of fun on deep snow.

I did not keep them as they were unfortunately too short

Interesting. Trying to reconcile these two thoughts. What was the basis for rejecting the skis because they were too short?

I edited my post to keep in line with the OP question so not to derail the thread

[Manney]

Fair enough. My interest was related to some digging on ski surface area and support in powder. The Voile’s are at the upper end of the scale… more surface area than Hoks by virtue of their lengths (the extra 20-30 cm adds to surface area even tho the Hoks are wider) but not too far off a Raab.

https://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic. ... Cm2#p64071

Of course, a really short Objective doesn’t have an advantage over the longest “other” ski.

The curious thing is that casual AT skiers (no offense intended by this phrase) may select a shorter ski, unintentionally giving up a certain amount of float that they’ll later need in pow. All this ties into the OP’s questions because it introduces another variable… it’s not a RAAB vs Voile question (yes, those skis are very different in character) but also a matter of length.

We sometimes overlook that (and rocker, effective edge etc.) because we’re seduced by a big number underfoot.

Some of this way of thinking is also reflected in this approach… very much alpine focused, so not many of the skis mentioned on TT have been cataloged.

https://soothski.com/