BC 125 or BC 110 ??

[Rodbelan]

From a traditional XCD perspective, the BC110 is clearly a "powder" ski...

You are also talking about strong high camber being more snappy in the dynamics of the turn; it doesn't sound like it is coming from experience...

A powder ski with that strong a camber... From my personnel perspective: it doesn't make sense, I do not like them... BC 70, 90, 110... it sounds like poor design in a way, trying to please everyone... The 125 makes more sense. I think the Madshus overall are more balanced...

I use to own the BC 90—a close brother to the 110—and boy I hated that ski...

Antoine, quand je regarde tes intérêts, ton background, je pense réellement que le 125 te conviendrait mieux... si tu désires rester avec les Rossi, bien sûr... Je vais te dire: j'en ai marre d'entendre n'importe quoi sur les forums...!

[Ant01ne]

Salut Rod! Ouais, j'ai l'impression que les 125, des switchback et scarpa T2 ça serait un super bon match! Mais les excursions sont tellement souples (et mon budget limité!) que j'aurais peur de ne pas arriver à des bonnes prises de carres.
J'ai remarqué que les brakes des Voile CRB vont jusqu'à 85mm alors j'ai commandé les BC110 finalement (78mm waist)

Could somebody tell us more about camber and the behavior of skis in differents snow conditions?? Typical "alpine" are almost flat so I guess they act "neutral" in powder? Bigger camber = bouncing in soft snow? Tip diving?

[MikeK]

Define: powder. Can't. Means something different to everyone depending on their location.

Our powder in NY some might call glop

If you follow the trends in ski design, camber + powder is not favorable. Big Mountain powder skis are now flat or even reversed (fully rockered throughout with no camber).

In my mind, it really depends on the density of the snow. You can have mid to heavy, wet "powders" that in my mind, have no issue with some camber. To me this is typical east coast fresh snow. The firmer the snow, the more camber you can "tolerate". Also Rod being really light like he is, probably can't tolerate much camber anyway. Me, being more solid can easily squash out most any camber except the stiff DCs.

I've skied in very light powder, but only with a firm base beneath. Camber is fine there too. It can float you a bit with speed, but mostly you are just bouncing up and down on that base.

If you get the true, deep (I mean like 4'+ to anything solid), bottomless, light powder, then the strength of the camber to reverse the ski is going to overpower what the snow can actually support, and you are just going to sink and dive. This kind of snow is rare, rare, rare where I live - I'm not even sure what my skis might do it other than just sink to my waist and I'd never get enough speed to actually plane up on it.

[MikeK]

PS You guys need to be aware of a couple things on forums and some other's related to XCD skis.

No XCD ski is meant to cover every condition.

All skiers have different perceptions of how the skis react due to their ski style, weight and regional differences in terrain and snow.

IMO, a ski like either of these aren't ideal for powder skiing. They aren't ideal for skiing on groomers either. They are a compromise to ski moderate slopes and rolling terrain in ungroomed conditions.

So it seems like perhaps what I suspected was true that the 110 is a little more stiff and cambered than the 125 (look at him holding them base to base in the video, looks like barely any camber) but they both have that rockered tip.

Being 180lb, a little extra camber will probably not kill you. I'd also expect most of your skiing will be in moderate to dense powders where that bit of camber won't be all that brutal.

[lilcliffy]

No XCD ski is meant to cover every condition.

All skiers have different perceptions of how the skis react due to their ski style, weight and regional differences in terrain and snow.

Couldn't agree with you more about this.

IMO, a ski like either of these aren't ideal for powder skiing. They aren't ideal for skiing on groomers either.

My very limited experience of renting the previous gen BC125- testing it both on a groomed surface, and off-track- is that it was awful on a hard/dense/icy base- it bent and twisted all over the place. The BC110 was stiffer and "more" stable on a hard base- not that is saying much, compared to the BC125.

Whether they are ideal for "powder" (notice the intentional use of quotations please ) or not- in my limited knowledge there are only three reasons for skis to be as wide as either of these skis:
1) flotation
and/or
2) stability
and/or
3) aggresive sidecut

They are a compromise to ski moderate slopes and rolling terrain in ungroomed conditions.

Most definitely.


.............................
I hope I was clear that I have no personal skiing experience with the current generation of either ski. I know several skiers well that own them- and have flexed them many times. That's it.

This "type" of Nordic ski is my passion- just trying to be part of a conversation.

[Ant01ne]

If you get the true, deep (I mean like 4'+ to anything solid), bottomless, light powder,

Yeah, we have that. 20 minutes from downtown Quebec but It's mostly unknown to the public.

Until the end of the 90's, there was an alpine ski resort on the military base of Valcartier. The Centre Castor. They could'nt pay to upgrade the lifts so they shut down the mountain instead. Now they only operate the Myriam Bedard xc ski center. They keep some lines clean for hiking, biking and army training I guess

..Maybe things changed, haven't been there last year. They were supposed to take the building down and rebuild something..

[MikeK]

Do you plan on skiing those Rossi's in those conditions? If so, you'll definitely want the wider ones. Boot power shouldn't be an issue in that snow - but, if you use them on harder snows, it will... perhaps you can stay at Mont-Sainte-Anne those days?

[lilcliffy]

From a traditional XCD perspective, the BC110 is clearly a "powder" ski...

You are also talking about strong high camber being more snappy in the dynamics of the turn; it doesn't sound like it is coming from experience...

Not sure what you mean by my "experience". In the appropriate context, many skiers prefer a stiff single-cambered ski for downhill skiing- some even prefer short double-cambered skis.

A powder ski with that strong a camber... From my personal perspective: it doesn't make sense, I do not like them... BC 70, 90, 110...

Have never tried the BC90, but the BC70 is a stiff double-cambered ski- have tried it a number of times. I personally see the BC70 as a XC ski, and the BC110/BC125 as XCD skis (at least by design intent)- designed for "backcountry" skiing on fresh snow- otherwise why would they have a rockered tip?

Well- there are lots of backcountry Nordic skis- designed for fresh, soft snow- with a stiff flex pattern- such as the entire Fischer S-Bound line.

You clearly have more "experience" than I do- how would you compare the flex of the BC110 versus the S-112 or S-98?

I think the Madshus overall are more balanced...

Well that may be true- it depends- but at my weight the only Madshus flex pattern that works is the Annum- and only in truly deep, soft, dry powder snow. The Eon and the Epoch are too soft for my performance preferences.

I use to own the BC 90—a close brother to the 110—and boy I hated that ski...

Why did you hate it? Sincerely- I am interested- because based on Ant01ne's last post the dimensions of the 90 almost seem a better fit than either the 110 or the 125...

Antoine, quand je regarde tes intérêts, ton background, je pense réellement que le 125 te conviendrait mieux... si tu désires rester avec les Rossi, bien sûr... Je vais te dire: j'en ai marre d'entendre n'importe quoi sur les forums...!

Si vous préférez, je peux essayer de communiquer en français. Ma grammaire est terrible- mais ma compréhension est bonne!

[MikeK]

I use to own the BC 90—a close brother to the 110—and boy I hated that ski...

Why did you hate it? Sincerely- I am interested- because based on Ant01ne's last post the dimensions of the 90 almost seem a better fit than either the 110 or the 125...

Yeah, snow conditions. I work for the resort, so mostly groomed (yeah it's a shame..) and ice (.. lol), and some weekend exploring in north east crusty-not-always-fluffy situations. ..So much skiing during work hours that I tend to do other activities on weekends. what a life

This one I presume?

Yeah - not so fluffy is not so good IMO for a big fat ski. I'm perfectly happy having my widest ski be 69 in the middle. I ski that one mostly in "powder" actually, but more or less less than a couple feet of softer snow or in wetter stuff.

If you have breakable crusts OTOH, then flotation becomes key again so as not break the crust.

[lilcliffy]

With a downhill point of view, I'm also skeptical over the power ability of excursions on "fat" skis. My reference point remaining my day-to-day Scarpa T1 / Rev 90 btw

For me, it really depends on the snow and terrain conditions. What I do know is that in my limited experience, with my limited skill, I need a lot of boot power to hold a ski as wide as the BC125 on edge on a hard/dense/icy base.

If I am on deep, soft, powder snow- I can stride and steer a ski like the BC125 with my T4s.

and some weekend exploring in north east crusty-not-always-fluffy situations.

I hate to further complicate your decision- I really am trying to have a useful conversation about this!

If you are backcountry XCD touring on Notheast "crusty-not-always fluffy" snow- wouldn't a ski with the width and flex pattern of the S125 be a niche ski (i.e. only for the deep fluffy stuff)?

My limited experience throughout the Northeast- from the Adirondacks, to New England, Quebec, the Maritimes and Nfld- is that the snow is typically full of moisture and sets up to a very dense base. On an everyday basis; I would think that the BC90's profile- ignoring the flex pattern for a second- would be more versatile than either the 110 or the 125.

Currently my widest XCD ski is the Guide/Annum- it is certainly a niche ski for me- reserved for the deep, fluffy stuff.

Are you looking for an XCD ski exclusively for the deep fluffy stuff?