Asnes finally offering FTX, Rabb and Nosi with scales

[tkarhu]

Does FTX = Falketind Xplore? (I've not seen this before.)

I'm semi-interested in something to pair with Xplore bindings and boots, but would need to deal with firm to icy conditions frequently - no powder - so going too wide is a nono. My guess is that the Falketind should be narrow enough to edge, the Rabb might be okay(?), but the Nosi no way without a plastic boot here in Oz. Pattern bases are pretty much de rigueur here in practice, so more not-too-heavy options can only be a good thing.

If I was going to use the FTX as a downhill ski on hardpack, I would probably spend some time considering alternatives to balance-point for mounting- would at least consider what a boot-center mount would feel like- regardless, I would want a longer length for downhill on hardpack, vs the Nansen.

[…]

I think I prefer the current Rabb 68 to the FTX in all conditions- and if I did it over again, I would buy a 196 Rabb instead of a 196 FTX. I think the FTX is just too narrow underfoot to be a verastile BC touring ski for anyone that weighs more than 150lbs. Don't get me wrong- I haven enjoyed some epic tours on the FTX, but as soon as the soft snow gets deeper than 15cm, it is too narrow to offer effective stabilty and touring efficiency- I am confident a 196 Rabb would be better (I have a 180 Rabb).

I haven't taken my 180 Rabb (nor the FTX) to my local groomed hill yet, but I doubt that either of them would be better than the Nansen with a Nordic touring boot.

For me the newest FTX in 196 cm works alright on groomers. With Xplores it would work great I think, I ski them with NNN-BC.

Also, IME the FTX skis well where the skis sink 15 cm and a pole 40+ cm, when you hit snow with it. I weight 90-100 kg with gear.

[satanas]

Interesting discussion, thanks everyone.

Perhaps I should say here that I have zero intersst in ever again owning any leather ski boots as they invariably get wet here when touring, then freeze solid overnight; I've had frostnip more than enough already. If "leather" is being used as a proxy term for not-plastic boots that's rather different, and in any case nobody has sold actual leather boots here in Oz for many years. The boots I've been contemplating are the Madshus Panorama Xplore, which are I think 100% synthetic, do fit me, but have proved impossible to find in the right size; they seem much stiffer torsionally and laterally than one would expect based on how they look, and the minimal appearing cuff really does something.

So, I do quite a bit of overnight touring, nostly on rolling terrain, with some flatter or steeper stuff. Oftentimes plastic boots seem like overkill, and they're heavy, albeit warm and dry. (I'd still use plastic if going somewhere consistently steep and/or icy, like say the Main Range in NSW, or Hotham or Feathertop in Victoria.) For elsewhere I think the Explore system might do the job with considerably less weight and with more ROM and easier walking in areas with patchy snow. The big question is what ski to use, bearing in mind ~0% chance of powder snow, but heavy wet snow and/or firm to icy conditions are very likely.

I don't think having skis stiff enough to carve on very firm snow is necessary, but at least some torsional stiffness is useful if one isn't on powder all the time. Wider skis are undoubtedly more versatile provided one has a stiff enough boot to edge them, but in this case the Xplore boot would presumably be the limiting factor, and a narrower ski will be easier to edge. The question is how much narrower, and the answer is probably going to be YMMV, but suggestions are welcome.

[lilcliffy]

Perhaps I should say here that I have zero intersst in ever again owning any leather ski boots as they invariably get wet here when touring, then freeze solid overnight; I've had frostnip more than enough already. If "leather" is being used as a proxy term for not-plastic boots that's rather different, and in any case nobody has sold actual leather boots here in Oz for many years. The boots I've been contemplating are the Madshus Panorama Xplore, which are I think 100% synthetic, do fit me, but have proved impossible to find in the right size; they seem much stiffer torsionally and laterally than one would expect based on how they look, and the minimal appearing cuff really does something.

Does the Madshus boot have a waterproof liner (eg Goretex)?

So, I do quite a bit of overnight touring, nostly on rolling terrain, with some flatter or steeper stuff. Oftentimes plastic boots seem like overkill, and they're heavy, albeit warm and dry. (I'd still use plastic if going somewhere consistently steep and/or icy, like say the Main Range in NSW, or Hotham or Feathertop in Victoria.) For elsewhere I think the Explore system might do the job with considerably less weight and with more ROM and easier walking in areas with patchy snow. The big question is what ski to use, bearing in mind ~0% chance of powder snow, but heavy wet snow and/or firm to icy conditions are very likely.

I don't think having skis stiff enough to carve on very firm snow is necessary, but at least some torsional stiffness is useful if one isn't on powder all the time. Wider skis are undoubtedly more versatile provided one has a stiff enough boot to edge them, but in this case the Xplore boot would presumably be the limiting factor, and a narrower ski will be easier to edge. The question is how much narrower, and the answer is probably going to be YMMV, but suggestions are welcome.

Fischer 98 + Xplore.

[satanas]

IIRC the Madshus boots do have something to keep water out, but this isn't IMO a big deal; past synthetic ski boots have worked well enough. The important thing is that they're basically non-absorbent, so cannot freeze.

FWIW, I have the Fischer Boundless (renamed later as SB98), and can't imagine them being acceptable with a non-plastic boot on anything firm, but I've not tried Xplore yet as the demo copies sold out early last year. I've used those skis with T4s and Excursions, which did the job except on steeper, firmer stuff where neither the skis nor the boots were really up to it.

My hope is that by going to a narrower ski and sacrificing some seldom-needed float I can thus get away with a lighter, comfier boot and lighter binding, with more ROM. This may or may not work. (Plan B might be Voile Objectives + very light AT boots and bindings.)

As an aside, somebody mentioned the Guide/Annum, which are quite common here. I've only tried them once and was seriously unimpressed; I get on much better with the SB98 or 112 rather than the very dead-feeling Annums.

[tkarhu]

Why not even a short Mountain Race 48? Or a similar Fischer ski.

For touring in icy rolling terrain, may steel edges be most crucial, and the ease of edging. For that reason, could narrower be better there?

[satanas]

Why not even a short Mountain Race 48? Or a similar Fischer ski.

For touring in icy rolling terrain, may steel edges be most crucial, and the ease of edging. For that reason, could narrower be better there?

FWIW, I toured in Norway on the Madshus Voss (60/50/55mm) for a couple of weeks back in 2015, and was unimpressed on softer snow with a pack. They're excellent skis as long as you're not carrying much and are on firmish snow (or corn), and fit in tracks nicely. You can get away with lighter boots (I had Salomon boots for Worldloppets and too much gear to lug about already), but get away is about it.

BITD we all toured on skis with ~55mm at the waist, like E99s, Swallows, etc, but these days few here use <78mm, or ~67 at the least. I don't mind a bit less but would prefer not to go narrower than 60mm at worst.

(And yes, steel edges are necessary here, and pets are banned from National Parks - where all the snow is - since they kill native wildlife, so cutting dogs' paws is a non-issue.)