Madshus, Rossignol or maybe something else? New to XC

[connyro]

This↑ is not a photo of a BC100-
I just measured it to scale-
if it is a photo of a BC100, that ski is 330cm long...

...Web images get scaled, stretched all the time to fit frames.

It's a pic of the 2022-23 OT65, not the BC100: https://www.skirack.com/rossignol-evo-o ... 5MMIbrFZNw

[Manney]

This↑ is not a photo of a BC100-
I just measured it to scale-
if it is a photo of a BC100, that ski is 330cm long...

...Web images get scaled, stretched all the time to fit frames.

It's a pic of the 2022-23 OT65, not the BC100: https://www.skirack.com/rossignol-evo-o ... 5MMIbrFZNw

Labelled BC100 on another site. Pics of Elvis on a beach in Crimea somewhere too.

Linky here

https://www.widermag.com/ski-nordique- ... -positrack

French web site. Rossignol French company. You’d think they’d know, but apparently not. Thing is, there was an older version of the BC100 selling in the US. Didn’t have the big paddle nose. Saw one last year. End of line att.

Maybe the older BC100 was rebranded XP when the newer BC design was released.

Read on this site a bunch of confusing things about other skis… Asnes Mt65 Combat mentioned, Asnes USGI Combat, Asnes NATO Combat. Often just referred to as NATO Combats. Different years, dimension, construction etc. Worth cutting Tele some slack. He and Lilcliffy may be using the same term for totally different skis. Both right.

[CwmRaider]

Read on this site a bunch of confusing things about other skis… Asnes Mt65 Combat mentioned, Asnes USGI Combat, Asnes NATO Combat. Often just referred to as NATO Combats. Different years, dimension, construction etc. Worth cutting Tele some slack. He and Lilcliffy may be using the same term for totally different skis. Both right.

The Åsnes MT65 is the civilian name of the military USGI combat ski.
The Åsnes Combat Nato is the same ski as the old Åsnes Ingstad (pre-2017 or so) with some modifications for military duty. This is a different ski from the MT65/USGI. Just two different skis.

[telerat]

The Rossignol BC 100 got a very good test in the Norwegian Utemagasinet.no; the low tip may even be an advantage when skiing deep snow as the tips will not seek the surface as much and thus not resist forward movement as much on flats or uphills. It is described as having 45 cm rocker, soft flexing but stiffer to the rear, being very light, with a 80 cm centered waxless pattern. It also grips well on hard snow, but is challenging on soft snow and thus not a very good option if downhill skiing and turning in deep snow is your priority. Good luck.

Are you sure you meant 45cm of rocker?
The two BC100s I examined on tour this winter had no rocker in the shovel that I could observe-
perhaps 45mm of rocker that I missed?

I agree that shovel-rocker creates resistance when XC skiing and climbing in deep snow-
but I fail to see how that round very low-profile tip would facilitate trail-breaking of any kind...
The BC100s that I examined this winter have the lowest profile tips of any Nordic touring ski I have ever seen...

Another question- why would the BC100 not be a very good option if downhill skiing and turning in deep snow?

The ski tested in Utemagasinet.no looks like the latest BC 100 version. Sorry for a bit late reply and unclear description. The rocker is described as 45 cm _long_, i.e starting 45 cm behind the tip. My reasoning for a low tip being an advantage is that it will not seek to the surface as strongly and just go through the loose snow with less resistance than a higher tip would. Here is a measurements from utemagasinet.no for the ski (in Norwegian):

The straight profile with a low side-cut, together with a wax-less pocket will make it harder to turn, both on hard and soft snow, while making it a better ski for XC. I haven't tested it myself and may be wrong, and I don't have enough of the right conditions for me to buy it, so take my thoughts with a bit of salt. I do think it looks like an excellent ski for covering distances in loose snow, although not for downhill skiing/turning, as described in the utemagasinet.no test. Any ski is a compromise, and each have to find out what properties are most important for him/her.

Late edit: I see that Fischer Excusion 88 isn't mentioned and should be on a list of wider skis for soft conditions.

[lilcliffy]

@telerat
Thank you for the response!
I too had read that UTE review in the past- but, had forgotten the rocker and tip profile in the review
All I can say is that the "new" BC100 models that I examined on tour this winter had no rocker and and even lower-profile tip.
......
Rossi's BC Nordic touring ski designs, models and specifications continue to be very confusing!

[lilcliffy]

I just re-read that UTE review-
that is a very different ski to the one I examined this winter-
not only with respect to rocker-
the UTE test describes a ski with significant and resistant camber-
the ski I examined this winter had almost no camber...

[lowangle al]

See plastic boots on the skier in the video? 0:41s

64BA77C8-59D1-4248-9E8F-EA894CE3E2CA.jpeg

No. LOL. A young guy showing some athletic prowess. Applying himself, ability.

Old guy and young guy, both in leather boots. Looks kinda similar to me, but I might be biased because I am the old guy.

[Manney]

Maybe the older BC100 was rebranded XP when the newer BC design was released.

Seems to be the case, according to Bri7…

I admit, i felt for the word Xp and i ordered a pair of xp100. I thought this would be something new until i received them yesterday... it’s not, it’s an exact copy of the bc100. Same ski, same side cut, same weight, same tip, same tail, same scales... just a different topsheet.

So old BC100 = XC100. Now, what is the chance that the last run of BC100s were painted, received XC100 graphics? It would explain what I saw last year. Would explain what was posted by a store to their web site.

Companies do this all the time with skis. I mean… if you were holding 2000 pairs of skis that hadn’t been painted and were the same as your new model, what would you do? Paint them the new style and hold off on the final silk screen with the new desig. Freshen them up until the new batch marketed under a new name ships later in the season. Fresh is fresh. New looks sell.

[Manney]

See plastic boots on the skier in the video? 0:41s

64BA77C8-59D1-4248-9E8F-EA894CE3E2CA.jpeg

No. LOL. A young guy showing some athletic prowess. Applying himself, ability.

AD2C8D9B-744B-4633-827B-50A063520716.jpeg

Old guy and young guy, both in leather boots. Looks kinda similar to me, but I might be biased because I am the old guy.

Oh, what a predictable pattern. When you get called on saying something… you play the victim… eventually ending up with something to stroke the old ego.

Let’s review how we got here…

If you want to ski terrain like in this vid, I'd recommend plastic boots.

I then posted…

See plastic boots on the skier in the video? 0:41s

No. LOL. A young guy showing some athletic prowess. Applying himself, ability.

Which you took as some kind of insult. Dunno why. The guy IS younger than you. He IS showing athletic prowess. He IS wearing light leather boots and using light skis… something you haven’t done regularly in about 20 years. You said so here…

I can understand wanting to ski light gear… As I've gotten older with bad knees, shoulders and back, I don't have what it takes(mentally) to commit to the speed needed to make the gear work in most of the off trail condition that I encounter.

My point is… none of this was about you. You took a comment on athleticism of youth as some kind of slight. Responded by trying to suck the oxygen out of the room by steering gear to what you ride. When called on it, you then turned it into some kind of hurt puppy, ego trip bullshit.

Young, or younger, men and women are the FUTURE of this sport… Let them develop skill on light gear while they can. If day jobs don’t wear them out, might be able to rock on light gear into their 70s. Like TomM vids.

Not the path your on. Or the path I will be on in 20 years, having had a serious knee injury earlier in life. My guess is that it will catch up to me when I hit 50, 60. Big deal.

Not everyone is in your, my boat. Let them have fun ffs… and stop blaming people for the stupid stuff YOU post. It’s not my fault those younger guys in the vid were rocking it on steeper slopes in leather. If you can’t do those kind of slopes anymore, get over it. Move on. But don’t ask younger guys to move at your speed, ability. Self centered bs.

[lowangle al]

E66CFD4E-59C6-496D-B6B6-77EFA33E96CA.jpeg

Really need plastic boots and Voiles for this?

What you and connyro post makes me think of ppl who start skiing without any instruction. Play around a bit early in life. Certainly never qualify as instructors or compete. Return to it later. Much later in life. Find it… hard. So buy a bunch of shit. Then add more shit when that doesn’t work. Now on a shit search for life. Evangelists for the plastic shit path. Each year gets lamer, lazier, more gear, more tall tales. You don’t need T3s and Voile objectives for what you’re skiing. You said it yourself, it’s slowing you down. 3.5 mph is slower than walking…. Old chronic scrawling home from the VFW go faster than this. Better off without the skis. Post holing the path. Be better exercise. It’s not like skiing at that speed is exciting.

What you can take from this RysKus is that even after you are an expert with 30 or 40 years of experience on light gear you will still be humbled, or possibly hurt by poor conditions that could have been fun with the T4.

You’re not reading what the guy said. He has kids that he may pull. So younger, probably fitter. No some old boomer worried about falling and breaking a sweat… or hip. Less gear, more scope for skill. Body is the crucial element, not the gear. The gear just has to ~ work for the conditions. Hardly Alpine.

This is the post that prompted my posting the one above. I wanted to point out the fact that your assumptions about my skiing history are as wrong as your assumptions on BC Nordic skiing. Without getting into my 40 years of BC Nordic skiing on all types of Nordic gear. Almost 35 of those years was spent in Ak. where I skied from mid Oct to mid May every year. I also didn't have to work for almost 25 of those winters so I got a lot of days in. From 85' to about 2005' I was almost exclusively leather boots. The next ten years were a mix of both and the last 8 or 10 was mostly plastic. Mostly T2s but a couple years in a four buckle boots and T4s since 2017.

Rather get into all that I just posted a picture showing that I actually do Nordic BC skiing, something you are unable to do.

I can still ski any slope I've ever 'skied with leather boot if conditions were right. Most times they are not. In addition to the conditions issue, the T4s are more fun. You can do more with them which leads to more physical pleasure.