Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

Hi folks! Big dilema here!
I've just got a great bargain on Garmont Excursions and Voile CRB 3pin cable.

Now the planks. We've got prices on Rossi @ work so I"ll go with that.

BC 125 or 110 ?

Already have Coombacks, T1, O1 and skins for big duty,
Head Rev with O2 for the resort,
Fis Superlight Crowns for the cardio at the xc ski centre.

Very interested in discovering new territories and the whole hut to hut thing friends are talking about.

My worst ever feeling on skis is lacking lateral power to put them on edges. Like on the grooms when my T1 ankle bolts loosen and I try to bite but the skis stay flat on the snow.

So, I enjoy fatness and floating, but I'd rather sink a bit more but having plenty of binding/boots for the drive.

I'm more alpine than xc oriented, and don't mind burning extra calories. It gets me fitter for mountain biking season..

What are your thoughts ? Searched the forum for "BC 125 vs 110" without success.

5'10", 180 pounds unequiped. Would go for the 185/189cm.

Thanks!
Antoine
Near Mont Sainte-Anne
Can't wait to ski

I think Bri7 has some BC110s - maybe pm him. He's Quebecois too, so you can use French.

I don't know if the 110s are rockered and soft flex, I tend to think not from what I've seen and that they are more of a traditional Alpine/Nordic blend. I believe the 125s are noodley rockered powder skis.

This might help:

[video][/video]

Thanks MikeK! I'll pm Bri7.

I have tested both of these skis in their earlier generation. Cannot comment specifically on the current generation.

Although- from examining them, flexing them, and talking to skiers that have them (they are popular skis due to their excellent value -$$)- the current 110/125 appear to essentially be the same skis with a rockered tip. Rossi describes it as "moderate tip rocker".

http://www.rossignol.com/US/US/bc-125-- ... ml?b=41945

The BC110 has almost the exact dimensions of a Karhu XCD Guide/Madshus Annum. Like the Guide/Annum, the BC110 is single-cambered and has a smooth round flex pattern. I would describe the BC110 as being a little stiffer than the Guide/Annum. However- like the Guide/Annum I find the BC110 torsionally soft- it performs poorly on a dense base.

The BC125 is a fatter version of the BC110. I remember trying to hold the BC125 on edge- on consolidated snow, with T4s- it bent and twisted all over the place.

My opinion, based on limited experience- these are Nordic XCD skis designed for soft snow and moderate terrain. Very similar in intent to the Karhu/Madshus XCDs and the S-Bounds (I find the S-Bounds have a significantly stiffer flex pattern).

With my level of skill, I would be able to easily power either of these skis with a boot in the Excursion class (at this point in my life I would probably choke up the extra cash for the extra downhill power of the 3-pin hardwire on the BC125).

(If I wanted more power than the Excursion class- I would want something more powerful than either of these skis.)

Back to your original question- which one?

The 125 will offer more flotation and it will offer more traction underfoot.

The 110 will be faster in every dimension: edge to edge, and xcountry.

You and I are of the same height and weight. I too would want the long ones- for touring efficiency.

I already have Guides/Annums and love their flex in deep soft fresh snow.

If I ever buy another powder XCD ski, both the BC110 and the BC125 are serious contenders.

The addition of tip-rocker to the "Guide" should definitely improve downhill and climbing performance. Not sure how it will effect XC kick & glide.

I would actually prefer all of these powder XCD skis with a rockered tip and less sidecut...

But I am a weirdo.

lilcliffy wrote:Although- from examining them, flexing them, and talking to skiers that have them (they are popular skis due to their excellent value -$$)- they appear to essentially be the same skis with a rockered tip. Rossi describes it as "moderate tip rocker".

Ahh - so they appear to be the same ski but with different widths if I get the takeaway here? Much like the S Bound 125 and S Bound 112 (as far as we know).

They aren't the same at all... I already checked them a couple of times. The 110 have a stiffer, stronger camber. The 125 is flatter (and softer). I think you shouldn't hesitate: take the 125; they will be better for turning and, of course, a little less efficient for touring... But from what you are saying, I'd take the 125...

I apologize for generalizing.

I agree that the 125 is significantly softer than the 110.

I just meant that the design is similar. The Rossi backcountry line gets progressively softer as it gets wider- from 90 to 125. Makes sense in terms of progressively softer and deeper snow.

I don't know that I agree that the 125 is a "better" downhill ski though....The 125 certainly offers more flotation, but the 110 will be faster edge to edge and feel snappier in turn transitions.

Has the current 125 been strengthened torsionally?

This is all very interesting Thanks for your inputs!

I guess we're talking about two close members of the family.. Plenty of fun to come.

For extreme buoyancy I'll take the coombacks, the superlight for xc, and some BC for those mellow hills around Mt Ste Anne and St-Ferréol-les-Neiges. The rest of the time will be rocking chair and feeding the wood stove

Just re-read your OP...too bad you can't test both of these skis with your Excursions.

Your comment:

Ant01ne wrote: So, I enjoy fatness and floating, but I'd rather sink a bit more but having plenty of binding/boots for the drive.

This suggests to me that the BC110 might actually be more to your liking?

The BC125 is a pretty fat to ski to control with a light-duty boot- unless the snow is ideal...deep, soft, dry powder.

What are the typical snow conditions you will be skiing on?

It's quite a trend towards fat isn't it?

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

But- I too find myself considering a fatter XCD ski in the future: BC125/S-125/Kom/Vector BC- or perhaps the Objective BC....There is definitely a lure towards fat.

Regardless- the 125 is going to offer more float- the question is how much flotation do you need?

I like total floating . Sinking reminds me of the 80's when we were alpine skiing with straight skinny neon colored skis.

We were even riding "older" bazar gear to save for summer vacations at Ogunquit so I guess I stayed neon longer than average folks.. :-/ (can't believe I now own Coombs with the ugliest ever graphics wich seems to be from that same era. ..what a curse)

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

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