skis for making miles

[paulzo]

At some point in the future I am thinking of doing some multi-day trips that will be much less mountainous that what I usually do, and I'm thinking that I will want different skis for that sort of thing, Mellow terrain, mostly snow-covered roads and the like, carrying a pack, in spring snow type conditions mostly, so probably not deep soft stuff, more likely crusty to corn. Waxless since that is the way I roll - or rather, the way I glide. I'll need different boots too, thinking NNN-BC; but suggestions on that are appreciated as well. Thanks in advance.

[Woodserson]

Asnes Gamme 54 with mohair Skinlock. No joke. Size up if you have a pack.

[Nitram Tocrut]

If you absolutely want waxless and you have the Asnes fevah, the Admundsen is available waxless and is made to carry a lot. I have had some old pairs of Europa 99 and I could crunch mikes and mikes with them. I think they have a waxless version now.

Thad is my humble contribution

[phoenix]

Lots of ways to gear up for such trips; for me, I'd take my Objective BC's and a solid 75mm leather boot, paired with a 3 pin binding.
I like having a little width underfoot when skiing with a full pack, the grip and glide are excellent in spring snow, and the set up is light.

Haven't skied any of the Asnes'. I'm sure they're fine skis also; I'd still want something a little on the wider side for multi-day. Fischer's tend to be a fast gliding ski, but in my experience with a pair of Boundless, the grip isn't what I prefer for a backcountry ski.

Just some thoughts.

[paulzo]

Well - a pretty wide range of opinion there, like almost 30mm wide! I tend to agree about some width underfoot, but I`ve never had a ski as wide as the Objectives. I was thinking along the lines of 50 to 60 underfoot and not too much sidecut, since straighter seems to track straighter.
Does add weight to the scale in terms of Objectives being my next ski for wandering around the mountains, though.

[Nitram Tocrut]

Hi paulzo,

My Ingstad are 62 mm underfoot and I used them this winter on a 4 days trip with a backpack that was pretty heavy the first day... really got to cut on the food so that the beer don't seem that heavy But seriously, they were just fine except that it would have been a good thing to have the 205cm instead of the 195cm as I would have benefit from the extra glide. Also, the Ingstad tips are pretty soft and sometimes you don't have that much ski on the snow so longer would be better. But we were in the Monts Valins and this is pretty steep terrain, maybe steeper than what you are looking for in the future. The skis I used to take on those multi days trip were the Europa 99 with a narrower underfoot and I really appreciated the added stability of the 62mm underfoot.

I have never tried the Objective but I wonder if you need such a wide ski if you don't intend to use it for downhill, but I might be wrong here. For next year I am looking to buy a wider ski to use in resort and long approach but I will stick with the Ingstad for multi days trip.

The sidecut of the Ingstad is not a problem for me with tracking especially in soft snow. For harder snow, I use the 45 mm skin and it has been wonderful for me for end of the season snow conditions. Although it would be better to have the 60 mm skin when you carry a back pack and of course a full skin if you ski in steep terrain... but I guess you already know that

Hope that helps!

Martin

[Woodserson]

Hi paulzo,

My Ingstad are 62 mm underfoot and I used them this winter on a 4 days trip with a backpack that was pretty heavy the first day... really got to cut on the food so that the beer don't seem that heavy But seriously, they were just fine except that it would have been a good thing to have the 205cm instead of the 195cm as I would have benefit from the extra glide. Also, the Ingstad tips are pretty soft and sometimes you don't have that much ski on the snow so longer would be better.
Hope that helps!

Martin

I will second this post, I totally forgot about Ingstad (due to injury!) and it comes in a waxless with skin attachment! Yes! Edit: Better ski for softer snow for miles-- if it's going to be hardpack then my Gamme suggestion still stands

[TreeFallin]

If you had identical ski models made one with metal edges and one without and IF you were skiing a terrain where metal edges were not necessary - i.e. tundra or lakes ... would non metal edged skis be faster? I think Yes but I wonder about the opinion of others here.

[Woodserson]

If you had identical ski models made one with metal edges and one without and IF you were skiing a terrain where metal edges were not necessary - i.e. tundra or lakes ... would non metal edged skis be faster? I think Yes but I wonder about the opinion of others here.

Yes, metal is slower. I don't think I would notice the difference though.

[paulzo]

Ingstad at 84/62/74 might be too close to my current skis (Atomic Rainier, 88/60/78) to be worth it - although that is less sidecut. Just looked up the Gamme - 68/54/61. And the current E99 - 66/54/61. Pretty similar shape on those two. Has anybody skied both and can compare, particularly in firm snow? I've had good luck with the pattern on my Atomics, which is pretty similar to the older Fischer pattern (The Rebound and the Rainier were practically indistinguishable other than graphics).
I think I'd like to have metal edges, just for the occasional icy bits. Though I did get to a lot of places on my first pair of skis, which I still have - old Trak waxless, no edges, foam core, pretty darn light - hey, maybe I should just dig those out again!