Wide and waxless.

[mikesee]

After taking the last ~15 years off of skiing (while living in the desert), my wife and I are back to living in the snow zone and making up for lost time.

I had originally hoped for a 'one ski to rule them all' solution but I now know how foolish that was.

We've both picked up Kom's for bushwhacking out the back door, and both have been impressed with what the scale pattern can get us up, and how the width and tall tips can keep us floating on the way down.

The Kom's might be the best money we spent in 2020.

But I have a big traverse coming up -- likely on the order of 200 miles -- and because it's in April, and with a decidedly AT-equipped group, the Kom's are going to be both too wide and too heavy to get the nod.

So I'm looking for something in the ~177cm range, with a waxless/scale pattern to limit how often I have to deploy skins. My searching thus far has led me to the Voile Objective BC's. In all ways (width, length, weight) but one they fit the bill. The one way that they don't is Voile's disclaimer that they are meant for AT bindings and the warranty is void if you mount tele's or use QK's.

I've reached out to Voile and asked if there is any workaround to mount my (preferred) Targa's or (2nd choice) 3-pin cables, but haven't yet heard back.

So -- at last -- my question: Is there anything else out there like the Objective BC's, but that's tele legal and available right now?

Any help appreciated.

[downontheupside]

Similar skis to the Objective bc are the Madshus annum, Fischer s bounds 125, Rossingnol BC 120. I believe the Objective is or at least was previously the most downhill oriented of skis fitting these dimensions, these other skis have a more traditional nordic camber & flex, though this may have changed in the last few years. I've only skied the Objectives though, so hopefully others chime in with their experiences. Still, without knowing the details of your traverse I would think that any of these skis would be just as competent for your trip as the Objective would be, perhaps they would shine in areas where the Objective does not

I have Objective bc's from when they first came out with a 3pin mountaineer binding mounted on the hardwire riser. The riser uses 4 screws to mount to the ski for a stronger mount. At the time I put this together Voile did not advise against using a telemark binding on the Objective. I've skied them much harder than I ever would in the backcountry trying to keep up w/ friends the few times I took them inbounds. I've also skied with people who have the newer objectives mounted the same as mine, so far so good...I don't know for sure, but I've had the feeling that the disclaimer is really to protect Voile from replacing skis for people who are using them in the wrong applications.

I wouldn't rule out an ultra vector bc with a cable traverse or hardwire binding for your trip. The extra weight penalty could be a benefit if the descents are hairy and you're carrying extra weight.

What kind of boot are you using?

Good luck!

[mikesee]

Thanks for the info.

I had found the Annums and S Bounds -- and a few reviews of each -- but wondered if there were other options. Also curious if the newest S Bounds are still more of a nordic than a turning ski?

The Ultra Vector's look fun, but they're so close in weight and width to my Kom's that I wouldn't spend the $. Need something complementary, not overlapping.

The first part of our trip is a ~S -> ~N traverse of the Sawtooths.

The second part is a "portage" from the main Salmon to the Selway headwaters.

Clearly they are very different in terms of terrain. And since we cross a highway after we leave the 'tooths, the possibility of caching boots/skis to swap into at the end of the Sawtooth leg exists.

Boots will most likely be Excursions. I have a set of Alaska's that I'm breaking in right now that *might* get the nod for the second leg.

[Nick BC]

I think the wide wax less skis come in two flavours. The Fischer’s, Rossignol and Madshus are basically wide “cross country” skis. Their ski construction is less substantial so they don’t handle downhill so well in more difficult snow conditions. Voile Vector and Objectives on the other hand are “downhill” skis with a wax less base added and they handle difficult downhill snow conditions with aplomb.

To the downhill oriented wax less category I would also add the now discontinued line of G3 waxless skis. They don’t make them any more, but there were the Stinger XCD 78mm underfoot (same dimensions as the SBound 112, Rossi 110 and the Annum) and two skis based on the FindR platform with waists of 86 and 94 mm. These ski are basically AT skis with a waxless base. I have the Stinger and absolutely love it - prior to the Stinger I had the Rossignol 110 and found it totally unstable in heavy spring conditions, due to the flimsy construction, plus the waxless base was not as effective as the Stinger.

You never see the G3 waxless skis on the second hand market, so I don’t think G3 made too many of them. If you see any advertised I would definitely check them out.