Agile Ski

[ianjt]

I posted last year about getting a pair of Ingstads to compliment my Excursion 88s. I chose not to go this route, as it appears that there would be some redundancy in owning both skis.

I'd like to look into a ski that can turn and maneuver a bit better than the Excursion while skiing forested single track. I am talking hiking trails with downhills where a quick turn to avoid a downed tree is necessary. I imagine this could look like a ski that can stop quickly, make turns to manage speed, or simply turn quickly. I simply can't manage this kind of technique with the Excursions. I can turn them out on a broad, open slope or logging road. But if I don't have room to turn, I pick up speed until I crash. I'd like to keep NNNBC bindings. I can sacrifice some camber and comfort on long flats. Ideally, I'd like waxless. Ideas?

Madshus Panorama?
FT 62?
Alpina Discovery?

[jyw5]

I posted last year about getting a pair of Ingstads to compliment my Excursion 88s. I chose not to go this route, as it appears that there would be some redundancy in owning both skis.

I'd like to look into a ski that can turn and maneuver a bit better than the Excursion while skiing forested single track. I am talking hiking trails with downhills where a quick turn to avoid a downed tree is necessary. I imagine this could look like a ski that can stop quickly, make turns to manage speed, or simply turn quickly. I simply can't manage this kind of technique with the Excursions. I can turn them out on a broad, open slope or logging road. But if I don't have room to turn, I pick up speed until I crash. I'd like to keep NNNBC bindings. I can sacrifice some camber and comfort on long flats. Ideally, I'd like waxless. Ideas?

Madshus Panorama?
FT 62?
Alpina Discovery?

this greatly depends on how steep and snow condition. but look at these two threads. if your trails are deep snow most of the time then the Ingstad is probably best (I say probably because I don't own those skis but so much has been written about them on this forum). I don't recommend FT62 because they only work well in a narrow set of the conditions...might be different for the new version but not enough testing has been done so far.

Sverdrup:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4557&sid=0d705b14c6 ... be0c39a112

Gamme:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4538&sid=7089cce419 ... 10178d686f


Nansen/Skog for moderate slopes on consolidated snow or shallow powder. I have personally weaved through dense forest up and down with these. They are sufficient but not ideal (but is there really an ideal ski?)

[Ullrsson]

Having skied on twisty, steep snowmobile trails with high banks or dense alder brush on either side, I think the only solution to this narrow context is a very short ski and/or upgrade to more powerful boots like t-4s. Otherwise, you just have to control your speed or take off your skis.
A lightweight ski like the Gamme or Ousland in a shorter length, might work well as long as you're not getting into super deep snow. Lightweight skis are much easier to maneuver in step turns or jump turns. After skiing my Amundsens it's kind of hard to go back to my 88s.

[ianjt]

I like the idea of a shorter Ingstad with burlier boots. I currently ski in Alaskas. Perhaps the new Fischer Transnordic. I understand there will be time that I simply can’t cut and turn like I can in plastic boots. But that capability virtually nonexistent at present.

[stilltryin]

They may not be for you, but Altai Hoks are short, and the built-in skins slow you down.
https://us-store.altaiskis.com/product/ ... lank-skis/

[Ullrsson]

I like the idea of a shorter Ingstad with burlier boots. I currently ski in Alaskas. Perhaps the new Fischer Transnordic. I understand there will be time that I simply can’t cut and turn like I can in plastic boots. But that capability virtually nonexistent at present.

It is my impression that the Ingstad and Fischer Excursion 88s occupy a similar niche. The Ingstad may fulfill the requirements better (based on what others have said). I think the 88s in the appropriate length with a burly boot could probably pull it off, but if you're like me you may have gotten them way too long.

[fisheater]

@ianjt i don’t own an Expedition 88, but I do have a 200 cm USGI which I am told is similar although heavier, and just older ski technology. So my first thought was to say Ingstad. Then it occurred to me that using step turns, and wedge turns, that a ski like the USGI can handle most single track, however there are hiking trails that just are not good for skiing. I think if the trail can be biked without extraordinary skills, than it can be reasonably skied.
So while an Ingstad with rocker offers much easier turn initiation than a less rockered ski. The biggest secret to turning is your position on your skis, centered on your skis, shins to the front of the boots with the knees bent, ankles flexed forward. The best way not to turn would be upright and stiff, hands at your sides, butt over the tails.
So a ski helps a lot, a ski can even improve technique. The ski still needs an operator.
The Ingstad is quite a different ski from the E-88. It is available waxless, but from what I read the pattern is not as grippy as the Fischer. The S-98 is a completely different ski than the E-88. I have an S-112 which is similar, they are very easy to turn. Quite frankly if you can’t make them turn, it’s not the ski. The Falketind requires wax, if you’re below tree line, don’t get a lot of mank, and you snow isn’t too deep it is another easy turner. I hear the Madshus waxless pattern isn’t quite as good as Fisher. That being said my understanding is the Panorama series all turn pretty easy, with the most fat being the easiest.
Post back, there are a lot of skis. A lot depends on your local conditions, snow depth, trees, are you going up mountains to come back down, do you have long approaches, is it more rolling terrain??? They make lots of different skis, for different uses
PS I also believe Alpina offers a couple skis, again wider being more turn oriented that may work

[Lo-Fi]

… I'd like to look into a ski that can turn and maneuver… while skiing forested trails... I am talking hiking trails with downhills where a quick turn to avoid a downed tree is necessary. I imagine this could look like a ski that can stop quickly, make turns to manage speed, or simply turn quickly... But if I don't have room to turn, I pick up speed until I crash…

This is perhaps a little outside your stated parameters, but if you are open to expanding your scope…

I would strongly recommend that any XCD skier, interested in a REVELATORY touring for turns experience, at least try this formula for an “agile” ski:

1. Short: 150cm-170cm
2. Wide: >90 waisted
3. Maximal lateral/torsional control: Plastic telemark boot with a cable binding

This leads to a short Voile Vector BC/Altai Kom type ski, with a T4/Excursion boot and a simple, light cable or 3-pin-cable binding.

I don’t know if this hints at it at all:

I understand that you want to stick to NNN-BC, but it’s not clear to me that any NNN-BC boot, even the Transnordic, has the engineering or design to drive a >90mm waist ski in varied conditions - and yet this is where the magic can happen.

A new world of squeezing in turns on or off trail, on marginal snow, in open lines or thick bush, is opened up, with laterally powerful boots that can smear the wide, short and virtually omni-directional skis anywhere you want them to go.

I know there is a huge spectrum of varied and nuanced skis, boots and bindings, in the XCD sphere, but the formula suggested above is in its own category. The performance of this type of gear, for turning, is an order of magnitude different and basically unattainable by anything like Insgstads, Gammes, E99s, Panoramas, Discoverys, etc. and any NNN-BC boots/bindings, as far as I can tell. (I would love to hear and see evidence otherwise.)

Of course, short wide wax-less skis such as I am recommending will never kick & glide like skinnier, waxable, longer skis, but this is where the the skier might try to shift their expectation as to what touring can be - if you really want to turn.

Otherwise, if I could only alter one single ski attribute to improve agility, it would be length - go short. Short for herring-bone-ing, short for side-stepping, short for snow-plowing, short for hockey-stopping, short for step or jump turns, short for parallelling etc. whatever the ski.

[ianjt]

… I'd like to look into a ski that can turn and maneuver… while skiing forested trails... I am talking hiking trails with downhills where a quick turn to avoid a downed tree is necessary. I imagine this could look like a ski that can stop quickly, make turns to manage speed, or simply turn quickly... But if I don't have room to turn, I pick up speed until I crash…

This is perhaps a little outside your stated parameters, but if you are open to expanding your scope…

I would strongly recommend that any XCD skier, interested in a REVELATORY touring for turns experience, at least try this formula for an “agile” ski:

1. Short: 150cm-170cm
2. Wide: >90 waisted
3. Maximal lateral/torsional control: Plastic telemark boot with a cable binding

This leads to a short Voile Vector BC/Altai Kom type ski, with a T4/Excursion boot and a simple, light cable or 3-pin-cable binding.

I don’t know if this hints at it at all:

87CC0610-EADE-4D42-BE56-70A3000AB59B.gif

I understand that you want to stick to NNN-BC, but it’s not clear to me that any NNN-BC boot, even the Transnordic, has the engineering or design to drive a >90mm waist ski in varied conditions - and yet this is where the magic can happen.

A new world of squeezing in turns on or off trail, on marginal snow, in open lines or thick bush, is opened up, with laterally powerful boots that can smear the wide, short and virtually omni-directional skis anywhere you want them to go.

I know there is a huge spectrum of varied and nuanced skis, boots and bindings, in the XCD sphere, but the formula suggested above is in its own category. The performance of this type of gear, for turning, is an order of magnitude different and basically unattainable by anything like Insgstads, Gammes, E99s, Panoramas, Discoverys, etc. and any NNN-BC boots/bindings, as far as I can tell. (I would love to hear and see evidence otherwise.)

Of course, short wide wax-less skis such as I am recommending will never kick & glide like skinnier, waxable, longer skis, but this is where the the skier might try to shift their expectation as to what touring can be - if you really want to turn.

Otherwise, if I could only alter one single ski attribute to improve agility, it would be length - go short. Short for herring-bone-ing, short for side-stepping, short for snow-plowing, short for hockey-stopping, short for step or jump turns, short for parallelling etc. whatever the ski.

You've got me interested. I have a pro deal with Scarpa through work that would get me the T4s at a great deal. Then I could keep my Excursions for flats. Curious though: just how uncomfortable are plastic boots the flats when you're touring in to your turns? Say you have a 2 mile ski just to get to the hills. Is this still realistic with the setup you've described above?

And what about breakable crust? Can the plastics drive the skis through breakable crust?

[Montana St Alum]

… I'd like to look into a ski that can turn and maneuver… while skiing forested trails... I am talking hiking trails with downhills where a quick turn to avoid a downed tree is necessary. I imagine this could look like a ski that can stop quickly, make turns to manage speed, or simply turn quickly... But if I don't have room to turn, I pick up speed until I crash…

This is perhaps a little outside your stated parameters, but if you are open to expanding your scope…

I would strongly recommend that any XCD skier, interested in a REVELATORY touring for turns experience, at least try this formula for an “agile” ski:

1. Short: 150cm-170cm
2. Wide: >90 waisted
3. Maximal lateral/torsional control: Plastic telemark boot with a cable binding

This leads to a short Voile Vector BC/Altai Kom type ski, with a T4/Excursion boot and a simple, light cable or 3-pin-cable binding.

I don’t know if this hints at it at all:

87CC0610-EADE-4D42-BE56-70A3000AB59B.gif

I understand that you want to stick to NNN-BC, but it’s not clear to me that any NNN-BC boot, even the Transnordic, has the engineering or design to drive a >90mm waist ski in varied conditions - and yet this is where the magic can happen.

A new world of squeezing in turns on or off trail, on marginal snow, in open lines or thick bush, is opened up, with laterally powerful boots that can smear the wide, short and virtually omni-directional skis anywhere you want them to go.

I know there is a huge spectrum of varied and nuanced skis, boots and bindings, in the XCD sphere, but the formula suggested above is in its own category. The performance of this type of gear, for turning, is an order of magnitude different and basically unattainable by anything like Insgstads, Gammes, E99s, Panoramas, Discoverys, etc. and any NNN-BC boots/bindings, as far as I can tell. (I would love to hear and see evidence otherwise.)

Of course, short wide wax-less skis such as I am recommending will never kick & glide like skinnier, waxable, longer skis, but this is where the the skier might try to shift their expectation as to what touring can be - if you really want to turn.

Otherwise, if I could only alter one single ski attribute to improve agility, it would be length - go short. Short for herring-bone-ing, short for side-stepping, short for snow-plowing, short for hockey-stopping, short for step or jump turns, short for parallelling etc. whatever the ski.

You've got me interested. I have a pro deal with Scarpa through work that would get me the T4s at a great deal. Then I could keep my Excursions for flats. Curious though: just how uncomfortable are plastic boots the flats when you're touring in to your turns? Say you have a 2 mile ski just to get to the hills. Is this still realistic with the setup you've described above?

And what about breakable crust? Can the plastics drive the skis through breakable crust?

I'd say the three rules above make a lot of sense. Shorten up for agility and increase width to the extent that you need the surface area for float.
At >90mm underfoot, I've found that sort of width makes breakable crust pretty easy, but you do need a beefier boot to really take advantage of the width. The T4 + light cable combo Lo-Fi mentions sure sounds like it would do the trick.