Are the narrow nordic backcountry skis miserable on tracks?

[Verskis]

Hi! Long time away from the forums, but now I have a question that needs the great wisdom of the folks over here

How much difference is there between the narrow waxable backcountry skis and some basic waxable track skis when skiing on tracks? Are all the backcountry skis miserably slow?

The reason I'm asking is that I absolutely cannot do any kind of telemark turn on my track skis (some 20 year old cheap, very basic Karhu track skis in 200cm length), and it would often be fun to be able to do some basic turns, or arcs, when descending hardpacked stuff (for example on the skating ski section on the side of a classic ski track). I also have some very old Merrel XCD GT skis (rebranded Karhu XCD GTs) in short 180cm length, that I can do telemark turns with, but they are a bit too short and draggy to be much fun skiing on the tracks.

Is there a happy medium ski that would be somewhat fast on the tracks, but still would allow for some turns? I have been thinking skis like Åsnes Mountain Race 48, Fischer Transnordic 59 or Madshus Panorama M50/T50.

By the way, what is the difference between the Madshus Panorama M50 and T50?

[wabene]

Welcome back! The difference between the M50 and the T50 is the M50 has a recessed, integrated skin in the kick zone and the T50 is a waxable base ski with an attachment point for Madshus' Transition kicker skin that is not recessed except for the front attachment. These skis have a strong double camber, so if you can turn a ski like that you're in business. I ski the M50 in the tracks with my friends on their skinnier dedicated track skis and keep up just fine. In some situations the wider tips drag in the tracks and can kick me out in sharp corners. I ski the 205cm ski. I like this ski very much and find it fast and versatile. Compared to my new Fischer S-Bound 98's and other skis I've noticed I really like the p-tex base on the Madshus. It soaks up the wax, has a nice structure and after two seasons they look like new. I would like to see and check out the MR48 or MT51 to compare, but they are rare around here.

[Verskis]

Welcome back! The difference between the M50 and the T50 is the M50 has a recessed, integrated skin in the kick zone and the T50 is a waxable base ski with an attachment point for Madshus' Transition kicker skin that is not recessed except for the front attachment. These skis have a strong double camber, so if you can turn a ski like that you're in business. I ski the M50 in the tracks with my friends on their skinnier dedicated track skis and keep up just fine. In some situations the wider tips drag in the tracks and can kick me out in sharp corners. I ski the 205cm ski. I like this ski very much and find it fast and versatile. Compared to my new Fischer S-Bound 98's and other skis I've noticed I really like the p-tex base on the Madshus. It soaks up the wax and has a nice structure and after two seasons they look like new. I would like to see and check out the MR48 or MT51 to compare, but they are rare around here.

Thanks for the reply! Interesting observations about the Panorama M50.
So you have the integrated skin on them? I thought that only the Fjelltech skis had the integrated skin, and all the Panorama skis only had the mounting point for the removable Transition skin.

[wabene]

Sometimes I wonder if even Madshus knows what direction their going, lol. I have the Madshus Fjeltech M50'S. These are the two that are available as far as I know

Mine are the older white and blue version with the Panorama name in addition to Fjeltech, but I think it's the same ski as the red one on the right.

[Verskis]

So what are these then? Maybe some older versions, replaced now by T50? If so, what is the difference (other than the graphics)?
https://www.sport-conrad.com/en/product ... uQQAvD_BwE

[GrimSurfer]

There is a noticeable difference in speed between a mild backcountry ski (maximum width of 68 mm) and a track oriented ski (nominal width of 44 mm) when skiing on a compressed, groomed, and tracked surface. That difference is on the order of 10-20% for a proficient skier.

Let me back up a bit… ski tracks are cut to 70mm (you appear to know this already but I mention it for any casual skiers who may be reading this thread). So any ski has to be less than that to fit in a track. The issue isn’t simply width. Somewhat softer cambers and steel edges, which are helpful in the backcountry, reduce speed. So does sidecut, which assists turning in fresh snow.

Backcountry bindings and boots are heavier too. This contributes to inertia, which has to be controlled by leg muscles as they attempt to put power to the ground. (You need to keep a close eye on ski width at the binding point in mild backcountry skis… not all backcountry bindings will fit these skis in an ideal manner.)

There is also a difference in thrust potential,weight, and basket drag between a shorter backcountry pole and a longer track pole.

It’s difficult to comment on ski lengths without getting into overall skier weight, proficiency, and prevailing snow conditions. Same thing with specific skis, where issues like camber and stiffness can play a role in speed depending on the skier.

All of this goes out the window after 5-10 cm or more snow has fallen and the trail hasn’t been groomed. Where a track ski might struggle a bit, a mild backcountry ski will start to come into its own in such conditions. This will level the playing field with regard to speed and especially control. This can become a factor depending on where you ski (club with a fastidious approach to grooming vs provincial/national park vs public trails).

[wabene]

So what are these then? Maybe some older versions, replaced now by T50? If so, what is the difference (other than the graphics)?
https://www.sport-conrad.com/en/product ... uQQAvD_BwE

That looks like the original version of the T50 with a waxable base and kicker skin attachment. The lack of info on Madshus skis is laughable. Their website is devoid of info, but they do answer emails. Look at that ad you posted, not even a picture of the bottom of the ski, lol. When I bought my M50'S, it was a leap of faith as there were no reviews and it wasn't available locally, so it was sight unseen. Such is the life of the niche sportster, eh?

Edit: oops, my bad, they do show part of the bottom. I'm certain it is a T50 with different graphics. Same ski.

[Verskis]

That looks like the original version of the T50 with a waxable base and kicker skin attachment. The lack of info on Madshus skis is laughable. Their website is devoid of info, but they do answer emails. Look at that ad you posted, not even a picture of the bottom of the ski, lol. When I bought my M50'S, it was a leap of faith as there were no reviews and it wasn't available locally, so it was sight unseen. Such is the life of the niche sportster, eh?

Edit: oops, my bad, they do show part of the bottom. I'm certain it is a T50 with different graphics. Same ski.

Yeah, Madshus and Fischer websites are both pretty pointless, almost seems like they are not that interested in selling those skis as they are not sharing much information about them. Åsnes website on the other hand, especially the Norwegian one (with the help of the google translator), is pretty good. But anyway, I'm also pretty convinced now that the Panorama M50 and T50 might be the same ski with a new name and new graphics, although somewhere it was mentioned that the wood core is lighter Paulownia wood on the T50. But I don't know what wood was used for the M50.

And Grimsurfer, thanks for the comments! 10% drop in speed compared to dedicated track skis would be acceptable in my opinion, if it still "feels fast".
My track skiing happens on the public groomed tracks that are pretty well maintained by the municipality. They might be maintained partially by the same people that clear the roads after snow has been falling, so the skiing tracks are not the highest priority for them, but usually there is not much fresh snow on the tracks, as there are also a lot of skiers that pack the snow on the tracks even if the tracks are not freshly cut.

[Transplantskier]

I ski the Fjelltech M44 as my "track ski" and I absolutely love it. It performs well in and out of the track, and does surprisingly well in fresh snow as well. I think those extra few millimeters of narrowness between it and the M50 drastically improve the track performance of the M44.

Interesting bonus: Last year I acquired a true track ski on clearance, the Atomic Pro C2 Skintec (which is pretty cheap and you see a lot of people using around here), and discovered that even with its 3/4 metal edges, the M44 is actually lighter and feels a bit nimbler!

So overall, a slightly different geometry than a track ski, but light weight and great performance in and out of the track.

[fisheater]

@Verskis Nice to see you back. Since you’re here, what MTB knee pad are you now recommending for skiing?