Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

Life has been changing for me recently and as a result so has my skiing.

This season Ive been doing alot of long day solo trips up into the Cascade Mountains. Since Im usually skiing solo Im sticking to low angle routes trying to avoid avalanche terrain. Frequently Im skiing up a closed road, sometimes out and back but sometimes looping it. These are usually very low angle grades 5-10 percent, but usually quite abit of snow that Im setting the track through. This season Ive been skiing my 'new' Sbound 98 skis with nnn bc bindings as my everyday ski.

The Sbound 98's descend pretty decent for me when I have room to let them run, but on most of my trips this year the grade has been too little to really enjoy the ski's descending quality.

The 189cm 98's are FREQUENTLY overwhelmed by the amount of snow and I'm sinking DEEP on every uphill stride. Like deep enough where the ski isn't visible.

Me= 6'3" 190lbs birthday suit.

Am I on the best ski for this type of skiing? I wouldn't mind a wax ski to get rid of the fish scale sound on firmer days. Im concerned about going skinnier considering Im already sinking quite abit, although a longer ski may help with that.

Id really like to do some more overnight trips, so being able to pull a sled or more weight on my back will be needed.

Thanks

IDK, but it seems you're asking the right questions to get to a "right answer" for your unique circumstances.

You mentioned avalanche danger, so I'll chime in on that. In the Weber Canyon (here in Utah) a guided snowshoe group went out and two were caught in a natural avalanche (both buried, one survived). Another solo skier didn't show up at school to pick up his kids, so they went out and found his remains. It could be one of those dangerous springs, with high snow loads and rapidly warming temperatures. So, just be careful to make sure you're not in the runout for slides.

You are quite high and heavy, so getting long enough skis can be a problem. I think your S-bound 98 skis are a bit short and not wide enough for low angle skiing in deep snow. A ski like Fischer S-bound 112, Rossignol BC100 or BC110, Madshus Panorama M78 and perhaps Voile Objective BC or even Hypervector BC/Hyper V6 BC will be a better choice for such conditions. The factor mattering most for float is a waist width. Increasing side-cut/tip/tail width will make the ski turn faster and be less stable when going straight (especially on harder snow), without increasing float much. The wider you go the more difficult/less fun it will be on consolidated/hard snow, but then your S-bound 98s can be the alternative. The answer to any ski question is always another pair of skis

Hi Chris,

If you want to float higher in the snow column- then- as already stated- you need a ski that is offers more effective surface area than your Fischer S98. I am little lighter than you and can confirm that- for example- both the the Madhus 78 and the Fischer S112 offer more flotation than their narrower 68mm syblings.

However, for the skiing you describe- effective and efficient striding through truly deep snow- flotation is not the only variable that matters in my limited experience.

As an example- both my 210 Combat NATO and my 205 Ingstad do not offer as much flotation as my 195 Madshus Annum- but the Combat NATO and the Ingstad move through the very deep snow more effectively and efficiently- therefore, in my experience the Combat NATO and the Ingstad are better deep snow Nordic touring skis than the wider Annum. (With the Combat NATO being a better XC ski than the Ingstad, and the Ingstad offering better downhill performance).

An even longer Finnish forest ski would offer even greater deep snow striding efficiency- but I have no idea what an even longer ski would be like to manage when you point them down a hill!

Gareth

In addition- I note that you are using NNNBC boots- if you want to keep using your boots- this is going to potentially limit the width of the ski you might consider- though this limit is a complex of the particulat boot, the snow conditions, and the skills of the skier.

Casacades? Moisture-rich snow?

Montana St Alum wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 06, 2023 10:50 am

So, just be careful to make sure you're not in the runout for slides.

I've got the avi training and skills, and I ski steeper backcountry quite frequently with 1-2 people. These specifics trips are no to low avi risk.

lilcliffy wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 06, 2023 2:42 pm

As an example- both my 210 Combat NATO and my 205 Ingstad do not offer as much flotation as my 195 Madshus Annum- but the Combat NATO and the Ingstad move through the very deep snow more effectively and efficiently- therefore, in my experience the Combat NATO and the Ingstad are better deep snow Nordic touring skis than the wider Annum. (With the Combat NATO being a better XC ski than the Ingstad, and the Ingstad offering better downhill performance).

That's kind of what I was wondering: would a longer ski with a narrower waist perform better than my shorter ski with a wider waist. Downhill performance isn't a concern with these skis. I'll point'em and survive. The price of the nato skis are hard to argue with buying and trying.

lilcliffy wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 06, 2023 2:45 pm

In addition- I note that you are using NNNBC boots- if you want to keep using your boots- this is going to potentially limit the width of the ski you might consider- though this limit is a complex of the particulat boot, the snow conditions, and the skills of the skier.

Casacades? Moisture-rich snow?

Im not happy with my boots, Im considering swapping to 3 pin anyways. East side of the Cascades, it's amazing what a few miles east of the pct will do to the moisture!

What about a Fischer TRANSNORDIC 82 EASY SKIN XTRALITE in 206cm, 82-60-70 mm, wax? Long, wide, stiff. So made to go straight and as fast a possible on a wide ski in deep snow. I would like to buy, but only on sale, I’m a cheap dirtbag skier that got the Asnes USGI 200cm,
75-65-70 mm, and 3 Pin Voile bindings for $100.

I don’t think any ski “floats” on top of snow, in deep Rockies powder I’m lucky if I’m only ankle deep as opposed to boot top deep.

You need some wider skis. I'm 155 pounds and my s-bound 98s aren't enough float in deep powder. I live in SW colorado and the 98s are great for most conditions but after those big dumps my voile hypervector bcs feel like the minimum for efficient travel. The aren't a nordic/cross country ski, they are a backcountry downhill ski with scales. I feel like having a nordic camber is irrelevant in deep powder and a stiffer downhill oriented ski handles better when skiing down knee deep powder. It's an expensive ski though. You could always use kickwax on a pair of non-scaled, wide backcountry downhill skis. Either way you want a binding with a free pivot so that your tips ride the surface of the snow instead of stabbing into the snow. That would be a 75mm toe garage style binding like the switchback or vice or the rotaffella xplore binding with the flat plate. With a wider ski like that you will never be able to edge it on anything consolidated with a leather boot but pow surfing is no issue at all, but I would recommend a heavy duty leather/soft boot like the fischer transnordic, alfa free, or an old school used leather tele boot.

video by tom M showing them in action.