Update from the XCD Knights

[lilcliffy]

Well- this is quite a story- and quite a challenge.

I wonder if I could somehow get away with bringing home a 175cm Kom with NNN-BC bindings on them?

My wife might throw me out of the house if I did that before I renovated the bathroom and/or the kitchen...

[Woodserson]

She doesn't need to know. They are small and fit into unsuspecting places.

[lilcliffy]

Ha! Very sneaky...

I usually get away with it by buying her a new pair to match them...

I might have to surprise her with a babysitter and a trip to the mtns to get away with it at the moment...

[Johnny]

I did say that... I still believe fat skis are just a trend, just like read-entry boots, angular correction poles and one-pieces. I can't predict the future, but I'm pretty sure we'll all laugh at them in 30 years! Unless Fischer comes out with fat Hoverskis!

Gimme a good fat ski, under 6lbs, and with the right specs and I'll be the first to buy. But that ski doesn't exist yet. Until then, the 15yo Guides are still the best and most efficient "fat" XCD skis...

My intentions here are purely technical. My goal is not to push the Council to make them legal or not, but just to see if it's technically possible and if so, what would be the implications and repercussions on the XCD world...

[connyro]

Gimme a good fat ski, under 6lbs, and with the right specs and I'll be the first to buy. But that ski doesn't exist yet. Until then, the 15yo Guides are still the best and most efficient "fat" XCD skis...

I agree with this but then again, I disagree with this.

I ski both the Guides and Vector BCs. Our snow conditions are typically DEEP unconsolidated lake effect snow 2 or more feet deep on top of base, with sometimes daily refresher of new snow, so there's lots of trailbreaking. When breaking trail, you sink into what feels like bottomless, making trail-breaking quite a chore. I've noticed lately that the Vectors actually tour better than the Guides in these conditions. The Guides are a bit too narrow underfoot for deep snow trail-breaking while the Vectors tend to stay near the surface better. The Vectors have more aggressive scales too, so climbing is definitely better than the Guides. The Vector's tip rise helps with breaking trail as well.

What the hell is my point? Well, depending on where you ski, wider skis are a must for trail-breaking in very deep snow, and for breaking trail, I want a ski with some girth and grip. The Guides do pretty well on most days, but I find myself wanting a wider, light ski with good grip and climbing ability, and skis like the Vectors, Koms, etc are currently the ticket IMO. Personally, I'd like to see a sub-6 pound ski that's got tip rocker, aggressive scales, soft flex, 95 underfoot, little sidecut and underfoot camber, and is appropriate to ski with light bindings and boots.

[MikeK]

CR - I think you actually said it best a while back. Not sure where the quote is or if it was even on this forum, but you said something like the Karhu/Madshus skis were "more like obese XC skis" and the Voile skis were more like Alpine skis.

I really have to agree with this sentiment and I think why the Knights prefer the former style more. It's more with keeping the XC in XCD.

There's also the contention of plastic boots. Until we see a hard plastic shell boot on the XC track, I don't think it can be considered XC. It's purely a Telemark/Alpine tech. All the other boots at least have some semblance to what would be used by a Nordic track skier.

Those obese XC have the heritage too. They have significant cambers (although some really soft) and lack the powder ski rocker i.e. Nordic Rockers.

I've talked to some guys who are really into the Vector/V6/Charger skis but also still ski track set on skinnies so are not completely out to lunch on XC. They say the same thing you do (also live close to you but farther North). Those skis tour great in that deep snow even with plastics. I believe them. It's just so much float with that width and you can't apply tons of pressure to lunge forward in a stride anyway without just sinking, so a free ankle/shin isn't as critical. So yes... more effective. But XC? I still vote it's Telemark. Just good touring Telemark appropriate for the conditions. The other reason I vote that is those skis would be just as much at home up high on big mountains where Telemark gear thrives. The fishscales on the BC versions just took out the hassle of using skins on low angle stuff. Makes A TON of sense for small verts where you'd spend half the day putting on and taking off skins to get in a few laps.

I would also like to point out the Taiga skis used by the trappers in the Siberian Taiga. They are really short, really wide and they use skins for traction. These guys definitely have the focus of going cross-country... literally hut to hut to cover large areas and check their traps. Skinny skis wouldn't work for them and even though available, won't use them. They don't move fast with these, and they certainly aren't for hills, but they keep them up on top of all the soft snow or crud, and allow them to use less energy to get around. These are actually more in the range of a snowshoe ski... like a super-wide Hok.

Anyway - that proves the theory but there's still such a divergence between the Voile skis and something like the Taiga ski for me to change my vote.

[bgregoire]

Johnny, I think one of the best things that could be done to prepare the masses for a new XCD Knights ruling would be a few videos of yourself showing off the merits of NNN-BC fatties on the down, at the very leastm, with your 10th mountains or Skogs? Yes, our good japanese pal has done it many times, but we have no proof of this on north american snow. Thank you for you amazing job as messenger of the XCD Knights.

[connyro]

Good points MikeK. I agree with what you said, especially about plastic boots. The line between 'obese' xc skis and light DH/Telemark skis really gets blurred when you ski them "side by side" so to speak. Take Guides to your local groomed slope and the XC nature of them becomes apparent (very soft and won't hold an edge well), unlike Vectors etc which, like you pointed out, ski like full on DH skis. But in deep snow "XC" and trail-breaking, the Vectors are closer to the Guide's performance than you may realize. That being said, IMO Vectors are not a pure XCD ski but a telemark ski that XCD's pretty well.

[MikeK]

I've read lots of different opinions on the Vectors - some extreme DH skiers say they are nothing more than trail ski (which as I read, was an insult to their ability). And then the more extreme XC side will say they are too flat and rockered to be a XC ski. Well and then you have Teleman who will tell you you'll get swallowed by a creek if you don't have a 215cm, double camber ski!!

The lines are always blurry... always have been. Always will be.

I'm actually a little disappointed in Fischer for having this S Bound 125. Rossi had it first, and well, I was disappointed with them too.

To me that clearly seems like who can we sucker away from Voile (or maybe Altai) as well as the smaller XCD skis from Madshus or maybe Asnes.

As far as I've been able to figure, these skis really aren't any different. They are just scaled up versions of the S112 and BC110 respectively (and AFAIK the 112 is just a scaled up 98 - 110 might just be a scaled up 90?).

I have a lot more respect for Karhu/Madshus because the Guide/Annum is CLEARLY softer than the Eon/Epoch. I have more respect for Voile because it's a totally different ski shape/design. I have more respect for Altai because the KOM is totally different than anything else.

I may be completely way off here, and these skis may have some added advantages, but to me it seems like lazy design and slapping a number on to outdo the competition with a trend.

Now I did babble on something about real differences via science, etc... when we were discussing mag bindings. Within a manufacturer, it seems odd. But when you look across a competing product line and see something like that, the flag goes up for me.

[lowangle al]

I would also like to point out the Taiga skis used by the trappers in the Siberian Taiga. They are really short, really wide and they use skins for traction. These guys definitely have the focus of going cross-country... literally hut to hut to cover large areas and check their traps. Skinny skis wouldn't work for them and even though available, won't use them. They don't move fast with these, and they certainly aren't for hills, but they keep them up on top of all the soft snow or crud, and allow them to use less energy to get around. These are actually more in the range of a snowshoe ski... like a super-wide Hok.

It's funny that you mentioned this because when I saw the trapper in the "Happy People" video I thought the guys style looked like my style when touring on the vectors. I ski them with a fast cadence and keep my feet moving to maintain speed. The other thing is that the trapper was not using poles. I still take my poles but only use them on uphills and when doing turns. On the flats and downhills where I am still kicking and gliding I hold both poles in either one hand or with the poles together one hand near the grips and the other by the baskets. I first started doing this at the end of long tours to save energy and it works so well that I do it regularly. I don't know if it is the vectors specifically or if I would do it with any wide ski since I havn't skied my other wide skis in a while, but I don't do it with any of my narrow(50=70mm) skis. I think it is a balance and stability thing.

As far as a ski being like a snowshoe, the vectors are great for poking around in the woods like you would on snowshoes except when you start downhill. The great thing about them in the trees is that they turn at very low speeds and are much safer.