This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
Real reviews by real skiers. What a concept! Add your own today. Reviews only please, questions can be posted as replies but new threads looking for opinions should be posted to the main Telemark Talk Forum.
mugglesport wrote:I may have to leave this forum. I just got my first XCD skis (S98), haven't even mounted the bindings yest, and this thread is giving me major GAS (gear acquisition syndrome).
Mouahahahahahahah!
Can't you see we all have the same syndrome and the forum is just a way to justify our purchases with other critically ill patients?
You will see, GAS only gets worse and worse over time... I can confirm that its still growing strong after 50 pairs of skis in stock...
/...\ Peace, Love, Telemark and Tofu /...\ "And if you like to risk your neck, we'll boom down Sutton in old Quebec..."
MikeK wrote:
But if you have enough flotation with this ski, I'm not sure why you'd even consider the others*.
Right you are...
As usual what works and makes sense depends not only on skill and technique but also the complete complex of terrain, snow conditions, and "objectives" (i.e. xcountry vs. downhill; distance over turns).
As you said- not really a powder ski- but it is wider underfoot than my current "powder" XCD ski- the Guide/Annum.
Wonder what the difference in flotation would be between a 178cm Objective and say a 195cm Annum, or a 189cm S-Bound 112? I don't find the flotation between the Annum and S-112 to be effectively measurable. I like the flex pattern of the Annum and its tracking better in real powder. The S-112 climbs and turns better than the Annum- for sure.
Regardless- if I was looking to replace my "powder" XCD skis I think I would be looking at something fatter than the Objective...I think...
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
LoveJohnny wrote: I do believe it's the best ski ever in the whole history of XCD skiing.
Well- I would certainly love to try it...
From my perspective, the Objective seems to be heavily weighted towards the downhill side of xcd...
The measurements and flex pattern don't give me the impression that they are designed to offer a true balance between XC-D- xcountry and downhill skiing.
I guess it depends on what xcd is to you? Is xcd downhill skiing on XC tech? Or is it some balance between xcountry and dowhill skiing?
As far as downhill skiing on xcountry tech (i.e. boots and bindings), the specifications of the Objective do blow everything else out of the way. I am sure they will make your Guides feel heavy, weak and unresponsive when downhill skiing!
If I bought this ski...I would be bringing them with me when I occasionally ski at the local resort. Would be fun to carve with my kids with xcountry "shoes"!
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
The Asnes Tind 85 has a rockered tip with almost the same dimensions as the Objective BC- but with a skin-lock system instead of waxless traction...The Tind comes in lengths up to 187cm...
This is what Johnny needs- a new Asnes Tind 85 with skin-lock to test against the Voile Objective BC!!!!
If this happens- I am coming for a visit LJ...
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
Of course it is a xcD ski... Tracking won't be very efficient on this one... But it is a real, perfect powder ski to me. I wouldn't want anything fatter than this for XCD, unless I do heli skiing in Alaska skiing at 100mph... Which I'll never do... Flotation is just for speed really...
lilcliffy wrote:
Wonder what the difference in flotation would be between a 178cm Objective and say a 195cm Annum, or a 189cm S-Bound 112?
That is where Mike comes into play with his nice charts and graphs...! Isn't Mike? I'm sure you can calculate surface and radius and stuff and come up with a better chart then WildSnow...
This is what Johnny needs- a new Asnes Tind 85 with skin-lock to test against the Voile Objective BC!!!!
If this happens- I am coming for a visit LJ...
Nah, you can't compare skins with scales... That wouldn't be fair...!
I don't like skins... To me, zig-zagging is part of the fun...!
That being said, you're are welcome here anytime...!
/...\ Peace, Love, Telemark and Tofu /...\ "And if you like to risk your neck, we'll boom down Sutton in old Quebec..."
lilcliffy wrote:
Wonder what the difference in flotation would be between a 178cm Objective and say a 195cm Annum, or a 189cm S-Bound 112?
That is where Mike comes into play with his nice charts and graphs...! Isn't Mike? I'm sure you can calculate surface and radius and stuff and come up with a better chart then WildSnow...
YEAH- Mike- surface are of S-112 vs. Annum vs. Objective- might as well throw in the Asnes Tind 85 while we are at it...
Please?
That being said, you're are welcome here anytime...!
That would be fun man...it has become so hard for me to travel during ski season- at least at this point in my life...give me another 5 years...
But seriously- I wonder what it would take for Asnes to send you their "Toppturskis" to test against the Voile?
Last edited by lilcliffy on Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
lilcliffy wrote:
YEAH- Mike- surface are of S-112 vs. Annum vs. Objective- might as well through in Asnes Tind 85 while we are at it...
Please?
I can do that, but I need to know a couple things - first off is the running length of the ski. For rocker skis, this is a little bit more undefined. For the others, just set them on the ground and measure from tangent at the tip to tangent at the tail.
It's also nice to know the sidecut profile - not just the width, but the length along the ski where those dimensions occur.
A very, very simple way to calculate is just to average the 3 widths and multiply by the length (all in the same units of course), but it's not as accurate as calculating the radius of the sidecut and subtracting that as well as using the running length of the ski.
MikeK wrote:
I can do that, but I need to know a couple things - first off is the running length of the ski. For rocker skis, this is a little bit more undefined. For the others, just set them on the ground and measure from tangent at the tip to tangent at the tail.
Running length doesn't matter... Its a powder ski, so the whole surface is in contact with the snow and helps flotation. Even tips and tail... Please make a 3D chart with lots of pink...
/...\ Peace, Love, Telemark and Tofu /...\ "And if you like to risk your neck, we'll boom down Sutton in old Quebec..."
MikeK wrote:
I can do that, but I need to know a couple things - first off is the running length of the ski. For rocker skis, this is a little bit more undefined. For the others, just set them on the ground and measure from tangent at the tip to tangent at the tail.
Running length doesn't matter... Its a powder ski, so the whole surface is in contact with the snow and helps flotation. Even tips and tail... Please make a 3D chart with lots of pink...
