Help A Northeastern Trail Runner & Backpacker Build His First Nordic Backcountry Set-Up!

[Cannatonic]

now we're talking! This is what you should be paying - $138 shipped for a new pair of Gilttertind 200's - you'll feel much better going over the rocks with these than $300 skis

http://www.the-house.com/8900magltrtdmg ... -skis.html

205's for $210:

http://www.akers-ski.com/product/17MG1.html

3-pins for $55:

http://gearx.com/rottefella-super-telem ... mm-binding

[satsuma]

I agree with most of what lilcliffy said.

I am strictly an XC skier, primarily not on groomed tracks, since there is none available nearby. I don't typically make turns, I am still on trails. I ski on Alpina Discovery 68's (metal edged, 68-60-65). I originally bought these to get more stability on frequently icy, ungroomed trails, than was available with my narrower, 3/4 metal metal-edged skis skis (at that time Madshus Northcape, 60-50-55).These have been adequate for everything I do or would like to do except skiing in 10 inches + of powder, which I doubt you see often in your area. I don't think you necessarily need a wider ski, and up to 70 mm will fit in groomed tracks. I would guess that similar width, metal-edged skis would be adequate for your purpose, the wider skis with less camber will be slower in packed snow or skier tracks, and will not fit into groomed tracks.

I think the specific advantage of these skis is waxless pattern is excellent for climbing. The disadvantage is probable that they are more difficult to turn due to less sidecut than most skis in this width.

The full metal edges make the skis stiffer, and they don't track well around curves in groomed tracks. I have been making some trips to where there are groomed tracks, and ended up buying at the end of this year a separate set of skis specifically for groomed tracks. However, this is a choice, not a necessity.

We don't get icy tracks around here where the waxless pattern doesn't work, but from my limited experience in skiing in New England, this WILL be a concern for you, and you may want to reconsider waxable skis. I don't know how well skins work on ice.

I may eventually buy a wider set of skis for skiing in powder, but will rent skis to experiment with first.

The boots I use are Alpina BC-1550's, which again, are adequate for the width skis I use and probably for 78's as well. The only issue of durability I have had is with the glue on the velcro on the power straps, which was an issue on other boots as well. I only paid $30 for the pair 5 years ago, so I am not complaining.

[Young Satchel]

In order to help you (very helpful!) folks better help me, here are a few (unfortunately very low-res) pictures I have scavenged and screen-captured off my insta of "my woods": aka places I might like to use this initial set of skis.

Snow conditions are not the point here as several pictures are at the end of season, or off-season, but some snow quality can be observed in a few of the deep winter pics.






















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Young Satchel]

I agree with most of what lilcliffy said.

I am strictly an XC skier, primarily not on groomed tracks, since there is none available nearby. I don't typically make turns, I am still on trails. I ski on Alpina Discovery 68's (metal edged, 68-60-65). I originally bought these to get more stability on frequently icy, ungroomed trails, than was available with my narrower, 3/4 metal metal-edged skis skis (at that time Madshus Northcape, 60-50-55).These have been adequate for everything I do or would like to do except skiing in 10 inches + of powder, which I doubt you see often in your area. I don't think you necessarily need a wider ski, and up to 70 mm will fit in groomed tracks. I would guess that similar width, metal-edged skis would be adequate for your purpose, the wider skis with less camber will be slower in packed snow or skier tracks, and will not fit into groomed tracks.

I think the specific advantage of these skis is waxless pattern is excellent for climbing. The disadvantage is probable that they are more difficult to turn due to less sidecut than most skis in this width.

The full metal edges make the skis stiffer, and they don't track well around curves in groomed tracks. I have been making some trips to where there are groomed tracks, and ended up buying at the end of this year a separate set of skis specifically for groomed tracks. However, this is a choice, not a necessity.

We don't get icy tracks around here where the waxless pattern doesn't work, but from my limited experience in skiing in New England, this WILL be a concern for you, and you may want to reconsider waxable skis. I don't know how well skins work on ice.

I may eventually buy a wider set of skis for skiing in powder, but will rent skis to experiment with first.

The boots I use are Alpina BC-1550's, which again, are adequate for the width skis I use and probably for 78's as well. The only issue of durability I have had is with the glue on the velcro on the power straps, which was an issue on other boots as well. I only paid $30 for the pair 5 years ago, so I am not complaining.

Solid info and reasoning for sure. I am quickly starting to see how one could end up with a garage full of skis [emoji23].

Part of the reason I feel compelled to err slightly on the wider side (68-88ish) is because I have access to some narrower more traditional long XC skis at my folks house half an hour from me. They aren't up here that often using them, and when they do they usually use other shorter pairs so they are essentially mine for the taking as-needed. This conversation has inspired me to drive over and take a look-see at what exactly they are and what bindings they have as it's been a while since I laid eyes on them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cannatonic]

Nice pictures - looks like a beautiful area - are you near Poughkeepsie? That talus slope would look good with 40 inches of snow on it!

[lilcliffy]

now we're talking! This is what you should be paying - $138 shipped for a new pair of Gilttertind 200's - you'll feel much better going over the rocks with these than $300 skis

http://www.the-house.com/8900magltrtdmg ... -skis.html

205's for $210:

http://www.akers-ski.com/product/17MG1.html

3-pins for $55:

http://gearx.com/rottefella-super-telem ... mm-binding

Awesome ski- awesome price.

The Glitt is a legendary distance-oriented backcountry Nordic ski.

I must say that I think the waxless-scaled version is only effective if one has an abundance of warm wet snow. The second current Glitt is incredibly stiff underfoot- unless the snow is ideal this ski is very slippery. With a kicker skin...that solves it.

I prefer the waxable Glitt.

[lilcliffy]

Hey satsuma- great to hear from you!

I am strictly an XC skier, primarily not on groomed tracks, since there is none available nearby. I don't typically make turns, I am still on trails. I ski on Alpina Discovery 68's (metal edged, 68-60-65).

Alpina is a cool company- I do need to try out their Nordic touring skis at some point...I like their approach on their distance oriented skis for mountainous terrain. What length are your Discovery 68s?

I would guess that similar width, metal-edged skis would be adequate for your purpose, the wider skis with less camber will be slower in packed snow or skier tracks

This is my initial thought as well...From distance-oriented perspective, wide, soft skis are only effective on truly deep soft snow.

The full metal edges make the skis stiffer, and they don't track well around curves in groomed tracks. I have been making some trips to where there are groomed tracks, and ended up buying at the end of this year a separate set of skis specifically for groomed tracks. However, this is a choice, not a necessity.

A set of track worthy skis is WELL worth the investment- for the track. Even the stiffest, most cambered backcountry skis are still intended for ungroomed snow. My E-99s feel like high-performance bullets on fresh snow- but they feel dead compared to my stiff Atomic touring skis on a groomed track...

We don't get icy tracks around here where the waxless pattern doesn't work, but from my limited experience in skiing in New England, this WILL be a concern for you, and you may want to reconsider waxable skis. I don't know how well skins work on ice.

Skins work very well on ice and refrozen snow- MUCH better than scales. Better than kilster? Not sure about that...That's a question for a performance-oriented XC skier...

The boots I use are Alpina BC-1550's, which again, are adequate for the width skis I use and probably for 78's as well. The only issue of durability I have had is with the glue on the velcro on the power straps, which was an issue on other boots as well. I only paid $30 for the pair 5 years ago, so I am not complaining.

I think that the Alpina 1550 is enough for the 78 as well- read a test once that suggested that the Ficher BCX6 boot was actually "overkill" for the 78...http://www.gearinstitute.com/skiing/ite ... m-bindings

[lilcliffy]

Hey Satchel,

What is your focus at this point?

Cruising along trails through the hills?

Or- searching for steep terrain to ski on?

[lilcliffy]

The bear prefers the 88s, eh? [emoji23][emoji1305]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 88 is cleary a better choice for fresh soft snow...Perhaps the Bear or Woods (orn anyone) can compare/contrast the differences between the 78 vs. the 88?

[lilcliffy]

I like my Sbound 88's in a 189 because they are for straight travel and good times and travel in ungroomed terrain with possibility of some turns required (skinny hiking trails with trees that are not too steep). My SB98's in a 189 were supposed to be for more travel and then turning down 100-300' shots and sometimes they work for this but as soon as things get manky I get bucked. I snatched a pair of an old WAX version of the 98's in a 179 and they are amazing for me, so I will be getting a pair of 98s in a 179 for this type of mission and keep the 88's in a longer length for more XC BC travel with minimal turning.

Hey Woods- great to hear from you!

Is the issue with the 98 their camber camber and stiffness? Have you tried the Epoch/XCD 10th Mtn as a comparison?

Satchel- you and Woods are of a similar weight-height profile...

Madsus/Karhu's XCD line has a much softer flex than equivalent Fischer S-Bounds...If you end up looking at something wider than the 88- I would also look at the Madshus Epoch and Annum.

189cm doesn't seem long for someone as tall as Woods to me...I wonder how a 195cm Epoch would feel...

I have 78's too, but haven't been using them much once I got my 88's and 98's. They are a reserve ski for friends.

Why do you prefer the 88/98- snow/terrain?