That's exactly what it is.fisheater wrote: I don't know, maybe this would be a good tour for turns ski, for a guy that would love to need a Vector.
Although I don't see why an Objective wouldn't be on the table?
That's exactly what it is.fisheater wrote: I don't know, maybe this would be a good tour for turns ski, for a guy that would love to need a Vector.
I just threw everything on the side of the road... People stopped and helped themselves for a few days... On collection day, there was only 2-3 pairs left... Mostly old Karhus...lowangle al wrote: I hope you had a legal right to use that dumpster Johnny, I'd hate to think of you as criminal.
I know... But hey, I need a wishlist to dream too...! If I had everything, life would be boring...fischeater wrote:Really Johnny, I can't believe you don't have one of these. BTW x-skin compatible.
The Falketind is completely different from the Objective... They are both light, but that's pretty much the only thing they share... The Objective is a quite fat beast with tips at 117mm... Soft flex and big rocker... The Falketind has more sidecut, and almost no rocker, just a very subtle Nordic one... And with carbon cross reinforcements, I expect the Falketind to be quite stiff and rigid. I would never use the Objective on hard pack, but I would use the Falketinds primarily for that very purpose... The Falketind would be super nice for turning on pretty much anything, but the Voiles would make much better bottomless powder skis...D'hostie wrote:That's exactly what it is. Although I don't see why an Objective wouldn't be on the table?fisheater wrote: I don't know, maybe this would be a good tour for turns ski, for a guy that would love to need a Vector.
I'm not sure I agree with that, or that either of us know much about the Falketind. You have an Objective, but unlikely you are using it the way most skiers would. If someone were to use it with T4s, then it would be a perfectly acceptable UL on-piste ski.Johnny wrote:The Falketind is completely different from the Objective... They are both light, but that's pretty much the only thing they share... The Objective is a quite fat beast with tips at 117mm... Soft flex and big rocker... The Falketind has more sidecut, and almost no rocker, just a very subtle Nordic one... And with carbon cross reinforcements, I expect the Falketind to be quite stiff and rigid. I would never use the Objective on hard pack, but I would use the Falketinds primarily for that very purpose... The Falketind would be super nice for turning on pretty much anything, but the Voiles would make much better bottomless powder skis...D'hostie wrote:That's exactly what it is. Although I don't see why an Objective wouldn't be on the table?fisheater wrote: I don't know, maybe this would be a good tour for turns ski, for a guy that would love to need a Vector.
And as I said, given their reputation and product testing, I doubt they'd overstate this. Sounds to me like an all-around ski that could work for touring, skiing BC steeps in variable conditions and be pressed into resort service.Equally at home atop The Haute Route or on a long jaunt in The Catskills, these skis are light enough to go the distance and stiff enough to hold an edge on boilerplate. They won’t exactly shine in deep powder, but many an East Coast skier will likely press them into service at their local ski resort.
What is "Nordic rocker"? I understand what people mean when they say tip rocker/early rise, but what does the "Nordic" mean in this case?fisheater wrote:...It appears to have Nordic rocker and tail rocker....
Not a fan myself of tail rocker but it allows you to smear turns in soft snow and ride switch in variable snow or land jumps switch (backward).fisheater wrote:...what is the purpose of tail rocker?.......
Cool--that's the same sidecut dimensions of my 200cm Atomic TM26 BetaCarve skis from 1999 or so. These TM26 also have lots of camber, 3" at least when held together at the base (like all Beta era Atomics had), and are fairly light for an alpine/Tele ski. Makes me think I should try them out for touring.fisheater wrote:...The (Falketind 62 touring ski) sidecut is 97-62-86....
Mike, the reason why I am not looking at Objectives is because I have an S-112. The s-112 may not be as torsionally as rigid as the Objective, but they are in the same class. I certainly do not have the terrain that Phoenix or Connyro have. Even for the northern lower peninsula of Michigan a ski that can carry speed makes the touring for turns better. Actually you talk about the steep short ups and downs in your area. Picture something similar to that with finding some 200 to 300 foot down hills if you pick the right area. In my neck of the woods it might be 150 feet or so. A ski needs some speed in the rolls to be fun. That being said, we get 2 feet on occasion. The s-112 is fun to ski downhill in powder, and while not fast it is capable as a powder trail ski.D'hostie wrote:That's exactly what it is.fisheater wrote:
Although I don't see why an Objective wouldn't be on the table?
I don't think you are dreaming at all. Your most recent descriptions of the USGI's camber and flex resonate with mine- it is a stiff, double-cambered touring ski- whose strength is covering distance. The USGI is in the same group a the E-99- despite being much heavier- the USGI being more effective in very deep snow.fisheater wrote: I might be dreaming of the impossible, but I really could use something between the USGI and the s-112.
One has to keep in mind that the world is spinning backwards. 50% of all skiers are using Soul 7's as their primary skis for hard pack and groomers. One has to understand how marketing is working.D'hostie wrote: Also, as stated before, Voile doesn't seem to be marketing these for your intended use Johnny:
And as I said, given their reputation and product testing, I doubt they'd overstate this. Sounds to me like an all-around ski that could work for touring, skiing BC steeps in variable conditions and be pressed into resort service.Equally at home atop The Haute Route or on a long jaunt in The Catskills, these skis are light enough to go the distance and stiff enough to hold an edge on boilerplate. They won’t exactly shine in deep powder, but many an East Coast skier will likely press them into service at their local ski resort.
I don't pretend to know your business, but I can read, and from what I've read, it seems like the S112 isn't cutting the mustard for what you want. Trust me, I have its little brother, and love it, but I certainly don't ski it on piste and I know it's not the fastest ski in my quiver; it's particularly slow feeling on packed down trails.fisheater wrote: Mike, the reason why I am not looking at Objectives is because I have an S-112. The s-112 may not be as torsionally as rigid as the Objective, but they are in the same class. I certainly do not have the terrain that Phoenix or Connyro have. Even for the northern lower peninsula of Michigan a ski that can carry speed makes the touring for turns better. Actually you talk about the steep short ups and downs in your area. Picture something similar to that with finding some 200 to 300 foot down hills if you pick the right area. In my neck of the woods it might be 150 feet or so. A ski needs some speed in the rolls to be fun. That being said, we get 2 feet on occasion. The s-112 is fun to ski downhill in powder, and while not fast it is capable as a powder trail ski.
I might be dreaming of the impossible, but I really could use something between the USGI and the s-112.
So you think they designed the Objective so you could mount NNN-BC on it and ski it with Alpina Alaskas?Johnny wrote: One has to keep in mind that the world is spinning backwards. 50% of all skiers are using Soul 7's as their primary skis for hard pack and groomers. One has to understand how marketing is working.