Voile Objective skis - what length?

[gbedford]

I intend buying a pair of Voile Objective skis the the waxless BC version.
The problem I face is what length. I weigh 150 lbs andare 5' 8"
I seem to be on the borderline recommended by Voile between the 171 and the 178 cm skis.
I consider myself a good skier both up and down.
I have been skiing Atomic Chuhgach 180's with 3 pins. These have a negative pattern on the base. I really like these skis but they are getting old and I am interested in getting a bit more stability on the down. I can use the negative pattern effectively in most conditions.
I don't want too much drag so I am wary of the Objective 171's but then they probably turn better.
What do you think? I am hoping Johnny could answer this but I would value other people's advice.

Best regards,
Gordon

[Woodserson]

What are the Chugach dimensions, and where do you ski?

[lowangle al]

Hi Gordon, If your goal is to get a better ski for the down I would go with the 171. I ski the vector in a 170 and I weigh a little over 180 which puts me at the upper limit of it's suggested weight range. After 4 years I never wished I had them longer and I do a lot of K&G.

[connyro]

My $.02: I would do the 178's. You'll like the added length/glide for touring. If you are used to turning the Chugach, you'll have NO PROBLEM turning the Objectives. The Chugachs, while wide (98-69-88), are a very stiff camber and a half, making them a bit of a chore to turn in challenging conditions. The Objectives will turn much easier. I have a pair of Chugachs/3-pins and personally have never really liked them for climbing (negative pattern) or descending (stiff camber). Or anything really (lots of sidecut spoils touring IMO). They would have been a better ski if they had less camber and stiffness. IMO, you'll absolutely rock the Objectives if you can handle the Chugachs.

[gbedford]

Thanks for the quick replies.
I have to apologise because when I read your replies I realised I had stated the information correctly. My skis are Atomic Rainier not Chugach. I had been looking on the web at a 2nd hand pair of Chugach just before logging in to Telmark talk and sending a pm to Johnny. I then copied that message into the forum.
My thoughts were still partially on the Chugach skis as I wrote.

The Rainiers are 180's (actually 176 measured tip to tail) 88/60/78. I like them for k and g. They turn well and are fast. Have a 1 and 1/2 camber. Still more of a nordic touring ski than a telemark ski. Similar only better IMO to the original Karhu XCD. Not a lot of grip in fresh dry snow but then we don't have a lot of that in Australia.
So all that means I don't know a stuff about Chugach skis and have messed up your advice.

180 pounds on the 171 Vectors and good k&g. Sounds to good to be true. I resume they have a scale base.

[connyro]

My advice still stands. If you can turn the Rainiers, you can turn Objectives easily. IMO, you'll really enjoy the upgrade. Rainiers and Chugachs are basically the same ski with the Chugachs being wider by 10 mm or so.

[greatgt]

Agree with Connyro...Go a little longer...Telewheels is saying the same for his Voile's at 171?.....Would speed the skis up a bit and be better on the cruise....And they turn so easily why not get the benefit of a bit longer? TM

[phoenix]

I'm 5'7", 130 lbs; camber works great for me, but I'm finding they feel pretty short. It is a very, very easy turning ski.

[lowangle al]

If conny and gt agree they gotta be right. I've never skied the ski, but phoenix has so I'd say you'd be happy with the longer ski. I think you'd be happy with either.

[connyro]

If conny and gt agree ...

This is a first. Cats sleeping with dogs! I can no longer stand by my advice because I must have taken a blow to the head or some other TBI.