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.
This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web. We have fun here, come on in and be a part of it.
paulzo wrote:Ingstad at 84/62/74 might be too close to my current skis (Atomic Rainier, 88/60/78) to be worth it - although that is less sidecut.
Having skied the Rainer (=Rebound) many times over the years- I can confirm that the Ingstad BC is a very different ski.
The Ingstad BC is softer and less cambered underfoot than the Rainier/Rebound.
The Ingstad BC has loads of tip rocker- the Rainier/Rebound has none. The Rainier/Rebound has a much longer glide zone than the Ingstad BC on dense/consolidated snow.
But the Ingstad BC is much better in deep, soft snow, and offers wonderous downhill performance compared to the Rainier/Rebound.
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
Boy, everybody makes those agammes sound great but i want a waxless ski. All my skiing is spring skiing and waxless works great in the conditions I encounter. I skied across the Sierra and only had my skins out a few times.
So maybe some fischers will do the deed. I am tempted to go even skinnier than E99`s though. Since I have my Rainiers, and may well get some Objectives eventually, these other skis can be more focused on the straight ahead. I'm wondering if what I want is the skinniest, most xc thing I can get with metal edges.
Super fast, super light, and both waxless. Think about the Fischer SuperLite series but with more stability and 3/4 metal edges... Similar to the Gamme, but much softer and lighter...
/...\ Peace, Love, Telemark and Tofu /...\ "And if you like to risk your neck, we'll boom down Sutton in old Quebec..."
At your weight there are lots of skis to choose from...
As far as narrower than the E99-class skis-
Does Fischer still make an E89 Crown?
The Asnes 48 Skin looks super cool and super easy with the embedded kicker skin.
I personally prefer the option of being able to take the skin off and have a waxable base- but, that might not matter to you as you are looking for a waxless ski...
I personally struggle to understand how people get enough grip from scales alone on a truly double-cambered ski with an effective wax pocket...I can get enough grip on ideal snow with my 210cm E99 Crown to XC ski, but I certainly cannot climb ANYTHING.
And if one is has to size-down to get adequate grip with a scaled double-camber ski, then you might as well also consider a camber-and-a-half ski...
So for example-
Let's say you consider an E99 Crown in a 180cm- in order to get enough grip...
I would also consider a Fischer 78/88 in a 199cm.
The 78/88 is less cambered and softer than the E99- can get away with a longer length- you also get the Easy-Skin attachment...
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
lilcliffy wrote:
So for example-
Let's say you consider an E99 Crown in a 180cm- in order to get enough grip...
I would also consider a Fischer 78/88 in a 199cm.
The 78/88 is less cambered and softer than the E99- can get away with a longer length- you also get the Easy-Skin attachment...
I’m 6’2” 160lbs or so without gear and rock 205 E99 Crowns and would not size down. But I like glide, but seriously, with the Nordic rocker...
Good point- perhaps it is the Nordic rocker...I weigh 185lbs- maybe even a bit less- I seem to have lost some weight over the last several months...
Regardless- my 210cm E99 Crown Xtralite has no tip rocker- its glide surface on consolidated snow is much longer than my E99 Tour Xtralite that has considerable tip rocker...
I also think that climate is a big part of this too...
We are having yet another (4 in a row) VERY cool-cold early spring. It is certainly spring snow out there, but it is very icy...My Gamme 54 BC with mohair kicker skin is kicking everything's ass for touring at the moment. It has been almost 2pm in the afternoon before the snow has warmed up enough for scales to provide satisfactory grip.
I love glide as well- hence my longish skis- but I cannot stand slipping all over the place!
I love waxless scales when I get enough grip, but I don't think I would ever go on a multi-day trip without skins...
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
I changed my mind-
This is what I think is the holy grail for what you want to do-
Asnes Amundsen Fram Waxless: https://www.en.asnes.com/produkt/amundsen-fram-bc/
67-57-62mm
double cambered
stable
waxless scaled base
X-skin insert
could grip or glide wax it
wow.
Is this THE spring snow expedition ski?
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
lilcliffy wrote: I also think that climate is a big part of this too...
Indeed, and this is where i wonder just where and how to apply the appropriate pinch of salt to all of this good advice, as High Sierra spring and northeast spring (or winter) must be quite different things but i have no experience in your neck of the woods and so extrapolation is hard. I guess i should just ask everyone to assume we are talking about skiing corn, more corn and nothing but corn - except for the occasional morning when i am too impatient to wait for the 10 am softening.
