Super long skis... how long will the fun last..?

[fgd135]

If you're skiing in set tracks, or in places where the trails are frequently packed and esp. if the snow is icy or crusty, you need to be able to compress the wax pocket during the kick phase of your stride nearly all the way to the snow surface to get reliable control in all conditions. A nordic ski that is too long or has too much camber for your wt. will certainly glide well, but you're going to create more work and fatigue for yourself as you have to hammer down the wax pocket at every stride.That might be ok if you're way into max workouts in short distances. Otherwise, matching your "ski weight" to the camber of ski is the best option. By ski wt., I mean the sum of your body wt wearing your ski stuff like boots and usual clothing, plus any extra that you usually carry, whether is is a Camelback, a light daypack, a heavier rucksack, a Burley sled with a toddler, etc.
A properly waxed ski in the correct wt range will both kick and glide reliably.
Best to use the manufacturer's length/wt. recommendations unless you have some prior experience with that brand, to consider another length.
BTW, those old Asnes MT 65 combat skis (Coleman's) have substantial double camber for the length, as they were intended for some poor Marine or GI slogging along with "90 pounds of rucksack". Most modern BC skis have much less of that, or have alpine camber for up and down and turning.

[12gaugesage]

BTW, those old Asnes MT 65 combat skis (Coleman's) have substantial double camber for the length....

Wasn't actually aware of that. I based my prior remark on my surplus Karhu's and old wooden skis Ive played with at junk shops.

Now I want a pair of those

[12gaugesage]

Personally I'm moving in the other direction, I want to find the perfect OTBD ski for my woods, hills, trees and crust, longer skis aren't the ticket.

Altai KOM

The ultimate New England crusty snow tight tree ski. As long as K&G is nowhere near the priority list. But boy you can make those babies sing with a cheap cable binding and some T4's/Excursions. I'm not exaggerating.

The KOM has been on my list for some time, I have the Objective now, love them, and they're a good "woods" ski too. Hammered them last year DH.
I (think I) really want something that maneuvers just like them, but a tad narrower for better tracking and weight savings. I've been eyeing the WSP from Voile, obviously they're intended for skimo racing, but I'm curious. Wish they came in a 178ish length, and were cheaper.

May have to try an Eon or something. Local consignment shop has a set of Karhu Orions that are intriguing, similar width but perhaps too straight. They are short (175) so that might compensate.

Round and round we go

[Spiny Norman]

To continue the threadjack...

How well do the Koms climb?

[Woodserson]

To continue the threadjack...

How well do the Koms climb?

Awesome. I can climb the Tuckerman Ravine Trail no problem and then ski down the Sherb. The Cog is a little steeper and if it's harder snow I have a tough time in the middle part and need skins.

[lilcliffy]

Bounjour Laurence!

Hope you and your family are well!

How would you define a "super-long" ski?

BTW- you ended up getting the Combat Nato- yes? What length?

I personally would define "super-long" skis as being over 220cm (for at least a medium-sized adult) and no sidecut- skis like this are not made for downhill skiing but for efficient distance travel in very deep boreal snow. (Modern example- Peltonen Metsa: http://www.peltonenski.fi/outdoor_touring/)

I don't have any "super-long" skis in my quiver- though I do want a pair of super-long boreal touring skis at some point (despite the fact that I wouldn't use them much in my local hills).

Personally- I strongly prefer "long" skis across the board- XC skiing, downhill skiing and the mix. By "long", I mean on the long-end of the manufacturer's guidelines. I prefer the stability and longer effective edge of longer skis. Manufacturer's length recommendations are just guidelines- and they need to cover beginner skiers.

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread- a Nordic touring ski can certainly be too long- depending on its intended use- if it has significant camber and tension underfoot (i.e. double camber)- which can lead to issues with grip- especially when climbing and pressuring the ski in hilly/steep terrain.

For example- I generally don't want a truly effective "wax pocket" on even my double-cambered touring skis (E99/Gamme 54) becasue I tour with them at speed in hilly terrain.

On the other hand- when pulling a heavy pulk for a multi-day trip- with kicker skins on- I do/would want a more effecitve wax pocket so that the kicker skin fully releases from the snow and improves glide efficiency. (This is clearly not a downhill application!!)

Anyway- I personally wouldn't define "super-long" as going long on the manufacurere's guideline. However, some of the cambered and very stiff skis- if "too-long" can be frustratingly slippery and diffult to pressure on hills.

If you are considering the length of downhill skis- then there are a whole other range of complex things to consider...

I weigh a full 25lbs more than you do as well- and I have a ski style where I push and pressure my skis hard- I tend to prefer skis on the stiffer side as well as the longer side.

The place to "start" is the manfucaturer's guidline- going longer depending on personal context.

Many of the manufacturer's can also give excellent advice on this- above and beyond their guideline- if you contact them directly.

For example- whenever I contact Voile, they are more interested in my total skiing context, style and preferences. For example- the V6 is the ski I am eyeing- Voile would recommend the longest V6 for me if I was skiing above treeline, but recommend going with closer to my height for downhill skiing Eastern trees/glades.

Are you looking for a "super-long" traditional Telemark ski for downhill skiing? @Nitram Tocrut has one for sale right now. Long, single-cambered- I think they are 215cm? (Not a ski intended for downhill skiing tight lines through the woods!)

[Laurence C]

Merci à tous, my radio silence was due to my gf giving birth to my second kid this weekend! Building myself an expedition team.

lilcliffy, I meant both from "a bit longer than the manufacturers suggests" TO "gigantic skis".

For I don't know ten-fifteen years I didn't even look at ski length, like I cannot even recall em, buying used skis and skins to play along with friends making distance. I was the guy with jeans, heavier backpack, no interest in UL gear.

Since I started with new skis, 4-5 years agooI am concervative (because it is expensive).

I played with Combat NATO 190 last season (I'm 172cm, 72kg). I prefer to use my skis for long distance with camping backpack on hilly terrain (looking to pass through obstacles rather than aiming at big decent). I recall that lilcliffy among others was advocating for longer while Ben G was telling me that maybe I should be more conservative to be more adapted to Quebec wood filled terrains (while also having a focus, from what I got, less on equipment and more on the activity and making the best with what I had). NATO was a big upgrade for what I like to do (smoother soft feel and stability, better at climbing) from my Amundsen 195 that was itself a huge upgrade from old Fisher and Rossignol that I had.

Was looking to try the MR48skin. Chickened out, too expensive to try the longest, so got the 190 after a paper test. Still, a forum member that I shall not name told me he was "unbending" is modern skis all summer so he could use really long skis, just because he liked it. I got most of the nuances you all brought. Will try to get back to you if I try longest skis...and will buy an helmet,

L

[lilcliffy]

Laurence! Felicitations!

Congratulations on your new baby!!!

Gareth