Spend my money!

[mikesee]

A few times a winter I go explore some new place via skis, and the route is chosen so that I can at least partially float back out in a packraft.

I do several day trips like this, and sometimes multi-day or even multi-week.  

Example day trip: https://lacemine29.blogspot.com/2021/03 ... -ides.html

Multi-week: https://mikesee.exposure.co/the-sawsalway

These trips are at minimum quite novel and -- if the route is chosen wisely -- they can be wildly satisfying.

I always take skins but I insist that the skis have scales.

Minimum ski length is 162.  Max is 168.

Ideal underfoot width is right around 80.  

Mostly I'm interested in covering ground, but these tours are often in the mountains, and if I spend a few hours gaining a pass, being able to make turns down the other side is nice.  

I'll run a TTS binding with F1's or F3's, depending.

I'm an intermediate skier -- I don't want a glorified XC ski to have to fight on the way down.  Ease of making nice short to medium radius turns is important.

I'm 185# and my pack with food, overnight gear, boat/paddle/PFD, etc... will be at least 45# and sometimes pushing 70#.  Again -- no glorified XC weenie skis!

So, after digesting all of that ^, what would *you* get?

Thus far I've used G3 Findr's (177), Altai Kom's (174), and Voile Objectives (178).  But I listened to too many XC-biased folks and bought all of 'em too long and struggled controlling them in tight spots or funky snow.  

This year I bought some Voile V6 BC's in 163 and they are *excellent* when the snow is soft.  Now I want something of a similar length but much narrower for firmer snow.

I'm leaning toward the Objectives in 163, but wonder if there's something else out there worth considering.  Is there?

Any info appreciated.

[lowangle al]

My wife greatly prefers her vectors over the V6 for touring. I don't think you can do better than an ultra vector or objective.

[connyro]

I've got to agree with LowAngleAl here. Vectors do k+g better than the V6 (track straighter and glide better IMO) but if you already have a fat ski similar to the Vectors, the Objectives would be near perfect. Both the Objectives and the Vectors can handle hard snow as well as deep snow well and are light and reasonably responsive for k+g. Plus both rock on the downs in a wide variety of conditions.

[mikesee]

I should mention that in a perfect world my quiver would be endless.

But I have both financial and space considerations to consider. I gotta be practical.

Since I already have the V6's at 96mm uf, something like the UltraVector at 90 uf is just too close to consider.

I want/need something complementary, different, from the V6's I already have.

Something closer to 80mm uf fits that bill.

[phoenix]

My initial suggestion was going to be Objectives or Kom's, then read you've tried them in the appropriate length and want something different. I'll just point out that the shorter 164 Objectives, while they sound good, will be carrying a lot of weight for their length. While you'll have abundant grip, I'd expect them to be pretty slow on the touring side of things; might not be an issue for you.

For context, I'm 5'6", 125 on a heavy gravity day, and ski the Objectives BC's in 164. They perform fine for me, but I often wish I had the 171's... sometimes mine just feel a little short. Never tried the Vectors, and while they're wider than your target width, I'd be inclined to go more that route. Connyro and Lowangle offer some sound advice.

[Stephen]

I don't have experience with your use-case (but have read your stuff, including excellent Sawsalway), and do have the Objectives in 178 (6'3 / 195 w/ day pack). Ski with ALFA Guard Leathers. Intermediate skier.
I think I have fairly good control of the Objective with this setup and really like it.
Seems like plastic boots would rock.

BUT, a 45 to 70# pack is a lot to control on the down -- I think I would struggle with the above setup.

250# is a lot of weight to put on a 164 ski that is rated / suggested to 140# skier weight.
Of course it will slide on snow, but seems like it would be giving up a lot of edge hold on descents.
If the snow crust has softened, or there are a few inches on a firm base, could work ok.

Seems like you are more looking for utility, not efficiency, so maybe the 164 would be acceptable.
.

[bornaginalpiner]

My wife greatly prefers her vectors over the V6 for touring. I don't think you can do better than an ultra vector or objective.

One of the many things I learned from Al is that a wider ski under foot is much better for touring in fresh snow or even crust since you tour closer to the surface. Just might be something to consider on the flip side of a narrower waist. Very glad I got the UltraVectorBC. They are available in a 171cm length. I have the 177s, average ability and love them on the down as much as touring. FYI, I do not tour the long distances you do.

[lowangle al]

My wife greatly prefers her vectors over the V6 for touring. I don't think you can do better than an ultra vector or objective.

One of the many things I learned from Al is that a wider ski under foot is much better for touring in fresh snow or even crust since you tour closer to the surface. Just might be something to consider on the flip side of a narrower waist. Very glad I got the UltraVectorBC. They are available in a 171cm length. I have the 177s, average ability and love them on the down as much as touring. FYI, I do not tour the long distances you do.

I find the wider voile scaled skis very efficient for K&G and never find myself wishing I had a more narrow ski on, even for more xc oriented tours.

[faizanmazhar00]

A few times a winter I go explore some new place via skis, and the route is chosen so that I can at least partially float back out in a packraft.

I do several day trips like this, and sometimes multi-day or even multi-week.  

Example day trip: https://lacemine29.blogspot.com/2021/03 ... -ides.html

Multi-week: https://mikesee.exposure.co/the-sawsalway

These trips are at minimum quite novel and -- if the route is chosen wisely -- they can be wildly satisfying.

I always take skins but I insist that the skis have scales.

Minimum ski length is 162.  Max is 168.

Ideal underfoot width is right around 80.  

Mostly I'm interested in covering ground, but these tours are often in the mountains, and if I spend a few hours gaining a pass, being able to make turns down the other side is nice.  

I'll run a TTS binding with F1's or F3's, depending.

I'm an intermediate skier -- I don't want a glorified XC ski to have to fight on the way down.  Ease of making nice short to medium radius turns is important.

I'm 185# and my pack with food, overnight gear, boat/paddle/PFD, etc... will be at least 45# and sometimes pushing 70#.  Again -- no glorified XC weenie skis!

So, after digesting all of that ^, what would *you* get?

Thus far I've used G3 Findr's (177), Altai Kom's (174), and Voile Objectives (178).  But I listened to too many XC-biased folks and bought all of 'em too long and struggled controlling them in tight spots or funky snow.  

This year I bought some Voile V6 BC's in 163 and they are *excellent* when the snow is soft.  Now I want something of a similar length but much narrower for firmer snow.

I'm leaning toward the Objectives in 163, but wonder if there's something else out there worth considering.  Is there?

Any info appreciated.

Good

[captainswallowtail]

Why set on scales?

Kicker skins give the same benefits and are way faster on the down and gliding.

BD Helio 76's or 88's?
The Objectives are nice too.