Karhu xcd gt full metal edge xc skis 62 54 59

[DPO777]

I wanted to write a review of this ski, but noticed there is this thread already. So I put this here for clarity.

I bought these skis second-hand from a local store around 2012. Back then, they still looked unused, but old for visual style (still nice visuals!). Does anybody know, from which era ski is?


karhu xcd gt 1.jpg


With 210 cm and a history behind them, people would call these skis “one and a half camber”. Both when it is me (80 kg) or my spouse (60 kg) standing on the skis, they go flat in “paper test”. That means they are thus all too soft for XC skis. Someone mentioned 1980’s XCD GT:s had this problem. Is this an old model, which has gone flat after 25-30 ski days? Or do newer versions have same problem, too.

The older Rottefella NNN bindings feel sturdy with metal parts. Does anybody know, when this model of NNN BC was manufactured? I wonder whether these skis have had 3-pin before. Is this NNN BC model heavier in weight than the current plastic version? (At least it looks heavier)I am thinking of moving the bindings to another ski because they have not been skied that much and look sturdy.


karhu xcd gt 7.jpg


I have skied two one-week trips with a pulk in fells with these skis, plus some day trips in forests near city with the skis. Also a one-night trip through swamps and forests nearby. Also one “topptur” with a 300 m rise to a fell. I have always skied with skins because I did not know if skins like wax.

With these skis, I have done mostly touring on hard snow or ice. That has been spring in the fells, or icy weather in Southern Finland. I would like to spare my poor skins from full time scrubbing. That happens with full length Colltext of course all the time, but I have used Intelligrip kicker skins, too.

The XCD GT’s are real wax / skin killers. You can hear the skins scrubbing during glide in XC, even with a 210 cm long model. The scrub is actually not that bad with a pulk because speeds are 2-4 km / h. But when you go any faster, 8 km / h without package, the skins slowing down and making noise is disturbing.


karhu xcd gt 2.jpg


For downhill, and with my zero telemark skills, metal edges have been the most important part of this type of the ski for me. On icy fell slopes, the wildest I have been able to go has been some wedge turns with the XCD GT’s. On the other hand, they have taken me safely down from an icy mountain in the tundra.

These skis have been good on central park and recreational area tracks. Where I live, temperature is often around 0’ C, and tracks icy. Where I live, we have mainly groomed tracks on all routes where people hike and bike, when there is no snow. When the ski routes are maintained, it is illegal to walk or bike there / destroy tracks (yes ski tracks are that “holy” in Finland!). For example, I ran today a farewell run with the XCD GT’s. I was planning to run a somewhat icy shorter track, but ended up on a closed route, which had lots of icy hills. Slopes had mirror ice and frozen snow alternating. I was happy with the metal edges. People do not use metal edge skis that much here because we do not have any mountains. I guess they become more popular because many people are too afraid of hills to go skiing, when weather gets icy.


karhu xcd gt 5.jpg


For next steps, I am planning to get similar, but stiffer skis. I have thought of Åsnes models Gamme, Amundsen and Rago, Fischer E99 and BCX 99. Also Madhus BC55 should be quite stiff and good, actually. I have ordered second-hand pairs of Åsnes Rago / Amundsen (205 cm) and Åsnes Gamme (200 cm “green man”). Nice to see how they feel after the XCD GT's.

I have a bit more info on those older BC bindings and have posted a pic of your older Karhu XCD GT rad skis there as reference to the binding on narrower waist skis

http://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.p ... 4b3#p68259

[Chisana]

I have a set of karhu xcd gt skis I bought in the 80's. Mine are waxables, probably 1 1/2 camber when new, but not much camber left. These skis, with their age, foam core and loss of camber are only good for one thing- skiing!!
I have tended to use them a little less this winter because I bought an old set of e99s with even less camber and a waxless base that are too short for me that I love!
It's all just sliding on snow and having fun. You don't have to have the latest asnes production with great graphics to slide on snow.
Now I am not a telemarker. Most of my a touring is either bushwacking or on previously skied or snowshoed or even snowmobile trails. The xcd and e99s are great for that.
I sometimes ski groomed trails with classic tracks set on my fischer race skis and it is then when I feel the camber is important.
Keep in mind, this 2cents worth comes from just a recreational skier, but I have been having fun on skis for close to 50 years.

[DPO777]

I have a set of karhu xcd gt skis I bought in the 80's. Mine are waxables, probably 1 1/2 camber when new, but not much camber left. These skis, with their age, foam core and loss of camber are only good for one thing- skiing!!
I have tended to use them a little less this winter because I bought an old set of e99s with even less camber and a waxless base that are too short for me that I love!
It's all just sliding on snow and having fun. You don't have to have the latest asnes production with great graphics to slide on snow.
Now I am not a telemarker. Most of my a touring is either bushwacking or on previously skied or snowshoed or even snowmobile trails. The xcd and e99s are great for that.
I sometimes ski groomed trails with classic tracks set on my fischer race skis and it is then when I feel the camber is important.
Keep in mind, this 2cents worth comes from just a recreational skier, but I have been having fun on skis for close to 50 years.

I can relate to you on most of your comments and the most valid is just getting out there and having fun.

Your older Karhu XCD GTs waxables must be very similar to tkarhu's XCD GTs. And it appears that more than one owner of the first generation foam cores have suffered camber loss to a noticeable extent. My 90s GTs as I mentioned haven't seem to fallen into that fate. Whether blocking the crap out of them during the off season has made a difference I don't know. Personally when I take them on the semi groomed trails they tend to have too much camber and need to crunch the scales a bit to get traction on slippery stuff. Putting on a little red glide wax just under the foot seems to rescue the run most times. Mine are 205cm long and likely part of the problem as being 6' tall I am only 150 lbs. Also the scales are worn down and haze cracking.

I am curious what is the length of your old GTs, your weight, your height and your preferred ski length for you ski style?

It seems to me back in the day late 70s 80s when I was buying the older skinnies the longer skis seemed to be the trend but there was more accounting for a pack weight.

They were my first new ski purchase (non hand-me downs) was in the 70s. I still have those skis and ski on them. Camber is still good, base is getting worn and not a very wax holding plastic and a pretty large wax pocket. They are 210cm and probable way long for me. Those skis started with cable bindings and hiking boots and currently have Salomon XADV bindings on them to make use of some NOS boots I have. I will ride those into the sunset as they even have a piece of my nannies cherry tree under the binding. Think I added that onto them to cover old screw holes. They are no-name brand right now as I sanded of all labels during refinishing. They were bought, during a 70s Alberta snowmageddon, along with new hiking boots and poles and the hiking boots were also used for hiking/jobsites in Alberta.

old 70s cherry tops

old 70s cherry tops

The Karhu XCD GTs

Yes I agree you don't need fancy graphics and the latest tech to slide on snow. The E99s and the Asnes Gamme 54s I got at an incredible price of $200 CAD for the E99s and just under $300 CAD for the Gammes. Yes still a lot of money but with my wife just coming into the sport a few years back I am slow but sure updating some of the old leathers and skis. I have put Voile 3-pin on the XCDs so I still ride those with the Alico leathers. Yes I will have to look at Gammes mug and maybe what you pay for those Asnes skis regular price you should be able to send them your own mug shot (-: The graphics on my 90s XCD GTs is pretty rad but wasn't any factor when I bought the skis.

When I bought them they asked me what kind of skiing I did mostly and I told them that I skied whatever trails,hills or farm fields that weren't too far from my back door or more than a few hours away. Mentioned give me something that can take some ice and crap and the tips won't break jumping off a few snowdrifts. They handed me the GTs whether that was the best choice in the shop is a moot point now but I have broke them yet.

I just picked up some brand new Rossi X10s for the both of us, at spring blow out prices, so my wife doesn't loose interest. Those new skis don't have bindings on them as I am just moving out of 75mm stuff and going to put NNN-BCs on most of the skis now.

There is quite a following for those older e99s and I would say your waxless base is even a bit more hard to find than the waxables. If your e99s have less camber they could be the Tours or maybe just age related. A ski friend of mine has the older waxable e99 tours and he luvs those skis even though they can get a bit fussy on the waxing in around the melting point on wet snow. Believe they are 200cm which is in theory too long for him. Those new e99s in my pictures have a wicked camber in them and at 195cm I will be very interested to let my friend ride them and see how they compare to his older e99 tours if he doesn't end up springing up and getting stuck in a tree (-:

Big Tip rise on the old Cherries

Having some fun slippin and a slidin...

E99 tours

Outback

Cherries breaking easy trail, Salomon XADV boots & bindings

Karhu XCDs enjoying trail pampering and some windy open fields, Alico leathers/cable bindings

Bit disappointing snow this year in our area. Last year we were going local right up to April fools day but you have to take what your given and get out there and have fun as you said.

Due to the short season this year I am developing a disposable environmentally friendly wax-less snow-less ski to extend the season, just experimenting on how many miles/kms per run I can get before then need replacing. Not getting too far so far.

Waxless Snowless Ski Testing

[Chisana]

Do,
My karhus have the same topsheet graphics as yours. But waxable so non kinetic on the bases. I have 2 sets. The 2st set I had were 210, but I unfortunately got them to hot with the wax iron and bubbled the base. Picked up a used set same generation for cheap that are 205. No noticeable difference to me in performance.
Bought the old waxless e99 at a sale. The bindings covered the dimensions. So when I changed bindings, I was disapointed to find they are only 195 and almost zero camber at that.
I am 6' 185 #, so these skis are certainly not what most would consider the right skis for me, but the first time I skied them I loved them. The waxless base and lack of camber allow them to climb like a goat. We have had lots of dead fall due to a beetlekill and high winds and the short length of the e99 make them great for bushwacking.
62 days on snow so far this season. I ski a lot on my old wood skis when it is powder. But in the spring like conditions we are experiencing here in s.c. Alaska right now, it is the xcd's or e99"s for me.

[DPO777]

Do,
My karhus have the same topsheet graphics as yours. But waxable so non kinetic on the bases. I have 2 sets. The 2st set I had were 210, but I unfortunately got them to hot with the wax iron and bubbled the base. Picked up a used set same generation for cheap that are 205. No noticeable difference to me in performance.
Bought the old waxless e99 at a sale. The bindings covered the dimensions. So when I changed bindings, I was disapointed to find they are only 195 and almost zero camber at that.
I am 6' 185 #, so these skis are certainly not what most would consider the right skis for me, but the first time I skied them I loved them. The waxless base and lack of camber allow them to climb like a goat. We have had lots of dead fall due to a beetlekill and high winds and the short length of the e99 make them great for bushwacking.
62 days on snow so far this season. I ski a lot on my old wood skis when it is powder. But in the spring like conditions we are experiencing here in s.c. Alaska right now, it is the xcd's or e99"s for me.

Great to hear you are have hand some snow this year. Been pretty short here this year. We did get out every opportunity and the last snowfall of the year with trails still open and any snow cover left in the bush my wife and I just threw the skis in the car and hit the road up north (south compared to you) and skied multiple areas and stayed at various hotels in north towns. Was a blast while it lasted.

Yes at 185 the 195s and no camber would be too short for good glide but as you said great for those slippery days and getting through the bush on decent snow or if you were trying to pull a little sled. I wouldn't be surprised if the new 195 CM e99s with the Offtrack Crown scales that I picked up would be OK for you as the camber on them seems pretty wicked. I can't flatten them out with both hands squeezing the second camber. My friend even thought wow on the camber and looking forward to have him try them next season as the comparison to his old waxables.

My friend's e99s in the earlier post were 200CM I think and he is 175. He likes that length but when things get slippery around freezing they are slippy a bit on the kick upward and hard to find the right wax combo but he is a long time old school skier and manages to adjust his kick (hop) to lessen the slip. The skis I was on that day were his Salomon XADV grip skis and were 180cm. They were light and soft flattening out easy. It was a fun ski for me as the my XCD GT 205s would have had some trouble that day and getting traction like that was an eye opener. Also it was a new experience for me with his NNN-BC boots as I have always been a 3-pinner and I'm just now changing over.

It seems in the old days all those xc skis were long stix and that's what the stores were pushing. I see quite a few 210,215 and 220cms in the thrift stores and think holy crap those are long. I have a pile of older skis kicking around ranging from 220cm and downward. The 220cm Karhu waxless generic XC skis are in good shape but think they would only be good on the flat groomed tracks as jumping jacks for my weight. The old woodies were a pain to maintain but if you got the wax just right they were pretty fast.

Older XC long stixs

You were lucky to find the old e99s out there as they are getting rare. I saw one set on ebay this winter in good shape and they were going for $210.

I see you still have spring ski snow your way. Lucky one. You should post some ski pics for our pleasure and torture

Ski on...

[Chisana]

DO-
Have tried to post photos of my recent tours. Skied a local seismograph trail which is mostly flat and usually has some Wildlife viewing. Can count on seeing lots of eagles and ravens, occasional moose, and recently caribou , coyote and ermine. Also enjoy seeing tracks and sign in the snow.
Usually ski this trail with my old woodies, but temps are warming. The snow is transitional, so used the e 99s which are my only waxless b/c skis.Even with their short length and soft camber, they skied beautifully.
Apparently, my internet skills are on par with my skiing skills, as I can't seem to post the photos. Not sure why, as I have posted photos on this site in the past.
Anyway, ski on!

[lowangle al]

Chisana, I'm not tech savvy at all but you may need to make their photo file smaller. When mine are too large I don't get the option to "place inline"

[Chisana]

Al,
Not sure how to make them smaller. No great loss, most of my photos don't belong on a telemark site- nothing like photos of arcs and lines that others post.

[lowangle al]

no turns or even hills require to post a pic. There’s something missing in this picture.

Chisana, from my iPhone after I choose my photo but before I press “add” on the bottom of the screen it says “show photo” and “options”. I press options and it gives me the option to change size. It defaults to large so I change it to medium and then it works. I’m still trying to figure out how to do it on my new laptop though.

[Lhartley]

Chisana, I'm not tech savvy at all but you may need to make their photo file smaller. When mine are too large I don't get the option to "place inline"

When that's happens I just do a very slight crop and it works after