Let's be in touch, I'm looking at next May/June as a possibility
Skiing Bigger Descents in the XCD Style
Re: Skiing Bigger Descents in the XCD Style
L
- peterindc
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:40 pm
- Location: Washington, D.C.
- Ski style: XCd, xcD, tele, alpine...it's all good
- Favorite Skis: Åsnes Ingstad BC 195cm WL, Åsnes Tindan 176cm, vintage Epoke 900 210cm wax
- Favorite boots: Alfa Guard Advance GTX, Scott Excursion, old leather beaters
- Occupation: PR for solar and wind power
- Contact:
Re: Skiing Bigger Descents in the XCD Style
I’d be up for trying that too, and so far have the Asnes Tindan 86 with Scott Excursions and Switchback X2s. Been looking at Xplore options on a separate thread. Put me on your list please!
Re: Skiing Bigger Descents in the XCD Style
@JackO, I'm curious why skiing in the XCD style requires a ski in the Asnes/Madshus/Fischer category, or 3 pins for that matter. If the objective is to do kick-and-glide, fast transitions, and telemark turns on the down, the Objective BC (which you have) does everything those skis from the other brands do, but is significantly better on more challenging downhill runs. If the Objective is too wide, go for the SR61 BC as @spopepro suggested.
The only reason to go with one of the traditional XCD brands over Voile is cost. There's nothing they do that Voile's light scaled skis can't. The only case where a lighter XC-oriented ski might be better is for long days on the flats, but then you're stuck with a ski you can't take on anything downhill that might approach being fun. On the other hand, Voile's skis are light years better than the others on the down, without penalties elsewhere. Same goes for TTS vs. 3-pins. And the cost differential there is almost nil if you already have TTS-compatible boots.
I got pairs of XCD skis from both Asnes and Atomic (re-branded Fischers) and tried for years to find a way to fit them into my quiver. After a few outings getting used to them, I reach for my Objective BC's every time I would have gone for the traditional XCD skis. If I had SR61 BC's, I'd reach for those on longer, flatter days. I would much rather (and very often do) a full day of kick and glide on Voile BC's with TTS than Asnes with 3 pins.
The only reason to go with one of the traditional XCD brands over Voile is cost. There's nothing they do that Voile's light scaled skis can't. The only case where a lighter XC-oriented ski might be better is for long days on the flats, but then you're stuck with a ski you can't take on anything downhill that might approach being fun. On the other hand, Voile's skis are light years better than the others on the down, without penalties elsewhere. Same goes for TTS vs. 3-pins. And the cost differential there is almost nil if you already have TTS-compatible boots.
I got pairs of XCD skis from both Asnes and Atomic (re-branded Fischers) and tried for years to find a way to fit them into my quiver. After a few outings getting used to them, I reach for my Objective BC's every time I would have gone for the traditional XCD skis. If I had SR61 BC's, I'd reach for those on longer, flatter days. I would much rather (and very often do) a full day of kick and glide on Voile BC's with TTS than Asnes with 3 pins.
Re: Skiing Bigger Descents in the XCD Style
Hi jtb - worthy questions indeed. I think the debate over the practicality of using legacy XCD gear when modern options abound is apt and useful.
The short answer is I will never fully replace my modern backcountry setups - Endeavors (I do not own Objectives) and Blizzard Zero G 95s with TTS (skied with F3s, in no small part because of your influence!). But I came to love the feeling and challenge of skiing on XCD style equipment. It's not about efficiency or a certain suite of objectives; for me it's pretty simply about the feeling and the challenge of the downhill skiing as an augmentation to my more standard, modern set of telemark skis and the approach that goes with them.
For the slightly longer version: I remember someone posted the 'Teleconcentrate' video on Backcountry Talk a while back – I was enchanted by the vibe of the video – mellow and nostalgic but aspirational. But mostly I was inspired by the skiing, especially at ~2:30; fairly steep, lots of jump turns, fun form. I put it in the back of my mind to try and ski like that one day, on gear not dissimilar to what they were using. To see if I could.
Luck would have it I got a job in downtown Steamboat a few years ago - just a five minute walk from Howelsen Hill - a good little local hill that has a few steep turns at the top. I got a season pass, and to make my lunch breaks more interesting - and with the Teleconcentrate skiing in mind - bought my XCD setup (with the thought of getting something tuned for descent, I suppose xcD is the proper distinction) - T4s, 3 Pin Cable bindings, Madshsus Panorama 68s.
I loved it. I loved finding the balance, I was drawn in by the pronounced challenge, and I became smitten by skiing on that gear on steeper terrain - the commitment on the lead change, the jump turns. I started taking the setup on the big resort in the spring, and after the season ended would billy goat up the face of Howelsen, fishscales coming in handy some, steepness requiring sidestepping a bit.
To answer your question that hints at the answer - XCD skiing certainly doesn't require legacy gear. And for essentially any day out TTS rigs offer what legacy XCD gear does - and infinitely far beyond. That platform is beautifully adept at so much. I love skiing TTS. I just want to ski some steeps in the wild on 3 pins with skinnier skis. Because of the challenge, because it's fun. And as an addition to what I am doing. I may go the same path as you and find these setups woefully tuned to strong turns, but I want to find out for myself.
The short answer is I will never fully replace my modern backcountry setups - Endeavors (I do not own Objectives) and Blizzard Zero G 95s with TTS (skied with F3s, in no small part because of your influence!). But I came to love the feeling and challenge of skiing on XCD style equipment. It's not about efficiency or a certain suite of objectives; for me it's pretty simply about the feeling and the challenge of the downhill skiing as an augmentation to my more standard, modern set of telemark skis and the approach that goes with them.
For the slightly longer version: I remember someone posted the 'Teleconcentrate' video on Backcountry Talk a while back – I was enchanted by the vibe of the video – mellow and nostalgic but aspirational. But mostly I was inspired by the skiing, especially at ~2:30; fairly steep, lots of jump turns, fun form. I put it in the back of my mind to try and ski like that one day, on gear not dissimilar to what they were using. To see if I could.
Luck would have it I got a job in downtown Steamboat a few years ago - just a five minute walk from Howelsen Hill - a good little local hill that has a few steep turns at the top. I got a season pass, and to make my lunch breaks more interesting - and with the Teleconcentrate skiing in mind - bought my XCD setup (with the thought of getting something tuned for descent, I suppose xcD is the proper distinction) - T4s, 3 Pin Cable bindings, Madshsus Panorama 68s.
I loved it. I loved finding the balance, I was drawn in by the pronounced challenge, and I became smitten by skiing on that gear on steeper terrain - the commitment on the lead change, the jump turns. I started taking the setup on the big resort in the spring, and after the season ended would billy goat up the face of Howelsen, fishscales coming in handy some, steepness requiring sidestepping a bit.
To answer your question that hints at the answer - XCD skiing certainly doesn't require legacy gear. And for essentially any day out TTS rigs offer what legacy XCD gear does - and infinitely far beyond. That platform is beautifully adept at so much. I love skiing TTS. I just want to ski some steeps in the wild on 3 pins with skinnier skis. Because of the challenge, because it's fun. And as an addition to what I am doing. I may go the same path as you and find these setups woefully tuned to strong turns, but I want to find out for myself.
Re: Skiing Bigger Descents in the XCD Style
Edit: you probably know this already given you're looking to upgrade your Madshus, but there's a difference between skinny and soft. I still pull out my oid Tuas once or twice a year. They're only 70mm underfoot at most, and light, but they're surprisingly stiff, especially compared to my floppy and dangerous Atomic Rainiers with similar dimensions. Those Tuas were great backcountry skis back in the day, and they can still descend anything you throw at them as long as you're willing to get creative with technique. Objectives carve and float just a little better and turn a little easier.
Kind of makes me want to try a pair of SR61 BC's...
- randoskier
- Posts: 1080
- Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:08 am
- Location: Yank in Italy
- Ski style: awkward
- Favorite Skis: snow skis
- Favorite boots: go-go
- Occupation: International Pop Sensation
Re: Skiing Bigger Descents in the XCD Style
The Fischer Excursion 88, if you don't mind scales.JackO wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 11:36 pmHi all -
I've long (well, the last decade) skied mostly in the heavy/aggressive downhill telemark manner - resort/resort touring/ backcountry. Which I love.
But I've lately become enchanted with skiing in the cross-country downhill style, or at least making descents on that gear (with plastic boots). My current setup in this vein: Madshus Panorama 68s mounted with Voile 3-Pin Cable bindings, using T4s for boots. I love the freedom of movement and especially the excitement descending on such a neutral setup.
I'm curious about chasing that feeling all the more on steeper descents, but in forgiving conditions. Like a corn harvest on the Southwest Chutes of Mount Adams, or the Silver Couloir outside of Silverthorne, Colorado. I understand it's not the best or most responsive equipment for these types of objectives, and I could be in for abject suffering if the conditions don't align. But I've had the pleasure of skiing steeps on my current setup, and I'm curious about taking it a little bit further.
I'm wondering what other skis might be out there that could be a bit stouter but still have similar specs (~70mm underfoot, camber-and-a-half or so, waxless preferred but not a must). There seems to be some serious love for the Asnes Rabb 68 - has anyone been on that ski of late? It looks fun.
I'd also love to hear more about folks making these sorts of descents on this kind of equipment - either lately or in the past. I presume there were more than a few doing so in the days before and right after the Terminator revolution, and that there may be a few left to this day.
I feel like descending in the XCD style lays bare the telemark experience, and requires a resolve in technique and finesse that the new guard in gear - however awesome it is - eschews in favor of efficiency. Every so often, I'd like to engage in that alternative.
Thanks
-J
Re: Skiing Bigger Descents in the XCD Style
I wish Voile made a slightly different ski from their lineup that is more XCD. In between an Endeavor and Sbound 98 as far as dimensions go. Float decent on the powder and be an efficient kick and glide ski for the flats. Something similar to the Endeavor but not as much rocker and a bit narrower. Maybe someday.
- Woodserson
- Posts: 2995
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:25 am
- Location: New Hampshire
- Ski style: Bumps, trees, steeps and long woodsy XC tours
- Occupation: Confused Turn Farmer
Re: Skiing Bigger Descents in the XCD Style
Agreed! And longer than a 178cmvoilenerd wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 8:07 amI wish Voile made a slightly different ski from their lineup that is more XCD. In between an Endeavor and Sbound 98 as far as dimensions go. Float decent on the powder and be an efficient kick and glide ski for the flats. Something similar to the Endeavor but not as much rocker and a bit narrower. Maybe someday.
Re: Skiing Bigger Descents in the XCD Style
Woodserson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 9:00 amAgreed! And longer than a 178cmvoilenerd wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 8:07 amI wish Voile made a slightly different ski from their lineup that is more XCD. In between an Endeavor and Sbound 98 as far as dimensions go. Float decent on the powder and be an efficient kick and glide ski for the flats. Something similar to the Endeavor but not as much rocker and a bit narrower. Maybe someday.
Voile is making a longer Endeavor 184 or so for upcoming season when I chatted with them!
- Woodserson
- Posts: 2995
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:25 am
- Location: New Hampshire
- Ski style: Bumps, trees, steeps and long woodsy XC tours
- Occupation: Confused Turn Farmer
Re: Skiing Bigger Descents in the XCD Style
AMAZING! Thanks for letting me know! I've been sending them emails for years asking for a longer Objective/Endeavor and they were always-- there's no market for it, etc etcvoilenerd wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 7:42 amWoodserson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 9:00 amAgreed! And longer than a 178cmvoilenerd wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 8:07 amI wish Voile made a slightly different ski from their lineup that is more XCD. In between an Endeavor and Sbound 98 as far as dimensions go. Float decent on the powder and be an efficient kick and glide ski for the flats. Something similar to the Endeavor but not as much rocker and a bit narrower. Maybe someday.
Voile is making a longer Endeavor 184 or so for upcoming season when I chatted with them!
Can't wait!