Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 1562 Location: Alden, NY
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:07 pm Post subject:
bbense wrote:
tele.skier wrote:
The short answer may be "switchback" because MOST people will only have one binding permanantly mounted on their ski.... (excluding the quiverkiller/BF guys)
The adjustment on this set up could be choice of boot. On low angle trails and meadows you could ski leather boots and get real kick and glide.
K'n'G with 96mm wide early tip rise skis? Even shuffle and hope doesn't seem in the cards to me.
Both these skis have way to much sidecut to track well enough for k'n'g.
Just 10 short years ago they would have been among the fattest powder skis you could buy.
Buy them and use them for what they were meant to do, make turns. Put exactly the same binding on them you'd put any ski of that width and weight. There are so many good choices out there if you want a ski more on the k'n'g side of things, most of them much cheaper than these skis.
- Booker C. Bense
I don't think anyone here is asserting that the BC125 or Vectors Or even the guides kick and glide well but they do glide way better than any skins or even kicker skins I've ever been on. Skins basically do not glide... These skis definitely cover flat and rolling terrain better and faster than a regular ski with skins and I think that's the point of considering your binding choices differently for a ski like this. _________________ Freelance Binding R&D
I run g3 targas on my Guides and think they are pretty well matched. I would certainly opt for either 3 pin's with attachable cables or plain cable bindings. The generation of targas I use have the cam shaped heel lever that gives a quasi-walk-mode. I find it relieves just enough tension to make them climb and skate well. I think it would be a mismatch to put 4 lb. bindings on either of those skis or ski them with heavy boots. Defeats the whole point imo.
Joined: 17 Jan 2005 Posts: 10640 Location: Parker, CO and proud of it!
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:26 pm Post subject:
woodi7259 wrote:
bbense wrote:
tele.skier wrote:
The short answer may be "switchback" because MOST people will only have one binding permanantly mounted on their ski.... (excluding the quiverkiller/BF guys)
The adjustment on this set up could be choice of boot. On low angle trails and meadows you could ski leather boots and get real kick and glide.
K'n'G with 96mm wide early tip rise skis? Even shuffle and hope doesn't seem in the cards to me.
Both these skis have way to much sidecut to track well enough for k'n'g.
Just 10 short years ago they would have been among the fattest powder skis you could buy.
Buy them and use them for what they were meant to do, make turns. Put exactly the same binding on them you'd put any ski of that width and weight. There are so many good choices out there if you want a ski more on the k'n'g side of things, most of them much cheaper than these skis.
- Booker C. Bense
I don't think anyone here is asserting that the BC125 or Vectors Or even the guides kick and glide well but they do glide way better than any skins or even kicker skins I've ever been on. Skins basically do not glide... These skis definitely cover flat and rolling terrain better and faster than a regular ski with skins and I think that's the point of considering your binding choices differently for a ski like this.
I think booker's point is revealed in the question, "what is different between the Vector BC and traditional Vector?"
Other than the patterned base, AFAICT, nothing. In which case, does the original Vector strike you as a K&G type of ski? Does it strike you as a leather & pins type of ski?
5-7 years ago I would have asked a similar question about a ski like the Vector and the group would have said I would need T-1/T-Race/Ener-Gs and HHs to drive a fatty like that. Now, all of the sudden, a 94 waisted ski is a rolling, K&G ski just because it has a pattern?
I'm with Booker...don't think of this ski as being geared towards different terrain...think of it as being armed with weaponry for diverse terrain. It's light, which is why I think it pairs well with a lighter setup like Switchbacks and Syner-Gs or T-2s. For pins and Excursions I want a ski that won't quickly make me feel like I'm riding thunder...something softer, narrower and lighter yet like the Guides or Boundless.
Anyhoo, that's my $0.02... _________________ "To me Plastic boots are kind of like a condom on the experience." -light skier-
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." -Dr. Johnson-
I had switchbacks on my Guides and was a great set up. I started with Excursions and switched to T2s...even better and light enough for me.
My Vector BCs just got an NTN 2nd ski kit after agonizing about TTS. I had previously vacated all duckbill bindings and boots so they were going to be used with NTN boots regardless. The price and limited availability(still questions unanswered) of the TTS coupled with the extra NTN 2nd ski kit in by parts box sealed the deal.
My intention is to use these for touring...not XCD. I have full skins for real climbing and hope the waxless kicks butt on low angle stuff.
Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 15772 Location: Ponderosa
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:34 pm Post subject:
Fat skis are for fat people. Fat people cannot bend down well, so you need a step in binding, like the lite dog.
That's what I put on my BC-125's anyway. I'm waiting for the rocks to get covered before I take them out.
A fat ski with 3-pins and leathers will, in fact, turn a lot easier, especially on powder, than a narrower ski with 3-pins. You may not be able to ski the steep and deep terrain with 3-pins, but that's why you need more practice. Course, then you won't need the fatties. It's a real conundrum.
_________________ Other vegetables have a hard time competing with potatoes.
Joined: 12 Jun 2006 Posts: 2988 Location: the cascade foothills
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:41 pm Post subject:
woodi7259 wrote:
I don't think anyone here is asserting that the BC125 or Vectors Or even the guides kick and glide well but they do glide way better than any skins or even kicker skins I've ever been on. Skins basically do not glide... These skis definitely cover flat and rolling terrain better and faster than a regular ski with skins and I think that's the point of considering your binding choices differently for a ski like this.
Thanks woodi,... because I don't own either guides or BC125's, and my next question would be,.. "then, why would anyone buy pattern base if they didn't glide???"
Of course I didn't think they would glide like a true skinny cross country cambered ski, but I did assume they had some camber to them for a certain amount of glide... Skins don't glide IMO. That ski desing would make no sense to me if they didn't have some glide characteristics..... _________________ the fall line is your friend.... resistance is futile
I don't think anyone here is asserting that the BC125 or Vectors Or even the guides kick and glide well but they do glide way better than any skins or even kicker skins I've ever been on. Skins basically do not glide... These skis definitely cover flat and rolling terrain better and faster than a regular ski with skins and I think that's the point of considering your binding choices differently for a ski like this.
Woodi, I see you are in the 'Daks, where it is often cold, just like in VT or NH.
Have you ever tried kick wax?
The issue isn't no-wax vs skins or kicker skins. A few of us are just raising a reminder that the range of choices is bigger than that.
Booker almost entirely nailed it when he said
Quote:
Buy them and use them for what they were meant to do, make turns. Put exactly the same binding on them you'd put any ski of that width and weight.
I would just end that last sentence with ", regardless of what kind of base it has."
Want to go places on a ski that wide where skins or kicker skins are overkill, then kick wax is a viable option. And if you're dealing with reasonably cold consistent snow, it's generally a better option.
Note, DougG lives in the PNW and for him, no-wax might more sense. But I agree with Booker and CH that the binding choice on such skis is determined by the boot choice and the ski width/stiffness, not the base type. _________________ Dave "Pinnah" Mann
========================
"It is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts without the proper equipment."
Aristotle, <<Politics>>, 1323a-b, trans Jowett
Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 1562 Location: Alden, NY
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:04 pm Post subject:
Pinnah wrote:
Booker almost entirely nailed it when he said
Quote:
Buy them and use them for what they were meant to do, make turns. Put exactly the same binding on them you'd put any ski of that width and weight.
I would just end that last sentence with ", regardless of what kind of base it has."
Why buy the waxless version of the ski if it's only about the down anyways... obviously if you are buying the waxless version of the ski you are envisioning some uses other than purely going downhill. So putting some thought into what bindings would be best for the climbing and striding portions of the tour seems like a really good idea to me.
And as to the wax part... I've dabbled in it... I keep meaning to mess with it again but had some terrible experiences with skis icing up in the adirondacks that turned me away from it for awhile. If wax is your thing go for it but there is a reason these waxless skis are becoming popular. It's just so much easier for people who aren't well versed in the art of waxing to put on their skis and go and get close to the same performance they could get screwing around with wax.
People like strait forward simplicity that just works. _________________ Freelance Binding R&D
Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 2274 Location: Washoe Valley, Nevada
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:28 pm Post subject:
Quadzilla wrote:
Personally skiing with guys who have the Rossi's, these skis are not suited if you goal is K&G or using leather boots for anything as they have no camber, big and heavy. So, IMO, just slogging along on a typical flat trail they are similar to slogging along with a trad ski/skins of similar size and take alot of energy if you are working them hard enough to get any decent straight glide. Can't speak to what the Voiles will do, I would guess that they will be strong on powder due to rocker, I think the Rossis will be strong on firm as they have a lot of edge to engage. IMO
I think I'll go back and stand by this statement that bottomline on this type of ski it is pretty weak in the glide department, similar to a ski with skins on slogging along on wild BC type snow and trails that haven't been smoothed out by dozens of skiers packing it down. And to get it gliding on less than nice packed trails it takes a fair amount of effort. Witnessed this the past few days putting in mileage on moderate terrain with others. The advantage of this ski is that on rolling terrain they will climb decently and ski the backside of the rolls without any transitions. Plus have the chops to ski serious terrain as well. _________________ Just Say No To Groomed Snow
Joined: 17 Jan 2005 Posts: 10640 Location: Parker, CO and proud of it!
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:34 pm Post subject:
woodi,
There was recently a thread about these skis by a skier in CO. In it some of us already went over this....
Basically, many of us already wax our skis regardless of size. My 101 waisted, bc oriented tele skis will be getting a service of Swix Green this weekend. Why? Because I find mysef in situations in the bc, traversing or trying to stride over a knoll or what have you, where kick wax is a MAJOR boon.
I see a ski like the Vector BC as being designed more for that than anything. Maybe some rolling egresses orvery flatt-ish approaches. Get much angle at all, and even the best pattern sucks in dry snow. _________________ "To me Plastic boots are kind of like a condom on the experience." -light skier-
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." -Dr. Johnson-
And as to the wax part... I've dabbled in it... I keep meaning to mess with it again but had some terrible experiences with skis icing up in the adirondacks that turned me away from it for awhile. If wax is your thing go for it but there is a reason these waxless skis are becoming popular. It's just so much easier for people who aren't well versed in the art of waxing to put on their skis and go and get close to the same performance they could get screwing around with wax.
People like strait forward simplicity that just works.
Ok... I'm going to sound the like the judgmental jerk that I am and try hard not be. It's not my intention but I know it's just going to sound awful...
When we're talking about backcountry skiing, imo, dabbling with wax almost ranks up there with dabbling with fire starting, first aid, stove lighting, map & compass and countless other skills needed for safe backcountry travel. If somebody tells me that they don't haven't learned how to kick wax a ski, I immediately question if they have learned enough of the other backcountry skiing skills that the party might need to rely on for a safe exit.
I would suggest that the reason that no-wax skis sell so well in the US is that the vast majority of "backcountry" skiers are lift served skiers who've wandered too far from lifts without learning adequate backcountry travel techniques. Same basic thing is playing itself out in the "talk to me about daypacks" thread.
Regarding ice-up, in the northeast, I consider no-wax skis to be just as much (or more) of a threat for ice up as waxed skis. If you encounter a wet spot (brook crossing, swampy spots, near ponds) and then return to dry snow, no-patterns can turn into snow encrusted ice magnets. The issue is worn scales that have micro burrs on them. They hold water and *BAM* ice up. With a waxed ski, you can easily scrape the wax off (with the other ski) and rewax if you need to. With the no wax skis, you need to ski the ice off, which may or may not work and if it doesn't, you have crappy snowshoes.
Waxing isn't hard. It doesn't muck up skins. It's not just for racers. I wouldn't suggest it for Doug, because I think it might not work reliably where he lives. But in the northeast, imo its a no-brainer. OK, it's a little brainer. A lot less brainer than magnetic declination. _________________ Dave "Pinnah" Mann
========================
"It is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts without the proper equipment."
Aristotle, <<Politics>>, 1323a-b, trans Jowett
Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 1562 Location: Alden, NY
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:57 pm Post subject:
Pinnah wrote:
woodi7259 wrote:
And as to the wax part... I've dabbled in it... I keep meaning to mess with it again but had some terrible experiences with skis icing up in the adirondacks that turned me away from it for awhile. If wax is your thing go for it but there is a reason these waxless skis are becoming popular. It's just so much easier for people who aren't well versed in the art of waxing to put on their skis and go and get close to the same performance they could get screwing around with wax.
People like strait forward simplicity that just works.
Ok... I'm going to sound the like the judgmental jerk that I am and try hard not be. It's not my intention but I know it's just going to sound awful...
When we're talking about backcountry skiing, imo, dabbling with wax almost ranks up there with dabbling with fire starting, first aid, stove lighting, map & compass and countless other skills needed for safe backcountry travel. If somebody tells me that they don't haven't learned how to kick wax a ski, I immediately question if they have learned enough of the other backcountry skiing skills that the party might need to rely on for a safe exit.
I would suggest that the reason that no-wax skis sell so well in the US is that the vast majority of "backcountry" skiers are lift served skiers who've wandered too far from lifts without learning adequate backcountry travel techniques. Same basic thing is playing itself out in the "talk to me about daypacks" thread.
Regarding ice-up, in the northeast, I consider no-wax skis to be just as much (or more) of a threat for ice up as waxed skis. If you encounter a wet spot (brook crossing, swampy spots, near ponds) and then return to dry snow, no-patterns can turn into snow encrusted ice magnets. The issue is worn scales that have micro burrs on them. They hold water and *BAM* ice up. With a waxed ski, you can easily scrape the wax off (with the other ski) and rewax if you need to. With the no wax skis, you need to ski the ice off, which may or may not work and if it doesn't, you have crappy snowshoes.
Waxing isn't hard. It doesn't muck up skins. It's not just for racers. I wouldn't suggest it for Doug, because I think it might not work reliably where he lives. But in the northeast, imo its a no-brainer. OK, it's a little brainer. A lot less brainer than magnetic declination.
I think you're making a pretty big jump there... Not knowing about kick wax is only an issue if you plan on using kick wax. Many BC skiers (especially ones who weren't BC skiing in the 80's) use skins for the up and glide wax on the down. No need to know anything about kick wax. I cannot fathom how not knowing how to kick wax is going to end up in a life or death situation like not knowing first aid or fire starting...but hey ymmv
So here's my story... I know I'm an idiot, I could've died in a tragic wax accident. You gotta start somewhere though right? I went on a tour put some wax on that was supposed to be for the temps that day. It got warm. Skis iced up I scraped and scraped with my ski edges and couldn't get the nasty shit off. We had skins and bc knowledge and still enjoyed the day but man was that shit a buzz kill. We were in no way endangered by our limited knowledge of kick wax just pissed off at the stuff. Put a bad taste in my mouth about the stuff. _________________ Freelance Binding R&D
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All of the comments above are owned by the
poster, telemarktips.com is not responsible in any way for the
content. The views expressed by the posters are not necessarily
those of Tt.com, its management or owners. Ski safe, be happy,
rip it up, smile on your brother and sister!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
