Size and Ski Question

[ianjt]

Greetings. I have been sleuthing through these forums for the past week gathering advice on my first upcoming “backcountry nordic” purchase. lots of good information here. I was hoping for specific advice regarding my purchase.

Background:

I am 6’ 4” and weigh 185. I have 48-49 feet, depending on the brand. I am a firefighter in Idaho during the summer, and I have been looking into nordic bc skiing to scratch my outdoorsy itch during the winter. I don’t want any crazy steep descents, but I’d like to tour around off trail in central Idaho. I’m interested in fun descents, but nothing like alpine touring. I plan to do maybe some groomed trails/logging roads, but mostly out the back door in powder.

I am pretty settled on Fischer BCX 6 boots, but I will order Alpina Alaska’s in hopes that I might fit in them. I suspect that I won’t, from what I’ve read.

I like NNNBC bindings, but I wonder if the 3 pin optional cable provides downhill control that would be nice. I’ve seen varying opinions on this.

I cannot decide on skis. I have been looking at: Rossignol BC 90, Fischer S-Bound 98, Excursion 88, and Madshus Epoch. I originally settled on the Epochs, but then read that they might not be appropriate for someone in my size range. I like the S Bounds, but they do not receive good reviews in hardback/groomed situations. The Excursions seem to lean more toward groomed trails and less downhill performance. I can find very little about the Rossignols.

Considering my weight, and what I am after in terms of the experience, what suggestions would you all have?

[bgregoire]

Hi. Figure out if you want to place greater emphasis on downhill control or speed and directionality on the flats. That should help you decide between the Fischer’s s98 or the 88 In sufficiently long lengths.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ianjt]

Thanks for the reply. For now, I think control in the flats with some dh capability is important. Perhaps in time I will get a more dh centric setup.

[bgregoire]

Ian, don't get me wrong, these are both compromise skis, the S98 is not a pure downhill ski. If you are mostly hunting for short dh laps the S98 is very appropriate ans a xcd ski. The Excusion is straighter and longer so provides an improved experience on the flats. There are better flat-oriented skis out there too...its a compromise.

[Nitram Tocrut]

Greetings. I have been sleuthing through these forums for the past week gathering advice on my first upcoming “backcountry nordic” purchase. lots of good information here. I was hoping for specific advice regarding my purchase.

Background:

I am 6’ 4” and weigh 185. I have 48-49 feet, depending on the brand. I am a firefighter in Idaho during the summer, and I have been looking into nordic bc skiing to scratch my outdoorsy itch during the winter. I don’t want any crazy steep descents, but I’d like to tour around off trail in central Idaho. I’m interested in fun descents, but nothing like alpine touring. I plan to do maybe some groomed trails/logging roads, but mostly out the back door in powder.

I am pretty settled on Fischer BCX 6 boots, but I will order Alpina Alaska’s in hopes that I might fit in them. I suspect that I won’t, from what I’ve read.

I like NNNBC bindings, but I wonder if the 3 pin optional cable provides downhill control that would be nice. I’ve seen varying opinions on this.

I cannot decide on skis. I have been looking at: Rossignol BC 90, Fischer S-Bound 98, Excursion 88, and Madshus Epoch. I originally settled on the Epochs, but then read that they might not be appropriate for someone in my size range. I like the S Bounds, but they do not receive good reviews in hardback/groomed situations. The Excursions seem to lean more toward groomed trails and less downhill performance. I can find very little about the Rossignols.

Considering my weight, and what I am after in terms of the experience, what suggestions would you all have?

Considering your size I would say that most of those skis would be pretty short for the flats. From what I know, only the Excursion are available in lengft longer than 189cm. The Excursions are available in 199 and as far as I know the Excursions don’t fit in groomed trails. Have you considered the Fischer E99as well? You can’t go wrong with those are they are available up to 205cm, as far Asselin I know but maybe longer, but they are not as wide as the skis you mentioned but they fit in groomed trails. In the range of skis you mentioned the Asnes Ingstad available up to 205 cm and very capable dh would be a really good option. I personnally own both the E99 and 205 Ingstad and I love them both but I’d I had one to choose I would pick the Ingstad as they float better in deep snow and also they are easier to turn for me.

[jalp]

Greetings. I have been sleuthing through these forums for the past week gathering advice on my first upcoming “backcountry nordic” purchase. lots of good information here. I was hoping for specific advice regarding my purchase.

Hi, you mentioned central Idaho, are you close to McCall? Not sure if these would fit your needs but the McCall Sports Exchange has a pair of brand new Karhu 10th Mountain 195cm. They are mounted with 3 pin Super Telemark Bindings. I would have picked them up myself but I'm covered for that class of ski. They are asking 150.00. IMO this would be a killer deal if they would suit your needs. Sorry but I've never skied this model. Perhaps some other forum members could comment on these.

[ianjt]

Jalp, thanks for the heads up! I am near McCall. From what I gather, the 10th Mountains are essentially Epochs, which brings me back to size/weight considerations.

[Woodserson]

The Excursions actually turn about as nice as the 98s for some reason, in my experience. Mine had a bit more rocker which I think helped. They also track well. This ski in a 199 would be a pretty decent trade-off in all the aspects for what you are looking for.

[jalp]

Jalp, thanks for the heads up! I am near McCall. From what I gather, the 10th Mountains are essentially Epochs, which brings me back to size/weight considerations.

Well, McCall is a great area for BC XC, I'm a little envious. Definitely don't overlook the groomed trail options available in the area either. Bear Basin, Ponderosa, and Jug Mountain have some of the coolest trails around. They make for good access to the sidecountry. I was up skiing Bear with friends yesterday, definitely worth my drive from Boise.

Believe it or not, you can sometimes score some premium gear at the thrift stores in McCall. I was a little disappointed that they were closed yesterday.

Being familiar with the conditions in your area, for BC I'd definitely want to have a wider, floaty pair of skis in the quiver. Lots of cold deep powder up there. That said, I would also never want to be without a more narrow, long, fast E99 class ski. E99s and others in that class will fit in groomed tracks and also provide respectable flotation off trail. Your OP mentioned some groomed trail skiing so, if I were looking for a quiver of 1, I'd go with a pair of E99s every time. I'd get them nice and long too.

Send me a PM if you ever make it to the Boise area and you can give some of my gear a try. Most of mine are mounted NNN BC or 3 Pin. I have a couple pairs of E99 , Ingstad, XCD GT and other assorted stuff.

John

[lilcliffy]

Welcome and Happy New Year! Great to read another post from a new member seeking Nordic ski touring adventure!!

I am 6’ 4” and weigh 185.

You are 6 inches taller than me but we weigh the same.

I don’t want any crazy steep descents, but I’d like to tour around off trail in central Idaho. I’m interested in fun descents, but nothing like alpine touring. I plan to do maybe some groomed trails/logging roads, but mostly out the back door in powder.

When you say "groomed" trails- do you mean groomed XC track or do you mean snowmobile track?
Do you need/want a touring ski that will perform well on a groomed/consolidate surface as well as deep powder snow?
Or- are you considering different skis for these different snow conditions?

When you say "fun descents"- do you mean feeling stable and safe, or being able to downhill ski and make linked turns?

I am pretty settled on Fischer BCX 6 boots, but I will order Alpina Alaska’s in hopes that I might fit in them. I suspect that I won’t, from what I’ve read.

Both very supportive BC-XC boots.

I like NNNBC bindings, but I wonder if the 3 pin optional cable provides downhill control that would be nice. I’ve seen varying opinions on this.

I know that some disagree but my experience is that the heel cable does provide more downhill control (over plain-jane 3-pin or NNNBC) in a telemark turn as it produces heel-lift resistance. With no desire to start a big debate on this again- in my limited exoerience- if you are looking at just plain-jane 3-pin (e.g. 3-pin mountaineer/super telemark) I don't find any greater downhill control between 3-pin and NNNBC- to me in this context downhill control is more boot related (I personally prefer both the XC and downhill performance of NNNBC over plain-jane 3-pin). In the skiing context that you describe- IMO/IME- the chief advantages of 3-pin are:
1) the addition of the cable- telemark turns and the added backcountry security of the cable if you have a 3-pin boot failure.
2) the option to switch your BC-XC boot out for a Telemark boot.

I cannot decide on skis.

Get it. This can be particularly hard with your first ski. If you give us a bit more detail regarding "groomed" vs "powder"- as questioned above- we should be able to help you narrow the field!

I have been looking at: Rossignol BC 90,

I don't think you will find any generation of this ski in a long enough length for your weight and intended skiing. There are at least two very different versions of this ski-
- the older had a waspy 60mm waist, and a full double camber- terrible design IMO- I found it miserable when I tested it. Too short to offer true double-camber XC performance- too much stiffness and camber for climbing and turning.
- the more recent version of this ski is a Fischer Excursion 88, without Fischer's excellent waxless base, and Easy-Skin insert.
IMO/IME- Rossi's "Positrack" waxless bases suck.

Fischer S-Bound 98,

Haven't tested the recent Easy-Skin models. However I personally am not crazy about this ski. could be a weight issue- I much prefer the S-Bound 112.

Excursion 88,

Excellent and incredibly versatile BC-XC touring ski. I agree with Woods- in a short enough and equivalent length it turns as well as the 98. It tracks much better than the 98. In a long enough length the 88 offers decent XC performance on all snow conditions. I have a 199cm 88 that I particularly enjoy on warm spring snow. The 88 is currently the widest ski I have tested that still performs well on dense/consolidated snow. My mind tells me that at 68mm underfoot the 88 should be much better in deep snow than an "E-99-class" ski (e.g. E-99/Gamme 54/Glittertind) but my experience tells me different. I much prefer my Gamme 54 BC in all snow conditions over the 88. I am sure that if Fischer made the 88 in even longer lengths it would crush the E-99 class ski in truly deep snow (but longer than 199cm it would probably need less camber in deep snow.) The 88 is an incredibly versatile BC-XC ski (despite not fitting in a groomed track), however, it is redundant in my quiver.

and Madshus Epoch

Although almost identical in sidecut to the S-98- the Epoch (which is the last gen Karhu XCD 10th Mountain) has no tip rocker, has a single camber, and a soft, round, smooth flex. In an eqivalent length it is much easier to pressure into a turn than the S-98. IMO/IME- that soft round flex makes them miserable as a XC ski though for anyone that weighs anything- they are totally dead and useless when XC skiing on dense/consolidated snow, and they are completely unstable when XC skiing in deep soft snow and suffer from the dreaded "pool cover syndrome". I have a 195cm Epoch here that I find completely useless when XC skiing in powder. I much prefer the wider Annum- the Annum equally sucks on dense/consolidated snow, but at least it supports my weight in deep soft snow. My experience suggests that lighter skiers love the Epoch on fresh soft snow- it has been my oldest son's favourite ski for years.

I originally settled on the Epochs, but then read that they might not be appropriate for someone in my size range.

Is there any reason that you would consider the Epoch but not the Annum or S-Bound 112?

I like the S Bounds, but they do not receive good reviews in hardback/groomed situations.

The S-Bounds (98/112) are stiffer and have more camber than the equivalent Madshus XCDs (Epoch/Annum)- theoretically one would think the S-Bounds would be better when XC skiing on dense/consolidated snow, but I find them miserable- they are too short and have too much sidecut. All of these skis shine on fresh soft snow and moderate terrain. Reach for the wider Annum/S-112 if you weigh as much as we do.

The Excursions seem to lean more toward groomed trails and less downhill performance.

The Excursion is designed to be highly versatile as a BC-XC touring ski- similar idea as an E-99-class ski but a different approach-
- one compact (E-88)
- the other long and narrow (E-99)
The more compact 88 might have some advantages if you are skiing tight, steep trails...
The E-99 class ski will offer as much float and stability (if you get it long enough) and will be a much faster XC ski...

I can find very little about the Rossignols.

My experience is that in the past- the best of the Rossi BC skis are Fischers with cheap bases.
I have only handled and flexed the brand new models (BC 80/100/120).

Considering my weight, and what I am after in terms of the experience, what suggestions would you all have?

Need more infor on snow conditions; "groomed" vs "powder"; terrain and tree cover.
I am assuming that the snow is cold and dry in Idaho?