Fat (ish) ski with waxless (fishscale) base??

[Kai]

Does anyone make a fat ski with a waxless base for touring?

Lots of skinny waxless base skis out there, but I've not ever seen a backcountry ski with 80mm or more underfoot with a waxless base.

I normally use skins or wax, but for rolling backcountry tours where the uphill doesn't require skins, it would sometimes be nice to have the ease of a waxless base.

Does such a ski exist?

[Big Steve]

Madshus Annum, formerly known as Karhu XCD Guide, with 78mm waist, is the widest waxless ski to my knowledge

[stuckathuntermtn]

I would try one of these:

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/937/50598434.JPG

[zombinate]

can't speak from firsthand knowledge, but I was acquainted with a dude in AK who used Karhu XCD Guides with Dynafit bindings as his everyday ski. He seemed to think that they were good enough for the type of snow we had, and didn't have to lug skins as well (either up or down).

[jon turner]

I have a pair of karhu 10th mountains with dynafits that are fun. They are challenging to ski in weird crusts and crud, but for the mellower touring days they kick ass. I've seen nothing wider than the karhu guides (78).

[3pin]

Big Steve has it right... the Guide/Annum is just what you're looking for. If you're looking for something right now for spring touring, you might find some Guides still out there. Otherwise, we're reintroducing that XCD line under Madshus for Fall 2010. The Annum is the ski you're looking for, 109-78-95, superlight, best waxless base. I've used that design for everything from rolling tours to spring couloirs in the Cascades.

http://alpenglowsports.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/2010-madshus1.jpg

Awesome with a Dynafit set up or light tele.

[Kai]

Thanks.

This appears to be just what I was looking for.

I'm thinking 185cm. Will look for them next fall.

[harpo-the-skier]

Thanks.

This appears to be just what I was looking for.

I'm thinking 185cm. Will look for them next fall.

How big are you? I am 5'10", 185 naked and the 175 Guide is perfect for me in spring conditions. You not going to be maching in them anyway. The 185 might be better for me in deep pow, though.

[Kai]

How big are you? I am 5'10", 185 naked and the 175 Guide is perfect for me in spring conditions. You not going to be maching in them anyway. The 185 might be better for me in deep pow, though.

I'm thick. 5'10" and 205 lbs. 185cm seems to be the sweet spot for me. Most of my favorite skis are 185cm or close to it.

[half-fast]

rossi bc 125 positrack-90 or 95 underfoot, waxless, only in a 165 though....

[Big Steve]

3pin, will the Annums be available in 195 for a guy like me with a big fat butt? Someday I gotta get a pair. Tele or Dyna? Hmmmmmm

[BushwackerinPA]

Voile is coming out with waxless skis in the 85-100 mm range next year.

[Big Steve]

^ ^ ^ sweet. Any more details?

[3pin]

3pin, will the Annums be available in 195 for a guy like me with a big fat butt? Someday I gotta get a pair. Tele or Dyna? Hmmmmmm

Yes, 165, 175, 185, 195. Works great with a wide range of the tele gear (I've skied them with everything from leather boots to my 4-buckle Garmonts). If you're going Dynafit, a lot of people I know use something like the Scarpa F1 or F3, because the bellows helps set the waxless pattern better for climbing, and you can actually get some kick-and-glide feel.

As half-fast mentioned, Rossi does have a wider option, but it's 165cm only for length.

[Big Steve]

Thanks, 3-pin. I've got F3's, but, if and when I finally get a pair, I'll likely go Nordic, i.e. Voile Switchbacks and T3/leather.

[scottyb]

Got the 195 Guides mounted up with telebulldog binders and use an older 2 buckle T2 boot. Really nice combo. I can see the Dynfiddles being a good option as well.

[skimaxpower]

Got the 195 Guides mounted up with telebulldog binders and use an older 2 buckle T2 boot. Really nice combo. I can see the Dynfiddles being a good option as well.

How does climbing traction with a setup like this compare to traditional skis and skins (of comparable geometry)? Can you climb as reliably? I assume ski crampons could be an option? How much do the fish-scales affect the descent? Is this really only a practical setup for long, rolling tours?

[hiplainsdrifter]

I have numerous days on the Guides. They are great skis, but are definitely designed for certain conditions. The tips have considerable rise, making them float well, and the flex and progressive sidecut make for a great all-round pow ski. They can get pretty sketch on firm snow, as their torsional rigidity ain't that great. I skied the 185s, and would not even consider going shorter. I am 6 ft 175 lbs. If the skier is 205, I would look for 185s or 195s. Don't expect to climb anything over 15-20 degrees without skins. They are awesome for gently to moderately rolling terrain, as you don't have to waste time doing the skin transition. Sounds like the Annums will be pretty much the same difference as the Guides? I, too am intrigued by the talk of some fatty waxless Voiles.

[LightRanger]

^ ^ ^ sweet. Any more details?

Seconded.

[scottyb]

How does climbing traction with a setup like this compare to traditional skis and skins (of comparable geometry)? Can you climb as reliably? I assume ski crampons could be an option? How much do the fish-scales affect the descent? Is this really only a practical setup for long, rolling tours?


On the first question this setup will climb almost as well as skins but when the going gets steep skins are the only option. I carry a set of kicker skins when I am on the Guides just in case but have yet to use them. I have skied with friends who were on skins and I on my Guides or my Fishers(pockets) and I can climb as reliable as they only I do not have to stop to on/off with the skins.

Cramps are and option but I do not use them on my planks mainly due to the terrain I stick to when using said skis. I certainly have crampons for my other rigs.

I do not notice the scales on the downs, they are of course slower by nature. The only place I have ever made note is if I may be on some resort hardpack or ice and you can feel/hear them but the reality is not many folks use these skis that way.

These scaled/pocket skis excel on long rolling tours but the truth for me is they are just dang fun skis. If you ski in an area that has hard to wax for weather/conditions they are a huge asset.

[3pin]

How does climbing traction with a setup like this compare to traditional skis and skins (of comparable geometry)? Can you climb as reliably? I assume ski crampons could be an option? How much do the fish-scales affect the descent? Is this really only a practical setup for long, rolling tours?

It all depends on the snow conditions. That Omnitrak base design works really well for waxless, and it's best in soft, wetter snow, particularly spring corn. I use them a lot for spring tours. If I'm going out for a long tour, I'll usually bring a back-up set of skinny skins or ski crampons for when it gets steep, or just bootpack some chutes (super light on your back). But the advantage is covering a lot of ground on the approaches quickly.

For mid-winter stuff, the best thing about these skis is just heading out for exploration. Without skins or transitions, you find yourself skiing a lot of little five-turn shots that look great, just because you can without any hassle. It's a quiver set-up for sure, but a really fun one to add.

[Jonathan S.]

Rossignol BC 125 for next season -- specs were listed in an xc ski magazine as 123-95-120 (although then why is it called the 125?)
on-line references:
http://www.bergsblog.com/2010/03/12/rossignol-bc-125-positrac-skis/
http://www.skinnyski.com/gear/display.asp?Id=17897

[Harry]

Bumping this 2 year old thread:

Any new skis for 2013 going to have fish-scale bases and a waist over 100 ?

[Meathelmet]

only wider stick that I know of is voile vector bc, 96mm or so?

[Big Steve]

There's talk about Voile offering another one of its ski in waxless.

The waxless pattern on the Vector seems way too long for such a soft ski. I suppose one could grind it down to a shorter pattern.

[snapt]

I though I heard they were going to do the Charger (110mm) in waxless?

[BFD]

I do not know what shortcomings the Vector may have. I do know my friend Phil is crushing it on his. Long approaches 5 mile range to huge lines 6000' vert on big mountains. Ski till it's too steep than throw on the verts.

[Kai]

DPS needs to make their Wailer 99 with a fish scale waxless base. That would be an amazing ski.

I looked at the Vector BC. Unfortunately, it's pretty much universally sold out in the 180cm length.

[scottyb]

Yeah, I was disappointed to say the least when I saw Voile pattern ski only out to 180cm. I think one of the Hagan skis would make a kick ass pattern ski.

BTW I saw Big S mention cutting down the pattern, I have done this in the past with a Karhu Catamount ski. Every time I would tune it I would make a pass with my base plainer till I got it to where I wanted it. The other method is to back fill the scales with wax which eventually wears out but does no damage to the grip and in theory keeping any resale value intact.

A DPS ski could be made into a pocket pattern ski with a dremel. :wink:

[Quadzilla]

Ive got a pair of 180 Vector BC's and have about a dozen days on them skiing a variety of conditions and steeps up to maybe 35. I weight around 195 and have free pivot tele bindings on them and use either CXP or Scarpa T1's. I have always had a fishscale ski in my quiver and generally don't use them much except early season or just low angle tours. I think the Vector BC is really a game changer in this catagory of skiing as it outclimbs any fishscale or waxed ski out there, slogs along as good as the bigger old school fishcaled skis and decends with similar power and control as a regular tele ski in the same size. WTBS, the skis ski a little short as they are rockered but have adequate floatation to carry me as compare to maybe a longer fishscale like a Fischer Boundless or Karhu Guide that are 70-80 wide. I would most certainly not cut the pattern down as the skis ski well enough on the decend and slogging to lose climbing ability. Anyway, any ski with scales is a compromise and these are very rangy and fun to ski. But you still need skins to climb anything strong and they would be slow if you want to resort ski on them but for tours with long approaches and runouts as well as rolling terrain to acess steeps or long car shuttles, these skis are the ticket. I did hear that Voile is going to put scales on the Charger which is a ski with a good reputation and 112 in the waist. For me I am happy with the ones I got and if I need a bigger ski I have the rest of my quiver to put out there.

[Big Steve]

Thanks for the real world report, Quad. Sounds like a super fun ski. My concern with the length of the pattern manifests my Nordic background. I have hundreds of miles on waxless skis, and know from experience that soft-cambered waxless skis (e.g., Karhu Guide aka Madshus Annum) can be real dogs on low angle glides, thus my question whether a shorter pattern might be the better play. I'd use skins on anything stepper than low angle, so my interest in a waxless pattern is confined to flats, rolling (Nordic) terrain, meadows and logging road access. I'm eager to try the waxless 190 Charger. Bring it on, Voile!

[bbense]

Thanks for the real world report, Quad. Sounds like a super fun ski. My concern with the length of the pattern manifests my Nordic background. I have hundreds of miles on waxless skis, and know from experience that soft-cambered waxless skis (e.g., Karhu Guide aka Madshus Annum) can be real dogs on low angle glides, thus my question whether a shorter pattern might be the better play. I'd use skins on anything stepper than low angle, so my interest in a waxless pattern is confined to flats, rolling (Nordic) terrain, meadows and logging road access. I'm eager to try the waxless 190 Charger. Bring it on, Voile!


Normally, I am quite happy to live with the compromise of "slow" waxless skis, but the Vector BC is definitely the "slowest" waxless skis I've ever used. It's also by far and away the best climbing. Hot waxing the scales seems to make a huge difference, but I've had one day to verify that ( I used the iron and paper towel method. After waxing I used a brass brush to remove as much as I could. )

Other than that I completely love these skis, I'm skiing my telemark with T2 Eco's and either 7tms or Voile Switchbacks. ( I like releaseable at resorts, lighter voile for BC ). To get them to carve well on harder snow requires some adjustment in technique, pushing the tips gets you no where. But if you settle back and carve from the back foot they are quite fun.

What really impressed me is how well they do in heavy difficult snow for such a light ski. If you just point them and have trust in the rocker, they almost always work.

If they made a 190cm version I would definitely buy it.

At first I did question the length of the waxless base, but after a season ( a pretty short crappy season ), I think Voile made the right choice.

[Big Steve]

. . . but the Vector BC is definitely the "slowest" waxless skis I've ever used.
* * *
At first I did question the length of the waxless base, but after a season ( a pretty short crappy season ), I think Voile made the right choice.I'm trying to resolve these two statements. The Vector BC is the slowest because: (a) it's soft; and (b) the waxless pattern is long. Shorten the waxless pattern and get a faster ski. Waxless pattern replaces kick wax, not skins. Gotta carry skins for most tours anyway.

[Sinecure]

FYI, there's a thread over on Epic (http://www.epicski.com/t/111579/7b-skis-handmade-in-sandpoint-idaho) about 7B Skis (http://www.7bskis.com/).

They have a ski (http://www.7bskis.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=57) with a base they call GOAT BC. Fish Scale and comes in sizes up to 184 and is 95 underfoot.

http://www.7bskis.com/images/stories/goat%20basev.jpg

[Big Steve]

^ ^ ^ That looks very similar -- hell, pretty much identical -- to a DIY base I tried 6 years ago. I used an end mill. Didn't climb great and it hooked up a bit downhill on some conditions. I'm interested to hear from someone who has used these.

[scottyb]

Yeah, that looks like a pocket pattern. Less grip than scales but still works. Easily retro'd into most any ski base with a dremel or similar tool.

They are having a pre-sale which makes the ski $550, $150 off regular bank. Still a hundy more than Voiles but only a tad longer at 184CM.

http://www.voile-usa.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=VEOS&Category_Code=Voile_Skis

[bbense]

I'm trying to resolve these two statements. The Vector BC is the slowest because: (a) it's soft; and (b) the waxless pattern is long. Shorten the waxless pattern and get a faster ski. Waxless pattern replaces kick wax, not skins. Gotta carry skins for most tours anyway.

My experience is that there are tours, especially in the spring where the skins might stay in the pack all day. I think the extra climbing ability is worth the tradeoff in speed on packed snow.

I've done entire tours w/o using the skins when the snow conditions are right and even when they aren't right ( dry light deep snow ) you can get up slopes steep enough to have fun skiing down if you set a moderate skin track. For me that's a win. I want to hunt out those last little cold dry powder stashes hiding in the woods from the Sierra sun.

The whole point of these skis is to have fun skiing up, down and around. If you're spending miles on moderate downslopes where the drag comes into play or you're following a straight up skin track on a 30 degree slope to ski right back down again, there are better skis. And for slackcountry, these skis open up a whole new set of possibilities.

For instance, you could easily make the Traverse from Alpine to Squaw and back w/o needing skins on these skis.

[Big Steve]

Pretty much what I figured from a soft alpine cambered long pattern waxless ski. I've done thousands of miles on 20+ different waxless skis, so I've got a bit of background on this subject. The Vector BC sounds great for some tours, but I think a touring ski with a shorter waxless pattern and/or more underfoot camber would work better for most of my tours.

I'm planning to try a DIY milled waxless base project this weekend. Will advise.

[bbense]

Pretty much what I figured from a soft alpine cambered long pattern waxless ski. I've done thousands of miles on 20+ different waxless skis, so I've got a bit of background on this subject. The Vector BC sounds great for some tours, but I think a touring ski with a shorter waxless pattern and/or more underfoot camber would work better for most of my tours.

I'm planning to try a DIY milled waxless base project this weekend. Will advise.

I've had reasonable success imitating the old Fischer Boundless pattern using a dremel with a small round saw tooth bit, the router attachment and a small wooden block attached to one side to give it the proper angle. If I was going to do it again I'd build a jig to space the pattern on the ski.

As far as skis go, what would be cool is if you could specify the waxless pattern length when buying the ski. Personally I think most BC skis could benefit from a relatively short waxless section. Maybe only a foot and half or so. Not enough to get you up anything, but enough to get around on the flats. It would be relatively simple for most custom ski companies to offer the cut version of waxless base as an option. They don't climb very well, but they do work for covering flat ground.