Thread: Voile BC Vector waxless base

Originally Posted by Big Steve

Terry, I got the notion from reading this review in BC mag:

As we've discussed in another thread, I've experiemented with a vertical mill and a soldering iron. My DIY efforts don't work as well as patterned bases on my hippy stix. Back to the shop : )

I dropped a line to Voile and got no response regarding sourcing the patterned bases. Anyone in Europe have any contacts or know of sources? Please let me know.

Thanks for staying on this, Terry. I want some of that

Originally Posted by Big Steve

The catches/drawbacks are that waxless bases glide slow (especially in cold fine grained snow) and are noisy, both of which will be worsened by the soft camber. IME waxless bases also adversely affect the ability of the ski to smoothly turn. Glide and turnability are less effected in warm coarse grained snow (but the noise is even worse).

The only place I've ever felt waxless skis to be significantly slower is on low angle packed snow at a resort. If it's steep enough to be fun skiing, I really don't see any drawbacks to a waxless base for a BC only ski at least in wet snow climates. Why you don't see this on more skis has to do with people's perceptions and what will sell, rather than any true drawbacks.

Waxless == XC == Slow

Really are you going to drop $900 on a pair of skis with anything less than the "fastest" base? Companies make what people will buy and ski companies don't have enough margin
to experiment with a ski that doesn't sell. However, given that the Vector BC has already sold out for this season, I expect you will see more skis like this in the future.

I'd say the Karhu Guide was the first waxless ski to break out of the mold of waxless == XC[1], but it was crippled by a really shoddy manufacturing process. I have done all my BC skiing and a fair bit of slackcountry skiing on Karhu Guides with fixed edges over the last couple seasons and as long as the conditions are within the skis range, it's a great BC ski.

The Vector BC is the first modern design ski to come with a waxless base. Don't be fooled by the waxless, it's a straight up 'earn your turns' BC ski. You aren't going to even shuffle'n'hope on them , but you will cover flat ground faster with less weight on your feet. Also, the waxless base opens up a lot of small shots that you might not bother with if you had to deal with skins. These are the ideal skis for chasing that last bit of powder both inbounds and out.

There's something about the BC 125 that just turns me off, can't quite say what it is, but even just flexing it in the shop it feels "wrong".

If it ever snows in the Sierra, I've got a pair of Vector BC's waiting for their trial run...

[1]- Well, not really I remembered the Fischer Telepathic as I was writing this post.

Originally Posted by Big Steve

Thanks for staying on this, Terry. I want some of that

I've had some success using a dremel routing stand with a small lift on one side and dremel bit that looks
like a fat dime with teeth. The process was very time consuming and I tested it on some junk skis, but never
bothered with a "real" ski. It did work reasonably well, the pattern looked a lot like the cut in pattern on older
fischer Boundless skis.

This bit

http://www.dremel.com/en-us/Accessor...l.aspx?pid=199

Originally Posted by bbense

I've had some success using a dremel routing stand with a small lift on one side and dremel bit that looks
like a fat dime with teeth. The process was very time consuming and I tested it on some junk skis, but never
bothered with a "real" ski. It did work reasonably well, the pattern looked a lot like the cut in pattern on older
fischer Boundless skis.

I keep wondering what shape of metal material could be heated up properly and used to press in a pattern into a piece of base patch. Expanded Metal Mesh/lathe?



I'm just back for a quick workout/tour/mini-mission on my Chugaches. It was great to cruise fast to an access point to start climbing. With these skis, I'm less concerned about nailing stuff than with better skis. The Chugaches definitely have their 'window' of skiability and today they weren't it vs the better skis that would have gotten trashed. Still nice to slide a bit and tour and work on a route and skin track 'for the next one'.

a friend bought a pair. I think he figures they will make rolling approaches in the spring faster. Than they have the capability to handle the downhill after the bootpack.

Originally Posted by Big Steve

I surmise that you are informed by an alpine or tele background and do not have much XC skiing background.

You'd be wrong. I raced for years in the days before skating.

To those of us who also XC ski, it's all fun: flat, steep and in between. To an experienced XC skier, there's no doubt that patterned waxless XC skis are slower than properly waxed waxable skis in all but a small range of conditions (falling snow near 32F/0C). The colder and finer grained the snow, the slower patterned bases are relative to a property waxed waxable skis. Conversely, the difference is less in wet snow. To anyone with much experience on double cambered classic XC skis, a soft single camber patterned base ski is a very slow tool. (I'll exclude zero skis from this discussion because that technology will not likely be used on a single camber touring ski.)

All that's true, but utterly pointless to the discussion.

We aren't taking about XC skis, none of the skis in this discussion XC ski worth beans. I'm talking about the speed of skiing while making turns descending. Even if you kick waxed a DPS it would still suck rocks for XC skiing.

Originally Posted by bbense

I'm talking about the speed of skiing while making turns descending.

Well then, we are talking about two different things. I was talking about patterned bases stalling out on lower angle stuff when your buds with waxable bases are still making turns, and waxless skis slowing down on a low angle runout when your waxable ski buds are still gliding, and waxless patterned single camber skis gliding slow or stalling out on low angle exits on a tour. I've skied with guys on Guides and seen plenty of each. (There's a reason they leave their Guides at home for most tours.) Each of those are common terrain conditions on most tours I do.

Those three sets of conditions might not happen on a pure yo-yo tour (which I try to avoid but nonetheless do sometimes) but for pure yo-yoing a waxless patterned base provides little or no advantage because you've got to skin up anyway.

Don't get me wrong. I plan to get a Dyna/waxless rig for tours which involve rolling low angle approaches and/or exits, and for multi-day spring tours with lots of flattish and/or low angle stretches. But, sorry, I gotta disagree that there is no price to be paid for a patterned waxless base on a single camber ski.

Yo booker, so did you mount up your Voile's with Dynafits? I saw you really liked them in the Tahoe thread. Care to post more here?

Have you still never touched the BC125?

Marmot has some BC125's and Madshus left, and I have some extra money floating around. Stupid Jondrums has made justifying quiver additions much easier by adding inserts instead of bindings for each ski! Bindings would be Speed Radicals paired with a heavy stiff boot (BD Method / Factor 110).

I already have a 78mm waisted really light Black Diamond half wood half foam core ski for spring touring and longer traverses. I want to work up to a trans Sierra, because no way in hell am I doing that with a splitboard and soft boots.

I'm guessing the big difference between my current setup and a waxless would be glide and efficiency over flats, and then I'd still put skins on when climbing up over passes? Seems like it would need to be a big efficiency gain to displace a perfectly good ski that I have in my quiver.

Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio

Yo booker, so did you mount up your Voile's with Dynafits? I saw you really liked them in the Tahoe thread. Care to post more here?

I used inserts so I can switch between 7tm, Switchback and Dynafits with dobish plates. To be honest, I don't see myself doing much Dynafit skiing on these skis, since they are so much fun for telemark. The pattern is significantly longer than any other waxless ski I've used. This is both good and bad. The ski climbs very well, so well in fact that in the right conditions ( spring ) with a moderate skin track I think your skins could spend most of the day in the pack. The bad side is that this much waxless base makes the skis slow even in untracked snow. I need to spend more time working on the base to see what kind of speed I can get out it.

Have you still never touched the BC125?

Marmot has some BC125's and Madshus left, and I have some extra money floating around. Stupid Jondrums has made justifying quiver additions much easier by adding inserts instead of bindings for each ski! Bindings would be Speed Radicals paired with a heavy stiff boot (BD Method / Factor 110).

Seems like a lot of boot for that ski, but better too much than too little boot...

I've never skied the BC125, read a lot of reports of people liking it and I know Tahoe Ed loves his skis. But to me, the tip rocker and flex make all the difference. The BC 125 is just a ski with dimensions that I've skied before ( MegaBang) and not really liked much. I'm willing to put up with the extra work of a wide ski for the tip rocker. But if it's a deal, go for it.

I already have a 78mm waisted really light Black Diamond half wood half foam core ski for spring touring and longer traverses. I want to work up to a trans Sierra, because no way in hell am I doing that with a splitboard and soft boots.

I'm guessing the big difference between my current setup and a waxless would be glide and efficiency over flats, and then I'd still put skins on when climbing up over passes? Seems like it would need to be a big efficiency gain to displace a perfectly good ski that I have in my quiver.

I think the real win for these skis poking around in the woods looking for powder and going just that bit farther in the slackcountry. It's the quick transition where these skis win.

For slogging across flat ground, you can get the same benefits as waxless by using thong skins. You still need full skins for the steep bits with these skis. For Trans Sierra, you also need to consider the long gradual downhill, in wet spring snow the extra glide might save a lot of energy.

I have a pair 180 Vector BC, waxless base, mounted with Switchback tele bindings. I have a lot of experience on waxless skis and have owned most of the transitions as over the years the skis have grown bigger and bigger and have progressively lost the amount of underfoot camber. I would say that the Vector is a big step toward a full on modern AT or tele ski with early tip rise and modest tail rise. The ski is light weight around 6.5# for the pair and 95 in the waist. The big difference is that the Vector BC has a patterned bottom and the pattern runs almost the entire running length of the ski. So a lot of pattern meaning alot of grip underneath. The ski is indeed a real hybrid, a oddity and most different than any other ski. I have about five days on the skis skiing around Tahoe and the main thing that impresses me is how much range the skis have. This means for me they can handle steep harsh terrain are fun and easy to turn and they can slog better than a trad ski using skins. Without skins they can outclimb all the other waxless skis so you can cover alot of ground, ups and flats without having to add skins. Anyway, bottomline is that they can't really be compared to XC skis, waxing skis or that kind of touring, however, IMO, they will out pace a similar AT or tele ski rig that is using skins as they will really out perform the skins on approaches, runouts and typical up and down terrain as you tour toward steep turn terrain, they you add the skins to them.
I have friends who have Rossi BC 125's and these are pretty good too. These are big for a waxless as well but the shape is more traditional with trad tip and tail and non rockered. I think they have less pattern underfoot and maybe don't climb as well as the Vector BC's. They have alot of edge in contact and I think would do well on firm and ice plus they come in a 185 so you can get a big ski in waxless.
I have mine mounted tele and I think they would work similarly well with AT bindings. I chose tele as IMO, tele is a great tool on rolling terrain and general dealing with terrain with a lot of transitions as it is simple plus, I wanted to keep some tele gear in my quiver as a change up.

nice update Quadzilla, thanks. I might try and scare up a pair of these for mellow angle dog skis...

thanks for the feedback guys. As much as I can get a solid deal on the BC 125s (at the expense of a good local shop going the way of many good local shops have gone ) it sounds like not enough difference and too much overlap with what I have already. Maybe I'll grab some Vectors in the future. Truth be told, I don't like cambered skis on anything other than groomed snow, and I'm a hack when it comes to skiing anyways.

Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio

thanks for the feedback guys. As much as I can get a solid deal on the BCs (at the expense of a good local shop going the way of many good local shops have gone ) it sounds like not enough difference and too much overlap with what I have already. Maybe I'll grab some Vectors in the future. Truth be told, I don't like cambered skis on anything other than groomed snow, and I'm a hack when it comes to skiing anyways.

Not sure where you got "cambered" in the equation. The Vector BC has 0 camber underfoot and tip and tail rise, so a loose riding ski for sure. The BC 125 maybe a little camber but nothing like a old school waxless or waxable touring ski that has a lot of camber to reduce drag when gliding out on the flats. Both would be easy to ski with not much learning curve.

I meant BC 125's ... on sale for retardedly cheap at a local shop going out of business. I would rather have the Vectors is what I'm saying.

SM, what shop? What sizes?

Waxless base without camber? – Nope, I don’t get it unless the idea is to make a sliding snowshoe. Short fishscale cambered zone underfoot with mild rocker tip would be the ticket. We PNW tourists are glad to have camber in May, June and July.

Big Steve, Marmot Mountainworks is going out of business ... dunno if Bellevue has the same deal going on. I heard all the alpine gear got shipped up to Bellevue, so Berkeley only has XC ski gear, plus the BC125's and Madshus. Didn't see sizes on the Madshus, but I saw 175 and 185 for the BC125, PM me for more info.

Sorry to hear that. I hope Lock plans to keep MMW in Bellevue alive. I don't want to ponder not having that resource.

ETA: Thanks for the invite to PM you. I might, but I'm time-squeezed cuz I'm trying to get out of the office and hit the road for a Wallowa yurt touring trip.

Originally Posted by Big Steve

SM, what shop? What sizes?

Waxless base without camber? – Nope, I don’t get it unless the idea is to make a sliding snowshoe. Short fishscale cambered zone underfoot with mild rocker tip would be the ticket. We PNW tourists are glad to have camber in May, June and July.

Well the Vector BC has 0 camber underfoot but the running surface all be it short compared is pretty stiff so there isn't a lot of torsion that would noodle the ski out. Touring with guys on BC 125's, I don't see a difference in glide performance or slogability(on the flats). I also don't see a difference with other older school waxless skis like a Fischer Boundless either. However, I think once you start doing any low angle climbing and getting into the margin where a waxless ski would have to either skin or take a lower track, the Vector BC out climbs them(without skins). As far as a "sliding snowshoe" think about taking your best midfat ski out of your BC quiver and adding a pattern to the bottom. You get a ski that you don't stop to add skins as often and still skis pretty well on the down and dominates any runout or rolling terrain compared. But, you now have a ski that sucks resort skiing due to slow runout speed. Personally, I like my new skis as a quiver ski. it only comes ia a 180 so it is a bit small for me at 195 but fun never the less. I would also like the BC 125 in a 185 as this ski would ski big due to lack of rocker and be fun as well. They all would suck resort skiing. IMO

Flat camber?

Specs says 3mm camber underfoot and putting my pair on the floor, it sure seems higher than that.

Voile Vector BC's are fun little lite skis, I don't mind them even in resort, except they're really truly punishingly a drag on long low angle runouts.

Bump.

Bought 181cm Charger BCs for myself and 160 Vector BCs for Anita. Dynafits on both; I also put in tele inserts on Anita's Vector BCs. Really fun skis. Super versatile touring ski that will open up terrain that we've been ignoring.

Okay, I'll say it: Good chance I'll never buy a touring ski that's not waxless (or that I'll mod via my my DIY waxless base).

3 days/15,000' verts (some lift assist, some fishscale climbing, some skinning) on them confirms bbense's observations: Comparing cambered XC waxless vs. Vector BC/Charger BC is apples vs. oranges.

My Vector BC will become my mid-winter touring skis whether or not the tour calls for waxless. The waxless base does not affect powder turns in any noticeable way if I'm skiing right. It might get a bit grabby in some conditions if one gets too newschooler slarvy but keep your tips going downhill and you'll barely notice the fishscale pattern. Pattern definitely noticeable on hard pack, especially on hockey stops and windshield wiper turns, but how often do you see hardpack on a mid-winter tour? I'll likely stick with my DIY waxless bases for spring tours, although I might lengthen the pattern.

Re the Charger BC performance on the down, I would prefer a wee softer tail, but the stiffish tail seems to be the result of the lightweight ski design. Worth the tradeoff, IMO. I'm really liking the way it skis downhill, skins and glides.

Answering OP's original questions: Skins stick just fine, no problems. Grip is equivalent to a properly waxed XC ski on the warm side, i.e., oodles of grip up to 15 degrees or so on packed snow, will go up any PNW logging road. I did one closed resort lap -- up to 25 degrees -- via fishscales to test the limits of the grip. Had to do some herringbone, but I got up it fine. Skins would have been the better choice, but not by much.

Prolly not a bad idea for somebody to start a fat waxless thread. Gotta feeling that Voile and Rossi won't be the only manufacturers selling 95mm+ waisted waxless boards in a couple years.

ETA: Hey Voile: PLEASE make a 161cm Charger BC so I can get Anita geared up. Voile makes a 161cm Charger (smooth base) so why not a BC version?

Nice one, Steve. I also have no problems skiing pattern based Vector BC's on powder, though I do hit long hard glide sections at times, and I do like to wash my turns on hard slabby snow. I'm yet to find many winter situations where I don't use skins though. I might take them out today for a 1000m climb with a long rolling approach and exit.

Lucky you have a ski partner who is on the same bases. It sucks being the fishscale guy when everyone else is skins.

My gut says you have no direct commercial relationship with Voile either, so your comments come across as objective.

No, no affiliation with Voile. In the mid-1980's I hung out with the brother of Charlie and Dwight, Voile's founders, who sold out years ago.

We'll always pack skins for the Vector BC and Charger BC. As you know, fishscales replace kick wax, not skins.

Originally Posted by neck beard

Lucky you have a ski partner who is on the same bases.

No doubt about that

Originally Posted by neck beard

It sucks being the fishscale guy when everyone else is skins.

Actually I think in more cases it would suck to be the guy without fishscales. I've already been on one tour where I fishscaled about one mile head of the other guy on a stream grade approach, waited for him and then skinned up the steep part together. I waited 15 minutes for him at my skin-up point, an indication of how much faster the fishscales are on the approach. We descended the stream grade at the same speed. So the fishscales were all good, no bad.

Yes, it sucks to be the guy without, however I can't allow myself get ahead of people like that, and am already fitter than many as it is. So even with scales, I still go slow (though use less energy).

WTF are they gonna upsize the vector bc to 190?

Clydes wanna know.