Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    705

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

    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?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    12,900
    Madshus Annum, formerly known as Karhu XCD Guide, with 78mm waist, is the widest waxless ski to my knowledge

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    19,975
    I would try one of these:

    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    near zombies
    Posts
    422
    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).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,794
    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).
    Ride Fast, Live slow.

    We're mountain people. This is what we do, this is how we live. -D.C.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    512
    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.



    Awesome with a Dynafit set up or light tele.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    705
    Thanks.

    This appears to be just what I was looking for.

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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    South Lake Tahoe
    Posts
    3,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    705
    Quote Originally Posted by harpo-the-skier View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    upstate NY
    Posts
    1,552
    rossi bc 125 positrack-90 or 95 underfoot, waxless, only in a 165 though....

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    12,900
    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

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Stowe
    Posts
    4,451
    Voile is coming out with waxless skis in the 85-100 mm range next year.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    12,900
    ^ ^ ^ sweet. Any more details?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Steve View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    12,900
    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.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    here and there
    Posts
    14,835
    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.
    watch out for snakes

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,505
    Quote Originally Posted by scottyb View Post
    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?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Let 'er buck.
    Posts
    854
    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.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Couloirfornia
    Posts
    8,721
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Steve View Post
    ^ ^ ^ sweet. Any more details?
    Seconded.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest_Hemingway View Post
    I realize there is not much hope for a bullfighting forum. I understand that most of you would prefer to discuss the ingredients of jacket fabrics than the ingredients of a brave man. I know nothing of the former. But the latter is made of courage, and skill, and grace in the presence of the possibility of death. If someone could make a jacket of those three things it would no doubt be the most popular and prized item in all of your closets.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    here and there
    Posts
    14,835

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by skimaxpower View Post
    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.
    watch out for snakes

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by skimaxpower View Post
    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.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Amherst, Mass.
    Posts
    4,176
    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/...positrac-skis/
    http://www.skinnyski.com/gear/display.asp?Id=17897

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Big Sky/Moonlight Basin
    Posts
    9,576
    Bumping this 2 year old thread:

    Any new skis for 2013 going to have fish-scale bases and a waist over 100 ?
    "Zee damn fat skis are ruining zee piste !" -Oscar Schevlin

    "Hike up your skirt and grow a dick you fucking crybaby" -what Bunion said to Harry at the top of The Headwaters

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Turin, Hugging The Horse
    Posts
    3,373
    only wider stick that I know of is voile vector bc, 96mm or so?

    The floggings will continue until morale improves.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    12,900
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •