Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    15,144

    ~95mm light skis... maybe patterned bases? Thoughts?

    I'm looking for a 95ish ski that is 1200-1400g per ski in the 173-185cm range, but I'm also not looking to break the bank. I'm going to put light tech bindings and drive them with my old TLT5P for exercise at the ski hill, solo distance tours, and maybe for the rare occasion I actually have to go fast. Here's a couple I've looked at:

    BC Light:
    Blizzard ZeroG 94 178
    Fischer Hannibal 94 177 (especially cheap)
    BD Helio 95 173
    Atomic Backland 95 177
    La Sportiva Super Maximo 177

    BC Waxless:

    Voile UltraVector BC 177
    G3 Findr 94 XCD 177 (especially cheap)

    XC:
    Fischer Sbound 125 185
    Rossi BC125 185 (especially cheap)

    Am I being dumb to go 95ish as a compromise between weight/drag while still having some ability to float/break? Should I just pick fat or skinny instead of mid-fat?

    How are waxless bases on the downhill?

    I'm open to ideas, comments, or if you have a setup you want to sell me (or trade for Lotus 138s)
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    3,033
    you're in UT right? I have the light core version of this in a 177 and LOVE them https://www.ksl.com/classifieds/listing/50198819 they ski short and probably measure a cm or so short. and I suspect the "normal" core is still pretty light (~1400g)

    that is a great price w/skins, was thinking about buying them myself lol

    the Response-X in a 177 is a lot of fun. if I were picking from your list I'd go Fischer. definitely not an XC ski imo

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    70
    As a reformed XC skier, I gotta say XC skis are a bad idea unless you're confident in your ability to ski the super skinnies well. Even if you are, they just aren't all that much fun for any sustained downhill. On the other hand, "Nordic BC" type skis are super fun for long solo meadow skipping days where you're just on roller after roller.

    I hear nothing but positive stuff about the Voile Objective BC which falls on the narrow side, but might fit the bill for a little more downhill ability.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    11,162
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    How are waxless bases on the downhill?
    That very much depends on the snow. In pow, wet pow, corn and most other conditions you'll encounter on a backcountry tour, fishscales ski downhill pretty much the same as smooth bases. On firm hardpack they suck: slow and the fishscales can grab on hardpack turns. On sucky wet spring snow fishscales often ski better because the pattern breaks up water surface tension. Although firm hardpack is the only significant limitation, I usually take fishscales for laps at closed lift areas unless I expect conditions to be quite firm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    Am I being dumb to go 95ish as a compromise between weight/drag while still having some ability to float/break? Should I just pick fat or skinny instead of mid-fat?
    Mid-95 waist is a nice dim for fat fishscales for a wide range of conditions. My Vectors (96mm waist) are great for a wide variety of snow, the most versatile ski I've ever owned. I use them all seasons: mellower pow, FS roads, spring/summer corn tours, summits, glacier tours, etc.

    Note: Rossi BC125 is constructed like an XC ski, i.e., not very supple, lots of camber, teensy weensy trip rocker (if you could call it that), okay for FS roads but not a great backcountry ski.

    Fischer SBounds are higher quality construction than the Rossis, more of an alpine flex. The milled waxless base is less grabby on hardpack downhills but it doesn't climb as effectively as fishscale pattern.

    Based on lots of days on SBounds and Vector BC and Charger BC, I'd recommend the UltraVector BC over the SBound, which I never liked much for other than FS roads.

    If you get fat fishscales, get skins for steeper terrain.
    Last edited by OldSteve; 12-07-2017 at 12:28 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,891
    I have a pair of Volkl BMT 94s that I would be willing to sell - what's your budget? For me, it might be the mount point or the gradual full rocker, but I'm not in love like I was hoping I would be.

    It's at the top end of your specs - 186cm and a little north of 1500g.

    Seth

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    553
    I have skied fischer hannibal 94 with tlt5p for past couple of years. Find it a very versatile combo. Light (~1250 gm in 177 I believe), able to hold a decent edge in firm snow, floats pretty well for 94 waist. Struggles in heavy or refrozen chunder like any other ultralight would.
    I’d buy another pair for sure. I haven’t skied others on your list though.
    If you can get “especially cheap” they’d be a good bet for what you looking for.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    535
    I personally like the 95 mm waist width for a spring and distance ski. Today's crop of lightweight skis in this class aren't much heavier than their 85 mm brethren. They ski hard snow well enough. That extra cm of width seems to help a lot in poor snow conditions.

    Zero G 95 is a great ski. Very light but not wimpy. Good edge hold. Pretty good in bad snow for the width & weight. Durability is good for a ski this light.

    I have no experience with patterned bases on downhill skis.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    [a] Van [down by the river]
    Posts
    1,154
    Picked up a pair of 86 findr (non fishscale), and they have been great so far. Bought them as a spring ski fast/light/steep skiing setup.

    Ended up taking them out when just going for a walk a few times already, and encountered maybe 8" of pow... They've been significantly better in soft snow than I could imagine, and rail on the groomers.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    684
    I've been skiing a pair of Vector BCs for a couple seasons now, and can vouch for them being pretty awesome at everything. I've used them on a few 2' powder days and managed to have a wee bit of fun, but where they really shine is long spring tours. The amount of ground you can cover in a day on waxless skis is incredible (depending on the terrain), and I really cannot imagine not owning a pair right now.

    I got a pair of Wailer 99 Tour1s toward the end of last season, and only used them a handful of times before switching back to the Vectors for full-time spring touring.

    If you're not going to be around much flat or rolling terrain, you won't benefit from waxless skis at all, and they'll often be slower on low-angle terrain. If you're into ski traversing or do a lot of long approaches, you can easily add miles onto your day with some fish scales.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sandy
    Posts
    4,683
    I have some Zero G95's in 178 I need to sell, that said...

    I committed to skiing a season on skimo gear and it basically sucked (but I became a better skier.....), I think there's a
    sweet spot that skis like the Atomic Backland 85 UL, VTA 88 lite, etc. fill. They're light enough you won't regret taking them for a tour that turns into a walk, but if your walk turn into a tour then you won't be bummed either.
    Last edited by sfotex; 12-06-2017 at 11:01 PM.
    Life is a lot like climbing: there isn't anything much more comforting than a good #2.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    461

    ~95mm light skis... maybe patterned bases? Thoughts?

    I have BC125s that I use for climbing cat roads and meadow skipping and love them. Even use them on groomed x-country when with the (slower) fam or carting the kids in the Burley ski setup. They’re doable on the downhill but not that fun, but that’s not really what I use them for. Got them cheap and worth every dollar.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Swiss alps
    Posts
    270
    VERY impressed with my zeroG 95 after two seasons. Maybe not the greatest pow ski for its width, but then again, pow is easy...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Zurich, Switzerland
    Posts
    60
    Movement seems like a good idea as there seem to be options to get used ones cheap. I have pre-rockered logic-X -> super light, a lot of chatter from the carbon on hard stuff when going fast but generally ski good in most conditions.
    I might be open to trade if you are willing to hassle with sending skis forth and back from europe.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washoe Valley
    Posts
    219
    OK, I have quite a bit of experience on all sorts of fishscale skis and currently ski Voile Vector BC's which is a 95 underfoot fishscale ski. I have skied the others new and old school as well as ski with others on new and old school fishscale skis. IMO, the bigger new school fishscale skis like a Vector BC are a very good backcountry touring ski when you also have skins. So the message here is that for low angle slogging around the scale work fine but once you actually start climbing up they don't have the traction. Secondly as others have mentioned, they are not a good resort ski as the scale really drag on groomed slopes. I think first you need to make a decision on wither scales or not and then there is good choices especially with the boots and bindings you want to use. If it were me, and looking at what you want, I would not choose the scales and get any of the great 95 waisted skis that are out there. Additionally get some ultra light skins to go with whatever you buy..........

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bellingham, WA
    Posts
    449
    Movement Alp Track 94

    Sent from my MT2L03 using TGR Forums mobile app
    Let us so live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry - Mark Twain

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Zurich, Switzerland
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Power_Sauce View Post
    Movement Alp Track 94

    Sent from my MT2L03 using TGR Forums mobile app
    They are among the best fore sure but super expensive! I demoed the 84 and it is way less chattery than the x-series. But for my taste it was even to responsive - really great if you are into small radius.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    VT
    Posts
    137
    It's subtle, but the G3 FINDr and FINDr XCD are not exactly the same layup. The FINDr XCD is a slightly heavier (and cheaper) ski as it's made with fiberglass. The more expensive FINDr is made with carbon to lighten the construction. And although both skis have similar side profiles, the FINDr XCD has a more aggressive camber profile to make climbing with fishscales more efficient.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by kalisto View Post
    Picked up a pair of 86 findr (non fishscale), and they have been great so far. Bought them as a spring ski fast/light/steep skiing setup.

    Ended up taking them out when just going for a walk a few times already, and encountered maybe 8" of pow... They've been significantly better in soft snow than I could imagine, and rail on the groomers.
    I also just got a pair of the 86 Findr's and can echo that they ski fatter than the waist would have you think. Fun in the firm and in soft. I can't wait to do longer distance stuff in the spring with them especially. Hella light too for a non $1000 ski

    But in regards to your initial ask "ski hill, solo distance tours, and maybe for the rare occasion I actually have to go fast"
    Non of those things say "midfat" to me. 85mm sounds like the ceiling for what you want to do with it.
    TLDR; Ski faster. Quit breathing. Don't crash.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    11,162
    Quote Originally Posted by telemon10 View Post
    . . . the FINDr XCD has a more aggressive camber profile to make climbing with fishscales more efficient.
    Hmmmmm. What do you mean "more efficient?" Stiffer camber = better glide. Softer camber = more grip.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Fish
    Posts
    2,720
    Just picked up a pair of the new Backland 95's. Haven't skied them yet but will chime in when I do. Hand flex they are softer than ZERO G 95's but I wouldn't call them soft.
    a positive attitude will not solve all of your problems, but it may annoy enough people to make it worth the effort

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,891
    Quote Originally Posted by rludes025 View Post
    Just picked up a pair of the new Backland 95's. Haven't skied them yet but will chime in when I do. Hand flex they are softer than ZERO G 95's but I wouldn't call them soft.
    Please do. I was eyeing these skis last year when I picked up the BMTs.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    15,144
    Quote Originally Posted by LeoK View Post
    I might be open to trade if you are willing to hassle with sending skis forth and back from europe.
    The problem is the $200+ shipping each way...

    Quote Originally Posted by sethschmautz View Post
    BMT 94 - 186cm and a little north of 1500g.
    I'd rather err light than heavy or it becomes too easy to grab the Wailer A112RP 184s.

    Quote Originally Posted by NorCalNomad View Post
    Non of those things say "midfat" to me. 85mm sounds like the ceiling for what you want to do with it.
    My first tech setup was 12 years ago or so: foam core BD Havoc 173cm... 88mm underfoot.
    They were 120/88/112 and about 1600g/ski.
    I had TLT Comforts and Spirit 3s.
    I skied some gnarly stuff on that setup.

    But you know those skis skied like dog shit compared to the DPS 120s Pure 178s I replaced them with. I haven't been on anything narrower than 112 in the BC in 9 years and my daily driver inbounds has been over 92+mm for 8 years.

    I figured going <95mm would be fine for the ski hill exercise, but for long solo tours or needing to suddenly break trail and go somewhere fastish, I figured I'd benefit from the float in terms of either fun or ease despite the drag. Maybe I'm wrong... those Havocs did a lot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quadzilla View Post
    OK, I have quite a bit of experience on all sorts of fishscale skis and currently ski Voile Vector BC's which is a 95 underfoot fishscale ski. I have skied the others new and old school as well as ski with others on new and old school fishscale skis. IMO, the bigger new school fishscale skis like a Vector BC are a very good backcountry touring ski when you also have skins. So the message here is that for low angle slogging around the scale work fine but once you actually start climbing up they don't have the traction. Secondly as others have mentioned, they are not a good resort ski as the scale really drag on groomed slopes. I think first you need to make a decision on wither scales or not and then there is good choices especially with the boots and bindings you want to use. If it were me, and looking at what you want, I would not choose the scales and get any of the great 95 waisted skis that are out there. Additionally get some ultra light skins to go with whatever you buy..........
    I've had fun tooling around packed trails on my cheapo 60mm waxless NNNBC setup for which I have skins that I bought for $1 at a garage sale. The problem has been that anything steep enough to skin up is beyond my skill level to descend with XC boots. I end up skinning down the hill in order to not wreck. I always thought it would be sweet to have the glide/stride super powers of scales on a fatter ski with tech bindings that I could also use to skin up something steeper. I do see how it would suck for the resort. I could see them being useful on the approaches and exits in the spring...
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    11,162
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    I could see them being useful on the approaches and exits in the spring...
    Much more than that, e.g., fat fishscales are also great for traversing on a descent to access a line that would require hiking or skinning with smooth base skis, working benches and ledges on a descent, getting those extra turns into a cirque that would require skins to get out, etc. FF are greatly beneficial on some tours, mildly beneficial on some tours, sometimes a net wash, but seldom a significant detriment. I was an early FF adopter -- after waiting for a couple decades thinking "why doesn't someone make a fat fishscale ski?" My buds have followed my lead and now all of us take FF (with skins) on most tours.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    15,144
    Quote Originally Posted by OldSteve View Post
    Much more than that, e.g., fat fishscales are also great for traversing on a descent to access a line that would require hiking or skinning with smooth base skis, working benches and ledges on a descent, getting those extra turns into a cirque that would require skins to get out, etc. FF are greatly beneficial on some tours, mildly beneficial on some tours, sometimes a net wash, but seldom a significant detriment. I was an early FF adopter -- after waiting for a couple decades thinking "why doesn't someone make a fat fishscale ski?" My buds have followed my lead and now all of us take FF (with skins) on most tours.
    Re early adopter, I remember meeting a guy about 10, 12 years ago who basically carved and dremeled a pattern into his fat skis.

    A lot of people go short on their light skis to save weight... but with FF like Voile and G3, how important are the length recommendations from the manufacturer re skier weight? Is it like double camber XC where you'd better in the sweet spot ?



    Does anyone make any FF fatter than 96mm?

    @Quadzilla too
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    11,162
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    Re early adopter, I remember meeting a guy about 10, 12 years ago who basically carved and dremeled a pattern into his fat skis.
    Was that me? I started experimentation 15+ years ago, milling negative bases with vertical mill, not a Dremel. Grip was fine on flats (e.g., frozen lakes) and 10* max in the right snow, but did not noticeably affect downhill glide.

    Karhu Guide (now Madshus Annum), 109/78/95, noodle soft alpine camber, fishscale base, was introduced 9-10 years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    A lot of people go short on their light skis to save weight... but with FF like Voile and G3, how important are the length recommendations from the manufacturer re skier weight? Is it like double camber XC where you'd better in the sweet spot ?
    No, alpine camber vs. Nordic double camber are apples vs. oranges.

    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    Does anyone make any FF fatter than 96mm?
    Not sure if anyone is presently doing that. My 181cm Voile Chargers are 112mm waist. Looks like Voile discontinued Supercharger BC and V6 BC.

    ETA: When Voile introduced the Vector BC and Charger BC I was skeptical re alpine camber + long fishscale pattern due to my Nordic skiing background. I took the plunge, got Charger BC for me and Vector BC for Honey with the idea that I could shorten the pattern per planing. After a few super fun days in mid-winter powder I abandoned that idea, concluding that comparing double camber XC waxless vs. alpine camber fat fishscales is apples vs. oranges. Two different tools for different terrain. IME, the latter is the most versatile tool for getting around in the mountains on snow.

Posting Permissions

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