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?

[GeezerSteve]

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:

[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.



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....

[GeezerSteve]

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.

[GeezerSteve]

^ ^ ^ 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.

[GeezerSteve]

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.

[SB]

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.

[SB]

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/...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?

[GeezerSteve]

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.