Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
BC ski gear for rugged, mileage focused touring
Display Avatars Sort By:
Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: If not fat, fallen? on 12/14/2010 16:18:32 MST Print View

Hi Robert

> Have your arches fallen? Have your foot muscles grown massively, like Arnold's arms and chest?
I suspect the bones grew a bit under the load of several 2 and 3 month walking trips in Europe. Then the tendons and ligaments inside the foot grew in size to match.

> If the total volume hasn't increased,
Ah, but the volume HAS increased!

Cheers

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Roger's feet on 12/14/2010 16:21:23 MST Print View

> Is he an alien?
I do believe that is what the USA immigration department would call me ....

Cheers
PS - 'deep end'??? Mild, very mild. :-)

Royal Magnell
(BlueMan) - F

Locale: Northern CA
Rossignol BC 125 vs Madshus Annum on 03/29/2011 08:15:06 MDT Print View

What do people think? Which is a better touring/approach ski? I'm a newb looking to start skiing cheap. It would be uses in California mostly, in the Sierras and on Shasta. Right now I'm finding a better deal for the Rossignol than the Madshus. Also, I haven't seen a weight recommendation for the Rossignols. I'm 165 and 5"10 so I'd imagine I'd want the 175's, yes?

Douglas Ray
(dirtbagclimber)

Locale: Pacific Northwest
BC 125 vs. Madshus on 03/29/2011 11:49:34 MDT Print View

I haven't gotten to play with the Madshus/Karhu ski yet, but I have demo'd the Rossignol, and a buddy of mine has a pair. I have done a fair bit of research because I do like fish scales in the backcountry.

The two skis are conceptually different. The Madshus is a traditional-length, conventional profile, low-cambered, soft-flexing telemark ski with fish-scales added. The Rossignol is a short, wide, high-ish camber powder ski (or what would have been a powder ski 5 years ago), with fish-scales added.

I would guess the Madshus will probably tour more efficiently in most conditions, and will probably be more stable and easier to handle descending in soft backcountry snow that is not terribly deep. People say it climbs a bit better just on the pattern. Note that skiers refer to snow depth based on how far you sink in standing on skis, not overall snow pack. These are about the biggest skis that most people will want to manage with 3-pin bindings and a light 2-buckle boot. The are to much ski for leather boots unless you are very talented, and some people are quite happy using 3-buckle boots and a moderately burly binding. Some happily ski them with Dynafits, and it would be well matched to any of the light tec-compatible boots. In this ski you would want the 185. It would be more work to manage in the trees than the Rossignol. It would be a bit lighter.

The Rossignol is a bit of a different animal. For your weight you would want the 165. With more camber and less-aggressive fish-scales you would not want to size up until you weigh at least 180lb. This ski calls for a 3-buckle teli boot and some sort of cable or hard-wire binding for most free-heel skiers, or dynafits with a moderate boot. It is going to be easier to manage in the trees. This ski will probably call for more energy input to control and a little more skill, but if you give it that it will allow you to ski more difficult conditions. That's my take on it anyway.

You will want skins fore either on many trips.

Royal Magnell
(BlueMan) - F

Locale: Northern CA
Thanks!! on 03/30/2011 13:01:02 MDT Print View

I appreciate the thoughts. I decided to go for them in the 165 length as you recommended. I'm excited. I'm getting a pair of used 3-pin voile bindings as well. I guess I'll have to find some inexpensive plastic boots strong enough to drive my new skis. I can't wait.

Royal Magnell
(BlueMan) - F

Locale: Northern CA
Boots on 04/04/2011 16:25:24 MDT Print View

I decided to get the BC 125s—which I'm super stoked about. I'm pairing them with voile hardwires. I've been looking for an affordable pair of two buckle plastic boots and so far haven't had much luck. I've heard that the garmont excursion (the only two buckle plastic boot available new) doesn't fit many people well and that the best thing I could get would be an older pair of scarpa boots. I just found a pair of scarpa boots that seem to be in my size, but I'm not sure what model they are or if they'd be worth my while. They look awful old. Any opinions? Thanks!


Purple ski boots

David Chenault
(DaveC) - BPL Staff - F

Locale: Crown of the Continent
BC boots on 04/04/2011 16:37:00 MDT Print View

Royal, those are some pretty old T2s. Nothing wrong with that. The boots looks to be in very good shape, if the pin holes are the same, you're good to go.

Fitting ski boots is a complex topic. You want them to be very snug all around, but to have enough room for all day comfort and warm toes. A rule of thumb is to take the liner out and put a socked foot in. With flat toes touching the front you should be able to put two tight fingers between your heel and the boot shell.

Eric Blumensaadt
(Danepacker) - MLife

Locale: Mojave Desert
Norwegian army skis (new) on 04/05/2011 12:04:26 MDT Print View

In 2008 I Bought a pair of new Norwegian Army skis (Asnes) from Neptune Mountaineering in Boulder, Colorado. These skis are light but mil-spec strong.

I got 210 cm. skis B/C that's what I was used to as a Nordic patroller. They are fast over rolling terrain but tough to maneuver over downhill wooded forest areas.

Also I have Atomic TM skis in 190 cm. for on-piste and steeper backcountry areas. they have a lot more width and sidecut than my Army skis. They are slower, don't track straight and are heavier than my Army skis but they DO turn well.

Both pair use Voile' release binding plates with different toe and heel setups. IMHO baackcountry skis W/O release bindings are unsafe for backcountry use.

David W.
(Davidpcvsamoa) - MLife

Locale: East Bay, CA
Back Country Ski - Advice Sought on 04/06/2011 22:37:03 MDT Print View

I am a totally new to back country skiing but I would like to pick up a set of skis, bindings and boots. I am 6'1, 204lbs. I have a little downhill and xcountry experience. I would mostly be skiing in the Sierra doing touring on fire roads and trips such as Ostrander Hut. I would like a balanced ski that emphasizes covering miles off-trail efficiently and climbing over turning and downhill speed.

I was looking at the Fisher SBound 98 Ski (189 CM)or the Madshus Eon (195 CM). Based on Dave C's earlier post about Fisher being more downhill oriented, perhaps Madshus would be the way to go for me. Would a 3 pin binding balance these choices out nicely for the skiing i would be doing?

I am very much open to buying used skis if I can find a good pair at a decent price.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

David

Paul Magnanti
(PaulMags) - MLife

Locale: People's Republic of Boulder
Asnes skis on 04/07/2011 08:14:51 MDT Print View

>>In 2008 I Bought a pair of new Norwegian Army skis (Asnes) from Neptune >>Mountaineering in Boulder, Colorado. These skis are light but mil-spec strong.

>>I got 210 cm. skis B/C that's what I was used to as a Nordic patroller. They are fast >>over rolling terrain but tough to maneuver over downhill wooded forest areas.

This past year, I took a part of my tax rebate and splurged on a pair of Asnes skis as well.

I also most bought the same pair as you:
http://tinyurl.com/3rsq554

The version I ended up going with is this one:
http://snipurl.com/27r2gn [www_neptunemountaineering_com]


They are very similar to yours (weigh, profile, sidecut, etc.) but a little more 'spongier'/not as firm.

They are a bit better with turning if not as quite as good at gliding with heavier loads. Figure it was a good trade off.

My boots and binding system seem to be identical to what you are using.

Love 'em for the type of skiing described.

David Chenault
(DaveC) - BPL Staff - F

Locale: Crown of the Continent
skis! on 04/07/2011 10:14:05 MDT Print View

David W, those skis with 3 pins and the heavier plastic/leather boots sound good for what you have in mind. You might be able to find the Eons on sale right now, too.

ROBERT TANGEN
(RobertM2S) - M

Locale: Lake Tahoe
Unsafe bindings on 04/07/2011 11:19:20 MDT Print View

Re: "IMHO baackcountry skis W/O release bindings are unsafe for backcountry use." If you take that position, you just might be entering the zone where Dynafit Alpine Touring bindings (now known as "tech") edge out a 3-pin set-up, no? By the time you add releasable plates, the weight probably EXCEEDS the weight of a tech binding. I know, tech bindings plus specialized tech boots are VERY expensive. Most people probably will opt for the unsafe but cheaper, lighter, non-releasable 3-pin set up, in my non-expert opinion.

Jonathan Shefftz
(jshefftz1) - MLife

Locale: Western Mass.
Lightest releasable bindings are Dynafit/Tech on 04/07/2011 14:18:51 MDT Print View

"Re: "IMHO baackcountry skis W/O release bindings are unsafe for backcountry use." If you take that position, you just might be entering the zone where Dynafit Alpine Touring bindings (now known as "tech") edge out a 3-pin set-up, no?"
Doesn't take much to enter that zone -- my releasable rando race bindings weigh only 10.7 ounces, per pair, toe and heel combined, even including mounting screws:
http://www.wildsnow.com/4228/rando-race-gear-review-2/

Royal Magnell
(BlueMan) - F

Locale: Northern CA
Re: BC 125 vs. Madshus on 05/31/2011 21:21:05 MDT Print View

Doug,

I'm preparing to mount my bindings on the Rossignal BC 125's I picked up. They have a "balance point" that I think it is the recommended binding placement. Would you go with that? Or the "cord center"? I'm a nOOb skier so I'd like to get the bindings straight the first time. I'd also like my skis to respond easily as I learn.

Douglas Ray
(dirtbagclimber)

Locale: Pacific Northwest
BC 125 mounting point on 06/01/2011 08:03:28 MDT Print View

I haven't skied my BC 125's enough to be sure yet weather I like where I mounted them. I put the pin line on there balance point, as has a friend of mine. They are fine except for being a little hooky sometimes. That means that they tend to catch an edge and snap around rather than really carve an arc. They are very easy to smear mounted that far back, but keeping the edge engaged seems harder. I need to ski them more to be sure, I'm not all that experienced myself.

I have considered pulling the bindings and moving them forward about 2cm. We'll see.

Royal Magnell
(BlueMan) - F

Locale: Northern CA
Mounting Point on 06/03/2011 09:23:07 MDT Print View

Thanks Doug!

I think I'll try just forward of the balance point. I'm thinking 1-1.5 cm forward. I guess I'll find out if that'll work well. The BC 125's sure look nice. I can't wait to ski on them.

john ouellette
(beungood) - F

Locale: Ma
Am I on the right track? on 12/30/2011 09:50:05 MST Print View

For tame stuff I usually Rock NNN BC Magnum /Atomic Sierras/Fischer BCx6 NNNbc boots ,but I do have some heavier items laying around that I would like to use for steeper /deeper conditions in the Berkshires 3000'+. Some use lighter stuff some use Madshus Annums.

I have Violle 3 pin Hardwire CRB mounted on platforms wbrakes and Rossignol BC X-11 boots. Would these work with the Hard Flex BC 125's in 165? Im 165-ish and sometimes /most times carry a pack. I am fairly new to XC (3 years). Ive heard this binding makes the ski stiffer due to the platform. Would I be better off with the soft flex version? or a longer ski?

Ive also can get a deal on Madshus Eon. Would I be better with the this ski for the binding and boot above? Never tel'd before but am getting invites from friends out in the steeper part of the state..

Thanks,

Jack

David Chenault
(DaveC) - BPL Staff - F

Locale: Crown of the Continent
re: the right track on 01/01/2012 09:54:31 MST Print View

John, most folks would likely find the BCX-11 too little boot to drive a 95mm waisted ski in all but nice, uniform powder. Setting an edge on harder stuff would be particularly problematic. The risers will only exacerbate that issue.

Depending on what you want to do with the rig, either get the Eon, or get a plastic boot. A longer, skinnier ski the Eon would be better for fire roads and rolling stuff through the woods, but not so good for steeper and more challenging terrain. It might also be fairly close in functionality to your NNN setup.

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Unsafe bindings on 01/01/2012 13:53:24 MST Print View

> "IMHO baackcountry skis W/O release bindings are unsafe for backcountry use."
Hum ???
In over 20 years of BC skiing I have never had release bindings. Never had any accidents as a result of the lack either. Started with leather 3-pin, now using NNN-BC.

As for 3-pin - yeah, good, but an old design, very heavy boots, and those plastic boots are murder for TOURING. OK for steep and deep maybe, but for long distances - DIE!.

Cheers