"...gear was already winning the Elk Mountains Grand Traverse *nordic* race years ago, which says a lot about the superior efficiency of AT gear over nordic gear on nordic terrain."

Jonathan, can you describe the conditions of the race and the gear for such races a little further? Were the racers using grip wax on AT skis? Or using skate skiing? What were the reasons of using AT gear (may be to lose on flat section and then to win on downhill)? Or there is no flat section?

Edited by joarr on 12/14/2012 04:20:32 MST.

Here's my take on the Madshus Glittertind MGV+ Skis as well as a lot of photos of it.

Edited by skullmonkey on 12/14/2012 04:53:17 MST.

Yes, non-locals and others not familiar with the EMGT course are at a disadvantage. However, I don’t see how this has any relevance to the nordic vs alpine touring gear differential? The most striking disadvantage in recent years has actually been visited upon non-local SkiMo racers. Meanwhile, anyone who wants to be competitive – local or otherwise – has switched to alpine touring gear for this prominent nordic terrain race.

The reason is obvious is you have any familiarity with modern lightweight alpine touring gear. Unfortunately the authors of this article clearly lack such familiarity, most tellingly in the statement of “Lighter AT Example (but can be as little as 12 pounds)” even though my lightest setup is almost HALF that purported lower bound.

Setting aside the weights of skis (since that is not specific to AT boots and bindings), nordic backcountry boots (both those in the article, and my own pair too) weight *MORE* than modern AT race boots. And what do you get in return for that extra weight? Slightly *LESS* resistance-free range of motion while striding, and far far *LESS* control when skiing down (even w/o bothering to lock down the AT binding heel). AT bindings also weigh less than nordic backcountry bindings, but that differential is smaller and also less important (since static weight gliding along on the snow is far less important that the weight on your foot that must be pivoted with each stride).

Given that lighter weight and superior efficiency of modern lightweight AT gear, no surprise that it dominates a race that was previously the domain of nordic backcountry gear.

As for kick wax, the terminology of “tele” skis is not very helpful (since any ski to which a telemark binding is mounted becomes a tele ski, and skis marketed specifically as telemark are almost always just rebadged alpine downhill skis, sometimes lightened and/or softened, and but sometimes just different graphics). Really we’re talking about double camber versus camber-and-a-half versus single camber. And even the latter category has significant variation: my old Atomic MX:20 AT skis had very noticeable camber, perhaps even venturing into camber-and-a-half territory, whereas my Movement Fish-X skis have very less, and my Hagan X-Race even less.

Obviously kick wax works far better with double camber skis, since that’s the whole point of double camber skis. But kick wax can also work with single camber skis – not as well, but it works. I’ve used it with single camber skis, and it makes a noticeable improvement. (Nailing the right wax is of course another issue altogether, but that's the same challenge regardless of the type of ski.)

Yellowstone in the heart of winter is the easiest place for kick wax I can think of.


Roman, the Grand Traverse is a 40 mile route between Crested Butte and Aspen. You can see a map here; http://westelkproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/GT_Map-823x1024.jpg It's a great summer or winter route, very scenic.

There's not much outright flat, but there's a lot of gentle climbing on snowed in roads and snowmachine tracks. There are some steep downhills in there as well, but if old memory serves none save the final descent (down the ski area in Aspen) are much more than 1000 vertical feet. The local hard guys have for the last 5 years been running skimo gear and nearly full coverage mohair skins. The final ridge from Barnard to the ski area is a rolling ridge which forces anyone to make compromises with it's frequent transitions. Folks on AT gear skate the ups when conditions are good, keep skins on for the downs and skin the ups, or occasionally just bootpack the ups and ski the downs.

Waxing for warm and/or variable conditions is indeed a challenge, and I use a pair of waxless skis or go where skins make sense when conditions make waxing hard. In particular, waxless skis work well enough on refrozen spring snow that I've given up using klister altogether.

It's important to point out, though, that for dry, cold, new snow, waxing is not very hard to learn and in those conditions a well waxed ski works very much better that a waxless ski: both the glide and grip are better.

I don't know whether you meant to imply this, but I inferred from "I've had mixed success with waxable XC skis and miserable failures with grip wax on tele skis" that you think waxing works less well on tele skis than on waxable XC skis. As far as I know a square inch of p-tex with the right wax on it works as well on a waxable XC ski as a tele ski, with exception of a double camber ski on a good track, which will work better than a single camber ski (which is what tele skis are).

Wow..this is ALMOST as good as what type of water treatment to use. ;)


Going skiing this weekend....never occurred to me have an intense debate over what skis to use first. :D

(Now, what beer to get after..that's cause for intense discussion!)

I believe the big Fischers and Rossignols have a bit of camber, but that isn't true of all the big waxless skis. I have a pair of Alpina Lite Terrain skis that have very little (if any) camber. They basically feel like (and probably are) Alpine skis with a waxless bottom. I think the Viole waxless skis are basically the same as their other back country skis, only with waxless bottom.

I would love to be able to buy a pair of the really light skis in a waxless bottom. I wouldn't expect them to glide as well as my motion crown (which are skinny skis with plenty of camber) or my Rainiers (which are much wider but still have some camber). I would expect them to perform (on the flats) as well as my Alpina Lite Terrain skis. They would certainly be faster than skins (which is what I see a lot of people using). When ascending using a waxless (or kick waxed) bottom, you often make a lot of switchbacks (more than you would if you put on your skins). A light ski makes a big difference on every turn. More than anything, that is what I notice when I switch from my Inbound Crown (which are lighter than my Rainiers) to my Alpina Lite Terrain. The lack of good kick and glide is less than ideal, but my main complaint is the weight.

I could try buying a pair of those light skis and applying kick wax, but in my climate, I doubt I would be happy. The temperature always seems to hover around freezing. I rarely see people doing this. On roads where I cruise up via my waxless skis, I see other folks skinning the whole way. This means they are unlikely to ski the chute I mentioned earlier. The chute was essentially a cut of a switchback (perfectly legal in the winter :)). My brother, skiing his BC 125s, skied the chute, then got back on the road and cruised up to where he started. It is highly unlikely that a skier who needed skins for the road would do that (it would be just too much hassle to remove the skins, ski, then put them on again). There are similar example all over the place in the back country as well. While going downhill I can make turns down a nice little bowl and not worry about the fact that I have to climb back up. Meanwhile, the guys with the flat bottom skis stay up high on the ridge and avoid any possible uphill (or even flat).

John wrote: "Waxing for warm and/or variable conditions is indeed a challenge, and I use a pair of waxless skis or go where skins make sense when conditions make waxing hard. In particular, waxless skis work well enough on refrozen spring snow that I've given up using klister altogether."

I agree completely.

"It's important to point out, though, that for dry, cold, new snow, waxing is not very hard to learn and in those conditions a well waxed ski works very much better that a waxless ski: both the glide and grip are better."

I agree to a point. Yes, glide and grip are both somewhat better with wax, but IME much of that advantage is given up fiddling with the wax as conditions change. It's only my personal choice, but I've pretty much given up on waxable skis. I realize that will alarm the purists, and that I'm leaving some performance on the table, but that's how I roll (or glide) now.

"As far as I know a square inch of p-tex with the right wax on it works as well on a waxable XC ski as a tele ski, with exception of a double camber ski on a good track, which will work better than a single camber ski"

I understand. But I'm not convinced that the single/double camber difference is as unimportant as you suggest. Yes, when breaking trail, the wax pocket doesn't matter much if at all. But, only one person in a party breaks trail at a time. Those following in his tracks benefit from proper camber/wax pockets.

Advanced skills (such as waxing) and advanced equipment (like state-of-the-art AT racing gear) are really beyond the scope of this introductory article aimed at getting beginners out in the BC. But, by all means continue the discussion. I hope that the more advanced skiers here will enjoy the upcoming part II by Forrest McCarthy.

Dave Chenault wrote: "Yellowstone in the heart of winter is the easiest place for kick wax I can think of."

Yep...except near the thermals. ;-)

Seriously, one of my worst experiences with waxable skis was on a day tour around the geyser basin at Old Faithful on XC skis. The snow temp easily varied by over 30F. I ended the day with dangerously cold hands fiddling with the wax in repeated, but ultimately futile, attempts to achieve some semblance of predictable grip and glide.

Cheers,

Mike

Edited by MikeMartin on 12/14/2012 18:17:37 MST.

Jonathan, Dave, thanks for your answers. I've read some reports about Elk Mountains Grand Traverse, including Mike Kloser's tips - it is more clear now.
I agree that AT racing gear (and nordic racing) is more technologically advanced now, backcountry skiing gear is in some stagnation.
But i think there are situations when using backcountry skiing gear is more reasonable:
1. AT skiing gear is more suited to ascending\descending skiing mode. So, when horizontal component is more than vertical, when we need to cover long distances, but also need gear more rugged (and metal edges) than nordic racing - backcountry skis like Asnes Amundsen, Madshus Glittertind with Rotefella Supertelemark bindings and boots like Garmont Venture come to mind. Similar to what authors of the article called "Nordic touring". This setup weights around 3960 grams = 140 oz = 8.73 lbs (skis 1890 gr, bindings 370 gr, boots 1700 gr). The key factor (besides different skis) is the price, simplicity and reliability of the setup combined.
2. Using backcountry (crosscountry downhill) skis like Madshus Annum, Fischer S-Bound 112 with AT bindings (may be toe pieces) and AT boots. Like Dave already said, backcountry skis have different characteristics from AT skis - different flexibility, side cut, also waxless base is sometimes needed.
It would be cool to apply AT skis technology in this area - to make skis lighter, boots - lighter and not vulnerable to water.

For examle, Jonathan, what setup would you prefer for Alaska Mountain Wilderness Ski Classic?

Also i don't clearly understand what for we need skis like Rossignol BC 125, Voile Charger BC. To use them in Ross Bleakney's brother mode?

Edited by joarr on 12/14/2012 13:26:11 MST.

>> Also i don't clearly understand what for we need skis like Rossignol BC 125, Voile Charger BC. To use them in Ross Bleakney's brother mode?

Yes, exactly. I have to mention, by the way, that I've used the Rossignol BC 125 skis as well. The only reason I stopped is because the (Randonee) boots I paired them with hurt my feet. This brings up a different issue. As I see it, there are only two big advantages of BC boots over Randonee boots: price and comfort. Comfort is obviously subjective, but when I've tried on the big plastic boots, I didn't like them. They remind me of alpine ski boots (which I hate). Cross country gear reminds me of trail runners, or at the very worst, hiking boots. As you can tell, I'm a bit of a foot weenie -- I like light, flimsy foot gear. I haven't given up, but price plays a part as well. I can buy a pair of BC boots at the store and not worry about swallowing the price if it turns out that I don't like them. Doing so with Randonee gear is much more costly.

But getting back to fat skis; basically they are great for powder as well as some other conditions, like breakable crust or choppy snow. With breakable crust, most skis sink in and cause all sorts of problems. A fat ski can just float over the top. Similarly, a choppy area (perhaps caused by folks post holing or using snow shoes) can be navigated more easily with skis that have a really big surface area.

But that is true of fat skis in general. The advantage of a waxless bottom in back country skiing is basically that it saves you the hassle of skinning or using kickwax. This is true of any waxless ski. What isn't so obvious to many back country skiers is how often it comes in handy. The yoyo trip I mentioned is one example, but I often run across situations where the waxless pattern comes in handy. For example, I often ski up to Camp Muir, on the south side of Mount Rainier (outside of Paradise). This is a pretty common route, and most people (including me) skin up for this trip. One variation on the way down involves going out Mazama Ridge. This is a great tour that gently descends, but contains lots of interesting little bowls and curves. With waxless skis, I'm free to check out these options, and go as slow as I want. If I had flat skis, I would probably stay up high and try to keep my speed up. Furthermore, the trip ends up on the road to Reflection Lakes, which involves ascending again. With the waxless skis, I don't have to hassle with skins, and just glide back to the car. I think some folks assume that if you have waxless skis, then you don't use skins. This isn't true, especially for those big skis (which are often used on steep areas).

Pmags, have you been walking around CO with a bag over your head? ;)

Mike, nothing like thermal mud insta-frozen to your bases at -20.

Roman, your rig #1 is great; would be even better if the boots were more torsionally stiff and waterproof.

The fat (>80 waist) waxless skis have two roles. In their shorter iterations they're great schwacking/brush skis. In more normal lengths, and used as standard AT/tele skis they provide more efficient travel on flat and rolling approaches and runouts while only giving up a little gliding speed, and then only on harder snows. You also can't ski switch on them.

Ha! :D

Yes, it really can religious here, too
But, luckily those debates are mainly online, too


Luckily my friends and I keep our religious differences to ourselves. ;)

I've been known to hang with (says in a quiet whisper) snowshoers :D
In the backcountry, my friends and I are more interested in playing in the snow....and the beer, of course.

Edited by PaulMags on 12/14/2012 15:52:45 MST.

These articles are such a tease with the lack of base we have here in CO so far...

Went all in on getting light as possible for long tours with emphasis on downhill as well. Thanks to the Boulder sample sales and some last years gear sales from European companies I pieced together a Sportiva Lo5, RT bindings, and Dynafit TLT5s coming in at 6 lbs 10.5 oz per foot. Guess I'll have to add in the skin weight at some point. Sorry, too excited and felt like bragging!

Loving the winter focused articles!

Any suggestions on XC equipment for use in MD,VA,WV? Looking to do some overnight XC along fire roads,logging roads, and hiking trails. I weigh about 190 and winter pack weight with consumables is under 25lbs. Would a pair of metal edged Rossi BC 65's be sufficent? If so, any boot recomendations to pair with those skis?

Edited by benjita on 12/15/2012 08:20:06 MST.

Went on a trip Friday and today and ended up carrying the skis more often than not. Anymore ski season is mid-Jan thru mid-June.

"Looking to do some overnight XC along fire roads,logging roads, and hiking trails. I weigh about 190 and winter pack weight with consumables is under 25lbs. Would a pair of metal edged Rossi BC 65's be sufficent? If so, any boot recomendations to pair with those skis?"

For snowed in roads that'd be a fine ski, though if the snow is deep and soft you might want something wider. The 65s will work in groomed tracks as a bonus. Hiking trails can mean a lot of different things. If they've flatish, then those skis are good. On steep and tight trails skinny skis are not kind to beginners (or indeed, non-experts). Either 3 pin or system (NNN, SNS, etc) bindings will work with those skis. Get a mid-stiffness boot that fits and you'll be all set.

Well, my good friend and I did a ski tour today. A lovely morning ski with just enough snow to get a kick and glide in and a fun little downhill down the road back to the car. (CMC south to Lil Raven for anyone in the area)

Somehow we were too busy catching up and having fun to discuss NNN-BC vs 3 pin or Wax vs fish scales. (Though I did mention I did get to use polar wax last weekend when it was colder...)

I apologize in advance for having fun rather than discussing gear while skiing. ;)

Over Xmas, I'll be sure to do an in depth questionnaire over everyone's gear as we go to the 10th Mtn Division Hut. In between the cups of gluhwein (my wife is German and I am thankful for being introduced to this wonderful winter beverage), I am sure we can ponder the pros and cons of AT vs Tele vs Nordic Backcountry vs snowshoes in terms of gear. All four types of gear will be represented. I am thinking of bringing a scale to the hut to fully tabulate the results....

Tongue (mainly) planted in cheek. :D

I skied today as well. Things have been pretty good in the Northwest and about to get better. We did the opposite, though, and talked about gear most of the time. We saw some folks using Voile gear, and I personally was jealous. Then again, I'm not sure if it would have worked with my BC boots. Everyone else had A. T. or Telemark gear, but I was trying to manage Alpina Lite Terrain with my Alpina 2050 boots. There is nothing wrong with the boots, but those skis just weren't right for all of the deep snow. I love this combination in the Spring, but conditions like these (and my guess is you folks in Montana are about to experience similar conditions) call for lighter, fatter skis. The problem, of course, is that it is difficult to manage big fat skis with BC boots. Which leads me to either use different boots (which might hurt my feet) or to avoid the really steep stuff. I did some of that today, but it seemed silly. If I'm going to traverse my way down a mountain, I would much rather just use regular cross country gear. A pair of Inbound Crowns is really light (as light as a lot of really expensive A. T. gear) but really flimsy. But unless I step up a couple notches (to Randonee/Telemark gear) I can't manage steep hills in deep snow anyway.

But enough about that. I would really like to see a few graphs showing various pieces of winter gear. I would start with boots and bindings. On the left you would have weight. On the bottom of the graph would be control. I wouldn't try and figure out the particulars of each piece of gear, but just lump them by type. So, left to right you would have plain cross country boots, then BC, then three pin, then Randonee/Telemark. My guess is that you would have a graph that gradually moves up as you went to the right, but then flared on you hit the A. T. stuff. In other words, cross country gear is light, BC gear is a heavier, and A. T. gear ranges from being heavier than BC, to being as light as some of the cross country gear (which makes it lighter than all of the BC gear). With bindings I think you would find the same thing. Both of these graphs would be fairly straightforward to make (I think).

Comparing skis gets really complicated, unfortunately. To begin with, generally speaking, there is no specific "type" of ski (as mentioned earlier). With few exceptions, you can mount any binding on any ski. So one of the problems is trying to define how appropriate a ski is for the conditions. This adds to the number of data points. You could add camber, metal edge, turning radius, surface area and rocker. I'm sure it could be done, and it would lead similar results. The cross country gear (even the cheap stuff) is light, but is difficult to use in many conditions (steep slopes on deep snow). The more surface area a ski has, the heavier it is, although there are some high-end skis with really low weight and plenty of surface area. I think graphs like these would make it easier to understand the options available. But then again, I just like cool graphs.

//Roman, your rig #1 is great; would be even better if the boots were more torsionally stiff and waterproof.

Dave, i don't own this rig, it is only in plans. So i am considering other boots options:
Alpina Explorer 75
Rossignol BC X6 75mm
But there are no reviews of them, and i can't find them in russian local shops, so i picked Garmont because its weight is listed on site.
And i still have to find application for such skis - mountains on vacation perhaps. On local trails near Moscow i am fairly successfully using ordinary racing XC skis - Atomic Skintec.

Edited by joarr on 12/19/2012 00:52:20 MST.

Quantifing the attributes of nordic boots is tough. You want a degree of side to side rigidity, but sole stiffness is the primary thing which will allow you to control a ski in more difficult snows and terrain. The various brands vary a lot here. In the end fit will trump everything. For instance, I use Rossignol Bcx11s because they fit. The Fischer 675s were stiffer in the sole and skied better in many ways, but the forefoot was too skinny for me.

Best buy from a retailer with a good return policy.

I agree, the fit is the key thing. Especially with plastic boots, where there is less likely to be much give (which is the point). In other words, heavy leather boots are more likely to feel better on your feet after a few months of use, while plastic boots won't. Complicating things is that a lot of the boots have heat moldable liners. These are meant to tailor the fit to your feet. But there is only so much these can do. Many stores won't return a boot after the heat molding. Thus, it kind of is a tricky situation. A boot won't fit perfect in the store (because it needs to be heat molded) but if it still feels bad (after the molding) then you are in trouble. I recommend renting. It won't fit perfect (because of the heat molding) but you can eat least try several different pairs and try to find the one that feels the best. With BC and cross country boots, you don't have this problem.