-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article , MB *@*.* wrote:
Me
In such conditions
grip (not only backwards, btw) tends to be much more important
than glide, but...

Hal Murray
I can't figure out what you are trying to say.

My point is that proper waxing makes handling more difficult in
certain conditios (steep small-scale rough terrain, off-trail),
and actually lowers the average speed.

_ Any ski that can't be waxed is just a snowshoe with delusions
of grandeur.


If the skis are sticky enough so that they help you not go
forward when you are in steep forested terrain,

The differences here are subtle. An unwaxed non-porous base ski
will still glide pretty well forward, but it is easier to handle
especially in difficult climbs (up or down) than a properly
waxed. It's my experience with myself and others on the skis.

While glide is important, minor differences in glide are
very secondary in difficult or heavy skiing conditions. In
soft snow, flotation and tip-flex are what really matters. The
backcountry (forest) skis I'm discussing are typically 210 to
280cm tall and 7cm wide skis. They also have, typically,
insufficient camber stifness for the weight of the skier by XC
standards: Ie the kick base often 'drags' a bit, which kind of
makes smaller differences in the glide waxing irrelevant.


_ You're talking about skis and conditions that really have
no parallel to us North Americans. The only 280cm skis you can
get in the USA are jumping skis. For the conditions you
describe, tight trees and deep snow, I would think a 280cm
ski would be very difficult to maneuver, waxed or unwaxed.
The other solution to this problem I've seen is the Siberian
one of very wide ( 100mm + ) and relatively short skis.

_ Booker C. Bense


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQFXcUWTWTAjn5N/lAQE+0QP+PYviKqaKcmQGjsTdYk3VBERFgwVUnjPk
g3aZku0+36iPosNKe+w5XjI+3KHLda5kR1FbrXRdz1XyCz1aKM gTrgiXspuxlfRf
hmkyA2JuCvMPSbbkHqW6dAssyS6IMV8EYLZMNibtfG152Rj4Ia fxqSJ98mQ5piNx
yODOxR8NrV0=
=g7Bw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----