versatile ski choice?

I'm a little shy of 6'1" and about
200lbs.

I was assuming something around the 190cm size would be best for my
size/expected use.

Depends if you ski classic, or skating....

Skating, generally shorter is better (i have seen adults in skis that are
too short for most kids)

Classic, longer is better, that way in deep snow, you dont sink.

One thing, if you want to destroy your skis, ski on the roads. The
dirt/pavement/salt combination will ruin any skis you get.

Micheal (still waiting for the snow in my area)

Hello!

I'm an intermediate alpine skier with a few days out in some rental
nordic gear. I'd like to do more this season with my own gear. I was
able to buy a pair of Salomon Escape D7 nordic boots (for profil
bindings) and now I just need to decide on some skis!

I expect to use these for about 25% on-trail (we don't have many
groomed or frequently-used trails where I live) and 75% off (roads,
golf courses, ungroomed trails, light backcountry). 'Some turning on
moderately hilly terrain now and then but nothing too serious. This
would be in the drier snow conditions of the Rocky Mountain states (CO
and WY mainly). If I do more serious backcountry action I'll probably
look for a pair of legitimate backcountry skis for that purpose (and a
different boot/binding system). I'm a little shy of 6'1" and about
200lbs.

Any suggestions for skis? Based on what I've read elsewhere I've been
thinking about the Karhu Quanic (62-53-57), Karhu Rendezvous Omnitrack
(65-55-60) or the Fischer Country Crown (60-52-57), any of which I can
get without breaking the bank. It seems both Karhu and Fischer are
well-respected lines and provide a decent combination of on-trail
kick/glide and off-trail grip/maneuverability, and would work well
with the salomon profil binding system I'd use with my boots.

I was assuming something around the 190cm size would be best for my
size/expected use.

Any thoughts/advice/recommendations appreciated! Thanks everyone for
your time.

Colin
coyotefred

Any suggestions for skis? Based on what I've read elsewhere I've been
thinking about the Karhu Quanic (62-53-57), Karhu Rendezvous Omnitrack
(65-55-60) or the Fischer Country Crown (60-52-57)

My usual cross-country skis are the Fischer Country and Fischer Country
Crown. I've found that they work well in terrain similar to what you
described. For dry snow, I'd prefer the waxable version. Even in New
England, I only have to resort to the "Crown" (waxless) version less than
20% of the time. I don't have any experience with the particular Karhu
skis you mentioned, but, as you say, they are a well-respected brand and I
would have no qualms about getting those (but again, I'd recommend
waxable).

I was assuming something around the 190cm size would be best for my
size/expected use.

That sounds too short. I weigh around 170 pounds and have been skiing on
205 cm skis. Last year I got a newer pair of Fischer skis that were
designed to run slightly shorter than traditional skis, and even they were
about 197 cm. I don't know what the sizing is for those Karhu models,
but, given their width, I doubt that they would size much smaller. The
best way to determine the size is by standing on the skis in the ski shop
and have someone else try to slide a piece of paper underneath the skis.
(The paper should move freely with your weight distributed evenly between
the two skis, but not with your weight on only on one ski.)

As the other guy said, skating skis are shorter, but the skis you
mentioned are not skating skis, and, from what you described, I assumed
you'd be skiing in classic style, especially off trail.

The best part of this is that, after you get your own gear, you'll be
skiing more, getting better, and having more fun.

Lew Lasher
Cambridge, Massachusetts and Stowe, Vermont

coyotefred wrote:
Hello!

I'm an intermediate alpine skier with a few days out in some rental
nordic gear. I'd like to do more this season with my own gear. I was
able to buy a pair of Salomon Escape D7 nordic boots (for profil
bindings) and now I just need to decide on some skis!

I expect to use these for about 25% on-trail (we don't have many
groomed or frequently-used trails where I live) and 75% off (roads,
golf courses, ungroomed trails, light backcountry). 'Some turning on
moderately hilly terrain now and then but nothing too serious. This
would be in the drier snow conditions of the Rocky Mountain states (CO
and WY mainly). If I do more serious backcountry action I'll probably
look for a pair of legitimate backcountry skis for that purpose (and a
different boot/binding system). I'm a little shy of 6'1" and about
200lbs.

Any suggestions for skis? Based on what I've read elsewhere I've been
thinking about the Karhu Quanic (62-53-57), Karhu Rendezvous Omnitrack
(65-55-60) or the Fischer Country Crown (60-52-57), any of which I can
get without breaking the bank. It seems both Karhu and Fischer are
well-respected lines and provide a decent combination of on-trail
kick/glide and off-trail grip/maneuverability, and would work well
with the salomon profil binding system I'd use with my boots.

I was assuming something around the 190cm size would be best for my
size/expected use.

Any thoughts/advice/recommendations appreciated! Thanks everyone for
your time.

Colin
coyotefred
I am one of those in this group who does little on groomed surfaces,
and I like the Fischer Cordic Cruiser line. The Cruiser or Voyager model
is versatile for both groomed and hiking trails. They also have a metal
edge version, the Explorer, if you want to go that route. If you can
find a Fischer demo day and try them all out (like I did when I
bought), that really lets you know the difference between them.
I am not sure if the line is only waxless or if some are wax.
gr

Thanks everyone for the great suggestions. It sounds like one of the
Fischers would likely be a good choice--but something probably in a
larger size (210-215cm) for my weight. I'm a little hesitant about
the waxing option since I've heard a few stories about how difficult
that can be, but those stories might be exaggerated...

Rent before you buy. Metal edge is worth it when you need it. Better
shorter than longer until you develop skills..
"coyotefred" wrote in message
om...
Thanks everyone for the great suggestions. It sounds like one of the
Fischers would likely be a good choice--but something probably in a
larger size (210-215cm) for my weight. I'm a little hesitant about
the waxing option since I've heard a few stories about how difficult
that can be, but those stories might be exaggerated...

JS wrote:

... Metal edge is worth it when you need it.

Yes, when you need it, but right now he doesn't need it. Go back and read
what his intentions are. He said that, for now, he's going to be skiing
mostly on "roads, golf courses, ungroomed trails, light backcountry",
"moderately hilly terrain now and then but nothing too serious" and 25%
on-trail (which I interpreted to mean groomed trails). For these purposes,
you don't need metal edges. He went on to say that he's willing to get
another pair of skis if he does "more serious backcountry action." Then,
he should, and almost certainly would, follow your advice to get metal
edges. But not now. Now it would be a bad idea.

Lew Lasher
Cambridge, Massachusetts and Stowe, Vermont

... Metal edge is worth it when you need it.

Yes, when you need it, but right now he doesn't need it. Go back and read
what his intentions are.

He asked about a veratile ski to be used 75% off track in Colorado and
Wyoming. I did not specifically recommend metal edged skis, I just pointed
out that metal edges are good to have when you need them. They add
versatilty.
There are many lighter weight metal edged skis (like several Fischer and
Karhu models) that would work well with the boot and binding system he has
to provide better control for downhill and in icy conditions. He did not
say he intended to race the ski, but to use it to explore the backcounty.
My recomendation was that he rents before he buys. Many new to backcountry
skiers quickly lose interest in skiing on golf courses and look for ascents
to catch the view. There is plenty of that terrain available in Colorado
and Wyoming where he will be skiing.
I do not agree that metal edge skis are a "bad idea" for backcountry
exploring. I think they are more versatile and allow more confident skiing
in a broader range of conditions than lightweight skis designed for kick and
glide skiing on groomed trails.
But that is just my opinion.

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:04:01 GMT, "JS" wrote:

I do not agree that metal edge skis are a "bad idea" for backcountry
exploring. I think they are more versatile and allow more confident skiing
in a broader range of conditions than lightweight skis designed for kick and
glide skiing on groomed trails.
But that is just my opinion.

Whoever is suggesting to avoid metal edges has never skied off track
in New England.

Sometimes metal edges are helpful at groomed XC areas here as well.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

Question: What do metal edges do?

June

"Gary S." Idontwantspam@net wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:04:01 GMT, "JS"
wrote:

I do not agree that metal edge skis are a "bad idea" for
backcountry
exploring. I think they are more versatile and allow more
confident skiing
in a broader range of conditions than lightweight skis designed for
kick and
glide skiing on groomed trails.
But that is just my opinion.

Whoever is suggesting to avoid metal edges has never skied off track
in New England.

Sometimes metal edges are helpful at groomed XC areas here as well.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom