If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What's with the XC skis that look like alpine skis?
In a local XC ski rental shop here in the midwest I've seen a new style
of XC ski which looks a lot like an alpine ski. It's shorter, wider, and has tapered sides. This thread has its origin in a previous thread about modifying wax type skis, but that's another topic. At issue here is the tapered sides of the new skis, and their shorter length. It has always bothered me that traditional XC skis don't like to turn. Tapered sides would fix this problem. Is there any disadvantage to this? On a hard packed surface I'm sure they are more difficult to keep straight. In a groomed track there's probably little difference because of the sidewalls of the track. But how do they handle on virgin powder? The other issue is length. A shorter and wider ski is easier to turn, which would be good on twisting/turning trails. A shorter length would be more dangerous when crossing a frozen lake, I would think anyway. But when trying to stay on top of crusty snow (with a powder base), would a shorter/wider ski be more or less likely to punch thru the surface, assuming it has the same surface area as a longer and more narrow ski? And why this departure from traditional XC ski designs? Are these short/wide skis really only meant for groomed and packed surfaces, like skating skis? And would they be suitable for backcountry usage? Thanks for your help. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article , Bruce W.1 wrote: In a local XC ski rental shop here in the midwest I've seen a new style of XC ski which looks a lot like an alpine ski. It's shorter, wider, and has tapered sides. [snip] It has always bothered me that traditional XC skis don't like to turn. Tapered sides would fix this problem. Is there any disadvantage to this? On a hard packed surface I'm sure they are more difficult to keep straight. In a groomed track there's probably little difference because of the sidewalls of the track. But how do they handle on virgin powder? _ Actually the reverse is true, they are awful in groomed tracks and a blast in powder. Most are far too wide for the 70mm that seems standard for groomed tracks. The other issue is length. A shorter and wider ski is easier to turn, which would be good on twisting/turning trails. A shorter length would be more dangerous when crossing a frozen lake, I would think anyway. _ I think any difference here is minimal, after all it's surface area on the ice that counts and since these skis tend to have less camber they might actually have more surface area to support the weight. But when trying to stay on top of crusty snow (with a powder base), would a shorter/wider ski be more or less likely to punch thru the surface, assuming it has the same surface area as a longer and more narrow ski? _ Toss up. I've got both and I couldn't tell you one way or the other. And why this departure from traditional XC ski designs? _ Shaped skis have made a big change in alpine skiing and people want XC skis that are as fun to turn as alpine skis. Since many people are plodding on XC skis anyway, a ski optimised for kick'n'glide that performs poorly in turning isn't always the best choice for most people. Are these short/wide skis really only meant for groomed and packed surfaces, like skating skis? And would they be suitable for backcountry usage? _ IMHO, they are far more suitable for BC/ungroomed use than on groomed trails. There is no free lunch in ski design, in general a ski that turns better is going to be slower for kick'n'glide and potentially a lot slower in the tracks. There is a lot of range in this kind of ski, from some that might work okay in tracks to some that never will. _ Booker C. Bense -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBQcB0tGTWTAjn5N/lAQFfAwP/dEbJJX8t0+0Hrl8FSzQTboho3WXxMtcT OYRNbRMseK6rn97xRHpesdevvnk6cepJf3FeMXQencsEJ7tHWS glACpm2FpxFV6U yFhYp+dQk8rGPugWqoX3xpheymvQAZLMm6SCgK58ArqEicuDw4 zqwv837dVsYJm1 mnKhadDwR04= =0Sut -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Booker C. Bense" wrote:
_ IMHO, they are far more suitable for BC/ungroomed use than on groomed trails. There is no free lunch in ski design, in general a ski that turns better is going to be slower for kick'n'glide and potentially a lot slower in the tracks. There is a lot of range in this kind of ski, from some that might work okay in tracks to some that never will. In the skate lanes as well. It's reported from a variety of sources with good knowledge that the skate cuts are slower and Fischer knew that all along. Granted that there's an issue of absolute and relative speed depending on the skier's ability and the course, on the WC circuit skiers demanded 'straight cuts,' the ones with the white lettering you can find in the US apparently at only a couple of shops, Gear West and Finn Sisu. GG |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Bruce-
As another RSN'er mentioned to you in your previous thread about the no-wax bases, you really DO need to get out to the shops more ;- ) Or more accurately, you should have done so about 10 years ago. XC skis have been evolving in several directions since then, one of which is the shorter/wider/curvier direction you're discussing. These skis have been developed precisely because they DO like to turn, at least better than the straighter/longer skis. But you're right-- they're relatively terrible at going straight, especially on somewhat slick and uneven surfaces such as groomed/packed snowmobile trails. They're also slow-- no glide, and only partly because of the no wax base. The other big reason is because they are also cambered like an alpine ski. In other words, it's an XC ski that lets you get out away from the ski area (free heel, light weight, etc), but you pay in terms of that easy touring (kick-n-glide) ability. If you look long enough/hard enough, you will see skis of current design (~5 years or so) that can be placed all along the continuum from narrow, straight, fast classic ski to fatter/wider (really wide)/shaped downhill ski. The trick is to pick where you want to be along that continuum-- you will, unfortunately, never find a ski that can do it all. For what it sounds (to me) like you're looking for, I'd focus on a ski that is: 1) somewhat wider (but not too wide to fit into a groomed ski track, if you want to tour at groomed nordic centers), 2) has a little bit of side-cut (about 6-8 mm difference between shovel and waist, which is 2-3 mm of "waist" per side), 3) has an identifiable double camber, but not a super stiff, high camber (to keep the no-wax pattern out of the snow at least a little bit while you're gliding, but to not be too hard to climb with) 4) and of course has a metal edge, at least 3/4 length. I'm not as familiar with ski selections as I used to be when I worked at retail stores, but I know they're out there. Actually, if you find a good ski, let me know, because that's a hole in my quiver that I'm looking to fill (I NEED that 8th pair of skis-- really!) Chris Cline SLC, UT --- "Bruce W.1" wrote: In a local XC ski rental shop here in the midwest I've seen a new style of XC ski which looks a lot like an alpine ski. It's shorter, wider, and has tapered sides. This thread has its origin in a previous thread about modifying wax type skis, but that's another topic. At issue here is the tapered sides of the new skis, and their shorter length. It has always bothered me that traditional XC skis don't like to turn. Tapered sides would fix this problem. Is there any disadvantage to this? On a hard packed surface I'm sure they are more difficult to keep straight. In a groomed track there's probably little difference because of the sidewalls of the track. But how do they handle on virgin powder? The other issue is length. A shorter and wider ski is easier to turn, which would be good on twisting/turning trails. A shorter length would be more dangerous when crossing a frozen lake, I would think anyway. But when trying to stay on top of crusty snow (with a powder base), would a shorter/wider ski be more or less likely to punch thru the surface, assuming it has the same surface area as a longer and more narrow ski? And why this departure from traditional XC ski designs? Are these short/wide skis really only meant for groomed and packed surfaces, like skating skis? And would they be suitable for backcountry usage? Thanks for your help. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Bruce W.1 wrote:
In a local XC ski rental shop here in the midwest I've seen a new style of XC ski which looks a lot like an alpine ski. It's shorter, wider, and has tapered sides. This thread has its origin in a previous thread about modifying wax type skis, but that's another topic. At issue here is the tapered sides of the new skis, and their shorter length. It has always bothered me that traditional XC skis don't like to turn. Tapered sides would fix this problem. Is there any disadvantage to this? On a hard packed surface I'm sure they are more difficult to keep straight. In a groomed track there's probably little difference because of the sidewalls of the track. But how do they handle on virgin powder? The other issue is length. A shorter and wider ski is easier to turn, which would be good on twisting/turning trails. A shorter length would be more dangerous when crossing a frozen lake, I would think anyway. But when trying to stay on top of crusty snow (with a powder base), would a shorter/wider ski be more or less likely to punch thru the surface, assuming it has the same surface area as a longer and more narrow ski? And why this departure from traditional XC ski designs? Are these short/wide skis really only meant for groomed and packed surfaces, like skating skis? And would they be suitable for backcountry usage? Thanks for your help. I found that the Fischer Nordic Cruiser line (slightly shaped short skis) had better glide than my long skis, when they had a demo day (so I compared all at the same time). I then bought a pair and really like them. I also have a pair of Fischer Outabounds (wide 88mm I think in front), shaped, metal edge, BC type ski) and find the glide poor and a real problem going straight on any hardpack. Don't like them to much at all. I am thinking about a skinner pair of metal edge skies though. gr |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I love my rock skis | Andrew Lee | Nordic Skiing | 0 | December 13th 04 04:20 AM |
Probability of Getting Good Race Skis at Small Ski Shops ?? | Tim Kelley | Nordic Skiing | 26 | October 27th 04 06:41 PM |
A quick thanks to all | Lisa Horton | Alpine Skiing | 12 | May 6th 04 04:31 PM |
Icing on waxless skis | MB | Nordic Skiing | 10 | March 26th 04 03:46 PM |
Near fatal ski incident | Me | Nordic Skiing | 22 | February 27th 04 01:47 PM |