WTB: 210CM Waxless XC/BC Ski Setup

[dmgod]

Been backcountry touring heavily for the last 15 years, looking to get a XC/BC setup that's a little less aggressive for putzing around more moderate areas.

Since I'm new to the XC scene, my understanding is that the following are important characteristics:

• 210cm
• Waxless/ Fishscale
• Metal Edges
• 3-pin binding setup

Also, in the market for compatible boots - size 11/11.5 M

[3PinGrin]

Been backcountry touring heavily for the last 15 years, looking to get a XC/BC setup that's a little less aggressive for putzing around more moderate areas.

Since I'm new to the XC scene, my understanding is that the following are important characteristics:

• 210cm
• Waxless/ Fishscale
• Metal Edges
• 3-pin binding setup

Also, in the market for compatible boots - size 11/11.5 M

Based on your length comment, I think you are confusing classic nordic touring skis with the more modern wider waxless skis with metal edges. These skis typically don't come in a 210 length, they are quite a bit shorter. Skis like the Voile UltraVector BC, Rossignol BC 125, etc. These are more like typical alpine skis (the Voile series in particular) with a waxless base. The 210cm length would be more like a Fischer Country crown, etc. which typically does not have a metal edge and is more for covering flatter ground efficiently. It sounds like you are looking for the Voile type skis. A 3 pin binding is a good choice for these type of skis (I prefer a free pivot tele binding like the switchback), but you can also mount them with alpine touring bindings, which a lot of people do.

[dmgod]

Awesome, thank you for the insight, I've been finding the length discussion a bit challenging to understand. For a fish-scale setup, should I still be following the "card under the heel trick" to see if the flex pattern is correct? I tried this out with a 190 length that was like ~70mm underfoot and couldn't pull the card out.

Do you have any thoughts on the style of 3 pin? I know that there's a newer and older version? I have multiple AT dynafit setups, so really looking to have something that's more lightweight/ comfortable for flatter/ hilly terrain. Thanks for the ski suggestions, looking at this setup for a relatively cheap/ used option that I might use 3-4 times a year.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

How much do you weigh?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[GeezerSteve]

For a fish-scale setup, should I still be following the "card under the heel trick" to see if the flex pattern is correct?

That's a double-camber classic XC ski test, doesn't apply to fat fishscales, e.g., Voile UltraVector BC, which are alpine flex, nor wider single camber XC skis.

210 metal edge fishscale XC skis are available, e.g., Fischer E99 Crown, although rare, niche skis for forest service roads and icy/dirty XC tracks when you're not in a hurry. They tend to be softer than classic XC skis for track, so the card under the kick pocket test is not applicable.

For putzing around meadows and rolling terrain, you'd likely have more fun on a soft single camber XC fishscale ski, e.g., Fischer S-Bound 112, Mashus Annum or Rossi BC 110 or BC 125, or an alpine flex fat fishscale, e.g., Voile Objective BC or UltraVector BC.

[dmgod]

I'm 6.2, 200 lbs, normally ski ~190 on my AT Setups.

That's a double-camber classic XC ski test, doesn't apply to fat fishscales, e.g., Voile UltraVector BC, which are alpine flex, nor wider single camber XC skis.

Ahh thank you for the insight here. I'm new to this whole world...

210 metal edge fishscale XC skis are available, e.g., Fischer E99 Crown, although rare, niche skis for forest service roads and icy/dirty XC tracks when you're not in a hurry. They tend to be softer than classic XC skis for track, so the card under the kick pocket test is not applicable.

https://boulder.craigslist.org/spo/d...234599972.html -Would this work for me given my size - my assumption was that this was too small? (we're now bordering tech talk convo, here, but if anyone has a better idea/ deal floating around for me, I'm game)

For putzing around meadows and rolling terrain, you'd likely have more fun on a soft single camber XC fishscale ski, e.g., Fischer S-Bound 112, Mashus Annum or Rossi BC 110 or BC 125, or an alpine flex fat fishscale, e.g., Voile Objective BC or UltraVector BC.

That's exactly the setup I'm looking for - basically the same trails that I mtb in the summer (here in CO, I'm talking about the Indian Peaks when I don't want to go into the alpine).

[~mikey b]

those E99's would be a great start

[3PinGrin]

Awesome, thank you for the insight, I've been finding the length discussion a bit challenging to understand. For a fish-scale setup, should I still be following the "card under the heel trick" to see if the flex pattern is correct? I tried this out with a 190 length that was like ~70mm underfoot and couldn't pull the card out.

Do you have any thoughts on the style of 3 pin? I know that there's a newer and older version? I have multiple AT dynafit setups, so really looking to have something that's more lightweight/ comfortable for flatter/ hilly terrain. Thanks for the ski suggestions, looking at this setup for a relatively cheap/ used option that I might use 3-4 times a year.

It sounds like an in between the "alpine style waxless" and the narrow long nordic waxless might be a good fit for you (eg. Fischer Outback 68 or even E99 that was mentioned) with a simple 3 pin binding like the Voile Mountaineer. But if going with wider skis like GeezerSteve mentions, you might want at least a Voile 3 Pin Cable. My personal preference for a ski like the Voile Objective BC would be the non-pin Voile Switchback because it has a free pivot so you are not fighting the flex of the boot / cable with every step (some don't like that feeling at all though and prefer resistance and ball of foot always planted on ski when climbing or crusing the flats). But for mellow rolling terrain you could get by with the Voile Mountaineer binding and a plastic tele boot like the Garmont Excursion (Scott now I think?) that has a very soft flexing bellow and would work with an Objective site ski. I wouldn't want to tackle steeper terrain without a beefier boot, personally for that width of ski. Also, I vastly prefer kick wax over scales, even on fat skis, if you live in a dry cold climate that makes waxing simple. Maritime snowpack can be tricky for wax. But for what you are looking for I think waxless would be a good fit. Just be ready for bzzzzz..... bzzzzz..... bzzzzz... sounds on icy runouts, snowmobile tracks, etc.