Thanks, Christopher, for the kind words :) I appreciate the feedback! There are so many other people out there doing the gear review thing that I don't need to add to that chorus. I use gear reviews as much as the next person, I imagine. But my whole approach to most everything is to focus on concepts and principles versus the very specific details of this, that, or the other thing. Realistically, that's how I've approached building this RUclips channel. Most of my videos should hold their relevance in time because they're not so specifically time-stamped, for example, in some sort of current trend or zeitgeist. Even with my VLOGs I try to be pretty universal in that I either offer information or a demonstration of something that's not necessarily going to go out of style :) Anyway, I really appreciate you tuning in and for the meaningful comment.
Jared, forgot to mention I loved seeing you tele-turn on XC gear. I am just starting out XC skiing and the local shop stated it couldnt be done. At the same time I also just started teleing with heavy alpine-style touring gear. Just great to see you push the skills envelope and make those turns on skinny gear!
@@christopherdagel5816 Thanks again, Christopher :) I'm still learning to Tele turn in my xc skis, but I feel like I made some strides this winter. So many people, including some who work at stores that happen to sell xc ski gear, just aren't that aware of what you can do with the skis. Kind of unfortunate, but it is what it is. It really fell out of popularity with the rise of downhill resorts back in the 1970s and 80s. I come to it later in life as I started when I was 39 (about 8 years ago). But, believe it or not, at Lake Tahoe (particularly on the north shore) there is a huge cross-country skiing culture. There are just so many opportunities to learn. I'm very fortunate and grateful that I'm a part of it. Anyway, here's a link to the 1987 Telemark Movie if you haven't already seen it. Super fun, and all of those folks were on lightweight xc ski gear... ruclips.net/video/KJ0Z8GOGnS0/видео.html
Thanks Jared for an awesome video which tells it all, IMHO. You strike the perfect balance about what gear can and can't do for you. I never hear what I consider common sense: we spend so much more of our time going on flat or uphill that focusing solely on downhill. Also, technique and refining one's technique has the greatest impact on satisfaction in real life, whilst procrastinating on what is the best gear is only temporary. I was born in Finland and moved with my parents to the French Alps when I was only few years old. My parents put my brother and I in alpine ski lessons with our finnish cross country skis (with cable bindings and no steel edges). For 2 seasons that's what we used. Of course all the other kids used regular alpine ski gear and we eventually did too of course. With that back ground, I ski with my backcountry Rossignol on most downhill slopes just as well as a lot of people with modern gear. I still use my Rossignol backcountry skis 200 cm and 63 mm as my only pair of BC gear. I've changed the bindings and boots to NNN BC and Crispi Svartissen and that did make a big difference (I had regular Salomon XC boots and bindings for most of those 30 years). I tried recently some Madshus skis I believe 88 mm wide but much shorter. To be honest, I was planning on buying some shorter and wider skis because a couple of times my 200 mm long skis were too long in narrow rather steep descents. But trying my friend’s Madshus got me thinking. I lost so much of the fun doing “real cross country” on flat terrain. I had to work hard to keep them going straight and (relatively) fast. ANd to my surprise, it didn’t bring me radical change in fun going downhill. Sure the turning radius was shorter. But what’s that for a real difference. One can boast nicer tracks on a downhill? Nothing in it for me. I was so happy when I got my skis back. By this I don’t mean that in all conditions my longer narrower skis would always trump shorter wider ones. But the reason is exactly what you put forward in your video: technique trumps gear. I learned to ski on XC skis, I got pretty good at alpine ski and never stopped XC on groomed tracks, was at ease on 44 mm XC skis. On my 200/63mm Rossignol, I have been on all kinds of terrain for 30 years, 25 of which not knowing that back Country skis had evolved towards shorter/wider (and loss of camber). So I still enjoy my outings on those skis, which aren’t very frequent because I live far away from skiing places now. I will still be on the lookout for second hand wider skis because I don’t pretend my trial was definitive. I do go in steeper terrain where I go snowshoeing and thing I could ski rather that walk. But I don’t have the money to spend on new gear for a few opportunities if any every year. Al in all I am very happy to see that I am not alone thinking what I think. Sometimes on forums here in France I feel cornered into a conservative oldschool persona. Skiing on narrower skis is most often presented like a posture of masochist resisting change, suspected of wanting to turn newer skiers away from the “real fun “ of BC ski (which is totally unfounded because I never give anyone any advise on gear; just talking about my approach and my feelings). Sorry for being so long.
So sorry for my delayed response! I was out of town for work/xc ski clinics for the past few days. I really appreciate all of your kind words and for sharing your story. Technique matters way more than gear, for sure. As much as I love gear, I do get tired of hearing about it all the time. So many people fuss about that and the wax they're using and those conversations just become nauseating to me at some point. Taking anything to the umpteenth degree causes me to eventually realize that I should actually be out skiing instead of talking! So I don't even bother visiting any of the more popular xc ski/xcd ski forums. I hate to admit, but they kind of just bore me with all that excessive tech talk. I also think that so much gear is so similar (regardless of specific sidecuts, grip zones, length of skis) that most of it doesn't really matter so long as you're in the right weight range for the skis and that you actually know good technique. That said, I do like wider/shorter off-track/backcountry xc skis for skiing in ungroomed and variable terrain. For me, they just make dealing with the unpredictable snow conditions and natural obstacles a little easier. And we have some pretty dense forests around Lake Tahoe where shorter skis are a little easier with which to navigate. That, and those shorter skis fit a little better in my car ;) But, again, technique is still the most important element to possess :) One of these days I'd like to travel to Finland and xc ski there as it is in my blood and I do have a number of cousins there. But that would require me to actually plan a trip instead of just dreaming about it. haha! I will ... eventually :) Again, thanks for tuning in and for contributing to the conversation. I hope you get some good xc ski days in this winter in spite of being a bit further away from the snow. Take care!
@@JaredManninen Hi Jared. No need to apologize. I'd rather you get out there outdoors than in front of your computer! We do have a few things in common. About long/short skis, as said, I don't advocate long skis. As a matter of fact I advised my wife to buy shorter skis and they suit her well. Long skis is what I have and been used to. My background is unlike most people's. AS for Finland, I'm planning a backcountry 10 day ski tour in a NP of northern Finland for next year. I've just completed a DIY pulka for multiday hikes both here in France and there next year.
@@tve1964 I'd rather be on snow than in front of the computer, too. haha :) And it definitely sounds like you have some adventures on the horizon! I support that :) One of these winters I'm going to have to just work it into the plans to do some multi-day trips. It's actually been quite a few years since I've done anything past a long weekend backpacking trip, for example. But I do miss those extended journeys. It's so nice to just get in the zone and be outside! Thanks again for all the support. And good luck on the 10-day Finland trip!
Thanks for watching, and for the feedback. I appreciate it :) Just out of curiosity, what specifically were you looking for? Perhaps I've made a video/article already that I could direct you to. Or, maybe I could make a specific one for what you were looking for. Again, thanks for tuning in :)
I TOTALLY agree 100% with your philosophy on relying on one's skills and technique or buying the latest and greatest shiny new gadget or equipment. This video has just confirmed and answered every question I think I ever had, about Classic XC skiing.
Glad I could be of service! But I suspect you'll have more questions eventually ;) Developing skills and abilities always seems like a way more sustainable long-term practice as opposed to relying too heavily on gear. Quality gear can definitely yield quality output, but one need's to have the skills to operate the gear in order for that to occur. Anyway, thanks so much for the generous feedback and for tuning in!
That's awesome! Over time you'll probably want to add to your quiver so that you can xc ski in different conditions/environments. But adjusting your technique and approach with what you have is often the best option. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Really enjoyed this video. Your approach on this topic is outstanding with a lot of good old common sense! I couldn't agree more in regards to the Classic Technique being fun and effective, if done correctly. Keep up the great work!
Thanks for the kind words, John. Glad you enjoyed the video :) Like many people when they first start out something, I had a lot of questions about gear. But as I've progressed as an xc skier and invested in learning proper technique, I find that geeking out on gear specs and features is less and less interesting to me. Of course we all talk about gear because it's essential to the xc ski experience. But I've just found that without knowing good technique, it's less relevant as to what the gear can or is supposed to do. Classic xc ski technique is so unique and specific that "better" cross-country ski gear will not actually make you a better skier unless you're already proficient with the basics (push off, weight transfer, glide). I just wish there was more discussion about technique than gear, because technique is way more important. Anyway, yeah, I like learning way more about technique than gear! But I still produce some gear videos every once and awhile. haha! Thanks again for tuning in, and for contributing to the conversation :)
Hello Jared! Hello from Northwestern LP Michigan. Thank you for your thorough videos. Tons of information in each one! I got a pair of the Fisher 62mm OTX skis last season and I’ve had some good sessions with them on groomed trails in and out of the tracks. I didn’t have as good of a performance off of groomed trails, but I am a beginner and my technique is a work in progress. Prior to the 62mm I was using a borrowed pair of Fisher 68mm for off-groomed trail use…. Mostly hiking trails with fresh snow or sometimes with snowshoe tracks laid, or another skier’s tracks. I also took them on frozen lakes when there was a good amount of snow on top. Once in a while a walking path with snowmobile tracks laid. I really noticed a difference between the 62 and 68 width…. Seems like I could go everywhere with those 68s…. But on groomed XC trails the speed lagged and that’s where I’ve been enjoying the skinnier 62s. However the 62s weren’t as good off a groomed surface…. Like you said in a comment, they felt like long snow shoes. I’m looking to buy a pair of wider backcountry xc skis to take me back into the woods and wherever I please. Where I live isn’t really in the snow belt due to being real close to Lake Michigan. We don’t get piles and piles of snow like they do further inland, so I’m thinking I should pick a width under 90mm for sure. I’m hesitant to buy a pair of 68s since I’d only be adding a few mm for a whole ‘nother set of skis, and two pairs is about all I want to own. I’m just looking for groomed & ungroomed versatility. Should I stick with what’s worked and get some 68s? Go for 78s? Would 88s be overkill? Your thoughts and suggestions would be most welcome. 🤍💙
Hey! Thanks again for the nice feedback and thorough question :) I think you'd be much happier with at least the Traverse 78mm or possibly the Excursion 88mm. You're right in considering something wider than the Outback 68mm because they really aren't that much wider. As I talk myself through this I would probably go for the 88s. I don't think they'd be overkill at all. In fact, some years they're the set of skis that I use most in all conditions just because they can handle a little deeper snow and then not be so unreasonable in firm conditions. But wider seems to be a good idea so that you can capitalize on more snow conditions. Those 88mm are still only good in up to about 6-8 inches of fresh snow, but it sounds like that might be enough for your needs. If you do get more snow than that, consider the S-bounds, where they start at 98mm wide. Glad to hear that you've gotten so much use out of the Spider 62mm. I have a set, too, and find that I use them a lot in spring conditions where the snowpack has consolidated into one big firm mass. I don't use them at groomed resorts as I have track skis for that, but their narrow width does accommodate regular groomed tracks, like said. Again, thanks so much for tuning in and for contributing to the conversation. Let me know if you have other questions or want additional clarification. And, let me know what you ultimately buy! One last note, this video may be of interest to you as it addresses the similar topic of one ski to do it all (which doesn't actually exist)... ruclips.net/video/Dak-G7E0JKc/видео.html
@@JaredManninen Thank you for the suggestions, I really appreciate them! Your recommended video was the first one I watched from your channel. I totally agree with your conclusion; 2 pairs is the way to go! I’m pretty excited to become the owner of 2 pairs of xc skis this season…. No more dreaming about greener grass (whiter snow? 🤔) on the other side of the fence. It’s going to be fun. Cheers and hope you’re having a great season where you are! 🤍💙
I completely agree with you. I really wanted some S-Bound 98s but they are incredibly hard to find. I ended up getting some Asnes Rabb 68 which are 94-68-104mm and Voile Mountaineer bindings for my all leather Scarpa Telemark boots. I have been struggling with kick wax and klister in variable conditions. I just ordered some 40mm Race X-Skins similar to the Easyskin hoping this works better in our warm/wet snow. The downhill has been super fun however. I think if you tried using the S-Bound 98s more often you would learn to appreciate them more.
Thanks so much for watching, and for the comments :) I've always wanted to get myself a set of Asnes skis, but I just don't have it in me to deal with grip wax in these Sierra Nevada (i.e. super variable) conditions. They're beautiful skis, though! I think I will pull out the S-bound 98mm next week after returning home from my work weekend. You're right in that I should start playing with them more :) Let me know how it goes when you get those skins. I'd be curious to hear about your experience with them. And cool channel, btw!
@@JaredManninen I have used my race skins several time in variable conditions and I just love them. The kick and glide is similar to the best waxless pattern. My biggest concern is longevity
@@CampfireKodiak Very cool! Thanks for the update. And I'm glad to hear that your skins are doing a great job :) Believe it or not, I actually did buy myself a pair Asnes Gamme 54 (68mm tip) recently. I just couldn't resist after years of wanting to try a pair😆I bought them with the intention of mostly using them in spring once all of our snow here in the Sierra Nevada consolidates. I do want to try using grip wax (even though it's really challenging in variable snow conditions). But I also bought their mohair x-skins to use when I don't get the wax right. We've had such an epic winter here in Tahoe that I actually just used my S-bound 112mm probably the most. I think things are finally settling down as we're forecasted for a couple inches of snow tonight, but then nothing for over a week. That might be one of our longest stretches of storm-free weather this season. Anyway, I'm really looking forward to lots of spring skiing. Thanks again for checking back in!
@@JaredManninen Super! Make a video about your new skis sometime. Maybe next year. Klister is a pain but I had good luck on moderate terrain with the warmest floro wax I could find. Bring wax cleaner before switching to skins for anything warmer than blue extra
@@CampfireKodiak I will! I've never been proficient with grip wax, so I really want to learn. And others have also requested a video about it. Thanks for the heads-up about wax cleaner (for use w/skins). That's one of the many questions I had regarding swapping back and forth :)
Hey Jared! Looking forward to another winter of videos. I must have missed this one. Recently picked up a pair of S Bound 98s (actually pre-ordered them last December and finally came in a month ago). Have them paired with BC Magnums. I was wondering if you could feature a video with the 98 or 88 and touch on diagonal striding in deep snow if such a thing exists. I was out yesterday in about a foot of firm snow and found myself having a hard time gliding. It looks like we will be losing some of our snowpack here in northern New England so fingers crossed for another good storm. Thanks for all your insightful videos I truly appreciate it!
Great to hear from you! Congrats on (finally!) getting your S-bound 98s :) Another person had mentioned to me earlier this fall that they weren't able to find any S-bound 112mm in their size. And that they were told by various shops around the country that there probably wouldn't be any new shipments of them due to the conflict in Ukraine. So, even though you had to wait a very long time, I'm really glad you were able to actually get them. I have a very basic 3-pin on my set of 98s but, in hindsight, I kind of wish I would've just gone with the NNN BC Magnum like you. The waist width on the 98s almost seems just a tad too narrow for the 3-pin (it hangs over the edges quite a bit). I'm not going to change them now, but when you mentioned the NNN BCs I was thinking, "Yeah, that's probably a better way to go." I'm actually going to try to put together a video this week discussing diagonal striding off-track and in the backcountry. I like that topic, and I've gotten a handful of comments/questions over the years about it. I'll probably reuse some footage from previous videos in that video to highlight different width skis in different depths of snow, but if you watch some of my VLOGs (especially the ones titled with "fresh" or "new" snow or "snowstorm") you'll see that I diagonal stride (or at least attempt to) in most conditions. Even when it's relatively deep. And I'm either using my Excursion 88mm or S-Bound 112mm in those situations. But the short answer to your question of striding in deep snow is that if it's over 8-10 inches deep, it's usually really challenging. At which point it becomes a slog or walk. At the same time, I will often do more of a "bounding" type of technique without a lot of glide. But it's a way in which to cover more ground faster and it still emphasizes full weight transfer to each ski, but it's essentially running through deep snow (while wearing skis!). If the snow is between 1-8 inches, however, so long as I have an appropriately wide ski (skinnier in less snow, wider in deep snow), I often can stride just fine. Granted, that all depends on terrain and quality of snow. The best is when there's light and fluffy snow on a firm base or a firm base that's softened up due to the sun/temps rising. Anyway, I'll get back to you when I put that video together and hopefully it'll add more depth to my short answer here. Thanks again for tuning in, and for contributing to the conversation!
I owned the Europa 99s from Fischer but that was in a different century. They were single camber and I could go uphill with kick wax and then turn around and ski downhill. I did not ski at 40 degrees F. Normal temps were 5 to 25 degrees F. Not a tele marker so those skis were fine. On groomed trails I had classic and skate skis.
The E99s are definitely one of Fischer's legacy models! I think they've discontinued the name, and it's now called the Transnordic 66 (I believe). I haven't looked into it to see if they've made any significant modifications to it, other than the name, but I've always wanted to own a set. That said, I've never bought one because I already have enough xc skis for the time being :) Yeah, it's kind of unfortunate that here in the Sierra Nevada we often get winter days where it's anywhere from 38-45 degrees F. We have to deal with a wide range of snow conditions when you consider we'll have night time low temperatures of 18-28 degree F. That's really one of the main reasons I just used scale patterned (waxless) xc skis is because trying to zero in on the right grip wax is like trying to hit a moving target. The type of grip wax for morning conditions is seldom the same for even a couple of hours later of skiing. Thanks again for watching, and for sharing your experience! I appreciate it :)
I found this of value along with your video about dedicated track skis as I have a wide range of ski opportunities here in the Rockies. Do you have an opinion about the skis with the various "mohair" strips as opposed to the scales?
Hey Howard! Thanks for watching, and for reaching out! If you're referring to classic track skis that feature mohair/skins for a grip zone, a lot of people definitely prefer skins over scale-patterned grip zones for track skiing. They're more quiet, provide great grip in most snow conditions, and ice up or collect snow less frequently. That said, I personally don't care for them as much as other people because they tend to not perform as well when put through a lateral motion (skidded turns). Those skins just basically like to travel forward, so I never feel like I'm having as much fun on the downhills with them. Also, you definitely have to buy for your weight with skin-based track skis because I've found that even being within a few pounds on the upper end of the weight range can cause them to drag excessively. I will also say this, that track skis with skins can sometimes be challenging to run because often they're designed with a much smaller grip zone. And this means you have to have good technique to optimize their use. Some of the higher end skis are designed for racing, so they're really challenging. Now, if you're talking about the use of skins for backcountry xc ski, I have some kicker skins that I use in extreme icy situations. However, I just prefer the scaled grip zone for backcountry xc skis because the grip zones are big and aggressive enough that they work in most conditions. And I'm not a fan of doing many gear adjustments while in the field, particularly in nasty weather. So, I just use the scales in the backcountry and I find that there effective enough for me (combined with proper technique, of course). Hope that helps. Let me know if you have other questions or want clarification on anything I've said above.
Thank you for your thorough reply. You did hit my question spot on, as I am most interested in the use of a mohair strip as a step up in my classic track skiing. I started on a pair of OTX 62's and quickly became more comfortable outside the track. I am wondering about an improved experience in the track, though. I was at a backcountry track only resort in Alaska where I got a strong recommendation for the mohair strips. I read they are popular over in the Nordic countries. My local Colorado Nordic center is not so keen on them, their reason being our drier conditions, though several retail stores sell them. I understand what you are saying about the downhill skiing. Is that a factor in the track? And I understand what you are saying about the extent and placement, thank you. I saw a pair of mohair strips at our local center the other day and asked the owner about them. While pleased, they also happened to have brought them from Juneau LOL. @@JaredManninen
@@howardkellogg8870 Cool! Yeah, I've never been super into them, but they definitely will provide a better experience for track skiing than your 62s. Mostly it'll be because they're going to be in the 45-50mm width range and longer, which is much more ideal for classic skiing in groomed tracks. Honestly, though, there aren't a lot of options for higher performance scale-patterned skis. So you'll have a better selection with the skins. The downhilling portion I'm referring to is being able to execute parallel turns and other forms of skidded turns in steep sections. I like doing these, and I just don't find them very enjoyable on skins. But they're great for everything else. Let me know what you ultimately decide on!
I honestly don't use my Fischer EZ-Skins very often. But I do like having them in the bag when terrain gets really icy. Not sure if you saw this video or not, but it's one that I published a couple years ago about using the EZ-Skins (ruclips.net/video/KJZvnWFTDTA/видео.html ). Again, I like having them in the kit just in case, but I seldom actually use them. Anyway, I really appreciate you tuning in and reaching out!
First off, thank you for sharing so much valuable information. I was raised skiing on classic cross country skis, but never using them on groomed trails, I just followed my dad around the golf course. I know live in the country and ski open meadows and bush, zero hills to go down. I have found it to be exhausting breaking my own trails and battling through deep drifts on classic skis. I would like to transition to back country skis. Would the 88's be overkill? Again thank you for everything you share. Respect from southern ontario Canada.
Thank you for the kind words! Glad I could be of service :) I think you'd be very happy with any brand of backcountry cross-country ski between 70-90mm width (tip width). That's pretty much the standard range of an all around bc xc ski. I often use Fischer Excursion 88mm throughout the season. Granted, that's during some seasons more than others. And it's usually when there's consistently softer snow between 4-8 inches deep. When it's less than that, I'll use the Fischer Spider 62mm. And when it's much deeper, I'll usually use the Fischer S-Bound 112mm. I probably mention that in this video, but just in case... I think the only time you'd find something that's around 80mm to be overkill is that if you try running them on hard-packed snow (i.e. you don't end up with very much new snow over the course of the winter). I find that running wider backcountry xc skis on firm surfaces (icy, hard-packed snow) is not fun at all. They want to slip and slide laterally because it's more challenging to maintain edge control with the wider skis on the firm snow. But, you'd have your other classic xc skis (skinnier) that you could run in those firm snow conditions. Hope that helps! Let me know if you have other questions or want more clarification on anything. Thanks again for tuning in, and for contributing to the conversation :)
@@JaredManninen more great information, thank you. I was actually able to find a set of Fischer 88mm, online in Quebec during cyber Monday sales. Slim pickings overall her in Canada. With the much smaller population we have here the shops only get what they are able. Now I just have to wait and see how the weather unfolds this winter. We had plenty of snow last year, so hopefully the lake effect will again bless us with a good amount. Have a safe and enjoyable winter. Looking forward to watching more of your content. The information you putforth in your video about your BC boot choices was definitely helpful as well. Thank you.
@@ganjaman3912 That's fantastic! I think you'll like those Excursions. Honestly, I think it's slim pickens all over the place. The cross-country ski industry is not a huge market. And it seems nowadays that manufacturers only make the bare minimum so that they're not left with tons of gear at the end of the season (and don't have to front a lot of money to have it made). I'm hoping that I have a good winter here at Lake Tahoe, as well. Tonight and tomorrow we have a major stormfront descending upon us and we're supposed to receive at least a foot in the next 36 hours. We'll see. Anyway, thanks again for watching my videos and for all the conversation. Super fun! Hope you have a great winter :)
Hey Jared hope all is well! Thanks for this video, i am looking into getting a set of BC skis. I am like 149lbs at 6'. The skis Im looking at have a range 120 to 150lbs for 175 and and 150 to 180lbs for 185. Im leaning towards the 185. Do you have any suggestions or guidance? Thank you. Praying for lots of snow for yall and for us here in Maine!
Hey Justin! Thanks for the nice feedback. Glad you found the video useful :) If I were you, I'd also go with the 185cm based on those ski's recommended weight range. In my opinion, it's better to be on the lighter end of the range versus the heavier, mostly because you're likely going to be carrying gear (as well as just being dressed with xc ski boots). So the extra gear will put in you more in the middle of that range. Also, the longer ski (although marginally so) would feel a bit more natural for your height compared to the slightly shorter one. Those are interesting weight ranges/lengths, however. Often I see for backcountry/off-track skis, weight ranges roughly 145-175lbs for skis that are around 175cm. And then 175-200lbs for lengths closer to 185cm. But if the manufacturer laid out the ranges as you describe, just go with that 185cm set of skis. What skis are you looking at, if you don't mind me asking? Again, thanks for tuning in and reaching out!
@JaredManninen Thanks for the response Jared! I'm a father of 4 so I'm kinda in the poverty pony range. I was looking at the Rossingol BC 80 due to the deal I found on them. Out here in Maine we don't have any huge mountains and I don't get out of my county very often. We have a nice nordic center 10 mins away that grooms trails and is lots of ups and down, similar to mountain bike trails but wider. Very very great place. Was also just given permission to use a neighbors 200 acres that is full of nice maintained trails also ups and downs. Would you advise something else?
@@Justin-m6w5u Hey Justin, no prob. Glad I could help. I just looked up those skis and they look great. You won't be able to fit them in groomed tracks as those tracks are typically 70mm wide, but you can run them in the skate lane and you'll be able to take them off-trail as well. All of that said, if you were planning to primarily xc ski on groomed trails with classic tracks, you may want to invest in a classic track ski (that's usually no more than 50mm wide). But if you're planning on xc skiing wherever/whenever, something designed for ungroomed terrain such as the Rossignol BC 80 would be just fine. That said, something like the Rossi BC 65 or Fischer Spider 62 would technically fit in groomed classic tracks and offer an off-trail option. But both of those are pretty narrow still (at 65mm and 62mm, respectively), so they wouldn't be very effective in more than 6-8 inches of snow (depending). Anyway, determine what type of skiing you'll be doing most (groomed classic tracks or off-trail situation) and go from there!
@@JaredManninen I have the Rossi OT65 and they have been great on the New England type snow at the nordic center. I often avoid the tracks even while using a thin classic....feels restrictive too me sometimes on downhill turns and such. An area i need to work on. Thanks for looking at the BC80...I was on the fence about it. Just really would like something with a bit more float on fresh snow. I think the 185 bc80 would offer that to me being on the low end of weight recommendation. Thanks for all your videos and guidance. Very much appreciated.
@@Justin-m6w5u Gotcha! Yeah, then those BC 80s should be perfect for your needs. This is basically the same process I've gone through when building my "quiver" of xc skis. You quickly realize that one set doesn't really cut it for all scenarios. So you just acquire as needed. Good luck, and keep me posted on your experience with the 80s when you start using them!
Good evening Jared, I have always wanted to get into XC skiing, and have started to become 'decent' at track skiing at resorts with my cobbled together 40 year old skis and boots (some were made in Yugoslavia - fricken sweet). My next goal is to get into a pair of back-country skis to get exploring better. Usually its going to be some snowed over FS road - see my ski tour to Mowich Lake in MRNP. I was wondering what width would best accommodate that, with the Washington Cascades getting the heavy, wet snow we do. After watching your videos, im thinking the 80mm range to start with? Most likly not doing anything super steep pitched, but we do get lots of snow fast. Your videos have always been helpful and inspiring to try and get out year-round, while being able to cover more ground than just on snowshoes, which I have plenty of experience on. Video evidence for entertainment purposes - ruclips.net/video/9KFfjnOEJsg/видео.html
Hey Brandon, Thanks so much for watching, and for the question! I think you'd be really happy with anything around 80mm (tip) width range. Fischer has the Traverse 78mm and Excursion 88mm, and both would be ideal for those types of conditions of which you speak. I have the Excursion 88s and run those often throughout the season. Here in Tahoe, we have some pretty similar snow conditions (aka Sierra Cement). We do get really deep and dry powder, but then it often consolidates quickly into that cement. Or, it just initially comes in wet and heavy. But I find the Excursion 88mm do me well in all kinds of conditions. That said, when it's deep and powdery I use my Fischer S-Bound 112mm, or if we haven't had any new snow for a while and the snowpack has gone through its usual freeze/thaw cycles (i.e. spring-like conditions) I'll usually just run the skinnier set of Fischer Spider 62mm. But for your needs, I think anything between 70-90mm will be just fine. Most of the major xc ski manufacturers offer some type of off-track and backcountry cross-country ski in that width ranger. And I think they're all pretty similar in quality. I just happen to have bought Fischer over the years and continue to do so. And, as I mentioned in the video, I do find that Fischer tend to run a bit more stiff which makes them more ideal for diagonal striding (kick and glide). Hope that helps. Good luck in your search for a new set of xc skis. Let me know what you end up buying. Thanks again for tuning in, and for contributing to the conversation :) Oh, and just an fyi ... sorry for my delayed response but the link to your video automatically triggered the comment to be placed in a "review" folder (i.e. spam). Basically, any link posted in a comment on RUclips does that (at least with my account). So I have to remember to go in and look at that folder. Anyway, I found your comment eventually. haha.
Hey Jared! I’m looking to buy my first pair of back country xc skis, and was looking at the Fischer Traverse 78’s but watching your videos and advice I’m not sure if they would suit the snow conditions we get up here in Michigan. Obviously we get the lake effect off the Great Lakes and the snow is often very cold and somewhat crunchy in january- February. We don’t get a lot of deep snow unless you’re in the upper peninsula (I’m not).
@@KINGkelso15 Hey Kelsey, Thanks so much for reaching out! Believe it or not, I was originally a Yooper :) I lived in the Houghton/Hancock area for the first ten years of my life and then returned many years later to attend Michigan Tech University. Anyway, I think the Fischer Traverse 78mm are a great all-around sized ski. That said, if you don't get anything too deep and the snow is mostly firm, you could probably get away with the Outback 68mm. I don't know that I'd recommend something as skinny as the Spider 62mm if you were to only have the one pair of skis, however. They are pretty skinny, all things considered. And I only use them when the snow is really consolidated and firm. Otherwise they will dig into softer snow really quickly. Let me know if any of that helps, or if you want additional feedback/clarification. Thanks again for tuning in and for the question :)
@@JaredManninen Thank you!! I think I’m definitely going to give the 78’s a try then. That’s awesome you were once a fellow Michigander!! The UP is an amazing place for winters :) thanks again for all of your help!
@@KINGkelso15 Very good! I think they're a good option. Just keep in mind, though, that on firm and icy snow they will be a little challenging to keep tracking straight. That's the challenge with wider xc skis on icy stuff. But, realistically, everything is challenging to run in icy conditions. Also, the 78s will be too wide to fit in tracks at groomed xc ski areas. Not sure if you were ever planning to ski at a groomed xc ski area, but the tracks are not wide enough to accommodate that width. You would just have to ski in the skate lane then. Anyway, good luck!
One thing I am curious about is what is the widest ski that can effectively be controlled by a NNNBC binding for turns? There is only so much leverage so what do you think is the realistic limit?
Thanks for watching, and for the great question! I have a set of NNN BC bindings mounted on my pair of Asnes Falketind 62 (97-62-86, tip-waist-tail) backcountry xc skis. I find that the NNN BC binding is fine for this size of bc xc ski. I wouldn't go any wider than a tip with of 97/98mm with that set of bindings. I do have a friend with a set of S-bound 112mm (tip width) that have NNN BC bindings on them, but I think that's pushing it. He purchased that combination of skis/bindings before he became aware of the relationship between the two. I don't think he totally regrets it, but I know he would've mounted a more robust binding to those 112mm skis now that he's had a couple of winters under his belt. All of that said, NNN BC bindings might be outmatched on a 98mm ski if you're really aggressive with your turns and/or you're really heavy. I also have a set of S-bound 98mm skis with a basic three-pin binding mounted to them. So, at that width, you could go either way. I find, however, that on my Excursion 88mm, the NNN BC binding is totally perfect. Anyway, hope that helps. Let me know if you have other questions or want any additional clarification. Thanks for tuning in, and for the question!
Appreciate the response and how quick. You responded before I asked the question (but it’s yesterday where you are). I agree with your comment. Our snow here can be quite variable so we don’t have the luxury of a wide ski in soft fresh snow. I’m going with the Magnum on a 62 with the Transnordic. Should suit undulating terrain and occasional moderate downhill. Otherwise if I want to Tele I’ll just jump on my XCD setup & hit a resort. Thanks.👍
@@64syth76 Awesome! Sounds like a great plan :) I also have NNN BC (auto) on a set of Spider 62s and NNN BC (manual) on some Asnes Gamme. Both of which work great!
Do you find that nordic camber makes a difference when breaking trail through powder? I have a voile hypervector bc which is a little wider than the fischer 112 and has fish scales but a softer more downhill oriented camber. I'm wondering if a nordic cambered ski if similar width would be any more or less efficient for powder stomping. A side note, it has voile switch back bindings on it (free pivot tele bindings) and I like the free pivot in powder because it helps keep my tips pointed up.
Hey Justin, Thanks so much for watching, and for the great question! Honestly, I think the nordic camber on most backcountry xc skis works against the skier in deep powder to some degree. A softer camber, I believe, makes it easier to walk relatively normal in deep snow because you don't have to deal with the springy-ness of a stiffer camber. Basically, the grip zone on a softer cambered ski should always be making contact no matter how you're walking because you're not fighting against the stiff camber (that's ultimately trying to keep the grip zone off of the snow so as to decrease friction). That said, trudging along the flats probably isn't a whole lot different in either types of skis. Instead, I find it challenging at times going up a steep incline in deep snow while doing the herringbone technique. Effectively, the stiffer camber keeps the grip zone off of the snow (until compressed) and, therefore, causes me to slip more frequently when I try to go straight up those steep hills. So, I have to choose my ski angles wisely and really commit to transferring all of my weight from one ski to the next while doing the herringbone in those deep snow conditions. But once the angle gets to the point that it's too steep (and I'm slipping and fumbling too much) I'll just transition to a traverse. The reason I prefer the xc ski camber is as I mention in the video -- I spend the vast majority of my time on skis during the approach and dealing with lower angle hills that the nordic camber enables me to diagonal stride more often (which is where my strength lies). I looked up the skis that you have, and they definitely look like a lot of fun! They also look way more expensive than mine, too - haha! But way more effective on steep descents, I'm sure. Anyway, not sure if any of that's helpful. But, I wouldn't necessarily go out and buy a new set of skis because it looks like you already have some really nice ones. Thanks again for tuning in, and for contributing to the conversation :)
Can you recommend a backcountry cross country ski shop in the Truckee/Tahoe area? Maybe a shop in the Bay Area? How about recommendations for instruction?
Hey Jim! I believe Alpenglow Sports in Tahoe City sells backcountry xc ski gear, as well as Tahoe Mountain Sports in Truckee. If you're in South Lake Tahoe, Sports LTD has a fairly wide variety of backcountry cross-country skis. I went there about a month ago and was surprised at their selection. I don't know what that inventory looks like now (or the other shops for that matter), so I'd call ahead just in case. All of that said, I've found that many shops that do sell bc xc ski gear don't necessarily know a lot about it. Often, those shops will primarily sell alpine and alpine touring gear and offer the xc skis as additional options for backcountry travel. Also, many of the employees are into the alpine touring side of backcountry travel, so bc xc skis may not be their strength. I just say that as a word of caution in case you're hoping for detailed info at the actual shop about the gear. As far as instruction goes, you're mostly just going to find traditional cross-country ski instruction around Lake Tahoe as opposed to backcountry xc ski. Those resorts include Tahoe XC in Tahoe City, Tahoe Donner Cross Country in Truckee, Royal Gorge near Donner Pass, and then on the south shore at Kirkwood XC. Backcountry cross-country ski is essentially born from traditional xc ski and/or Telemark skiing in many cases. For me, however, it's a direct extension of traditional/classic xc skiing. Anyway, that's some info to get you started. Get back in touch with more detailed questions when you're ready. Thanks for tuning in, and for reaching out!
Hey Devin, Great to hear from you again! You beat me to the punch. haha. I'm going to do another video this week outlining the xc ski boots that I use when backcountry cross-country skiing. Originally, I was going to include it in this ski video but as you can tell by the time stamp it started getting pretty long. And, since I already did a video about the ski poles I use for backcountry xc skiing (ruclips.net/video/jAiIXas9uN4/видео.html), it made sense to do a separate video for boots. All of that said, it's going to take me a couple of days to put this boot video together so if you could hang tight until then, that would be cool. In the meantime, here's a link to a my companion article (to this little series of backcountry-related videos) on Tahoe Trail Guide. You may have already read it, but just in case... tahoetrailguide.com/overview-of-off-track-and-backcountry-cross-country-ski-gear/ And, if you haven't read this one yet, here's one that I specifically go over classic cross-country ski boots. It's not necessarily specific to backcountry xc skiing, but still has relevant information. tahoetrailguide.com/cross-country-skiing-explained-part-5-classic-cross-country-ski-boots/ Thanks again for all of your interest, and for contributing to the conversation! I appreciate it :)
On the weight - ski size charts, how do you factor in clothes and pack weight? I played around with a scale and my light day pack and looking at boot weights, figuring I would add 10-16 pounds to my clothed body weight. This can push someone into the next ski size range. But I would prefer shorter more maneuverable skiis if possible.
Thanks for watching, and the question :) Clothing and gear is definitely a concern regarding the ski's weight range. Honestly, though, unless you're planning to wear a 50lbs pack, I'd 99.9% of the time go with the recommended weight range ski. I've tried a friend's larger set of backcountry xc skis (one weight range above mine) to see if it would be worth having that longer set of skis for ski-packing, for example, and it sort of worked. It still felt like way too much ski for me, even though it was just once size up. And then without all of that extra weight I couldn't run the skis at all (too light for them by a long shot). So, again, I'd just stick with the ski manufacturer's recommendation. I guess my only real concern about that option is if you were at the very top end of the weight range of the skis. I'm fortunately, right in the middle of the range for my bc xc skis so I can always add or loose upwards of 10-15lbs and not feel a whole lot of difference in performance. Anyway, hope that helps. Let me know if you want more clarification or have other related questions. Again, thanks for tuning in!
Hey Tony! You ask a good question, but I don't know that I can offer any definitive answers. Realistically, all xc skis (whether they're built for groomed or off-track classic cross-country skiing) are designed for specific weight ranges. This is usually reflected in their length and the stiffness of their camber (i.e. longer skis and stiffer camber will bear more weight). So just because an xc ski is wider doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be able to bear more weight. Those wide skis are essentially for dealing with deeper snow. Unfortunately, most of the xc skis that I see on the market (again, regardless of whether or not their designed for groomed/ungroomed terrain) tend to top out with regard to their weight range at 220+. So if you were going to be classic cross-country skiing on groomed terrain, I'd recommend buying a set of classic skis that have an "extra stiff" camber. But if you were going to primarily be skiing on ungroomed/backcountry terrain, I'd say to buy the longest length possible. Some manufacturers of off-track xc skis have 3-5 different lengths, so I'd research the brand that has the highest weight range (and will wind up being the longest). I'd also look into brands of off-track/backcountry xc skis that have the stiffest cambers. Fischer and Rossignol tend to both be similarly stiff, but I think Rossignol might offer a longer ski that could possibly bear more weight. Other manufacturers like Madshus and Asnes tend to make their backcountry xc skis a bit softer for a better downhill experience. But you would definitely be dragging the grip zones of those skis no matter what they say is their top weight range. So probably stick to Fischer or Rossignol. No matter what, though, you may find that even the longest/stiffest backcountry xc skis will drag a lot for your weight. But this might be okay based on your skill/experience. It's just that if they drag too much the whole xc ski experience can be, well, a real drag (pun intended). Again, I find that most xc skis tend to say that their stiffest skis are designed for about 220+ pounds. So I'm not sure if any of that helps, but that's my two cents on the subject. Let me know if you have other questions or want clarification on anything I've said above. Again, thanks for tuning in and reaching out :)
I generally approach mounting bindings like the first part of your statement. Technically you could mount whatever bindings you wanted on whatever skis you wanted. The problem, though, is that if you have too much binding for the ski you run the risk of placing too much torque on the ski (and then break the ski). On the other hand, if the binding is too small for the ski you risk putting too much torque on the binding (and then break the binding). So, I tend to mount bindings that are commensurate in size to the skis in which I'm running.
Any experience with Madshus Panorama M68 skis vs Fischer Sbound 98. Similar sidecuts. Hard to find info/reviews on Madshus but less expensive and seem to be more available. Maybe someone you know uses them? I just bought some Fischer Traverse 78 with magnum bc bindings and Fischer OTX BC boots. I can do tele turns in the right conditions so will work with what I have for now but thinking of a narrower and wider set of skis like spider 62 with nnn bc and sbound 98 (or the panoramas) with bc magnum to complete my "quiver". Probably get a pair of Alpina Alaska bc boots or heavier Fischer bc boots to complete the setup.
Sounds like a great plan for your quiver! As far as the Madshus Panorama M68 go, though, I don't have any experience with them or know of anyone who uses them. That said, they look like a fine backcountry cross-country ski. Out of the handful of different bc xc skis that I've used, I have found Fischer to be slightly stiffer (which I probably mention in the video), which is better for diagonal striding and not as good for downhilling. But I think they're probably only marginally stiffer. So I don't know if that's really much of a deal breaker in any way. I also don't ever use the EZ skin option with my Fischers, so I don't think I'd take that into consideration when buying, either. Honestly, I'd probably give more consideration to the Madshus since they're less expensive and more readily available. I think Fischer tends to be slightly more expensive across the board, and they may actually charge more for their skis due to the EZ skin option. But, again, if you don't need it there's no sense in paying for it. Hope that helps! Let me know if you have other questions. And thanks for tuning in and for the question! I appreciate it :)
A question: First some background. I turned 70 this year and while this old dog can learn new tricks (I have three days on x-c skis total at this writing) there are limitations. Orf greater import, I weigh 260# today. I might lose weight, docs want me to but I don't have much time so probably not. I have Fischer Spider 62 crown in 199cm. The recommendation is 220#+. So my immediate question is just how far up does that "+" reach? I like the skis so far with nothing with which I can compare and with the turnamics in -1 and F4 swix wipe on I'm gliding pretty good I think (again, nothing with which to compare). Am I on the right or as close to right ski for me? Are there OT or BC skis built for old fat guys? Thanks, and cheers! Oh, my first day was on Rossi Evo OT 65 195cm. I didn't glide well and they felt loose and squirrely. That was last year though, it was a bit icy and my first day so. . . The Spider 62 feel a lot more stable and glide better as noted.
Hey John, Thanks for tuning in, and for the question 🤗 Honestly, I too have wondered just how far up the + goes with some skis because I do have the occasional customer (at the rental shop at which I work) who tops out at well over 220. We usually give them the longest skis that we have and hope they have fun. And I think they usually do. But I do think there's a problem industry-wide with there not being many ski options for heavier people. So I guess what I'm thinking is that if the skis you're currently running (Spider 62 in 199cm) seem fun, stable, and provide good enough glide they're probably a good set of skis for you ☺️ I don't believe there are any specific xc skis designed for really heavy people, at least not beyond the 200-220+ lbs weight. Again, I'm not sure how much the + goes up to. But the Rossignols you mentioned clearly didn't appeal to you. I have found that Fischers tend to feel stiffer than other skis which makes them capable of bearing more weight, so maybe that's just fine. The only other option that I can think of is a set of dedicated track skis that have an extra stiff camber. But skis that feature different camber stiffnesses are usually higher end models, and they're only really for use in groomed terrain (i.e. classic tracks). And I'm not really sure that's what you're looking for. Long story getting longer, I think you're probably good to go with what you have. Let me know if you have other questions or want additional clarification on anything I've said. Thanks again for teaching out!
Thanks for the quick reply. I guess, since I don't know any better and I was actually able to glide some on the 62s they're gonna work. I did find out today that 199cm of 62mm width with 260# on top of 'em doesn't work all that well in about 2' of fairly soft snow. Hah! I'm going back to the groomed stuff tomorrow. Cheers and thanks again!
@@Freepowder You're welcome, John! Firm snow is definitely going to be a bit faster. That's too bad that even a couple of inches of fresh snow didn't yield any glide though. Keep at it, though! And if I find/hear about any specific types of skis designed to bear more weight, I'll get back to you!
Hey James! Thanks for the question. Diagonal striding is just another term for classic cross-country skiing technique. People also call it "kick and glide," "striding," "track skiing," etc... In the following video (ruclips.net/video/8wiRZqnzr4E/видео.html ) I talk about my approach to striding while xc skiing in off-track/backcountry conditions. And then I have a ton of diagonal stride how-to videos beginning with my part 1 of classic cross-country ski technique (ruclips.net/video/GS7kc5ty5ZI/видео.html ). You know, if you have a lot of free time and want to see examples ;) Anyway, I appreciate you tuning in and reaching out! Let me know if you have any other questions.
I agree that carrying extra weight will cause more drag on the skis if that extra weight puts you beyond the recommended weight range for the length of skis on which you're running. However, I tend to discourage people from buying a backcountry xc ski that's too stiff for them even though they may be wearing a backpack. The reason for this is that if you find yourself having to ski or wanting to ski without that extra weight, you're going to struggle with those stiffer skis. This is because you won't be heavy enough to compress them for grip when skiing the flats and uphill. And then on the downhill you won't be able to compress them enough either, making turns more challenging. For a slightly more in-depth answer, watch my follow-up video titled "Whether or Not to Buy a Longer Backcountry XC Ski When Planning to Wear a Backpack" ruclips.net/video/ZlsYRworAm8/видео.html Thanks for watching, and for the question! I appreciate it :)
1:32 "Dont push the boundaries of ski weight range" made me sad. What if your ancestors hooked up with too many tall german women and now You're six foot five, 220 pounds, and like to ski with 15lbs of whiskey ??? Hello from the gutters of NYC. I was even fatter until I fell in love 3pm May 5th 2022.
Haha! Welcome back to my little corner of the internet ;) From your description, it sounds like you've become a human version of the iconic St. Bernards rescue dog wearing a small keg of brandy to help revive weary mountain travelers. If so, I applaud your efforts and thank you for your service! And congrats on falling in love (and shedding some lbs as a result). One day I hope to do the same. Well, at least the first part of that equation anyway. Hope you have a great holiday season, and are able to avoid eating too many sweets :)
I got the 98s with 3 pins. I love em. I've never felt "wish I had a different ski on right now" but I definitely want to get a narrower setup at some point. Yeah I never use skins either, never bought em. If I did have some though, I would probably use them to pull my ice fishing gear out to a little lake near my house. I think they'd be useful for that, but I've never even tried without them, so iunno, maybe I don't even need them for that.
Having at least one wide and one narrow ski option is a nice thing. I can't believe how much use I've gotten out of my Spider 62s over the years. But when I first started using them I was a bit disappointed because they were too narrow for the snow that I was trying to ski through. At the time, I just didn't know! haha :) That's why I then bought the Excursion 88s. And, of course, that lead to buying the S-Bound 112s so that I could more effectively handle even deeper snow. In hindsight, however, it's possible that the S-Bound 98s and a more narrow ski would be all that a person needs. As far as the skins go, I bought those early in my cross-country skiing days and believed I needed them. But after using them that first time I realized that I didn't like having to deal with them in the backcountry. And, over the years, my skills got better so I had more tools from which to draw upon when dealing with challenging snow conditions. I think you're right, though, that they could be useful for hauling gear across ice. That actually sounds like a reasonable approach :) Thanks for tuning in, and thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it!
Hey Tony! I don't advocate or recommend upsizing your skis to accommodate a weighted backpack. The main reason is that you won't be able to run them without wearing all of that extra weight. And this could prove to be detrimental to your health if, for some reason, you no longer have that pack/weight and you find yourself miles from the trailhead or safety. Basically, those skis are going to be near impossible to get grip with unless you can find a way in which to weight yourself down enough that you can compress them flat in order to engage that grip zone. I realize the above is a worst case scenario but that's the litmus test for backcountry travel, right? What if ... ? Obviously, we can't plan for every possible catastrophe, but the obvious one we sure can. On top of the safety element is the fact that you'd never be able to run those skis unless you were wearing a heavy backpack. And who wants to do that every time they go xc skiing? For more discussion, I did publish a video specifically on this subject a couple years ago. Have a look :) ruclips.net/video/ZlsYRworAm8/видео.html
Hey Tony! The scale pattern definitely creates friction (and noise!) going downhill. So I understand why a lot of people don't like scale-patterned waxless xc skis. But I think that the fish scales are as versatile as any type of grip zone. They work good in nearly every condition (except really icy stuff), so I prefer them for that no nonsense skiing experience. Grip wax is great when you get it right. It's absolutely horrible when you don't. And, here in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, our daily winter temperature range is usually about 18-45 degrees (F). So, in those conditions a person could probably go through about three different grip wax applications if they were out skiing all day. That's not to say that I don't enjoy using grip wax, but having to stop to reapply it or completely swap from a hard wax to klister on the same ski session is not really what I prefer to be doing when I'm out skiing. I'd rather just be skiing! Hence, my preference for the always consistent scale-patterned grip zones. However, you do have to put up with the sound, which I don't really mind :) And, with that slight bit of friction, they will run a bit slower on the downhills. But there's very few times that I've experienced such slowness directly due to the fish scales that I don't see it as a detriment. Mostly what I find that causes me to go really slow downhill is deep snow at a lower angle or if new snow gets baked by the sun midday and becomes sticky mashed potatoes. But neither of those scenarios are really a result of the scale patterns themselves.
@JaredManninen do you know Chris Townsend? I've been reading his book and listened to him he's a friend and I camp walk occasionally with him he's big on wax I went waxable touring skis on his suggestion sounds like I'll have fun 😆 in 52 and last time on ski's was when 16 and terrified 😆 I'm thinking Scotland with Chris if get snow or Sweden next year. Have you used skins. Chris likes wax and climbing skins . I know nothing not even been on snow yet but watching and listening and fighting it out What I'm seeing is scales is quite popular to the point I've not seen anyone else on here or generally using wax lol 😅 as in grip wax 😅
@@TonyHobbs I haven't heard of Chris Townsend before, but I'll look him up and check out his book. Thanks for the lead! Waxable backcountry xc skis can be super fun (so fast and smooth on the downhill), but so finicky if you don't get that wax right. And, although I do have both the x-skin for the two pair of Asnes skis that I own, as well as the Fischer EZ-skins - both are essentially kicker skins, not full length skins - I actually don't like using them. Personally, the only thing I ever want to be doing with my skis once I click into the bindings is to ski on them! haha. I hate fiddling with them and dealing with skins or changing out wax. Realistically, I just carry a quick paste wax to apply in the extreme case that the snow becomes so sticky that it's coating my skis. But that's not too frequent because I glide wax my skis pretty often. Honestly, I don't even like taking my skis off in the backcountry unless I'm taking an extended break (for snacks, rest, etc.). So, yeah, I try to minimize every additional step to being outdoors so that I can just enjoy being outdoors and not have to unnecessarily monkey around with gear. There's very little terrain that I can't negotiate with a basic scale-patterned backcountry xc ski (simply through proper technique). All of that said, I choose routes that don't put me at avalanche risk. So, you won't necessarily find me climbing the steepest peaks. But that's also a direct result of the gear I'm running which, is to say, not designed for steep ascents/descents. Nearly any backcountry xc ski is some form of light touring gear so it's designed for lower angle terrain.
@JaredManninen great reply thanks He's been doing this on and off for 40 years plus built igloos lol the book out of print long time but very good if find a copy Wilderness skiing and winter camping I think it's called (not to hand) yeah I can imagine once on skis staying on nice
I definitely agree. A person won't have much fun without the right gear for their size and the conditions. But as an instructor I see so many people obsess about the minute details of gear. And then I see them ski and think that maybe we should go back to square one to sort out their technique first. I just think that many people would be better served investing their time in technique rather than gear. Anyway, thanks for watching and for contributing to the conversation. I appreciate it :)
Great topic! Well worth the watch. Appreciate the candid feedback on gear vs gear review. Nuances are aplenty. Have enjoyed your technique videos too!
Thanks, Christopher, for the kind words :) I appreciate the feedback!
There are so many other people out there doing the gear review thing that I don't need to add to that chorus. I use gear reviews as much as the next person, I imagine. But my whole approach to most everything is to focus on concepts and principles versus the very specific details of this, that, or the other thing. Realistically, that's how I've approached building this RUclips channel. Most of my videos should hold their relevance in time because they're not so specifically time-stamped, for example, in some sort of current trend or zeitgeist. Even with my VLOGs I try to be pretty universal in that I either offer information or a demonstration of something that's not necessarily going to go out of style :)
Anyway, I really appreciate you tuning in and for the meaningful comment.
Jared, forgot to mention I loved seeing you tele-turn on XC gear. I am just starting out XC skiing and the local shop stated it couldnt be done. At the same time I also just started teleing with heavy alpine-style touring gear. Just great to see you push the skills envelope and make those turns on skinny gear!
@@christopherdagel5816 Thanks again, Christopher :)
I'm still learning to Tele turn in my xc skis, but I feel like I made some strides this winter. So many people, including some who work at stores that happen to sell xc ski gear, just aren't that aware of what you can do with the skis. Kind of unfortunate, but it is what it is. It really fell out of popularity with the rise of downhill resorts back in the 1970s and 80s. I come to it later in life as I started when I was 39 (about 8 years ago). But, believe it or not, at Lake Tahoe (particularly on the north shore) there is a huge cross-country skiing culture. There are just so many opportunities to learn. I'm very fortunate and grateful that I'm a part of it.
Anyway, here's a link to the 1987 Telemark Movie if you haven't already seen it. Super fun, and all of those folks were on lightweight xc ski gear...
ruclips.net/video/KJ0Z8GOGnS0/видео.html
Thanks Jared for an awesome video which tells it all, IMHO. You strike the perfect balance about what gear can and can't do for you. I never hear what I consider common sense: we spend so much more of our time going on flat or uphill that focusing solely on downhill. Also, technique and refining one's technique has the greatest impact on satisfaction in real life, whilst procrastinating on what is the best gear is only temporary.
I was born in Finland and moved with my parents to the French Alps when I was only few years old. My parents put my brother and I in alpine ski lessons with our finnish cross country skis (with cable bindings and no steel edges). For 2 seasons that's what we used. Of course all the other kids used regular alpine ski gear and we eventually did too of course. With that back ground, I ski with my backcountry Rossignol on most downhill slopes just as well as a lot of people with modern gear. I still use my Rossignol backcountry skis 200 cm and 63 mm as my only pair of BC gear. I've changed the bindings and boots to NNN BC and Crispi Svartissen and that did make a big difference (I had regular Salomon XC boots and bindings for most of those 30 years). I tried recently some Madshus skis I believe 88 mm wide but much shorter. To be honest, I was planning on buying some shorter and wider skis because a couple of times my 200 mm long skis were too long in narrow rather steep descents. But trying my friend’s Madshus got me thinking. I lost so much of the fun doing “real cross country” on flat terrain. I had to work hard to keep them going straight and (relatively) fast. ANd to my surprise, it didn’t bring me radical change in fun going downhill. Sure the turning radius was shorter. But what’s that for a real difference. One can boast nicer tracks on a downhill? Nothing in it for me. I was so happy when I got my skis back.
By this I don’t mean that in all conditions my longer narrower skis would always trump shorter wider ones. But the reason is exactly what you put forward in your video: technique trumps gear. I learned to ski on XC skis, I got pretty good at alpine ski and never stopped XC on groomed tracks, was at ease on 44 mm XC skis. On my 200/63mm Rossignol, I have been on all kinds of terrain for 30 years, 25 of which not knowing that back Country skis had evolved towards shorter/wider (and loss of camber). So I still enjoy my outings on those skis, which aren’t very frequent because I live far away from skiing places now.
I will still be on the lookout for second hand wider skis because I don’t pretend my trial was definitive. I do go in steeper terrain where I go snowshoeing and thing I could ski rather that walk. But I don’t have the money to spend on new gear for a few opportunities if any every year.
Al in all I am very happy to see that I am not alone thinking what I think. Sometimes on forums here in France I feel cornered into a conservative oldschool persona. Skiing on narrower skis is most often presented like a posture of masochist resisting change, suspected of wanting to turn newer skiers away from the “real fun “ of BC ski (which is totally unfounded because I never give anyone any advise on gear; just talking about my approach and my feelings).
Sorry for being so long.
So sorry for my delayed response! I was out of town for work/xc ski clinics for the past few days.
I really appreciate all of your kind words and for sharing your story. Technique matters way more than gear, for sure. As much as I love gear, I do get tired of hearing about it all the time. So many people fuss about that and the wax they're using and those conversations just become nauseating to me at some point. Taking anything to the umpteenth degree causes me to eventually realize that I should actually be out skiing instead of talking! So I don't even bother visiting any of the more popular xc ski/xcd ski forums. I hate to admit, but they kind of just bore me with all that excessive tech talk.
I also think that so much gear is so similar (regardless of specific sidecuts, grip zones, length of skis) that most of it doesn't really matter so long as you're in the right weight range for the skis and that you actually know good technique.
That said, I do like wider/shorter off-track/backcountry xc skis for skiing in ungroomed and variable terrain. For me, they just make dealing with the unpredictable snow conditions and natural obstacles a little easier. And we have some pretty dense forests around Lake Tahoe where shorter skis are a little easier with which to navigate. That, and those shorter skis fit a little better in my car ;)
But, again, technique is still the most important element to possess :)
One of these days I'd like to travel to Finland and xc ski there as it is in my blood and I do have a number of cousins there. But that would require me to actually plan a trip instead of just dreaming about it. haha! I will ... eventually :)
Again, thanks for tuning in and for contributing to the conversation. I hope you get some good xc ski days in this winter in spite of being a bit further away from the snow.
Take care!
@@JaredManninen Hi Jared. No need to apologize. I'd rather you get out there outdoors than in front of your computer! We do have a few things in common. About long/short skis, as said, I don't advocate long skis. As a matter of fact I advised my wife to buy shorter skis and they suit her well. Long skis is what I have and been used to. My background is unlike most people's. AS for Finland, I'm planning a backcountry 10 day ski tour in a NP of northern Finland for next year. I've just completed a DIY pulka for multiday hikes both here in France and there next year.
@@tve1964 I'd rather be on snow than in front of the computer, too. haha :) And it definitely sounds like you have some adventures on the horizon! I support that :) One of these winters I'm going to have to just work it into the plans to do some multi-day trips. It's actually been quite a few years since I've done anything past a long weekend backpacking trip, for example. But I do miss those extended journeys. It's so nice to just get in the zone and be outside! Thanks again for all the support. And good luck on the 10-day Finland trip!
Not the video I was looking for but a great video and great info
Thanks for watching, and for the feedback. I appreciate it :)
Just out of curiosity, what specifically were you looking for? Perhaps I've made a video/article already that I could direct you to. Or, maybe I could make a specific one for what you were looking for.
Again, thanks for tuning in :)
I TOTALLY agree 100% with your philosophy on relying on one's skills and technique or buying the latest and greatest shiny new gadget or equipment. This video has just confirmed and answered every question I think I ever had, about Classic XC skiing.
Glad I could be of service! But I suspect you'll have more questions eventually ;)
Developing skills and abilities always seems like a way more sustainable long-term practice as opposed to relying too heavily on gear. Quality gear can definitely yield quality output, but one need's to have the skills to operate the gear in order for that to occur.
Anyway, thanks so much for the generous feedback and for tuning in!
Appreciate the opportunity to hear this kind of stuff from someone with lots of experience and knowledge. Great video.
Thank you, Alejandro, for the kind words 🤗 I appreciate it.
Let me know if you ever have any questions!
I totally agree with this philosophy!
I picked up a pair of ski's and stave's for ~4$ second-hand and I'm having tons of fun with that.
That's awesome! Over time you'll probably want to add to your quiver so that you can xc ski in different conditions/environments. But adjusting your technique and approach with what you have is often the best option.
Thanks for watching and commenting!
Love your philosophy.
Thank you🙏🏼
Hey Eric! Thanks so much for the kind words :)
Really enjoyed this video. Your approach on this topic is outstanding with a lot of good old common sense! I couldn't agree more in regards to the Classic Technique being fun and effective, if done correctly.
Keep up the great work!
Thanks for the kind words, John. Glad you enjoyed the video :)
Like many people when they first start out something, I had a lot of questions about gear. But as I've progressed as an xc skier and invested in learning proper technique, I find that geeking out on gear specs and features is less and less interesting to me.
Of course we all talk about gear because it's essential to the xc ski experience. But I've just found that without knowing good technique, it's less relevant as to what the gear can or is supposed to do. Classic xc ski technique is so unique and specific that "better" cross-country ski gear will not actually make you a better skier unless you're already proficient with the basics (push off, weight transfer, glide). I just wish there was more discussion about technique than gear, because technique is way more important.
Anyway, yeah, I like learning way more about technique than gear! But I still produce some gear videos every once and awhile. haha!
Thanks again for tuning in, and for contributing to the conversation :)
Hello Jared! Hello from Northwestern LP Michigan. Thank you for your thorough videos. Tons of information in each one!
I got a pair of the Fisher 62mm OTX skis last season and I’ve had some good sessions with them on groomed trails in and out of the tracks. I didn’t have as good of a performance off of groomed trails, but I am a beginner and my technique is a work in progress.
Prior to the 62mm I was using a borrowed pair of Fisher 68mm for off-groomed trail use…. Mostly hiking trails with fresh snow or sometimes with snowshoe tracks laid, or another skier’s tracks. I also took them on frozen lakes when there was a good amount of snow on top. Once in a while a walking path with snowmobile tracks laid.
I really noticed a difference between the 62 and 68 width…. Seems like I could go everywhere with those 68s…. But on groomed XC trails the speed lagged and that’s where I’ve been enjoying the skinnier 62s. However the 62s weren’t as good off a groomed surface…. Like you said in a comment, they felt like long snow shoes.
I’m looking to buy a pair of wider backcountry xc skis to take me back into the woods and wherever I please. Where I live isn’t really in the snow belt due to being real close to Lake Michigan. We don’t get piles and piles of snow like they do further inland, so I’m thinking I should pick a width under 90mm for sure. I’m hesitant to buy a pair of 68s since I’d only be adding a few mm for a whole ‘nother set of skis, and two pairs is about all I want to own. I’m just looking for groomed & ungroomed versatility.
Should I stick with what’s worked and get some 68s? Go for 78s? Would 88s be overkill? Your thoughts and suggestions would be most welcome. 🤍💙
Hey! Thanks again for the nice feedback and thorough question :)
I think you'd be much happier with at least the Traverse 78mm or possibly the Excursion 88mm. You're right in considering something wider than the Outback 68mm because they really aren't that much wider. As I talk myself through this I would probably go for the 88s. I don't think they'd be overkill at all. In fact, some years they're the set of skis that I use most in all conditions just because they can handle a little deeper snow and then not be so unreasonable in firm conditions. But wider seems to be a good idea so that you can capitalize on more snow conditions. Those 88mm are still only good in up to about 6-8 inches of fresh snow, but it sounds like that might be enough for your needs. If you do get more snow than that, consider the S-bounds, where they start at 98mm wide.
Glad to hear that you've gotten so much use out of the Spider 62mm. I have a set, too, and find that I use them a lot in spring conditions where the snowpack has consolidated into one big firm mass. I don't use them at groomed resorts as I have track skis for that, but their narrow width does accommodate regular groomed tracks, like said.
Again, thanks so much for tuning in and for contributing to the conversation. Let me know if you have other questions or want additional clarification. And, let me know what you ultimately buy!
One last note, this video may be of interest to you as it addresses the similar topic of one ski to do it all (which doesn't actually exist)... ruclips.net/video/Dak-G7E0JKc/видео.html
@@JaredManninen Thank you for the suggestions, I really appreciate them! Your recommended video was the first one I watched from your channel. I totally agree with your conclusion; 2 pairs is the way to go! I’m pretty excited to become the owner of 2 pairs of xc skis this season…. No more dreaming about greener grass (whiter snow? 🤔) on the other side of the fence. It’s going to be fun. Cheers and hope you’re having a great season where you are! 🤍💙
I completely agree with you. I really wanted some S-Bound 98s but they are incredibly hard to find. I ended up getting some Asnes Rabb 68 which are 94-68-104mm and Voile Mountaineer bindings for my all leather Scarpa Telemark boots. I have been struggling with kick wax and klister in variable conditions. I just ordered some 40mm Race X-Skins similar to the Easyskin hoping this works better in our warm/wet snow. The downhill has been super fun however. I think if you tried using the S-Bound 98s more often you would learn to appreciate them more.
Thanks so much for watching, and for the comments :)
I've always wanted to get myself a set of Asnes skis, but I just don't have it in me to deal with grip wax in these Sierra Nevada (i.e. super variable) conditions. They're beautiful skis, though!
I think I will pull out the S-bound 98mm next week after returning home from my work weekend. You're right in that I should start playing with them more :)
Let me know how it goes when you get those skins. I'd be curious to hear about your experience with them.
And cool channel, btw!
@@JaredManninen I have used my race skins several time in variable conditions and I just love them. The kick and glide is similar to the best waxless pattern. My biggest concern is longevity
@@CampfireKodiak Very cool! Thanks for the update. And I'm glad to hear that your skins are doing a great job :)
Believe it or not, I actually did buy myself a pair Asnes Gamme 54 (68mm tip) recently. I just couldn't resist after years of wanting to try a pair😆I bought them with the intention of mostly using them in spring once all of our snow here in the Sierra Nevada consolidates. I do want to try using grip wax (even though it's really challenging in variable snow conditions). But I also bought their mohair x-skins to use when I don't get the wax right.
We've had such an epic winter here in Tahoe that I actually just used my S-bound 112mm probably the most. I think things are finally settling down as we're forecasted for a couple inches of snow tonight, but then nothing for over a week. That might be one of our longest stretches of storm-free weather this season. Anyway, I'm really looking forward to lots of spring skiing.
Thanks again for checking back in!
@@JaredManninen Super! Make a video about your new skis sometime. Maybe next year. Klister is a pain but I had good luck on moderate terrain with the warmest floro wax I could find. Bring wax cleaner before switching to skins for anything warmer than blue extra
@@CampfireKodiak I will! I've never been proficient with grip wax, so I really want to learn. And others have also requested a video about it. Thanks for the heads-up about wax cleaner (for use w/skins). That's one of the many questions I had regarding swapping back and forth :)
Hey Jared! Looking forward to another winter of videos. I must have missed this one. Recently picked up a pair of S Bound 98s (actually pre-ordered them last December and finally came in a month ago). Have them paired with BC Magnums. I was wondering if you could feature a video with the 98 or 88 and touch on diagonal striding in deep snow if such a thing exists. I was out yesterday in about a foot of firm snow and found myself having a hard time gliding. It looks like we will be losing some of our snowpack here in northern New England so fingers crossed for another good storm. Thanks for all your insightful videos I truly appreciate it!
Great to hear from you!
Congrats on (finally!) getting your S-bound 98s :) Another person had mentioned to me earlier this fall that they weren't able to find any S-bound 112mm in their size. And that they were told by various shops around the country that there probably wouldn't be any new shipments of them due to the conflict in Ukraine. So, even though you had to wait a very long time, I'm really glad you were able to actually get them.
I have a very basic 3-pin on my set of 98s but, in hindsight, I kind of wish I would've just gone with the NNN BC Magnum like you. The waist width on the 98s almost seems just a tad too narrow for the 3-pin (it hangs over the edges quite a bit). I'm not going to change them now, but when you mentioned the NNN BCs I was thinking, "Yeah, that's probably a better way to go."
I'm actually going to try to put together a video this week discussing diagonal striding off-track and in the backcountry. I like that topic, and I've gotten a handful of comments/questions over the years about it. I'll probably reuse some footage from previous videos in that video to highlight different width skis in different depths of snow, but if you watch some of my VLOGs (especially the ones titled with "fresh" or "new" snow or "snowstorm") you'll see that I diagonal stride (or at least attempt to) in most conditions. Even when it's relatively deep. And I'm either using my Excursion 88mm or S-Bound 112mm in those situations.
But the short answer to your question of striding in deep snow is that if it's over 8-10 inches deep, it's usually really challenging. At which point it becomes a slog or walk. At the same time, I will often do more of a "bounding" type of technique without a lot of glide. But it's a way in which to cover more ground faster and it still emphasizes full weight transfer to each ski, but it's essentially running through deep snow (while wearing skis!). If the snow is between 1-8 inches, however, so long as I have an appropriately wide ski (skinnier in less snow, wider in deep snow), I often can stride just fine. Granted, that all depends on terrain and quality of snow. The best is when there's light and fluffy snow on a firm base or a firm base that's softened up due to the sun/temps rising.
Anyway, I'll get back to you when I put that video together and hopefully it'll add more depth to my short answer here.
Thanks again for tuning in, and for contributing to the conversation!
Thanks for the video
You're welcome! Thanks for watching 🤗
I owned the Europa 99s from Fischer but that was in a different century. They were single camber and I could go uphill with kick wax and then turn around and ski downhill. I did not ski at 40 degrees F. Normal temps were 5 to 25 degrees F. Not a tele marker so those skis were fine. On groomed trails I had classic and skate skis.
The E99s are definitely one of Fischer's legacy models! I think they've discontinued the name, and it's now called the Transnordic 66 (I believe). I haven't looked into it to see if they've made any significant modifications to it, other than the name, but I've always wanted to own a set. That said, I've never bought one because I already have enough xc skis for the time being :)
Yeah, it's kind of unfortunate that here in the Sierra Nevada we often get winter days where it's anywhere from 38-45 degrees F. We have to deal with a wide range of snow conditions when you consider we'll have night time low temperatures of 18-28 degree F. That's really one of the main reasons I just used scale patterned (waxless) xc skis is because trying to zero in on the right grip wax is like trying to hit a moving target. The type of grip wax for morning conditions is seldom the same for even a couple of hours later of skiing.
Thanks again for watching, and for sharing your experience! I appreciate it :)
I found this of value along with your video about dedicated track skis as I have a wide range of ski opportunities here in the Rockies. Do you have an opinion about the skis with the various "mohair" strips as opposed to the scales?
Hey Howard!
Thanks for watching, and for reaching out!
If you're referring to classic track skis that feature mohair/skins for a grip zone, a lot of people definitely prefer skins over scale-patterned grip zones for track skiing. They're more quiet, provide great grip in most snow conditions, and ice up or collect snow less frequently. That said, I personally don't care for them as much as other people because they tend to not perform as well when put through a lateral motion (skidded turns). Those skins just basically like to travel forward, so I never feel like I'm having as much fun on the downhills with them. Also, you definitely have to buy for your weight with skin-based track skis because I've found that even being within a few pounds on the upper end of the weight range can cause them to drag excessively.
I will also say this, that track skis with skins can sometimes be challenging to run because often they're designed with a much smaller grip zone. And this means you have to have good technique to optimize their use. Some of the higher end skis are designed for racing, so they're really challenging.
Now, if you're talking about the use of skins for backcountry xc ski, I have some kicker skins that I use in extreme icy situations. However, I just prefer the scaled grip zone for backcountry xc skis because the grip zones are big and aggressive enough that they work in most conditions. And I'm not a fan of doing many gear adjustments while in the field, particularly in nasty weather. So, I just use the scales in the backcountry and I find that there effective enough for me (combined with proper technique, of course).
Hope that helps. Let me know if you have other questions or want clarification on anything I've said above.
Thank you for your thorough reply. You did hit my question spot on, as I am most interested in the use of a mohair strip as a step up in my classic track skiing. I started on a pair of OTX 62's and quickly became more comfortable outside the track. I am wondering about an improved experience in the track, though. I was at a backcountry track only resort in Alaska where I got a strong recommendation for the mohair strips. I read they are popular over in the Nordic countries. My local Colorado Nordic center is not so keen on them, their reason being our drier conditions, though several retail stores sell them. I understand what you are saying about the downhill skiing. Is that a factor in the track? And I understand what you are saying about the extent and placement, thank you. I saw a pair of mohair strips at our local center the other day and asked the owner about them. While pleased, they also happened to have brought them from Juneau LOL. @@JaredManninen
@@howardkellogg8870 Cool! Yeah, I've never been super into them, but they definitely will provide a better experience for track skiing than your 62s. Mostly it'll be because they're going to be in the 45-50mm width range and longer, which is much more ideal for classic skiing in groomed tracks. Honestly, though, there aren't a lot of options for higher performance scale-patterned skis. So you'll have a better selection with the skins. The downhilling portion I'm referring to is being able to execute parallel turns and other forms of skidded turns in steep sections. I like doing these, and I just don't find them very enjoyable on skins. But they're great for everything else. Let me know what you ultimately decide on!
So as my Fischer half skins arrive Monday, I'm wonder just how much I might even use them. We'll see.
I honestly don't use my Fischer EZ-Skins very often. But I do like having them in the bag when terrain gets really icy. Not sure if you saw this video or not, but it's one that I published a couple years ago about using the EZ-Skins (ruclips.net/video/KJZvnWFTDTA/видео.html ). Again, I like having them in the kit just in case, but I seldom actually use them.
Anyway, I really appreciate you tuning in and reaching out!
@@JaredManninen guess it can't hurt. Only $80. Really don't think I'll be buying the full skins though. Very informative vid for us rookies.
@@coloradomark2159 Yeah, I wouldn't bother with the full skins either. Thanks for watching, and for the nice feedback. Have a great weekend!
First off, thank you for sharing so much valuable information. I was raised skiing on classic cross country skis, but never using them on groomed trails, I just followed my dad around the golf course. I know live in the country and ski open meadows and bush, zero hills to go down. I have found it to be exhausting breaking my own trails and battling through deep drifts on classic skis. I would like to transition to back country skis. Would the 88's be overkill? Again thank you for everything you share. Respect from southern ontario Canada.
Thank you for the kind words! Glad I could be of service :)
I think you'd be very happy with any brand of backcountry cross-country ski between 70-90mm width (tip width). That's pretty much the standard range of an all around bc xc ski. I often use Fischer Excursion 88mm throughout the season. Granted, that's during some seasons more than others. And it's usually when there's consistently softer snow between 4-8 inches deep. When it's less than that, I'll use the Fischer Spider 62mm. And when it's much deeper, I'll usually use the Fischer S-Bound 112mm. I probably mention that in this video, but just in case...
I think the only time you'd find something that's around 80mm to be overkill is that if you try running them on hard-packed snow (i.e. you don't end up with very much new snow over the course of the winter). I find that running wider backcountry xc skis on firm surfaces (icy, hard-packed snow) is not fun at all. They want to slip and slide laterally because it's more challenging to maintain edge control with the wider skis on the firm snow. But, you'd have your other classic xc skis (skinnier) that you could run in those firm snow conditions.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have other questions or want more clarification on anything.
Thanks again for tuning in, and for contributing to the conversation :)
@@JaredManninen more great information, thank you. I was actually able to find a set of Fischer 88mm, online in Quebec during cyber Monday sales. Slim pickings overall her in Canada. With the much smaller population we have here the shops only get what they are able. Now I just have to wait and see how the weather unfolds this winter. We had plenty of snow last year, so hopefully the lake effect will again bless us with a good amount. Have a safe and enjoyable winter. Looking forward to watching more of your content. The information you putforth in your video about your BC boot choices was definitely helpful as well. Thank you.
@@ganjaman3912 That's fantastic! I think you'll like those Excursions. Honestly, I think it's slim pickens all over the place. The cross-country ski industry is not a huge market. And it seems nowadays that manufacturers only make the bare minimum so that they're not left with tons of gear at the end of the season (and don't have to front a lot of money to have it made). I'm hoping that I have a good winter here at Lake Tahoe, as well. Tonight and tomorrow we have a major stormfront descending upon us and we're supposed to receive at least a foot in the next 36 hours. We'll see. Anyway, thanks again for watching my videos and for all the conversation. Super fun! Hope you have a great winter :)
Good vid!
Thanks, Rod! I appreciate it :)
Hey Jared hope all is well! Thanks for this video, i am looking into getting a set of BC skis. I am like 149lbs at 6'. The skis Im looking at have a range 120 to 150lbs for 175 and and 150 to 180lbs for 185. Im leaning towards the 185. Do you have any suggestions or guidance? Thank you. Praying for lots of snow for yall and for us here in Maine!
Hey Justin!
Thanks for the nice feedback. Glad you found the video useful :)
If I were you, I'd also go with the 185cm based on those ski's recommended weight range. In my opinion, it's better to be on the lighter end of the range versus the heavier, mostly because you're likely going to be carrying gear (as well as just being dressed with xc ski boots). So the extra gear will put in you more in the middle of that range. Also, the longer ski (although marginally so) would feel a bit more natural for your height compared to the slightly shorter one.
Those are interesting weight ranges/lengths, however. Often I see for backcountry/off-track skis, weight ranges roughly 145-175lbs for skis that are around 175cm. And then 175-200lbs for lengths closer to 185cm. But if the manufacturer laid out the ranges as you describe, just go with that 185cm set of skis.
What skis are you looking at, if you don't mind me asking?
Again, thanks for tuning in and reaching out!
@JaredManninen Thanks for the response Jared! I'm a father of 4 so I'm kinda in the poverty pony range. I was looking at the Rossingol BC 80 due to the deal I found on them. Out here in Maine we don't have any huge mountains and I don't get out of my county very often. We have a nice nordic center 10 mins away that grooms trails and is lots of ups and down, similar to mountain bike trails but wider. Very very great place. Was also just given permission to use a neighbors 200 acres that is full of nice maintained trails also ups and downs. Would you advise something else?
@@Justin-m6w5u Hey Justin, no prob. Glad I could help. I just looked up those skis and they look great. You won't be able to fit them in groomed tracks as those tracks are typically 70mm wide, but you can run them in the skate lane and you'll be able to take them off-trail as well. All of that said, if you were planning to primarily xc ski on groomed trails with classic tracks, you may want to invest in a classic track ski (that's usually no more than 50mm wide). But if you're planning on xc skiing wherever/whenever, something designed for ungroomed terrain such as the Rossignol BC 80 would be just fine. That said, something like the Rossi BC 65 or Fischer Spider 62 would technically fit in groomed classic tracks and offer an off-trail option. But both of those are pretty narrow still (at 65mm and 62mm, respectively), so they wouldn't be very effective in more than 6-8 inches of snow (depending). Anyway, determine what type of skiing you'll be doing most (groomed classic tracks or off-trail situation) and go from there!
@@JaredManninen I have the Rossi OT65 and they have been great on the New England type snow at the nordic center. I often avoid the tracks even while using a thin classic....feels restrictive too me sometimes on downhill turns and such. An area i need to work on. Thanks for looking at the BC80...I was on the fence about it. Just really would like something with a bit more float on fresh snow. I think the 185 bc80 would offer that to me being on the low end of weight recommendation. Thanks for all your videos and guidance. Very much appreciated.
@@Justin-m6w5u Gotcha! Yeah, then those BC 80s should be perfect for your needs. This is basically the same process I've gone through when building my "quiver" of xc skis. You quickly realize that one set doesn't really cut it for all scenarios. So you just acquire as needed. Good luck, and keep me posted on your experience with the 80s when you start using them!
Good evening Jared,
I have always wanted to get into XC skiing, and have started to become 'decent' at track skiing at resorts with my cobbled together 40 year old skis and boots (some were made in Yugoslavia - fricken sweet). My next goal is to get into a pair of back-country skis to get exploring better. Usually its going to be some snowed over FS road - see my ski tour to Mowich Lake in MRNP. I was wondering what width would best accommodate that, with the Washington Cascades getting the heavy, wet snow we do. After watching your videos, im thinking the 80mm range to start with? Most likly not doing anything super steep pitched, but we do get lots of snow fast.
Your videos have always been helpful and inspiring to try and get out year-round, while being able to cover more ground than just on snowshoes, which I have plenty of experience on.
Video evidence for entertainment purposes - ruclips.net/video/9KFfjnOEJsg/видео.html
Hey Brandon,
Thanks so much for watching, and for the question!
I think you'd be really happy with anything around 80mm (tip) width range. Fischer has the Traverse 78mm and Excursion 88mm, and both would be ideal for those types of conditions of which you speak. I have the Excursion 88s and run those often throughout the season. Here in Tahoe, we have some pretty similar snow conditions (aka Sierra Cement). We do get really deep and dry powder, but then it often consolidates quickly into that cement. Or, it just initially comes in wet and heavy. But I find the Excursion 88mm do me well in all kinds of conditions.
That said, when it's deep and powdery I use my Fischer S-Bound 112mm, or if we haven't had any new snow for a while and the snowpack has gone through its usual freeze/thaw cycles (i.e. spring-like conditions) I'll usually just run the skinnier set of Fischer Spider 62mm.
But for your needs, I think anything between 70-90mm will be just fine. Most of the major xc ski manufacturers offer some type of off-track and backcountry cross-country ski in that width ranger. And I think they're all pretty similar in quality. I just happen to have bought Fischer over the years and continue to do so. And, as I mentioned in the video, I do find that Fischer tend to run a bit more stiff which makes them more ideal for diagonal striding (kick and glide).
Hope that helps. Good luck in your search for a new set of xc skis. Let me know what you end up buying.
Thanks again for tuning in, and for contributing to the conversation :)
Oh, and just an fyi ... sorry for my delayed response but the link to your video automatically triggered the comment to be placed in a "review" folder (i.e. spam). Basically, any link posted in a comment on RUclips does that (at least with my account). So I have to remember to go in and look at that folder. Anyway, I found your comment eventually. haha.
Hey Jared! I’m looking to buy my first pair of back country xc skis, and was looking at the Fischer Traverse 78’s but watching your videos and advice I’m not sure if they would suit the snow conditions we get up here in Michigan. Obviously we get the lake effect off the Great Lakes and the snow is often very cold and somewhat crunchy in january- February. We don’t get a lot of deep snow unless you’re in the upper peninsula (I’m not).
@@KINGkelso15 Hey Kelsey,
Thanks so much for reaching out! Believe it or not, I was originally a Yooper :) I lived in the Houghton/Hancock area for the first ten years of my life and then returned many years later to attend Michigan Tech University.
Anyway, I think the Fischer Traverse 78mm are a great all-around sized ski. That said, if you don't get anything too deep and the snow is mostly firm, you could probably get away with the Outback 68mm. I don't know that I'd recommend something as skinny as the Spider 62mm if you were to only have the one pair of skis, however. They are pretty skinny, all things considered. And I only use them when the snow is really consolidated and firm. Otherwise they will dig into softer snow really quickly.
Let me know if any of that helps, or if you want additional feedback/clarification. Thanks again for tuning in and for the question :)
@@JaredManninen Thank you!! I think I’m definitely going to give the 78’s a try then. That’s awesome you were once a fellow Michigander!! The UP is an amazing place for winters :) thanks again for all of your help!
@@KINGkelso15 Very good! I think they're a good option. Just keep in mind, though, that on firm and icy snow they will be a little challenging to keep tracking straight. That's the challenge with wider xc skis on icy stuff. But, realistically, everything is challenging to run in icy conditions. Also, the 78s will be too wide to fit in tracks at groomed xc ski areas. Not sure if you were ever planning to ski at a groomed xc ski area, but the tracks are not wide enough to accommodate that width. You would just have to ski in the skate lane then. Anyway, good luck!
One thing I am curious about is what is the widest ski that can effectively be controlled by a NNNBC binding for turns? There is only so much leverage so what do you think is the realistic limit?
Thanks for watching, and for the great question!
I have a set of NNN BC bindings mounted on my pair of Asnes Falketind 62 (97-62-86, tip-waist-tail) backcountry xc skis. I find that the NNN BC binding is fine for this size of bc xc ski. I wouldn't go any wider than a tip with of 97/98mm with that set of bindings. I do have a friend with a set of S-bound 112mm (tip width) that have NNN BC bindings on them, but I think that's pushing it. He purchased that combination of skis/bindings before he became aware of the relationship between the two. I don't think he totally regrets it, but I know he would've mounted a more robust binding to those 112mm skis now that he's had a couple of winters under his belt.
All of that said, NNN BC bindings might be outmatched on a 98mm ski if you're really aggressive with your turns and/or you're really heavy. I also have a set of S-bound 98mm skis with a basic three-pin binding mounted to them. So, at that width, you could go either way.
I find, however, that on my Excursion 88mm, the NNN BC binding is totally perfect.
Anyway, hope that helps. Let me know if you have other questions or want any additional clarification.
Thanks for tuning in, and for the question!
Appreciate the response and how quick. You responded before I asked the question (but it’s yesterday where you are). I agree with your comment. Our snow here can be quite variable so we don’t have the luxury of a wide ski in soft fresh snow. I’m going with the Magnum on a 62 with the Transnordic. Should suit undulating terrain and occasional moderate downhill. Otherwise if I want to Tele I’ll just jump on my XCD setup & hit a resort. Thanks.👍
@@64syth76 Awesome! Sounds like a great plan :) I also have NNN BC (auto) on a set of Spider 62s and NNN BC (manual) on some Asnes Gamme. Both of which work great!
Do you find that nordic camber makes a difference when breaking trail through powder? I have a voile hypervector bc which is a little wider than the fischer 112 and has fish scales but a softer more downhill oriented camber. I'm wondering if a nordic cambered ski if similar width would be any more or less efficient for powder stomping. A side note, it has voile switch back bindings on it (free pivot tele bindings) and I like the free pivot in powder because it helps keep my tips pointed up.
Hey Justin,
Thanks so much for watching, and for the great question!
Honestly, I think the nordic camber on most backcountry xc skis works against the skier in deep powder to some degree. A softer camber, I believe, makes it easier to walk relatively normal in deep snow because you don't have to deal with the springy-ness of a stiffer camber. Basically, the grip zone on a softer cambered ski should always be making contact no matter how you're walking because you're not fighting against the stiff camber (that's ultimately trying to keep the grip zone off of the snow so as to decrease friction).
That said, trudging along the flats probably isn't a whole lot different in either types of skis. Instead, I find it challenging at times going up a steep incline in deep snow while doing the herringbone technique. Effectively, the stiffer camber keeps the grip zone off of the snow (until compressed) and, therefore, causes me to slip more frequently when I try to go straight up those steep hills. So, I have to choose my ski angles wisely and really commit to transferring all of my weight from one ski to the next while doing the herringbone in those deep snow conditions. But once the angle gets to the point that it's too steep (and I'm slipping and fumbling too much) I'll just transition to a traverse.
The reason I prefer the xc ski camber is as I mention in the video -- I spend the vast majority of my time on skis during the approach and dealing with lower angle hills that the nordic camber enables me to diagonal stride more often (which is where my strength lies).
I looked up the skis that you have, and they definitely look like a lot of fun! They also look way more expensive than mine, too - haha! But way more effective on steep descents, I'm sure.
Anyway, not sure if any of that's helpful. But, I wouldn't necessarily go out and buy a new set of skis because it looks like you already have some really nice ones.
Thanks again for tuning in, and for contributing to the conversation :)
Can you recommend a backcountry cross country ski shop in the Truckee/Tahoe area? Maybe a shop in the Bay Area? How about recommendations for instruction?
Hey Jim!
I believe Alpenglow Sports in Tahoe City sells backcountry xc ski gear, as well as Tahoe Mountain Sports in Truckee. If you're in South Lake Tahoe, Sports LTD has a fairly wide variety of backcountry cross-country skis. I went there about a month ago and was surprised at their selection. I don't know what that inventory looks like now (or the other shops for that matter), so I'd call ahead just in case.
All of that said, I've found that many shops that do sell bc xc ski gear don't necessarily know a lot about it. Often, those shops will primarily sell alpine and alpine touring gear and offer the xc skis as additional options for backcountry travel. Also, many of the employees are into the alpine touring side of backcountry travel, so bc xc skis may not be their strength. I just say that as a word of caution in case you're hoping for detailed info at the actual shop about the gear.
As far as instruction goes, you're mostly just going to find traditional cross-country ski instruction around Lake Tahoe as opposed to backcountry xc ski. Those resorts include Tahoe XC in Tahoe City, Tahoe Donner Cross Country in Truckee, Royal Gorge near Donner Pass, and then on the south shore at Kirkwood XC. Backcountry cross-country ski is essentially born from traditional xc ski and/or Telemark skiing in many cases. For me, however, it's a direct extension of traditional/classic xc skiing.
Anyway, that's some info to get you started. Get back in touch with more detailed questions when you're ready.
Thanks for tuning in, and for reaching out!
Hey Jared what kind of boots do you run on the various setups?
Hey Devin,
Great to hear from you again! You beat me to the punch. haha. I'm going to do another video this week outlining the xc ski boots that I use when backcountry cross-country skiing. Originally, I was going to include it in this ski video but as you can tell by the time stamp it started getting pretty long. And, since I already did a video about the ski poles I use for backcountry xc skiing (ruclips.net/video/jAiIXas9uN4/видео.html), it made sense to do a separate video for boots.
All of that said, it's going to take me a couple of days to put this boot video together so if you could hang tight until then, that would be cool. In the meantime, here's a link to a my companion article (to this little series of backcountry-related videos) on Tahoe Trail Guide. You may have already read it, but just in case...
tahoetrailguide.com/overview-of-off-track-and-backcountry-cross-country-ski-gear/
And, if you haven't read this one yet, here's one that I specifically go over classic cross-country ski boots. It's not necessarily specific to backcountry xc skiing, but still has relevant information.
tahoetrailguide.com/cross-country-skiing-explained-part-5-classic-cross-country-ski-boots/
Thanks again for all of your interest, and for contributing to the conversation! I appreciate it :)
@@JaredManninen sounds great! I’ll give that article a read and look forward to the boot video 🙂
@@devinthado0od Fantastic! I'm actually exporting (as I type this) the first edit of that video :) So, I'll have it published by tomorrow night.
On the weight - ski size charts, how do you factor in clothes and pack weight? I played around with a scale and my light day pack and looking at boot weights, figuring I would add 10-16 pounds to my clothed body weight. This can push someone into the next ski size range. But I would prefer shorter more maneuverable skiis if possible.
Thanks for watching, and the question :)
Clothing and gear is definitely a concern regarding the ski's weight range. Honestly, though, unless you're planning to wear a 50lbs pack, I'd 99.9% of the time go with the recommended weight range ski. I've tried a friend's larger set of backcountry xc skis (one weight range above mine) to see if it would be worth having that longer set of skis for ski-packing, for example, and it sort of worked. It still felt like way too much ski for me, even though it was just once size up. And then without all of that extra weight I couldn't run the skis at all (too light for them by a long shot).
So, again, I'd just stick with the ski manufacturer's recommendation. I guess my only real concern about that option is if you were at the very top end of the weight range of the skis. I'm fortunately, right in the middle of the range for my bc xc skis so I can always add or loose upwards of 10-15lbs and not feel a whole lot of difference in performance.
Anyway, hope that helps. Let me know if you want more clarification or have other related questions.
Again, thanks for tuning in!
Would a wider ski be better for 300 plus pounder ? 6’ tall 340 plus. ??
Hey Tony!
You ask a good question, but I don't know that I can offer any definitive answers. Realistically, all xc skis (whether they're built for groomed or off-track classic cross-country skiing) are designed for specific weight ranges. This is usually reflected in their length and the stiffness of their camber (i.e. longer skis and stiffer camber will bear more weight). So just because an xc ski is wider doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be able to bear more weight. Those wide skis are essentially for dealing with deeper snow.
Unfortunately, most of the xc skis that I see on the market (again, regardless of whether or not their designed for groomed/ungroomed terrain) tend to top out with regard to their weight range at 220+. So if you were going to be classic cross-country skiing on groomed terrain, I'd recommend buying a set of classic skis that have an "extra stiff" camber. But if you were going to primarily be skiing on ungroomed/backcountry terrain, I'd say to buy the longest length possible. Some manufacturers of off-track xc skis have 3-5 different lengths, so I'd research the brand that has the highest weight range (and will wind up being the longest).
I'd also look into brands of off-track/backcountry xc skis that have the stiffest cambers. Fischer and Rossignol tend to both be similarly stiff, but I think Rossignol might offer a longer ski that could possibly bear more weight. Other manufacturers like Madshus and Asnes tend to make their backcountry xc skis a bit softer for a better downhill experience. But you would definitely be dragging the grip zones of those skis no matter what they say is their top weight range. So probably stick to Fischer or Rossignol.
No matter what, though, you may find that even the longest/stiffest backcountry xc skis will drag a lot for your weight. But this might be okay based on your skill/experience. It's just that if they drag too much the whole xc ski experience can be, well, a real drag (pun intended).
Again, I find that most xc skis tend to say that their stiffest skis are designed for about 220+ pounds. So I'm not sure if any of that helps, but that's my two cents on the subject.
Let me know if you have other questions or want clarification on anything I've said above. Again, thanks for tuning in and reaching out :)
Should you go from NNN to NNN BC to 3-point bindings depending on the width of the ski or can you use any binding you choose to go for any width ski?
I generally approach mounting bindings like the first part of your statement.
Technically you could mount whatever bindings you wanted on whatever skis you wanted. The problem, though, is that if you have too much binding for the ski you run the risk of placing too much torque on the ski (and then break the ski). On the other hand, if the binding is too small for the ski you risk putting too much torque on the binding (and then break the binding).
So, I tend to mount bindings that are commensurate in size to the skis in which I'm running.
@@JaredManninen Thank you!
👍
Any experience with Madshus Panorama M68 skis vs Fischer Sbound 98. Similar sidecuts. Hard to find info/reviews on Madshus but less expensive and seem to be more available. Maybe someone you know uses them?
I just bought some Fischer Traverse 78 with magnum bc bindings and Fischer OTX BC boots. I can do tele turns in the right conditions so will work with what I have for now but thinking of a narrower and wider set of skis like spider 62 with nnn bc and sbound 98 (or the panoramas) with bc magnum to complete my "quiver". Probably get a pair of Alpina Alaska bc boots or heavier Fischer bc boots to complete the setup.
Sounds like a great plan for your quiver!
As far as the Madshus Panorama M68 go, though, I don't have any experience with them or know of anyone who uses them. That said, they look like a fine backcountry cross-country ski.
Out of the handful of different bc xc skis that I've used, I have found Fischer to be slightly stiffer (which I probably mention in the video), which is better for diagonal striding and not as good for downhilling. But I think they're probably only marginally stiffer. So I don't know if that's really much of a deal breaker in any way. I also don't ever use the EZ skin option with my Fischers, so I don't think I'd take that into consideration when buying, either.
Honestly, I'd probably give more consideration to the Madshus since they're less expensive and more readily available. I think Fischer tends to be slightly more expensive across the board, and they may actually charge more for their skis due to the EZ skin option. But, again, if you don't need it there's no sense in paying for it.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have other questions. And thanks for tuning in and for the question! I appreciate it :)
Thanks Jared - that helps a lot. Hopefully it opens options for others also who may be having problems finding comparable Fischer skis in their size.
@@ck-4203 You're welcome! Glad I could be of service :)
A question: First some background. I turned 70 this year and while this old dog can learn new tricks (I have three days on x-c skis total at this writing) there are limitations. Orf greater import, I weigh 260# today. I might lose weight, docs want me to but I don't have much time so probably not. I have Fischer Spider 62 crown in 199cm. The recommendation is 220#+. So my immediate question is just how far up does that "+" reach? I like the skis so far with nothing with which I can compare and with the turnamics in -1 and F4 swix wipe on I'm gliding pretty good I think (again, nothing with which to compare). Am I on the right or as close to right ski for me? Are there OT or BC skis built for old fat guys? Thanks, and cheers! Oh, my first day was on Rossi Evo OT 65 195cm. I didn't glide well and they felt loose and squirrely. That was last year though, it was a bit icy and my first day so. . . The Spider 62 feel a lot more stable and glide better as noted.
Hey John,
Thanks for tuning in, and for the question 🤗
Honestly, I too have wondered just how far up the + goes with some skis because I do have the occasional customer (at the rental shop at which I work) who tops out at well over 220. We usually give them the longest skis that we have and hope they have fun. And I think they usually do. But I do think there's a problem industry-wide with there not being many ski options for heavier people.
So I guess what I'm thinking is that if the skis you're currently running (Spider 62 in 199cm) seem fun, stable, and provide good enough glide they're probably a good set of skis for you ☺️ I don't believe there are any specific xc skis designed for really heavy people, at least not beyond the 200-220+ lbs weight. Again, I'm not sure how much the + goes up to. But the Rossignols you mentioned clearly didn't appeal to you.
I have found that Fischers tend to feel stiffer than other skis which makes them capable of bearing more weight, so maybe that's just fine.
The only other option that I can think of is a set of dedicated track skis that have an extra stiff camber. But skis that feature different camber stiffnesses are usually higher end models, and they're only really for use in groomed terrain (i.e. classic tracks). And I'm not really sure that's what you're looking for.
Long story getting longer, I think you're probably good to go with what you have.
Let me know if you have other questions or want additional clarification on anything I've said. Thanks again for teaching out!
@@JaredManninen
Thanks for the quick reply. I guess, since I don't know any better and I was actually able to glide some on the 62s they're gonna work. I did find out today that 199cm of 62mm width with 260# on top of 'em doesn't work all that well in about 2' of fairly soft snow. Hah! I'm going back to the groomed stuff tomorrow.
Cheers and thanks again!
@@Freepowder You're welcome, John! Firm snow is definitely going to be a bit faster. That's too bad that even a couple of inches of fresh snow didn't yield any glide though. Keep at it, though! And if I find/hear about any specific types of skis designed to bear more weight, I'll get back to you!
I can't live without my Helge Ingstad from Åsnes.
I did pick up a set of Gamme 54 and Falketinds at the end of last season, so I'm hoping to put them to use this winter :)
Thanks for watching!
What is diagonal stride?
Hey James!
Thanks for the question. Diagonal striding is just another term for classic cross-country skiing technique. People also call it "kick and glide," "striding," "track skiing," etc... In the following video (ruclips.net/video/8wiRZqnzr4E/видео.html ) I talk about my approach to striding while xc skiing in off-track/backcountry conditions. And then I have a ton of diagonal stride how-to videos beginning with my part 1 of classic cross-country ski technique (ruclips.net/video/GS7kc5ty5ZI/видео.html ). You know, if you have a lot of free time and want to see examples ;)
Anyway, I appreciate you tuning in and reaching out! Let me know if you have any other questions.
Weight range.. with or without backbag? It can make a huge difference
I agree that carrying extra weight will cause more drag on the skis if that extra weight puts you beyond the recommended weight range for the length of skis on which you're running. However, I tend to discourage people from buying a backcountry xc ski that's too stiff for them even though they may be wearing a backpack.
The reason for this is that if you find yourself having to ski or wanting to ski without that extra weight, you're going to struggle with those stiffer skis. This is because you won't be heavy enough to compress them for grip when skiing the flats and uphill. And then on the downhill you won't be able to compress them enough either, making turns more challenging.
For a slightly more in-depth answer, watch my follow-up video titled "Whether or Not to Buy a Longer Backcountry XC Ski When Planning to Wear a Backpack"
ruclips.net/video/ZlsYRworAm8/видео.html
Thanks for watching, and for the question! I appreciate it :)
1:32 "Dont push the boundaries of ski weight range" made me sad. What if your ancestors hooked up with too many tall german women and now You're six foot five, 220 pounds, and like to ski with 15lbs of whiskey ??? Hello from the gutters of NYC. I was even fatter until I fell in love 3pm May 5th 2022.
Haha! Welcome back to my little corner of the internet ;)
From your description, it sounds like you've become a human version of the iconic St. Bernards rescue dog wearing a small keg of brandy to help revive weary mountain travelers. If so, I applaud your efforts and thank you for your service!
And congrats on falling in love (and shedding some lbs as a result). One day I hope to do the same. Well, at least the first part of that equation anyway.
Hope you have a great holiday season, and are able to avoid eating too many sweets :)
I got the 98s with 3 pins. I love em. I've never felt "wish I had a different ski on right now" but I definitely want to get a narrower setup at some point.
Yeah I never use skins either, never bought em. If I did have some though, I would probably use them to pull my ice fishing gear out to a little lake near my house. I think they'd be useful for that, but I've never even tried without them, so iunno, maybe I don't even need them for that.
Having at least one wide and one narrow ski option is a nice thing.
I can't believe how much use I've gotten out of my Spider 62s over the years. But when I first started using them I was a bit disappointed because they were too narrow for the snow that I was trying to ski through. At the time, I just didn't know! haha :) That's why I then bought the Excursion 88s. And, of course, that lead to buying the S-Bound 112s so that I could more effectively handle even deeper snow.
In hindsight, however, it's possible that the S-Bound 98s and a more narrow ski would be all that a person needs.
As far as the skins go, I bought those early in my cross-country skiing days and believed I needed them. But after using them that first time I realized that I didn't like having to deal with them in the backcountry. And, over the years, my skills got better so I had more tools from which to draw upon when dealing with challenging snow conditions.
I think you're right, though, that they could be useful for hauling gear across ice. That actually sounds like a reasonable approach :)
Thanks for tuning in, and thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it!
What happens if wearing heavy pack re weight
Hey Tony!
I don't advocate or recommend upsizing your skis to accommodate a weighted backpack. The main reason is that you won't be able to run them without wearing all of that extra weight. And this could prove to be detrimental to your health if, for some reason, you no longer have that pack/weight and you find yourself miles from the trailhead or safety. Basically, those skis are going to be near impossible to get grip with unless you can find a way in which to weight yourself down enough that you can compress them flat in order to engage that grip zone.
I realize the above is a worst case scenario but that's the litmus test for backcountry travel, right? What if ... ? Obviously, we can't plan for every possible catastrophe, but the obvious one we sure can.
On top of the safety element is the fact that you'd never be able to run those skis unless you were wearing a heavy backpack. And who wants to do that every time they go xc skiing?
For more discussion, I did publish a video specifically on this subject a couple years ago. Have a look :)
ruclips.net/video/ZlsYRworAm8/видео.html
@JaredManninen thanks I'll watch. I went with touring 2m 66mm ski's and alaska boots
And I have no plans yet lol
Excellent! Just getting out there is the first step 🙌
If using waxless with scales how do they work gliding down hills I hear your comment re noise interesting
My friend likes wax
Hey Tony!
The scale pattern definitely creates friction (and noise!) going downhill. So I understand why a lot of people don't like scale-patterned waxless xc skis. But I think that the fish scales are as versatile as any type of grip zone. They work good in nearly every condition (except really icy stuff), so I prefer them for that no nonsense skiing experience.
Grip wax is great when you get it right. It's absolutely horrible when you don't. And, here in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, our daily winter temperature range is usually about 18-45 degrees (F). So, in those conditions a person could probably go through about three different grip wax applications if they were out skiing all day. That's not to say that I don't enjoy using grip wax, but having to stop to reapply it or completely swap from a hard wax to klister on the same ski session is not really what I prefer to be doing when I'm out skiing. I'd rather just be skiing! Hence, my preference for the always consistent scale-patterned grip zones. However, you do have to put up with the sound, which I don't really mind :)
And, with that slight bit of friction, they will run a bit slower on the downhills. But there's very few times that I've experienced such slowness directly due to the fish scales that I don't see it as a detriment. Mostly what I find that causes me to go really slow downhill is deep snow at a lower angle or if new snow gets baked by the sun midday and becomes sticky mashed potatoes. But neither of those scenarios are really a result of the scale patterns themselves.
@JaredManninen do you know Chris Townsend? I've been reading his book and listened to him he's a friend and I camp walk occasionally with him he's big on wax I went waxable touring skis on his suggestion sounds like I'll have fun 😆 in 52 and last time on ski's was when 16 and terrified 😆 I'm thinking Scotland with Chris if get snow or Sweden next year. Have you used skins. Chris likes wax and climbing skins . I know nothing not even been on snow yet but watching and listening and fighting it out
What I'm seeing is scales is quite popular to the point I've not seen anyone else on here or generally using wax lol 😅 as in grip wax 😅
@@TonyHobbs I haven't heard of Chris Townsend before, but I'll look him up and check out his book. Thanks for the lead!
Waxable backcountry xc skis can be super fun (so fast and smooth on the downhill), but so finicky if you don't get that wax right. And, although I do have both the x-skin for the two pair of Asnes skis that I own, as well as the Fischer EZ-skins - both are essentially kicker skins, not full length skins - I actually don't like using them. Personally, the only thing I ever want to be doing with my skis once I click into the bindings is to ski on them! haha. I hate fiddling with them and dealing with skins or changing out wax. Realistically, I just carry a quick paste wax to apply in the extreme case that the snow becomes so sticky that it's coating my skis. But that's not too frequent because I glide wax my skis pretty often. Honestly, I don't even like taking my skis off in the backcountry unless I'm taking an extended break (for snacks, rest, etc.). So, yeah, I try to minimize every additional step to being outdoors so that I can just enjoy being outdoors and not have to unnecessarily monkey around with gear.
There's very little terrain that I can't negotiate with a basic scale-patterned backcountry xc ski (simply through proper technique). All of that said, I choose routes that don't put me at avalanche risk. So, you won't necessarily find me climbing the steepest peaks. But that's also a direct result of the gear I'm running which, is to say, not designed for steep ascents/descents. Nearly any backcountry xc ski is some form of light touring gear so it's designed for lower angle terrain.
@JaredManninen great reply thanks
He's been doing this on and off for 40 years plus built igloos lol the book out of print long time but very good if find a copy
Wilderness skiing and winter camping I think it's called (not to hand) yeah I can imagine once on skis staying on nice
@@TonyHobbs Very cool! I do want to eventually do more winter camping. I love the solitude out there :)
Yeah I'd say it's a teensy bit about yer gear....
I definitely agree. A person won't have much fun without the right gear for their size and the conditions.
But as an instructor I see so many people obsess about the minute details of gear. And then I see them ski and think that maybe we should go back to square one to sort out their technique first. I just think that many people would be better served investing their time in technique rather than gear.
Anyway, thanks for watching and for contributing to the conversation. I appreciate it :)
@@JaredManninen yes that was more of a way of saying, "nice gear" :)
@@rckandeggroll Awesome! Thanks 😄