An Introduction to Nordic and Backcountry Ski Gear

I believe the big Fischers and Rossignols have a bit of camber, but that isn't true of all the big waxless skis. I have a pair of Alpina Lite Terrain skis that have very little (if any) camber. They basically feel like (and probably are) Alpine skis with a waxless bottom. I think the Viole waxless skis are basically the same as their other back country skis, only with waxless bottom.

I would love to be able to buy a pair of the really light skis in a waxless bottom. I wouldn't expect them to glide as well as my motion crown (which are skinny skis with plenty of camber) or my Rainiers (which are much wider but still have some camber). I would expect them to perform (on the flats) as well as my Alpina Lite Terrain skis. They would certainly be faster than skins (which is what I see a lot of people using). When ascending using a waxless (or kick waxed) bottom, you often make a lot of switchbacks (more than you would if you put on your skins). A light ski makes a big difference on every turn. More than anything, that is what I notice when I switch from my Inbound Crown (which are lighter than my Rainiers) to my Alpina Lite Terrain. The lack of good kick and glide is less than ideal, but my main complaint is the weight.

I could try buying a pair of those light skis and applying kick wax, but in my climate, I doubt I would be happy. The temperature always seems to hover around freezing. I rarely see people doing this. On roads where I cruise up via my waxless skis, I see other folks skinning the whole way. This means they are unlikely to ski the chute I mentioned earlier. The chute was essentially a cut of a switchback (perfectly legal in the winter :)). My brother, skiing his BC 125s, skied the chute, then got back on the road and cruised up to where he started. It is highly unlikely that a skier who needed skins for the road would do that (it would be just too much hassle to remove the skins, ski, then put them on again). There are similar example all over the place in the back country as well. While going downhill I can make turns down a nice little bowl and not worry about the fact that I have to climb back up. Meanwhile, the guys with the flat bottom skis stay up high on the ridge and avoid any possible uphill (or even flat).

Jonathan, Dave, thanks for your answers. I've read some reports about Elk Mountains Grand Traverse, including Mike Kloser's tips – it is more clear now.
I agree that AT racing gear (and nordic racing) is more technologically advanced now, backcountry skiing gear is in some stagnation.
But i think there are situations when using backcountry skiing gear is more reasonable:
1. AT skiing gear is more suited to ascendingdescending skiing mode. So, when horizontal component is more than vertical, when we need to cover long distances, but also need gear more rugged (and metal edges) than nordic racing – backcountry skis like Asnes Amundsen, Madshus Glittertind with Rotefella Supertelemark bindings and boots like Garmont Venture come to mind. Similar to what authors of the article called "Nordic touring". This setup weights around 3960 grams = 140 oz = 8.73 lbs (skis 1890 gr, bindings 370 gr, boots 1700 gr). The key factor (besides different skis) is the price, simplicity and reliability of the setup combined.
2. Using backcountry (crosscountry downhill) skis like Madshus Annum, Fischer S-Bound 112 with AT bindings (may be toe pieces) and AT boots. Like Dave already said, backcountry skis have different characteristics from AT skis – different flexibility, side cut, also waxless base is sometimes needed.
It would be cool to apply AT skis technology in this area – to make skis lighter, boots – lighter and not vulnerable to water.

For examle, Jonathan, what setup would you prefer for Alaska Mountain Wilderness Ski Classic?

Also i don't clearly understand what for we need skis like Rossignol BC 125, Voile Charger BC. To use them in Ross Bleakney's brother mode?

Pmags, have you been walking around CO with a bag over your head? ;)

Mike, nothing like thermal mud insta-frozen to your bases at -20.

Roman, your rig #1 is great; would be even better if the boots were more torsionally stiff and waterproof.

The fat (>80 waist) waxless skis have two roles. In their shorter iterations they're great schwacking/brush skis. In more normal lengths, and used as standard AT/tele skis they provide more efficient travel on flat and rolling approaches and runouts while only giving up a little gliding speed, and then only on harder snows. You also can't ski switch on them.

These articles are such a tease with the lack of base we have here in CO so far…

Went all in on getting light as possible for long tours with emphasis on downhill as well. Thanks to the Boulder sample sales and some last years gear sales from European companies I pieced together a Sportiva Lo5, RT bindings, and Dynafit TLT5s coming in at 6 lbs 10.5 oz per foot. Guess I'll have to add in the skin weight at some point. Sorry, too excited and felt like bragging!

Loving the winter focused articles!

Went on a trip Friday and today and ended up carrying the skis more often than not. Anymore ski season is mid-Jan thru mid-June.

"Looking to do some overnight XC along fire roads,logging roads, and hiking trails. I weigh about 190 and winter pack weight with consumables is under 25lbs. Would a pair of metal edged Rossi BC 65's be sufficent? If so, any boot recomendations to pair with those skis?"

For snowed in roads that'd be a fine ski, though if the snow is deep and soft you might want something wider. The 65s will work in groomed tracks as a bonus. Hiking trails can mean a lot of different things. If they've flatish, then those skis are good. On steep and tight trails skinny skis are not kind to beginners (or indeed, non-experts). Either 3 pin or system (NNN, SNS, etc) bindings will work with those skis. Get a mid-stiffness boot that fits and you'll be all set.

I skied today as well. Things have been pretty good in the Northwest and about to get better. We did the opposite, though, and talked about gear most of the time. We saw some folks using Voile gear, and I personally was jealous. Then again, I'm not sure if it would have worked with my BC boots. Everyone else had A. T. or Telemark gear, but I was trying to manage Alpina Lite Terrain with my Alpina 2050 boots. There is nothing wrong with the boots, but those skis just weren't right for all of the deep snow. I love this combination in the Spring, but conditions like these (and my guess is you folks in Montana are about to experience similar conditions) call for lighter, fatter skis. The problem, of course, is that it is difficult to manage big fat skis with BC boots. Which leads me to either use different boots (which might hurt my feet) or to avoid the really steep stuff. I did some of that today, but it seemed silly. If I'm going to traverse my way down a mountain, I would much rather just use regular cross country gear. A pair of Inbound Crowns is really light (as light as a lot of really expensive A. T. gear) but really flimsy. But unless I step up a couple notches (to Randonee/Telemark gear) I can't manage steep hills in deep snow anyway.

But enough about that. I would really like to see a few graphs showing various pieces of winter gear. I would start with boots and bindings. On the left you would have weight. On the bottom of the graph would be control. I wouldn't try and figure out the particulars of each piece of gear, but just lump them by type. So, left to right you would have plain cross country boots, then BC, then three pin, then Randonee/Telemark. My guess is that you would have a graph that gradually moves up as you went to the right, but then flared on you hit the A. T. stuff. In other words, cross country gear is light, BC gear is a heavier, and A. T. gear ranges from being heavier than BC, to being as light as some of the cross country gear (which makes it lighter than all of the BC gear). With bindings I think you would find the same thing. Both of these graphs would be fairly straightforward to make (I think).

Comparing skis gets really complicated, unfortunately. To begin with, generally speaking, there is no specific "type" of ski (as mentioned earlier). With few exceptions, you can mount any binding on any ski. So one of the problems is trying to define how appropriate a ski is for the conditions. This adds to the number of data points. You could add camber, metal edge, turning radius, surface area and rocker. I'm sure it could be done, and it would lead similar results. The cross country gear (even the cheap stuff) is light, but is difficult to use in many conditions (steep slopes on deep snow). The more surface area a ski has, the heavier it is, although there are some high-end skis with really low weight and plenty of surface area. I think graphs like these would make it easier to understand the options available. But then again, I just like cool graphs.

Quantifing the attributes of nordic boots is tough. You want a degree of side to side rigidity, but sole stiffness is the primary thing which will allow you to control a ski in more difficult snows and terrain. The various brands vary a lot here. In the end fit will trump everything. For instance, I use Rossignol Bcx11s because they fit. The Fischer 675s were stiffer in the sole and skied better in many ways, but the forefoot was too skinny for me.

Best buy from a retailer with a good return policy.

Hi,
Been following the thread and just wanted to ask about the BC boot fit as well. Today I went to check Alpina BC 2250 boots out at my local Alpina store and had few sizes to try from. My regular foot size (US 10) was way to small and tight in the forefoot (I have very wide feet) next size up felt much better and relaxed across the forefoot so I felt comfortable wearing them with two pairs of socks. Next size up was way to big and boots felt sloppy on my feet. What I noted with the boot that seemed to be the right lenght is that I had some heel slippage. It was hard to lock the heel in with regular knot so I had to use the heel locking knot I use on my running, hiking shoes to lock the heel in, but there was still slight movement after that as weel.

Is it normal to have some heel slippage in BC boots or there should be zero heel up and down movement with boots on? Rubbing=blisters! Or simply boots don't fit? I am totaly new to the BC skiing sport and would like to buy my first set of BC skiing equipment so any tip will help.
Thanks!

Thanks Ross! Which heat moldable inserts you've used. I did try Fischer boots as well but they are just to narrow in the forefoot. I would like to fit the Alpina if that's possible with simple inserts. It might be that original Alpina inserts are a bit to high and my heel gets above heel cup. Will try to take the original inserts out.

Does Thinsulate insulation used in nordic BC boots get all compressed with years of use so the boots are getting bigger by the end of their lifespan? Do boots form to the foot shape after few uses? I meant like in leather boots when they get foot form shape after you brake them in.

Thanks.
Regards!

Nice to see the article.

May I suggest "representative" rather than "reprentative"?

NNN-BC boots
waxless (fishscale) skis

Cheers

Roger and Ryan: thank you for your replies. I was thinking along the same lines. My introduction to nordic skiing was on waxless skis (really old Karhu hand-me-downs) paired with full length skins and leather 75mm boots. It was a great setup.

Do you see any advantage of using a waxable ski? I don’t have experience with grip wax, but wouldn’t mind learning.