 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I've done a bit of Nordic (cross country) skiing with waxless skis. These appear to have hard plastic bases. Does anyone know if waxable nordic ski bases glide much better and if not...why don't we see Alpine skis with waxless bases....even in super cheap bargain basement beginner skis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
You do see some waxless skis - the little plastic kiddies ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
hellfiresliding,
Yes they do - if you get the wax right. Though fishscale bases can have adavantages even when racing in certain conditions. Some of the weather conditions recently have been hard to get the grip wax right for classic. Was racing a 4x5km relay last weekend (skate leg), but lots of the classic leg skiers got their grip wax horribly wrong. Conditions were around freezing, tracks were hard an icy, but there was a lot of fresh snow out of the tracks. Some of those who got their grip wrong ended up having to run the whole 5km as the snow just balled up under the skis, others had too much grip on the downhills so they had to double pole down the hills to make any progress and every so often a ski would stop throwing them into a fall. Most had decent wax for the tracks, but as soon as they left the tracks for the soft snow the problems started.
In most conditions I prefer waxing skis for classic as I find the glide much nicer than with my fishscale skis - I reserve them for when the snow is poor as I treat them as my rock skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| hellfiresliding wrote: |
| .....why don't we see Alpine skis with waxless bases.... |
I would say that alpine skis run a lot quicker & therefore generate a lot more friction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Dave Horsley, I think I'll do a bit more Nordic skiing before commiting to buying some equipment but will certainly bear your comments in mind beforehand and will try to demo some of each type when the time comes too.
There seems to be a bewildering array of lengths and widths available as well as base types, edges/edgeless, etc. It looks even more difficult to choos XC skis than ordinary Downhill types.
I have found the Fischer and Madschus websites useful though. I'm 6'1" and about 87kg so I guess something pretty long would be the order of the day for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| hellfiresliding wrote: |
Dave Horsley, I think I'll do a bit more Nordic skiing before commiting to buying some equipment but will certainly bear your comments in mind beforehand and will try to demo some of each type when the time comes too.
There seems to be a bewildering array of lengths and widths available as well as base types, edges/edgeless, etc. It looks even more difficult to choos XC skis than ordinary Downhill types.
|
Ah, but they're a lot cheaper, so it's easy to own several. The models are designed to maximise efficiency for your specific technique, conditioning, and body type, as well as the terrain and conditions you expect to use them on. Even minor efficiency gains are worthwhile when you are the engine.
| Quote: |
I have found the Fischer and Madschus websites useful though. I'm 6'1" and about 87kg so I guess something pretty long would be the order of the day for me. |
It depends on the flex of the ski and your stride length, along with what terrain you expect to use it on. You'll want a flex test done (the paper test being the most rudimentary).
Otherwise, some rules of thumb:
- not very limber - > shorter ski
- much climbing - > shorter ski, possibly fatter
- warmer or variable weather or lots of side slope traversing -> metal edges
- lack of dedicated track -> 1.5 camber, possibly fatter, 3/4 or full metal edges if crossing pedestrian tracks
A reasonable first ski would thus be something just barely narrow enough to fit in touring center tracks, camber and a half, waxless base, 3/4 or full steel edges, mounted with a wider-base binding (NNN-BC or 75mm say). If the boot has enough support, you can then even get a bit of skating sensation, much like a 3speed bike can give one a taste of the pleasure of a carbon road bike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| spyderjon wrote: |
| hellfiresliding wrote: |
| .....why don't we see Alpine skis with waxless bases.... |
I would say that alpine skis run a lot quicker & therefore generate a lot more friction. |
Because "waxless" in the Nordic world means "does not need grip wax or klister to advance or climb". "Waxless" Nordic skis still use glide wax.
An Alpine ski with a waxless base is a touring ski with skins on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
comprex,
Thanks for the info....can you tell me what 1.5 camber means?
Does it mean that unladen the middle of the ski has a gap of 1.5 times the width from the ground? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
hellfiresliding,
Alpine skis have single camber, meaning the ski goes flat when you put half your weight on it.
Classic style nordic skis have a double camber, meaning the outer two thirds go flat with half your weight on it
but there is still a pocket of wax (or scales) in the middle third that does not touch the ground so your glide foot has no or little friction.
The entire ski goes flat when you pressure it to kick off with, that's when you want high friction.
So you see that choosing camber depends on your weight and kick strength.
Camber and a half just means that the distinction between the outer two thirds and the middle isn't as pronounced. This means a bit more friction, which is lets you climb easier but robs you of the effortless magical glide of the true classic flex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I think I'll do a bit more Nordic skiing before commiting to buying some equipment but will certainly bear your comments in mind beforehand and will try to demo some of each type when the time comes too.
There seems to be a bewildering array of lengths and widths available as well as base types, edges/edgeless, etc. It looks even more difficult to choos XC skis than ordinary Downhill types.
|
It's wise to get a bit more snow time before buying. The kind of ski that suit you has much to do with the type of use AND TECHNIQUE.
Ski length is pretty standard, by weight and height. But different ski has different flex build in. For stronger skier with good technique, a stiff ski would be the most efficient because it glide the best. Put a skier of the same height and weight but without the proper technique on that same length of the same ski, he would spin his wheels on uphills.
Width, metal edge (or the lack of), are largely a function of where you ski. On set tracks, narrower and lighter the better. So lose that weighty metal edge. But off track, add steeper terrain or some icy slope, you will start to go into metal edge land...
Waxless is easier to use from the beginning. And if you ever upgrade to waxable ones, you still use the waxless for hard-to-wax conditions. Though once you tried waxable on good days, you'll never want to go back to the fishscale (not on good condition days anyway ).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
