EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Backcountry and Cross Country › AT ski for moderate terrain and solo tours, madshus annum aka karhu guide?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AT ski for moderate terrain and solo tours, madshus annum aka karhu guide?

post #1 of 16
4/12/12 at 11:14am
Thread Starter 
hi

i have a full on at rig, k2 backlash 181 with vertical st.

for some solo touring in moderate mountains close to where i live and maybe some corn snow skiing in spring and ski mountaineering, i'd like to have something light and easy. so the idea is to mount a madshus annum with dynafit speeds. i like the idea to ski rolling terrain without needing skins every time.

how well does the madshus ski? can somebody compare to popular at skis like seven summit, shuksan, 8611 etc?

which would be the right length? i am 6'2 175lbs but short legs. i find my 181 k2 skis quite long uphill.

thanks in advance!
Reply
post #2 of 16
4/13/12 at 6:11pm

I'm 230 lbs and I ski the 178 cm 7 summits, 184 cm Volkl Snowwolf, and 187 Manaslu, mounted with Comforts, Verticals ST and Vertical ST.  I also have a 195 cm Karhu Guide (Madshus Annum) mounted with Speed Radicals that I use for nordic ski patrol on our large  bc semi-sometimes groomed forest roads and hut-to-hut system.  At 175 lbs you should ski 185 Madshus annum according to the weight chart.  You can always go shorter, but lose the benefits of the XC camber which means less glide or firm snow  and more bend on deep snow  (whether those are good or bad is up to  you).  The Guide/Annum climbs like mad.  In 30 days (up to 3,000 ft gain, 12 miles RT) on ski patrol last year I did not have to use skins ever; on my Fischer Outtabounds I would have had to use skins 1/3-1/2 the time.  The ease of climbing was significantly better than climbing with my 7 Summits with Mohair skins.  The Guide/Annum do fine going downhill on ice, groomed snow and a few inches of new snow.  They are annoying in deep snow compared to the regular AT skis listed above (they are too long, to stiff fore and aft, and to wimpy side to side).  If it is really icy on our ski trails, I use the 7 summits; if the snow is kind of crappy, I'll use the 7 Summits or Snowwolfs.  In the alpine backcountry however, I never use the Guide/Annums.  I generally climb 1,500-4,000 vertical feet and with G-3 Alpinist skins it is not arduous.  If the snow is deep I use the Manaslus, if it is corn or icy  I use the 7 Summits or Snowwolfs.  The latter two are really redundant, and after some trials very soon, I will decide which ones to keep and which to sell or turn into a fence.  BTW, I do like the Speed Radical--less ramp angle than the Verticals and somewhat less prone to snow buildup under the heel when breaking trail.

Reply
post #3 of 16
4/16/12 at 10:48am
Thread Starter 
how far would a 175 or 185 annum get me for alpine touring on real mountains, shallow fresh snow or corn provided?

i still looking a bit into a 175, to fool around on my local hills, imagine 15-20 degree slopes, 100-200 meters vertical...

any more input appreciated!
Reply
post #4 of 16
4/16/12 at 11:28am

Practically anything is skiable in corn and shallow fresh snow; I've used my 195 cm Guides with TLT5, 190 cm Outtabounds with 3-pins & brown t-3s, 190-cm Karhu Catamounts with Riva cables & brown t-3s, old BD 190 Valmontes with Riva cables & Asolo Snowfield leather boots (even skied the Nisqually Glacier with that outfit, kind of painful in the breakable crust and slush down below), and even older (20+ years), 220-cm Karhu XCD GTs with 3-pins & Asolo snowfield boots.  The conditions you describe are entirely doable and fun with 175-185 cm Annums, especially with speeds and a light weight AT boot.  But the "real mountain" /alpine touring is definitely more fun with AT skis.

 

 

Edited to add: I just bought Madshus Epochs, Voile 3-pins, and Fischer BCX-675 boots to ski the shallow snow, shorter climbs, and gentler slopes; I bought the Epoch instead of the Annum in order to use the 3-pin bindings with a very light weight boot; I thought that if I bought the Annums, I would need a plastic boot with the 3 pins, and I wouldn't gain much over my Guide/speed/TLT5 outfit.  Going with the 3 pins eliminates, for the most part, switching back and forth between the climbing and downhill modes in the tech binding.  The Epochs might even climb slightly better than the Annum, just because the narrower waist might press into the snow a little deeper; the Epoch also has more camber than the Annum, allowing a little faster glide.


Edited by Andy Carey - 4/16/12 at 12:47pm
Reply
post #5 of 16
4/16/12 at 1:08pm

For uneven crusty climbing, with 3-pins, would you pick the Annum or the Epoch?

Reply
post #6 of 16
4/16/12 at 3:20pm

If I was picking a waxless Madshus for all around bc work and  I still had a decent tele boot (black t-3/blue 3 buckle t-2) I would definitely choose the Annum, and for my weight, one length down, 185 instead of 195.  It would climb fine but ski so much better down in junky snow.  I advised a friend to do that (185 cm Annum, switchback, and Excursion) and he loves it, particularly climbing with the switchback; the switchback would aide in keeping the ski tip above the crusty snow.  I used my Epochs the other day in some nice corn snow, only problem was after I climbed about 3 miles a snowmobile came by leaving relatively deep, narrow runner tracks parallel to the road and pressed in track marks perpendicular to the road.  The relatively narrow tails of the Epoch tended to get caught in the runner tracks (the wider shovels would glide over or carve out of the tracks).  The broader base of the Annum is just that more stable IMHO.  I haven't had any trouble with my Guides in any kind of snow on the forest roads--but I'm using a plastic boot on those as well.

Reply
post #7 of 16
4/19/12 at 5:56am
Thread Starter 
done further research. looks like fischer s-bound112 and rossi bc 110 will fit the same bill.
can anybody compare these skis, and maybe tell which of these could be enough ski for a multi day hut trip in alpine terrain, like haute route or something? like beeing kinda close to an ardinary lightweight AT ski.

thanks in advance!
Reply
post #8 of 16
4/19/12 at 6:51am

extensive discussion  http://www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboarding/trip_reports/index.php?topic=23824.0

Reply
post #9 of 16
4/19/12 at 10:30am

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowdan View Post

done further research. looks like fischer s-bound112 and rossi bc 110 will fit the same bill.
can anybody compare these skis, and maybe tell which of these could be enough ski for a multi day hut trip in alpine terrain, like haute route or something? like beeing kinda close to an ardinary lightweight AT ski.
thanks in advance!

 

IMO the Fischer bases don't climb anything near as well as the Karhu/Madshus ones. 

Reply
post #10 of 16
4/21/12 at 8:37am
Thread Starter 
so right now it looks like the only ski that i can get here w/o having to get it shipped from USA is teh rossi bc 110. anybody something to say about that one?
Reply
post #11 of 16
4/21/12 at 5:18pm

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowdan View Post

so right now it looks like the only ski that i can get here w/o having to get it shipped from USA is teh rossi bc 110. anybody something to say about that one?

 

see the link I provided above.

Reply
post #12 of 16
4/22/12 at 9:51am
Thread Starter 
is the bc 110 likely close enough to a lightweight AT ski that i could take it for hut tours in the alpine in spring?
Reply
post #13 of 16
4/22/12 at 4:19pm

Do some more searches on ski availability, for example http://www.telemark-pyrenees.com/en/all/c-skis/skidiscipline-nordictouring/f/

 

check out this ski for your intended purpose: http://www.voile-usa.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=5300&Category_Code=Voile_Backcountry_Skis&Product_Count=3

 

available in Germany: http://app.xtremelocator.com/visitor/results.php?

Reply
post #14 of 16
4/23/12 at 6:17am
Thread Starter 
looks interesting.

would the vector 170 bc be enough for me? i would ski it with f1 boots. some moderate flimsyness is acceptable.
Reply
post #15 of 16
4/23/12 at 8:42am
According to Onion River Sports (ORSDIRECT), 170 would be the correct size for your weight.
Reply
post #16 of 16
7/17/12 at 2:37pm
Thread Starter 

hi all

 

in the meantime, i aquired a 2nd rated pair of vector bc's from voile direct, quite a deal!

 

mounted them with radical speeds. tried them one day so far, in mid june on stilfser joch glacier in italy. skied firm summer morning groomers and all sorts of corn and slush. they felt very hooky in the tail in the morning, no idea if that was related to lack of bevel, too sharp tail edge or maybe my skiing (also 1st day on scarpa f1s).

 

once the snow softened (or my skiing adjusted to the skis, who knows), they skied fantastic, very predictable and solid even at speed in the corn off piste. . great short turners in moguls and crud. in the flat runouts, they slowed down noticeably quicker than ie my girlfriend's snowboard. no surprise. quick climbing test worked fine.

 

so far, very happy with the purchase. will update here once i have tried them in winter conditions.

 

btw, the F1s are plenty (!) of boot for them.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Backcountry and Cross Country
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Backcountry and Cross Country › AT ski for moderate terrain and solo tours, madshus annum aka karhu guide?