or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Backcountry, Telemark, and Cross Country › Madshus Glitterind vs. Rossi/Fischer length question
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Madshus Glitterind vs. Rossi/Fischer length question

post #1 of 4
Thread Starter 

Madshus fit longer than other skis;  also, their size chart goes by skier height not weight. So the Glitterinds, 68-55-62,  put me in a 190 ski; Rossi outback 68, identical dimensions, put me in a 169 ski. Fischer also puts me in a 169 for very similar tip/tail measurements. Their size charts are by weight. So I'm  5'9'' 140. My classic nordic skis are 193's.


I just bought a new pair of 2009 closeout glitterinds for very cheap at rei outlet. They are 170's. I couldn't resist the price. They are returnable. My thinking is that for my use--easy terrain, no telemark turns, day trips where glide and climb in mixed snow conditions are more important to me than carving downhill turns--I really just want to get down safely--this size Glitterind should work. Maybe I give up a bit of float and glide, but get ease of turn on the downhills?


And then, why the huge difference in length between Madshus and everyone else?


I'll be skiing around Tahoe. So often I'll be on compact snow where flotation is not an issue. But sometimes it will be!


I Nordic ski, but would like to branch out a bit into easy bc, as I said. Gliding through the snowy woods, not carving up big bowls. ( I used to Alpine a lot, so I'm not a novice on downhills with metal edges.)


Is my thinking on the Madshus sound, or should I return them and go longer/another brand?



post #2 of 4

Your thinking on the Madshus is fine, you'll just be losing a lot of flatland glide, and you won't float in skimpy snow .    The uphills won't glide either but they also won't backslide. 

Edit: I think you'll have a lot of fun with reasonably  dense snow, a nice quick climbing cadence, and rolling terrain.

post #3 of 4

I've owned a couple of Madshus, still own the Epoch which is really a Karhu.  Length on a double cambered ski can be tricky.  The best recommendation I've seen for ensuring good kick and glide is to stand on the skis on a flat surface with a piece of photocopy/printer paper just under foot.  A helper should be able to easily remove the paper when the skier's weight is equally on both skis but not when most of the weight is on just one ski.  IMHE this works for kick and glide and, for some people, for climbing but not for others, especially light people.  


This method works poorly for turning, especially telemark turning, especially for heavier people.  It will make for a very long ski for heavier people, sometimes longer than the height method--remember when the old height method (non-chart) call for the tip of the ski touching one's wrist while one has one's one hand and arm point straight up over head smile.gif  This method ensures the longest possible ski for short people LOL; I presume the skier height:ski length charts work o.k. for lighter, shorter skiers.


I have owned the Madshus Voss and Karhu Catamount and Pinnacle (Nils Larson liked this ski) in the 190s and the really old Karhu XCD GT in 210 and I still, Madshus Epoch, and Karhu Guide (now Madshus Annum) all in the 190s.  They kick and glide and climb great, but there are somewhat unwieldly for turning, especially telemark turning on hard frozen-icy slopes (not so bad in deeper, lighter snow).  I have AT bindings on the Guide and they turn well on firmer snows.  If I had it to do over again, I would buy them shorter low 180s and sacrifice glide for turning and maneuvering and put up with lots of buzz.


I don't think you will regret your Glittertind purchase.  The Glittertind was long the favorite of Steve Barnett for XC downhill and long-distance touring  (Steve wrote the book on XC downhill).

post #4 of 4
Thread Starter 

Thanks guys. Glitterind was on my short list anyway--along with Rossi bc 68 and Fischer Silent Spider, which is an even narrower ski.


Since I classic and skate Nordic--it's my primary winter activity--I don't think that I'll have trouble compressing the wax pocket--scales, in this case--underfoot while climbing. I wanted a double camber ski for better glide.


Madshus says somewhere that their skis have great glide because they fit longer. This makes sense. Hopefully their design doesn't throw things out of whack somehow when you ski them shorter. Again, 170's would be the length that I'd buy in any other brand for this type of ski! So,  maybe they'll be perfect!


Cantunamunch, I hope that I won't lose a  LOT of flatland glide. Nordic skiers are addicted to glide...hence my interest in the silent spider. But having a shorter ski for easier turns seems worth the compromise, esp. since my bc technique is beginner level.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Backcountry, Telemark, and Cross Country › Madshus Glitterind vs. Rossi/Fischer length question