or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Backcountry, Telemark, and Cross Country › Gear Review: Volkl Nanuq with Dynafit Radical ST bindings.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gear Review: Volkl Nanuq with Dynafit Radical ST bindings.

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 

Well, I was on my Dynafit Cho Oyus: 182 cm long, 125-89-111 tip/waist/tail, pointed, hollow, rocker tip, narrow tail, 5.5 lbs/pair for 7 days.

Today, I began testing Volkl Nanuqs: 184 cm long, 131-96-114, tip/waist/tail, rounded, light, rocker tip, turned up tail, 7.5 lbs/pr.

 

I bought the Chos for general alpine touring, the 2014 Nanuqs for when the going got tough: breakable crust, styrofoam crust, deep heavy powder, etc.  I ski both with Dynafit TLT6 Mountain ski boots.

 

The last week has seen 4-12 inches of powder snows, high winds (67-150 mph), heavy rain, wet snow, etc., so I decided today was a good day for the Nanuqs.  2014 Nanuqs are a lighter weight version of the 1st rockered Mantra; the 2011 Mantra (in 191 cm) was a favorite ski of mine and great crud buster; I'm hoping the Nanuq will be a lighter weight crud buster.

 

I immediately felt the 50% increase in weight skinning down the road covered with 4 feet of snow and then climbing the ridge; but as time passed I acclimated to the weight and didn't notice it as much.  The rocker and broad shovel get the tip well out of the snow.

 

The bc snow was quite variable and about 4 ft deep, only 30-40% of normal snow depth--lots of trees and  tree tops exposed or just under the snow with branches; high up some rock exposed by the wind .  During the climb thru the lower elevation subalpine, pole tests showed 2-4 inches of new heavy powder capped by fog condensation that made a thin, soft, icy crust overlaying 3-4 inches or rain-saturated dense, firm snow over 4-5 inches of old powder.  As I climbed the icy crust disappeared and was replaced by light surface hoar, and then in the most exposed areas rain runnels with the troughs full of heavy powder and some of the crest covered with rime ice!  the higher I went the snow got more wind affected and more icy and the clouds fell, reducing visibility so I started down.  

 

The trees with heavy snow:

 

 

 

Given the variable nature of the snow I used a medium stiff tongue and booster straps on my boots.

 

The 184-cm  Nanuq is a lot of ski.  Yesterday I scraped the storage wax off and prepped with red wax.  It was a good match to the snow and the skis were very, very fast compared to the Chos.  But very stable at speed.  At speed they turn easily.  However, once I got back down into the narrow gulleys and thick trees with patches of slide alder, the skis required a lot of input, compared to the Chos, to do really short radius turns in tight places.  And their swing weight proved to be somewhat of a hindrance compared to the nimble Chos.

 

I had been using a 187-cm Dynafit Manaslu (in between the other two in weight and dimensions) as my go-to ski.  Now I'm using the Cho and prefer it.  I expect with the deeper, heavy-powder snows (with sastrugi, and crust, but with fewer trees and obstacles) I might well prefer the Nanuqs.  It will be a choice between the Nanuq and the Dynafit Stoke (wider waist but less side cut and shovel).  The Chos can get knocked around by crappy snow and they might get overwhelmed by deep heavy snow.  

 

 

 

Stay tuned if you are interested.  I'll post more observations as I have them.

 

The scenery: 

 


Edited by Andy Carey - 12/22/14 at 6:15pm
post #2 of 22
Thread Starter 

So yesterday I was using my Cho Oyus in highly variable conditions in the alpine:

 

Crossing the creek by which the snowshoer perished.

 

 

today I took my Nanuqs to some sheltered slopes where there were some powder stashes:

 


The higher snow was sastrugi, then consistently breakable crust, then powder whose density increased with depth, and some light powder.

 

The Nanuq, reminiscent of the Mantra, was imperturbable thru all the snow conditions and micro-terrain features.  Easy to carve in sastrugi and easly to turn and smear in powder.  Any kind of turn was easy from tight turns to figure 11s.  Nice smearing down gulley sides.  The Nanuq does require a central stance with slight pressure against the boot tongues; it likes precise skiing and gives precision in turn.  A little more demanding than the Cho Oyu but much higher performance.  The Cho might be an ideal alpine touring ski--easy up, take it easy down; the Nanuq, more work on the up, more performance on the down.  The Nanuq reeks power and confidence; the most of any bc ski I've had.  The noticeable increased effort on the way up may be due to the increased weight, but I think it is in part due to the new mohair/nylon skins that have yet to be broken in to improve glide.

 

Time wil tell whether the mild-mannered, well-behaved, nimble Chos will be my favorite in deep snow or the strong, aggresive Nanuqs.

post #3 of 22
Thread Starter 

So, we had 5 inches of precipitation where I ski; the first 2 produced powder then the temp dropped and the next 3 inches were rain (up to 8,000 ft asl).  The freezing level stayed high for the next 24 hours.  So what kind of snow did that leave at my starting elevation of 5,450 ft asl?  I suspected breakable crust because the night was overcast.  If it had been clear, I would have expected hard concreate snow.   So I left home with the idea that if the crust was bad I would turn around after 30 ft.  It turned out to be breakable crust: 1st just a crust that I thought would disappear with warming during the day. Next a supportive crust.  Then a crust that produce breadboard sized  plates breaking underfoot.  Then a firm supportive crust.  Also evident was the avalanche cycle of the afternoon before, on everything but north-facings slopes.  After 2 miles of skinning, climbing about 800 vertical feet to the alpine  in the middle mile, I saw some of the most widespread avalance crowns I've ever seen. No sense going any further, no real sense in going as far as I did :-).  So time to test the Nanuqs in cruddy snow.  

 

Results:

 

1.  The supportive but fragile crust with a smearable 1 inch crust on top at my highest point was easily negotiated by avoiding heavy edging and sudden weight shifts; the Nanuqs responded well allowing me to make short-radius slow turns.

2.  At mid-elevation, the snow was more challenging; still short-radius slow turns  minimized breaking the crust and when the crust did break the wide rockered tips allowed the skis to go forward.

3.  Then 3/4 the way down the ridge face: a weak spot in the crust collapsed as I was coming out of a right turn; I sank, the lead ski shot forward and released and I fell back on the rear ski, butt all the way to my heal: ouch, ouch, ouch.

4. Garland turns on my good leg for the rest of the face; skins on to follow my uptrack out into the subalpine woods; skis off to post hole until I snow hip deep; then skis with skins on sidestepping thru the mushy band to some snowshoe tracks that support my weight on boot; then finally to my downtrack 0.5 mile up to the parking lot which I could skin with caution.

 

So in any case: i was pleased with the way the Nanuqs handled the crusts.  I have no doubt that if I hadn't injured my knee I could have easily skied all the way to the uptrack including thru the mush.

 

Breakable crust is dangerous.  And I got caught.  I don't think my wider Stokes (106 mm waist vs 96 for the Nanuqs) would have made a difference.  Actually I thought the Nanuqs handled this tricky snow better than my Stokes would have.  Perhaps a Nunataq (fully rockered) may have made a difference--I have no idea.


Edited by Andy Carey - 2/21/15 at 3:24pm
post #4 of 22
Thread Starter 

So in this poor winter of rain-powder-rain-wet snow-rain and 56% of normal snowpack, I decided to go skiing on a day when the clouds sat low on the mountain and we had 4 inches of new falling during heavy winds and high temps.  I anticipated heavy snow but wasn't surprized that there was a breakable wind crust topped with an ice crust from condensation from the clouds; the new snow was not deep enough to cushion against the frozen tracks and crud of the previous days.   The wind was 24 mph gusting to 34 mph, so I sought out some sheltered slopes.  Met a friend (a former XC ski instructor) on XC ski--he can ski anything on them; in this case by traverses and kick turns; he said the wind above the ridge was pretty strong (gusts to 41 mph) so I decided to stay low in the trees.  The winds eventually calmed quite a bit.

 

Again, the Nanuqs were easy on the climb up thru the crust over 2-4 inches of heavy snow; the skins are broken in now and I don't notice the weight of the skis (but when I skied my Chos the other day, I remarked on the lightness of the skis lol).  The Nanuqs skied thru the consistently stiff but breakable crust with ease but with disconcerting speed.  The rockered tips would let the skis accelerate up and over the crust after the turn and then crush the crust during the turn.  With my sprained left knee and sore right knee I felt I lacked the confidence necessary to ski the the crust aggressivelly at the speed the skis wanted to :(  But the skis did well in traverses and kick turns too.  I kept the day short to not further aggravate my knees.

 

So, I am please with the Nanuqs so far (less pleased with my knees); they are more ski than I can use but I can use them as much or as little as I want (except in really tight places with really bad snow).  I think they will do really well on long, fast runs on open slopes and I'm looking forward to that.

 

Compared to the Chos the Nanuqs are a free-ride touring ski vs. a general purpose touring ski that is Cho is.

 

Breakable crust on top of 2 inches of heavy snow on top of this hard-frozen crap from 2 days ago makes for tentative skiing for me (lots of bumps/shocks/etc.)

 

 

Not the best day for skiing, either LOL

 

post #5 of 22
Thread Starter 

So this has been a very poor snow year in the PNW.  Nevertheless, the kids and grandkids wanted to go skiing at White Pass Ski Area even tho the previous days had brought rain and & mist and there was about 2 feet of coverage at the base and an optimistic 40 or so inches at the top with an ad of "spring skiing conditions"  LOL.  So I decided this might be a good time to get some experience on my Nanuqs and see how they would handle in ice and proto-corn snow.  These skis are listed by Volkl, IIRC, a 50:50 piste/off piste ski.

 

Caveat: my Nanuqs are set up with Radical ST tech bindings mounted for my TLT6 Mountains.  These boots are a light-weight, 2-buckle, liner-like-a-heavy-sock touring boot.  They have interchangeable tongues and I use the black (stiffest) tongue.  I switched the power strap for a Booster Strap.  These boots are not at all like an alpine boot and are much less powerful than my crossovoer Alpine/AT Zzeus boot (bsl too long for the mounted bindings).

 

In the morning: typical spring conditions, everything frozen hard including the groomed but especially off the groomed which was chopped up and frozen bullet proof.  As the day progressed, the snow softened, especially the groomed in the sun.

 

On the hard frozen snow, the Nanuqs wanted direction, w/o direction the skis would go different ways LOL  Constant firm pressure on the boot tongues, a tight low stance, and a little speed and the skis would rip on the groomed but bang on the ungroomed--lots of shocks--but still grip and turn.  My 2011 191 Mantras (Nanuqs were derived from the Mantra line) with alpine bindings and my Zzeus would have been more confidence inspiring and maybe my 184  LX92s as well.  But who knows if that was due to reduced running length of my 184-cm rockered Nanuqs, the heavier boot, the type of binding or all three (or perhaps becuz I'm still favoring my injured right knee).  

 

In the warmer snow the skis rocked--fast, sure grip, nice edge hold, etc..  BUT they required a lot more work, they were slower edge to edge, and required more shin pressure than my LX 92s (narrower by 6 mm), my old, longer Mantras with a bigger boot, and probably than my Volkl Snowwolfs with their 76 mm waist with the same binding and boot.

 

So not the best ski for really rough ice, o.k. for icy corduroy, and nice and fast on softened snow but left me wishing for a taller 4-buckle boot.


Edited by Andy Carey - 3/14/15 at 8:43pm
post #6 of 22
Thread Starter 

Another day on the Nanuqs after heavy rains, then snow from 5,200 up, more up higher; snow was high moisture content; left a stiff but supportive and movable layer;.  2 inches of new over barely supportable crust deepening to 6-8 inches over a saturated layer.  The Nanuqs performed as previously noted: capable, fast, requiring lots of input for tighter turns and in constrained conditions.  Began to think about having the bindings remounted to fit my Zzeus and maybe replaced with Kingpins for a sidecountry ski.  But then I decided maybe I just need to increase the forward lean on my TLT6s remembering that putting a toe shim under the front binding had reduced the forward lean and part of  what I was experiencing was difficulty in maintaining the shin pressure and low stance the skis seem to like on the down.  So tonight I flipped the bar to go from 15 to 18 degrees and will try the skis again sometime and, with luck, get to compare them to my Dynafit Stokes.

post #7 of 22
Thread Starter 

Two more days--skiing corn snow, nothing but :):yahoo:

post #8 of 22
Thread Starter 

Our winter is breaking records: 2nd worst snowpack in 86 years!  But yesterday brought 7 inches of new snow at 32 F--heavy, then the temps rose to about 40 F, but with clouds at ground level (little sun).  I skied my Chos and they did well.  Then last night temperatures plunged to 25 F and brought 2-several inches of new powder.  The big question was: what happened to yesterday's snow?  Hard Concrete? Breakable Crust? Settled and firm?  Against my best judgement I decided to find out; fearing the worst, I thought this would be the day to test the Nanuq's capabilities.  Well, conditions at and below tree line were great with nice powder over consolidated and firmed up mush.  Of course, the numerous ski tracks (trenches) from the afternoon before we now frozen in place. Above treeline 20-35 mph winds (gusts to 51) were starting to have their effect: new powder was being tranformed into sastrugi or wind slabs and that over breakable crust (at least where I was--and i didn't spend much time there).

 

So down I went with my TLT6M boots' forward lean increased 3 degrees to 18 degrees, a medium stiff (green) tongue, and a booster trap.  This arrangement tamed the Nanuqs as much as I wanted; I was in a better position over ski center, with a more consistent pressure on the boot tongue, and the ability to push hard if needed.  The ski ripped!  Unperturbed by the frozen ski tracks beneath, carving thru them; negotiating the snow surface irregularities (magnified by the low snow level allowing below snow terrain to affect the snow surface) with aplomb, the rockered tip keeping the skis rising up over impediments.  The ski still wanted to go fast and I let them run in places at the same speed I ski off-piste in ski areas.  In tighter places, they were still manageable allowing very quick turns (with pressure, not the forte for a 26-m radius ski), quick stops, side slipping, and smearing.  So I'll keep them; they will be my junk snow ski; the Chos have been my go to ski (24 of my 32 ski days so far this winter--a sad total) and will be for quite a while, I think.

post #9 of 22
Thread Starter 

So we had 4-5 inches of heavy wet snow yesterday and I skied my Dynafit Cho Oyus w TLT6 M w/o accessory tongues and booster strap; a little work in the heavy snows w/o the tongues and straps but fine.  Last night we had 10+ inches of powder resulting in a continuing snowy and windy day with an upper snow pack of 10 inches of medium light increasing to medium heavy powder over the 4 inches of wet snow.  I used my Volkl Nanuqs with my TLT6 M with a medium-stiff tongue (green tongue from a TLT5 M) and a expert Booster Strap.  I was not pleased.  The skis sank in the powder (but didn't burrow at moderate speed) but in snow filled gullies, they did burrow.  The broad shovel proved a detriment as it was hard to lift out of the relatively heavy snow or to steer through the heavy snow.  Overall, the ski was too narrow at the waist to float well and so stiff as to burrow instead of rising.  Now, this was in the subalpine because strong winds were sculpting the snow above treeline, visibility was poor there, and avalanche danger increasing rapidly.  The ski was too much work for my taste on the down, but fine breaking trail on the up.  Especiallly in this year of low snow, dense clouds, winds, and regular confinement to the suballpine, the Nanuq with it stiffness, long 26-m turning radius, and dimensions is not serving me well.  Maybe with long powder runs in the alpine with 6 inches over firm it would do better. But my Chos do that well (triple turning radii 18/14/17m)  So I don't see a need for this ski in my bc quiver.  The Cho does a marvelous job in everything from firm snow to light powder to 6 inches or so of heavy snow, the pointy flex tip comes up out of the snow well and the narrow tail sinks well, but I do think they might have struggled in the deep snow today.  My Dynafit Stokes, I believe would have been more tractable today given their wide waist and narrower shovel than the Nanuqs, despite their 32-m turning radius.; I'll probably give them a try tomorrow.  The Stokes do o.k. on ice, hard snow, sastrugi, and fine deeper snow; the Nanuqs I was hoping would do well in crud and deeper snow; they do well in crud.  My old Manaslus would have been the best of the group.  The new Dynafit Denali (based on the Cho, but fatter) could be an option but I'm tired of new skis  (LOL).  So today, I readjusted the binding to fit my 4-buckle. Booster Strap, 2000 gram Zzeus crossover AT/Alpine boots and will try them Sunday as a sidecountry ski. 


Edited by Andy Carey - 2/27/15 at 3:50pm
post #10 of 22
Thread Starter 

took the Nanuqs to White Pass Ski Area today and used them with my Dynafit Zzeus boots (4 buckles, aftermarkert Booster Strap, 9.5 lbs/pair).  The Nanuqs performed well on the groomed, on the cut up crud just off the groomed, on the wind-scoured ice, in the 6-8 inches of new powder in the trees.  Almost as fast on the groomed as my 184 cm Kastler LX92s and my 191 cm 2011 Volkl Mantras, but not quite as damp as either of those, thus not as confidence inspiring at speed; but more nimble than either of those because of the lightweight tech bindings, and a little better at climbing over the crud.  They did seem to want to wander a little on freshly groomed cat-track snow, at moderate steepeness, when going slow--they do like speed.  So the beef boot made all the difference in the world, but I won't use that heavy a boot for bc touring, but I'll keep the skis for sidecountry.

post #11 of 22

Andy,

 

Thanks for the excellent and extensive review.  I've been looking for a spring touring ski up here in Winthrop and though the Nanuq 184 might be a decent option for my 215 lb. self.  How heavy are you?  Do you have any idea how the stiffness of your boots compares to a La Sportiva Spectre, my sole touring boot?

 

LT

post #12 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lordthomas View Post
 

Andy,

 

Thanks for the excellent and extensive review.  I've been looking for a spring touring ski up here in Winthrop and though the Nanuq 184 might be a decent option for my 215 lb. self.  How heavy are you?  Do you have any idea how the stiffness of your boots compares to a La Sportiva Spectre, my sole touring boot?

 

LT


Hi LT:  I'm 230 lbs.  Your Spectres are much, much more boot than my TLT6 Mountains and should drive the ski just fine.  I just ordered some Mercury boots so I could use the Nanuqs in the backcountry (and to get the most out of my Stokes).  Your Spectres are lighter and might be a little stiffer than my Zzeus which made the Nanuqs fun.  My stepson uses Spectres for his Nunataqs (considerably larger and heavier than the Nanuqs) and likes the boots; he's probably 20-30 lbs lighter than you.

post #13 of 22

Andy,

 

Thanks for the info.  Most of the guys I ski with weigh in at about a buck fifty and really don't understand what it's like to crush a ski, and or, boot, especially when you're on a really steep, icy pitch where falling is highly undesirable.  Sounds like a Nanuq might be a pretty good option for me.  Now if I can just find a pair of suitable spring skis that I can afford.  I tore a labrum in my right hip and have real trouble kick turning with longer skis like my Lhasa Pow 196's that I love dearly but need to sell as there is no place remaining in my quiver for them.

 

LT

post #14 of 22
Thread Starter 

Selling my Nanuqs.  May have buyer for the skis.  Would like to sell the outfit: Nanuqs, Radica ST w B&D toe shim, G3 nylon/mohair skins: $600 + shipping; if you are interested move fast!

post #15 of 22
Thread Starter 

So they didn't sell.  But I bought a pair of Dynafit Mercury boots (3 buckle, stff--110 flex, but I'm using them w/o the stff accessory tongue and a strap) and used them a couple of time in the bc--they are light enough and comfortable enough; so i took them and the Nanuqs to White Pass Ski Area yesterday to try our the combo; very pleased in the handling on piste, in several inches of powder, and a half a foot of chopped up crud and refrozen crusty ski tracks.  With the light boots w progressive flex they were nimble enough and I could make turns of all radii and ski slow or at speed.  So I decided to try them again in the bc, but on the last run down I hit a patch of rock I didn't see in the thin snowpack and torqued my knee; can't walk much now but doing RICE.

post #16 of 22

Also own Nanuq's.  177's mounted with Fristch Vipecs.  Didn't ski them much due to issues with the bindings.  Got toe pieces replaced by BD and have skied them a bit.  After being not sure about them to start, I have found them to be very nice.  They are so much lighter (skis and bindings) that they take a bit of getting used to.  Have to change my skiing up a bit from my former (heavier) gear.  Detuned tips and tails so they are less grabby feeling.  Stay in the front of the boot and they are very smooth and predictable.  Not for tail gunners. For me, they work better with a stiffer boot, i.e. Mistraele RS or Cochise.  I'm 6", 180 lbs.  Could go longer, but don't end up skiing that fast on them.  I use them as a dedicated touring ski.  Not for resort skiing.

post #17 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by choucas View Post
 

Also own Nanuq's.  177's ... Stay in the front of the boot and they are very smooth and predictable... work better with a stiffer boot, i.e. Mistraele RS or Cochise.  I'm 6", 180 lbs.  Could go longer, but don't end up skiing that fast on them.  I use them as a dedicated touring ski.  Not for resort skiing.

I think I may have been better off with 177s instead of 184s esp. because mine were supposed to be a dedicated touring ski; I chose 184 becuz I found my 191 Mantras to be so easy to ski.  I found, as reported above, my touring boot (TLT6) to be lacking in deeper snows--l agrees a stiffer boot is better.  Likewise on speed--the 184 is very fast, I think the 177 would be a bit slower (stay a little deeper in the snow).  Don't know when I'll ski mine again--I have sprained/stretched MCL (probably no tears) and a nice bruise from heel to ankle to forefoot from the twisting fall I had--who knows if an alpine binding would have released on not.  Doing physical therapy (as usual).

post #18 of 22

Hi,

 

Thanks for the great review!

 

I'm considering buying Nanuq 177cm with Radical ST. Should I add the toe shim or not? I'm using Dynafit mercury for boots.

 

Also, were you using the Volkl skins or other skins with the Nanuq?

 

Thank you!

post #19 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinc View Post
 

Hi,

 

Thanks for the great review!

 

I'm considering buying Nanuq 177cm with Radical ST. Should I add the toe shim or not? I'm using Dynafit mercury for boots.

 

Also, were you using the Volkl skins or other skins with the Nanuq?

 

Thank you!


I found using the shim is easier on my knees, provides a better stance when standing still, and doesn't detract from (actually might slightly improve) skiing downhill.  Lou Dawson on Wildsnow.com has a lot of discussion about shims, including the B&D shim.  Bill (B&D) has guidance on his site.  The only disadvantage to the shim is that you might need to use the heel lifts more frequently than otherwise when skinning up hill.  I just added a Movement Shift skis with Plum bindings with brakes to my test collection; the Plum with brakes provides a more equal to neutral stance than the shims I have been using but I haven't tried it yet.

 

I had bad luck with the Volkl skins I bought for my Volkl Snowwolfs so I wasn't about to buy another pair of spendy Volkl skins.  I bought some G-3 mohair Nylon on sale, work o.k. after the break-in period.  I prefer Pomoca Climb Pro Glide--a skin I like better than any others I've had except they are equal to my Dynafit skins.

 

I found my Mercuries to be a better match to the Nanuqs than my TLT6s are.


Edited by Andy Carey - 8/28/15 at 8:28pm
post #20 of 22

Thank you for the reply. I'm still hesitant about the toe shim. This is my first backcountry setup. I have always been an alpine ski racer before. I don't know what would ressemble the most to an alpine setup. What was the height of your toe shim? Do shops usually carry them?

 

I was also thinking about the Pomoca Climb Pro Glide. They seem like really good skins but a bit expensive. Can you have them with the Volkl pin system? Or I guess that K2 skin could work with the Volkl pin system? (K2 and Dynafit skins are made by Pomoca) Is the pin system worth it or should I have just a regular skin?

post #21 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinc View Post
 

Thank you for the reply. I'm still hesitant about the toe shim. This is my first backcountry setup. I have always been an alpine ski racer before. I don't know what would ressemble the most to an alpine setup. What was the height of your toe shim? Do shops usually carry them?

 

I was also thinking about the Pomoca Climb Pro Glide. They seem like really good skins but a bit expensive. Can you have them with the Volkl pin system? Or I guess that K2 skin could work with the Volkl pin system? (K2 and Dynafit skins are made by Pomoca) Is the pin system worth it or should I have just a regular skin?


The Dynafit bindings have a much greater "delta" (angle between toe and heel) than alpine bindings; some alpine boots, however, have a ramp angle in the footbed.  Toe shims on Dynafit bindings would bring the delta closer to the alpine bindings.  See http://www.bndskigear.com/toeshims.html;  I have the 3.2 and 4.7 and I prefer the 4.7; haven't tried the 6.4, but I went to almost a neutral in my new skis because I really like less ramp.  Both Cripple Creek Backcountry and Skimo have installed them for me and I have installed them myself after getting them from B&D with longer screws.  I sure some shops carry them and some don't.  The G-3 system works fine with the Nanuq; I haven't tried the K2s; I think the pomocas will work ok too, even tho the shovel is pretty blunt nosed.  I actuallly didn't like the old volkl attachment since I used to rip my skins without taking my skis off--haven't tried the new one; but I'm older now and I take my skis off to take the skins off (and keep the snow off the skins).

post #22 of 22
Thread Starter 

In the process of selling my Nanuqs + bindings + skins for $500 + shipping; prospects look good, I hope today :-) SOLD


Edited by Andy Carey - 2/27/16 at 8:32am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Backcountry, Telemark, and Cross Country › Gear Review: Volkl Nanuq with Dynafit Radical ST bindings.