Confusion: skin skis glide behavior?

[Tom K.]

I have pair of Fischer Speedmax twin skin skis, which see basically no use.

Criminal.

Let me send you my mailing address!

Otherwise, I will buy a pair of Madshus Redline Classic Skin skis -- which sounds amazingly "rangey".

 

[crosscountry]

there's difference between skis and skins. Just Fischer's Twin Skin line (which is more race oriented) has 6 or 7 models from more recreational oriented Twinskin Performance to sort of race ready Twinskin Speedmax (it's real proper Speedmax race ski just with skins). And grip, glide and construction differs. Low(er) end has mohair/syntetic mix skins (more kick, less glide), while top models have 100% mohair (less kick more glide). Also ski construction is different, which means also glide performance is different. So there can be plenty of reason for "no glide" or "almost toss me over the handle bar”. One is of course way too soft skis. Another is, that skis were on lower end, where glide is never priority, but good kick is. This means softer skis, with smaller "wax pocket" (I guess it should be called skin pocket in this case ), which flattens easier to offer better kick. Transfering all weight on one ski, would almost certainly guarantee no glide with such conditions.

Thank you for the thorough explanations.

If you go even lower on the range or even going into more BC skis and skings, this shows even more, so without knowing what exactly you tried, and how ski stiffness was compared to your weight it's hard to say. But with more race oriented skis, skin skis still glide pretty good and you don't experience any issues like that, if skis are right stiffnes.

I started out with a Rossignol Delta Comp, which I believe is in the middle of their "recreational" line. The first pair grabbed so much I turned around after 50' to get another pair that's "stiffer". Even that one was still too grabby to be much use. So I gave up on those and went to the Fisher tent.

Mind you, these were all "supposed" to be the right weight for me (body weight + 10-15lb to account for boot and other gear weight)

Fisher rep gave me the Speedmax after hearing my complain of my unsuccessful run on the Rossy. That turned out to be too much ski for me. It glide lovely. No "catching" whatsoever! But I was spinning my wheels (heels?) on moderate uphill. And that's when I was relatively fresh! I can't maintain that all day.

Next on the list would have been a step or two down to the twinskin pro or race. But they couldn't find any that are the right weight for me. Instead, I was given the Superlite, which is a "recreational" rather than "racing" category skis, I'm told. It actually glide nicely for 90% of the time. That is, as long as I keep my focus taking great care to transition from glide to kick distinctly and cleanly. It behaved much better than the Rossy by a large margin, in that it doesn't actually "catch" but only drags a little if I were sloppy in transition.

Due to short term "ptsd" from the "drama" of testing the Rossy earlier, I didn't attempt step turns on descends, for fear of getting tossed into the tree if the ski "catches" when I put my weights on one ski while traveling in high speed.

I'm told the flex behavior of the Superlite "should" have "similar flex characteristic" with the Twinskin race or pro. I'll be going to another demo next weekend, and will be looking for one of those to try.

I also tried 2 Salomon S/Max. Again, it took only 50 feet for me to hand the 1st one back to the rep for a stiffer version. When pressed, the rep said my weight was "in between" the two version of the same skis. The stiffer version (labeled MED) was between the Fisher and Rossy. It "catches" a bit from time to time. Again, threatening to throw me "over the handle bar"! Though not as frequent nor as violently as the Rossy earlier. The weight chart of the ski that kind of sort of work? It's 15KG over my naked body weight!

So in conclusion, out of 6 pairs of skis, only 1 pair didn't catch at all. But I had trouble flexing that one to get good kicks. 4 of the 6 "catches" a little, or a lot! Now you understand why I'm confused at the behavior of skin skis.

On the binding position, I disagree that we can't tell the difference. I'm not sure I'm detecting the difference of kick or glide efficiency. But I can detect the change in propensity of "catching" clearly. My guess? If the weight and flex are right, it's probably hard to detect the effect of binding position. But if the weight/flex are a bit off, binding position change magnifies the error to be felt quite clearly.

Still, it's reassuring that I "should" be able to find skis that behave "normally". And I did find one that were close to working out. So that's encouraging for me to continue my search. Thanks all.

 

[Primoz]

As I wrote, I have bmore or less zero experience with skings, but from what I have heard, and if that's to be believable, Fischer was suppose to have worse skin skis of all. Considering normal race skis, are class or two above anything else, it's somehow hard to believe, but I didn't try myself and I just heard from few friends, so maybe it's true. For me they work good enough for those few times I use them. But if it's true, it's really hard to believe that anything else you tried was so much worse.
As for Speedmax or Carbon Pro vs. lower end of race line (Race, Superior, Pro and Performance), skins are shorter so they offer less grip (even though Fischer claims it's same because they are tinny little bit wider). This means technique should be a bit better if you want to have proper grip. If you had issues with grip on Speedmax, then maybe go to Race. Skins are slightly longer, so they are a little bit more forgiving when it comes to not so perfect technique, but skins are still 100% mohair so they should have good glide, and construction of ski (shape and profile, not materials) is same as with Speedmax, so it should work quite similar. On the other side, you do lose cold base bonding (from twinskin models on Speedmax and Carbon Pro has it), which is thing, for which guy who invented it, should get Nobel prize

 

[Tom K.]

FWIW my reading leads me to believe that Madshus and Atomic have the skin ski thing nailed down the best.

No experience with Madshus, but a friend that might ski half as well as Primoz -- and far better than me -- absolutely gushes over his Atomic skin skis. I've got the first year version, and I only sort of like mine.

As far as movable bindings, his sure seem to work well. We've got one (boring) area that is basically 1.5 hours up a mostly slight incline, then turn around and go back. He can kick better than me going up and glide better going down.

But he's also a bit better waxer than me.

 

[crosscountry]

@Primoz, one of the rep did suggest an Atomic Redster C5, which unfortunately they didn't have on hand. Unfortunately for me, they're not going to be at the next 'demo' I'm going to. (it's actually not a 'demo event' per se, it's a clinic which Fisher is the sponsoring vendor. So there will be only Fisher skis there).

but from what I have heard, and if that's to be believable, Fischer was suppose to have worse skin skis of all. Considering normal race skis, are class or two above anything else, it's somehow hard to believe, but I didn't try myself and I just heard from few friends, so maybe it's true. For me they work good enough for those few times I use them. But if it's true, it's really hard to believe that anything else you tried was so much worse.

It's entirely possible that those other skis I tried were too soft.

I've noticed through my life people underestimate my weight and overestimate my height... by doctors/nurses, clothing sales, or any kind of sporting equipment vendor. During last week's demo, I was "consistently" given skis longer than what I asked for (ok, 'go long' when the length I asked was not exactly right). So it's possible they may have opted to "go soft" despite what I told them the weight they should use. Sure, there's the "weight chart" on every ski, but I'm also told those aren't necessarily accurate.

 

[Primoz]

Weight specifications are normally in about 5-6kg window (at least for Fischer). With "normal" wax skis it's no big deal, as you measure wax pocket for each ski anyway, and then you wax accordingly. How it's with skin skis, it's beyond my imagination, as it is what it is, and you can't change anything. But I guess they go on a bit soft side, so you might have too much grip and well... with skin skis glide is not most important thing, so they sacrifice a little bit of glide for those who are on higher end of that weight window. I guess that's reason for skin skis being slower then exactly same ski just without skin but with "normal" wax. But again, I'm talking about I don't know, 10 or 20% less glide not "over the handlebar" stop

 

[crosscountry]

I happily accept the 10-20% less glide.

But it's the unpredictable 0% glide (at least that's how it felt, zero glide!) in some specific occasions.

Even waxable skis, when the wax was applied by us mere mortals, can be off and the ski drags a bit. As with fish scale skis too. But neither stops the ski in a jerky motion, which scared the heck out of me!

 

[Yo Momma]

Fischer Twin Skins (Recreational) - my experience is that skin prep is absolutely critical to how they glide on snow. As @Primoz said, there are Swix products that prep the skins. I've used the Twin Skins for several yrs now, prepped and unprepped in various conditions and noted that the glide was MUCH better w/ cleaning & prepping products. Honestly though...it wasn't that bad without it either if it was "fast". If it was "Sticky" snow, it got bad REALLY fast w/o the prep, to the point whereby now I make sure to always wax the skins w/ liquid wax prior to heading out. That is, unless it's icy.

 

[crosscountry]

hmm...

The point of "waxless" skis (skin or fish scale) are the absent of hassle, each and every single skiing days. (I'm ok to do a bit of 'skin prep' at the beginning of the season). But if I'm going to wax the skin every time I go out, would I be no worse off applying kick wax to waxable skis?

 

[slow-line-fast]

hmm...

The point of "waxless" skis (skin or fish scale) are the absent of hassle, each and every single skiing days. (I'm ok to do a bit of 'skin prep' at the beginning of the season). But if I'm going to wax the skin every time I go out, would I be no worse off applying kick wax to waxable skis?

Prepping skins for glide is relatively straighforward (@Yo Momma , what prep do you use?), compared with the deeply frustrating and unachievable art of kick waxing.

When skin skis are running well, they offer a huge advantage in grip in icy conditions over crown (fishscale) skis.

 

[Yo Momma]

^^^ Exactly...... Takes literally 2 min to prep the skin area of the ski if not less. I use several different products including the Swix skin prep and cleaner spray, somtimes another I don't remember the name of... also Swix F4 Universal, various Fischer Liquid XC waxes and skin prep products, and sometimes Zardoz Base Boost ( used to be Zardoz NotWax). I have iron on wax but I'm a total XC Poser so I never iron my xc skis... too much work! Then again we have an XC center w/ groomed classic tracks literally behind our back yard so heading out is more based on whims w/ very little prep.

 

[Primoz]

I would agree with @Yo Momma and @slow-line-fast about this. Putting some liquid (or whatever proper word for that Swix Skin Boost is) on skin, even before every outing is not really hassle. It's like 15sec work (ok let's go with 2min as @Yo Momma wrote, but it's really more 15sec then 2min). In my mind, real point of skin skis is, to avoid kick waxing, not to avoid every maintenance. Kick waxing is half of art and half of magic, and for normal people it is painful. First to deal with klisters, and second to get kick wax right, which is relatively easy with -10c and dry snow, but anything but easy, even for me (or any other, even current WC technician), when it's new snow around 0c and it's wet enough there's starting to build ice on track and waxless skis don't work anymore. To avoid this, you get skins, which sacrifice a little bit of glide, but offers more or less perfect kick all the time.
But it means you still need to wax skis for glide as all normal skis, and that little skin maintenance is not really hassle for this what you get.

 

[slow-line-fast]

As for binding adjustment... please just don't complicate. Moving binding less then 2cm (in max positions) from or back surely does change ski behaviour. Problem is, there's very little chance anyone here will notice this difference. If you do it yourself, you will of course notice huge difference, but only because you imagine so. If someone else would set bindings to different position without you knowing, I would dare to bet, noone here would notice difference

A bet is a challenge, could it be the Annual @Primoz Binding Challenge?

As it's difficult to really mask the binding, let's just blindfold the competitors (a good drill in and of itself), send them out for repeated short laps with randomly varied binding positions, and score them based on correct answers about where their bindings were set.

 

[slow-line-fast]

Kick waxing is half of art and half of magic, and for normal people it is painful.

On behalf of all normal people who have also tried this, thank you for calling us normal

 

[Yo Momma]

I would agree with @Yo Momma and @slow-line-fast about this. Putting some liquid (or whatever proper word for that Swix Skin Boost is) on skin, even before every outing is not really hassle. It's like 15sec work (ok let's go with 2min as @Yo Momma wrote, but it's really more 15sec then 2min). In my mind, real point of skin skis is, to avoid kick waxing, not to avoid every maintenance.

LOL Good point! It's like 15 sec.... ha ha ha! added in extra time in case he wasn't familiar w/ waxing xc...

 

[Slim]

@crosscountry , I got the Fischer Twinskin Race, their slighty less ‘racy’ version Like you, I don’t want to work super hard for my kick all the time, (and if I do, I’ll take my wax skis) but I still want something with the reward of glide.
It works perfect for me.
I have not expreined the grabbing or turning issues you describe, but this is only my first season on them, so I have not been out in warm or wet snow yet.

 

[Primoz]

A bet is a challenge, could it be the Annual @Primoz Binding Challenge?

As it's difficult to really mask the binding, let's just blindfold the competitors (a good drill in and of itself), send them out for repeated short laps with randomly varied binding positions, and score them based on correct answers about where their bindings were set.

Ok Rottefella is a bit harder not to notice it, but with Turnamic (Fischer/Rossi), you really need to check binding itself and those tiny numbers to see where it is. So if you just step into binding and close them, it's almost surely, you won't know where it's set.

 

[crosscountry]

Thanks everyone for the ideas. Sounds like my bad experience might have more to do with not getting the right ski flex.

Though to be honest, that was what I started out to do: to find A FEW models of skin skis that suit my style. And instead of finding the best suitable vs less suitable skis, I ended up with several skis that totally doesn't work at all. Hence my 'confusion' that led to this thread.

(I went about it with similar expectation when I bought my fishscale skis: ski a few pairs and find the one has the "best" kick/glide balance, for me. I only expect skis that glide "less well" rather than unpredictable glide/catching when weighted)

You've now convinced me to accept the 'skin prep' part. After all, I glide wax my skate skis every few outings anyway. That said, it's an "optional" prep: if I'm in a hurry to squeeze in an hour of skating during lunch, it WILL glide, albeit a tad slower. I just don't want to buy into a situation where I HAVE TO wax/prep before going out. That's what waxable skis are to me.

I will just have to find the right ski. I thought that would have been a relatively easy task. But it seems more fraught. On the other hand, I'm glad I didn't just order something without trying a few first. Now I know what to look for.

 

[slow-line-fast]

Ok Rottefella is a bit harder not to notice it, but with Turnamic (Fischer/Rossi), you really need to check binding itself and those tiny numbers to see where it is. So if you just step into binding and close them, it's almost surely, you won't know where it's set.

I’m not joking, it would be a great exercise and test!

 

[slow-line-fast]

Thanks everyone for the ideas. Sounds like my bad experience might have more to do with not getting the right ski flex.

Though to be honest, that was what I started out to do: to find A FEW models of skin skis that suit my style. And instead of finding the best suitable vs less suitable skis, I ended up with several skis that totally doesn't work at all. Hence my 'confusion' that led to this thread.

(I went about it with similar expectation when I bought my fishscale skis: ski a few pairs and find the one has the "best" kick/glide balance. I only expect skis that glide "less well" rather than unpredictable glide/catching when weighted)

You've now convinced me to accept the 'skin prep' part. After all, I glide wax my skate skis every few outings anyway. That said, it's an "optional" prep: if I'm in a hurry to squeeze in an hour of skating during lunch, it WILL glide, albeit a tad slower. I just don't want to buy into a situation where I HAVE TO wax/prep before going out. That's what waxable skis are to me.

I will just have to find the right ski. I thought that would have been a relatively easy task. But it seems more fraught. On the other hand, I'm glad I didn't just order something without trying a few first. Now I know what to look for.

You are doing everything right, classic XC are very sensitive re: flex, try before you buy. Unfortunately it is not easy to try.