Charger Love....

mattchuck2 wrote

weasel1 wrote

Fear not, this is absolutely on my agenda...

Wow. If Worth releases a fish scaled fatty, then I'm definitely going to be in line for that one.

+1

Weasel keep me up to date on developments with any product.  Based on what I am hearing on lifts, via email (and in the bars!) this kind of skiing is definitely moving onto the radar of our audience.

I'd like to help get this message out, if/when it happens.

Noah John wrote

Other than days above freezing when you have to wax with bubble gum, I've never really liked waxless skis.  I find it really easy to throw some kick wax on and just go and the skis aren't slow, nor do they make that silly zzzzzipping sound, when you turn them down hill.  What am I missing?

This is what you are missing:


It is the ability avoid the hassle of skins for low-angle and/or short ascents, while maximizing the fun factor on the down part. There is no zzzzzipping sound in powder snow. These are not your fish-scale track skis.

I don't miss out on that kind of stuff.  I just rub a little blue or green kick wax in the wax pocket and up I go.  

Noah John wrote

I don't miss out on that kind of stuff.  I just rub a little blue or green kick wax in the wax pocket and up I go.

Wax works OK, the waxless skis just seem to work better, in our situation at least. Both TD and I have used grip wax on wide skis but prefer the versatility and no-fuss aspect of the waxless. It may have something to do with being old and lazy.

Hey, whatever gets you up and down is good. It's all about sliding on snow and being happy.

Well, no doubt that not putting wax on is easier than putting wax on.  I just think waxing is really easy and I routinely wax "fatter" skis (threw some kick wax on my Mantras this weekend in fact.   I think they're 94 mm underfoot.  Not particularly fat these days but fat enough. Took about 90 seconds.)  I just remember waxless skis being slower on the down than a comparable pair of "normal" skis. And they DO make a funny noise on packed powder.  It's not a big deal but I wouldn't use them at a resort which means they'd be yet another pair of skis with a limited purpose.  I've got enough skis and don't really want a pair that can only be used in the backcountry.  I'll probably stick with kick wax for the meadow skipping and just skin on warm days or when the skin track is steep.

having only cross country ski'd and bcXcd/shwacked for a few years and always on waxless skis, I really never thought of waxing fatties as an option...interesting

I have several pairs of X-country skis and "BC" skis - they're all waxable.  That's the "norm" as far as I ever knew.  I have one pair of waxless cross country skis for when the temps get above 35F.

I have to agree with you NoahJohn... Nothing too difficult about grip waxing - especially when it's good and cold.  And if you don't want to get suckered into another quiver addition then you're smart not to even consider a waxless scaled ski.  And yes, I wouldn't think of using them for lift served... Slow, noisy and they tend to be way too soft torsionally for hard packed groomers etc.

But if you ever get a chance, make sure you at least try some.  

TD

I'd try 'em.  I don't really get the waxless thing but....whatever.  Nice stick for BC spring corn I bet.

I love my waxless karhu guides.  No mucking around w/ wax and I dont have to wait as long after descending!  

I dunno.  Most of the time waxing really is very easy and takes less than 2 or 3 minutes but I'll concede that it doesn't always go that way and you may be out there (in the cold, with your gloves off) scraping off a layer of softer wax before applying a harder wax or whatever.  But a lot of that can be avoided by taking care of that at home the night before when you know what the temps are going  to be and you have a chance to look at what's been left on your bases from the last outing. My point is that fat, rockered skis like Chargers are somewhat similar to what I ski at the resort so if my BC adventure is going to take me into the type of terrain such a ski is really designed for (not meadow skipping) why not just use the resort ski?   But we've beaten this dead horse enough.  Use what you want and have fun.

well, I have no idea what a charger is anyway.  thought this thread was about chargers for things like phones or headlamps or some other such item!

Wiggle It!!!!!

ScottyJack wrote

well, I have no idea what a charger is anyway.  thought this thread was about chargers for things like phones or headlamps or some other such item!Wiggle It!!!!!

Too funny SJ!  Yeah, I guess you could say that the Chargers (the ski) are that type of charger for us old(er) farts - we need all the help we can get!

BTW, if you like the Guides, you'd love the Chargers.
 
TD

cool.  I did notice a year or so ago some wider skis w/ the fish scales.  thought it was a good idea based on my guides.  

So our production partners can source scaled base material.... but I may have to buy 5000 meters of it. I am looking to see if I can get enough to do just one pair of skis for now and, if so, will build up a pair of Bootleggers on our beta run with that base, carbon layup and maple-aspen core. I will keep folks posted and, if it goes, figure out how to get people on them for feedback.

All of this begs the question to me of whether it would be better to offer the scaled base as an option on any model, or to build up a purpose-built shape for this. Molds are expensive, but is also seems to me that the application is just different enough, and the desired flex characteristics are different enough to merit it...unless you find otherwise.

Thoughts?

weasel1 wrote

Thoughts?

Offer fish scales as an option.  

weasel1 wrote

So our production partners can source scaled base material.... but I may have to buy 5000 meters of it. I am looking to see if I can get enough to do just one pair of skis for now and, if so, will build up a pair of Bootleggers on our beta run with that base, carbon layup and maple-aspen core. I will keep folks posted and, if it goes, figure out how to get people on them for feedback.

All of this begs the question to me of whether it would be better to offer the scaled base as an option on any model, or to build up a purpose-built shape for this. Molds are expensive, but is also seems to me that the application is just different enough, and the desired flex characteristics are different enough to merit it...unless you find otherwise.

Thoughts?

Weasel... couldn't find Bootlegger specs. Can you share?

Noah John wrote

weasel1 wrote

Thoughts?

Offer fish scales as an option.

I concur. Any Worth model could be a good fishscale candidate, depending on the end user's terrain and needs. One skier might want a George BC but someone else would be better off with a Humpback BC. Particularly if you maintain the flex options as well.

The mailman just arrived with a long cardboard box addressed to me.

Charger BCs in the house!!!!!!!!

Ahhh if only Bruce Cockburn sang "if I had a Backcountry ski"..



Td