[DIYSteve]

That doesn't make sense. Ski weight is not a material factor. If anything, a heavier ski should be a bit easier to turn, although the difference with these skis would be negligible. A boot/binding that is capable of controlling a properly cambered RCR-class ski is necessarily stout enough to control a Glittertind (which is a much turnier ski). Based on your description (and prior notes re your RCR vs. Superlite comparo) the only plausible explanation is that your RCRs are much softer than a performance ski properly matched for your weight. I know you don't want to hear that because you're invested in the RCRs. I'll put it another way: The chances of a guy your size buying properly cambered performance-class XC classic skis are around 1 in 100. I know because I've been living with that reality for 40+ years. I would be glad to look at them if when you're over this way. A stiffer boot/binding system may well help you control your Glittertinds, but that won't change the apparently reality that your RCRs are way softer than ideal for in-track performance.

[Randito]

[DIYSteve]

[Schenk]

Just need to hang with these skiers for a season or two:

more:

Sorry, not really a contribution, but it is an example of what practice can do for a skier! I can do a little of this stuff, but my knees complain about the landings now. These guys are real good.

[Joey]

Kinda makes me glad that my skiiing and telemarking days are behind me given that this activity has been overtaken by so many options.

[DIYSteve]

[rossb]

Skiing is somewhat similar to biking. You can get a fat bike and ride it on the Burke Gilman. You can get a street bike and take on a bumpy gravel road. But in both cases it would be silly. Likewise, getting a big mountain bike frame and putting smooth tires is fine (but less than ideal) but doing the opposite won't really help. So, basically, you want to match your gear with the terrain as well as your ability. You also want to match your boots and bindings with your skis. Plastic boots (like those used for A. T. and Telemark) give you a lot of control. Cross country ski boots are the opposite, while so called B. C. boots are in the middle (but much closer to cross country ski boots in terms of control). Putting A. T. gear on straight relatively straight skis is just fine (it is, after all, more or less what guys like Jean Claude Killy used back in the day). On the other hand, you don't want to do the opposite. If you use cross country boots with a big, fat ski, then you will not be able to control them. The skis will flop around, and be way too heavy -- and have way too much sidecut to control. Like a lot of enthusiasts, I have a range of gear. I use very skinny skis on groomed tracks. These skis have basically no sidecut, and I use my cross country boots with them (of course). My bread and butter, though, is a pair of skis with sidecut of 68-58-64. These do turn a bit when I put them on edge. On the other hand, they have no trouble going straight, and are very light, so I can handle them just fine with cross country boots. I ski logging roads and groomed areas with them. I also have plastic boots with big, fat skis. Not the fattest out there -- but Viole waxless skis. These are nothing like some really fat skis you see (some would hesitate to call them fat) but way fatter than skis only a generation ago. Relatively fat skis are great for the Northwest. One of the misconceptions is that they are only great with powder. But really, they are better than skinnier skis whenever you have a lot of snow. Rarely do you want skinnier skis, but it does happen (with packed conditions). But even then, a fat ski is just fine, it is just that a skinny sky would be a little bit better. I am a big proponent of waxless skis for backcountry travel in the Northwest. It is very common to have a route that involves some steep up, some flat, some gradual up and so on. You want the control of skis with plastic boots (for the downhill), you also want skins (for the steep up) but waxless are great for the moderate terrain. You avoid having to take the skins on and off during the day, and for flat areas, they are great. You just go faster. The middle ground is a bit trickier. Like a cross bike, if you have each end covered, it is hard to say when you will use them. Some would say that Kendall, for example, is perfect for BC boots and something like Atomic Rainiers. Maybe, but I would rather ski the road with cross country skis (they are just a lot more comfortable) and if I was planning on skiing a steep line I would rather have plastic boots (A. T. or Telemark). A lot depends on the conditions and your ability. In general I would say that a big part of cross country skiing -- why some have great days and others fall down a lot -- is in reading the conditions, and knowing your capability. If it is icy, I wouldn't ski Kendall (I would stick to Amabalis, as it is often groomed). But when the snow is good, it is just fine. But I have been doing this a lot, and you may find you want the extra control of a BC rig, without the extra cost (and bulk) of big skis and plastic boots. But I think most people who use BC skis on something like Kendall (or Amabalis, for that matter) are doing so because it is on one of end of their particular spectrum. So someone who has an A. T. or Telemark rig might also have a BC setup for that, while someone who is mostly a cross country skier might have a BC setup as well. I guess my point is that I would be hesitant to get BC gear unless you find that you need it. Side note: The terminology for skiing is terrible. Most people do not use BC boots for backcountry. Alpine Touring is an OK term, but "touring" is often seen as involving something less steep (the standard route up to Artist Point is a nice tour, Blueberry chutes would be considered a run). Telemark gear does not require you know how to telemark (and in many ways, being able to telemark is way more important with cross country ski gear). So hopefully I didn't slip up, and use the wrong terms.

[DadFly]

My advice is take Avy 1. Gear is purpose dependent and you will need to shop around a lot. Get out and demo gear at one of the ski areas. They have these demo events frequently. Just ping a few areas and stores.

[rossb]

[DIYSteve]

[Randito]

FWIW: If $$$ isn't a big issue "rando race" boots and bindings may be mounted on "nordic" type skis with at least a 55mm waist. All plastic "rando race" boots weigh in at under a kilogram and bindings are as light or lighter than 3Pin "telemark" bindings. These diagonal stride on the flats almost as well as "classic" nordic boots (and better that "backcountry" boots) Control on the downhill is excellent-- even without locking down the heel. Boots and bindings of this category run about $1500 for a setup, which is extravagant. Using Binding Freedom inserts allows the bindings and boots to be used on a quiver of skis. My quiver has three skis for my Scarpa Alien boots and Ski Trab race bindings. 55mm waist, 80mm waist and 93mm waist. The 55m waisted skis are very light and fast on "logging road" type outings, while still allowing me some fun "cutting switchbacks". The 80mm skis are my spring/summer setup for skiing on mostly consolidated snow. The 93mm waist skis are my winter/powder snow setup for GORP powered skiing. On packed/firm snow the softness of the Aliens requires excessive muscle input to hold an edge, so for lift assisted skiing I have a different setup with very stiff (and heavy) boots. YMMV and yes it is objectively nuts to spend as much on ski gear as I have.

[rossb]