Any thoughts on the Voile Objective?

[Baaahb]

Yes, it's past time I get some Voile BC skis. The Charger is definitely too wide for me. The V6 and Vector look to be the same ski, what's up with that? I've heard very good things about the Objective, which is skinnier than someone would pick if all one was doing was chasing powder on steeper slopes, but my use will be more general touring, and I'll still have fatter powder skis, albeit without fishscales. Perhaps one could describe the objective for this ski as the closest to a one-ski-quiver...something that shines in general touring for turns and for touring itself in all conditions, but that is versatile enough to maim (if not slay) powder and also cruise the flats. I haven't seen the Objective discussed much here. Thx.

[SPQR]

I thought you are a tele guy, Voile website says these are intended for AT bindings, no warranties for tele bindings or quiver killers.

[aqua toque]

Well, if nothing else, that's a most awesome backcountry ski name!

[jtb]

I have the Objective BC with a TTS binding (my Trab TR2 setup). I decided on the Objective because of the light weight, and I don't like fat skis. Having said that, I think I would trade another 10mm in the waist for a hundred grams. I'd say if you're not skiing powder, or building a super ultralight rig, it's a good ski. But if you're not going to notice another hundred grams (what boots are you using?), there's a reason the Vector and V6 are so popular.

Edit: it's been discussed here before, but if you use inserts, the Voile hyper construction can hold up to telemark. You're taking a risk, but no more than any other Paulownia core ski. And if you're going for light weight, you're either going with Paulownia or you're going to pay a lot more for a carbon ski (like a Moonlight).

[dschane]

I have the Voile Objective BC skis drilled for Lynx and they're super short - 164 cm. For spring ski conditions, crazy long tours, or excessively long glacier traverses, they are so light and a lot of fun to ski. I'm 5'10" and 190 lb (give or take .5" and 5 lb) and normally ski 179-184 cm skis in the 88-105 range for touring, but the weight savings is great and there's very little loss in performance in those ski conditions.

That said, I'm not sure what "more general touring" means to you. For me, I most often use a 105mm ski for that until some time around April 1st. Long days, gentle slopes, hero snow, or any combination of those, then yes, an Objective would be great. Once you get into heavier or inconsistent snow, I'd gladly take on more weight and ride something with more girth.

ETA: agree with JTB re inserts.

[bobbytooslow]

I've only skied the Objective in a not-appropriate length for me, so my impressions aren't necessarily worth much. But, to echo jtb, it would be nice if Voile offered a BC-base ski that was just a little wider/stouter than the Objective (117-84-102 in 178cm, 1135g) but not as big as the Vector or V6 lines. I have enjoyed my Scott Superguide 88 (125-88-110 in 178cm, 1340g) in pretty much every condition imaginable, and though I don't live in place where the BC base makes a lot of sense, if I did, a ski like that would be a dream. (This subject was discussed further here.)

[telenerd]

I have both the Ultravector BC & V6 BC. The V6 has softer tips and tails than the vectors and turns easier on the steeps or in the trees. The V6 however skis shorter so kick & glide is harder along with breaking trail then the Ultravectors. If I wanna do laps and the snow is fresh, I take my v6. If I am doing an long tour like 10 miles or so, I reach for my Vectors. When snow is more compact/harder I take my vectors, however the vectors do work well in the majority of conditions.

Fat Fish scales skis with beefy tele bindings rock!

I looked at getting the Objectives, but they are too short for me.

[Quadzilla]

Yes, it's past time I get some Voile BC skis. The Charger is definitely too wide for me. The V6 and Vector look to be the same ski, what's up with that? I've heard very good things about the Objective, which is skinnier than someone would pick if all one was doing was chasing powder on steeper slopes, but my use will be more general touring, and I'll still have fatter powder skis, albeit without fishscales. Perhaps one could describe the objective for this ski as the closest to a one-ski-quiver...something that shines in general touring for turns and for touring itself in all conditions, but that is versatile enough to maim (if not slay) powder and also cruise the flats. I haven't seen the Objective discussed much here. Thx.

I think for me it would boil down to what boots and bindings I was going to use. For a general touring setup and a setup I could take out anytime and anywhere it would be T2 class boots and Voile bindings either X2 or SB. As far as ski the reason why so many here and maybe the old Tips crowd ski the Vector and the Vector BC is the fact that it is a great all purpose touring ski. So far this year and all of last year Lynn is 100% Vector BC tele and I have done the same and go both tele and AT. Our Vector BC tele gear is eight years old and has seen action on every slope around here and worked great. Anyway, IMO unless you are going to use some sort of light duty boot/binding there is no downside of getting a Vector, BC or V-6 especially where you live.

[telenerd]

Check out this from Voile on differences.

https://www.voile.com/blog/do-i-want...hybrid-rocker/

[Baaahb]

Great info.

I'll be skiing these with two buckle plastic boots and a Bull-dog binding. I'm sure I'd like the Vectors but there is a chance I'd like the Objectives even more. Gambling. Could regret it.

And with Voile's own concern that they created a wuss ski and my "three pin" binding. maybe I shouldn't take these out when chasing 30 degree POW? I tend to ski pretty light, though I did snap an old pair of Boundless.

P.S. On a more x-c oriented forum they rave about the Asnes Falketind 62 (97-62-86) for this sort of tour but it doesn't come with scales. I do consider it a bit too much on the skinny side.

[Baaahb]

PPS for me , that's a mid fat boot binding combo. I met step it up a notch with a switchback 2 binding, and occasionally ski 3-buckle.

[jtb]

I don't think you'll go wrong with a 2-buckle boot on these. You won't rip out the binding in powder (if you use inserts). With T1's on hard pack, then I'd worry, but then you definitely picked the wrong ski.

Sounds like it could work for you. I'm pretty happy with mine, and I've been skiing 3-buckle F3's in TTS, so a little more power than what you'll have. They leave me wanting more float in powder, but they're great on the uphill. I guess 20 years ago they would have been considered a mid-fat ski... but there's a different thread for that whole discussion 😀

[chamonix]

I'll be skiing these with two buckle plastic boots and a Bull-dog binding.

Is that a four hole mount Bulldog, or a six hole mount? If it's a four hole mount, I would do inserts.

[webby]

Baaahb - make sure you read the voile piece posted by telenerd - it is spot on (thanks telenerd) - lots of good info here in this thread too re vector vs v6
ever since I scored those litedogz in the swap forum I have been agonizing over what to do - and I am not giving the objectives much thought because I think the V6 is such a sensational ski
I went for my first AT rig last year and got the hyper v6 bc (thanks quadz) with maestrales and d radical
I think the lite doggies might be on a pair of v6s for powder days - driven by my 20 year old two buckle T2s - broken into bedroom slippers by HHs - so I don’t ski AT for the rest of my life!

have you skied the v6 in good snow yet?

[Turnfarmer]

Fat Fishscales rule!!!!!!!