We're open!  Read our COVID statement.

Voile Objective Ski

$694.95 From $487.47

In Stock & Ships Today

Free shipping

We love the name almost as much as the ski. Voile designed this mountaineering tool to help you succeed in those alpine missions with a specific goal, AKA an Objective. While it can’t guarantee success, you can rest assured it won’t cause a failure. The impressive weight will let you take it far, on your feet or on your back. The easy-skiing nature of the construction won’t give you any hang-ups on the way down. The Objective has a rockered tip to keep you above the uglies, and also a curvy lifted tail so it releases easily at the end of turns. The neutral flex is designed to keep you centered on the ski and in control of your destiny. For ski mountaineers with lofty goals, acquiring the Objective should be the first objective.

  • Paulownia wood core is strong with low density, perfect for this Objective.
  • Medium radius with rockered tip inspires confidence in junk and on steeps.
  • Two carbon & fiber glass layers wrap the core to enable powerful turns.
  • 1.8mm of steel lets you edge on hard snow and won’t break on the first rock.
  • Tough nylon topsheet is nick-resistant and painted with the Voile theme.

Update for 17/18: The new Objective features black base material for lower friction and higher ski performance as well as new topsheet with more vibrant colors, but the same hard-hitting durability and easy going personality that Voile is known for.

Update 2019/20: Other than a new coat of paint, this ski remained the same as in previous years.

Lengths (cm) 164, 171, 178
convert to ounces
1020g [164]
1070g [171]
1150g [178]
Weight (pair) 2040g [164]
2140g [171]
2300g [178]
Dimensions 112-80-95 [164]
114-82-97 [171]
117-84-100 [178]
Turn Radius 18.0m [164]
18.5m [171]
19.5m [178]
Skin Fix Race tip notch, flat tails
Specs Verified Yes
Profile Light tip and tail rocker, camber underneath
Shape Smooth medium radius, rounded tip & tail
Construction Double carbon cap
Core Paulownia wood
Skimo Co Says
Usage Long distance mountaineering
Notes Easy to ski, confidence inspiring
Bottom Line Versatile mountaineering ski
Compare to other Low-fat Skis

Related Products

Questions & Reviews

Question from Michael D
Thank you for your help. Would you compare that Salomon X-Alp with the Voile Objective? I'm 6'1", 165-170 lbs. Steeper the better and love to make lots of short turns. (Save the long high speed rails for the chairlifts.) Been a backcountry skier for about 15 years but always on powder boards. Looking for my first pair of summit bagging, corn snow, mountaineering skis. I'm usually skiing a 181 to 188 length. Shortest resort ski I every owned was a 178 cm which I loved ripping around on. Thinking about either one of the above skis in the 170/171 length. What do you think about that length for my size? And which ski do you like since they're only 2 oz. difference? Appreciate you time.
Answer from TSB
Hey Michael, awesome choices all around! We find that the 169-171cm length is pretty ideal for a mountaineering ski if you're around 6 feet tall. The X-Alp and Objective are both great skis, and both have a soft-snow bias so they'll float well if you find yourself getting knee-deep after coming down from a chalky north face. You can't go wrong with either ski, but we tend to see the X-Alp as a little bit more versatile since it has that narrower waist and more aggressive turning feel, while the Objective is best for those who ski in areas that see a lot of unconsolidated snow (i.e. the Wasatch, Tetons, Rogers Pass, etc.) If you're ripping around in maritime snowpacks or just prefer a ski with more effective edge and less rocker, take a look at the Movement Alp Tracks 85 and/or the Atomic Backland 78, both of which are available in the 169cm length and have fantastic hard-snow performance.
Answer this question:

Question from JohnB
Do you recommend mounting at boot center? My main skis (winter, deep snow etc) have plenty of rocker (DPS wailer 112 tour1s) and I always mount them at +1. Is there any reason to go to +1cm with these skis? Thanks. Looking forward to trying these out!
Answer from jbo
Hi JohnB, the Objectives are good to go at boot center. This is coming from someone who also thinks the Wailers are best at +1.
Answer this question:

Question from JT22
Hi, a few questions about Voile Objective 178 cm. (1) Is this enough of a ski for a 6'3" 195-200 lb guy? I normally ski skis in the ~183 range, such as the Voile Hyper V6, which I really enjoy. (2) What AT bindings would make for a good pairing? My typical DIN range is 7-8. (3) Any reason to go with the BC version? I could use them on some rolling terrain, but have also read that the fish scales aren't as helpful with mid-steep ascents, icy tracks, etc. Thanks in advance!
Answer from eric
JT22- Yes the 178 length would be fine for you. For binding I would suggest using our Binding Finder and we can help you sort through the bindings. Fish scales are good for rolling terrain but you are correct that they do slide on steeper terrain. They also slide slower than the standard base when the scales are in contact with hard snow.
Answer this question:

Question from Jim
What is the waist width of these skis? And can you recommend a length for a 66 year old fit male, 135-140 lbs. strong intermediate skier who wants to do relatively short (no more than half day) backcountry ski outings in the Wasatch and west Tetons? I may also ski them at Targhee on powder days.
Answer from Teddy Young
Hey Jim, this ski is around 82mm underfoot, here are the dimensions based on length: 112-80-95 [164], 114-82-97 [171], 117-84-100 [178]. How tall are you and what ski lengths and models have you enjoyed in the past?
Answer this question:

Nat (downright abused product)
Love! My favorite fast/light ski to date. I spent around 40 days on these during the 2018/19 season and was totally blown away. I tend to have a love/hate relationship with some of the lighter gear. Balancing efficiency and 'skiability.' I found with the Voile Objective there is very little compromise to using a lighter/smaller ski. I had many of my most fun days in the Wasatch skiing fresh deep snow on these sticks. Similarly they were my weapon of choice for big spring days in the Sierra. Take home points include: easy and friendly to ski. Confidence inspiring on the steeps. Still really fun in knee deep powder. Less weight on your feet = more energy to ski more!
Comment on this review:

Question from Thatcher Kelley
Love the skis so far. Only skied a few PNW lines with this due to a broken boot in early spring. But liking them so far.
My one question is about the tail and skins. My Pomoca back clip slips off very easily since the ski doesn’t have a notch. Do you have a recommended solution for this? Grinder to create a notch? I’ve never modified skis before.
Answer from Jeff
Hey Thatcher! Yes you can grind a notch at the tail. It shouldn't need to be very deep. Covering the fresh cut with a bit of epoxy would be a good idea, too.
Answer this question:

Jake D (used product regularly)
I've been using this ski all spring and it's easily the best ski mountaineering ski I've used to date. Edge hold is bomber, the light weight makes hop turns a breeze, tip rocker helps keep you on top of the inevitable deproach shmoo. Perfect flex for me, not soft but not harsh or chattery either.

I'm 185 lbs sans pack and the 171 is just right even once I'm loaded up for a big day. Paired with Plum 170s and Scarpa F1s.

After seeing durability issues with other skis that don't have full edge coverage at the tip and tail, I wish that they hadn't shaved those grams from the Objectives. That said, I haven't had any problems yet and the bases and edges seem pretty stout in general.

Action shot on the Fuhrer Finger, Mt. Rainier.
Comment on this review:

Curly (used product regularly)
This ski quickly became a favorite of mine for spring skiing and steeps. Great edge hold and a reasonable stiffness (not super stiff) but I think this makes them more forgiving in cut up spring snow. I am 155lbs and 5'10" and the 164s are incredible on the very steep stiff terrain (I've been up to about 55deg) on firm snow. The short length and light weight makes them easy to get around when they need to get around quick. I thought I would sacrifice top end speed/stability with the shorter skis for my size but today I hit about 50mph coming down the Muir snowfield. They feel pretty stable even though they are pretty rockered in the front which loses some effective edge. My ski partner has alp track 84s in 169cm and I am excited to compare the two. The movements are certainly stiffer in hand and have a micro side wall so I suspect they will ski better but at a greater cost. Bottom line, they're great quiver skis, great for big mountains and moving pretty quick (if you don't want to make the sacrifices and go will a full-on race ski. For reference, I ski them with dynafit dynaevos and it feels like a light capable combo.
Comment on this review:

Question from Curly
I’m 5’10” and 155lbs and an advanced skier. I have Scott super guide 88s in 178 for my winter ski and am looking for a light ski to hit steep lines on big mountains in the cascades in the spring. I have alpattacks (160) that I’ve been using for spring skiing and racing but want more beef than that. Would these perform well in steep hard pack (jump turn mandatory) terrain? What length should I look at? Leaning toward 164 as they’re light and would be quick to get around in jump turns. Thanks!
Answer from eric
Curly-The 164 would be easy to get around in steep terrain but this ski has a fair bit of rocker. So, with this ski I would suggest the 171 for your size. Maybe look at the Atomic UL 85 in the 163 if you want the shorter length.
Answer this question:

Question from Sebastian
Hello ,
Like others I am trying to figure out best voile objective ski length .
I am 160-165# without gear .
I Ski the back hills and small mountains of Vermont and might occasionally want to chaperone youngsters at a local ski area . Have been skiing Rossignol bc90 (180cm) with Garmont excursion boots for a decade and would like something to make turns easier in the woods ! I would describe myself as an intermediate skier who still has a lot to learn with improving turns . Will be keeping the skinnier skis also for times when I don't want a fatter ski .
171 or 178 ?? along with the voile size chart is driving me a little crazy ! What would you suggest ?
Answer from jbo
Hi Sebastian, I'm the same weight and have the 171 which is awesome. I would use the 178 on deeper days, but it sounds like you already have a ski for that, so...171!
Answer this question:

Question from Casper
Looking for a sizing recommendation. 6' .5", 175lbs, Type III skier looking for ability to turn easily in chunder and windswept as well as packed powder in PNW. Like to go fast and hard. Looking for a mountaineering and traverse ski that can handle that. Does this ski make sense or would another be preferable?
Answer from Trace Leches
Hey Casper! I'd probably go for the 171cm, maybe 178cm if you aren't planning on skiing steeps a lot or have a burlier boot. This ski makes a ton of sense for that usage though. The tip rocker helps it float well beyond what its waist width would suggest and the tail rocker + tail stiffness is an interesting and incredibly versatile combo.
Answer this question:

Question from Chris
Looking for some new distance-touring skis. And have been eyeing the Objectives (more likely the BC version) since it came out. My concerns, I'm a powerful, aggressive skier, who tries to fill the slope with turns (maximum turns per inch), and 5'10", 190# + pack. I also will probably drill them with inserts for 22 Designs and a pin binding. Likelihood is that they'll see time all over the US Rockies, and PNW volcanoes.
Wanting to know A) length recommendation? B) is this the right ski or are there better options?
Current BC setups are 188 Carbon Megawatts, 184 4FRNT Ravens, 178 K2 Wayback 88s.
Answer from Trace Leches
Hey Chris! One of the guys here is almost exactly your dimensions and skis the 171cm in a pretty powerful fashion. There's enough camber that it likes to kind of pop from one turn to the other so it's good for the maximum turns per inch style (after looking back at my own turns on this ski, that's almost exactly how I ski the Objective the majority of the time) but with enough length you can definitely feel free to open up the throttle a bit more and really make use of the extra length.

Length recommendation: My vote is for 171cm. 178cm if you're only going to be using it on lower angle, faster terrain that's mostly soft snow based. If it's going to be a mountaineering/steep ski and you will also be using it in powder then the 171cm definitely is the winner there.

I can't really think of a poor application for this ski except for bumpy, icy 50° couloirs. Everything else besides that and it's amazing...it's just not the most confident steep ski when things get super firm.
Answer this question:

Question from Marc S
Another sizing question, I'm 5.7, 155lbs and have been enjoying my Karhu Spire BC's 178cm (w/Atomic Backland Carbon) for the last couple of years of tours, ski mountaineering. My focus these days is more spring time ski mountaineering/summiting in the Can rockies. I'm used to the 178 length but see the logic of 171 in the objective. What size would you recommend? I've heard the objectives ski short.

Also, I have access to my wifes 163cm Hagan (around 8yrs old, no idea the model, green top sheet, around 1100g/ski, 65mm waist). Since she doesn't mind me using them, I'm thinking of saving some $$ and just using that for spring missions. Its a ripper on tight turns at the resort. Is 163 too short? I have little experience skiing a shorter length ski.
Answer from Trace Leches
Hey Marc! Nice! The Objective is a fantastic ski for what you're talking about (definitely the most popular ski among the employees here, for what it's worth). I think you could go either way, the 171 or even 164. I am 5' 9" and ski the 164 as a mountaineering ski. It's a bit short when skiing really fast corn or deep powder and that's where the 171 would come into play but as a steep ski, the short length is really appealing.

Keep in mind that even if the 178cm skis short, you still have to carry, kick turn, and most importantly, jump turn the full 178cm of length, so make sure you factor that in. Also, race skis really shine in technical terrain. They don't have the brute force that some heavier, wider skis have but they really are amazing peak bagging tools. You can't go wrong.
Answer this question:

JDT (used product a few times)
A ski mountaineering ski epitomized. Light, handles variable conditions from powder, to crud, to hardpack. Despite its light weight, it is stable and fairly damp compared to similar skis I have used. I like to tip notch for race style skins.
Comment on this review:

Question from Ian
Hello, on Voile.com they recommend that no one over 140 lbs skis on the 171s. I was wondering if you could speak to that. I'm 6'3''/175 lbs is the 178 cm the right ski for me or could I get away with the 171?

Answer from jbo
Hi Ian, sizing for length purely by height or weight oversimplifies things. It's okay to go shorter for specific purposes or preferences. It looks like Voile lists 150 lbs as the 171 max, and indeed they were perplexed when I went for the 171 at 6'1" 165. I don't regret it, I use them for spring skiing / mountaineering and love them. As a midwinter ski I would likely get the 178, but heck, the 171 is still fun then too.
Answer this question:

Question from Mark Plante
I currently use the Dynafit Seven Summits 2.0 for spring backcountry skiing and for recreational rando racing. Would the Voile Objective be a better ski for these types of skiing? I've heard and read alot of good things about the Voile Objective. Also, since both skis have similar dimensions, with some minor trimming would the Seven Summit skins work on the Objectives?
Answer from jbo
Hi Mark, there is some bias around here towards the Objectives as many of us ski them. They are noticeably lighter than the 7 Summits and more nimble at climbing...obviously good things for racing and pretty handy in the spring BC as well. I can't say I've had to hold back while skiing them, maybe not quite as damp as the 7s but lively and fun. The rocker helps a good deal in rough conditions. You can adapt the skins to the Objectives one way or another. Unfortunately I don't have a pair of those skins to try for you; you may need to re-rivet a new tail clip or go without tails. It would be sweet if they just fit though!
Answer this question:

Chicken Legs (used product regularly)
I'm a science teacher, so a quick physics lesson. Work = force x distance, and force = mass x acceleration. If you want to decrease the amount of work you do in the backcountry, then the easiest thing to do is lose some mass. These accomplish that and are still super fun to ski.

Voile killed it with this ski. Their light weight is a boon while skinning and I hardly notice them on my back when putting in a booter. Ski performance is fantastic. The rockered tips keep me smiling in funky snow, they turn on demand, and they hold an edge better than an OCD gardener. I've skied everything from bullet proof to firm to corn to wind-affected to creamy wind buff and they've handled it all with gusto.

All the light, all the right, all the fun, and made in the USA!
Comment on this review:

Trace Leches (used product regularly)
The Objective's easy skiing and contradicting performance redefined what I previously considered a lightweight mountaineering ski to be capable of. If you are looking to get into the world of Skimo and have no idea where to start, all factors point to this. Whether you are a veteran skier looking to expand your horizons or a beginner looking to go explore, this is an excellent place to start.

The Objective carries the easy skiing, bulldozing, performance enhancing shape that "New-School" fat skis (AKA, everything from Voile and DPS) are known for, except in a lightweight package capable of cruising past your buddies on their fat skis. Tip rocker is plentiful, which helps in variable conditions that we encounter literally everywhere in the backcountry. The tail does turn up a fair amount which helps it release from turns quicker and makes challenging conditions less challenging.

Underfoot support is where the "contradicting performance" aspect of my review comes in to play. The tip and tail are soft, which helps it float, but underfoot it seems to be the perfect stiffness that other 80mm waisted skis are known for. Carving turns on hard snow is a breeze, holding a solid edge on steep ice is confidence inspiring, yet excessive flotation in soft snow or variable snow is where most 80mm mountaineering skis fall short. The Objective seems to be capable of it all, surprisingly. Voile hit the nail on the head with this one.

Bottom Line:
Tip notches, tip rocker, easy going price tag, durable top sheet, sturdy construction, and a very competitive weight place the Objective squarely at the top of the list for my favorite ski yet.
Comment on this review:

Question from anthony
for easy skiing in the a wide variety of conditions except deep powder would you go with this, BD helio 88 or DPS Cassiar 87? If you had to pick one between the 3 what would it be?
Answer from Nate
Hi Anthony,

Great question. The answer is actually all of them. It's going to be more a question of your preferred skiing style and features that you value the most.

For example, the Objective is the lightest of the three and the only one featuring a tip notch for skins. The Helio 88 is the only one with a sidewall construction. The DPS is, well, a DPS and everything that entails (easy skiing in most any condititon, profiled to excel in mixed snow conditions, etc).

I would make base my choice of the three on the characteristics and features that I preferred the most. You really can't go wrong, all three are awesome skis.

Answer this question:

Question from Dan
With a heavy pack, would you mount these a bit forward? Or just try to compensate with my stance? With my current pair of lightweight skis (Karhu Guide) I feel like I'm always back on the tails when the expedition sized pack goes on.
Answer from Trace Leches
Hey Dan, you can pretty much mount at boot center for any ski that has a stiffer and more supportive tail if you're carrying a large pack. The tail on that Karhu isn't particularly supportive or stiff, but this Objective isn't wildly stiff either. You could probably use a forward mounting position as a band-aid for a soft tail, but a ski like the Blizzard Zero G 85 and the Dynafit Carbonio 88 is stiffer and would likely handle the extra weight of a large pack better.
Answer this question:

Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.

Model: Objective

Follow us on social media

View full screen version