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 an updated topsheet for the season 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 different coat of paint, this ski remained the same as in previous years.
|Lengths (cm)||164, 171, 178|
|Weight (pair)||2040g 
||Race tip notch, flat tails|
||Light tip and tail rocker, camber underneath|
||Smooth medium radius, rounded tip & tail|
||Double carbon cap|
|Skimo Co Says|
|Usage||Long distance mountaineering|
|Notes||Easy to ski, confidence inspiring|
|Bottom Line||Versatile mountaineering ski|
|Compare to other Low-fat Skis|
Questions & Reviews
Allow me to quote Jake D's review below: "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 agree with all of this. I weigh 145lbs and 6'1" 171 feels like a perfect length. The flex profile and construction of the Objectives makes them more forgiving than most other mountaineering-class skis.
The dramatic rocker/camber profile is somewhat unique in a ski this narrow. There is a lot of tip rocker combined with a lot of camber. The Objectives are a ton of fun in any kind of good snow, and float astonishingly well in deep powder. The skis love to bounce in and out of turns even in very deep snow. They are skinny so you will sink, but somehow these skis easily spring back to the surface whenever you want them to. Even though I have wider skis I brought the Objectives on some of the deepest days this season and never regretted it.
I have brought the Objectives on many days of bad skiing as well, and they do meet my expectations of a ski that is very easy to control in technical terrain. One thing they are not good at though, is skiing bad snow with any kind of speed. I knew initially this wouldn't be their strong suit so I'm not disappointed but just wanted to share. I find that the wide tips, which probably greatly contribute to their fantastic float in deep snow, can be a liability in bad snow. I have noticed that the tips get hung up on crusts and wet snow. This is manageable at low speeds, but the skis have a clear speed limit when the snow isn't good. Most other skis in this category have the same problem. I generally have a preference for straighter, longer radius skis that I think are more predictable in bad snow, but the only lightweight skis that are notably straighter are the Aski Verglas and Blizzard Zero G 85, both of which are probably more demanding (I haven't tried them yet). I have tried the Trab Magico.2 which is another straighter ski but I found that the tails on that ski were difficult to release. While it is a more predictable ski it is also much more demanding overall. There are always tradeoffs in this category and I think the Objective is a great compromise. If you want to ski fast in bad snow, these are not the skis, and I have other skis for that. For having fun in good snow and skiing at lower speeds when the snow isn't as good, these are great.
The Voile Objective is a great ski! However, it will not be as good on steep and icy slopes, as it has some rocker in the tip and tail, as well as a softer construction. If you would like a ski that is better in steeper and icier terrain, less rocker (more effective edge), and a longer radius (less side cut means more edge in contact with the snow) would be the way to go. Therefore, if you want an all around ski, you may way to split the difference between the Objective and a stiff ski with a long turn radius.
Take a look at something like the Atomic Backland UL 78, or the Dynafit Blacklight Pro. If you would like to chat skis in more detail, reach out to us at email@example.com!
I'm looking at the Voile Objective skis, 164 - 2018/19.
Do these have scales on the base? My primary use will be for gently rolling, ungroomed woods terrain, so I'm interested in something that will allow climbing without having to use skins. (But still have the option to use skins if needed)
Are they wax or waxless base?
Will they work with any type of alpine touring bindings?
Regarding size, I'm new to touring/backcountry but am an expert alpine skier. I'm 5'7", 135lbs without gear. Is 164 the correct size?
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.