Voile Objective Ski

I bought the Objectives after enjoying the similarly shaped but wider and heavier Ultravectors. I picked up the Objectives for resort uphilling , spring skiing, and traverses, but I'm impressed at how they feel in Eastern Sierra winter conditions, too, especially in between storm cycles. They make the resort ski down fun and less of a pure fitness quest.

Given the rocker on and a little flex from both ends, I would be hesitant to get into some truly steep terrain, but I don't ski anything beyond the ~40 degree mark, and these will get it done given my timid style. Like any light-ish weight ski, it's going to get pushed around if you don't stay over it, but the Objective is a pretty easy ski to handle so far in my experience compared to something like a Zero G 85 or similar ski with a longer radius and lots of carbon.

I still ski the Ultravectors when deeper powder, breakable crust, or general survival skiing is likely (more than I like in the windy Sierra), but I'm reaching for the Objectives more and more.

I've been looking for a spring mountaineering ski and this ski has certainly caught my eye. As usual, got a few questions about length. I'm 6'2", 165-170 pounds, intermediate skier not looking to ski crazy hard, interested in long PNW spring days and volcanoes. Which length would be good for me? I'm on a 181 backcountry setup right now.

As for boot and binding pairing, I have the Scarpa F1 LT and Marker Alpinist 12 bindings. What do you think of these boots and bindings on these skis? Thank you!

I really dislike all the marketing brands do. Every review is "this revolutionary 3 layer 3D Apex Tech ski rewards a forward stance blah blah blah". Most skis of a general weight and shape ski VERY similarly. I've learned this the hard way, as a guide and patroller going through a pair or two a year, always chasing the new "best" ski

I skied them for around 100 days in northern Utah and the volcanoes

But sometimes there IS a ski that is way better than others in its class. And this is one of them. Ditch the race skis, the 75mm skis, your ultralight 90mm skis... get some Objectives. The standard! It is easy to turn, super intuitive, and weirdly able to surf and bust for its size

I bought a pair of 171 Objectives last fall after a lot of deliberation. There will always be compromise in a ski this narrow and light, but my priority was to find a ski that is as easy to control as possible in technical terrain under 1100g. My intention was to use these skis to push my limits in terms of speed and terrain. In practice, these skis have taken a slightly different spot in my quiver but I still love them.

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.

Would 171cm be too small for me? I’m 6’3, 200lb, looking to try a “short” mountaineering ski. Most of my skis are in the 185ish range.

I've been using these skis for spring skiing in everything from ankle deep powder to ice, corn and mush. I recently took them on a 10 day rugged traverse and they are fantastic. Bomber edge hold, light, still fun in soft snow. They are one of the only skis in this class that have a modern shape with a decent rocker and curved tail. And yes the light weight is fantastic. The narrow width also makes edging with ski crampons much easier on the ankles.

They're a great ski. I find that they carve great on windbuff and corn. They're light and responsive and hold an edge well. Unfortunately for me and other smaller skiers, Voile doesn't make them in short lengths like they do with Women's HyperVectors, etc. I've spent 2 springs on the 164cm Objectives before I realized they are just too long for me (on steeps) with their flat tails. Of course, this is user error as I didn't size down enough for a mountaineering ski. Looking forward to the day when Voile makes these in a 156 and maybe even a 149 for the smaller skiers who like to do long, rad spring adventures!

Does the wax version a similar camber to the no wax scaled base? If it does has anyone waxed it with the Nordic grip waxes in the kick zone?

I'm eyeing the objectives for multi-day PNW spring tours. Nothing too aggressive. I'm 5'11 225#s plus a pack. Is the 178 my best bet?

Seriously interested in this ski, however, I'm reading that it's not the best ski for steep and steep ice. Could you explain why this is? Mixed bag of conditions and routes here in Colorado, but I need a ski that's not going to toss me when I get into those steep chutes (even though that's not the typical mission intent). I suppose what I'm looking for is a ski just like this, but with a touch better steep skiing characteristics. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on a slightly better steep ski that has similar characteristics as the Objective (the most important to me are: 1. not too soft with enough stiffness, 2. shorter side of turn radius, 3. early rise tip and camber, 4. weight around the 1100 gram mark). I am 5'10'', 170 lbs birthday suit. Thanks much!

Hi,

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?

Thanks!

Hello,
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.

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!

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!