So far so good !! Had them out several times on modest terrain with and without prior tracks. They performed fine. Glad I went with them.

I should also add, that the folks at backcountry.com were great - a real pleasure to work with. Given their service and equipment assurance policies, it's tough to see how you can go wrong them. I have no financial interest in the company and think that when outfits do the right thing, they - and others - should be told !!

Have never had a waxless that lived up to my expectations until I tried the Cross Terrain. I matched them with Voile Switchbacks and Scarpa T3 and very pleased with the whole setup, I still carry skins for the steeps but have yet to use them. This Light Tele, Heavy Touring rig is quite versatile for moderate terrain.

I bought these for my wife last year after she tried regular x-country skis for several years. The skis are wide enough to float over Michigan powder, are curved and have metal edges to aid in turning, and (with the magnum binding and BC 1550 boot) provide great stability and support. She didn't like x-country skiing in the past, but now she loves it. What else can I say?

I've been bc skiing for about 10 years, mostly in the Selkirk Mts of southeastern BC. Started with Karhu Catamounts (since renamed Orions) - a great cruising ski to learn on, and better on the flats than the X-Terrain. Was given a pair of Salomon X-Adventure which only came in 148cm. They have a similar profile to the X-Terrain, but they're too short for me (6'2", ~190lbs). Fun, but grabby in certain conditions; terrible glide as due to their short length, half the bottom is fishscales.

I then found the Alpina and got a pair of the 170s. My wife got the 160s. They climb almost anything we've tried and are lots of fun coming back down, especially in the trees. We take them to the local family ski hill sometimes (5 runs, a single 1000' T-bar) to practice our turns. The skis are a little too lightweight for corduroy, but great in the powder. We both use SNS bindings with Salomon boots. I prefer the BC boot (a very comfy boot similar to a hiking boot), my wife likes the X-Adventure type. Don't be fooled into thinking you need longer skis - I've used my wife's 160s a few times - they don't glide as well for me as my 170s, but are even easier to turn with in the trees. If they offered them, I would consider 165s. Once you get a pair of these skis, it will make absolutely no sense to go snowshoeing again - why walk down if you can have 10x more fun skiing down? Definitely worth the money, in my opinion. But if you can, rent first to make sure they're right for you.

I have now been out on these skis a half dozen times, having switched from 210 cm traditional width, waxed skis that I've been using for 30 years.

On the PLUS side:

- The Alpinas are plenty stiff making them very stable in chopped conditions (mashed potatoes) and I think they would serve well on packed snow.

- They have lots of sidecut making them want to turn, turn, turn.

- The climbing ability is wonderful. I haven't had to skin 'em yet. I really don't miss waxing.

- The shorter length makes turning in tight places so easy - a boon for tree bashing

On the MINUS side:

- They are heavy, even heavier than my 210 cm Tuas.

- They are slow gliders. Even after hot waxing the tips and tails, they are notably slower than my previous skis and slower than my wife's narrower Alpinas.

OVERALL:

It is taking me a while to get used to them because of the dramatic change in ski style but I like them a lot and recommend them. If I can figure out a way to make them faster they will be perfect!

I live in Jackson, WY and have taken these skis out twice now. I am not obligated to anyone. I just wanted to write a review because I really like these sticks.
A well constructed capped ski. The full length edges seem solid. The skis feel like a mid stiff board, with a healthy dose of single camber. I am 5’10 160lbs and was worried with the manufactures recommended length of only 170cm. It seemed too short for me. But after climbing and skiing with them, I agree with their recommendation on length. I was very happy with the way they climbed on low to moderate hills. Another fun fact was the amount of glide I got out of them, something I’d never experienced with skins. The aggressive side cut and shovel width (110/66/96cm), make for fun turning. I could hear a hum from the scales when I was skiing on the hard pack, but I noticed nothing while gliding thru the powder I have yet to ski them in-bounds on groomers, but have no doubt they would do fine, short of the scales causing some drag.
I mounted 75mm 3- pin bindings, with no cables and use a heavy leather boot….The package is really light, and the simplicity of it all (no skins, or heavy knee high plastic tele boots) makes me laugh. Just a nice sense of unencumbered freedom of movement. These skis are a great blend for exploring the BC.

I love these skis. I live in NH. I have used the skis twice. They are great at turning and climbing. I bought 170 cm and mounted a voile three pin hardwire binding and use a Scarpa T2 boot. I am an intermediate telemark skiier who turns frequently and goes slow. My weight is 180 lbs. They turn great and my teles are sharp. They also glide well downhill and climb up an intermediate groomed ski slope very well. Most waxless skis cannot do this.
I first was introduced to the Cross Terain skis by a fellow telemark skiier who uses them for ski patrol at a downhill area and for Intermediate to Advanced tele downhill ski tours. He uses an older model with plastic T2 type boots and tele bindings It enabled him to be flexible on the mountain helping injured people.
This new model has a larger shovel. I plan to use them for intermediate tele ski tours off piste and on piste along with just climbing up local hills to practice my teles. I can climb easilly with the hardwire heel unclamped and just using the three pin
The positive waxless base and One and half camber is far superior to the fisher negative base skis for climbing here in the east probably due to there is much more granular snow than powder.