Squash a little camber out of S-Bound 125?

[rongon]

Wow - that's entirely different than mine (or the others).

I'd guess BOF at CRS would be an ideal point.

A lot of my other traditional skis are just like this too - balance is aft of chord, but my 3 pairs (I have two S78s and one S98) of S bounds were all like I described above. Others here have given me the same info regarding them.

I saw that I goofed up the wording of my previous post. I fixed it. The CC is about 1cm forward of the BP, BoF/CRS is about 2.5cm forward of the BP.
--

[rongon]

I think I'm going to drill some holes tonight. I have a pair of SB X2's waiting in the wings.

I have a pair of B&D Shift Plates to throw at this project, so that after I mount the bindings I can continue to agonize over alternate mounting positions in +/-1cm increments.

Today's agonizing tells me that a position of BoF/CRS 'looks about right.' So that's what I'm going with for my first try. Wish me luck.
--

[MikeK]

Sounds right. +1.5cm from CC, no? Seems like the ballpark to me - I'd just guess based on my others between +1 and +2 from CC.

[rongon]

Sounds right. +1.5cm from CC, no? Seems like the ballpark to me - I'd just guess based on my others between +1 and +2 from CC.

Calculating BoF/CRS is a bit inexact, but on the SB 125's it looks like that point is +2cm from CC.

[Woodserson]

Did you get the 185?

A little forward will help you turn them down the slides anyway, may pay off to be slightly forward, and when it's really deep just take the Vectors...

[rongon]

Did you get the 185?

A little forward will help you turn them down the slides anyway, may pay off to be slightly forward, and when it's really deep just take the Vectors...

Thanks for the reply.

I got the S-Bound 125s in 175 cm length, which is about the same in length as I am in height. I figured that's about right.

It's funny you should mention the Vectors for when it gets deep. As I've posted elsewhere, I had a weird experience last spring, skiing in about 2 feet of fresh, wet 'n heavy pow. On the long runout from my day's skiing, I noticed that I had to lean way far back on the Vectors to keep their tips from diving. I was riding the tails in a very unsubtle way, and I did not like that at all. I bought a pair of Shift Plates and installed them, re-mounted the bindings (SB X2's) back about -2 cm. I haven't tried them out that way yet, but I'm looking forward to getting them on snow this coming Turkey Weekend. I don't think early season snow is going to tell me much about tip-dive, but it should tell me if they feel OK on hardpack/groomed. I figure if they're mounted too far back, I'll feel it on the groomed as chattery/wandering back ski when I do a tele.

--

[rongon]

Latest installment...

A couple of weekends ago, I took the S-Bound 125's out for their first time on (mostly man-made) snow, at good ol' Belleayre.

I started out the day on my Vector BC's, to get a feeling for what things were like. All was good. I even remembered how to ski. After a few runs, I switched to the newly mounted S-Bound 125's. I expected them to ski at least somewhere in the ballpark/similar to the Vector BC's. All I can say is that the S-Bound 125's didn't have any edge hold on the groomed hardpack, none at all. I was confident they'd handle the steep top part of the one trail that was open. It was a disaster. I struggled to make a couple of turns and then lost it. Hard. Embarrassing.

Now to be fair, I may have tightened up the binding mounting screws a little too much, causing the skis to be base-high (pushing the base out beyond the ski edges by an infinitesimal amount can destroy the edge hold of the ski). I also think I mounted the bindings a little too far back (I mounted them pins-on-chord-center). The combination of those two problems could have resulted in destruction of the SB128's turning performance. I also think the 175 length may be too long for me. They're pretty stiff, and I did not notice any rocker. They ski 'long' on hardpack.

I switched to my trusty old Dynastar Legend 3800's (75mm waist, 172 length) and all was fun again.

I'm not sure I want to give these skis another chance. It was that bad. I'm sure they'd be fine XC skis, but I already have my Annum and Rebound skis, and what good is an XC ski with a 95mm waist anyway? Maybe these skis are just not meant for any kind of hardpack. But as an eastern skier, I need at least decent hardpack performance.

To give these skis a second chance, I'd have to move the bindings up +2cm (to pins on the approximate BoF/CRS point) and plug the old holes. Or I could just unload them, fast.

--

[MikeK]

Sorry to hear you didn't like them... again, I'm not sure making a super-fat version of an already good ski to keep up with trends was Fischer's best move...

I've never skied vectors, but I wouldn't expect them to be anything like those guys. Nordic camber/rocker is not rocker. Theses skis are not very damped. I've never like the way these skis feel on hardpack. My 98s are way narrower but the same shape.

As far as the mounting point... no idea how sensitive these might be to that, but the ones with marks... no way are they at chord center. Farther forward.

I have a hard time believing that will make the ski really perform awesome on hard snow.

I've said it before on here but mine absolutely transform when they are on snow that allows them to work. I tried them one day a small ski hill and skied a few runs the iciest groomer I've ever been on. I was chattering along and could barely scratch out a decent P turn. I literally skied off 30 yards to the side of the trail where the groomer had not been, and instantly I was able to make nice, smooth, round turns. The base was still hard, but it was soft enough to allow the ski to flex and work, and perhaps cause the rocker camber to come "alive".

It's always been my feeling that the S Bounds feel grabby, chattery, bouncy, sketchy, squirrely... you name it, on hardpack. In a little bit of fresh they've always felt like the best ski I've owned... I shit you not.

Other people have said the opposite, but I just don't feel it. Maybe their idea of hard snow is different than mine?

I'd really give them a fair shake against your Annums (which I can't imagine hold any kind of edge on hardpack, those things are so noodly) and test them as a BC XCD ski. At that point, if you say the Annum is better, I believe you, because it's such a different ski I could see how some might favor it over a S Bound. Or you may decide it climbs, glides, and turns better than the Annum in real off-piste conditions. I decided that myself - I just like the S Bounds better than Karhu/Madshus counterparts... to me they feel sluggish in both glide and turn in, and they don't climb nearly as well in cold snow.

[lilcliffy]

Thanks for the update Rongon.

Hmmm...lots one could say or speculate about...

I have tried the Vector a number of times- to me it is an ultimate example of current Alpine versatility: open rockered tip; smooth, round enough flex to perform in powder; wide enough for powder; but torsionally stiff enough to powerfully hold an edge on a dense base. What can I say- those folks at Voile sure know what they are doing! I don't own the Vector because I just don't feel that I have enough vertical in my backyard to justify them- and I don't get out much at this point in my life! If I had a mountain in my backyard- I would already own the Vector.

Don't know anything about the S-125- haven't even had a chance to flex em yet- though I almost bought a pair on clearance...

Fischer is a smart company as well...and the S-125 is not marketed or intended to be an alpine ski- unlike the Vector.

Although to assume makes an ass out of u and me- I am assuming that the S-125 is meant to be a backcountry Nordic touring ski for VERY deep snow. I have to say that I doubt very much that it was intended to carve.

Regardless- I would expect that you are correct about a more forward mounting position- would put more pressure on your tips.

The flex pattern of the S-125 seems weird to me though- why would they be so stiff if they are intended for deep powder snow? Strange.

The 98 and 112 are stiff enough that some have even suggested that they are "double-cambered"- which they ain't- I actually prefer the extra stiffness of the S-98 over its much softer competitor the Epoch. BUT- this is primarily because i find the Epoch too soft to perform as a xcountry ski. The 98 is stiff enough that it still offers some good ole Nordic kick- but its single camber is still reasonably easy to control.

I can only assume that the stiff flex of the 112 and 125 are intended to offer the same- some Nordic kick with a down-hill single camber- with extra width for flotation.

The thing is- as the snow gets truly deep and soft- the ski flex needs to get softer as well. I find I prefer the flex of the Annum over the S-112- when it comes to skiing in deep, soft fluff.

Perhaps the mistake is that the S-98, S-112, and S-125 don't get progressively softer? The Eon, Epoch and Annum sure do- I just wish the Epoch and Eon were a bit stiffer.

Probably not helping you here at all- forgive me!

I am with Mike- try the S-125 on a XCD tour in some deep fluff!

[MikeK]

While we are making assumptions, speculations and virtual skiing skis we never have ...

I'd like to say I totally agree about Fischer making the S Bounds progressively softer with width, but I also think they should change the camber height, rocker and shape.

Perhaps, in my mind, it would have made sense to make the 125 an Alpine cambered, noodle like the Annum but also taken some sidecut out of it and added a little rocker, not just Nordic rocker. This perhaps would push it into KOM territory in terms of design, and would make a hell of a lot more sense to me.

Again, I feel they just stretched their current line in hopes of catching some fat ski chasers.

I've read a few reports of people not liking the 112 because of it's stiffness, but according to Fischer it does have more rocker when compressed (a step in the right direction).

I find the 98 to be a great EC backyard and BC play ski. It's stiff enough to tour well. It's got the right flex and camber to turn well. It floats well enough in most snows we have. It's lighter and easier to control than the wider skis.

If I invest in a wider, "powder" ski, I want it to have 3 main things: width underfoot, a soft flex with low camber height, and tip rocker. I know based on the limitations of using the Annum and the S98 that, that is where those two skis are lacking. The 125 only adds one of those requirements.