Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

Can anyone explain the basic differences between these two skis for me? Debating between them as a noob. Is the fischer skin system much easier than putting a skin on an Alpina? Which would be easier to learn on? Thanks

Hello
There are only three companies I know of that have integrated kicker skin with front attachment points

Åsnes X-Skin Fischer Easy Skin Madshus Transition Skin So this feature is not available on the Alpina ski. Black Diamond used to make a kicker skin, but I'm not sure if they do anymore. That metal attachment plate on the BD skin dragged much more than these excellent systems mentioned above.

@wabene

Thank you! So it is a pretty good feature ey?

Do you happen to know any of the other differences between these skis aside from the skin feature?

staralfur wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:18 pm

@wabene

Thank you! So it is a pretty good feature ey?

Do you happen to know any of the other differences between these skis aside from the skin feature?

Yes I do think it's a great feature. On a wax ski no matter the conditions you always have that ace in the hole and can slap the skin on if necessary. Gotta pull a toboggan? Slap a skin on it.
Just looking at the different mounting systems between the brands the Åsnes looks the most clunky with the plastic plate. Åsnes however seems to have best skin selection and Madshus the worst.

I have never skied those particular skis, can't help you there.

The 68 number is the tip width for Fischer and Alpina, whereas it is the width underfoot for the Madshus. The Panorama 68 is a much wider ski overall with much more sidecut.

The specifications for the Alpina and the Fischer seem similar otherwise, except the already mentioned short skin Feature.

@wabene cool thank you. Both of those are waxless skis anyhow.

@Roelant I had just figured it out so I took it out of the running lol bc I want it to be able to fit in semi groomed tracks. The recommended width by the ski guides in Yellowstone is 68 like the Fischer Crown

I'm not sure why, but the Fisher Transnordic 66 seems to have a better reputation than the Outback 68. Probably worth digging through earlier comments in this forum.
I'm sure all these skis are fine though. Short skins are very handy especially for waxable skis, but when touring steep terrain a full length skin is still sometimes a must have in my opinion. I guess it depends what your tours look like.
For fully groomed xc tracks these bc skis will have a lot more friction than classic xc skis. Just saying.

Roelant wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 06, 2023 10:04 pm

I'm not sure why, but the Fisher Transnordic 66 seems to have a better reputation than the Outback 68. Probably worth digging through earlier comments in this forum.

That is because the TransNordic 66 is stiff underfoot, which means the ski will actually lift the fishscales off the snow when you are gliding on both feet.

By contrast, the Outback 68 is very soft, which means the fishscales will always be dragging on the snow, whether you want them to or not. This is easier for beginners, who won't lose grip as easily, but they will always be horrendously inefficient.

The fact that the Fisher 68 and Discovery 68 are slower is true. However the guys at Whitegrass like them and they are definitely not amateurs.
I have heard good things about the newer Panorama 62. However if I could get something cheaper to start out on, that would be best. In another year or so I would recommend a waxable ski. Wax is so much more fun on cold snow. Waxing is only difficult if you haven’t done it before. I started waxing and got rid of my waxless skis. I will admit it can be handy to have a wax ski from time to time