2015 Fischer E-109 Tour Easy-Skin

[lilcliffy]

These skis make beautiful LONG-radius carves turns, and the sidecut definitely contributes to that. But, when I say LONG-radius- I mean it. Nothing feels better than riding skis on edge- not forcing them- as long as you got the room to do so!

The other thing about the telemark- that isn't spoken about much these days- is the physics of the two offset skis producing the effect of one long ski with deep sidecut. I find the physics of this MUCH more effective on deep, soft snow. On a dense base- I find that the two skis behave like two separate skis- telemark or not.

[MikeK]

Yeah - it's probably like a 50M radius ski. They'll carve shorter than that if they can flex well, but a shorter radius ski will do it much better.

On say a small dh run where I can squeak out 4 or 5 tight turns on my S 98s, I can only do maybe two on my S78s. It's about what you would expect comparing their radius and flex.

[lilcliffy]

Some more observations on this ski:

1) The low profile tip on this ski is very poor. The Nordic rocker opens up beautifully- but, it only does so much when breaking trail through deep, fresh snow. I don't even need to try the Ingstad/Combat Nato to know that it is going to be better at breaking trail.

2) The flex pattern of this ski is what makes it a better XCD ski than a stiffer and more cambered ski like the E-99. The camber is lower and softer on the E-109. The E-109 climbs better, and it is easier to turn- the camber is easier to control. I would still describe the E-109 as a double-cambered xcountry ski though. The E-109 is a BC-XC ski for hilly terrain. The E-99 is more finely tuned for the gentle to rolling terrain.

3) The integrated Easy-Skin is well designed, seamless and performs very well. You need the full 50mm for difficult icy, refrozen snow. The 35mm might be enough for warm, wet snow- not sure if it is better than the scaled-base E-109 Crown- but it might eliminate the need for owning a waxless-scaled ski.

[lilcliffy]

I must say that I love this ski.

When the conditions are ideal for the flex pattern of this ski- with that soft open tip- this ski is an absolute high-performance XCD dream!

Then there are all the conditions that are not ideal: very deep snow; breakable crust.

This ski is the result of the evolution of trying to make a ski good at everything. It feels like each component of this ski has been designed in isolation. But a skis' performance is a complex result of all of its characteristics.

And when the conditions are ideal, this ski is, in fact, good at everything.

But- as we all know- in the backcountry the conditions are not always ideal.

Here are the two fundamental problems with this ski:
1) It has so much sidecut that its potential flotation is lost- it offer no more effective float than its narrower brother the E-99.

2) The tip is almost ridiculously soft compared to the rest of the ski. Combined with the Nordic-rockered tip- when the conditions are less than ideal, that tip rises up and flips and flaps around leaving the rest of the ski behind and below.

The camber and flex pattern of this ski are perfectly designed for distance-oriented BC-XD touring in hilly terrain. It offers true kick and glide snap plus a flex that is easy to control when climbing and turning.

The complex of the very soft rockered tip and very narrow waist is what causes this ski to fail. This not a "D" problem- it is a "XC" problem.

My problem is that this ski masquerades as a deep, soft snow BC-XC ski- and this is precisely where it fails.

I must say that the E-99 Tour Easy-Skin is better than this ski.

And this ski certainly falls way behind the Asnes Combat Nato when I consider overall performance.

[Cannatonic]

The length of these skis affects how they work too - if you want an E99 that climbs well, the 205cm would do better than 210, and the 200cm even better.

I know because a few years ago I bought a lot of 2010ish E99's through ebay in 200, 205, and 210 and skied them all! My weight crushed the camber flat after a couple dozen trips on the 200's, they climbed extremely well and turned easily. The 210 excel at flotation and glide, the 205 glide a little slower but act more tele-like.

agree on the utility of integrated kicker skins, I'm so impressed by the Asnes system I may have bought my last pair of fishscale skis. The Asnes skins are disposable, with the clips you can replace or remake the skin anytime you want.

[lilcliffy]

This ski is remarkably turny for a XC ski- with significant camber and stiffness underfoot- to the point that it makes them a bit squirrelly when XC skiing on dense/hardpack snow- they are fine on a broken out track, but the rockered tips make them feel short and squirrelly when XC skiing on compacted/groomed, and/or dense and hard windswept snow. (e.g. If you ever end up on a snowmobile track with this ski- they feel all over the place.)

They perform best on relatively shallow soft snow over a dense, stable base- in these conditions the E109 is a fabulous XC ski for hilly/mountainous terrain- offering excellent XC performance, and frankly quite amazing downhill performance, with those rockered tips.

It is so unstable in truly deep, soft snow to be almost useless- hard to believe, but the narrower E99 is actually better in deep soft snow!

The quality, finish and wax retention of the waxable bases are a work of excellence. The addition of the Easy-Skin attachment takes traction even further than the magic of grip wax!

This a high-performance BC-XCD ski when the conditions are ideal- when they are, I have never tested its equal.

But- those are pretty narrow ideal conditions IMO.

[oldschool]

So I spent some time demo skiing the E109s to see what they felt like. I did not try out the kicker skins. I actually liked them quite a bit. They skied well in set tracks and when taken briefly off into two foot deep powder, they floated well. I can tele on them a little, it will never be be like my resort skis but that's not what I'm looking for - they are nice in their turny quality and better than E99s that way for reasons often discussed here.

I'm seriously looking at picking up a pair for deeper snow situations and also for a simple set up for skinning up at a downhill place just to ski down - late season or whatever. Ability to bag a lap or two that way, whether at a resort or another place. Because of this I'm wondering how efficient they can be relative to a full skin on the uphill if it is dedicated skinning for an extended period of time. The other application for me would be hitting up steeper hiking trails in the ADKs that lack switchbacks - in a fantasy world these would lead to a nice slide area so not a bomb back down.

At any rate, I was pleased with how they skied when set up with the correct kick wax.

[lilcliffy]

Hey oldschool-

Although this ski could do with a much more stable flex- I do love this ski when the conditions are just right.
I have both the 35mm and the 50mm Easy-Skin for this ski. Although I thought I would use the 35mm the most- I am finding that I use the 50mm the most- both for kick and glide as well as moderate climbing. The 50mm Easy-Skin DEFINITELY offers more climbing traction than waxless scales and when the snow is wet or icy the 50mm glides every bit as good as scales. (On cold soft snow the 50mm is too much friction for K&G, but this is the domain for grip wax anyway!)

[lilcliffy]

I can certainly climb a 15-20% slope with the 50mm Easy-Skin on this ski. The softer flex and lower camber also help the climbing traction, compared to a stiffer more cambered ski like the E99.