Ski Review: 2018-2019 Fischer Traverse 78

[lilcliffy]

@rosskiAlba
Hello and Welcome!!

I don't have much to add to Woods' responses.
I too am thinking that the "186cm" T78 will be great- as a XC-focused ski for the backcountry.
(If you are looking for a downhill-focused ski- then, yes- shorter would be better- but, you should also be considering different skis)

The Traverse 78 has a a camber and flex that is tuned towards XC skiing- but it does not have the very stiff resistance underfoot of skis like the Fischer E99. (Even my E109 is stiffer underfoot than my T78).

Please keep in touch and let us know how you make out with these skis.

Thank you for the information on the "length" of the current T78-

@EVERYONE- doesn't this confirm that the actual length of the T78 is the same as 2020-2021 despite the change in name?

- is a "189cm", 2020-2021 T78 = "186cm", 2021-2022 T78?

[Franz]

I picked up a pair of 2021/2022 Traverse 78 in 196 cm size. I am retiring a 13 year old pair of Sbound Snowbound Crown 78s in 199 cm size. The old skis are 3 cm longer than the new 196 cm skis. The new skis have way more camber than the old single (alpine) camber. More than my 205 cm Asnes Nansen's too. No snow yet to test them out.

[lilcliffy]

@Franz
Very Interesting! Thank you!
So they are shorter!

My 199cm Traverse 78 has a lot of camber as well- would be interesting to see how the camber ompares to the new shorter 196cm model.

[CoreyLayton]

I’m measuring just shy of 3cm (max) camber on the 2021-2022 TR78 (196cm)

[rosskiAlba]

Thanks again for your thoughts; hopefully get some snow next month for try out - Easy skins will be in the pack. Pair of (waxing) E109 xtrlite (18/19)170cm have also arrived so will be interesting to compare and see if there's a choice to be made or both are keepers..... Really useful and helpful input about both skis, and others on this forum, - thanks again for your help/advice - much appreciated!

[lilcliffy]

Oooh- yes! Comparison review between the E109 vs T78 please!
Gareth

[Franz]

The relaxed base to base camber measures 6 cm on the new T78 vs 5 cm on the Snowbound Crown 78. Compressing the bases together I get a flat camber on the old 78s. The new pair have a distinct secondary "wax" pocket that I cannot compress with one hand. Another note: The Nordic rise on the new T78 measures about 4 cm back from the base contact point compared to roughly 10 to 12 cm back on a pair of 189 cm 2 year old excursion 88s I own.

[Krakus]

I too am thinking that the "186cm" T78 will be great- as a XC-focused ski for the backcountry.
(If you are looking for a downhill-focused ski- then, yes- shorter would be better- but, you should also be considering different skis)

Then, what ski would you recommend as more turnable, in similar shape (width) and scale-based? Madshus Eon, now Panorama M62?

[Woodserson]

I too am thinking that the "186cm" T78 will be great- as a XC-focused ski for the backcountry.
(If you are looking for a downhill-focused ski- then, yes- shorter would be better- but, you should also be considering different skis)

Then, what ski would you recommend as more turnable, in similar shape (width) and scale-based? Madshus Eon, now Panorama M62?

Eon/Panorama
T78
E109/TN82
Ingstad

Are all comparable skis dimensionally. But I think lilcliffy means completely out of this class when it comes to turning.

[lilcliffy]

I too am thinking that the "186cm" T78 will be great- as a XC-focused ski for the backcountry.
(If you are looking for a downhill-focused ski- then, yes- shorter would be better- but, you should also be considering different skis)

Then, what ski would you recommend as more turnable, in similar shape (width) and scale-based? Madshus Eon, now Panorama M62?

Eon/Panorama
T78
E109/TN82
Ingstad

Are all comparable skis dimensionally. But I think lilcliffy means completely out of this class when it comes to turning.

So- the thing is I don't get or buy in to the idea of a "short" XC ski for "downhill" skiing".
What I am speaking to here is that skis that are tuned for distance and XC kick and glide should be sized with that in mind.

There are- certainly are- XC skis that are tweaked to climb- tweaked to plane- tweaked to be turned- but that doesn't make them downhill skis.

I cannot speak to the current Fischer 78- I haven't even seen one- and it is starting to sound like it is tweaked again towards XC performance (i.e more camber and stiffness underfoot).

The Eon/XCDGT is "easier" to turn- for some- than my T78, because it softer underfoot than the my T78. I don't find our T78 harder to turn than our Eons- but I am 180+ lbs and a bit of an assertive skier. My wife does not find our T78 hard to turn, but she is an expert downhill skier and agressively weights her downhill/leading ski.

My point- some people will find the Eon easier to turn than the T78- some will not.
Regardless- I bet everyone/anyone would find the 78 to be a more efficient XC ski.

On the subject of "go short for hills"-
If one is going ot go "short for the hills" then why not consider a ski that is more downhill focused than either of these skis?

If you go short enough on a 78 to make it "manageable" in steep terrain, then it is going to be dead on the flats- so why not reach for a ski that is actually going to be fun downhill?