Fischer S Bound 98 and Madshus Epoch
Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:31 am
Before I purchased these skis I did some research to try to find a comparison between the two. Not much existed.
I'd opted for the Epochs initially because I liked Madshus and a lot of people really liked the 10th Mountains, of which these are nominally the same ski. My curiosity was getting the better of me and I found a pair of S Bound 98s for a decent price over the summer. I just got the bindings mounted up and I'm looking forward to skiing them. First off, I wanted to compare them to the Madshus on the bench.
They are remarkably similar but there are some major differences.
First off are the profiles, similar but the Fischer is noticeably wider in the tail. The specified profiles are:
Epoch: 99/68/84 (27.7m @ 185cm [161cm eff])
98: 98/69/88 (29.9m @ 189cm [169cm eff])
My eye isn't so good at distinguishing a 1mm difference in width, but 4mm is noticeable. The shape itself is different. Not sure how much this will affect the performance but it may affect the straight line striding somewhat.
So yeah they are similar, but different. Next thing I compared is the camber.
I've heard that (and thought) the Fischer was a double camber. I don't really think it is. It measures the exact same as the Epoch. Both have a max gap of 46mm when skis are put base to base. FWIW the Epochs are 185cm and the Fischers are 189cm. So yeah, they are similar, but that really doesn't tell you all about the camber does it? It's how it reacts under load as well...
Well here you'll have to trust me because I didn't measure this scientifically. I could, but I don't have any weights around to do so. So I used my calibrated hands. Base to base, when the skis are squeezed together, the flex acts the same, and not like a double camber ski. A true double camber flexes pretty easily about 3/4 of the way and the last little gap takes a lot of force to close. Neither the Epoch or the 98 act that way. They both feel fairly linear... the Fischer feels maybe slightly stiffer (this is where a force/displacement test would be useful). So for all intensive purposes, they are similar.
Next thing I looked at was how the ski flexes when it placed on a flat surface and force is applied near mid ski. I was particularly interested in this thing Fischer claims to have: Nordic Rocker. They claim the tips move up and the contact point of the tip moves back when the ski is flexed. I didn't try to measure it, but yeah it does it. Guess what? Try it with the Epoch. It does it as well. To my eye it looks pretty close. I probably should have at least measured the tip rise but if they are a mm different what's that going to amount to in the real world?
OK, so right now we have really, really similar skis. Let's look for a point of difference...
Biggest one I could find visually: The waxless pattern. Now this gets a little tricky to compare exactly but it's obvious that the 98's pattern in pushed way forward on the ski. So far forward it looks wrong to me.
Granted these skis are a little different length, from the rear of the ski, the Epoch starts at 46cm, the 98 at 54cm. The length of the patterns is different as well, the Fischer being 10cm longer (Epoch 80cm, Fischer 90cm). So the pattern is obviously way farther forward on the ski.
The next difference is not so obvious. It's the relation of the balance point to the chord center and the suggested mounting position.
Fischer recommends mounting the skis on balance point just like a xc ski. There are marks on the ski and the center mark turns out to be just about at balance. The others are what I assume to be used for compensating for short or long boots. Seen as how I have an average boot size, I mounted right at the balance. I was curious where this point lined up with respect to the chord center: it's about +1cm. So Fischer has shifted the balance of the ski forward on these.
The Epoch has has marks on it for recommended mounting based on boot size. I was curious where these were with respect to chord, so I measured. The rear most mark is chord center. This is the mark for the smallest boot. The other two are 1cm from each other. So +1cm from chord is the recommended mounting point for my boot with these skis. Because my wife uses these and she's in the small boot range, I mounted these back at chord. So anyway, both skis were recommended to be +1cm from chord for my boot size.
The difference is the balance points. When I measured balance on the Epoch is was aft of chord, which I've noticed on most other skis. It was actually about -1cm from chord. So this means the balance point of the Fischer is about 2cm forward of the Epoch in relation to the chord center. Interesting I guess but I really don't know what it will mean in terms of how the skis will perform. May not amount to anything.
I didn't weigh the skis without bindings, but with a Voile HD mountianeer binding, the weight per skis was approximately:
1340g for the Fischer
1400g for the Madshus
A couple ounces per ski difference... Not much to write home about.
Once I actually get to ski them back to back in some deep, decent snow, I'll write something else.
It would be interesting to do a blind test, because I'm guessing most people wouldn't be able to tell a difference.
I'd opted for the Epochs initially because I liked Madshus and a lot of people really liked the 10th Mountains, of which these are nominally the same ski. My curiosity was getting the better of me and I found a pair of S Bound 98s for a decent price over the summer. I just got the bindings mounted up and I'm looking forward to skiing them. First off, I wanted to compare them to the Madshus on the bench.
They are remarkably similar but there are some major differences.
First off are the profiles, similar but the Fischer is noticeably wider in the tail. The specified profiles are:
Epoch: 99/68/84 (27.7m @ 185cm [161cm eff])
98: 98/69/88 (29.9m @ 189cm [169cm eff])
My eye isn't so good at distinguishing a 1mm difference in width, but 4mm is noticeable. The shape itself is different. Not sure how much this will affect the performance but it may affect the straight line striding somewhat.
So yeah they are similar, but different. Next thing I compared is the camber.
I've heard that (and thought) the Fischer was a double camber. I don't really think it is. It measures the exact same as the Epoch. Both have a max gap of 46mm when skis are put base to base. FWIW the Epochs are 185cm and the Fischers are 189cm. So yeah, they are similar, but that really doesn't tell you all about the camber does it? It's how it reacts under load as well...
Well here you'll have to trust me because I didn't measure this scientifically. I could, but I don't have any weights around to do so. So I used my calibrated hands. Base to base, when the skis are squeezed together, the flex acts the same, and not like a double camber ski. A true double camber flexes pretty easily about 3/4 of the way and the last little gap takes a lot of force to close. Neither the Epoch or the 98 act that way. They both feel fairly linear... the Fischer feels maybe slightly stiffer (this is where a force/displacement test would be useful). So for all intensive purposes, they are similar.
Next thing I looked at was how the ski flexes when it placed on a flat surface and force is applied near mid ski. I was particularly interested in this thing Fischer claims to have: Nordic Rocker. They claim the tips move up and the contact point of the tip moves back when the ski is flexed. I didn't try to measure it, but yeah it does it. Guess what? Try it with the Epoch. It does it as well. To my eye it looks pretty close. I probably should have at least measured the tip rise but if they are a mm different what's that going to amount to in the real world?
OK, so right now we have really, really similar skis. Let's look for a point of difference...
Biggest one I could find visually: The waxless pattern. Now this gets a little tricky to compare exactly but it's obvious that the 98's pattern in pushed way forward on the ski. So far forward it looks wrong to me.
Granted these skis are a little different length, from the rear of the ski, the Epoch starts at 46cm, the 98 at 54cm. The length of the patterns is different as well, the Fischer being 10cm longer (Epoch 80cm, Fischer 90cm). So the pattern is obviously way farther forward on the ski.
The next difference is not so obvious. It's the relation of the balance point to the chord center and the suggested mounting position.
Fischer recommends mounting the skis on balance point just like a xc ski. There are marks on the ski and the center mark turns out to be just about at balance. The others are what I assume to be used for compensating for short or long boots. Seen as how I have an average boot size, I mounted right at the balance. I was curious where this point lined up with respect to the chord center: it's about +1cm. So Fischer has shifted the balance of the ski forward on these.
The Epoch has has marks on it for recommended mounting based on boot size. I was curious where these were with respect to chord, so I measured. The rear most mark is chord center. This is the mark for the smallest boot. The other two are 1cm from each other. So +1cm from chord is the recommended mounting point for my boot with these skis. Because my wife uses these and she's in the small boot range, I mounted these back at chord. So anyway, both skis were recommended to be +1cm from chord for my boot size.
The difference is the balance points. When I measured balance on the Epoch is was aft of chord, which I've noticed on most other skis. It was actually about -1cm from chord. So this means the balance point of the Fischer is about 2cm forward of the Epoch in relation to the chord center. Interesting I guess but I really don't know what it will mean in terms of how the skis will perform. May not amount to anything.
I didn't weigh the skis without bindings, but with a Voile HD mountianeer binding, the weight per skis was approximately:
1340g for the Fischer
1400g for the Madshus
A couple ounces per ski difference... Not much to write home about.
Once I actually get to ski them back to back in some deep, decent snow, I'll write something else.
It would be interesting to do a blind test, because I'm guessing most people wouldn't be able to tell a difference.