78 Traverse / 88 Excursion which one? Or another?

[fisheater]

The type of ski I want the most a Vector/ V-6 / Supercharger is not really the ski I need. What I need is a skinny waxless XC ski that will turn. Two things to consider is that I consider my USGI Combat at 78-67-73 a skinny ski. It will take me time to go much skinnier. I learned to ski on straight alpine skis, and I really like my heavy Alico leather boots. I like to kick and glide, and I think I go pretty fast on my USGI skis, but I do not see a need to go much skinnier. The other thing is I bought the USGI skis short at 200 cm because I thought I would have my son ski them. I bought my son something more suitable. I can turn that USGI ski on hardpack and can ski some fairly steep stuff at the resort. I can also end up on my backside in more challenging conditions. On a powder day I that wanted to get some turns would have me on a different ski.
What I do not like about the 78 is that the waist seems narrow at 61mm, and some people say it is difficult to turn. What I wonder about the 88 is the 88mm shovel. Will that 88 be sluggish on the k&g?
Right now if I were to trail ski and there was fresher snow 30 degrees F and below the USGI is the ski. For me it is fast and smooth. If there is even 4" of soft snow on some kind of base, I would bring my S-112. I have a couple of downhills that I can make some turns on. On soft snow the scale do not annoy me or feel slow.
What I need a ski for is refrozen, when wax will not work real well. I still want to go out, and I still might want to make some turns provided it is filled in enough. I know there is a lot of experience with both those skis. Feel free to mention another as well. It is a waxless base ski, I doubt I will fall in love with it. If I can wax, I enjoy it more. For this type of ski, I think cheap might be good. I just have not seen anything on sale, that I think fits the bill.

[Cannatonic]

everyone has their own likes so it's hard to give advice, but if you're comfortable even trying to turn the Asnes surplus skis then the Sbound 78 (traverse) is going to be easy to turn. I have them in 199's and they're easy to control with 3-pins and leather boots - light leather boots, not the Ski March. I did notice the current Traverse version has more camber than my brown Sbound 78s...but in a 189 I doubt they will be hard to turn. The 88 would be slower on the flats but probably a lot faster than the 112's. I think both the 78 and 88 will turn better than the old Asnes because they're designed with telemark flex profile. Aren't the Asnes USGI skis more of a nordic ski - really stiff and heavy?

I just tried using new Asnes skis with a shortened kicker skin for skiing around on granular ice and it worked really well. I'm sure you'd like a new pair of Asnes, like Nansen or Ingstad for this. But for up & down telemarking on warm spring snow the scales are really nice. I doubt the kicker skins will hold up to downhill turning for long.

depends how much you want to spend too, usually you can find great deals on Sbounds and Madshus skis around this time of year. A pair of 195mm Eons wouldn't be bad either. Fischer E99 and E109 are easy-turning skis as well, and much lighter & faster for touring. Get them in shorter lengths and you get a very light, easy-turning telemark ski.

*edit - it's getting hard to find E109 and E99, I hope they don't go extinct. Here are a couple of interesting write-ups:

http://skihaussteamboat.com/fischer-tra ... ntry-skis/
http://skihaussteamboat.com/the-lost-an ... -ski-tour/

[GLB]

I have been thinking of a Ski with the same characteristics as the OP discribed. The Ski that I have used the most this season are the Epochs. They are not great at anything but I can kinda do it all to some level with this Ski. It runs 99 at the shovel and 68 at the waist and was wanting to try something in the mid 70 to mid 80s at the tips with a rounded softish flex. The 78/88 Fischers and Eon seems to be good choices but I would like to try them all out to see which would suit me best. Otherwise I would need a bigger garage to store all these skis I have now

[rongon]

I found out that I love the Fischer Outtabounds, completely by accident. I bought a pair on after-season sale, just because they were cheap. I already had a pair of Rebounds that I really liked, but hey, cheap skis... Slapped a pair of Voile 3-Pin Cables on those Outtabounds and I've skied the crap out of 'em. They have great edge hold for such a light ski with that much camber, if used with plastic boots like T4 (or Crispi CXT in my case). They work great for kick-n-glide with leather boots. They're pretty straight, 88-68-78, but turn well if you pounce on 'em.

The current version is the Excursion 88. I want a pair...
https://www.fischersports.com/us_en/skin-5803

--

[lowangle al]

Fisheater, I'm looking for the same type ski. I was thinking something like an S 98. I'll sacrifice touring efficiency for better turning of an alpine camber. It's not the narrowness of the ski that makes it hard to turn but stiff camber IME.

[lilcliffy]

Hey dude,

Oooh new gear- tasty.

Lots to talk about as always.

Your experiences on the Asnes USGI skis reflect mine- as clunky as they look, and as heavy as they are- they still have a backcountry/soft snow flex (for a double-cambered ski) and offer excellent stability and float (and the wicked raised tips break trail like no other ski in its class). Those extra few millimetres of waist make a HUGE difference in grip and flotation. My USGIs offer as much flotation as my Epoch/10th Mtns. The current Asnes Combat/Ingstad is MUCH lighter and as a result more responsive.

HERE is what I want to focus on:

What I need a ski for is refrozen, when wax will not work real well

This is a very important issue for backcountry Nordic touring. One that has always been important for shoulder seasons- or any skier that lives in a marginal climate of freeze-thaw events (I lived in a coastal climate for a decade where refrozen snow was the norm- FRESH snow required running home from school to take advantage of it).

In a world of climate change- refrozen snow is becoming a norm for all of us- my winters are increasingly becoming a constant roller coaster of temperature and precipitation extremes...

SO- refrozen fucking snow...

1) Klister is the bomb- grip and glide on refrozen snow is second to none- problem is that it really sucks in the woods- everything sticks to it.

2) Waxless scales suck on refrozen snow- I know, I know- there is wide range of different waxless scale designs, some of which are better than others on refrozen snow. Regardless- waxless scales still suck on icy refrozen snow.

3) Skins give excellent grip on refrozen snow- they may not glide as well as klister, but they give as good or better grip- and forest debris does not stick to a skin.

Solution- KICKER SKIN.

The next question is whether a waxable ski with the kicker skin, or a waxless ski with the kicker skin best suits your skiing context. A kicker skin- from my perspective- is most effective on a double-cambered touring ski with an effective wax pocket.

A waxable touring ski- with a kicker skin- as a quiver of one is clearly the most versatile. You can have a kit of different kicker skins and grip wax to deal with everything from cold, fresh snow, to warm wet, soft snow- and, from icy, refrozen snow, to granular, warm, wet refrozen snow; etc.

However- as you already have a waxable touring ski- perhaps a waxless one with a kicker skin kit? Waxless scales perform great on warm wet snow in the BC (so does a narrow mohair kicker skin- on a double-cambered ski). Fischer needs to make the E-99 and E-109 Crown with the integrated Easy-Skin for those that ski mostly on warm wet snow.

If you like the USGI Combat ski for touring- a double-cambered BC touring ski should fit the bill.

Unfortunately, I am only familiar with the older versions of the Fischer 78&88- so I cannot speak specifically to the camber and flex of the current models. At least in the past- the 78 was not only narrower- but, also stiffer and more cambered than the 88? Is this still true? If so- I would think that the 78 would be a better addition to your quiver. The 88 is going to be much slower than the 78- and, when the snow is deep and soft, you might as well use the SB-112...I think that your S-112 may make the 88 and the 98 redundant...

The Fischer 88 has awesome dimensions- I would already own one- as a powder BC-XC ski- if it came in longer lengths. The 88 is too short for it to offer any effective flotation at my weight....

Have you considered another waxable touring ski- but with an integrated kicker skin? E-99/E-109/Gamme 54/Nansen/Ingstad?

[Cannatonic]

The current Sbound 78/Traverse comes with both scales and Ez-skin attachment. I like this niche, so versatile, sure to be useful for something. Will be much lighter on the feet and faster than Sbound 112. At 200cm my Sbound 78 are useful for general XC skiing on chopped-up, cruddy snow, or telemarking up & down a hill for turns. They have the same dimensions as the classic 80's-early 90's tele skis.

this wouldn't suck either, new E99's @ $230 and he's taking low-ball offers:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fischer-Offtrac ... SwiDFYMfMd

[fisheater]

Fisheater, I'm looking for the same type ski. I was thinking something like an S 98. I'll sacrifice touring efficiency for better turning of an alpine camber. It's not the narrowness of the ski that makes it hard to turn but stiff camber IME.

Al, I really like my S-112, but it is very possible the S-98 may be the sweet spot between the S-88 and the S-112. Canna posted a nice review of the three from Ski Haus Steamboat, the reviewer put the s-88 more in the s-98 class. The reviewer seemed to indicate the s-78 was stiffer cambered and also noted that it was a straighter ski with less sidecut. I could use a waxless or kicker skinned k&g trail ski. Sometimes all I have is trail skiing, just not enough snow to make turns. I am happy just having a session of hot foreplay (k&g), I don't need to go downhill and make turns (going all the way) all the time. I am much happier tacking a kick through the trails in the woods, than not skiing at all.
LC, glad see you back, hope you have been getting some tours in between work and other responsibilities. I am now convinced that the s-78 would be better for me than a s-88. I would really like an e-109, but they are hard to come by. I am really hoping to find a ski on sale, I really do not want to pay $300 for this type of ski. I will be skiing it in thin snow, and I would be disappointed to ruin a $300 ski by ripping out an edge or something.
I tried taking the USGI's for a spin on 2" of wet snow today. I didn't mind jumping rocks but the sudden stops from hitting small branches convinced me of the futility of my effort. I had to try, I really have not had my fill of skiing. I found that I had enough grip once I put a third layer of red/silver on tip to tail, either that or the sand that was getting embedded in the kick zone wax was gripping. I certainly had glide, well until I hit something and stopped dead.
Canna, thanks for the heads up on the e-99. I have read the positive reviews, I not quite ready to go to that class of ski. Maybe after I skied an e-109 or s-78, I may be ready for an e-99, just not now.
I am really hoping to catch a sale, but winter has been good in other regions and skis may be selling out well. Does anybody have any experience with the Rossignol BC 70?.

[Woodserson]

I hope I'm not putting a wrench in the works here, but I have 78's and 88's and I go for my 88's all the time. There's pretty decent Nordic rocker (Excursion version) and they turn OK-- I am mounted slightly forward FWIW. Since I tend to be on trails that have snowshoe tracks they have been more stable than the 78's. My 78's are actually kind of collecting dust.

Ditto on Rongons comment on the Outtabounds, they are a fun ski with serious camber but turn-able with decent technique. I now also have the Boundless, which have an even, smooth flexing alpine camber and they are just the shizniz. Woah whatta ride. But I digress.

If it's lumpy, I go for the 88's.

[fisheater]

Woody, do you have a s-98, also? If you do, I was curious as to where that ski fits in?