Info on old model Fischer (brown) BCS 5 and Fischer Spider

[Underdog]

hey that's my picture up there! If you keep looking you can probably find some Country Crowns for $100 on sale in the future and use those for pure XC missions, searching the internet in the springtime will usually yield a sale price on these.

Looks like springtime pricing has started: https://www.campsaver.com/fischer-count ... s-185.html Thanks for the picture (sorry for not crediting you). I have a pair of Country Crowns, I was hoping to find something a little more stable under foot for breaking trail without too much loss in glide. I'm considering the E109, and the Fischer 78 Traverse (at the moment). As Woodserson pointed out, the E109 listed is a waxable ski and I really need a waxless ski (lazy). I had read some posts where the rocker tips on the E109 were too soft to offer much stability in softer snow (fine on compressed snow) and I did not know if that should be a concern. So maybe the Traverse-78 might be draggy but better at breaking trail and then I would use my Fischer Country Crowns when I wanted "glide." I've been away from the "industry" for a long time.

[Cannatonic]

no worries about the picture, it's public domain - you're right about the E109's - the easy skin is a good substitute for fishscales, but I think we established that those ebay ones are pre-easy skin and don't have the attachment.

An E99-shape ski is probably the best option for what you want - it's my favorite for touring where you need a little more float & turning ability than BC Country-type skis.

[lilcliffy]

If you are concerned about length- can you access a shop where you could actually stand on a few sizes? If you want a ski like this to work there should be a very slight exposed "wax pocket" when you stand on them evenly, and it should not require you to make an extremely powerful fully-weighted kick to compress it. (If it requires a very powerful kick to close the wax pocket- the ski might be fine on dense snow- but, I predict you will slip on soft snow and should consider a shorter/softer ski).

I will try this method today with the two sets of skis that I have. It would seem that I will need a "helper" to measure the "pocket." When attempting this task, should I be on a hard floor or carpet? Would a "business card" be thick enough to measure or maybe a credit card? Should the length of the measured "wax pocket" extend the full length of of the waxless scales?
There are different methods shown on youtube and they tend to vary based on the type of ski, level of fitness of the user and type of ski conditions. Note: when I was measured for the 210cm Country Crowns (20+yrs ago) I was told extend my arm to the ceiling and my wrist determined my ski length).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIx0qshvUVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ9qM-f4hag
One local ski/bike/skateboard shop and odds are they are going pressure me into whatever is left on the shelf and I will cave under pressure only to end up back here again.

It is important to realize and remember that performance Classic track skiing completely dominates the current knowledge base with regards to XC skis. A technician in a shop- or someone that has made a video- measuring the wax pocket on a double-cambered backcountry ski may actually be setting up a skier for a miserable slippery experience on soft backcountry snow!

Accurately measuring the wax pocket of a ski intended for use on soft off-track snow on a hard surface (e.g. floor) is not that useful IMO. Ideally one would get to actually try them out on soft snow before buying them! As this is alomost impossible I suggest the following on a hard floor:
1) stand on the skis with your toes at approx balance point (BP). If you will carry a pack- put one on your back with the weight you will typically be carrying.
2) feel if there is an effective "wax pocket". If there is an effective wax pocket you should be able to feel the camber compress to the floor when you fully weight an individual ski. The degree of weight and force you need to apply will affect how easy it is to compress that camber on soft snow.

A double-cambered ski intended for use in soft snow should not have a wax/traction pocket that is very difficult to engage.

I did find some 200 cm E109's that are waxable. Fischer says the E109 is the widest model with a "traditional mid-stiff nordic camber" for efficient glide on flat and undulating terrain. "The E109 is the wider version of the classic E99 and offers the same ability to cover long distances effectively while the slightly wider 82-60-70 mm sidecut makes the E109 more stable and easier to ski downhill. The E109 has a small amount of "Nordic Rocker Camber" to help turn initiation, and full metal edges for effective grip on ice."
What is "traditional mid stiff Nordic camber" and does it differ from "mid stiff nordic Rocker Camber" and do I want a Nordic rocker if Woodserson is saying the Nordic Rocker is the issue with the 78's lack of glide.

I would expect that "traditional" Nordic camber is referring to "double-camber" intended for Classic kick&glide XC skiing? "Nordic rocker camber" refers to a ski with Nordic rocker.

I can confirm that Nordic rocker offers essentially zero advantages when XC skiing (it certainly offers wonderous turn initiation). Nordic rocker certainly reduces the ski's glide surface on consolidated snow. AND- if the tip of a Nordic-rockered ski is very soft and unstable, a Nordic-rockered ski will be completely unstable when XC skiing in very deep soft snow. As examples of this-
1) the current E-109 & E-99 Xtralite have completely unstable Nordic-rockered tips.
2) the current Ingstad BC and Gamme 54 BC have completely stable Nordic-rockered tips.

The degree of sidecut plays a role in all the complex geometry of this too. For example, the E99 Xtralite is actually more stable than the E109 when XC skiing in deep soft snow because it has less sidecut.

IMO/IME- the current E109 Xtralite really sucks as a XC ski in very deep soft snow- BUT one probably wouldn't notice it in only 6inches of soft snow...

The Ingstad BC is completely stable in deep soft snow, but it has loads of tip rocker that GREATLY reduces its glide zone on consolidated snow.
The Gamme 54 BC is completely stable in deep soft snow, and only has a little tip rocker- the Gamme 54 has plenty of glide zone on consolidated snow. In fact, my E99 Xtralite Tour has more tip rocker than my Gamme 54- my Gamme 54 has a longer glide zone on consolidated snow.

I suspect you are going to want a kicker skin for that E109 Tour with its waxable base. You can buy universal kicker skins:
https://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/e ... 1_cfg.html

Not sure if this Nordic camber meets lilcliffy's recommended double camber criteria:

- considering the terrain you want to ski on I do recommend a truly double-cambered ski that is designed to ski off-track.

Both single-cambered skis (e.g. S-Bound 98/112; Storetind; Rabb 68) and double-cambered skis (e.g. E99; E109; Gamme 54 BC; Ingstad BC) can have Nordic rocker. When speaking of "double-camber" we are speaking of tension and camber underfoot only- not the entire length of the ski.

[lilcliffy]

Would 199cm be short for a Snowbound Crown (77 - 61 - 69). Seems very close to a Fischer Traverse/78.
Skis longer than 200 cm do not seem to show up frequently at places like EMS and REI.

The Snowbound is the ancestor of the S-Bound 78 and the current Traverse 78.

You cannot beat this deal- assuming the ski is in good shape.
The binding alone is worth $100CAN if it is in good shape!!!

Like Bob says- you can use grip wax on this ski to increase grip on cold soft snow.
You can also buy a kicker skin for it.

[lilcliffy]

Do skis with sidecuts (like the S-bound Traverse-78 and the E-109) track smoothly? Does the double camber of the E-109 (as opposed to the single camber S-Bounds) raise the sidecut off the snow surface during the glide phase so that the ski does not behave in a jerky (side-to-side) fashion? Is a ski with sidecut is going to track straight like the 210cm Country Crown. Will the S-bound Traverse-78 be squirrelier than the E-109 or my Country Crowns?

Cannot speak for the current 78- but the previous versions of this ski do track very nicely.
In general, I find that 20mm of effective sidecut has little affect on XC tracking- especially in soft snow.

[lilcliffy]

I have a pair of Country Crowns, I was hoping to find something a little more stable under foot for breaking trail without too much loss in glide. I'm considering the E109, and the Fischer 78 Traverse (at the moment). As Woodserson pointed out, the E109 listed is a waxable ski and I really need a waxless ski (lazy). I had read some posts where the rocker tips on the E109 were too soft to offer much stability in softer snow (fine on compressed snow) and I did not know if that should be a concern.

E109 Crown not currently made by Fischer- only the waxable tour. (I own an E109 Crown and Tour).
Unstable tip of E109 Xtralite only noticeable when XC skiing (or climbing) in soft snow that is deeper than 6 inches.

[Underdog]

Tom M posted a video with the Fischer ( s-bound) Traverse 78's and I was encouraged by what I saw. Looks like these tips are very stable. Tom's videos are great (and he barely leaves a trace when skiing the hills of Wyoming).

[lilcliffy]

Just picked up both a 78&88 in 199cm lengths- still in the box this afternoon...

Will be able to give you a true comparison between the tip of the E109 and the 78 in a couple of days!!

[Underdog]

Will be able to give you a true comparison between the tip of the E109 and the 78 in a couple of days!!

Can't wait for the comparison.

This gent is touring with Fischer E109 (waxless crown version) skis:

and pulling a sled

[Cannatonic]

>>This would make me lean towards a scaled ski if I got the Ingstad. I don't like transitioning on the short laps I'd be doing on them.

He likes the long scale pattern on the E109's - I think it ruins the glide, I wouldn't want it unless the skis were for skiing corn laps.

PS, why do those video's start playing automatically?