Fischer E-109-Crown vs Excursion 88 vs Traverse 78 vs E99-Crown

[lilcliffy]

Been using these skis A LOT this week:
- 205cm E-109 Crown Xtralite
- 199cm Excursion 88
- 199cm Excursion 78
- 210cm E-99 Crown Xtralite (pre-Nordic-rockered tips)

- rolling to hilly terrain
- 2 feet of consolidated re-frozen base with 6 inches of moisture-rich soft snow on top
- temperature to freezing in the afternoon

The E-109 has been truly dreamy this week. It is by far my favourite in this group for this skiiing. Excellent kick and glide; efficient clmibing; and absolutely SWEEEEEET downhill. The E-109's tip is VERY soft and is useless in deep snow, but in the above conditions, it is wonderful.

The Excursion 88 is slow and boring in the above context. It is the best of the group when XC skiing in deeper snow (but there are even better XCd skis for deep snow...)

The Traverse 78 is faster than the 88- about the same XC efficiency as the longer E-109 (a 199cm 78/88 is really closer to 195cm in length and therefore 10cm shorter than the E-109). The 78 has less tip-rocker than the E-109, and has a stable tip- it is better in deeper snow than the E-109. But- in the above context not only is the E-109 just as efficient, but it is WAAAAY more fun downhill!!

The E-99 Crown Xtralite I have is pre-Nordic rocker and is nowhere near as fun as the E-109 downhill. This would be a more fair comparison if it was with a current E-99 Crown Xtralite with its rockered tip. The E-99 is definitley a more efficient and faster XC ski than the E-109- though the E-109 climbs better...

Would also be interesting to compare this group with the Ingstad BC Waxless...

[Franz]

lilcliffy,

Have you purchased a pair of Ingstad BC waxless?

[lilcliffy]

Hello Franz,
No- I do not have an Ingstad BC Waxless, and have no plans to buy one.

I am using my Ingstad BC exclusively on XC tours in deep snow with a lot of steep terrain along the route (otherwise I would use my Gamme 54/E-99).

The Ingstad BC has even more tip-rocker than the E-109- giving it a very short XC glide zone on consolidated snow.

I guess I could imagine wanting a waxless Ingstad if my deep snow conditions were warm and wet...

In my local climate-
Warm and wet snow is typically completely consolidated and dense- and typically refreezes at night.
My deep snow is typically fresh and cold- perfect for grip wax.

The ski that I would consider with waxless scales would be the Falketind 62- for doing yo-yo downhill laps on my local hills on warm spring snow. I suppose the Ingstad BC might fulfill that context as well- but the FT62 has a shorter turning radius.

I have not tried an Ingstad BC Waxless, but I would think it would be just as good as the E-109 Crown Xtralite in the context I describe in the OP...

[FrenchFred]

Hy
I read you might buy an Ingstad bc waxless... Be carrefoul of the edge quality !
In fact, i don't know why, but the edges are not flat just at the limit of the scale and it create a rail when you are skiing downhill ! The Asnes waxless skis have all the same finition... You will not find this on the flat wax skis like the FT62 for exemple.

This is why I prefere skins or wax... The ski base finition is really better ! Glide is better !

Best regards
Fred

[lilcliffy]

Hi Fred-
I am not planning on getting an Ingstad Waxless- I was just thinking it would be interesting to compare the Ingstad Waxless to the Fischer Crowns.

I too MUCH prefer waxable bases.
Gareth

[lilcliffy]

Current perspective:
- the 88 is the most versatile BC-XC in this group- though the slowest and heaviest
- the 78 is just as versatile a BC-XC ski as the 88- though perhaps offers less flotation than the 88 for heavier skiers- it is lighter and faster than the 88
- the E109 Xtralite is the best XCD of the group- its very soft shovel and significant Nordic rocker make it completely unstable in deep soft snow and terrible in breakable crust
- the E99 Xtralite offers the best potential BC-XC performance due to its extra camber and stiffness underfoot- in the perfect conditions it is very light and VERY fast- however, it suffers from the same problems as the E109 ↑ due its soft shovel and tip rocker.

For me the 78- in a long length- is my top pick in this waxless BC-XC group.
- (if I did not have better deep snow XC/XCD skis than the 88 I would choose the 88 over the 78.)
-(if Fischer ever "improves" (I know this is a personal preference) the stability of the E99- and reduces its tip rocker- I will be buying one.)
- I would definitely take a 209cm 78 for the skiing I am doing with it- I don't personally see any value in a short 78 for BC-XC skiing.

[havuja]

Hello! I'm posting my questions here because there seems to be someone with actual experience with Excursion 88 and Traverse 78 In 199. I'm looking for a good float beginner xc ski. What would be the minimum user weight on these skis In 199 for effective grip?

Also, I'm considering these skis or Nansen for my own use as a multi-day springtime tour ski. From these skis I would want good performance on frozen and bumpy snowmobile tracks, frozen snow in general, wet snow, breaking crust etc. I would be pulling heavy sled with the help of dogs, no huge distances, and doing daytrips In variabke terrain. Not overly steep, but tricky parts on snowmobike tracks. For this use I want a bit more width=stability than E99 class, and slightly better control if possible. Old Ingstad is just terrible In this use what comes to hard - snow directionality and dealing with bumps - irregular tracks. How do you see the Fischers In this context?

[lilcliffy]

Hello Havuja!

I do not see the use of the 88 unless one is a very heavy skier and really needs the extra width in very deep snow.
I weigh 80kg and get the same stability with my 210cm Gamme 54 in deep snow as the 199cm E-88. (The 210cm Combat Nato is even better in very deep snow).

The Traverse 78 offers this wonderful balance of stability, lightness, grip and speed in crappy variable, wet and refrozen snow. I cannot say that it is more stable than the Gamme 54 (or perhaps the Amundsen)- but it is definitely more stable than the current E99 Xtralite.

The Fischer 78 is just as stable as the 88.
The 78 is lighter and faster than the 88.
The 88 offers more stability and flotation for heavier skiers.
There is no advantage to the 88 on consolidated, wet, refrozen, and cruddy, crusty snow.

With much better deep snow XC skis than the 88- it is the 88 that is sitting in my shed- not the 78.

My 78-year-old father-in-law loves the 199cm Fischer 88. Otherwise, I would sell it.

[Langcow]

How did you decide on the 199 length for the 78s and 88s? I just got a pair of Alpina Alaskas and am looking for a new set of skis. I can find the 78s in 199 but not 189, and the 88s in 189 but not 199. I weigh 180 lbs buttnaked, so maybe around 190+ geared up, but according to the size chart I should get 189 not 199. I’m not sure which set I should get because it sounds like the 78s are the better ski.

[Langcow]

On the other hand... my current skis are the 2010 Madshus Glittertind, 200 cm (68/55/62), which are great in the right conditions. So maybe I should get the Excursion 88s to provide the biggest difference from the Glitts. Basically just looking for a decent all-around ski.