This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web. We have fun here, come on in and be a part of it.
I've skied the Fischer E 88s all this season and, while the traction pattern is probably great for pulling a sled, the Nordic rocker makes them less than ideal for breaking trail. The NR is nice when going downhill so that they plane up on the snow, but considering how poorly they turn its a bit paradoxical how much NR they have.
I've skied the 78s all season and my ski buddy was on 88s. We broke a lot of trail with these skis and IMO they break trail pretty much just as well as any similar sized skis. In other words, I don't think they are noticably poor at breaking trail due to the NR. I also think that for bc-xc skis, they turn surprisingly really well.
Regarding the OP's question: IMO it's important to match your ski setup as closely as possible with the folks that you plan to ski with. Nothing worse than holding up a group because you are on slower gear than they are on. If they are going to ski on skinny bc xc skis then I would too. 78/88s in 199 length would be my suggestion
I've skied the 78s all season and my ski buddy was on 88s. We broke a lot of trail with these skis and IMO they break trail pretty much just as well as any similar sized skis. In other words, I don't think they are noticably poor at breaking trail due to the NR. I also think that for bc-xc skis, they turn surprisingly really well.
Regarding the OP's question: IMO it's important to match your ski setup as closely as possible with the folks that you plan to ski with. Nothing worse than holding up a group because you are on slower gear than they are on. If they are going to ski on skinny bc xc skis then I would too. 78/88s in 199 length would be my suggestion
All I would say is having my skis constantly rise to the surface only to break through under foot is unpleasant to me, giving the sensation of going uphill all the time. A non-rockered ski like the combat NATO does not have this issue.
All I would say is having my skis constantly rise to the surface only to break through under foot is unpleasant to me, giving the sensation of going uphill all the time. A non-rockered ski like the combat NATO does not have this issue.
I get this, totally.
That being said, the 78 could/should have less NR than the 88. My 78's have more "splay" than rocker.
It's also come to my attention that there can be variation of NR within the same model, I cycled through two T78's to get one with the very subtle NR as opposed to crazy high elf-shoe NR. This is, IMO, unintentional and probably a problem in the manufacturing process, but it shouldn't be overlooked. Is also frustrating as all get-out.
All I would say is having my skis constantly rise to the surface only to break through under foot is unpleasant to me, giving the sensation of going uphill all the time. A non-rockered ski like the combat NATO does not have this issue.
I get this, totally.
That being said, the 78 could/should have less NR than the 88. My 78's have more "splay" than rocker.
It's also come to my attention that there can be variation of NR within the same model, I cycled through two T78's to get one with the very subtle NR as opposed to crazy high elf-shoe NR. This is, IMO, unintentional and probably a problem in the manufacturing process, but it shouldn't be overlooked. Is also frustrating as all get-out.
I agree that too much NR results in poor trail breaking but never felt that way with my 78s or the 88s. It seems that there is a great deal of variability with those skis which is weird considering that it changes the user's experience vastly. I think that I must have the 'low rise' versions. I would not want any more NR for this type of ski
It seems that there is a great deal of variability with those skis which is weird considering that it changes the user's experience vastly. I think that I must have the 'low rise' versions. I would not want any more NR for this type of ski
Fischer gets consistency better than most brands (I have two pairs of 205cm E99 Xtralites that are about 6 years apart but exactly the same and about 4 grams different!) but recently the rocker situation has been out of control. I ran into a rocker issue with a pair of Asnes skis as well-- they weren't supposed to have any rocker and they did.
Someone is not adjusting the presses before putting in the new ski and rocker is getting added or subtracted. It's frustrating, especially since it's so difficult to purchase these skis in person and we buy sight unseen. Thank goodness for this forum so we can check against each other's skis.
I own a pair of Traverse 78s. My impression of them is that they break trail well when the snow is soft. The waxless pattern gives really good grip, and the glide is pretty good as well. It's nice to not have to deal with grip wax when it is above freezing, or there is fresh snow around zero. They are a real blast for skiing downhill in soft snow. The only time when they are not good is when there is a thin breakable crust on top of the snow: the rocker causes the skis to break trail with the mid section rather than the tip, and breaking trail becomes a real nightmare, especially if it is hilly.
I'm from Minnesota, but now live in Norway. I think the Traverse 78s would be a good ski for Minnesota. The snow usually isn't extremely deep, and thin crust is a lot less common than it is here in Norway.
Nordic Rocker is a craze- and it is out of control as the banana rocker craze that took over BC AT skis some years ago.
A Nordic Rockered tip-shovel encourages planing (i.e. early tip rise) and turn initiation at downhill speeds.
It also encourages a ski to climb over rock-solid frozen crap- I have watched my Gamme 54 do this.
The idea that Nordic Rocker somehow improves BC-XC skiing performance/efficiency is bullshit- otherwise known as marketing. Significant Nordic Rocker actually undermines BC skiing performance/efficiency in most snow conditions.
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
I think the excursion 88 in 189 is my ticket. At 210lbs I am right on the edge of that length - but I still have my Epoke 1000s in 215cm for the real lake cruising, even though the camber has pretty much flattened out. My size 14 feet are pretty wide, so a bit wider platform will help with stability. The shorter will help with my inability to turn well as I start off trying some tele turns on wider trails along the north shore here.
I've read so much on here - thank you all for the help, I really appreciate it. Once they are available and the new season starts, I'll be sure to leave feedback!
@borchjd i weigh 190, if I were to purchase the E-88 the only size I would get is 199. That ski isn’t a real turning ski, like an S-98. I cannot think of a worse combo than being on a Fischer waxless, which have good grip, and being heavy so that the scales constantly drag.
That’s just my opinion. I’m not a big waxless guy. I need to be up front about that. I have an S-112, so I know Fischer scales. Over 200 lbs, you’re not on the line, I don’t care what Fischer puts in their recommendations.
