Some changes to 21/22 lineup Madshus/Fischer

[Woodserson]

Madshus:

Length Change, many skis shorter by 3cm

It appears that the Intelligrip is already gone from the M68 and M62. That didn't last long. Those two skis (Epoch/Eon respectively) are now only available non-wax. It's kind of a shame, it is nice to have a wax XCD ski with a skin option (like FT62/Rabb) and not be stuck with the scales. I bet the durability issue of the skin design is what largely sunk it-- the skin would rip off from the plastic pin that held it in place if you the user pulled the skin off by the skin instead of pushing the pin through the ski. It probably didn't help that some places called the M68 and M62 "waxless" because it had the skin option. I can imagine some online purchasers freaking out upon delivery.

Fischer: Length change for the 62 and 78, shorter by 3cm. Weird ass decision to make and keep the rest on the 9's.

The E109 appears to be back, called the Transnordic 82, EZ-Skin only, with 10cm jumps in length-- 186, 196, 206. I can only find it on Telemark Pyrenees so I wonder if it's only available to Euroland? E99, of course, is now named Transnordic 66 (yawn) and literally stays the same ski. GOOD!

The 98 and 112 get skin notches. Someone complained about the lack of quality because a cap was chipped, I looked at some 78's in person and they seem to me to be the same as the previous models in terms of construction. I had some chipped caps too at one point. I'm not going to worry about it.

I'd like to measure up the skis and see if the length actually changed or if they just revised their numbers. I wonder if the factory fire last year shifted some production for Madshus and Fischer to other factories and hence why some models both got size reductions.

Anyone notice anything else?

[UtahBrian]

Anyone notice anything else?

The Fischer 88s, 98s, and 112s each lost about a pound of excess weight, now matching their industry-leading Åsnes counterparts as ultralight skis for the long uphills in powder snow. They had the word "xtralite" added to their marketing materials, too.

The new skis are at 1.5g/cm^2 (both skis), same as Åsnes. Last year, Fischer was at 1.7 or more.

They're closer to the carbon fibre Dynafit AT skis now that run around 1.35 and cost over twice as much while having all the drawbacks of AT. That's for the backcountry non-racing versions of Dynafit; the race skis are built to be disposable and therefore lighter yet, as low as 1.10.

[Woodserson]

Anyone notice anything else?

The Fischer 88s, 98s, and 112s each lost about a pound of excess weight, now matching their industry-leading Åsnes counterparts as ultralight skis for the long uphills in powder snow. They had the word "xtralite" added to their marketing materials, too.

The new skis are at 1.5g/cm^2 (both skis), same as Åsnes. Last year, Fischer was at 1.7 or more.

They're closer to the carbon fibre Dynafit AT skis now that run around 1.35 and cost over twice as much while having all the drawbacks of AT. That's for the backcountry non-racing versions of Dynafit; the race skis are built to be disposable and therefore lighter yet, as low as 1.10.

Oh great additional info! Thanks! I did not realize. I'm not usually too concerned with weight, with these skis I like a little more anyway for a smoother ride on the way down, went right over my head.

I guess that's good for the gram-counters and performance skiers, I wonder how this is going to go. I hope they beefed up the binding area-- sometimes my E99 Xtralites are pulling screws because there's nothing but air underneath the nose screw of the binding and I have to fill with epoxy.

[UtahBrian]

I'm not usually too concerned with weight, with these skis I like a little more anyway for a smoother ride on the way down,

Most of my skiing is uphill, so I do care about weight. One pound in the boot or ski is the equivalent of over 20 pounds on your body on powdery uphills.

And my downhills don't involve ice or packed snow much so I'm not looking for damp edging. I sometimes wonder if the metal edges on backcountry skis are even worth the weight.

Skis do need to hold bindings, though, and Fischer must think they're figured it out.

[Woodserson]

I'm not usually too concerned with weight, with these skis I like a little more anyway for a smoother ride on the way down,

Most of my skiing is uphill, so I do care about weight. One pound in the boot or ski is the equivalent of over 20 pounds on your body on powdery uphills.

And my downhills don't involve ice or packed snow much so I'm not looking for damp edging. I sometimes wonder if the metal edges on backcountry skis are even worth the weight.

Skis do need to hold bindings, though, and Fischer must think they're figured it out.

Oh yeah, dude, I hear you loud and clear, but lately I find myself wanting to prioritize the quality of the ride down. Out here in the east at least, with variable snow, a bit more heft in the ski makes life more predictable.

Everything is now Xtralite... you think they are angling to get some of the Rando race crowd to give these a second look? If not for racing, for recreational quick and up and downs with less skin hassle? This would be AT bindings with locked heels... What are your thoughts?

[greatgt]

Been skiing the 109's for three years?....Broke out the anchor where the skins attach.....99% of the time i use wax....Good turners....Happy the 99's are still here as Telekid wants a 205 and me thinks he will fly on them....My use of the 99's requires metal siding as we constantly "brush" things as we slide by.....Both skis have energy....Go into a depression and when coming out they rebound and the feeling is weightless and makes changes easy.....Wouldn't mine having a e99 type Asnes to compare the three......Full color on some of the hills around here and it is GOOD,,,,,Reds oranges and yellows quite bright....Soon to be white?......TM

[UtahBrian]

Oh yeah, dude, I hear you loud and clear, but lately I find myself wanting to prioritize the quality of the ride down. Out here in the east at least, with variable snow, a bit more heft in the ski makes life more predictable.

Yeah, out west we have our own troubles. I usually ski in vast bowls of deep, fluffy, untracked champagne powder and when I get to the top or the bottom and continue to the next slope, it's just another vast bowl of perfect deep, fluffy, untracked champagne powder. It's exhausting, really.

Everything is now Xtralite... you think they are angling to get some of the Rando race crowd to give these a second look? If not for racing, for recreational quick and up and downs with less skin hassle? This would be AT bindings with locked heels... What are your thoughts?

Åsnes has been trying to win over free-spending AT enthusiasts with the Nosi 76 and Fjøro 92 for years without apparent success. The Tindan 86 already has been 86'd this year because ATers weren't buying. It's hard to compete with Dynafit Blacklights.

I looked at some beautiful Blacklights at my local shop recently. With bindings on them, a used but good condition pair went for $1100. A bargain! They were sold online while I was examining them in the shop; the skis were in my hands but already belonged to a swifter online purchaser. Fischer could be aiming this 'xtralite' tech at making its way into that lucrative AT market and they are using similar technique lightening their Transalp Carbons lately, which, I believe, are aimed at competing with Dynafit. The XCD benefits could also just be a spillover.

Or maybe Fischer just wants to keep up with Åsnes and their ultralight skis.

As for AT bindings and locked heels, I understand the appeal but telemark turns are growing on me. And I love rolling quiet valleys and being able to cross them without skins and a nice camber making me faster on the flats and comfortable leather boots. And thousands of extra dollars in my pockets. Tempting as it is, I don't think I'm leaping into AT just yet.

[Lo-Fi]

Yeah, out west we have our own troubles. I usually ski in vast bowls of deep, fluffy, untracked champagne powder and when I get to the top or the bottom and continue to the next slope, it's just another vast bowl of perfect deep, fluffy, untracked champagne powder. It's exhausting, really.

[/quote

[aquamogal]

Not seeing the weight reduction on the fischer web site?
https://www.fischersports.com/us_en/s-b ... 391?c=5372

[UtahBrian]

Not seeing the weight reduction on the fischer web site?
https://www.fischersports.com/us_en/s-b ... 391?c=5372

S-Bound 98 2021 @179 = 2,200g per pair
S-Bound 98 2020 @179 = 2,490g per pair