Sbound 98s or 112s

[lilcliffy]

I'm late to this thread as well-

You are 265lbs and considering the Fischer 98? For what- mopping the floor?

Don't get me wrong here- all kind of skiers weigh 265lbs- but there will be ZERO advantage to the 98 at your weight- it will be just as dead as the 112 when XC skiing.

I wouldn't even consider the 98 if I were you.

(And depending on what you intend to do on skis- you might want to consider something even wider and/or longer...)

[RabbitEars]

@Hhowden
I'm 6'2" and same weight. I have the Sbound 98's in the 189 length. I have spent a lot of time on them and they work great for me. once I figured out how to weight myself over the fishscales I feel like I can climb anything until it gets icy then I just put on the easyskin and I am on my way again. I've considered getting the 112 because at my weight I think that the 112 would ski down better on the really low angle stuff. But I worry about the 112 compromising the kick and glide that I love. I bought the 205 Asnes Ingstad to add to my quiver this season hoping it's strengths pick up where the 98's leave off. I think if I am going to get a wider ski I am just going to get a more downhill oriented ski like the Volie Objective or the Rabb 68

Good points and I'm glad to hear the 98s work well for you. Just out of curiosity since we're about the same size, I'm trying to decide between NNNBC and 3 pins, Which do you have/prefer?

I think 3 pin and NNNBC are both proven systems. I would 100% make that decision based off the boot. Go with the system that you can find a boot that fits you great. I went with 3pin for reasons I had at the time, but I’ve never been able to find A 3 pin boot that works for me. I bought the very last Alfa Skarvet that REI had anywhere and it fits me great so my new skis are getting NNNBC (I was going to try the xplore but don’t want to waste my season waiting for the release). I’m also considering swapping out the three pins on my SB98’s because it’s cheaper to swap out the binding then keep buying 3pin boots.

On a sidenote. I had also pre-ordered the Fischer transNordic in 3pin. It’s a beefy boot to be sure. Would be fantastic for more xcD pursuits. I’m probably going to return them just because I might’ve ordered the wrong size.

[lilcliffy]

On a sidenote. I had also pre-ordered the Fischer transNordic in 3pin. It’s a beefy boot to be sure. Would be fantastic for more xcD pursuits. I’m probably going to return them just because I might’ve ordered the wrong size.

Hmmm- seems that the Transnordic would be a good design for the Xplore binding....

I see that high stiff Transnordic 75 peeling that duckbill off in a single season of hard skiing...

[RabbitEars]

I'm late to this thread as well-

You are 265lbs and considering the Fischer 98? For what- mopping the floor?

Don't get me wrong here- all kind of skiers weigh 265lbs- but there will be ZERO advantage to the 98 at your weight- it will be just as dead as the 112 when XC skiing.

I wouldn't even consider the 98 if I were you.

(And depending on what you intend to do on skis- you might want to consider something even wider and/or longer...)

Feel like this a little harsh. And discouraging. I understand what you are saying here, and respect your insight. I credit your words here and from your blog for helping me progress and become a XCD skier. The trouble is 260lbs isn’t on any manufactures recommended chart so it’s really hard to know what ski is going to work. Anecdotally after trying Rossignol and Madshus skis fisher SB98’s felt like a revelation and helped me realize what this kind of skiing is about and helped me progress. I would still recommend these skis to the Original poster as a Starting point to gain experience and figure out what he wants in his ideal ski. SB98’s are a great starting point and readily available. don’t waste a ski season looking at ski specs wondering if it will work. Just get out.

[lilcliffy]

I'm late to this thread as well-

You are 265lbs and considering the Fischer 98? For what- mopping the floor?

Don't get me wrong here- all kind of skiers weigh 265lbs- but there will be ZERO advantage to the 98 at your weight- it will be just as dead as the 112 when XC skiing.

I wouldn't even consider the 98 if I were you.

(And depending on what you intend to do on skis- you might want to consider something even wider and/or longer...)

Feel like this a little harsh. And discouraging. I understand what you are saying here, and respect your insight. I credit your words here and from your blog for helping me progress and become a XCD skier. The trouble is 260lbs isn’t on any manufactures recommended chart so it’s really hard to know what ski is going to work. Anecdotally after trying Rossignol and Madshus skis fisher SB98’s felt like a revelation and helped me realize what this kind of skiing is about and helped me progress. I would still recommend these skis to the Original poster as a Starting point to gain experience and figure out what he wants in his ideal ski. SB98’s are a great starting point and readily available. don’t waste a ski season looking at ski specs wondering if it will work. Just get out.

I am sorry master rabbit ears- I DID NOT intend to harsh or discouraging. I am sorry- feel bad for coming across that way!
I simply mean that if I weighed as much as that it would be no contest- I would choose the 112 over the 98.
To give you personal context- even at my weight- which typically flirts with 200lbs with my pack- I have yet to try a 98 that I would pick over the 112.
Personally (very personally- meaning me) I can see using the 98 on warm, wet consolidated snow- not in deep soft snow.

Skis like the 98/112/Epoch/Annum have always been marketed as being XCD hybrids- offering both XC and downhill performance. Generally, my experience is that it is a bit of a stretch and at times even full-on bull.

The 98 is stiff and resistant enough to offer some mediocre XC performance- but only if one is light enough.
The 112 is a full 10mm wider underfoot and it is not going to be any less efficient a XC ski for someone that weighs over 200lbs.

Unless one was excusively on dense consolidated snow- I would highly suggest the 112 over the 98 for someone that heavy.

I am sorry, I was trying to be helpful- not harsh or discouraging. Bad communication.
Gareth

P.S. I am so busy at this time of year that is hard for me to keep track of everyone's personal ski context- I don't understand the actual context of the O.P. here-

[lilcliffy]

My point is that even a 189cm 98 is going to offer little to no stability in deep soft snow for somone that heavy-
BUT- if that is not relevant- then go for it!

[lilcliffy]

I am trying to decide between the two. I ski in Western WY (Togwotee and Lander). The caveat is I’m a bigger guy at 265#. I’m an athletic build but still heavy. So do I go wider at 112, but the only length I could find was 179cm? Or do I go 98s at 189 cm?

Thanks for the help and please let me know if I’m totally on the wrong path

If you are looking for flotation- even the shorter 112 will be best.

If you are looking for downhill performance- depends on the snow.

If you are looking for XC perforance- neither.

What are you looking to ski on with either of these of these skis?

[lowangle al]

Definitely go with the wider ski, the more surface area of the base the faster you'll go.

[lowangle al]

I actually think you would faster with a Kom or similar ski, even if you had to go to a T4 boot. Greater stability too. At a certain point it's all about surface area.

[fisheater]

I actually think you would faster with a Kom or similar ski, even if you had to go to a T4 boot. Greater stability too. At a certain point it's all about surface area.

I don’t time myself, but I’m pretty sure you have timed yourself on loops and found yourself to be just as fast on Vectors and T-4’s as something skinnier, isn’t that correct Al? I know you also believe that floating higher is safer and is a good for skinny snow too.
I don’t disagree with anything you say, but still lean skinnier and leather.