S bound 98 vs excursion 88

[Tom M]

Thanks -- the 98 I have is sadly too short (159, I'm 130 lbs upon waking but 140 dressed with boots and breakfast). I'm going to give them a try (once we get snow) but most likely they won't have the glide I seek for variable conditions. I'm looking for 169's either 98's or 88's ('cause that's where my weight puts me).

It sounds like you have special physical considerations in regards to your ski choice. Take your current setup out for a spin once you get snow and if they don't have enough glide for you, then take REI up on their offer to swap them for a longer set of skis. I love my 98's (I currently have two sets) but if it were me and the primary objective was to ski Forest Service Roads (ie snow covered auto roads, not ATV trails or steep logging roads), then I think the Traverse 78 (my choice) or the Excursion 88 (my wife's choice) would be lighter, offer more glide, and track straighter than the Sbound 98. In my area, the Forest Service auto roads are fun to ski but they don't usually require quick sharp turns to avoid obstacles. The step turn and partial snowplow is often the most useful tool for this type of skiing and will give you some control, but your best friend might be the easy skin to keep your speed in check, especially if you have physical considerations where any fall would be disastrous. Under the right conditions, Forest Service Roads can be very fast, even on the gentle downhills. If they are hard, icy and rutted up they can be a challenge and if the conditions are really bad, then the best choice would be to just stay off the hilly terrain and cruise the flats, and for the flats, the higher camber and straighter 78's and 88's are lots of fun.

[Ira]

Thanks Tom,

Yes, you're right -- the forest service roads have a gentle slope but even that gets too fast in gentle conditions. I'm hoping snow will come in a week (it's supposed to snow a week from now) so I can see if those too-short 98's don't glide. And yes, I'm very grateful that REI will let me trade them out if they're too short.

I did get the EZ skin. In the application you mentioned (the EZ skins on the FS roads on icy days), do you find that they're smooth enough for descent (slowing down rather than jerky stops and starts)? The all-mohair (smoother glide than mix) option for Asnes was one reason I was going to get that one until I found out about the problematic waxless pattern on those, and sadly, Fischer only has a mix (nor pure mohair) so wondering if that would be smooth enough not to faceplant from a sudden jerky stop during a skin descent?

Thanks!

[Tom M]

In the application you mentioned (the EZ skins on the FS roads on icy days), do you find that they're smooth enough for descent (slowing down rather than jerky stops and starts)? The all-mohair (smoother glide than mix) option for Asnes was one reason I was going to get that one until I found out about the problematic waxless pattern on those, and sadly, Fischer only has a mix (nor pure mohair) so wondering if that would be smooth enough not to faceplant from a sudden jerky stop during a skin descent?

Thanks!

It feels very different skiing downhill with the easy skins on than without, but I wouldn't describe it as jerky or unpredictable. The easy skins come in a couple of different widths and as you might expect, the 50 mm width will glide a bit better and the 65's will climb better. Both will work on the Excursion 88's and Sbound 98's, but you wouldn't want to use the 65 mm easy skin on the Traverse 78's.

[Ira]

Thanks Tom! Great video! It didn't look jerky at all, and that's about the slope of the roads I ski except the ones I'm on are ungroomed (easy most days except for icy days). Thanks!

[satanas]

In my experience the 98 likes to turn and will hold an edge, whereas the 88 resists turning and skids out at the tail much sooner if conditions are at all firm. Since I have no problem going in a straight line on either and have loathed the 88s whenever I've tried them, I'd suggest the 98s (or 112s). If you're focused more on covering distance then IMHO the SB 78 + BC boots and bindings make more sense then the 88s, which make little sense to me.

[Ira]

In my experience the 98 likes to turn and will hold an edge, whereas the 88 resists turning and skids out at the tail much sooner if conditions are at all firm. Since I have no problem going in a straight line on either and have loathed the 88s whenever I've tried them, I'd suggest the 98s (or 112s). If you're focused more on covering distance then IMHO the SB 78 + BC boots and bindings make more sense then the 88s, which make little sense to me.

Thanks -- I have a follow up question: If I'm skiing in an empty campground, but need to make turns due to trees, would the 98 vs 88 or 78 make a big difference in terms of those type of turns (not Tele turns, more like briefly going into a snowplow and turning, or turning 'cause the trail turned or there's a tree ahead).

The last couple weeks, with lots of melting and re-freezing, and dry weather, I've been skiing a campground instead of the Forest Service Road (the road is too icy with drop-offs, so the campground is safer). I found with the too-short S-bound 98's I've been able to have more control & turn more than I ever had in my 5 years of skiing on Rossi BC-90's (although it's slower than I like due to being only 159 cm). I've had no problem with them being able to go straight.

Would love to ask everyone -- are there major advantages to the 88 or 78's that I'd be overlooking if I went with the S-bound 98's (if they ever have them in my actual size -- 169)? Would 88's perform better in icy conditions, or not so much?

Due to foot problems I never go more than 4 miles in a day, and it's more about enjoying the journey than maximizing distance covered. In fact, in the campground, I've been skiing over the same area 6 times in an outing, back and forth, so not trying to get somewhere.

Thanks!

[lilcliffy]

Hello Ira! Good to hear from you, been wondering how you were making out!

The 98 is definitely more turn-oriented than the 78/88- less cambered and more sidecut. Tom's recent video suggests that the current 98 is also softer flexing than the 78/88.

Good to hear that you are happier with the tracking of the 98 vs the 112 (I am not surprised by this).

Perhaps the 98 is the ideal ski! Perhaps a longer length would give you a bit better XC glide that you are looking for.
Gareth

[Ira]

Thanks Gareth and everyone,

I haven't tried the 88, but have been wondering whether the 88 might struggle with a curve like the one at the bottom of the hill shown in this picture. I noticed that back when I used Rossignol BC-90's, I was a bit nervous if taking on that curve on an icy day with speed (about going out of my tracks and not getting around the curve, the skis hitting the side of the tracks), and with the S-bound 98 a curve like that is much easier (just weighing the outside ski). Would a curve like this also be a challenge with Excursion 88 or Traverse 78? Or would all of them perform the same on a curve like this (not where I am in the picture, but where I'm going where the road curves on a downhill)

Also, does anyone know an online retailer in the US that has the 21-22 S-bound 98 in 169? I know this is minor, but, even though I'm willing to wait, I really love the color of this year's version (the brilliant blue with a tint of aqua -- my favorite color), so would love to get this year's version if they change the colors next year. I do prefer still to get it at REI (since I will sadly be returning several skis there that are too short in 159 or too wide 112, I'd like to support REI by buying the skis I'll actually keep there as well). So far I have not seen the Fischer 98 or 88 or 78 in 169 at REI (and I've been checking almost daily since November).

Thanks!

[lilcliffy]

Hi Ira,
Assuming that we are talking about pressuring-steering the ski into that turn (as opposed to stepping/striding into that turn)-

the 98 will definitely be easier to pressure and steer into that turn than the 78/88-
the 98 is less cambered, softer, and has more sidecut.