Help deciding on new skis

[Greenhighlander]

I am looking to expand my Ski collection . Thanks to lots of reading on this site I ended up buying Alpina Discovery 68 , Alpina Alaska boots , and Rottefella nnn BC magnum manual bindings. This set up has been everything I had hoped for and then some. I could not be happier with it over the past 2 years.
That being said I have learned why folks have a stable of skis and would like to add a pair that does what my 68 don't.
I am looking for more floatation and something I can use a skin on for climbing. I am not looking to add any serious downhill ability , yet . So I am looking for something I can use the same bindings as are on my skis now as I really like these boots .

I have currently narrowed my search down to the Excursion 78 , or Sbound 88 , with the 98 being an outlier atm. I really like their skin system and these skis seem to be well liked. I am leaning more towards the 88 as I am not sure just how much more float the 78 will have over 68. I have also ruled out the Alpina 80 due to the climbing ability likely being similar to my skis now ?

I also am not really sure where to look to buy them. I got my last skis from a place in Europe because of a crazy sale they were having , but would now prefer somewhere closer to home.

Anyway I figured I would come get some feed back from the experts.
As always thank you all for the great Info
Cheers

[riel]

I think either the Fischer Excursion 88 or the Åsnes Ingstad might fit the bill. The Excursion will climb a little better without the skins on, while the Ingstad will glide faster.

They should both provide about equal flotation, with the Fischer being a little bit wider underfoot, while the Åsnes is a little stiffer underfoot.

Which one you get? This year you might have to base your decision on which is still available in the shops...

[Greenhighlander]

Thank you for the reply.

I wasn't overly thinking for this year ( we don't even really have snow here yet other then way up in the highlands)
Was really just looking for help making my mind up and help with where to buy them from.

On a side note I do have one complaint about my Discovery 68s and that is the fact that the metal edges are not even from side to side on the skis and even from ski to ski. It doesn't matter much when I am just K&G other then in icy conditions, but it is noticeable when turning or stopping.

[lilcliffy]

Hello and WELCOME Greenhighlander- Cape Bretoner and fellow Maritimer!

My experience as to whether the Fischer 88 will offer significantly more "float" than the 78 depends on your weight.
Some of the lighter skiers in my clan see no difference in flotation between these two skis (we have both).
A heavier skier probably would.
Personally- at 180+lbs- I find I need at least 78mm underfoot before I really get any "float" out of a ski, and if the snow is very deep and dry/fuffy (i.e. true powder) I find I need to be pushing the 100mm mark to get any real flotation...

That being said- here in NB- even my truly deep fresh snow is typically moisture-rich (as I am sure it is in Cape Breton).

Some comparisons (I weigh ~180lbs + pack)- I get about the same amount of flotation from the following skis in 40cm of deep fresh NB snow:
199 Fischer 88
205 Asnes Ingstad
195 Madshus Annum
210 Asnes Combat NATO*

*The 210 Combat NATO offers the most "float"- despite being narrower underfoot than Fischer 88 and the Annum.

(As a point of interest- the "float" of my 210 Gamme and 208 Amundsen in deep soft fresh moisture-rich snow is really pretty much as good as the above skis- because thet are so incredibly stable).

As IMPORTANT as surface area is the flex and stability of the ski in deep soft snow.

Both the 78 and the 88 are stable in deep snow. (As are the Ingstad/Combat NATO).
Of the skis listed above↑ the Annum has the least stable flex- the Annum has a soft round flex- tuned for turning in soft snow on moderate terrain.

Keep in touch- let us know how you make out- and tell us stories about skiing in Cape Breton!
Gareth

[John Dee]

You think you need a skin for climbing if you aren't doing downhill?

[Greenhighlander]

Hey there , I am quite heavy at 220lbs and only 5 10". Even still I have a hard time getting the scales on these 68 in 190cm to bite going up hill. Especially in cold icy or dry conditions.
I did get to try a pair of OAC skin based skis and found the grip for climbing much better . I would like to get a pair of their KARS or something at some point as the model I got to try didn't have much float as they were their skinniest model, which IMHO made them obsolete for the niche they fill.

I am also needing the climbing ability as it is about 10km to where my property is and it is 75% uphill anywhere from 10 to 30 degree slope to get there. I will also at times be hauling a sledge behind me full of gear.
I do have access to some incredible tele terrain which is why I hope to move in that direction at some point.


As for stories I don't really have any other then just how much I enjoy it. Other then when I was a kid I am fairly new but have thoroughly been enjoying each time out. Even the times with a really hard crust have been great as these boots protect my feet from getting all beat up by the crust. I do usually tour by myself as not many people here ski.
I get out daily when we have snow.

Being in NB where do you get your gear from? Should any ski shop that carries Fischer be able to order them in for me? ( if there wasn't this covid stock issue )

[Greenhighlander]

You think you need a skin for climbing if you aren't doing downhill?

Yes . I already am going down some decent downhill on these 68 . Certainly more then these skis are made for. But could use some extra traction going up them . Especially hauling gear.

[Greenhighlander]

I believe I have decided on the 88's . My local shop is ordering a pair in for me with their order this fall.
I am tempted to go with the 179 size even thought I am over weight for them based on their chart. Am I wrong thinking the shorter size will allow better turning ? and I was also thinking it would help insure kick zone contact , which has been an issue with my Discovery 68's at times. I find them very stiff at 190 length and without a fair amount of extra effort , hard to always flex enough to get the waxless pattern to engage.

Given that these are not intended to be speedy traveler skis , and will be more for hauling gear and bush wacking , is there a reason i shouldn't go with the 179 ?

[Ullrsson]

I believe I have decided on the 88's . My local shop is ordering a pair in for me with their order this fall.
I am tempted to go with the 179 size even thought I am over weight for them based on their chart. Am I wrong thinking the shorter size will allow better turning ? and I was also thinking it would help insure kick zone contact , which has been an issue with my Discovery 68's at times. I find them very stiff at 190 length and without a fair amount of extra effort , hard to always flex enough to get the waxless pattern to engage.

Given that these are not intended to be speedy traveler skis , and will be more for hauling gear and bush wacking , is there a reason i shouldn't go with the 179 ?

I have the 88s in 199cm and pretty stiff for me at 195 lbs. They still grip very well and are slow, but they aren't as turny as I think they're designed to be. If you go under length you may find them very slow indeed, but easier to control for sure.

[Greenhighlander]

I believe I have decided on the 88's . My local shop is ordering a pair in for me with their order this fall.
I am tempted to go with the 179 size even thought I am over weight for them based on their chart. Am I wrong thinking the shorter size will allow better turning ? and I was also thinking it would help insure kick zone contact , which has been an issue with my Discovery 68's at times. I find them very stiff at 190 length and without a fair amount of extra effort , hard to always flex enough to get the waxless pattern to engage.

Given that these are not intended to be speedy traveler skis , and will be more for hauling gear and bush wacking , is there a reason i shouldn't go with the 179 ?

I have the 88s in 199cm and pretty stiff for me at 195 lbs. They still grip very well and are slow, but they aren't as turny as I think they're designed to be. If you go under length you may find them very slow indeed, but easier to control for sure.

Sure footedness , better climbing , and better trail breaking are my main hopes from them. Speed is not a priority.