Ski Review: 2018-2019 Fischer Excursion 88

[RandoRichard]

So just to clarify, the Fischer Excursion 88 Crown/Skin Xtralite has fishscales with the option to add their special "mini skins," correct? Whereas the Transnordic series has a smooth base with the option to add on their special skins, right?

I am looking for a ski for rolling terrain (with occasional 300-500 ft continuous climbs) in either a packed snowmobile track and occasionally off away from the groomed track.

Two Questions:
1) Can one get in gradual turns using the mini-skins in place, or is the fishscale only option better for turning?
2) What is more efficient on rolling terrain, possible chopped up by snowmobiles, fischscales or mini-skins?

[lowangle al]

I would only get the smooth base transnordic if I planned to use kickwax most of the time and only put the skins on for wet snow or other poor waxing conditions. If you don't plan on waxng go with the scaled ski.

As far as turning with skins on, I'm sure they'll be fine if your goal is just to change direction. If you want to change your outlook on life, maybe not. Turns feel best with a smooth based ski followed by scales and at a distant third would be the kicker skin.

[RandoRichard]

Thanks for the reply lowangle al, I no desire to use waxes at this point, but here is another question.

Assuming I decide on a ski with a waist of about 59-61mm, is there a lot of difference in efficiency with a ski with dimensions like 82-61-70 vs. one that is approx. 68-60-64? I assume the ski with more sidecut will be easier to turn, but does that extra sidecut reduce the speed on straight lines on rolling terrain?

[CwmRaider]

The sidecut is unlikely to be the only difference between skis - but if stiffness, flex pattern and camber were identical, skis with more sidecut for the same waist (IE wider tips) could be at a disadvantage on flats due to the increased width to break trail, less straight tracking and more flotation in the tips and tails relative to the waist (pool cover effect in deep snow).
I'm happily skiing long tours (25 km+) on skis with >20mm sidecut, and don't have major issues with the tracking issues anymore, but I once exchanged my previous E109 skis with a buddy's E99's on a flat section and they couldn't get along at all.
Some anecdotal evidence here suggests that heavier skiers find it easier to keep skis with more sidecut tracking straight. But this is very subjective.

[John Dee]

I shouldn't buy a new pair of skis this year, but here I am amusing myself with it. I love breaking trail with the Transnordic 66's in under 6 or maybe 7 inches of snow. After that I get the Sbound 98s out. I'm very curious about these wider, xc-tuned skis like the T78 and E88, if they are as fun as the tn66 but in deeper snow, like 7-10 inches.

I bought some t78s last year but I felt they were almost as slow as my sbound 98s, so I sold them ASAP. I probably should have bought 196s instead of 186. I supposed a concrete question is for how much snow does use a t78, and how much for a e88? I understand also that the t78 is more rockered.

[lilcliffy]

Can't speak to the current 78 vs 88- but, our 78 is definitely not more rockered than the 88- they are near identical in geometry and flex.

Despite expecting that I would- at my weight I do not find the 88 to be any better in deep snow than the 78.
I would expect significantly heavier (i.e. over 200lbs) skiers would notice a difference with the 88.

The 78 is definitely faster than the 88 and faster (as a XC ski) than any 98 I have ever tried...

If you are happy with the 98 as a XC ski (and are unimpressed with the 78)- why would you consider the 88?

[John Dee]

Can't speak to the current 78 vs 88- but, our 78 is definitely not more rockered than the 88- they are near identical in geometry and flex.

Despite expecting that I would- at my weight I do not find the 88 to be any better in deep snow than the 78.
I would expect significantly heavier (i.e. over 200lbs) skiers would notice a difference with the 88.

The 78 is definitely faster than the 88 and faster (as a XC ski) than any 98 I have ever tried...

If you are happy with the 98 as a XC ski (and are unimpressed with the 78)- why would you consider the 88?

I didn't say that I'm happy with the 98 for xc, but that its what I'm using. I also didn't say that I'm unimpressed with the t78, but think that 186cm was a mistake, despite being on the low end of its weight range.

I read here that the e88 has disappointing scale drag simple due to the increased width of that ski.

What I should probably do is get my Asnes USGI skis mounted just to see how a 78mm XC ski performs.

[John Dee]

The store had all of the smallest sizes outside of the plastic. It could be because they are small, but they seemed surprisingly easy to flex, with little noticeable wax pocket. They went from stiffer to softer numericaly (68,78,88). The only ones that seemed to have much resistance at all were the OTX 68s. Maybe a larger sized 68 would be close to my TN66. I don't remember thinking that the T78's I briefly had last year were so soft as these 78s. Take this with a grain of salt as there are size differences and a lot of time passed.

Something interesting is that the one sample of T78 had no rocker, but the T88 did have some. My T78 last year did, so it may be a production inconsistency.

[John Dee]

Maybe, like lilcliffy said, the 78 and 88's were about the same flex characteristics.

[John Dee]

I need a waxless ski around 80mm. Onion River is having a sale on the Fischers now, but they are out of the E 88's in 199. They do have the T 78's in 196 for $271. I tried my neighbors t78 196cm for about 1 minute and it was positive. It seemed to float in heavy snow, glide, and turn like it should, but I can't help think that the E 88 is better for my bushwacking adventures. The E88 at $398 at OGX so its a real different price point.

These skis seem to fall on either side of the Combat Nato/ Ingstad profile, which is probably the perfect backcountry width. I also wonder if the 199cm E88 would be to stiff for me since its rated for 190 lbs. plus, and I'm 160 lbs.