Fischer S Bound 98 and Madshus Epoch

[Woodserson]

lilcliffy, I don't want to go much bigger than the 98's because then what's really the point to have the no-wax gription base with anything bigger? I might as well break out some of my old fat skis, or get a Fischer TransAlp, and throw some pins on those, or an AT binding and get back into the alpine side (w/ skins). I'm of course sorely tempted to go back to fat, but the reason I'm here now is because of injuries, and not only do I want to stay healthy, I'm really enjoying the slower, skinnier, side of the XCD skiing. It's a neat little corner of the skiing world that I am very happy in, at the moment.

So a review on the 78, hmmm? What do we want to know? Should it be a new thread? In a previous life long ago I used to review skis, but I'm no longer super-duper-expert skier on this type of equipment.

[MikeK]

Yes - please start a new thread in this section.

You can say whatever you want. I'm no expert. But surely you can tell use something better than Fischer can

[CIMA]

Hi Woodserson,

You seem to be inclining toward xcD rather than XCd like me.
How about picking S-bound 88?
It's good enough for me to ski downhill in even in deep powder.
I'm riding on it with SNS setup, and it would be further better if you care about your feet.

[Woodserson]

Hi Woodserson,

You seem to be inclining toward xcD rather than XCd like me.
How about picking S-bound 88?
It's good enough for me to ski downhill in even in deep powder.
I'm riding on it with SNS setup, and it would be further better if you care about your feet.

Hi CIMA, I love your videos! I thought for the past two years I was going to get the 88, but then if I already have the 78, won't jumping to the 98 cover more skiing? What do you mean by "further better if you care about your feet."?

Sell me on the 88 over the 98. I'm all ears!

I actually do lots of XCd, but usually on skis that 68 in the shovel and thinner, like the Fischer Country Crown/Wax (I have both), but as I get more and more into xcD, I want the beefier ski. The 3 pins on the 78 was an experiment, I had 2 years on them with NNN BC binding, and even now, I think about going back to the NNNBC, especially if I get an 88 or 98 into the mix. Talk to me about the 88

[Woodserson]

Yes - please start a new thread in this section.

You can say whatever you want. I'm no expert. But surely you can tell use something better than Fischer can

What? "A-B touring efficient camber" isn't enough for you? haha

[CIMA]

I thought for the past two years I was going to get the 88, but then if I already have the 78, won't jumping to the 98 cover more skiing?

Well, the fatter skis get, the easier you get flotation.
However, it would get more difficult to control the skis or get less comfortable during kick-and-glide at the same time. I've found that S-bound 88 was the meeting point for powder skiing. For consolidated snow, I would pick skinnier ones like Rossignol BC70.

What do you mean by "further better if you care about your feet."?

The NNN/SNS setup is less prone to injuries on you feet than that of 3-pin, especially when torsional stress is applied to your skis. That is truer if you're on beefier skis.

I actually do lots of XCd, but usually on skis that 68 in the shovel and thinner, like the Fischer Country Crown/Wax (I have both), but as I get more and more into xcD, I want the beefier ski. The 3 pins on the 78 was an experiment, I had 2 years on them with NNN BC binding, and even now, I think about going back to the NNNBC, especially if I get an 88 or 98 into the mix. Talk to me about the 88

If you'd like to ski on powder on skis skinnier than 98, NNN/SNS setup has an edge. The NNN/SNS setup gets more flotation than 3-pin does. You'll find the reasons in my comments in the "The NNN/BC Truth Thread."
I wouldn't pick the skies fatter than 88 because my boots Salomon Xadv 8 won't withstand torsional stress. Many friends of mine go for Madshus Epoch for powder skiing, but I like stiffer camber of 88. The 88 has "nordic rocker," but I don't find big different compared to its prior model, Outtabounds Crown which has normal double camber.

[lilcliffy]

lilcliffy, I don't want to go much bigger than the 98's because then what's really the point to have the no-wax gription base with anything bigger? I might as well break out some of my old fat skis, or get a Fischer TransAlp, and throw some pins on those, or an AT binding and get back into the alpine side (w/ skins). I'm of course sorely tempted to go back to fat, but the reason I'm here now is because of injuries, and not only do I want to stay healthy, I'm really enjoying the slower, skinnier, side of the XCD skiing. It's a neat little corner of the skiing world that I am very happy in, at the moment.

IMO- the Annum and the S-112 offer significantly better flotation than the Epoch and S-98.

Although I agree that the S-98 and Epoch are more versatile than the Annum and S-112; my experience is that the Annum and the S-112 will outperform the Epoch/S-98 in deep pow. IME; in deep powder, the extra width of the Annum/S-112 will offer better traction, better K&G, and better turning.

[EarlS]

Hi Mike K - Im curious about your experience with your Glittertinds and your E99s

I don't find the Glittertind all that slow to tour with. The E99 is perhaps a bit quicker, but if it is, not enough to write home about. I can't tell you for sure because of the difference in length between what we have.

From a later comment I gather that your Glitts are 200 cm but I am wondering what length your E99s are. I find that a 10 cm difference in length for a given ski type makes a noticeable difference in speed.

Neither feel like a true traditional xc touring ski though.

In his review of ski types, Dave Mann includes the older more narrow E99s (65/55/60) under "traditional touring" but the 2003-05 model (68/55/62) is classified as "old school tele", perhaps because of the slightly wider tip. Do you have the wider E99 model ?

Downhill neither are turny at all.

Dave Mann says that both traditional touring and old school teles are double cambered, but the old school teles are a bit softer which makes them easier to bend into tele turns. Do you really find that your soft Glittertinds are no easier to turn than the relatively stiff E99s ?

My old wood skis from the 60s and 70s have profiles like (59/50/52) and (55/50/50), which are more narrow than the current E99s (66/54/61), but I would have thought that, by virtue of their stiffness, all generations of E99s would feel like traditional Nordic skis.

I recently posted a telemarktalk review of my short Glittertinds. I have really mixed feelings about those skis; I think they are good at some things but pretty awful for others. When I bought them I thought I might use them for some aerobic exercise at our local Nordic resort. However, the "prepared" Nordic trails are packed so hard that my 180 cm Glittertinds skitter all over the place when coming down hills; furthermore, they are no faster than my 185 cm Karhu GTs either.

I have not skied on any of my Nordic skis for 10 years or more, but I am thinking that controlling my old Fischer Sport Crowns (51/48/49) cannot be much worse than my short Glittertinds. So, I resurrected the Sport Crowns, cleaned up the bottoms, which are still in pretty ragged shape from many years of abuse, and I plan to try them out at the Nordic resort next year to see if I still like that type of ski. If I can live with the lack of turning ability, I thought I might look for some E99s, thinking that they were a pretty traditional Nordic ski.

Do you regard your E89 crowns as more representative of the traditional Nordic ski type than your E99s ?

[Cannatonic]

IMO any adult man should not have E99/Glitt type skis below 200cm, totally disagree with Barnett there. 200cm is a short length for these. You need 205 or 210 to glide and float well. Sounds like the 180's are totally overwhelmed by your weight.

I find E99's to turn fairly easily due to their soft tips and flex. I've heard that the Glittertind is stiffer and more XC-focused vs. the E99, not the other way around. I would recommend 200cm E99's for what you want to do. I'm 180 pounds and the 205cm E99 is very easy to handle and turn for a nordic-type ski. I use the 210's most of the time for better glide and float in unconsolidated snow. The current late-model E99's are super lightweight, for 165 pounds I'd actually recommend 205's.

If you don't want long skis then I'd go to something like Fischer 78 Traverse in 189. That ski is designed to work with your weight at 189cm. I have them in 199cm and they seem very easy to turn.

[stilltryin]

Any updated thoughts comparing performance/use of S-bound 98 to what is now the Madshus m68?
I read early on in this thread that S-bound might be a bit more turn-oriented while the old Epoch might track better -- still? thoughts? (EZ skin is certainly one difference).