Ski lenght importance... Traverse 78 vs Rossignol BC 80

This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web. We have fun here, come on in and be a part of it.
User avatar
agregoire
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:27 am
Location: Montreal, QC
Favorite Skis: Fischer S-98

Ski lenght importance... Traverse 78 vs Rossignol BC 80

Post by agregoire » Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:45 am

Good morning all! Best season is coming soon ;)
I've been reading a lot of posts here and highly appreciate everyone's input. However I can't seem to find an answer to my current dilemna: I want to purchase a new pair of skis to continue exploring the frozen river and its islands, golf courses and forests around my area, but also be able to climb up mountains and ski them down. I'm an experienced downhill telemarker (with T4 Scarpas and kongur skis), and Cross-Country Skier (been exploring my area with Rossignol EVOs).

I am 6'1 and about 210 lbs all dressed up and ready to go with a small backpack. I am hesitating between the new Traverse 78 and the new Rossignol BC 80. Been looking around for a few months already and couldn't find them anywhere, until I got my hands on a Traverse 78... but only available in 186cm... The ski shop tells me that the "196cm" is for ­>220lbs and the 186cm is for 180-220lbs but I can't seem to find an actual chart that says that anywhere on the web... it rather says 70-90Kgs for the 186m which means the 196 may be a better size for me, but it's unavailable...

So my question is: Should I better get a longer ski in a "cheaper" BC80, or take a "shorter" ski in a better overall ski "T78"... or should I rather take a different ski altogether? Would love to hear your comments!

Thanks,
Antoine

User avatar
CoreyLayton
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2021 11:27 am

Re: Ski lenght importance... Traverse 78 vs Rossignol BC 80

Post by CoreyLayton » Thu Nov 11, 2021 9:21 am

as I understand it, proper ski legth (and resultant camber) are mostly important for traditional “kick and glide” XC use. And this is mainly what yoo decsribe for how you plan to use these new skiis.

186cm is *already* on the short side, for someone of your height/weight for an xc (not xcD) ski. I would not purchase the shorter Traverse if I were you.

I am 5’10”/195lbs and bought the 196 Traverse earlier this Fall.

another option is the Fischer Excursion 88. Very similar to the Traverse 78, but a bit wider. so a bit better fresh, deep snow performace but less efficient kick and glide especially on consolidated snow. (rei.com has these in 199cm length in-stock)



User avatar
connyro
needs to take stock of his life
needs to take stock of his life
Posts: 1233
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:46 am

Re: Ski lenght importance... Traverse 78 vs Rossignol BC 80

Post by connyro » Thu Nov 11, 2021 9:47 am

FWIW: I ski last year's T78s in 199. I'm 185 and 5'10 and would not get those skis any shorter. in fact I wish they were longer sometimes. If I had to choose between short 78s and longer bc80s then I would go with the bcc80s. That being said, I really really like my 78s for all around xcd



User avatar
Stephen
Posts: 1485
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:49 am
Location: PNW USA
Ski style: Aspirational
Favorite Skis: Armada Tracer 118 (195), Gamme (210), Ingstad (205), Objective BC (178)
Favorite boots: Alfa Guard Advance, Scarpa TX Pro
Occupation: Beyond
6’3” / 191cm — 172# / 78kg, size 47 / 30 mondo

Re: Ski lenght importance... Traverse 78 vs Rossignol BC 80

Post by Stephen » Thu Nov 11, 2021 2:13 pm

Hello @agregoire, if you PM me, I will tell you where I saw a pair of T78s in 196 yesterday.



User avatar
agregoire
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:27 am
Location: Montreal, QC
Favorite Skis: Fischer S-98

Re: Ski lenght importance... Traverse 78 vs Rossignol BC 80

Post by agregoire » Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:03 pm

Thanks for your replies; I went back to the ski shop (in Montreal, QC), and was lucky enough to speak to their XC expert, which convinced me that in the new 2021-2022 skis, the Traverse 78 was the ski to get, and that 186cm was the one for me. We even did a weight test and the fischer slider was moving easily under the skis. He showed me the workbook (https://issuu.com/fischersportsgmbh/doc ... FiNTI3OTkw) and at the bottom right of page 45, it indicates that for this season, Fischer advised that we need to look at the 189cm mark under the ADVENTURE/OFFTRACK table, which shows that the weight range for these is 80-105Kg (176-231lbs). I also got the easy-skins and can't wait to try them out! Will let you know how it goes later this winter!
Antoine



User avatar
Woodserson
Posts: 2987
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:25 am
Location: New Hampshire
Ski style: Bumps, trees, steeps and long woodsy XC tours
Occupation: Confused Turn Farmer

Re: Ski lenght importance... Traverse 78 vs Rossignol BC 80

Post by Woodserson » Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:51 pm

Fischer always recommends to go shorter. Always. And then the skis, especially the Offtrack Crown skis, ski slow, especially if you know how to XC ski. If you are a beginner then you'll be good. If you have experience you'll want the longer ski. Unless you want to only climb up and then ski down things.

I'm 160 and the 189 Traverse is too slow for me.

Do they not have the 196 length in stock? He is trying to sell you what he has?



User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 4147
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm
Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada
Ski style: backcountry Nordic ski touring
Favorite Skis: Asnes Ingstad, Combat Nato, Amundsen, Rabb 68; Altai Kom
Favorite boots: Alpina Alaska BC; Lundhags Expedition; Alfa Skaget XP; Scarpa T4
Occupation: Forestry Professional
Instructor at Maritime College of Forest Technology
Husband, father, farmer and logger

Re: Ski lenght importance... Traverse 78 vs Rossignol BC 80

Post by lilcliffy » Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:52 pm

Very interesting and helpful Antoine!

So- you had an actual effective double-cambered wax pocket on a 186cm T78- and you weigh ~200lbs?!!?

That is one stiff cambered BC touring ski!!!

Wow.

Bievennue!
Gareth
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.



User avatar
Sean_J
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2021 6:15 pm
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Ski style: XCd
Favorite Skis: S Bound 98
Favorite boots: Alpina Alaska BC

Re: Ski lenght importance... Traverse 78 vs Rossignol BC 80

Post by Sean_J » Thu Nov 11, 2021 6:19 pm

I emailed Fischer about sizing on the Traverse 78 since I couldn't any consistent info anywhere.
Here was the response:

Hello,

Thank you for reaching out.

Your weight of 90kg / 198 lbs puts you squarely in the middle of the weight range for size 196 cm Traverse 78 skis.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

(Name redacted)
Customer Service
Fischer Skis US LLC


Hopefully this helps.



User avatar
agregoire
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:27 am
Location: Montreal, QC
Favorite Skis: Fischer S-98

Re: Ski lenght importance... Traverse 78 vs Rossignol BC 80

Post by agregoire » Thu Nov 11, 2021 7:44 pm

Woodserson wrote:
Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:51 pm
Fischer always recommends to go shorter. Always. And then the skis, especially the Offtrack Crown skis, ski slow, especially if you know how to XC ski. If you are a beginner then you'll be good. If you have experience you'll want the longer ski. Unless you want to only climb up and then ski down things.

I'm 160 and the 189 Traverse is too slow for me.

Do they not have the 196 length in stock? He is trying to sell you what he has?
They didn't have the 196 no, but he could've easily sold me the E88s or the S98, for which he had 199s. He is simply convinced that these are the right skis for me.... any ways, I always open track in rough snow and want to go down small hills in the woods so smaller skis will likely be more controllable. I still have my Rossignols EVO 200mm which I can use to go faster or in machined tracks... I'm pretty advanced though and still believe it's a risk I find them too slow, but will try them anyways! Can't wait for snow to fall :) Might also try them downhill!



User avatar
Woodserson
Posts: 2987
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:25 am
Location: New Hampshire
Ski style: Bumps, trees, steeps and long woodsy XC tours
Occupation: Confused Turn Farmer

Re: Ski lenght importance... Traverse 78 vs Rossignol BC 80

Post by Woodserson » Thu Nov 11, 2021 9:37 pm

agregoire wrote:
Thu Nov 11, 2021 7:44 pm
Woodserson wrote:
Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:51 pm
Fischer always recommends to go shorter. Always. And then the skis, especially the Offtrack Crown skis, ski slow, especially if you know how to XC ski. If you are a beginner then you'll be good. If you have experience you'll want the longer ski. Unless you want to only climb up and then ski down things.

I'm 160 and the 189 Traverse is too slow for me.

Do they not have the 196 length in stock? He is trying to sell you what he has?
They didn't have the 196 no, but he could've easily sold me the E88s or the S98, for which he had 199s. He is simply convinced that these are the right skis for me.... any ways, I always open track in rough snow and want to go down small hills in the woods so smaller skis will likely be more controllable. I still have my Rossignols EVO 200mm which I can use to go faster or in machined tracks... I'm pretty advanced though and still believe it's a risk I find them too slow, but will try them anyways! Can't wait for snow to fall :) Might also try them downhill!
Ok cool! As long as you are informed. I don’t want you to be taken advantage of. Have fun and post pics this winter!



Post Reply