MikeK wrote:From what I can tell comparing the Madshus skis to the Fischers, yes... they look identical. When you flatten a ski with camber the contact point at the tip moves back and raises up slightly. I didn't measure it precisely between the two, but if it is different, it's like mm of difference i.e. very, very small.
Used to think this...but I was actually almost shocked how much my E-99/E-109 tips open up when I compress the camber. Perhaps this is a product of the current E-99/E-109 being a complete redesign? It at least appears that the S-78/S-88/S-98 are identical to previous design cycles of S-Bounds- so, perhaps that is why the "Nordic rocker" is less pronounced? I don't know- I don't own any of the current S-Bounds- have only tested them several years ago...
How does your S-78 compare to your Eon? Do the tips of the S-78 open up when you compress the camber?
My Eons are slightly open (rockered) and they do not open up significantly when I compress the camber (all of our family's Madshus Karhu XCDs are alike in this respect). The Eon's tip is very soft though- much softer than my E-109. The Combat Nato tip is even stiffer than the E-109.
I'm under the impression myself that Fischer's S Bounds always had this attribute and they decided to capitalize on it.
This may be true- not sure- but the current E-99/E-109 definitely have a pronounced "Nordic rocker"- which the previous generation definitely did NOT have.
One thing I don't like about Fischer is that they seem to put all these fancy names for simple, ordinary things on their skis to try to make them sound better or different.
My perspective is that Fischer seems to be focusing on performance and reducing manufacturing costs- which have come at the loss of durability and longevity. I am confident that the current E-99/E-109 perform better than the previous generation. It is clear- from user reports- that they are not as durable as the previous generation.
Madshus doesn't bake any of this into their skis, but they haven't really done anything other than integrate the Omni scale pattern, which actually kind of sucks.
The current Madshus XCDs are exact carbon copies of the last generation Karhu XCDs.
They also have very, very thin edges to reduce weight compared to Asnes.
I wonder if this is primarily to reduce weight, or manufacturing costs...
Fischers do tend to be the stiffest in bending and torsion, so to me that says they use more glass and is probably why despite the hollow core, they are heavier.
Torsionally- how do your Ingstads flex compared to your S-78?
My Combat Natos feel torsionally stiffer than the E-109; but, the E-109 feels more cambered and stiffer underfoot.
but there isn't much development in this sector of skiing. I think they throw a few bucks at it every year to design new top sheets or improve scales, etc... but mostly it's milking the same low volume, low profit line that they've had for years. It only makes sense, all the money is in resort or race skis, either in XC or DH. We're small potatoes.
It is certainly small potatoes in the North American market...I still CANNOT believe one can no longer buy an E-99 with a waxable base in the US!!!? The fact that enough Canadians buy waxable makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside (BUT it likely has as much to do with climate and snow conditions as skier habits
BUT- here's the thing- perhaps when it comes to true backcountry, off-track, Nordic cross-country and downhill skiing technology- there is not a whole lot of innovation left to pursue in a fundamental sense...We are talking about a technology that is fundamentally thousands and thousands of years old...
When I look at the tips of my new E-99/E-109 opening up when I compress the camber, I recognize some very real potential innovation. It will certainly facilitate climbing/turning. But is it better for breaking trail than an old-school, broad, raised elongated tip?
Check out the trail-breaking tips on these traditional, non-rockered skis!