Fischer SBound 78 vs Traverse 78 rocker comparison

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.
Post Reply
User avatar
Woodserson
Posts: 2967
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

Fischer SBound 78 vs Traverse 78 rocker comparison

Post by Woodserson » Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:59 pm

I don't mean to bring this place to new levels of minutiae analysis of XCD skis, but I'm just going to do it.

I nabbed some Traverse 78 for mega-cheap the other day and mounted them up. My old SBound 78's were getting long in the tooth and I find myself gravitating back to them lately for touring around here in the hills so I sprung for the Traverse. I also like the skinlock system very much. Turns out the Traverse has much more nordic rocker than the old 78's-- probably like the Excursion 88 too. The old Sbound was sold with nordic rocker. This is some serious rocker. Here are some photo comparisons:

This picture is the Traverse NOT compressed, point-of-contact to point-of-contact.
2018-03-27 12.38.00.jpg
This is the Traverse FULLY COMPRESSED from the midsole.
2018-03-27 12.38.36.jpg
Here is a comparison of the SBound 78 vs the Traverse 78 with a ruler for scale, FULLY compressed.
2018-03-27 12.37.07.jpg
And here is the ruler drawing the line between the new POC's between the two skis to show how deep the Traverse rocker goes.
2018-03-27 12.37.35.jpg
I have only used the Traverse once, on a 13.5 mile tour in the White mountains with minimal elevation gain and therefor minimal turning. However in some bobsled track I did turn to go around corners and they were very well behaved. I may take them up my local hill soon. I have NNN BC on them. My SBound 78's used to have NNNBC, I went to 75mm, learned to turn in them which started me on the telemark path, and then went on to other skis, they have now gone back to NNNBC (they are way holey now).

I can't for whatever reason, seem to shake the ski. It's actually slightly less stiff than my Excursions and better behaved than my Sbound 98's. I seem to slowly go back to them over and again. It's becoming a comfortable relationship.

User avatar
lowangle al
Posts: 2732
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:36 pm
Location: Pocono Mts / Chugach Mts
Ski style: BC with focus on downhill perfection
Favorite Skis: powder skis
Favorite boots: Scarpa T4
Occupation: Retired cement mason. Current job is to take my recreation as serious as I did my past employment.

Re: Fischer SBound 78 vs Traverse 78 rocker comparison

Post by lowangle al » Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:09 pm

Wow, they have bobsleds cruisin the woods back there?



User avatar
Woodserson
Posts: 2967
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: Fischer SBound 78 vs Traverse 78 rocker comparison

Post by Woodserson » Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:44 pm

lowangle al wrote:Wow, they have bobsleds cruisin the woods back there?
Fo'sho' yo. Git outta the way, they be moving down these tracks! Choo Choo!
2018-03-27 21.39.55.jpg



User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 4112
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: Fischer SBound 78 vs Traverse 78 rocker comparison

Post by lilcliffy » Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:58 am

Cool.

What is the tip like on the T-78? I am wondering what it is like compared to the E109- which has a very soft, wimpy unsupportive tip.

What's the camber and flex like on the T-78 versus the previous S-78? Some are saying it is quite different- didn't seem that different to me from examining in the shop (but it has been a decade since I flexed an S-Bound 78).

The addition of the Easy-Skin is a huge asset on this ski- was out on a dreamy spring tour on my E109 Crown yesterday- wish they had the Easy-Skin attachment.

Been meaning to ask you- did I read somewhere that you bought a pair of Alaska NNNBC? If so- what do you think compared to the Rossi BCX10?
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.



User avatar
Woodserson
Posts: 2967
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: Fischer SBound 78 vs Traverse 78 rocker comparison

Post by Woodserson » Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:53 am

lilcliffy wrote:Cool.

What is the tip like on the T-78? I am wondering what it is like compared to the E109- which has a very soft, wimpy unsupportive tip.

What's the camber and flex like on the T-78 versus the previous S-78? Some are saying it is quite different- didn't seem that different to me from examining in the shop (but it has been a decade since I flexed an S-Bound 78).
The tip is not wimpy, it is supportive and very similar to the old 78 but with rocker, which I can't feel when I flex it, I can just see it. The BIG difference is that when I flex- by hand- the 78 the theoretical wax pocket stays in place. As I sight down the edge of the ski I can see the pocket. In the Traverse, using the same pressure, the ski flattens out. BUT the overall stiffness of the ski is the same. I need to get out on this ski a little more but I bet it will turn easier, I had a hell of time making those 78's turn. Also, more drag, but this was something I did not notice on my 13+ mile tour last week. I thought they were just fine. Snow was excellent however.
lilcliffy wrote:Been meaning to ask you- did I read somewhere that you bought a pair of Alaska NNNBC? If so- what do you think compared to the Rossi BCX10?
Yes, I got a pair of Alaskas on clearance. They are the most amazing NNNBC boot I have ever owned. There is a power transfer thing going on there that just blows me away. The Rossi BCX10 can't compete with the Alaska. I would like to think I'll keep the Rossis for long flat tours but then I just did one in the Alaskas. There is only one NNN-BC boot for me, for everything, and that's the Alaska.



User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 4112
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: Fischer SBound 78 vs Traverse 78 rocker comparison

Post by lilcliffy » Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:26 pm

Woodserson wrote: The tip is not wimpy, it is supportive and very similar to the old 78 but with rocker, which I can't feel when I flex it, I can just see it.
Well this sounds good- better than E109- and sounds more like what Johnny described with the new Ingstad- and Pete describes with the Gamme 54.
The BIG difference is that when I flex- by hand- the 78 the theoretical wax pocket stays in place. As I sight down the edge of the ski I can see the pocket. In the Traverse, using the same pressure, the ski flattens out.
This suggests that your T-78 is actually less cambered than the S-78. Does the T-78 have that defined low profile stiff camber that defines the "camber-and-a-half" thing- or, would you say that single-cambered would better describe the T-78?
BUT the overall stiffness of the ski is the same. I need to get out on this ski a little more but I bet it will turn easier, I had a hell of time making those 78's turn. Also, more drag, but this was something I did not notice on my 13+ mile tour last week. I thought they were just fine. Snow was excellent however.
Well that tip rocker makes one hell of a difference in turn initiation and radius. Both my rockered E99 and E109 are wonderful to turn- just wonderful- when I pressure them to turn they both feel much shorter than 200+cm! Heck my double cambered E99 Tour- with ample Nordic rocker- is easier to turn than my Combat Nato- despite the fact that the Combat Nato is less cambered and has more sidecut! (In all fairness the Combat isn't actually hard to turn- it just has quite a long turn radius with a 210cm effective edge!!)

The combination of tip rocker with full-length stability on a Nordic touring ski is the stuff of dreams for XC skiing in hilly/mountainous terrain!

Hopefully Fischer improves the flex of the E109.

Wish Fischer made the T-78 in a 205-210cm length- would like to have the Easy-Skin plus the Offtrack Crown for shoulder season touring in the hills!
Yes, I got a pair of Alaskas on clearance. They are the most amazing NNNBC boot I have ever owned. There is a power transfer thing going on there that just blows me away. The Rossi BCX10 can't compete with the Alaska. I would like to think I'll keep the Rossis for long flat tours but then I just did one in the Alaskas. There is only one NNN-BC boot for me, for everything, and that's the Alaska.
Great to hear you are happy with the Alaska! The Alaska is a truly powerful striding boot- it so well designed for effective power transfer, and the ability to dial in a custom supportive fit cannot be beat! That boot is also very well made- mine are still in superb shape, and now that I have more confidence in the construction of the toe bar, I am planning on skiing my current pair into the ground! I keep pondering whether I might like to try an alternative boot from Crispi or Alfa, but the a replacement Alaska is really what I should do when these boots are done!
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.



User avatar
Woodserson
Posts: 2967
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: Fischer SBound 78 vs Traverse 78 rocker comparison

Post by Woodserson » Sat Mar 31, 2018 7:10 pm

lilcliffy wrote:
The BIG difference is that when I flex- by hand- the 78 the theoretical wax pocket stays in place. As I sight down the edge of the ski I can see the pocket. In the Traverse, using the same pressure, the ski flattens out.
This suggests that your T-78 is actually less cambered than the S-78. Does the T-78 have that defined low profile stiff camber that defines the "camber-and-a-half" thing- or, would you say that single-cambered would better describe the T-78?
This is always a tricky conversation. The UNcompressed camber, when placed base-to-base, of the two skis is very similar. The amount of pressure to flex the ski the same amount is also very similar- to the point I can't tell the difference and I flex lots of skis, all the time. The only real difference is that the little wax pocket under the foot disappears on the Traverse before it disappears on the old 78, which TO ME means it'll arc a turn a little easier under the foot.



User avatar
Cannatonic
Posts: 983
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:07 pm

Re: Fischer SBound 78 vs Traverse 78 rocker comparison

Post by Cannatonic » Mon Apr 02, 2018 2:15 pm

interesting comparison, Fischer seems to enjoy changing things up every year. If the graphics have changed, you can assume some change has been made to the skis as well.
"All wisdom is to be gained through suffering"
-Will Lange (quoting Inuit chieftan)



Post Reply