Page 1 of 1
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 10:48 am
I know you can't really answer that unless you happen to know the Morrotto and have an idea about what I want to use it for. some of you may remember the Morrotto as they sport quite a distinctive purple and blue pattern (I've tried to attach a photograph) and as their name implies they were Italian made and sold as touring skis that would turn a bit with a profile of 65 -52-60. They have quite a soft flex and mine need to be waxed and are fitted with Rottafella Supertelemark 75mm 3 pin bindings.
I live in the English Peak District, where we get a bit of snow each year and the hills tended to have flat or rolling tops and steep sides, unfortunately the steep sides rarely have enough snow on them to be properly skiable. I also ski in Scotland, where the hills are bigger and more likely to carry snow and in Norway, where they usually have lots of snow except when I go.On the whole, I've been happy with the Morrotto's downhill performance, especially on softer snow and a little less happy but still satisfied with their K&G capabilities. I was also getting a bit fed up with having to wax for fickle English conditions where the temperature usually hovers around the freezing point. I also ski some Rossignol Deltas with nnn bindings, which I love, although the poor things have never seen a cut track in their lives and some SKY 7 HD all mountain skis with 7TM bindings and big plastic telly boots, so I have the further ends of the spectrum covered so to speak.
After spending some time in our local nordic and ski touring shop ( several hundred miles away in Scotland) I started edging towards some Fischer 99 crown extralights, reasoning that they had a similar profile to the Morrottos and so should be reasonably capable downhill and maybe a bit snappier with the K&G. Perhaps, I thought, I might add some more downhill but still lightweight skis to my quiver at a later date, ideally something that would be compatible with the pair of Fischer BCX675 boots I had treated myself to.
This seemed like a plan, but like most plans it started to unravel when it came into contact with a few country facts. For a start, I kept reading that people didn't like the crown pattern and I noticed that even my inexpertly waxed planks weren't noticeably worse than the brand-new waxless skis that some of my friends had. And then I found some reasonably priced Traverse 78s, which are tempting the hell out of me. I'm assuming that these will be pretty good on the downhills, or at least better than either the 99s or the Morrottos; but not so good on the K&G. So my questions are: am I right in assuming that the Traverse will turn well? And am I likely to be disappointed in their K&G compared to that of my Morrottos? (Bear in mind that I haven't tried the 99s so I won't know what I am missing.) Or should I just accept that my quiver size is bound to increase and I'll probably end up with something in between the Deltas and the Fischers as well as something between the Traverse and the Sky 7s?
Any advice, analyses and /or anecdotes welcome.
PS any ideas on why my photo has rotated?
I'd like some advice please. I've used a pair of Morrotto telemark lights for more years now than I care to remember and thought I might like an update. Do you think that the Fischer Traverse 78 would make a suitable replacement?
Re: Traverse 78
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:28 pm
So I have both, the Traverse and 99 Crown. I really like the Fischer Offtrack Crown, it works really well compared to other nonwax skis. I wouldn't compare a nonwax to a wax, really. You need to make a decision, do you want a wax ski or not. If not, Fischer's offtrack crown is great for a nonwax pattern.
Then, you need to decide if you want a longer ski or not. The Traverse has good K&G for a compact geometry ski. It is K&G oriented with a stiffer flex than a more turn oriented ski would be. I like mine for when I'm in US Eastcoast hardwood trees touring on summer hiking trails that wind tightly around said trees. The 99 is slightly faster, but turns well for a long ski and is nicer on wider trails, like summer jeep trails, for instance. If the trail is one person wide, Traverse. If it's 8ft wide, 99.
I'd write more, but iPad. Your pic is straight to me, tell us more!
Re: Traverse 78
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:26 am
Thanks Wooderson, useful to hear from somebody who has both the E99s and the Traverses and interesting to learn about skiing in the woods of NE America. You must have some bottle, if you are doing linked turns on single-track through the trees!
I spent a couple of winters shuffling around on skis in St Johns Newfoundland back in the 60s but haven't skied elsewhere on that side of the pond. Mostly open moorland skiing here , or the perennial favourite- golf courses but they have some lovely old-growth pine woods in Scotland.
It sounds like the Traverse will have good enough K&G for me, I just didn't want skis that would be a drag to ski on the flat- skiing should be fun! On the whole, I prefer shorter skis, if all else fails, less to carry. Wax or waxless? Well I already have waxing so waxless makes s sense Also, the Traverse with kicker skins does have a sort of go anywhere appeal, attractive for hut to hut in Norway or longer Scottish outings. I was thinking of getting the thinnest skins as I already have full climbing skins if need be.
Incidentally my photo is the right way up on my phone, so I have no idea why it appears at 90* on my laptop. I included it with the idea that it might jog someone's memory about the Morrottos. It was taken on a hill called Brown Knoll which is one of the outliers of Kinder Scout (2006', 600m or thereabouts)the highest point in the Peak District and one of the least peak like mountains you could imagine. The stone igloo structure appeared mysteriously a year or two back, allegedly the unofficial work of some local boy scouts. The railway line from Manchester to Sheffield runs in a tunnel below it.
Re: Traverse 78
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 9:27 am
I understand the choices seem to be between a T-78 and an E-99, however I keep reading about traversing flats as well as hills. I have not skied either of these skis, my cruising ski is a US Army surplus Asnes ski. I do ski a S-112, but I don't believe that offers a good comparison to the T-78. The ski I would look at would be the E-109. The E-109 is reported to tour well, and the rockered tip makes for a ski that turns as well. The E-109 is available in 200 cm as opposed to 189 cm, and it is more of a double camber ski the a T-78.
I like making turns, and touring for turns. I have added an Asnes Falketind 62 to my quiver for touring for turns. It offers much better touring performance than my S-112. It also offers great downhill performance. I say this not because I think you should consider what I ski, but so you understand that I enjoy turning. As much as I enjoy turning, I also enjoy touring. It is no fun having a ski drag on a long flat tour. I think an E-109 might offer a better compromise. I know Teleman seems to like his E-109's, I believe he skis them a little short, but he is skiing some pretty rough terrain.
Good luck, more photos from the hill country would be most welcome, Bob.
Re: Traverse 78
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:27 pm
Morrottos, wow, it's hard to believe there is a tele ski that didn't make it into Pinnah's list:
http://web.archive.org/web/201510021509 ... rtbag.html
I like both the 78's and E99's too, they're both good. The E99's are better in XC mode where the Traverse will be a bit slow. Traverse will climb better and make shorter turns in tight spots. The flex is more like a downhill tele ski vs. nordic for the E99. The E99 is still easy to turn on open slopes with consolidated snow. I haven't tried E109 but it's like a combination of the two.
Smart move to buy whatever's on sale, that's what I do, these are all good skis. They will give you a waxless option to go along with your vintage waxing ski. The more I hear about Scotland the more it sounds like a great place to visit the mountains.
Re: Traverse 78
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:06 pm
If you're doing long flat sections like in Norway or between mountains in Scotland then I would gravitate to the 99 and/or 109 for sure. There are very comprehensive reviews of both skis in the Ski Review section of this site. Unfortunately I don't think the 109 is made with Crown anymore.
You really want all of them, including the Traverse for hillier skiing.
Please post more pics of touring in Scotland!
Re: Traverse 78
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:16 pm
groughsurfer wrote: sold as touring skis that would turn a bit with a profile of 65 -52-60. They have quite a soft flex and mine need to be waxed and are fitted with Rottafella Supertelemark 75mm 3 pin bindings.
The flex that you describe suggests to me that these skis are old-school skinny telemark skis- as opposed to Nordic touring skis. If so- the 78 will be stiffer and more cambered- the E99 is a fully double-cambered ski (even more cambered-stiff than the 78)- both the 78 and the E99 have rockered tips which greatly facilitate turn initiation and shorter radius turns (at least for a XC ski!)
I like Woods' decision on the 78 vs. E99 based on the need to ski a tight line. I think- personally- that the E99 is best in a true XC length (I ski the 210cm)- and, even with those sweet rockered tips, one has to make step/jump/striding turns in order to ski down tight forest trails with a 210cm ski. But- I personally don't see the point of having a double-cambered ski if it is not long enough to take advantage of the XC performance it has to offer.
On the whole, I've been happy with the Morrotto's downhill performance, especially on softer snow and a little less happy but still satisfied with their K&G capabilities.
My thinking is that the 78 and most definitely the E99 will offer better K&G performance than your Morrottos- and with their rockered tips you may find them just as easy to turn...
I was also getting a bit fed up with having to wax for fickle English conditions where the temperature usually hovers around the freezing point.
This is understandable. I avoid klister until I am in full-on spring skiing conditions. That being said, I am so thrilled with the kick and glide of kicker skins that I am using less and less klister. I am a big fan of waxless scales on warm, wet snow- but I find them useless on icy refrozen snow. The addition of the Easy-Skin attachment on the 78 is a big deal- wish the E99 Crown had it as well!!
For a start, I kept reading that people didn't like the crown pattern and I noticed that even my inexpertly waxed planks weren't noticeably worse than the brand-new waxless skis that some of my friends had.
This- as you know- depends on the snow and temperature conditions- as well as ski camber. To be quite honest my E99 Crowns get VERY little use. The terrain I tour on is very hilly and I find the scaled double-cambered E99 to have very limited grip in hilly terrain. The addition of the Easy-Skin attachment would GREATLY increase the versatility of the E99 Crown. Regardless- personally- I am very impressed with Fischer's Offtrack Crown design.
And then I found some reasonably priced Traverse 78s, which are tempting the hell out of me. I'm assuming that these will be pretty good on the downhills, or at least better than either the 99s or the Morrottos; but not so good on the K&G. So my questions are: am I right in assuming that the Traverse will turn well? And am I likely to be disappointed in their K&G compared to that of my Morrottos? (Bear in mind that I haven't tried the 99s so I won't know what I am missing.)
Again- based on your description- I would think that the 78 should offer better K&G than your Morrottos.
I would think the 78 is easier to turn than the E99- softer and less cambered.
E99 would offer the "best" XC performance- but, I find the E99 Crown very limited without the kicker skin.
Bob mentioned the E109- I have both the current waxable Tour and the scaled Crown (currently the Crown is discontinued). The E109 is significantly slower than the E99- but, if the snow conditions are ideal, the E109 is a pretty dreamy turny XC ski. I don't know how the E109 compares to the current 78- regardless, you can't get the scales and skins on the E109.
Re: Traverse 78
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:46 pm
I have had epic conditions for my E99s the past few weeks now- 1.5metres of spring consolidated snow and hilly forested terrain. The temperatures have been all over the map, and I must admit the E99 Crown has been useless- not enough grip. I have been using my E99 Tour with a 35mm Easy-Skin.
I must admit to being very underwhelmed by the performance of double-cambered scaled skis. Even my softer, less-cambered skis (e.g. E109/Eon/Epoch/Annum/Kom) frequently would benefit from the addition of a kicker skin!
If you have decided on a scaled ski, I would strongly consider the 78 with Easy-Skin over the stiff, cambered and scaled E99 Crown.
The E99 Crown needs a kicker skin.
Re: Traverse 78
Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 6:47 am
Thanks for all the replies and the good, well reasoned, advice. I think I'll go for the Traverse 78s if the deal is still good. They sound as if they'll be at least as good as the Morrottos on both K&G and turning and the kicker skins plus waxless should be versatile for UK conditions- snow's all gone here, though I skied in the rain on Monday- . Shorter skis with nordic rocker should cope better with the mix of heather, grass and snow I encounter here. Probably look for a more K&G orientated ski later, perhaps try the Haagan Off--Trace which are supposed to be similar to the E99.
PS Here is a picture from my last trip to Scotland for whoever was asking for Scottish pics- it appears upside down to me!
PPS Thanks for the info on Asnes skis- I ski a pair of my wife's Sondre Norheims from time to time but Asnes seem currently hard to get in the UK