Woodserson wrote:I'm drowning in Fischers over here...
This made me laugh out loud- I actually have an image of you buried alive in Fischer skis!
What do you think? 175 or 185? I was waiting for the KOM to come out in the 174, which it now has, but when I up against them they just seem too short. If I'm going to use them in deep stuff, I would want the 185 (ideally a 180). I'm having a tough time weighing quick-turny awesome vs nice flotation for those lower-angle slower slopes...
S-Bound 125: 125-95-120mm
That is not much difference under foot is it? 3mm...hmmm..The "profile" makes them appear almost identical- but at least from my perspective, they are quite different.
The Kom has early taper- the S-125 has a parabolic shape. The S-125 should turn more efficiently on a dense base. The Kom should track straighter when xcountry skiing.
The Kom has a truly rockered tip- as opposed to "Nordic rocker". The Kom should offer more effective early tip rise and excellent turn initiation- especially in deep snow. Despite having less of a parabolic shape, the Kom should turn at least as efficiently- if not more so- than the the S-125 in deep, soft snow.
The Kom has an elongated, broad, raised tip- it should break trail more efficiently.
Having never flexed either ski- I can't predict how they would perform in deep, soft snow. But I am at least under the impression that the flex pattern of the Kom was specifically designed and tested for deep, soft snow.
How do these differences affect performance in specific terrain and snow conditions? Hard to say without testing them back to back....SOUNDS FUN!!!!
Part of the significant problem I have with choosing a length with a lot of these skis is that the dimensions are not proportional to their length.
For example: a 185cm S-125 is a VERY different ski than the 165cm- proportionally the 165cm is a much fatter ski than the 185cm.
What are the skier weight recommendations for either ski in terms of length?