Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

Welcome SanJuanSam!!

Cool to finally hear from someone that is actually using this awesome new Nordic ski!

What boot are you using with the S-125?

lilcliffy wrote:Welcome SanJuanSam!!

Cool to finally hear from someone that is actually using this awesome new Nordic ski!

What boot are you using with the S-125?

Thanks for the welcome! I was mistaken , got back to the house and what I could have sworn were the 125s were actually 112s. But I ski them with either Alpina Explorer 75mms or old style Scarpa T2. Currently in the market for T4s.

DOH we were excited there, for a minute. (About the skis! Excited to have you around, fo'sho')

Cool! Perhaps you and fisheater can conjure up a review and good discussion about the S-Bound 112?

lilcliffy wrote:Cool! Perhaps you and fisheater can conjure up a review and good discussion about the S-Bound 112?

Totally, after this next series of yurt/hut trips right after Christmas and over New Years I feel like I can give a good review.
As an aside, I spoke to customer service at Alpina today; I was having issues with my Explorer 75 boots rubbing the binding due to uneven duckbill length on one boot. They are sending me a pair of Alaska 75s. I think they will be a good match for the 112s and probably the 125s too.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Just an update to this thread. I haven't skied the S-125 in its intended deep, powdery conditions, but I did attempt to ski it down a hardpacked piste at good ol' Belleayre. That was a complete disaster.

Even though this ski looks like it should be able to hold an edge on not too icy hardpack, I couldn't get it to work. I have Switchback X2's and 3-buckle plastic boots and I still couldn't keep from washing out. The S-125 feels like a giant cross country ski, not like any kind of a cross between an XC ski and a downhill ski. I'd say it feels like a big, fat Annum, only much stiffer. Yick!

I have no need for a giant XC ski meant for deep powder only. I do have a need for an XCD style ski with enough surface area to work in deep snow. So far, my tastes lean more to the Voile Vector BC side of things than to this S-Bound 125. Perhaps I had the wrong idea of what the S-Bound 125 is designed to do. Or perhaps I would have liked it better in a shorter length (the pair I have are 175, and I'm 169 cm tall).

--

I have to say that I have never found any true Nordic ski to perform well on-piste (dense/hard/icy groomed surface). You mentioned that the Fischer 88 was a decent on-piste ski- that is cool.

Short (i.e. non-XC length) may be a key in being able to carve with a true Nordic ski on-piste. All of my true Nordic skis are long enough to offer a true Nordic touring experience- therefore they suck on-piste.

The S-125 is intended to be a Nordic ski...

The Vector is an alpine ski. The BC version may have traction scales on it- but that doesn't make it a Nordic ski. Many skiers love the Vector BC as a Telemark "touring for turns" ski- makes sense. The Vector is a perfect example of modern Alpine versatility: a soft and wide enough board for soft, fresh snow (with a fully-rockered tip); light enough for the BC; but torsionally rigid enough to hold an edge on-piste (with traditional alpine camber underfoot).

Sorry to hear that the S-125 is not what you were looking for...It is certainly the biggest Nordic ski that I have ever heard of...Bigger is not always better!

Woodserson wrote:Fischer claims 145lbs-165lbs for the 175cm and 165+ for the 185cm. That being said, I've always considered their weight suggestions to be chronically undervalued... I'm 160lbs soaking wet, and if I used their recs for any of the other SBounds I would be MISERABLE. I'm on 189cm for all of them, there is no way I'd be on anything shorter. For every SBound but the 125 they suggest 179cm for people weighing 145-190lbs, and 185lbs for the 189cm. They are obviously marketing towards people who don't know how to ski. I'm theoretically 25lbs under weight for the 189cm and they grip, glide, and turn just fine from the 78 to the 98.

OK, I'm going to take this back here. I can crank the 98's no problem when I have space (like on a trail at a ski area) but in variable snow conditions and tight wood skiing/tighter CCC trails if I get lazy the 189's take me for a ride and I really struggle to stay on top of them/bend them to my will. I think I'm too light for these boys for the more tighter technical skiing. I'm still happy with the 88's in a 189 but I have them mounted forward and they are not used for real long planned descents. I'm going to have to think about this here. I'm not in the mood to go for a wild-bronco ride anymore riding tails and hanging on with my fingernails. Dammit