Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

Excellent write-up, thanks for posting!

anrothar wrote: I weigh around 210 at 6'3" and am on the 205 Eon. I've been using them with NNNBC Magnums, modified to prevent freezing up, the entire time, but am about to switch them over to AT toe pieces and chopped at boots, which is what I have on the Pellestovas, Sierras and SBounds. At size 49, I've found the sturdeist Rossignol and Alpina boots to be too easily twisted in the forefoot in comparison. The AT toepiece setup, with properly cut down boots, weighs less, turns infinitely better, skates better and k & g's about as well.

Mind going into some detail (picture perhaps) outlining this. Never heard of this before and it sound intriguing.

anrothar wrote: Snowmobile trails:

They do fine, but are slow. I'll use them for situations where I'll be off trail or breaking trail for a significant portion of the trip. I mostly prefer to be on the Pellestovas for snowmobile trails.

Agree with you. Don't really like much like skiing them at all, but when I do, I prefer DC (except if you can find a nice hilly trail, then it's almost like skiing on a resort groomer).

Did a test earlier this winter to get an idea of how the waxless Eons glided on different snow relative to a wax ski. 'Twas surprisingly similar breaking through a few inches of fresh, but as soon as it was packed down hard, the difference was a lot more stark. Also DC seems to make a much bigger difference there IMO.

anrothar wrote: Singletrack:

They do well as long as it isn't too twisty and doesn't have too many steep climbs where the length is prohibitive. The Sierras are much, much better for singletrack. In fact, I would say they're almost the ideal singletrack ski.

Interested in where the Sierra falls in between this and the S98. I find the S98 to be a very good ST ski, mainly due to it's turn and immense grip. The Eon is OK, it just can't get up steep hills as well.

anrothar wrote: Skier set trails in the backcountry:

They work well for this, and this is closer to their ideal use. They glide reasonably quickly, especially in a kick-double pole.

Agree 100%. It's pretty much what I've thought of them as. Here in the east I see a lot of people using this ski, or something like the Fischer S Bound 78 for this type of XCd. It's typically what I'd use, but if it's a graded trail, like an old logging road or jeep trail, without any steep pitches, I'd rather use a skinnier, double camber ski.

anrothar wrote: VS SBound 98: Eons are faster everywhere less float and turning is required. The SBounds float better and turn faster, as you would expect with the wider and shorter skis. SBounds climb almost as well as Eons with BD kicker skins. The SBound fishscales climb better than any others I've tried.

Again, agree with you all around. Perhaps it's not that the Eons are not terrible climbers, but that the Offtrack Crown is a really, really good waxless pattern. It spoiled me a lot and convinced me that the S Bound 78 was a better ski for my quiver than the Eon.

An update:
I have over the last couple of seasons become convinced that the Eon is "double-cambered".

What I mean by this is that the Eon does,in fact, have a low, shallow, relatively stiff, second camber.

Whether one calls this "double camber" or "camber-and-a-half" is a matter of personal perspective.

The flex is very soft overall though. If you are heavy enough, even that stiffer (in comparison to its initial camber) second camber is not resistant enough to offer an effective Nordic kick.

An excellent midwidth XCD ski- but, in the end, I find the flex pattern too soft for my weight and performance preferences.

lilcliffy wrote:An update:
I have over the last couple of seasons become convinced that the Eon is "double-cambered".

What I mean by this is that the Eon does,in fact, have a low, shallow, relatively stiff, second camber.

Whether one calls this "double camber" or "camber-and-a-half" is a matter of personal perspective.

The flex is very soft overall though. If you are heavy enough, even that stiffer (in comparison to its initial camber) second camber is not resistant enough to offer an effective Nordic kick.

MikeK wrote: I *think* they aren't quite single camber. There does seem to be a very slight second camber. Hand flexing them back to back I can still see some light when I push together, but it's not like a true double camber ski. Flexing and sighting the center seems to go flat, but not really round. There's also a thicker, raised section where the binding goes that would tend to stiffen it up in this area. This is what I think what people would mean by camber and a half... it's a very mild double camber, but it's different than my Eons. It's also different than the S 98s, which are a stiff single camber..

This quote from me in regard to the Fischer S Bound 78 upon initial inspection.

Since then I also posted the measurement of the Eon, S78 and Ingstad camber.

I have a hard time seeing/feeling the double cambered aspect of the Ingstad and the Eon, but It seem more prevalent in the S Bound 78. Seeing as how they all measure fairly similar to within 3mm of camber gap, I'd say whatever they have, they all have it in common. The real significant difference in the feel of the flex are in the tips.

That second camber is there- IMO.

I just find the flex of the Eon to be too soft to be able to take advantage of it.

The initial camber of my E-109 Crown and my Eon (both 205cm length) is almost identical in terms of height and stiffness. The second camber of both skis is shallow, but it is significantly stiffer on the E-109.

The intent of a shallow second camber -"camber-and-a-half"- is a truly brilliant idea for a fresh snow backcountry Nordic touring ski. Enough camber to offer some true Nordic "kick", but low profile enough to be able to downhill ski on moderate terrain.

There is another dimension to the flex pattern of these skis that is more difficult to measure- the degree of "resistance" in the flex pattern of the ski. And this dimension is very seriously affected by the stiffness of the tip and tail.

What I mean by this can only be examined if you flex a ski BEYOND the point at which the camber is completely flattened.

The Eon has very little resistance to being reverse-flexed. This has a truly negative effect when xcountry skiing in deep soft snow. When you push down for a Nordic kick, the waist sinks into the abyss, leaving the tip and tail up on top of the snow. This lack of resistance may make the Eon an excellent downhill ski- but it sucks in a diagonal stride- unless you are as light as a feather.

The E-109 is not only stiffer underfoot- but it has way more resistance to being reverse-flexed- despite having a soft tip. Sounds like xcountry ski doesn't it?

My Combat Nato/Ingstad is different again. Its initial camber is not as high as either the Eon or the E-109. The shallow second camber seems closer to the Eon than the E-109. But the Combat Nato is VERY resistant to being reverse-flexed. Much more resistant than the Eon, perhaps even more than the E-109! How this affects xcountry and downhill performance? More on that later this season!

Yeah, I measure about 3-4mm more initial camber on the Ingstad. But the force curves were pretty close is what I meant. That little extra height isn't very stiff.

Agree. Tips and tails are definitely stiffer than the Eon on the Ingstad. I think the S78 is stiffer to reverse flex, but the Ingstad is definitely closer to the Ingstad than it is the Eon in terms of it's flex characteristics IMO. Which also tends to say, the Ingstad is probably closer to the E-109. I would have actually thought the 109 to be on the stiffer end of the spectrum than either the S78 or the Ingstad.

Well- just from hand-flexing at this point- the second camber on the E-109 feels significantly stiffer than the Combat Nato. (And the Combat Nato feels stiffer than the Eon).

BUT- the reverse-flex of the Eon is smooth, soft and round- like a "Tele" ski.

The E-109 has WAY more resistance to reverse-flexing than the Eon, and the tip of the E-109 is MUCH softer than its tail. The tip of the Eon is much softer than the E-109 tip- but the Eon's tail is stiffer than its tip. The E-109 feels VERY different to the Eon when skiing. The E-109 is a much more effective XC ski. The Eon is easier to turn than the E-109.

The Combat Nato feels softer underfoot than the E-109, but seems to have even more resistance than the E-109- the more I push it to reverse flex the more resitant the Combat Nato feels...

Still a favorite for my wife... because I've done some shuffling of gear in the last few years, I think sometimes she forgets what ski is what. Looking at the size and shape isn't intuitive to her like us geeks.

Anyway, she went for a ski today where I went yesterday. Just did a car swap with her and she says: "Man, I really like those skis!"

Yeah, I said, what do you like about them?

"They're just so easy to handle and they glide so well - not at all like the blue ones (speaking to the handling of the Glittertind)."

So there you have it. Pages and pages of conversation summed up in one line. Want a Nordic ski that goes cross-country up and down with ease? This one pleases.

When I think of XCD and the balance of XC and DH, this is the ski I think of. Jack of all trades, master of none. Love it or hate it, this one rides the line.

Can any of the skis discussed herein work for a 275 lb skier?

I am primarily looking, for my first ever pair of skis, a wider pair more capable of making turns, but if I found a good deal on a touring ski, I would consider getting it too, just to get a little practice moving around and balancing on flat ground and rolling hills.

I would think they will work, but they won't be as safe as shorter wider skis with plastic boots and I wouldn't take them to the resort.

Hello
I want to buy my first BC skis (but I am doing XC skiing over 10 years) and I also need to decide between Fischer Outback 68-59-64 and Madshus Eon 83-62-70. I know, is quite different ski in sidecut and wide- the reason why is price...
I read a lot in forum about Madshus Eon (some negatives about ascend grip) and I have some experience with Fischer Offtrack crown- I know is very good. IMO the difference is that Fischer use negative (cut into base) fishscale and some other manufacturers use positive (molded in hot base) fishscale. I don´t know if it is also Madshus case ?

So the conclusion is: choose a wider ski (probably better in deeper snow) but with questionable grip or a narrow ski with well tried offtrack crown.
And also a question abou the length of Eon- a could´t find any size chart on their website or anywhere else... I´m 188 cm tall but only 70 kg netto (it´s 155 lb). With all clothes, boots, and bag over 80 kg (176 lb)
Thank you for all your ideas (and sorry for poor english)