Which Fischer ski for BCXC/XCD on firm/icy snow conditions?

[lilcliffy]

Well I don't think that there is a Fischer BC-XC/XCD that suits the skiing context you describe...

In particular, because none of them are torsionally-stable/rigid enough-

Even if you mount a 75mm binding on them- so that you can use a plastic Telemark boot- my limited experience is that they will bend and twist all over the place if you really push them on "firm/icy" conditions...

Do you have to have the Off-Track crown scales?

What is the narrowest Fischer Alpine Touring ski that you can get with your pro-deal?

[Krummholz]

Here ya go…. Old School Black Diamond Tele’s. They are tempting for me, but I have some Old School Miller Soft powder skis to try in some bottomless pow first.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/295380065901?m ... media=COPY

[lilcliffy]

Transalp RC Carbon?

[lilcliffy]

Back to your original question-

If you want narrower than the Fischer 98- but must have the scales- a short enough 78 is easy to pressure and turn.
Don't know how the even narrower 68 or 62 would compare?

If you don't need the scales- the E109/TN82 is the turniest of the narrower more cambered Nordic BC touring skis- vs the E99/TN66; E89/TN.

[DropKneeDiehard]

Here ya go…. Old School Black Diamond Tele’s. They are tempting for me, but I have some Old School Miller Soft powder skis to try in some bottomless pow first.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/295380065901?m ... media=COPY

Actually a good idea. I still have my old Pink Atomics I think 58 underfoot circa late 80s that hold an edge really well in solid conditions with leather boots.
Pretty sure they are camber and a half.
I stone ground them rough which works as a micro waxes base in wet snow conditions.
I rough up the kick zone with a coarse sand paper. And will wax them with a 2 wax system occasionally.
A lot of those old XCD telemark racing skis may work and there should be quite a few Kicking around in Thrift stores.
Collect a few pairs and experiment.

[DG99]

I wouldn't be opposed to a skinny, fish scaled alpine cambered ski to compensate for the difficult conditions, but is that sort of ski even produced? I've never seen a skinny sub-60 waist width ski with a flat downhill camber.

I used to have those same Black Diamond Syncro X skis. They were quite flat camber, skinny, yet had fish scale. Held a good edge practice telemarking at the resort groomers with some burly leather boots and 3 pin with cables. I don’t think you can get anything like that new.

[satanas]

The BD Syncro X had very similar geometry to the Swallow Telemark, and not much different to the Fischer E99, just a bit wider at the tip. IIRC the Swallows were 72,54,63 versus ~65mm at the tip for the Fischers. All of those skis could be skied in a variety of conditions, but technique is way more important than with more supportive gear(!).

As for the SB98, I personally wouldn't consider skiing them with anything other than a plastic boot in even vaguely firm conditions, and agree with the comment above that they're not stiff enough for anything steep and/or firm.

IME, firm snow means plastic boots are required for anything firm and/or steep, unless perhaps you have truly exceptional technique, i.e., you're a high level ski instructor or similar. Plastic shells are also much less tiring for your feet when it's icy.

Some of the fancier lightweight boots with plastic exoskeletons *might* obviate the need for a plastic shell, but none that I've yet skied in 40+ years...

PS: Maybe the Fischer skimo racing skis might work??? They're reasonably narrow underfoot and intended to handle survival skiing on sheepish stuff with light - although more supportive - boots and bindings. (Dimensions are similar to the SB98 but maybe they're stiffer?)

[paulzo]

Go short! Like way short. In firm condtions you won`t have to worry about glide or flotation; all you have to think about is grip and being able to edge hard. Turning is all skidding in those conditions. My experience with Atomic Rainiers (very similar to the old Fischer Rebound) skied with Garmont Excursions on crusty refrozen corn on multiday tours tells me i can always get those skis to bite when i have my pack on, but without a load, can be sketchy. Adding the pack is like going down a size or two. I would get the shortest size available in something with a 60-ish waist. You should be able to get a bite wth that.

[JB TELE]

Any thoughts on going with a spider 62 in 169 (max 143 pounds) vs going with a transnordic 66 in a 180 length? (88-110 pounds). I'm 155 pounds. 180 is about the maximum length I can fit in the back of my truck. Is going 180 in the 66 too low? Spider 62s might be better with their shorter length?

[spopepro]

The spider is *soft*. Like maybe not even 1.5 camber. It ends up being very stable across a wide variety of conditions, and slow on all of them. The transnordic skis are much more traditional xc skis. The two can only barely just be compared. My wife at 155lbs and a relative novice got fed up with how slow the spider was for her in 189. She now skis the transnordic 59 in 195 and is happier.