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

[JB TELE]

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.

In that case, I wonder how a spider 169 (143 pounds) would compare to a transnordic 66 (88-110pounds). I'm guessing the spider would be the more logical choice.

[spopepro]

I think you should ignore the spider weight suggestions. The ski will fully compress for anyone but the lightest skiers. I don’t know how they made that chart.

If you like the idea of a stable, slow, go anywhere skinny ski, the spiders will work and you should get them as long as you can fit. If transnordic—do pay attention to the weight recommendations as that is tuned to what will appropriately compress each camber.

[randoskier]

Hey everyone, I'm getting into backcountry crosscountry/leather telemark this year and I'm looking to add another ski to my quiver. Currently I have the voile hypervector bc's which work ok with stiff leather boots on bottomless powder days and a pair of s-bound 98's that I haven't used yet. I think I'm also going to need a pair of skinny skis for making turns on firm snow conditions, which could be spring skiing in the morning before things warm up or it could be on wind blasted icy crust above the treeline which could occur any time during the season. My assumption is that my sbound 98s will be too wide for efficient turns in leather on that sort of snow

I get a pro-deal on fischer skis so I'm looking into them first. Out of all of fischer's skinny backcountry crosscountry skis, which one is going to have the best turning performance? Are the transnordic 66's (e99) a good option?

I live in Southwestern Colorado and while I plan on mainly cruising low angle terrain, it's easy to encounter more moderate terrain that's challenging (fun) in this type of gear, so turning performance is a bit more important than having perfect glide. Maybe I should consider going down one size?

Traverse 78 err on the longer size between two choices

[DG99]

Yah. Stay away from double camber Transnordics and get the most side cut you can, which is the Traverse.

It’s an interesting question. I have Outback 68s, really atrocious on refrozen, ice and uneven. A lot to do with my soft boots, Fischer BCX 675. ( won’t do deep snow either, but fast on nice condition trails). I’d like to fix the situation rather than take out the heavy tele gear whenever the conditions are questionable.

What boot do you have?

I actually had great luck with Boundless/S98s, T2s and 3 pins years ago, and it was not really very noticeably slow kick and glide I found, compared to Europas/Transnordics with leather boots. Amazingly. Could take on any condition trail too. I ended up abandoning trails and going heavy tele however, T2s Vector BC, Switchbacks So anyways T4s on the S98s would be great except you don’t want plastic boots. So, best shot is those Traverse 78 with your leather boots as long as they are good stiff supportive boots which many are not anymore!

[JB TELE]

What boot do you have?

Merrel Ultras. More supportive than current boots on the market, but as much supportive as some of the super heavy duty ones in the past. Not really a kick-n-glide boot but decent for touring.

[JB TELE]

Thinking about just getting some spiders, but concerned about turning a with a lack of side cut. I know the traverse 78s have more sidecut, but the 61mm waist width isn't that far off from the 69mm waist on my s-bound 98. Does it make sense to go with the spiders?

Ideally I want something that's more like 70/50mm. I think asnes makes a ski like that.

[DG99]

I used to have those BD Synchro X skis, 72/54/63 apparently. They did OK on ice with something I think like Merril Extremes. Stout construction and low camber though. I think your boot will help a lot if it’s as stout as I think. Not sure if going with the skinnier skis will help so much though as the camber could be higher which could make them sketchier.

I see Tom M of YouTube fame has multiple SBound series skis maybe he can say something about the camber.

[satanas]

Whilst I have a set of Traverse 78s I haven't been out on them yet, due to COVID, etc; I'm hoping they'll be narrow enough to hold an edge with relatively solid Salomon XA boots - IMHO anything much wider will definitely require stiffer boots on ice.

I personally wouldn't touch the S-Bound 88s as I was never impressed with their predecessors, the Outtabounds. The SB 98 are IME much nicer skis as they turn and grip better and tracking is still fine with a T4 or Excursion. I would only ski these on ice with <plastic but YMMV. If in doubt re sizing I'd go longer for stiffness, and ditto for the SB 112; I have 179 in the latter at ~65kg.

If going narrower in hopes of more leverage with lighter boots, the problem might be trying to avoid double clambered skis, not ideal for turning on ice.

Basically on ice you want a ski that's torsionally stiff, and longitudinal stiffness doesn't hurt either. Wide skis aren't really needed, but the boots *must* be stiff enough laterally to be able to hold the skis on edge easily; floppy soles and ankles don't work and will result in sore feet too....

[DG99]

If in doubt re sizing I'd go longer for stiffness,

That’s a good point. I’m assuming you mean that they build longer skis stiffer, as they are for heavier skiers. Also could go shorter to get the camber flat easier? Kind of theoretical idea.

[JB TELE]

I suppose ice wasn't the best word to use. I'm not worried about actual ice. I'm more talking about refrozen spring corn snow or wind blasted firm stuff above the treeline.

Another question, is waist width the only determining factor in getting the edge to bite into firm? Or does the overall sidecut profile make a difference?