Fischer Spider 62 sizing advice

[ChasingVert]

Hi, all. I'm struggling to decide what size of ski to get for my body and terrain. The options are to go with the current generation Spider 62 in either 189 or 199 or the previous generation in 186. Pertinent details are below.

Height & weight: 6'3" tall and about 220-225 lbs fully kitted up with a vest pack.

Style: I'm a classic kick and glide skier who learned on traditional Nordic flat trails. So my current home trails are very different from my background.

Terrain: Steep groomed terrain, for the most part. If folks are familiar, my home trails are the Nevada Nordic trails on Mt Rose in the Lake Tahoe area. These feature fairly steep (for groomed xc) trails that can have some sketchy, long, curvy, and/or steep (for xc skiing) descents.

Current skis: Salomon Outpath 60 in 210cm length.

Situation: My current Salomon skis are my first set of waxless skis. I struggle to get traction on my home trails, especially when climbing the steep sections. I also have less traction than I used to on the flats. Even on the flats, when I kick, I tend to lose grip and slip in the last third of my kick.

I initially blamed the waxless design, but today I visited a couple of local pro shops to chat about what I need to do to alter my current setup. The advice from both shops was to buy new, shorter skis and relegate the Salomons to flat, classic trails. So here I am. The advice was to go with the Fischer Spider 62 in a length shorter than I am used to.

Dilemma: The advice from the pros was to get skis that are between my eyebrows and the top of my head for the local terrain. Specifically, they recommended the Spider 62s in the 189cm size. Brand aside, their guidance puts me in the 182 - 190cm size category. But looking at Fischer's size chart, I'm at the top end of the weight range for the 199cm Spider 62. But wait, there's more! If you look at the previous generation of Spider 62, the 186cm size has a weight range of a whopping 176 - 231 lbs.

Guidance sought: Can any of you share your experience with the Spider 62 specific to the ski size against your weight? Ideally, I'd love to hear from someone in my weight range who has tried both the 189s and the 199s, but I'd also love to hear from folks who have experience in either size and can provide input for my dilemma.

Oh, and all other things being equal, I'm okay with a more sluggish glide if it means that I stop losing so much traction on the kick. Especially since my home trails are kinda a grind up, ski down type of scenario. Thank you!

[lilcliffy]

Hello and Welcome ChasingVert!

I have never seen a Spider 62 that is not low-cambered and rather soft-flexing...
Someone please correct me if I am wrong here (I may be confusing it with one of the other Fischer "OTX" touring skis...)
It is only 52mm underfoot- correct? I would think that the only reason to consider this ski is that it fits in a classic groome track...Correct?

Have you examined the two different-gen Spider 62s? My local shop's perspective is that the "186" and "189" are identical- just made in two different factories (China and Ukraine respectively)-
in my personal experience, I have never actually measured a Fischer OTX/Excursion/Traverse/S-Bound that was actually 189cm- they have all been closer to 186cm in length-
(I have never understood why Fischer insists on refering to them as "189" (I also have no idea why they use the shovel width in the name- rather than waist width- drives me nuts))
I am happy to be proven wrong- but, at the moment I am not convinced that they are different skis...

Curious- what are the typical snow conditions? I am wondering why you are using scaled skis and not kick wax and/or klister?
Have you tried kick wax on your 210 Salomonn 60? What is the flex-camber profile of your 210 Salomon 60? Can you effectively pressure them?

I struggle to see how the any length Spider 62 (if I am correct about the camber-flex) is going to suit your weight...

An arbitrary length as a function of skiers height is pretty crude measuring tool that ignores the wide range of flex-camber profile between different Nordic touring skis...

Am I correct in assuming that you are looking for a ski that works in a Classic groomed track, that is also suitable for steep twisty trails?

And again- why scales and not kick wax/klister?
Best,
Gareth

[spopepro]

I can answer why no kick wax. Our snow in California/Nevada is most often isothermic and calls for klister 80% of the time. Other tours will not sit nicely in one wax zone as you go in and out of sunshine. Honestly, waxless/skin designs are the only way to go.

You recognize that Nevada Nordic is steep. It’s *really* steep for xc. Honestly all our trails are in Tahoe. My wife is constantly going “wtf they labeled that trail black???? It’s like maybe barely a blue back in Tahoe.” when we travel. No ski is going to go up without herringboning a fair bit of the time. We have a pair of spider 62 189. We keep them as “friend wants to try xc skiing” skis. They are slow AF. I can’t recommend them for anything.

But here’s what I think you might like based on what you’ve written. Fischer transnordic 59 ez skin (not twin skin) in 210. Then just use the kicker skins at all times. Trim to about the back of your heel, a bit shorter if you want to go faster or keep them a touch longer if you want to be able to stomp uphill at any price. This setup will both be faster and more stable than the spiders. It is exactly what my wife uses in that area.

Best of luck! Maybe I’ll see you out there sometime. Don’t forget some seed for the birbs.

[ChasingVert]

Thanks, Spopepro! I very much appreciate the insights from someone who understands my/our home trails!

I tried to find some Transnordic 59s in my size. It looks like Fischer no longer makes those skis and there is a lack of options even looking at the used market. Do you have any thoughts on how well the Transnordic 66 Easy Skins would work in our area? The Nevada Nordic tracks seem wide enough to work well with 66mm skis, but I'd hate to buy new skis only to realize, yet again, that what I bought isn't ideal for our conditions.

[aclyon]

I live in Tahoe (South Lake), I have those Salomon skis, I've used Spiders a bunch, and I own other Fischer back country XC skis.

Kick wax out here is a fruitless enterprise, conditions change too much during the average tour and our temps are almost always above 30F. Waxless is a great option in Tahoe.
The Salomon Outpath has the worst grip of any fish scale ski that I've used. It was my first XC ski and combined with my beginner skill set at the time I could not possibly comprehend how people were climbing with this thing.
Then I discovered the Fischer skis. The fishscales on the Fischers are great, better than any other waxless ski I've used. So you will definitely get an improvement in grip, I think.
The Spider is a very fun ski, although I prefer it mainly for hard pack and spring corn. If you're getting it just to fit in some tracks, that's a bit of a shame, since the wider Fischer XCD skis will give you much better performance in the back country, outside of the tracks.
Honestly, for our conditions right now though, the Spider is a great ski. Just be wary that if we do, God willing, get some more snow, you might not be having as much fun in them.

I think the Spider is a great option for your needs, but you should also be prepared to expand your quiver with something like an S-Bound 98 for fresh snow days.

Would love to ski together some time! Tahoe Nordic BC is a very small scene...

[pacificnomad]

I have the Salomon Outpath 64's and I find them to have a pretty stiff camber for their length, stiff in the sense that they require quite a bit of concerted force to be applied over the kick zone to depress the camber and engage the scales. When you combine the stiffness of this ski and the small kick zone (less length of scales when compared to the Fischer Spider and the narrow width of the kick zone when compared to a BC XC ski) you end up with not super great grip when kicking. One super affordable way to go about making the Outpath's work better would be to get a can of aerosol universal Klister spray and spray some on the scales and maybe a bit in front of the scales. This will enhance your grip in icy or slushy conditions. One application will probably wear off after 5km or so, so you'll have to reapply. You'll want to get a base cleanser solution to get this stuff off if it gets nasty.
I live in a climate where waxing is supposed to be challenging, with temps swings daily, and the average snow temp hovering around freezing. And I haven't found waxing to be overly difficult, though I do BC XC, not track skiing. I think waxing/klisterering for BC XC is probably easier than track skiing as the BC skier is primarily concerned with grip, not glide so much. The BC skier has the luxury of selecting routes that can have a more consistent temp range (skiing in a canopy on untracked snow) and not being at the mercy of where the tracks go.

[spopepro]

Ah damn... didn't realize the transnordic 59 was out of the rotation. Fischer seems to do that with their BC XC stuff--make it one year and not the next. The 66s would work well for back country, but they will not fit in tracks, and that's part of what makes the 59s so good and versatile. Although maybe staying in the tracks at nevada nordic is a low priority... besides being steep they cut tracks in *way* too tight of turns. I've rocketed off more than once...

I agree with aclyon--the Fischer crown pattern is the best in the business. If you're not looking to fit it in the tracks, the 66 crown would be a great ski. I massively prefer the transnordic skis to the OTX (like the spider) because of having a true nordic camber. I just feel like im dragging the scales everywhere on the spider. But as noted in this thread, there are differing tastes in skis.

[ChasingVert]

That's helpful, @spopepro! Based on your experience with the Spider 62s, do you have any thoughts about how I should size on them? At 220 lbs, I rarely use any size that isn't at or near the top of the spectrum. Going with 186/189 seems odd to me. But I've seen the Fischer sizing chart with my own eyeballs and can confirm that they recommended the 186s for my size.

[ChasingVert]

Thanks, @aclyon! I appreciate the insights based on our local terrain! I'll definitely have to figure out my ski situation before you would want to go out with me. Currently, I'm just all kinds of frustrated when I got out. That doesn't make for good company.

Since you've used Spiders in our area, do you have any sizing insights that might help me with my buying decision?

[spopepro]

That's helpful, @spopepro! Based on your experience with the Spider 62s, do you have any thoughts about how I should size on them? At 220 lbs, I rarely use any size that isn't at or near the top of the spectrum. Going with 186/189 seems odd to me. But I've seen the Fischer sizing chart with my own eyeballs and can confirm that they recommended the 186s for my size.

If they made the spiders in 215 I'd say that's the right size. As it stands, I think the 189 is maybe even short for my 5'6" 170lbs wife. So I'd suggest the 199. What are your boots? My 189 spiders are currently mounted nnn bc. We could work out a time to meet and for you to try them.