Excursion 88 Sizing and Bindings.

[greatgt]

88's are the old outtabounds?....Solid ski....in that category would consider the e 109's....Very fast and turn wicked....Awesome cruising ski in the bush....Rotta super telemark is a wonderful binding....have used Voile and RST and now have ten or so Rotta Super telemark bindings....E99's are my all time favorite ski and the 109's are right up there too.....Also the waxable 109's are FAST!!!!~!~!~ Push off and your up to speed instantly....You WON"T get that with bones...unless you go very long and get the bones off the snow and ride the glider part of the ski....TM

[satsuma]

I have tried the E88's and they are a reasonable choice for touring, and comparable in speed to my narrower Alpina Discovery 68's. Certainly NNN-BC bindings are adequate (and best) for touring, I don't do much downhill so I can't comment on the other binding choices. The Alpina Alaskas are more than adequate for touring, so would a lighter NNN-BC boot.

[lilcliffy]

Welcome Will Wall!

You definitely don't need 75mm bindings for the skiing context you describe. NNNBC boots will offer more than enough support and there are a wide range of boots and lasts to choose from.
That being said if you have found the perfect 3-pin boot then I would certainly go 75mm.
3pin system is NOT burlier and more durable than NNNBC.
75mm platform allows one to mount a downhill Telemark boot- you don't need one for the skiing you are describing.
You also don't need the cable and as such I definitely prefer the Rotte ST over the Voile MT for a plain-jane 3-pin binding.

I would strongly recommend the 199cm 88 for the skiing you are describing.
Question- curious- why would you choose the 88 over the E99 Crown?

[Will Wall]

Question- curious- why would you choose the 88 over the E99 Crown?

I wanted something with more width and sidecut than the E99. I know there's no such thing as a do-it-all ski, but I'm trying to get as close as possible and am willing to make some big tradeoffs to get there.

I'd already gotten my boots when I made the post, I picked up a pair of Alaska 75's for $85, hard to beat at that price. Yeah, NNN-BC might have been a better choice, but I do intend to do some downhill stuff from time to time, so I think I'll be happy.

I chose RT ST bindings, with the cable. Might never use the cable, but there aren't any downsides to having the option.

[satsuma]

Welcome Will Wall!

You definitely don't need 75mm bindings for the skiing context you describe. NNNBC boots will offer more than enough support and there are a wide range of boots and lasts to choose from.
That being said if you have found the perfect 3-pin boot then I would certainly go 75mm.
3pin system is NOT burlier and more durable than NNNBC.
75mm platform allows one to mount a downhill Telemark boot- you don't need one for the skiing you are describing.
You also don't need the cable and as such I definitely prefer the Rotte ST over the Voile MT for a plain-jane 3-pin binding.

I would strongly recommend the 199cm 88 for the skiing you are describing.
Question- curious- why would you choose the 88 over the E99 Crown?

Will never mentions his height, but for myself, at 190+ lbs, 5'6.5" and 28.5 inch inseam, I would prefer the E-88 to get a shorter length at the same camber. It's hard for me to wedge a 200 cm ski, much less one at 205 or 210.

[lilcliffy]

I wanted something with more width and sidecut than the E99. I know there's no such thing as a do-it-all ski, but I'm trying to get as close as possible and am willing to make some big tradeoffs to get there.

Well the 88 is perhaps as versatile as it gets in a BC-XC ski:
- stiff and cambered for efficient XC travel in ALL snow conditions
- stiff supportive flex in deep snow
- excellent grip and stability underfoot
They are heavy and slow compared to alot of other skis with overlapping design-intent (e.g. E99/Gamme 54/E109)- but they are extremely versatile.
Because of the camber and stiffness, one needs quite a short 88 to be able to comfortable pressure and flex them in turns. This would be a massive tradeoff for me in this ski. If I am going to give up that much XC performance- I want a ski with a more downhill-oriented camber and flex.

I'd already gotten my boots when I made the post, I picked up a pair of Alaska 75's for $85, hard to beat at that price. Yeah, NNN-BC might have been a better choice, but I do intend to do some downhill stuff from time to time, so I think I'll be happy.

Cool. Please keep us posted on how you make out. As a note- the Alaska 75 is not "better" downhill than the NNNBC- it does have a different sole flex- that some prefer for downhill skiing. Hopefully the 75 is durable enough for you!

I chose RT ST bindings, with the cable. Might never use the cable, but there aren't any downsides to having the option.

Very cool. Looking forward to reading reports on this binding with the "cable". I love the ST 3-pin binding!

Keep us posted on your ski story!

[SCBos]

You are on the right track.

The ski is a tried and true piece of kit and the Fischer Offtrack Crown (the scales) is excellent at grip. Very grippy, wonderful design. If you get the EZ Skin option you can even add mohair skin which works very well for steeper climbs. This is a classic BC ski that has stood the test of time. It has high camber, is very springy, and launches you into the next glide.

Binding wise you can go either way. Lots of opinions on this. A Voile 3pin Cable gives you options for more control on longer planned for descents, but you have to install and un-install. NNNBC is difficult to go wrong, and people are very successful using this binding for turning coming from strong telemark backgrounds but it's as neutral as you're going to get and no cable option. Real skiin'! I learned to do it, but with lots of practice as the local hill.

If I am going to be 75/25 touring/turning then I go NNNBC. If I want to turn more and use the ski for mostly turns then I go 75mm. That's ME.

If you decide to go 75mm, the Rottefella Super Tele (no cable option, unless you order the cable version from Europe) fits the Alaska duckbill tighter than Voile unless you get an older Voile binding. If you go Voile, add the anti-ice plate to take up a bit of room in the binding.

Now for the real meat of the matter, ze ski size. Don't screw yourself here. Forget the 179 completely: Too short and you will drag the scales and the ski will be slow. The nordic rocker on the Excursion removes gliding surface off firm snow and leaves you with more drag. I have the 189cm and at 6'2" 155lbs I find it perfectly suitable for good kick and glide, unless I'm going up a steep hill in loose snow. My brother skis this ski at 189cm at 165lb with weak XC technique, works very well for him. Be honest with yourself: are you in shape? do you want to get good at XC kick&glide technique? Do you want efficiency? Do you ski on firm snow or will these conditions predominate? Will you have a pack most of the time? You may even want to consider the 199cm version. There is nothing more miserable than buying a ski and going slow because you got it too short.

Will you have a pack on more than not and trying to put down miles on flatness? Go 199. Will you be day tripping mostly in hills with tight trees with lots of up and downs? Are you not willing to learn good kick&glide technique? Go 189.

BE HONEST with yourself and what you are planning to do, actually do. Not what your cubicle-inspire-snow-dream is telling you, but what are the realities on the ground.

Remember this is a whole new type of skiing, turning these things may not come naturally, or it may, but be prepared to flop around like a dying fish.

But wipe the 179 from your memory, it does not exist for you.

WELCOME this little place of nerds

I'm new to this forum and looking for advice regarding sizing for the 88. Also would welcome advice on ski selection. I'm a 50 y.o. male, 5'10", 165 in street clothes, XC skiing for 25 years but with rudimentary/self-taught skills (bad habits, etc.). Strong climber but weak descending skills (no tele turns or the like). My skiing is in the White Mts. of New Hampshire, typical tour is 10 miles with 1,000+ feet of aggregate climbing. Love going up and down, hate skiing on flats but when I do I like to go fast. Often I'm carrying a pack with water/clothing that will get my loaded weight up close to 175 or 180. Based on the great feedback above, I'm assuming I should go with 189 at least. Would there be any real reason for me to go with the 199? Also, would I be better served by the Traverse 78 or E99? My local shop has the 78 and 88 in both 189 and 199, but does not have the E99. For reference, I'm coming off 18 year-old Karhu Dorado's with a 3 pin binding; this has been "too much ski" for me, but I've loved it just the same.