The Mid-Width BC-XC Ski Myth?

[lilcliffy]

I really see where you are going with this, I think, and that's: Why compromise?

Well- yes and no!

I don't have a problem with the compromise between xcountry and downhill- not even when the terrain dictates that downhill performance overides xocuntry performance- or vice versa.

I do appreciate theses mid-width xcd skis- or "fat" xcountry touring skis- if you will.

And because the Eon has offered the best compromise for the vast majority of the skiing I do- it has been my everyday ski of choice for over a decade now.

I am equally suspicious that my primary problem is that the Eon is just too soft for my skiing style- perhaps, the "relaxed, smooth ride" is not my cup of tea?

Perhaps if I had just forked out some extra cash 11 years ago and bought something stiffer I would have been happier with this class of ski...

I feel confident that I am going to appreciate the flex pattern of the Ingstad/Combat Nato and the E-109 better than the Eon....(I hope)

The ski that my Eon replaced was wider than a Glitt/E-99- it was actually a little wider underfoot than the Eon- but had a narrower tip (less sidecut)...

You have more experience on the Glitt than I do...I believe you when you say that a ski like the Eon is more maneuverable and versatile than the Glitt.

I don't mind the compromise- when it makes sense. I would just like a distance-oriented backcountry XC-d ski that offers more flotation than a Glitt/E-99.

AND a mid-width XCD ski that offers more snap than the Eon- I probably already have that in the Combat Nato/E-109.

It is most likely that the Ingstad and/or the E-109 will fit both of those bills...

But I am interested in comparing them against the E-99.

MAN- so many of these skis seem to split hairs- hairs that might fit the sweet spot...

Every once in a while I look at a ski like the Asnes Nansen (76-56-66) and wonder...

I think that if I were to buy another Asnes ski it would be the Nansen- not the Gamme...or I would jump way up and buy the Tind 85...

But only because I am going to resolve my mid-width angst this winter- right?

I'd say if we went for a typical BC XC tour in the Adirondacks, a ski like this would really show its promise. At least to me. And to a fair deal of other skiers I tend to see with them. With NNN-BC bindings and good boot (Alaska or the like) we'd ski 10-20 miles of varied terrain no problem. Narrow single-track trails. Wide old-logging roads. Take a dash through the hardwoods.

This context fits a lot of backcountry touring throughout the Northeast- including my everyday backdoor skiing.

[MikeK]

I have a lot of hope for the Ingstad. Obviously haven't skied it yet, but it seems to tick some of those boxes that the S78 and the Eon just don't quite fulfill:

-A little stiffer tip and tail than the Eon, similar to the S78, but perhaps a little less
-Camber profile is high, but soft with some wax pocket retention
-Shape is more parabolic i.e. the tail is most aggressive - maybe not perfectly ideal for K+G, brings more turning aspect into this width/sidecut ski. I doubt it will have much negative impact on touring in this low sidecut.
-It's the lightest per unit length comparing S78 and Eon

I expect this to be a more balanced turning ski that either of the other two but still provide very good tourability. I don't find the S78 to have the bowing float issue that the Eon has - and yes, I've flailed with the Eon in deep breakable crust snow. I'd say the S78 positive attributes of that to carry through with the Ingstad.

Again, these are all minor grievances. Any of these skis do well enough for what they are.

I'm really more curious on how an E109 will stack up against the Ingstad. There is perhaps a relationship I don't quite understand. Either the E109 will be miserable due to double camber + parabolic sidecut, or genius. I kind of suspect the more mild camber of the Ingstad will exploit that shape better, but I really have no idea.

[lilcliffy]

Yes- E-109 vs. Ingstad...I seem to remember us discussing that on this site before...

[athabascae]

Every once in a while I look at a ski like the Asnes Nansen (76-56-66) and wonder...

I have both an e89/Voss (Bonna Conquest) and e109/Eon (Asnes Ingstad) class ski, and very much like having the flexibility to chose either depending on where I plan to ski, the conditions, and my mood. They are quite different skis, with quite different characteristics.

Having said that, if I only had one ski I too would look hard at the Asnes Nansen.

Tom

[lilcliffy]

Every once in a while I look at a ski like the Asnes Nansen (76-56-66) and wonder...

I have both an e89/Voss (Bonna Conquest) and e109/Eon (Asnes Ingstad) class ski, and very much like having the flexibility to chose either depending on where I plan to ski, the conditions, and my mood. They are quite different skis, with quite different characteristics.

Having said that, if I only had one ski I too would look hard at the Asnes Nansen.

Tom

Yeah- the specs on the Nansen seem to split the Ingstad and the Gamme 54 in half...
The Gamme 54 and the Nansen have the same waist- the Nansen has more sidecut than the Gamme 54...
The Gamme 54 has a slightly rockered tip- if you look at the photo of the Gamme 54- http://www.en.asnes.com/produkt/gamme-54/ - they remind me of the Eon...

Have never seen the tips on the Nansen- but I get the impression that they are more like the Ingstad- in fact the Ingstad appears to be a big brother to the Nansen...But again- the Nansen is only 8mm narrower at the waist then the Ingstad...almost hard to believe that one could effectively notice that, in terms of flotation...

[lilcliffy]

There are also several skis with waists 59-60 mm, but narrower tips than the "mid-width" skis and 8-10 mm of side cut, and shorter length.

It would be interesting to compare the flotation of these as well. I ski one of these (Alpina Discovery 68-60-65). I don't know how these compare to the flotation of longer skis with the same waist size but wider tips.

I've skied both short and long skis, and at 5'7 with 28 1/2 inseam and 200+ lbs , the short skis climb better and are easier for me to turn or wedge. 200 cm skis are hard for me to deal with. If I need a wider ski for flotation, the next ski would be something like the Fischer Explorer 88.

Thanks for the reminder on the fact that you are right! There are other skis out there in this "class".

I have never tried the Alpinas...not sure why- other than that they are typically very short...

But in the appropriate skiing context, short is not a problem- as you point out- it can be an advantage!

(I always wonder whether ski design has a lot to do with the topographical and cultural context. Slovenia has a strong and old ski culture- despite being so far south. (Apparently, Slovenia wins more Winter Olympic medal per capita than any other country!). But the skiing in Slovenia is at high elevation in the Alps- to me it would make sense that their Nordic touring skis are short and tuned for climbing and snappy turns.)

And I am with you Satsuma- short skis are most definitely easier to maneuver/turn. I must say that I prefer my skis at either two of the extremes:

Very long and very fast...

Or- short and easy to turn.

Despite how much I love to fly on long Nordic skis- I equally love to bushwack on my 145cm Hoks!

The Discoverys you mention at 68-60-55- assuming the flex pattern is similar- and the length is the same- IMO/IME- should offer as much flotation as a ski with more sidecut (e.g. Eon: 83-62-70).

I really find it hard to believe that the wider tips/tails offer that much more flotation- ESPECIALLY during a xcountry "kick".

After all- true powder skis- whether xcountry or downhill- don't need sidecut in the first place- they need width underfoot!

I am 5'10" and 185lbs. For a distance-focused XCD ski I prefer 200-210cm skis; for a snappy-turning XCD ski I probably prefer 170-180cm skis.

[lilcliffy]

So I think that I have figured some things out regarding these mid-width BC-XCD skis. I have been fairly rigorously testing the following skis in a wide range of snow conditions and hilly terrain:

1) 205cm Madshus Eon/Eon Wax (83-62-70mm)
2) 205cm Fischer E-109 Crown/Tour (82-60-70mm)
3) 210cm Asnes Combat Nato (84-62-74mm)
4) 210cm Asnes Combat USGI (78-67-73mm)
5) 210cm Fischer E-99 Crown/Tour (66-54-61mm)

Some of my current observations/opinions:

1) I don't notice any significant or measurable difference in any of these skis in terms of actual effective flotation in deep soft snow. None of these skis effectively float in truly deep soft snow.

2) The two Asnes Combat skis are the best XC performers in truly deep soft snow due to their full-length stability and trail-breaking tips.

3) Despite being much more cambered and significantly stiffer than all of the other skis- the E-99 performs very well on fresh, soft snow- as well as dense/hard snow.

4) The rockered, open tips of the Eon, E-109 and E-99 offer wonderful downhill turn initiation- but, they are a liability when XC breaking-trail in truly deep, soft snow.

5) The most significant difference between all of these skis is flex pattern- not width- IMHO. The E-99 is an excellent XC performer due to its camber and flex pattern. The Eon/E-109/Combat Nato offer better climbing and downhill performance because of their softer flex pattern- not their width. The Combat USGI is a straight-ahead XC ski due to its flex pattern.

6) For me- the choice between these skis has more to do with terrain- and, little to do with flotation.

7) The E-109 overall is probably the best overall balance between XC and downhill performance- despite its poor trail-breaking performance in very deep soft snow. BUT- I think that the E-109 has given up a lot to be so manageable on the downhill- maybe too much...

8) As I see all of these skis as distance-oriented XCd skis- I think that the Combat Nato is the best performer in an amazingly wide range of snow conditions, in hilly terrain. The E-99 is probably the best ski on gentle terrain- it would be a MUCH better BC ski if it had a more powerful trail-breaking tip.

[Cannatonic]

LC - this is great, I love reading your stuff, it's like a buyer's guide to skis! I agree with the below, E99's have changed through the years but the common theme seems to be an XC ski in camber and flex except for softer tips. I think it makes turns easier. Put Asnes Gamme on your list if you want more power, it's got stiffer tip and flex, it's also heavier.

>>>) As I see all of these skis as distance-oriented XCd skis- I think that the Combat Nato is the best performer in an amazingly wide range of snow conditions, in hilly terrain. The E-99 is probably the best ski on gentle terrain- it would be a MUCH better BC ski if it had a more powerful trail-breaking tip.

I think length comes into play on these skis too. e.g. the Nato/Ingstad will behave very differently at 210 vs. 200. Besides flotation your weight will squash the camber down differently on the two skis and affect traction and gliding speed.

I notice the camber a lot when touring - I had a pair of 205 Eons with scales and the lack of camber drove me crazy. The skis seemed incredibly slow gliding. An older pair of 210cm crown E99's gave me what I was hoping for with the Eon, a long-distance ski that glides well but can still make turns. The lack of camber on the Eon seemed to make the scales drag. I like to move quickly through the flat parts. Others seem to love the turn/gliding balance on the Eon.

[lilcliffy]

I think length comes into play on these skis too. e.g. the Nato/Ingstad will behave very differently at 210 vs. 200. Besides flotation your weight will squash the camber down differently on the two skis and affect traction and gliding speed.

I notice the camber a lot when touring - I had a pair of 205 Eons with scales and the lack of camber drove me crazy. The skis seemed incredibly slow gliding. An older pair of 210cm crown E99's gave me what I was hoping for with the Eon, a long-distance ski that glides well but can still make turns. The lack of camber on the Eon seemed to make the scales drag. I like to move quickly through the flat parts. Others seem to love the turn/gliding balance on the Eon.

Totally hear you here- my Eons are actually more "cambered" than my Combat Natos. The initial camber of the Combat Nato is visibly lower profile than the Eon- but there is a surprising amount of resistance in the second camber of the Combat Nato- it is stiffer than the Eon underfoot. BUT- the other thing I have realized is that perhaps the greatest contributor to the Eon's lack of XC stability and Nordic kick is the incredibly soft tip.

For me- the Combat Nato offers better XC performance than the Eon overall because it offers support and stability through its entire length. I am not certain that the Combat Nato is all that much stiffer than the Eon underfoot- but it is much more stable and supportive throughout its length. I have been blaming it all on the Eon's lack of stiffness underfoot- but, the super-soft tip is as much or more of a contributing factor.

The flex pattern of the E-109 is different again. It is more cambered and stiffer than both the Eon and the Combat Nato underfoot. But- the tip of the E-109 has considerable Nordic Rocker.

[Cannatonic]

>>The flex pattern of the E-109 is different again. It is more cambered and stiffer than both the Eon and the Combat Nato underfoot. But- the tip of the E-109 has considerable Nordic Rocker.

interesting. they say Fischer generally has more camber than Madshus skis. Still wonder if I should have taken those $130 E109 crown 205's last summer, they were sitting there online for weeks.