Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

UtahBrian wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:01 pm

Picked up the S-Bound 98 at REI today. Last year on the 88s in deep powder snow, I really wanted a wider ski with more sidecut and I really wanted it substantially lighter.

It’s a lot of work to keep lifting a heavy ski up over deep powder snow every step so I wanted it lighter and floatier. I’m excited to ride them this winter.

How come you didn't go for a 112?

Also, excited for your pics this winter! If you're gonna hog all the pow you might as well post pics and just deepen the envy!

I quite like my S-98s (paired with nnnbc alaskas or guard adv) overall and I'm jealous of the lighter new model. Once I got the hang of the technique they are quite good for tele skiing downhill in good snow. They work well in softer corn, ~12 inches of powder over a base, or deeper powder that has had some time to settle. In really deep cold powder I sink below the knee at 180lbs on the 189cm. On hardpack they are slow (scales drag), tips flap due to rocker, and skis feel too wide to edge effectively with NNNBC. My narrower but longer and stiffer breidablikk (200cm) is more efficient for skiing flats in deeper soft snow (and despite less width seem to "float" a bit higher/faster when descending low angle slopes, but tight turns are much more difficult).

Woodserson wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:36 pm

How come you didn't go for a 112?

Well, it's a balance, isn't it? I did consider 112s (and gave some thought to Åsnes Rabbs), though I haven't seen any for sale in real life.

Most of my skiing is uphill on gentle climbs in deep powder. But I also climb up to huts on established trails packed by a dozen or two skiers ahead of me. And sometimes I'm in snowmobile or cat tracks. People complain some about the performance of the 98s on broken trails and machine tracks and they really don't like the 112s. I thought the 88s were nice and I didn't want to give up the good tracking entirely

And I ski in leather boots these days, so I'm concerned that people don't feel comfortable using the edges with the width of the 112s without hard plastic boots when the powder is covering harder consolidated snow. If I were in T2s, I'd feel better about the extra width on downhills.

On the other hand, the 112s have the same maximum length as the 98s, so they offer more surface area (my spreadsheet says 11% more surface area) and probably float better in powder both on the way up and down. They're about 1/2 pound heavier

What do you think? Are you leaning to 112s?

Also, excited for your pics this winter! If you're gonna hog all the pow you might as well post pics and just deepen the envy!

I'm excited, too.

UtahBrian wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 19, 2021 5:58 pm

Woodserson wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:36 pm

How come you didn't go for a 112?

And I ski in leather boots these days, so I'm concerned that people don't feel comfortable using the edges with the width of the 112s without hard plastic boots when the powder is covering harder consolidated snow. If I were in T2s, I'd feel better about the extra width on downhills.

What do you think? Are you leaning to 112s?

If Woods wants to try out 112s, he can borrow mine.

I can confirm your suspicion that you need plastic boots to edge the 112 on harder consolidated snow. I use Scott Excursion boots for that. They're a blast on those rare deep powder days, though.

UtahBrian wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:01 pm

Picked up the S-Bound 98 at REI today. Last year on the 88s in deep powder snow, I really wanted a wider ski with more sidecut and I really wanted it substantially lighter.

It’s a lot of work to keep lifting a heavy ski up over deep powder snow every step so I wanted it lighter and floatier. I’m excited to ride them this winter.

I'm a bit confused- why do you think the 98 is going to give you more floatation in deep powder snow?

why do you think the 98 is going to give you more floatation

9% more surface area.

I have watched that excellent video before→ doesn't that video actually prove that the 88 (which was shorter than the 98 in the test) offers as much flotation as the 98?

The 88 and 98 are the same width underfoot-
- the 98 has more sidecut

Tom's recent post suggests that the 98 is less cambered than the 88-
this combined with more sidecut- should make the 98 more tuned towards turns than the 88-

I still don't see how the 98 would offer more float than the 88-
that extra 9% surface area out there on the tip and tail isn't going to help in deep soft snow- not in my limited experience-

Regardless- you are skiing in the land of true powder snow!
Keep us posted- would be geat to here about your comparison between the 88 vs 98 in deep powder and steep terrain!

Sorry I'm a bit late to the thread (just joined Telemark Talk a few days ago 'cause every google search on questions I was researching seemed to lead to this forum). Awesome information!

I'd love to know feedback about which of the two (88, 98), in real life, has performed better in icy or crusty conditions (melted, refrozen)?

I realize less sidecut of the 88 might mean a straighter edge (more surface area to scrape on the ice to get an edge to slow down if needed)? But then it has more camber which might make that more challenging?

In context: I don't reallly do zig-zag turns as I'm a beginner with foot problems skiing forest service roads (not wide enough for turns at my skill level) but, in icy conditions, I gotta snowplow or half-snowplow to slow down on some sections of the road, and I also need to turn to follow the curvy road when it turns (or to avoid bumps, or to ski towards to hill-side of the road and away from the drop-off side of the road).

Also, which has less of a tendency for snow to stick on wet warmer days (I only use natural day-of paste-wax such as Purl Sunflower Speed Paste).

Thanks!

The differences are so minimal in regard to what you are concerned about it doesn't matter. You already have the 98 don't you, per the pictures you posted, and already mounted. So stick with what you have and go have fun.

Thanks -- the 98 I have is sadly too short (159, I'm 130 lbs upon waking but 140 dressed with boots and breakfast). I'm going to give them a try (once we get snow) but most likely they won't have the glide I seek for variable conditions. I'm looking for 169's either 98's or 88's ('cause that's where my weight puts me).