Ski to compliment E99/Transnordic 66

[CoreyLayton]

regarding the Asnes USGI: would this ski make for a good “crust buster”?

heavy, stiff/stable, reasonably wide, and no rocker tip.
thats the right recipe, correct?

for the price, I might consider collecting a “3-ski quiver”…
1. thinner/fast/nimble for consolidated snow
2. wider/stable for breaking trail in deeper fresh snow
3. crust buster

also: sizing. for a 195lb skiier. 210? or would the shorter 200’s work

[Woodserson]

Oh yeah that would be great. #2 could probably play for #3 but you know, skis are fun.

I don't have experience with the USGI skis. There is a guy that posted somewhere here with them and he does all sorts of trips on them. I'll look later when I'm at a computer.

Size wise... For which skis? The first two, definitely go long. The third? I couldn't tell you for sure as I lack the experience with that specific ski.

[fisheater]

I’m 190 lbs and have 2 pair of USGI @ 200 cm. I bought them short because the wouldn’t ship different sizes. 210 would have been too long for my son.
I enjoyed them at 200 cm until I bought a 210 Gamme. I pulled the NNN-BC binding off the one pair and mounted that binding on a 210 cm EBay E-99. At 200 cm the USGI is too slow to be my rock ski.

[lilcliffy]

Hello.

Experienced Nordic Skiier in the Northeast (central NY).
5'10" 190lbs.

Hi Corey and WELCOME to our forum!
You and I are of the same height- I am a bit lighter.

I currently own the Fischer Transnordic Crown 66 205cm (former E99), with Rottefella Magnum NNNBC, and Fischer BCX Grand Tour (former BCX5) boots.

Nice kit- I have the 210cm E99 Crown Xtralite, but the model just before they added the Nordic rocker in the shovel. I have the Nordic-rockered Tour Xtralite and the only difference in dimensions and construction is the Nordic rocker.
The current information on the web suggests that the Transnordic 66 is identical to the most recent E99 Xtralite design. Can anyone confirm that this is correct?

Strongly considering the Fischer Excursion 88 (in either 189cm or 199cm).
Also thought about the Fischer Traverse 78. (<< thinking this model is not different enough from the T66?)

Indeed- there is significant overlap in utlility between the 78 and E99/TN66.
BUT- they are different! When it comes to the touring conditions you describe:

- the TN66 Crown is a much faster and more efficient XC ski- it is more cambered and has a true stiff resistant second camber underfoot. The 78 is stiff and cambered as well underfoot, but the camber profile underfoot is more uniform (it's almost like it has a high stiff single camber?- hard to describe but different than the TN66 (identical to the Fischer 88 BTW))

- the traction/grip of the TN66 can be a real deal-breaker if you have a lot of steep climbs and/or icy refrozen snow in the mix. I know I am an annoying broken-record here- but WHY, WHY is their no Easy-Skin attachment for the TN66 Crown? (I have hills everywhere in my local touring, and I also have a lot of icy-refrozen snow to deal with- clear into May!) If I am determined to use my E99 Crown I always take skins with me. Part of the answer here might be to be on a shorter ski (i.e. shorter than 210cm), but that defeats the true performance of the E99 for me and I might as well be on a more compact ski (e.g. T78).

- the T78 has a stiffer more stable tip and shovel- it is better if you have to deal with a lot of breakable crust and crud- and if there is icy refrozen snow under that crust- WELL, can anyone say EASYSKIN?

- the overall flex of the T78 is stiffer and more stable than the TN66- it is WAY more stable in deep snow than the TN66- this is not a function of width- it is a function of flex.

So- yes- there is alot of overlap between these two skis- which one is better is probably determined by one's local skiing environment (i.e. snow conditions, terrain, climate, etc.) In my local conditions- the 78 is the better ski (EDIT- I am speaking specifically of the E99 Crown here- not the waxable E99 Tour).

BTW- you DEFINITELY want the longest 78 you can get for the skiing you describe.

The 88 is essentially a wider 78- and if the reason you are considering it is for more stability and flotation in deeper snow- you will likely notice a significant difference with the 88. (I have had lighter skiers that do not notice any extra flotation from the wider 88, but definitely notice the extra weight). The 88 is wider, heavier- but offers even more grip and stability than the 78. We own both of these skis at "199cm". As I don't use either of these skis in deep fresh snow- I almost never use the 88. My spring snow is very deep, but consolidated- so I don't need the extra float of the 88.

I need to strike a good balance between float/trail breaking and "good enough" kick/glide. I definitely do not want a pure descent ski with only "shuffle" performance on the flats.

Got it!

any other makes/models to consider besides these Fischers?

Well- IMO- currently Fischer's Offtrack-Crown insert is the best waxless-scale design available.

However- other skis to consider would be:
- Madshus "55"/Glittertind MGV- or whatever it is called now
- Asnes Finnmark Waxless (Gamme 54 without steel edges)
- Asnes Amundsen Waxless
- Asnes Briedablikk Waxess (Combat Nato without steel edges)

The Nansen WL and Ingstad WL are probably not cambered enough to suit your intended use.

[lilcliffy]

You might want to give the Asnes USGI skis a whirl at $50.

cool!
I didnt know about these.
Will research, and read, read, read…

thank you.

The Asnes USGI ski (MT65) has a smooth waxable base.
It is VERY similar to the Fischer 88 in camber, flex and performance- though the solid-wood MT65 is much heavier.

[lilcliffy]

regarding the Asnes USGI: would this ski make for a good “crust buster”?

heavy, stiff/stable, reasonably wide, and no rocker tip.
thats the right recipe, correct?

for the price, I might consider collecting a “3-ski quiver”…
1. thinner/fast/nimble for consolidated snow
2. wider/stable for breaking trail in deeper fresh snow
3. crust buster

also: sizing. for a 195lb skiier. 210? or would the shorter 200’s work

If you are speaking of the Asnes MT65 (USGI)- definitely the 210cm at your weight.
Based on what you describe- the MT65 will serve both #2&#3 that you list above-
AS would the Fischer 88- which aslo gives you the Offtrack-Crown + Easy-Skin.
If you are not interested in grip-waxing in your local climate, I would avoid the MT65.
(Not that I am trying to discourage you from grip-waxing!!! There are many skiers that have mastered grip-waxing in milder winter climates!)

[lilcliffy]

I’m 190 lbs and have 2 pair of USGI @ 200 cm. I bought them short because the wouldn’t ship different sizes. 210 would have been too long for my son.
I enjoyed them at 200 cm until I bought a 210 Gamme. I pulled the NNN-BC binding off the one pair and mounted that binding on a 210 cm EBay E-99. At 200 cm the USGI is too slow to be my rock ski.

Yes- well, the Gamme 54 is like a lightening bolt- it is hard to grab the MT65 if you have a Gamme 54 sitting there vibrating in the shed...

[CoreyLayton]

The 88 is essentially a wider 78- and if the reason you are considering it is for more stability and flotation in deeper snow- you will likely notice a significant difference with the 88. (I have had lighter skiers that do not notice any extra flotation from the wider 88, but definitely notice the extra weight). The 88 is wider, heavier- but offers even more grip and stability than the 78. We own both of these skis at "199cm". As I don't use either of these skis in deep fresh snow- I almost never use the 88. My spring snow is very deep, but consolidated- so I don't need the extra float of the 88.

Yeah, so here is my dilemma:
1. I've settled on a waxless ski.
2. It's between the TR78 or the EX88.
3. but which?

Prior to getting the TR66,
my skinny ski/wide ski quiver had been (since 2000)
Madshus North Cape (60-50-55)
Madshus Narvik (68-60-65)

Over the past 20 years, for my type of skiing and conditions, I skied the North Cape maybe 15-20% of the time, and favored the stability/deep snow ability of the Narvik WAY more.

At 66-54-61, the TN66 dimensions fall somewhere in between my two Madshus skis - with quite a bit more pronounced side-cut. (also: tip rocker, different flex-profile, etc - all factor)

The TR78 will be very close to my Narvik underfoot (61 vs 60). 60mm is the WIDEST underfoot I've ever skied on a cross country/backcountry ski. Will the EX88 just feel HUGE and clunky to me? Not sure.

One thing I have thought about is if I 'Go Big', it will force me to use my new "Skinny Ski" (TR66) more than I have in the past (North Cape).

But a ski closer in dimension to the TR66, like the TR78, but with different stiffness, flex-profile, rocker, etc. is also appealing.

Hard to make a choice.

[fisheater]

I have a Gamme which is similar to the TN 66. I live in SE MI, my snow conditions should be similar, I live at 42 40’ N latitude. I also drive north to enjoy Lake effect.
I will admit when there is deep snow, I’m on a Falketind or Tindan looking for downhills.
However I have had the Gamme in deep snow and it handles it well due to it’s minimal rocker and it’s stiff tip and tail which support well. My understanding is the TN 66 isn’t built that way. However the T-78, and the E-88 are reported to be stable in deep snow.
Personally if I wanted a deep snow cross country type ski it would be an Åsnes Ingstad getting the nod just in front of the Åsnes Combat NATO. However when I get snow I’m looking for turns, because I enjoy that.
There is no reason to go waxless with a deep snow ski. Waxing is easy in cold snow

[CoreyLayton]

There is no reason to go waxless with a deep snow ski. Waxing is easy in cold snow

I might consider adding an Anses waxable ski next year, but not now.
Just don't want the waxing learning curve, now.
Cost/availability also currently factor.