Fischer S-Bound 98 or 88?

[lilcliffy]

Hi jooleyen,

I can relate to your deliberation over choosing a ski "driving you nuts"!

There are so many snow/terrain/equipment contexts to consider and too few real opportunities to test a variety of skis!

I clearly understand the XCd versus the xcD context. Due to the terrain of my everyday skiing- I am an XCd skier primarily as well.

When you say 8" of powder- do you mean over a relatively stable and firm base? If so- you could also consider the Fischer E109 (although much more expensive than the Eon). I have tested the current E109. It is as wide as the Eon, but has a true double camber, with a significantly stiffer flex. The E109 will offer as much flotation as the Eon- but much more efficient classic stride/glide performance than the Eon. This is equally true of the E109 versus the S-Bound 88. The E109 is first and foremost a xcountry ski. The S-88 is designed to be a xcD ski- a telemark-oriented ski with moderate xcountry performance. Although the S-88 is a bit wider than the E109- the E109 comes in longer lengths- offering better stride/glide and equal flotation to a S-88 in a shorter length. Planning on doing any climbing? The S-88 will climb more efficiently than the E109 due to its single camber.

The S-88 and the E109 are (in my mind) easier to understand than the Eon. The E109 and the S-88 both have more of a focused design- xcountry and xcD, respectively. The Eon design and performance clearly attempts to be a hybrid of the E109 and the S-88. A "jack of all trades" if you will- but perhaps a master of none.

I have skied on the Eon for years. It is easy to understand why people love this ski: stable; soft, even flex; reasonable xcountry performance; moderate downhill performance. As much as I like it- I often find the Eon's performance mediocre.

Back to the pow- not sure how much you ski in truly deep, soft snow- but I don't find any of these skis offer great flotation in deep, soft snow. We have had so much deep soft snow this winter, that I have spent more hours/kms on my Madshus Annums (195cm) than on any other of my backcountry skis (Eon vs Epoch vs Annum). IME the Annum outperforms about everything in truly deep soft snow- in a XCd application. (IME the S-112 offers better xcD performance than the Annum). In recent weeks I have gone out on my Eons, and Epochs, on deep soft snow- and literally turned around to fetch my Annums! IME the Annum is an excellent xcountry ski- in the appropriate context.

Length. Long length equals glide. Long length also contributes to flotation (e.g. 260+cm Finnish "forest skis"). IMHO if anyone is truly primarily xcountry skiing- then go for as long a length as you can get. I would buy both an Eon and an Annum in a 210+cm length if I could get em.

IMHO there is a current hype around parabolic profile and short length. For those of us that spend most of our time touring (whether you are in the mountains or not)- there are severe performance sacrifices to going to a short length. My perspective and goal is to continuously work on my xcountry/telemark technique so that I do not have to sacrifice touring efficiency with a short ski.

There is also a growing avoidance of classic long lengths due to the popularity of waxless bases. Waxless traction becomes less and less effective as your skis get longer and longer (all else being equal). For example- if you are slipping on a waxless E109 at 185cm- you are going to slip even more on a waxless E109 at 205cm. In most cases grip wax is the answer to this problem- not a short ski. Going to a shorter ski- simply for traction- turns a flying stride and glide xcountry experience into a shuffle/slide experience. Retailers are increasingly treating grip waxing like some sort of mystical lost art (IMO this is largely due to the level of complexity involved in high-performance grip waxing. Backcountry-xcountry grip waxing is not difficult to learn, nor time consuming to maintain).

[MikeK]

Oh you guys... it's so easy... just buy BOTH!

If you don't like one just sell it on here, someone will buy it... probably Johnny

[gfwp]

I wouldn't grind off the bases just to wax. When conditions warrant I find waxing a hand's width above and below the pattern does the job.

IMHO, this is a really bad idea. I would rather choose a waxable model, like Fischer E109 (maybe the brand new Easy Skin version) or some Asnes waxable and "short skinnable" one. I own a pair of new generation E109 (extralite) and are great xcD skis.

Regards

gfwp

[Woodserson]

IMHO there is a current hype around parabolic profile and short length. For those of us that spend most of our time touring (whether you are in the mountains or not)- there are severe performance sacrifices to going to a short length. My perspective and goal is to continuously work on my xcountry/telemark technique so that I do not have to sacrifice touring efficiency with a short ski.

There is also a growing avoidance of classic long lengths due to the popularity of waxless bases. Waxless traction becomes less and less effective as your skis get longer and longer (all else being equal). For example- if you are slipping on a waxless E109 at 185cm- you are going to slip even more on a waxless E109 at 205cm. In most cases grip wax is the answer to this problem- not a short ski. Going to a shorter ski- simply for traction- turns a flying stride and glide xcountry experience into a shuffle/slide experience. Retailers are increasingly treating grip waxing like some sort of mystical lost art (IMO this is largely due to the level of complexity involved in high-performance grip waxing. Backcountry-xcountry grip waxing is not difficult to learn, nor time consuming to maintain).

That was a great post lilcliffy. I highlighted the above because this is XC's (and by default XCD and XCTouring) biggest issue. The compact ski geometry, waxless grip, and so on are being catered to the masses for ease of use, with little technical skill-- basically it's a version of snowshoeing, not skiing. We (BC nordic skiers) are being pinched between a consumer base that doesn't have the nordic heritage or experience to appreciate longer skis, combined with a time-crunched lifestyle that does not allow for these consumers to get out and practice and learn how to ski. Retailers need a product they can sell to the public that will deliver instant results, those results being "we went around the golf course as a family, got some exercise, and now the skis will go into the garage until next March." Without major resort destinations with instructional opportunities, popular mass appeal, and coolness factor, we are a niche little market. (I do not blame retailers for this btw, especially in the independent ones who are hard up between a rock, the internet, and a hard place).

The No-Wax designation has really gummed up the works as well, as many retailers don't even take the time to explain the difference between grip wax and glide wax, again, trying to make the sale as quickly and easily as possible. Hell, I'm sure many floor salespeople don't even realize how to explain it. The other day I buddy came over for a local tour, and he pulled out his Fischer S-Bound 70's (discontinued). They were absolutely dry-white. I was horrified and he looked at me stupified and said, "but they are no wax!" I took care of him really good, but he's NOT an idiot, it was specifically sold to him as a no-wax-at-all-ever ski.

The mystical grip-wax demon is mystifying to me as it is to you lilcliffy, and here I'm going to put some blame on Swix, who caters to ever 3degree gradient with a different wax-- again for the racing. It's daunting to look at a Swix grip wax display shelf with 80 different waxes. Who would want to start there? Then you go to the local XC touring area and see people with 18 waxes rolled out on their trunk, mumbling to themselves. There's one spandexed guy I know who *never* has the right wax for the day and grouses loud and proud. If I was a beginner, I would never even begin to consider a wax ski. I personally use the TOKO line, Yellow/Red/Blue, and that's it. Easy, just like lilcliffy says. Hell, I have barely touched my Madshus woodies all season.

Now, don't get me wrong, I have a few pairs of compact nonwax skis, like my S-Bound 78's, and I love them for marching up a hill, coming down said hill, whacking away in the woods, and enjoying myself. But I sure am not going to take them on a 12 mile tour around the valley floors of the Pemigewassett Wilderness on old lumber railroad lines. I have other nonwax skis, and I'm always on the lookout for a pair of Crown E99's in a 205cm, but nothing comes close to my 210cm Madshus general touring skis (the woodies) which ski like butter on a griddle-- smooth and fast.

I tried to find a pair of waxable E99's last year and my local retailer told me they are not even available in North America anymore!

I've come to the point where I'm not sure where I'm going with this and my coffee is running out, but for someone looking for skis here's how to break it down IMO, keeping it as simple as possible:

If you are looking for mostly lowland touring-- go long, get a wax and a non wax version. If there's going to be more up and more down, and you really like the down xcD, look more at the compact geometry skis like the S-Bounds. Don't fear the wax, but when you hit the transition snow, just go over to a no-wax ski and enjoy yourself. Experiment. Having a few skis in the quiver is part of the fun. My quiver is constantly evolving, some skis come in, some skis go out, and I'm always fine-tuning. I bought a pair of Fischer OTX 68's, (already regretting it), but they were such a steal, why not? Let's see what I can use them for, otherwise, off they will go to some kid looking for a ski to bash around his backwoods with.

Now I'm lost in my own thoughts. Hope the above made sense.

[Teleman]

Good posts! At some point will get a set of e109's @190 -195....have some beaters at 178 and they are way to short....However when the snow is consolidated and the powder is fast they really zip in the hardwoods...think they will be pretty good on and in corn....TM

[lilcliffy]

Excellent stuff Woodserson.

You are not the first American that I have heard has had difficulty getting "waxable" versions of backcountry skis.

"Waxable" backcountry skis are still widely available in Canada (the full Fischer E-series included).

There are extremely few single-cambered waxable skis available in North America however (the Madshus Eon being the only one that I know of). Grip waxing beyond the waxless pattern (when the conditions require more touring grip) does do the trick.

I do prefer "waxless" traction for warm wet snow; and those weird spring backcountry conditions in the woods (i.e. sunny openings with warm wet snow/crust, shaded colder, softer snow, etc.). I certainly prefer it to dealing with klister (although I do have limited experience with klister- certainly not enough to give klister a fair judgement).

[lilcliffy]

Good posts! At some point will get a set of e109's @190 -195....have some beaters at 178 and they are way to short....However when the snow is consolidated and the powder is fast they really zip in the hardwoods...think they will be pretty good on and in corn....TM

Hey Teleman,

Would you be able to control a 195cm E109 in powder snow?

Just wondering...IME, I have not been able to consistently control long, stiff, double-cambered skis in powder.

[Teleman]

"Depends"...Last week took the e99's for a test ride....They did ok at 205 but I didn't have the guts to head them and turn in the steeps....Thought I might auger in...Today took out the Rebounds....on the North side they were slow and I figured this was going to be a wimpy ski....But on the West side they surface skimmed...Not as steep....came right around....(179)....Got some nice riding...Telekid today rode the Sbound boundless and he could sway back and forth but got wobbly in the very fast steeps...where....you could still auger in...even at his level....He got a great ride but was tested several times....Last year on the E109's with consolidated snow and powder on top.....the skis came around beautifully....Love the speed and steady ride...Good feel....Figure the 190's should ride and turn well...The other thing is wax really works....Bones and skins are good but wax seems soooo good...TM

[Woodserson]

Teleman, how much do you weigh/what's your height? I am looking at the 99's between a 200 and a 205, mostly for lowland stuff.

HOWEVER, there IS this epic video of E99's getting marched right down a nice slope-- and oldie but a goodie

[Teleman]

5'10"...205....For power just drop my weight. As an oldie have to finesse most everything...205 in the woods is for heading them down and slicing...Long arcs but to do tight turns the conditions have to be more consolidated than they are now...(Next week!) With 99's and 109's you have to give the skis a moment to initiate...angulate then wait ...they come around but not like any downhill type ski...(Rebounds and bigger)... If you find the XCD ski thread some early pictures from this year show Telekid on 185 e99's....He was totally blasting them and having a dancing ball....That's History for me! TM