Decisions, decisions...

[connyro]

Unfortunately the 109's I got from a ski swap sale were to short....(178)....Anywhere from a 190 to a 200 would have been far better....In consolidated snow that Mike describes in the Adirondacks....they work to beat hell....in deep wispy powder they can't float unless longer....They are a rock solid, slightly bigger ski than the e99 and slice the BC easily and turn on the down well....I'm a finesse skier so power is not a factor...Skinnies like these types need to be headed down most of the time and the ski initiates a lot slower than say a Fischer Rebound....But being skinnies you can control them by taking what Nature gives...natural dips...contours....riding gullies side to side always heading them down....Will try to get some pictures of Telekid skiing them.....never has before....he loves to blast e99's when the powder is consolidated...(read fast powder)....With deep fluffy powder all these types need more length...Last year was an example....more than 12 consecutive weeks of fluffy powder....deep....chest deep....face blasting...once in a lifetime powder.....I mean we can get 4-6 weeks of no thaws but 12 weeks? Unreal....Telekid and Teleking were using Fischer Boundless...(96 tip ?)....They did the job at 179 length but 189 would have been better....With that depth you can control speed by dip the tip....Will be using the 109 lots this year if we have an average snow year....TM

Not this regurgitated diatribe again that you've been pushing on deaf ears for, well, forever. Got any useful advice?

[MikeK]

Now, now boys! Not this again!

Hey Teleman, welcome back! I thought we lost you to the wolves

I think what I got out of it is that you like the E109? I'm sure it's a great ski, been wanting to pop on a set but have really been so impressed with the S Bound that I couldn't decide. Also really liked the Eon. Think my wife will like the Eon better than the S Bound - it's softer and a tad less parabolic. I'm nervous to put her on those skis... not that I'm very good but I think they are a bit harder to control. Also wasn't looking forward to paying full retail for another set of Eons for this season. It's a gamble, but I think I'll like them.

[Teleman]

LC the 109's have less camber than a 99....Probably a bit more than 1.6 camber....Very solid ski to ride....Excellent platform, excellent stability....Again this ski is made for cruising but if one has "Grown up" on e99 type skis they feel wide and solid....At 178 they will come around faster than a, say 195.....Still the ride is stable and they cruise almost as well as a 99....Mine are waxable which we all feel is a plus....Makes them take off quickly and speed is a bonus for these types....Conman they wouldn't be for you, no doubt but for those out there who want a different tele experience, they do well....Very busy trying to get the tractor going....getting wood for winter...and playing horseshoes.....Soon will hit the gonzo and redo telecamp which is buckling and won't last another winter....TM

[MikeK]

Ron posted a picture on Tele East of them side by side... it was quite a difference in camber Height.

Question really is whether they had double camber or not?

Made me think I took a good look at those old Merrill skinnies that Johnny has - when I squeezed them together and held them up to the light I could still see a gap... not much, but they weren't quite true single camber. The damn things were so stiff too it was impossible to flex and sight them unless you had them clamped in a fixture.

[lilcliffy]

Can't speak for all earlier versions of the Fischer E-Series (i.e. "Backcountry" Series).

But at least with the current line-up; the E-89 has the stiffest flex; they become progressively softer-flex from the E-89, to E-99, to E-109. They are all double-cambered though- with a functional wax/traction pocket during the glide phase. In other words, even though the E-109 is softer than the E-99; if you get an E-109 that is the proper xcountry length for your weight, the wax pocket will stay off the snow when you stride/glide forward.

The fact that they get progressively softer, from narrow to widest (E-89 to E-109) makes sense to me (and it seems to be consistent with Teleman's E-109). The extra width is primarily for flotation. A very stiff xcountry ski works against flotation, as it is designed to perform on dense snow. In other words, if you try to push down the wax pocket of a very stiff double-cambered ski, into deep snow, you end up simply driving the tips/tails deeper into the snow, without effectively engaging the wax pocket (this is also why very stiff double-cambered skis are a nightmare to climb very steep slopes).

As far as the telemark- I find it very difficult to control a double-cambered ski, because my xcountry skis are long (200cm+). As I stride forward into a telemark, I find I have to put too much weight on the forward ski in order to compress the wax pocket, and carve a turn. I much prefer being able to equally weight both skis (and even overweight the rear in deep powder). One solution to this is to use a short double-cambered ski- but then you lose the effective wax/traction pocket when you are K&G touring. This is why I much prefer either a single-cambered, or camber-and-a-half, ski for telemark skiing. I can have a long ski with a slight wax pocket for K&G, but on the downhill I can efficiently transfer weight between both the front and the rear ski- without having to deal with a stiff wax pocket.

Teleman- perhaps your E-109 is softer than the current version? I know that Fischer has made a move to separate the S-Bounds from the E-series. You seem to love the downhill performance of your E-109s- it would be interesting to see if you had the same experience on a 200+cm E-109. I would expect that E-109 in a trad xcountry length would perform very differently in a telemark.

[Teleman]

Will take out the e99 and 109 for a side by side comparison....205 and a 178....see how they feel...last several years up around here we have had wonderful powder for most of the winter....Fingers crossed for this year....The e99 and they have come in various contortions over the years, are very soft flexing. In powder and you all know how many permutations that comes in....they are a wild and fun ride....Often LC we have the front ski sticking out of the snow and are riding the back ski or at least have more weight on the rear ski than the front....The front ski breaks the path and the rear ski rides in the inside of the vortex....Also we spread apart with lots of space in between the front boot and the back.....It's riding the rail and the skis come around but not anything like a downhill ski....If the snow is fast we can "turn" but if it's cold smoke it's head them down and arc....almost never finish anything because losing speed means coming to a stop....Thrilling in low angle....moderate...steep...We all learn from each other....If you are and we are on pins skinnies and cambered different techniques work in different ways because Nature requires it....Last winter almost all the pictures we took show weight back....front ski forward and the tip sticking out of the snow....Kicking and glide the 99's are about as good as it gets....If I see some other 109's like at least 190 and longer will scoop them up...(dumpsters and swaps) TM

[MikeK]

The E89 is a very good ski, but not for dh or tele. It's a very stiff flex. It's a track ski with scales and metal edges.

It's also insanely faster gliding than any other BC, scaled ski I've tried. Literally I was 15 min faster over 4 miles than any other ski I've cared to time myself on the same route with. It's up to a half hour + faster than some of my fatter skis. And I can cover that pace without working nearly as hard. Very fast for a scaled ski.

It's absolutely scary (in a 205cm length) on anything icy or remotely steep. It can be turned, but either by a hellified wedge or jumping. Even at 200 lb +, I don't have the weight to flex those suckers. I've tried to tele them, and I cannot. Even someone really good I think would struggle without hopping.

They are not a tele ski. Not by a long shot. But they are an excellent ski for the flats. And they can be skated on hard packed stuff.

[Johnny]

Last year was an example....more than 12 consecutive weeks of fluffy powder....deep....chest deep....face blasting...once in a lifetime powder.....I mean we can get 4-6 weeks of no thaws but 12 weeks? Unreal....

Yep, last year was unreal... From January to the end of April, I had fresh powder almost every day... Not sure if that was once in a lifetime, but hopefully we'll have another killer season this year...

[lilcliffy]

Last winter's powder?- NUTS. I was on my powder skis almost every day last winter.

Mike- your description of downhill skiing on the E-89 is hilarious, scary and oh-so true! I have to say that is my experience with the current E-99 (at least in a trad xcountry length) as well. The current E-99 isn't quite as fast a xcountry ski as the E-89- but it's still in a whole other class of speed/glide compared to hybrid skis like the S-Bounds and Madshus XCDs.

[MikeK]

Man I feel like I got the short end of the stick last year. Lotsa snow and no big thaws, but it didn't stay powdery... I think I skied some of the best powder in late December or early January, but the base was thin. By April it was all crusty and icy. Even skiing the flats was precarious.

Let's just say I've taken a few trips into the berry bushes with the E89s on hills Not my best showing... I'm not super obsessed with speed on the flats, but I gotta say, it makes skiing that type of terrain a lot more fun... and I have a lot of that type of terrain near my house - so those type of skis are a must!