Fischer Nordic Rocker

[lilcliffy]

My assumption has been that Lilcliffy prefers the Annums for their performance getting to the downhill, and the next and the next after that.

Right you are about this assumption! I actually prefer the Annum/Guide as a powder XC ski (I would like it even better with a bit less sidecut- more width underfoot).

Me I'm a simple sort, and happy to make laps on a nice hill with nice snow

Your use of the S-112 makes sense to me- it is an excellent powder XCD ski- I find it more balanced on the xcountry-downhill spectrum than a ski like the Vector BC- especially if there is a significant distance approach to the yo-yo hill!

The stiffer flex pattern of the S-112 suggests a more effective "kick" than the the Annum/Guide...but I find the flex pattern of the Annum/Guide ideal for deep soft snow- I also find that the Annum/Guide tracks more like a xcountry ski...

I find both of these skis brutal as xcountry skis on a dense/hard base- but for completely different reasons. The Annum/Guide is too soft to offer any "kick" on a dense base (BRUTAL)- like shuffling along on limp sticks. The S-112 has more resistance underfoot- but when I stride forward I find the edge/sidecut constantly engaging causing the ski to want to turn- rather than track straight (ANNOYING).

BUT- as a powder XCD ski- I think that the S-112 meets that balance much better than the Annum/Guide.

Very interested in the performance of the S-125....

[MikeK]

Very cool....I wonder if this significant Nordic rocker is a result of the most recent redesign of the S-98- or did the "Boundless" always have it too?

Good question. Ben is the only one I know who has the Boundless. He's not so much into measuring this kind of stuff, but perhaps I could persuade him to take a look in the interest of science.

If I get a chance I will measure the amount of Nordic Rocker on my new E-99 and E-109. Just using my eyes- they seem to open up at least as much as your S-98 (perhaps even a little more!).

They may open up a larger gap, but try to look at the distance the contact moves. It's hard to see hand compressing. If you just close them up with a clamp and set them on your ski vice, you might be able to see more closely.

The pictures actually show less gap than what I see (because of the angle and background) - that is why I marked the points in red.

I bet Fischer designed those with their "5/10" which should be similar to the S78.

Despite Fischers claim of "10/12" for the S98, I really don't see how the tips rise 10mm. I should try to measure perhaps.

[lilcliffy]

They may open up a larger gap, but try to look at the distance the contact moves. It's hard to see hand compressing. If you just close them up with a clamp and set them on your ski vice, you might be able to see more closely.

The pictures actually show less gap than what I see (because of the angle and background) - that is why I marked the points in red.

I bet Fischer designed those with their "5/10" which should be similar to the S78.

Despite Fischers claim of "10/12" for the S98, I really don't see how the tips rise 10mm. I should try to measure perhaps.

I marked the initial contact points with masking tape before compressing the camber. The initial contact points on the E-99 and E-109 are right at the base of the tip- just like the Combat Nato. The Eon's initial contact point is significantly further back.

Anyway, I didn't measure the actual distance of the second contact point on the E-99/E-109 but it appears to be at least 15cm. As far as tip rise though- I doubt that it is any more than 5cm of actual tip rise. The "early-tip-rise" effect of "Nordic rocker" is likely significantly less than a truly rockered tip. BUT- the fact that the tips open up significantly in the horizontal plane, should greatly improve turn initiation.

[MikeK]

As far as tip rise though- I doubt that it is any more than 5cm of actual tip rise.

The first number is tip rise upon camber compression in millimeters. 5cm would be very noticeable. It's not the static height, it's the delta.

Again you'll see all traditional Nordic tipped skis rise when you compress the camber, but it's not much. 5mm (0.5cm) is a lot.

[lilcliffy]

As far as tip rise though- I doubt that it is any more than 5cm of actual tip rise.

The first number is tip rise upon camber compression in millimeters. 5cm would be very noticeable. It's not the static height, it's the delta.

Again you'll see all traditional Nordic tipped skis rise when you compress the camber, but it's not much. 5mm (0.5cm) is a lot.

OOPS! Yes- I meant 5mm of tip rise. And I agree it is not much- and I expect that the amount of actual effective "early-tip rise" is minimal- especially compared to a truly rockered tip.

Not an expert on this at all- but I would think that the most significant performance advantage of "Nordic rocker" is likely turn initiation. In other words- in an off-track context- "Nordic rocker camber" gives the ski some of the easy turn initiation of a ski with a rockered tip- without losing the XC glide surface (which is lost with a truly rockered tip).

This is another interesting- if perhaps strange- move on the E-series...I get the advantage of "Nordic rocker camber" on the S-Bounds- but why the E-99 and E-109? If the Nordic rocker on the E-99/E-109 is to make them a more balanced XCD ski- then they are becoming redundant with the S-Bounds.

A ski with significant "Nordic rocker camber" would lose a lot of effective glide length on a dense/hard base. Again not a problem on fresh snow- but it could be a significant issue on a tour/expedition that included xcountry skiing on a hard/dense base (e.g. arctic/antarctic; open lakes; windswept plateaus/barrens, etc.).

My 210cm Combat Natos (without significant Nordic rocker) have at least 15cm more full contact glide length than my 210cm E-99...

[MikeK]

Not an expert on this at all- but I would think that the most significant performance advantage of "Nordic rocker" is likely turn initiation. In other words- in an off-track context- "Nordic rocker camber" gives the ski some of the easy turn initiation of a ski with a rockered tip- without losing the XC glide surface (which is lost with a truly rockered tip).

This is another interesting- if perhaps strange- move on the E-series...I get the advantage of "Nordic rocker camber" on the S-Bounds- but why the E-99 and E-109? If the Nordic rocker on the E-99/E-109 is to make them a more balanced XCD ski- then they are becoming redundant with the S-Bounds.

A ski with significant "Nordic rocker camber" would lose a lot of effective glide length on a dense/hard base. Again not a problem on fresh snow- but it could be a significant issue on a tour/expedition that included xcountry skiing on a hard/dense base (e.g. arctic/antarctic; open lakes; windswept plateaus/barrens, etc.).

My 210cm Combat Natos (without significant Nordic rocker) have at least 15cm more full contact glide length than my 210cm E-99...

I'm no expert either, but I'd guess it's exactly that. To my simplistic understanding, rocker does two things: makes the skis effective length shorter and preforms the ski into it's "turned" shape.

I'd guess significant rocker addition would actually have some impact of glide for hard surface/groomed tracks - but none of these skis are designed to be optimal in those conditions (and only one will fit in prepared tracks). I would think you'd only have to sink in a few mm for that base to become contacting and supporting your load, and thus reducing the sliding friction. In most cases, even in the arctic that I've seen, even if the base is dense, there is still some loose snow on the surface and a track is cut with the tip.

I really don't think they are redundant. I think camber is the key here. None of the S Bounds (IMHO) are double cambered. If the 78 is, it's very, very, very slight. If the E series still is, there is a major difference that some people still want/need. Also the lack of wax bases on the S Bounds sheds some light on what Fischer was going for (and why they killed them off their line).

[lilcliffy]

I'm no expert either, but I'd guess it's exactly that. To my simplistic understanding, rocker does two things: makes the skis effective length shorter and preforms the ski into it's "turned" shape.

Yes- and also produces "early tip rise"- at least a true rockered tip does. People are reporting significant early tip rise with Fischer's Nordic rocker- I am wondering whether 5-10mm of tip rise is enough to be that significant?

I'd guess significant rocker addition would actually have some impact of glide for hard surface/groomed tracks - but none of these skis are designed to be optimal in those conditions (and only one will fit in prepared tracks). I would think you'd only have to sink in a few mm for that base to become contacting and supporting your load, and thus reducing the sliding friction. In most cases, even in the arctic that I've seen, even if the base is dense, there is still some loose snow on the surface and a track is cut with the tip.

I really don't think they are redundant. I think camber is the key here. None of the S Bounds (IMHO) are double cambered. If the 78 is, it's very, very, very slight. If the E series still is, there is a major difference that some people still want/need. Also the lack of wax bases on the S Bounds sheds some light on what Fischer was going for (and why they killed them off their line).

I can certainly confirm that the E-series skis are still double-cambered!

The E-99 and the E-109 have a similar initial camber height.

The E-99 has a much stiffer initial camber than the E-109. The E-109's initial camber is fairly soft and easily compressed.

The E-109's second camber is stiff but shallow- producing a shallow wax pocket. The E-99's second camber is very stiff- producing a significant wax pocket.

Yeah- you are right- the S-Bounds and the E-series aren't redundant...but if I am suspicious about anything in current ski design it is the desire for skis to be "good" at everything.

If the E-99/E-109 maintain their XC prowess- while offering some improved downhill performance- then they are dream XCd skis.

If the E-99/E-109 have lost much of their XC prowess- in exchange for some improved downhill performance- then in my opinion, they have lost their niche.

Which is it? I intend to find out this winter for myself!

[MikeK]

Yes- and also produces "early tip rise"- at least a true rockered tip does. People are reporting significant early tip rise with Fischer's Nordic rocker- I am wondering whether 5-10mm of tip rise is enough to be that significant?

Yeah - for deep pow I'd assume that's a good thing.

To be honest, I've never had an issue with any of my skis diving and doing faceplants, but then again, I've never been in bottomless, low-water content powder. It's not unheard of in certain areas here, but it's certainly rare.

I try not to look at my ski tips when I'm skiing so I don't really know what they do, but I'd assume the S Bounds stay out of the snow.

I can certainly confirm that the E-series skis are still double-cambered!

The E-99 and the E-109 have a similar initial camber height.

The E-99 has a much stiffer initial camber than the E-109. The E-109's initial camber is fairly soft and easily compressed.

The E-109's second camber is stiff but shallow- producing a shallow wax pocket. The E-99's second camber is very stiff- producing a significant wax pocket.

Yeah- you are right- the S-Bounds and the E-series aren't redundant...but if I am suspicious about anything in current ski design it is the desire for skis to be "good" at everything.

If the E-99/E-109 maintain their XC prowess- while offering some improved downhill performance- then they are dream XCd skis.

If the E-99/E-109 have lost much of their XC prowess- in exchange for some improved downhill performance- then in my opinion, they have lost their niche.

Which is it? I intend to find out this winter for myself!

Great - that's what I've read but reports can be deceiving at times.

I think you really had it figured out when you said that the S Bound were more tuned for turning and the E series were more tuned for K+G. It definitely seems to be that way.

Now, with that said, the S78 is a fine K+G ski but it doesn't have the details that the E series has to make it as fast and efficient as it could be. I'd expect the same from the E-109. It's probably a fine ski for skiing downhill, but it won't have the attributes that the S Bounds have to give it that extra performance i.e. a single camber. It's nearly impossible to make a double cambered ski that will reverse smoothly. The very nature of that second camber and step stiffness makes that part of the ski work very differently than a single. I'll say the S78 doesn't have the smoothest flex, but it's not bad for a touring oriented (IMO) ski. I think the Eon and the Ingstad are much smoother, and the S98 better than those two. I think it's just a function of their mid-thickness/stiffness and how well that blends into the tips and tails. But limiting that stiffness will change the pressure on the wax pocket during the glide phase. No pressure is ideal i.e. double cambered wax pocket, but even less pressure will result in better glide (and more energy recovery on the snap of the kick).

[rongon]

I was falsely under this impression as well...

But- I have discovered it is a real thing.

Thanks for the info! Once I've skied my new S-Bound 125 (175cm) and compared them to my old Annums (also 175cm), I'll try to remember to report back.

I find the Annum to not initiate turns very quickly, but does turn better than expected in soft snow. The edge hold is not good.

I should notice that right away if the S-Bound 125 initiates turns more quickly. Being that it's stiffer than the Annum, I'm not sure what the SB 125's edge hold will be like. Probably not great, but maybe slightly better than the Annum? We'll see.
--

[lilcliffy]

I don't know how Nordic rocker will affect the glide surface/length of the ski when XC skiing...The tips of both of these skis are fairly stiff- I don't expect it to have a negative impact when XC skiing on deep, soft snow (i.e. the open tips should still offer a firm glide surface on soft, uneven snow). In fact, the early tip rise could offer some greater trail breaking efficiency.

Just re-read this post from the link in LJ's Asnes Ingstad review.

In the quote above I was speculating about the performance of "Nordic rocker" on my then new and untested 2015 E99/E109.

Just for accuracy's sake- the Nordic-rockered tips on the 2015 E99/E109 are NOT stiff, and perhaps that is why it doesn't work very effectively (E109 especially) when XC skiing in the backcountry on deep, soft, snow.

After putting many hours and miles on both of these I can testify that the Nordic-rockered tips definitely produce a shorter effective edge and resultant shorter turn radius and ease of turn initiation- they also offer effective early tip rise at downhill speeds.

BUT- those soft, noodily tips with Nordic rocker do not work when XC skiing in deep, soft snow. The lack of longitudinal support makes these skis- especially the narrow-waisted E109- very unstable when XC skiing in deep, soft snow.