Quiver Killer... Qu'est-ce que c'est?

[MikeK]

Reviving this because I've changed my mind...

The new winner (for me) is...

Fischer S Bound 78 (pre Traverse version). It's bar none my go-to ski. It's like the Eon... just better...

Why?

First and foremost it FEEELs like a XC ski. It's long (I ski a 199), it's relatively narrow (the shovel is what my last pair of Alpine carvers was at the waist), and it doesn't have a ton of sidecut. It's got some stiffness to it, but not unmanageable IMO. I'm always impressed at how fast I can go in a broken track.

It's got the grip - we keep saying it, but Fischer nails it here. It has enough width and is soft enough cambered to use it too. I climb the same pitches as I can with my 98s.

It's sooooo much fun on open slopes (in tight trees its a bit more hairy). It doesn't initiate or flex like its bigger brother but once its on edge, it can do the trick. I have NNN-BC bindings mounted and almost always ski it with my floppiest boots, Alpina Alaskas. Once you find your center and ride 'em...whooo... it's a lovely, lovely feeling. These things are rock solid too - they'll actually bite into a firm base. They aren't quite as easy DH as the EON due to their tip and tail stiffness, but they are far more well rounded.


What it kind of sucks at:

- Really tight, deep or steep descending... duh
- Deep trailbreaking. Doesn't have a high enough tip or enough shovel width in deep, soft stuff. You really feel like you are pushing a lot of snow with your boots.
- Skiing in machine groomed tracks. Won't fit.


It's only all-round contender may be the Ingstad... but I'm not sure if wax + skin can beat the ease of use in any condition of this ski. The fuss factor is nil.

[lilcliffy]

I too have changed my mind- at least for the moment- haven't broken in the Ingstad yet...

If I had to eliminate all of my Nordic skis- except for one- I would keep the 205cm Fischer E-109 Tour Easy-Skin.

This is despite the fact that I may actually end up racking up more miles/hours on a ski like the E-99 Tour...

My preference is to take in some significant vertical on even a distance-oriented tour- so the E-109 is better for this than the E-99.

The E-99 is a more versatile BC-XC ski.

The E-109 is a more versatile BC-XCd ski- it would currently be the ONE!

Mike- your conclusions regarding the S-78 are remarkably similar to the E-109...(though I think that the E-109 is stiffer underfoot- but perhaps has more Nordic rocker, and a softer tip...)

The Ingtad/Combat Nato awaits...

[MikeK]

I think they are really almost the same ski - the E-109 and S-78. Minor, minor differences, but perhaps close enough that you'd have trouble telling them apart back-to-back.

Hey - I noticed something else this past weekend relative to balance point and bindings...

With my 3 pin bindings mounted on balance, when you pick up your foot, the tip comes up i.e. they are a little tail heavy.

With NNN bindings mounted on balance, when you pick up your foot, they are almost still balanced. Might be a little tip heavy actually.

Don't know if that means anything relative to ski performance, or trail breaking...

[lilcliffy]

I think they are really almost the same ski - the E-109 and S-78. Minor, minor differences, but perhaps close enough that you'd have trouble telling them apart back-to-back.

You may well be correct about this! Funny thing is that I might like the S-78 even more (if it is that close) as that it has less sidecut than the E-109 (?! Go figure...)

As an aside- a friend of mine tested out the E-109 Crown earlier this season- loved them so much he wants a pair- and CANNOT find them...At least appears that Fischer has dropped the E-109 Crown? I guess the good news is that the waxable E-109 Tour is again available in the US...

Meanwhile the Traverse 78 is no longer available in a 199cm...no E-109 Crown, and no 200+ mid-width waxless XCd ski?

The addition of the integrated skin is good for the 78 though.

I almost bought the S-78 in a 199cm earlier this year...Almost wish I had now that my wife and I are going to fight over the E-09 Crown on spring snow...She wouldn't care too much about the shorter 78...

Hey - I noticed something else this past weekend relative to balance point and bindings...

With my 3 pin bindings mounted on balance, when you pick up your foot, the tip comes up i.e. they are a little tail heavy.

With NNN bindings mounted on balance, when you pick up your foot, they are almost still balanced. Might be a little tip heavy actually.

Don't know if that means anything relative to ski performance, or trail breaking...

WEIRD.

The more forward mount will put more pressure on the tips and increase traction.

A balance point mount with NNNBC gives a slightly more forward mounting position than balance point with track NNN (the pivot bar is a little further back on an NNNBC sole).

I actually don't know how this compares between 3pin-NN and NNNBC- if 3pin on balance point inherently gives a more forward mounting point than NNNBC- this could very easily explain why skiers with a strong alpine background find a 3pin kit easier to turn than an equivalent NNNBC setup...

[MikeK]

It's just the trend toward shorter skis... I think Fischer is stupid for discontinuing the 199 S 78, but they must have not sold well. Pretty much any person over 170 lbs and/or > 5'-9" should ski that length, but...

As far as the balance... it's just the bindings themselves - there is is more material aft of the pins on the pin bindings and apparently more equal parts on NNN (you can see that whole latch mech is forward of the pivot, and it's fairly heavy).

Both pin line and NNN bar line are mounted at balance on the skis I checked, it's just I think the 3 pin makes it a little tail heavy - might help the tip come up when you stride but see as how the duckbill thickness and fit may affect that, it may not always happen.

[lilcliffy]

Well the more forward position may raise the tip with the ski lifted off the snow- but, once weighted, the more forward position will put more pressure on the tips.

Do I have this wrong? Is this my slight dyslexia?

Tip rocker allows a forward mounting position- while maintaining early tip rise.

As far as the maximum length of Nordic touring skis- one would think that the market in Northern Europe would be more than enough to justify it...Small sales in the US might make it difficult to get them- but you's think that they would still be made...

[MikeK]

I don't know if they even sell many S Bounds in Europe... and the few they do, I think is kind of the same intended market as the US.

Happy skier with a versatile board:

[lilcliffy]

Good point- and waxable bases are more popular in N. Europe...Hence the loss of the E-109 Crown?

This made me potentially realize something...The decline in Nordic touring in NA may explain the move of putting the 78&88 in the "light-duty" "Offtrack Cruising" lineup. Northern Europeans traditionally consider waxless scaled skis as "low performance"/casual use...

The move to fatter S-Bounds is obviously an attempt to take a share of the mountain touring market in western NA.

BUT- from the sound of reports, the S-125 is going to have to be a lot better thought out if it is going to compete with an alpine ski like the Vector BC...

Nice old friend in that picture.

[MikeK]

They would be correct on that account. By no means are they a performance XC ski for tracks (won't even fit and are far slower than a true DC wax touring ski). They are by no means a ripping DH ski.

This is why some people HATE these type of skis. They feel like they are not good for any condition, but I feel those folks are probably mainly concerned in skiing at ski centers or dh resorts, for which a ski like this is not inclined. It's also a bit overkill for the golf course, which is where perhaps the OT line is best suited. Not to really knock them though, they are just a little lower quality, lower performance ski meant to be a bit easier to handle and be more affordable to the casual skier. In my travels touring in the Adirondacks I've seen people skiing those types of skis doing just fine. More oft than not I'd see the typical E series, S Bounds or Madshus/Karhus though. And not that I'd exactly see a ton of people.

[Cannatonic]

I'm glad I got a pair of the 199 brownies before they were gone! It's crazy to drop the 200's from the lineup IMO. There goes the glide speed for anyone over 150 pounds. Maybe they're trying to direct people toward the E109 for more length which is OK.

I agree on the versatility of these, I love my old E99's for the same reasons, with the longer E99's slanted just a little more toward the nordic kick & glide. The 200cm 2010-vintage E99's I gave to a friend were almost the same as the 199cm Brownies.

For me Asnes is making the perfect touring skis, love the heavier-gauge build, but the lack of scales is a glaring problem. Scandanavia just doesn't get the same crappy variable temps we get in New England, most of my local skiing in Mass. is on melting corn snow, or granular refrozen crud.

re: balance point - isn't it supposed to work this way? You want the tip to rise a bit when you lift the ski?