Fischer Nordic Rocker

[lilcliffy]

So- I actually measured the Nordic rocker on my Fischers:

1) 2015 210cm E99 Tour Easy-Skin: 23cm
2) 2015 205cm E109 Tour Easy-Skin: 26cm

(I have been wrong about the E99 opening up more than the E109! )

[Woodserson]

Is that the change of point of contact/running surface? I'll go measure my E99s.

[lilcliffy]

Yes- that is the change in point of contact- it is the distance from the uncompressed point of contact, to the point of contact with the camber fully compressed.

I say fully compressed, but I didn't have a clamp handy, and could not fully compress the stiff second camber on the E99.

As another reference point- my 2014 E99 Crowns have no Nordic rocker.

[Johnny]

Oh, that is A LOT then...!

I was not measuring Fischer style, I was measuring like normal rocker... 410mm on the Ingstad means 410mm from the tips end to the contact point... Quite different...

[Johnny]

As another reference point- my 2014 E99 Crowns have no Nordic rocker.

Oh, this is very, very interesting... So NR would have been introduced on the Europas only last season...

[Woodserson]

As another reference point- my 2014 E99 Crowns have no Nordic rocker.

Oh, this is very, very interesting... So NR would have been introduced on the Europas only last season...

No, I got my E99s from Cannatonic, used, a few years ago and they have rocker.

[Woodserson]

Ok, I took some measurements and I will say they are a bit subjective as the point of contact when the ski is compressed vanishes at such a subtle rate it can be tough to say where the new point of contact is. I went with a "close enough I can't see the light anymore" approach.

Measurements are point of contact uncompressed to point of contact compressed.

E99 Crown 205cm the dark blue ones from a few years ago: 285mm-360mm depending on how one wants to view it- it could have gone both ways, the rocker in height in this range is negligible. It was a lot of rocker for such a skinny-go-straight ski. I don't understand the reason to have rocker on this ski.

SBound Excursion (88) EZ Skin 189cm: 193mm
SBound 98 EZ Skin 1st year 189cm: 138mm
SBound 98 EZ Skin 2nd year? 179cm: 184mm

Obviously, the 98 doesn't make any sense. I have a feeling the 179s will be way turny. It makes me wonder if my 189cm 98's just came with less rocker as an anomaly?

[lilcliffy]

E99 Crown 205cm the dark blue ones from a few years ago: 285mm-360mm depending on how one wants to view it- it could have gone both ways, the rocker in height in this range is negligible. It was a lot of rocker for such a skinny-go-straight ski. I don't understand the reason to have rocker on this ski.

I am not sure what exact model year my 210cm E99 Crowns are- I bought them on serious clearance- but, they are "xtralite", and they have no Nordic rocker.

My 2015 E99 Tours have significant rocker- like yours do. The intent(?)- must be to make them easier to turn- and I can testify to that- the rockered E99 has MUCH easier turn initiation and a shorter effective edge than the non-rockered E99. In particular, I find I can crank some wonderful parallel turns with the rockered E99 (telemarks are bit wild due to the very stiff second camber underfoot...) At downhill speeds, the rockered E99 also has noticeable early tip rise- but not as effective as the softer-flexing E109 (you do have to compress that stiff camber on the E99 to take advantage of the rocker- I find Alpine turns, and/or striding turns work best on my E99s). I have not seen any benefit to the Nordic rocker when XC skiing- and it is a XC liability on the waspy-waisted E109.

SBound Excursion (88) EZ Skin 189cm: 193mm
SBound 98 EZ Skin 1st year 189cm: 138mm
SBound 98 EZ Skin 2nd year? 179cm: 184cm

Obviously, the 98 doesn't make any sense. I have a feeling the 179s will be way turny. It makes me wonder if my 189cm 98's just came with less rocker as an anomaly?

LJ's photos and measurements of the S-98 also show very little Nordic rocker...

[Johnny]

Wow, that is a lot... I do not have that much on my s98...

Maybe the NR is not very accurate from a pair to another, or from batch to batch, even the same year?

Rocker is usually measured from tip to contact point... Only Fischer use the XX/XX method... For reference, the Ingstads are 410mm from tip to contact point, and 250mm from first contact point to compressed point...

This is such a mess... Add to this new characteristic the endless flex possibilities associated with NR and it will probably be impossible to buy a ski without holding it first...

[Woodserson]

Maybe the NR is not very accurate from a pair to another, or from batch to batch, even the same year?

Rocker is usually measured from tip to contact point... Only Fischer use the XX/XX method... For reference, the Ingstads are 410mm from tip to contact point, and 250mm from first contact point to compressed point...

This is such a mess... Add to this new characteristic the endless flex possibilities associated with NR and it will probably be impossible to buy a ski without holding it first...

I agree with the accuracy from pair to pair/batch to batch/year to year, but I would like to quantify first by getting into a store and handling different lengths and seeing what happens. I find it curious the shorter ski has more rocker. I think the 89's either are one-off weird or they tweaked the rocker the following year. I did hear a rumor they were going to mess with something as people were complaining they were so damn stiff (1st year EZ Skin black/green).

The problem with measuring from tip to contact-point-compressed is that you can wild differences depending on how the tip is constructed/designed. A lower profile tip or a high profile tip, etc., can change the distance making it tough to compare different rocker. I think contact-to-contact is slightly more standardized on nordic skis.

Of course on the alpine skis the ubiquitous low profile tips meld into the rocker, so maybe tip to contact-point-compressed is a better standard, but nordic wise I think not.