Fischer S-Bound 98 or 88?

[MikeK]

Mike, that sounds like a good trade. What's your thought on 185 vs 195cm. I believe you said you like the longest ski you can ski, and I was thinking the annum would be soft enough for me to easily compress the 195, but maybe the loss of glide would be a good trade-off for maneuverability. Do you have bindings on the skis and would you trade those as well or keep them? I have voile 3 pin cables on my skis.

It really depends. A 195 would surely give you more float and glide in the deep stuff - but with a ski as wide as the Annum it starts getting heavy and unwieldy. It's up to you if you want to compromise or go all out. I don't think you'll ever stay on top of 15" of fluffy powder and you'll always have to really dive forward to get any glide in that... but the Annum should be much better than the 88.

You can pull the binding if you want. Mine have 3 pin mountaineers (no cable) mounted but they are mounted for a small boot size (39) right now. You might want to just mount based on your own preference.

I'd most likely plug your mounts and move the binding anyway - 179cm is a bit short for me so I'd be giving these to my wife. I'd rather just use the cableless binding we have as well. She has no interest in a cable.

Let me know if you are interest - pm or otherwise. I can pull the bindings and ship them out anytime.

[Teleman]

Camber and a half is a figure of speech, like it's between an e99 and a no camber ski....Some double camber is more than others....As far as reverse camber on a 99 happens all the time....Go into a dip and the ski camber bows into the dip tail and tip above....as you "rebound" out the ski feels energized and the benefit is easy weight transfer to a new setting...In other words in "regular" snow you look for dips and such things for easy...very easy...turn initiation...But in feet of light powder as we have now it's a bit different...TM

[MikeK]

Well I think that possibly camber and a half was a real marketing tool used to promote the best of both worlds - I've yet to see a real camber and a half ski but I've gathered as much info on what it is supposed to be. It's quite possible the older generation Eon/XCD GT was actually camber and a half.

Yeah the double camber BC skis do reverse flex due to soft tails and tips, but just for fun take a look at what the middle does - I've yet to see a true double camber reverse flex in the middle. They barely go flat. In powder who cares though! It doesn't need to make a perfectly round arc... the tips and tail will guide you!

[lilcliffy]

jooleyen- check out these latest Karhu powder skis:
http://www.karhu.com/forest-series-skis

Both of these Finnish skis are designed for gentle terrain- they are dedicated powder xcountry skis. They have almost no sidecut- these will track beautifully straight!

The "Hunt" (70mm width) is a powder ski designed for cruising in relatively open cover- they are available in lengths up to 250cm! Apparently in Finland you can get them in 300cm!

The "Jakt" (108mm width) is a powder ski designed for maneuverability in dense woods- they are only available in 160cm length.

I have been eyeing these babies for a while. The "Hunt" (250cm) is probably the one I would want (I think)- but I would have to stay off the steep downhill! On the other hand, the "Jakt" would be perfect for my forestry field work in the woods.

As an aside the product names of these for the N. American market are interesting..."Jakt" is a Norwegian word, not Finnish- it means "hunting".

[jooleyen]

Ya know, I saw those a while back but didn't really give them much of a thought. Northern WI/UP is strikingly similar to Finland and even parts of Norway, but is generally hillier and more densely forested. That's probably why I dismissed the long 'finnish forest ski' so quickly. I figure if I am shuffling in deep pow with a short, wide ski, I'm going to want a bit of sidecut for turnability anyways, so the annum would win in this case. I did find a few videos searching 'karhu jakt' on youtube.
Who's gonna be the first north american to buy and review these?
I was thinking of making something like the ultra long skis for my first hand-made, wooden ski, though. I could find a spot or two to use them.

[bgregoire]

"Jakt" is a Norwegian word, not Finnish- it means "hunting".

Yeah, those long "Hunt" skis are traditionally used by the Finns to jakt karhu (hunt bear) in the consolidated spring snow. The boots they use in those situations are often rubber boots and a berwin type binding. I thought about it but mostly gave up the concept for Québec as the snow melts soooo quickly in the spring here. It would only be usable for 2 weeks or so of the year (I was curious about a waterproof boot for wet wet spring conditions). I gather the snow cover lasts longer way up north then spring hits in Finland.

Sweden's Tegnas make em in solid wood planks up to 270cm. Got to see a pair, pretty and HEAVY. Am also told they are not efficient gliders. Hunters go slow and quiet: basically walking.

We'll we are far removed from telemarking here!

[lilcliffy]

have realized that I want a ski just for tightly wooded rolling terrain with the occasional steep climb/descent and deeep powdery snow. I regretfully bought the Fischer S-bound 88 in 179cm and used them in the UP. There was about 15" of powder. I kind of forgot that it's always snowing up there and it's always powder.

After reading these posts, it's all making sense now. My ski choice was wrong. 1st, I found out that I really hate waxless unless it's in the 30s(F). So whatever ski I get, I'd strongly prefer that it's waxable or has a positive waxless pattern that I could grind away. 2nd, 179cm is way too short. I sunk so badly that my skis disappeared sometimes. It is nice for maneuverability though. I can almost never take three steps without having to turn my skis to go around a tree. In that length, the 88's were too skinny to float me. My foot would just sink. I honestly don't even see how glide is possible in this soft deep snow with a pack on. So my concern is simply flotation.

So it seem that the Madshus Annum/Karhu Guide is really what I'm looking for. The E109s really sound like an awesome ski for touring with some speed, but I don't think I would float enough even in the longest length - not sure.

It was this post above that made me think of the Karhu Jakt ski (108mm width- as wide as the Annum!). Responding to your post above:
1) doesn't sound like you are concerned about touring efficiency- don't need/want a long ski: the Jakt is short
2)doesn't sound like you really need a dedicated downhill ski like the S-Bounds: the lack of sidecut in the Jakt might be fine
3) you would prefer a waxable base on a fat xcountry ski: the Jakt comes in a waxable base
4) you would prefer short for maneuverability, but then need much wider for flotation: the Jakt is fat (108mm width)
5) you want fat for flotation in deep pow: the Jakt is fat

If you can live without the waxless base- then IMO, you are on the right track with the Annum (the S-112 is also an excellent ski with even better climbing/turning performance- IMO). I don't know how much you weigh- but you may find you can still get away with a short length with a fatter ski.

My close friend has just bought the Rossi BC125 and is about to put NNNBC bindings on them for xcountry skiing in deep powder- through dense forest. This retailer has the BC125 on sale right now for a crazy low price!:
http://www.leyeti.ca/en/bc-125-wide-u.html

These are the older generation BC125s without the rocker in the tip- that might be just fine for your context.

[bgregoire]

It was this post above that made me think of the Karhu Jakt ski (108mm width- as wide as the Annum!). Responding to your post above:
1) doesn't sound like you are concerned about touring efficiency- don't need/want a long ski: the Jakt is short
2)doesn't sound like you really need a dedicated downhill ski like the S-Bounds: the lack of sidecut in the Jakt might be fine
3) you would prefer a waxable base on a fat xcountry ski: the Jakt comes in a waxable base
4) you would prefer short for maneuverability, but then need much wider for flotation: the Jakt is fat (108mm width)
5) you want fat for flotation in deep pow: the Jakt is fat

Interesting. Now, the whole specs are not there on the Karhu website but from the pics and my understanding of a traditional forest skis, this series probably has something like 0mm sidecut. While Jooyelen doesn't want a dedicated downhill ski, I'm guessing he/she will want at least some sidecut to ease turning on the down when necessary.

As far as I am concerned, there is a real gap in XCD ski offerings at the moment, it seems that all XCD skis larger then the E109 are waxless only. Man, have we become lazy or what? The right wax and there we are, gliding like eagles on the flats and climbing like mountain goats, well ok, that's exagerating a bit, but still, I often get better grip on the up with wax then my waxless peers. Let's get back to waxing and convince the brands that they should produce something for us!

While this may have more sidecut that what Jooyleden is looking for, extra light top tour skis might also be an option as they are waxless. Forrest McCarthy has some a good info on the route here: http://forrestmccarthy.blogspot.ca/2012 ... ordic.html

I have so say, I probably have, in my quiver, the ski that make you most jealous though Jooyleden. An old version of the Karhu 10th Mountain Tour. Yes, its waxless, single camber and has the following specs: 188cm 84-68-74. The tips are relatively stiff compared to most of the newer XCD skis and I find that helps me stay afloat atop pow on the flats. Its a perfect ski.

The most similar WAXLESS XCD ski currently made that I know of is the Asnes Ingstad: 84-62-74 (available in 170-210cm lengths). Not cheap, but amazing build i'm sure, you could probably order it form Neptune mountaineering in the US or The Norseman in Calgary or get it a shop in Norway or Sweden!

[jooleyen]

1) doesn't sound like you are concerned about touring efficiency- don't need/want a long ski: the Jakt is short
...
4) you would prefer short for maneuverability, but then need much wider for flotation: the Jakt is fat (108mm width)

Well I actually am concerned with touring efficiency, but it doesn't seem possible to tour efficiently where I am talking about. If I had long (220+cm) skis, I would float, but would have to be lifting my skis very often to get over logs/around trees. Not sure that is so efficient.

SO, yes the answer is short and wide, but 140 or 160 (forgot which it is) on the Jakt seems too short to float me well. A 195 or 185cm Annum would float better, no? I know that's not considered very short concerning maneuverability, but it's a lot shorter than a 220cm ski.

Who knows, maybe the long 'hunting' ski would be totally manageable and I am just imagining things. I have never tried the 195cm Guide, and I've never tried a 250cm ski either. I would really have to have both of them on my feet for a few miles to get a feel for what compromises are worth dealing with.

Either way, I'll manage to have plenty of fun. I'm just obsessing over details to make it as easy as possible.

EDIT:
I think the real problem here is that I don't completely know what I want/need. I am going to upload a few pictures of the woods. Maybe it's similar to what you have and will help steer me in the right direction. Unfortunately, I live a few hundred miles away from where I want to use this ski, and I tend to remember only the parts where I was frustrated trying to untangle my skis from the brush.

I have so say, I probably have, in my quiver, the ski that make you most jealous though Jooyleden. An old version of the Karhu 10th Mountain Tour. Yes, its waxless, single camber and has the following specs: 188cm 84-68-74. The tips are relatively stiff compared to most of the newer XCD skis and I find that helps me stay afloat atop pow on the flats. Its a perfect ski.

Yeah tell me a little more about this ski and how you like it. I have seen it on craigslist a few times and found one for a good price, but never thought it would be wide enough. Is it the one made in Italy?
I found a good deal on a 195cm Madshus Epoch, but I didn't even consider it too much because I figured it wasn't wide enough - and that's even wider than the 10th mountain tour you mentioned above.

[jooleyen]

I guess similar to the NE region. A mix of boreal and hardwood.