Fischer S-Bound 98 or 88?

[bgregoire]

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.

I'm not really into writing full page reports on a ski. It was made in Canada. The relatively smaller sidecut compared to the newer XCD fats (16mm) makes them great trackers, both in powder and consolidated snow, no squirrelling! A quality rarely found in the new fats. It's still enough sidecut though to make some nice wide teleturns. As you have access to a cheap used pair, I'd say grap 'em. The 195 Epoch would have been good for you also IMO. If you want larger, go with the Annum. Larger still? Rossignol 125 with 90mm underfoot. All of these newer XCD fats are waxless though. Voile Charger and Vector are up next and they also have "waxable versions" but there aren't even really XCD skis as they don't even have single camber. So yeah, go fatter and as long as you can if you want more flotation. Its all about compromises anyway so you might never be 100% satisfied with any one ski. Try something new and tell us ow you fared.

[MikeK]

You know Ben - I'm only going off the pinnah database of old skis, but I bet he'd really like a catamount class ski:

https://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/Dirtba ... #SNOWSHOES

They might be hard to find but they sound a little like your old 10th Mountain except with the possibility of a double camber.

These seem kind of skinny when comparing to an Annum or the like - but read the description of what they were designed to do. Sounds exactly like what Jooleyen is after.

BTW the terrain looks incredibly flat to me with the occasional steep cliff.

[MikeK]

Just a quick compare, I know not a winter shot - but this is in Northern Five Ponds Wilderness, one of the flattest sections of the Adirondack dome:



Oh - umm... yeah my point. My ski of choice here is ultra skinny if I am not breaking trail. If I am, my S Bound 98 is more than enough just to ease the chore of busting through. Width under foot is the same as those Catamounts.

[bgregoire]

You know Ben - I'm only going off the pinnah database of old skis, but I bet he'd really like a catamount class ski:

https://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/Dirtba ... #SNOWSHOES

They might be hard to find but they sound a little like your old 10th Mountain except with the possibility of a double camber.

Yup, I would actually place my 10th mountain tour in that category. Single camber, but a generally stiff ski. Otherwize, we're talking 1-2 mm differences when it comes to the specs.

[MikeK]

I'm not really into writing full page reports on a ski. It was made in Canada. The relatively smaller sidecut compared to the newer XCD fats (16mm) makes them great trackers, both in powder and consolidated snow, no squirrelling! A quality rarely found in the new fats. It's still enough sidecut though to make some nice wide teleturns. As you have access to a cheap used pair, I'd say grap 'em. The 195 Epoch would have been good for you also IMO. If you want larger, go with the Annum. Larger still? Rossignol 125 with 90mm underfoot. All of these newer XCD fats are waxless though. Voile Charger and Vector are up next and they also have "waxable versions" but there aren't even really XCD skis as they don't even have single camber. So yeah, go fatter and as long as you can if you want more flotation. Its all about compromises anyway so you might never be 100% satisfied with any one ski. Try something new and tell us ow you fared.

You don't have to write a full page, but if you have good, useful info - write it under a separate post in the review section. The nice thing is it will be easier to find in the future. What you wrote here may disappear into the haze of chatter.

Anywho... I really hope Jooleyen sets some realistic expectation for how a ski is going to perform in really light, deep powder. One has to do the same thing with snowshoes. Even a 36"x9" shoe sinks a fair deal breaking trail through deep snow.

Going to a ski as wide (and therefore) as heavy a Vectors or Chargers is a bit extreme IMO. I'll voice my opinion that those skis are specifically made for turn hunters.

Also I'll tell you straight up you are lighter than me even with your pack on. I don't know how you guys are so light - you need to drink more beer and eat more sausage! No ski is going to float that kind of weight in fluff without some significant relative velocity. Wide powder skis won't skim up on the surface until you get going kind of fast - it's really a principle of hydrodynamics and the same principle as a water ski (the modern rockered powder ski came from a water ski design).

I know you don't want to hear all this but I'm simply giving you the physics of the situation.

Also, I don't know how others do, but I ski a bit different in deep snow. I don't weight that front ski until I've got it moving - I push it fast, with light pressure, then I throw my weight on it. It's really the only way I've found to get them to glide. When you push it initially and speed it up it skims to the surface like a water ski - then before it gets to the top and while it's still moving, lunge forward and put your weight on it. It will sink down and you'll ride a little hill of snow as it sinks and retain a bit of that forward glide. If you just shuffle it won't work - both the skis will just sink and you'll trudge along pushing a mountain of snow in front of you.

[jooleyen]

(elevations in meters)
Some of the areas I like to go are hillier than in the pictures. Definitely more flat areas than what you have in the 'dacks, but similar.

So maybe that ultra long ski will be the ticket. I'm not sure what their price is, but if it's reasonable, I'll try that and the Annum and report back...next year of course.

Again though, soft, deep snow is relative. I don't think Finland gets as much snow as upper michigan does. Averages in the western part of the peninsula are about 200 inches a year and it's usually cold and calm, so the snow doesn't often crust up.

So for now it's still the Annum that I'll get.

I'll try your powder skiing technique next time. As far as my expectations for skiing in deep powder - like I said, I'm just obsessing from my computer chair. I'm glad to get out there and just enjoy the heck out of nature. Even if it's a slog sometimes, I have a good time.

[MikeK]

The Annum will be your best bet I'm sure.

Also, based on your terrain, I'd seriously consider lilcliffy's method of using a NNN BC binding on this ski. I'd normally not think that was a good idea, but if you main goal is to cover distance through deep powder, then the little efficiency you gain from the free pivot will help. The ski will also plane up easier like I said.

If you want to stick with 75mm, consider the Switchback binding. You'll be using it out of it's intended purpose but from what I've read it (and from a guy using it in the Adirondacks) it really is good for breaking trail on mellow terrain in the free pivot mode. Locked down you'll have tons of control for the hills. It's kid of expensive but it will probably be your best bet.

The disclaimer is that the NNN BC setup will probably suck for anything but trail breaking deep snow. At least with the Switchback you are left with a very powerful tele binding when you lock it down coupled to a very good xcD ski.

[bgregoire]

The Annum will be your best bet I'm sure.

Also, based on your terrain, I'd seriously consider lilcliffy's method of using a NNN BC binding on this ski. I'd normally not think that was a good idea, but if you main goal is to cover distance through deep powder, then the little efficiency you gain from the free pivot will help. The ski will also plane up easier like I said.

If you want to stick with 75mm, consider the Switchback binding. You'll be using it out of it's intended purpose but from what I've read it (and from a guy using it in the Adirondacks) it really is good for breaking trail on mellow terrain in the free pivot mode. Locked down you'll have tons of control for the hills. It's kid of expensive but it will probably be your best bet.

The disclaimer is that the NNN BC setup will probably suck for anything but trail breaking deep snow. At least with the Switchback you are left with a very powerful tele binding when you lock it down coupled to a very good xcD ski.

I agree with MileK on the NNN BC - Annum combo in your situation but completely disagree with the Switchback!!!! I own some and its a fantastic light tele binding. The cartridges are relative stiff compared to XCD options so its not much fun on the flats. In walk mode, you have a free pivot which is convenient going up a hill, but on the flats, it's horrible! You need some restriction for optimal Kick & Glide. Don't do it!

[MikeK]

I'm glad you have some feedback about that. I personally didn't think it was a good idea until I read about another avid Adirondack tourer using this. He said he rarely goes into the locked mode unless he is going down a steep hill and breaks trail exclusively in free pivot. I believe his ski is a BC125 (used to be an Annum, I could link his blog if you are interested).

I also thought the lack of the rubber bumper might be kind of strange feeling, but breaking trail through deep snow is a bit of a different beast, so some may prefer the least resistance.

[bgregoire]

I'm glad you have some feedback about that. I personally didn't think it was a good idea until I read about another avid Adirondack tourer using this. He said he rarely goes into the locked mode unless he is going down a steep hill and breaks trail exclusively in free pivot. I believe his ski is a BC125 (used to be an Annum, I could link his blog if you are interested).

I also thought the lack of the rubber bumper might be kind of strange feeling, but breaking trail through deep snow is a bit of a different beast, so some may prefer the least resistance.

Ok, you're right, to each their own. I mean, I learned today some norwegians are BC skiing on 44mm wide (under the foot) metal edged skinnies. Why couldn't a New Yorker Bushwack à la Switchback!