Advice on new skis

[dorthman]

the Fischer is a better touring ski, madshus more turn-oriented. I'd base my decision off that.

if you already have narrower, straighter (less sidecut) skis - id definitely go for the epoch (if it's not more expensive)

I really enjoy skis in that epoch-size class (100/70/85ish) you can ski em anywhere and have fun, with nearly any boot/binding combo from nnn-bc to a full blown resort skiing setup

[lilcliffy]

the Fischer is a better touring ski, madshus more turn-oriented. I'd base my decision off that.

if you already have narrower, straighter (less sidecut) skis - id definitely go for the epoch (if it's not more expensive)

I really enjoy skis in that epoch-size class (100/70/85ish) you can ski em anywhere and have fun, with nearly any boot/binding combo from nnn-bc to a full blown resort skiing setup

Interesting you should say this...

I have to say that personally I find the opposite. If I was doing primarily downhill-focused Nordic touring, I would choose the S-Bounds over the Madshus XCDs.

The S-Bounds definitely have a stiffer flex pattern than the Madshus XCDs; but the parabolic sidecut of the S-98 makes the ski WANT to turn, compared to the relatively straight tail of the Epoch.

I find the Madshus XCDs are more on the xcountry side of hybrid than downhill. OR- at least I don't find them easier to turn than the S-Bounds. And I find the Madshus XCDs track straighter- more like a trad XC ski- than the S-Bounds. The soft flex pattern of the Madshus XCDs makes them inherently poor performers on a hard/dense base though.

Overall I find the S-Bounds more versatile hybrid XCD skis than the Madshus XCDs.

I have been drawn to the Madshus XCDs for a number of reasons including my local abundance of fresh, soft snow, and the fact that I have been able to buy the Madshus' at a much lower price than the S-Bounds. (The Madshus XCDs- for me- are also a legacy from my years skiing with the Karhu XCD 10th Mtn and Guide.)

[MikeK]

Not to start a war, but I'm much more in agreement with cliffy having skied both Epoch/S98 and Eon/S78 back-to-back.

The differences are pretty minor though, and with the Eon/S78, it's maybe reversed depending on conditions i.e. the Eon might actually turn a little bit better due to the (observed) softness of the tips and tail. When I measured the camber, it wasn't obvious as they nearly have the same camber gap stiffness. But surely if you just grab the tip and tail, they are easier to fold on the Eon.

With either pair, I can definitely tell which skis I have on my feet - but it's really hard to nail which is better at one thing than the other. It's a lot of perception. I really do think the Fischers are a better made, better engineered ski and all around they seem to perform a bit better.

[lilcliffy]

Hey Mike,

When flexing your Eons, do you find the tail of the Eon stiffer than the tip?

Not that the Madshus XCDs have a truly rockered tip- but when turning them I find the tips feel soft and "open", but the tails feel straight, flat and stiffer. I find that the primary reason the Madshus XCDs track like a xcountry ski is their tails.

Regardless- I agree- having handled and skied the S-78 a number of times- it has a stiffer flex pattern than the Eon.

IME- the S-Bounds are stiffer across the board than the Madshus XCDs.

[MikeK]

Hey Mike,

When flexing your Eons, do you find the tail of the Eon stiffer than the tip?

Not that the Madshus XCDs have a truly rockered tip- but when turning them I find the tips feel soft and "open", but the tails feel straight, flat and stiffer. I find that the primary reason the Madshus XCDs track like a xcountry ski is their tails.

Regardless- I agree- having handled and skied the S-78 a number of times- it has a stiffer flex pattern than the Eon.

IME- the S-Bounds are stiffer across the board than the Madshus XCDs.

Tip is definitely softer than the tail. I find this on all my skis actually - I think it's rather a common trait.

I just went through and flexed tip/tail of all my mid-width skis. Eon was the softest in both tip and tail, then Ingstad, then S78. Tail of the Ingstad and S78 are pretty close. The Eon's tail isn't ridiculously soft either.

[lilcliffy]

Tip is definitely softer than the tail. I find this on all my skis actually - I think it's rather a common trait.

I just went through and flexed tip/tail of all my mid-width skis. Eon was the softest in both tip and tail, then Ingstad, then S78. Tail of the Ingstad and S78 are pretty close. The Eon's tail isn't ridiculously soft either.

Yeah that S-78 is a stiff "hybrid" ski isn't it- the "A to B' ski of the S-Bound line for sure- wish they still made the 200cm...

[lilcliffy]

Tip is definitely softer than the tail. I find this on all my skis actually - I think it's rather a common trait.

I just went through and flexed tip/tail of all my mid-width skis. Eon was the softest in both tip and tail, then Ingstad, then S78. Tail of the Ingstad and S78 are pretty close. The Eon's tail isn't ridiculously soft either.

Yeah that S-78 is a stiff "hybrid" ski isn't it- the "A to B' ski of the S-Bound line for sure- wish they still made the 200cm...

But the E-109 appears to be the obvious replacement for a 200cm S-78...

[MikeK]

But the E-109 appears to be the obvious replacement for a 200cm S-78...

Yes - but I really wish you could have tested the 199 S78 vs the E109. Would love to know how similar or different they are. I want to think they are pretty close, but perhaps not.

[lilcliffy]

But the E-109 appears to be the obvious replacement for a 200cm S-78...

Yes - but I really wish you could have tested the 199 S78 vs the E109. Would love to know how similar or different they are. I want to think they are pretty close, but perhaps not.

Funny you should say this! I wish I could too!

A few years ago I borrowed a friend's S-78s (with a NN-3pin binding)...I have since moved and lost touch with him somewhat...

I did buy a 205cm E-109 crown- with the off-track crown insert- to replace my aging and too-soft waxless Eons...

I suggest the E-109 is a replacement for the S-78 just because they "appear" so close...but I doubt that they are actually that close.

The geometry and the flex pattern of the E-109 vs. S-78 are different, and the position of the off-track crown insert on the S-78 is more forward- I am assuming to facilitate climbing traction....It would be interesting to measure the off-track crown inset between the two skis- and test them for climbing and K&G traction. I would expect them to have similar grip in K&G skiing; but I would expect the S-78 to climb better. As a XC ski I would expect the E-109 to be faster- glide better- than the S-78 for a number of reasons (waxless design + camber and flex pattern).

(But here's where it gets blurred again- despite the greater camber of the E-109- my Combat Natos have a MUCH longer glide surface, due to the Nordic rocker of the E-109...I actually expect the Combat Nato to be a faster XC ski than the E-109- despite the E-109 to be more like a XC ski underfoot...)

I actually have found a leftover 199cm S-78 on clearance- in the US- if the $CAN wasn't so damn weak I might not be able to resist testing it against the E-109/Eon/Ingstad...If I buy ANOTHER ski this year I might end up sleeping in the barn this winter with my pigs...

[MikeK]

I definitely suspect your assumptions are correct based on those observations and Fischers marketing. Similar skis, but the S bound is skewed toward DH and the E109 toward XC. But both skis being so firmly in the middle of XCD, I really wonder how much real world difference there is?

OTOH, Fischer's attention to detail may make them quite a bit different to a very sensitive skier.

I find the S Bound a fine waxless XC ski, but I don't really know much better. I also find it a very fun telemark ski in corn snow on mild slopes, but again, I don't know much beyond the current XCD realm of skis.