Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

Madshus updated their BC ski line...
http://en-ca.madshus.com/nordic-skis?sk ... ackcountry

Well, again and again, they're exactly the same as they were 15 years ago... With updated graphics once again...

At half the price of all other XCD skis, if they could only add a bit of rocker, they would sell like crazy...

Ooops... I was wrong...
It seems like actual retail price for Epochs and Annums is now 429$... Ouch... I guess the new graphic designer was quite expensive...

I wouldn't have paid him/her one red cent. Those things are uglier than the last generation

I just posted in another thread about how (imo) these are due for an update.

I think they should probably scrap these models and replace with one more classic cambered ski with dimensions between the epoch/annum - and a wider, modern shaped/cambered ski

http://en-ca.madshus.com/nordic-skis?sk ... ackcountry

Is the 205cm Eon no more?

Is the legendary "Glittertind" name gone- now the "BC55 MGV+"?

dorthman wrote:I just posted in another thread about how (imo) these are due for an update.

I think they should probably scrap these models and replace with one more classic cambered ski with dimensions between the epoch/annum - and a wider, modern shaped/cambered ski

I agree that they could do with updates/redesigns.

IMO:
1) All: a more aggressive waxless design with better climbing performance.
2) All: at least slightly rockered tips.
3) Eon: KEEP the 205cm Eon!!!
4) Eon: KEEP the waxable Eon!!
5) Eon: stiffer flex pattern on the Eon= better K&G performance
6) Annum: rockered tip; less sidecut (more width underfoot); KEEP the flex pattern (i.e. make the Annum a TRUE powder XCD ski- who cares if it doesn't carve on a dense base- sidecut doesn't help if the flex pattern is not torsionally rigid).
7) Epoch: a waxable version.
8) Epoch: more torsional strength- to carve!

lilcliffy wrote: 1) All: a more aggressive waxless design with better climbing performance.

Yes - incorporate what works on the MGV+ perhaps (they kind of look similar, but the size, spacing and edges of the patterns are different)

lilcliffy wrote: 2) All: at least slightly rockered tips.

Epoch and Annum, yes. Eon, no.

lilcliffy wrote: 3) Eon: KEEP the 205cm Eon!!!
4) Eon: KEEP the waxable Eon!!

Yes, but I assume sales are poor, and why they dropped it. Other better options perhaps?

lilcliffy wrote: 5) Eon: stiffer flex pattern on the Eon= better K&G performance

A little stiffer tip, a little bit larger camber and a little bit stiffer camber flex.

lilcliffy wrote: 6) Annum: rockered tip; less sidecut (more width underfoot); KEEP the flex pattern (i.e. make the Annum a TRUE powder XCD ski- who cares if it doesn't carve on a dense base- sidecut doesn't help if the flex pattern is not torsionally rigid).

This would probably be a very popular ski if it were updated as such. Keep it lighter than the Vector and KOM and it might be a winner.

lilcliffy wrote: 7) Epoch: a waxable version.
8) Epoch: more torsional strength- to carve!

To me, this isn't a necessity, but a torsionally stiffer, waxless Epoch would be better for hardpack.

I think the current Epoch should have a bit stiffer camber flex and a bit more torsional stiffness, with some mild rocker to make it more of an all-rounder.

MikeK wrote:

lilcliffy wrote: 2) All: at least slightly rockered tips.

Epoch and Annum, yes. Eon, no.

I don't mean true rocker for a ski like the Eon- I mean something more like Ficher's "Nordic rocker" (which I think is brilliant BTW). The current Eon "feels" like it has open tips when turning, because it has such a soft tip- but this has the trade-off of hurting K&G performance.

I do mean true rocker on the Annum- I think...I do love the XC performance of the current Annum/Guide in deep, soft snow...

An Annum with a truly rockered tip would have much shorter XC gliding surface than the current design. Not sure if that would matter in deep, soft snow...

MikeK wrote:

lilcliffy wrote: 3) Eon: KEEP the 205cm Eon!!!
4) Eon: KEEP the waxable Eon!!

Yes, but I assume sales are poor, and why they dropped it. Other better options perhaps?

Not sure if these have been dropped yet or not...But I agree, they are likely poor-sellers- I always seem to stand alone a bit..

MikeK wrote:

lilcliffy wrote: 6) Annum: rockered tip; less sidecut (more width underfoot); KEEP the flex pattern (i.e. make the Annum a TRUE powder XCD ski- who cares if it doesn't carve on a dense base- sidecut doesn't help if the flex pattern is not torsionally rigid).

This would probably be a very popular ski if it were updated as such. Keep it lighter than the Vector and KOM and it might be a winner.

I think it would also need to be lighter than the Objective BC...

And the Voss is now re-badged as the BC-50. Boring.

I like the idea of adding an Annum and just missed out on the old Karhu model with NNN-BC mags at my local ski swap the on weekend. Dang. I did, however, mange to find a mint pair of Asnes Rago (predecessor to the Amundsen) with NNN-BC for a song, so I can't complain too much.

athabascae wrote:And the Voss is now re-badged as the BC-50. Boring.

Yes- I agree- the Voss is a great ski and it had a great name!

I like the idea of adding an Annum and just missed out on the old Karhu model with NNN-BC mags at my local ski swap the on weekend.

Dang is right- I think you would love the flex pattern of the Guide/Annum for your true powder pursuits!

I did, however, mange to find a mint pair of Asnes Rago (predecessor to the Amundsen) with NNN-BC for a song, so I can't complain too much.

OOOH! Sweet score! Similar dimensions to the Amundesen/E-99/Glitt? If so- I will be very interested in your perspective on the Rago class versus the narrower E-89/Voss/Bonna Conquest class...

Is the Rago as stiff and BC-XC expedition-orientated as the Amundsen?