Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

The Mid-Width BC-XC Ski Myth: Have I been searching for something that no longer exists outside of Finland?

So I decided to rather frivolously spend some cash on clearance skis in order to once and for all try and figure something out…

For more than a decade I have been trying to find the “perfect” mid-width backcountry-xcountry ski- or mid-width traditional XCD ski- if you will.

What do I mean by mid-width BC-XC ski?

Something that offers better flotation than a ski like the legendary Fischer E-99, but is still a xcountry ski at heart- has the flex pattern to offer true “kick”.

The current contenders?
• Madshus Eon
• Fischer E-109
• Fischer S-Bound 78 (Traverse 78)
• Asnes Ingstad/Combat Nato

I currently own three of these: the Eon, E-109, and the Combat Nato. This may seem crazy- to own three seemingly almost identical skis (my wife certainly does!)

But I went ahead and bought yet another ski to test against all of them: the current E-99.

WHY?

Because I have become suspicious that the current mid-width BC-XC is in fact a myth.

I give you a few waist measurements:
• Eon: 62mm
• E-109: 60mm
• Ingstad/Combat Nato: 62mm
• S-78: 61mm

Now the waist of the E-99: 54mm…that’s at most only 8mm narrower…

Here is my suspicion:

I am starting to think that this trend of adding aggressive sidecut to every ski may have destroyed the mid-widthness of any of the above skis.

What if 8 mm is actually insignificant at this width range? What if in the real world the E99 offers as much effective flotation as any of these “mid-width” Nordic skis? This is the question that I want to answer.

I have skied the E99 enough to know already that it is a better xcountry ski than any of these mid-widthers. And if the E99 ends up offering an unmeasurable difference in flotation- why would anyone buy a “mid-width” BC-XC ski?

That sidecut makes them easier to turn? Not convinced of that either. Don’t get me wrong, all of these “mid-width” skis have a shorter turning radius than the E99. So if you are going to steer these skis- then these mid-widthers turn better- no question. BUT- if you have to pick up your skis most of the time to turn them- because you are using xcountry boots/bindings- perhaps the E-99 is just as easy to turn…

I intend to find out.

Do these “mid-width” Nordic skis actually offer mid-width flotation?
Is a trad BC-XC ski like the E-99 actually harder to turn with XC boots and bindings?

Are these “mid-width” Nordic skis actually a myth?

Was the last true mid-width BC-XC ski available in North America the old Karhu 10th Mountain Tour?

Are Finnish forest skis the last source of a true mid-width BC-XC ski?

lilcliffy wrote: I am starting to think that this trend of adding aggressive sidecut to every ski may have destroyed the mid-widthness of any of the above skis.

I know there is a lot going on here, but I want to illustrate how I feel about this trend with what I see in the bike industry, then I'll go back to skis. Bear with me...

In mountain biking, particularly the XC side of things, there has been a big push with all this "modern" geometry which if you follow what is going on, is simply a shift in head angle to being less steep, seat post angle being more steep, and reach/effective top tube getting longer. This is all from DH mountain biking. Low, slack and low is often what you'll read/hear slung around. Well, traditional XC bikes, at least in the past 20 years, were not this. They were short wheelbase with lots of weight over the front end. This give you quick handling on flats through tight turns and excellent climbing balance. XC bikes were driven by XC racing, and races were often won on the climbs.

So for those that weren't actually racing XC, there then became this other classification that was just for people who were riding. They wanted to have fun, go ride big mountains, little mountains, gullies, flats, hit jumps, whatever... that picked up a bunch of names - all mountain, trail, whatever... it simply was starting to blend more aspects of dh racing bikes into XC bikes for people who were mostly riding XC terrain, but weren't as focused on being as completely fast on the way up and having a bit more fun on the down.

So you started to see this shift in geo. Now even a modern XC race bike is pretty close to what a recreational AM or trail bike is. Why? XC race course started to get more technical on the downs. Also people who started riding these bikes realized there wasn't a huge tradeoff for having the more modern geo.

Now I don't expect XC ski racers to start adding aggressive sidecuts to their skis, but perhaps if the ski racers were such that you were descending more technical terrain, and particularly snow where it was hard for them to use step turns, you'd probably see the same shift.

Fact of the matter is, regardless of what XC racing was doing... regular rec skiers generally could deal with a little bit slower, and less straight tracking ski to have a bit more dh control. This is why I think we see this trend.

Back to the bikes, I have two right now - one a more traditional XC geo, one an AM geo, but actually closer to a modern XC geo. I like both, but the AM geo is certainly easier to descend and ride more technical stuff with. The XC geo is more efficient for pedaling and climbing, but for someone not racing, it's not really all that perceptible.

I could say the same thing about these mid-width skis. Sure, I could put an e89 or e99 in a track and fly! The other skis won't even fit. But when I ski a variety of different terrains - old woods roads, single track trails, some mild glades, I find the mid-width ski just does it all better. It's easier to control, it climbs well, it breaks trail OK (not great, but not a complete slicer) and in its own tracks, it actually moves pretty good.

In the perfect conditions, the e99 or narrower ski will be better. But sometimes your journey has enough variation it's a better compromise to have the ski with a bit more sidecut. Neither will excel in steeper terrains or deep snow - in that case I'd rather have the even wider ski with more sidecut and less length.

Some people are completely uncompromising. They seem to want the most dh performance no matter what they ski - and that's fine too. Back to the bike analogy I see plenty of people on long travel, full suspension, all-mountain bikes riding our 100' vert trails that are pretty buff compared to some other areas of the world. In my mind this would be like skiing Meidjos and Chargers in the same area. They might go a little faster and be able to ski a little more aggressive, but for me, that's not as much fun and too much of a compromise for everything else.

There are also several skis with waists 59-60 mm, but narrower tips than the "mid-width" skis and 8-10 mm of side cut, and shorter length.

It would be interesting to compare the flotation of these as well. I ski one of these (Alpina Discovery 68-60-65). I don't know how these compare to the flotation of longer skis with the same waist size but wider tips.

I've skied both short and long skis, and at 5'7 with 28 1/2 inseam and 200+ lbs , the short skis climb better and are easier for me to turn or wedge. 200 cm skis are hard for me to deal with. If I need a wider ski for flotation, the next ski would be something like the Fischer Explorer 88.

In the same 205 length, my Madshus Eon floats noticeably better than my Madshus Pellestova(62-52-57), and continued to float noticeably better when I switched to a Pellestova in 210.

My gf's appropriately sized Atomic Rainiers float better than my appropriately sized Pellestovas, and similarly to my Eons.

Her appropriately sized Glittertinds give her a noticeable advantage over my Pellestovas only when we're on marginal crust or a punchy wind slab. *EDIT* In retrospect, her Glittertinds are slightly undersized. She's in between sizes, and I tried to gently encourage her toward the longer size, but the sales lady encouraged her to buy the shorter size. She regretted it the first backpacking trip when the scale drag was immediately noticeable.

Just my take on it. I think there is a difference and it's noticeable enough in the variety of conditions I ski on/in.

My wife is skiing my old Glitts @ 200 and loves them because they glide and grip well. She hates them because she says they don't change direction. In comparison, when I put her on 195 Eons, she was in love. She felt they strode along as well as the glitts but actually gave her some directional control. I really doubt the 5cm had anything to do with it. It's the whole combination of flex and sidecut profile.

I have a pair of S78s for her, and we use these skis as trail skis - IMO they aren't really an all out tour for turns XCD ski (her Epoch is a much better ski for that). I don't know that this year will be a good year for eval, but I'm interested to see what she thinks of the S78 vs the Eon. IMO the S78 doesn't turn as easily. It takes a little more dedicated weighting, most likely due to the tip/tail stiffness. IMO a trail ski needs to turn pretty well - not necessarily quick back and forth linked turns, but flow with the terrain and shoot through the gaps in the trail, particularly in the conifers. The S78 does have a lot better grip, which she did notice was lacking in the Eon. I only plan on keeping one for her, so we'll see which she prefers.

As far as float, I'm not so much worried about that. It's only when I've been in deep, heavy snow was the Eon/S78 really miserable.

Ahhh, the Glittertind; a very good ski, very good compromise for our kind of (usual) conditions in the north-east... Once you get use to the balance it needs, to the sweet spot that makes you centered, they turn quite easily... Mike, something you know that you should tell your gf: it is the skier that makes a ski turn. You just have to say that it is message from Rod (I know how it is difficult to tell something to the significant other on our behalf... ) Of course, those skis aren't crud or bottomless powder skis...

MikeK wrote: Now I don't expect XC ski racers to start adding aggressive sidecuts to their skis, but perhaps if the ski racers were such that you were descending more technical terrain, and particularly snow where it was hard for them to use step turns, you'd probably see the same shift.

I understand what you are saying- you are speaking of limiting factors overriding balance. So for example, a skimo setup is clearly on the climbing/turning side of xcd- because the terrain is the limiting factor.

Looking at Fischer's off-trail Nordic lineup- the S-Bounds are intended to offer the same trade-off- when Nordic touring in mountainous terrain, the limiting factor for most skiers becomes climbing/turning- at the expense of xcountry performance. I get this- I appreciate it in fact.

But on the other end of the spectrum- what happened to the off-trail Nordic touring ski where the limiting factor is distance? The narrow BC-XC skis still have this in mind- but the midwidth BC-XC skis?

My point is this- is the only advantage of an E-109/Ingstad/Eon- over an E-99/Glitt/Gamm3 54- the sidecut, making it easier to turn, and the softer flex, making it easier to climb? If so- these midwidth BC-XC skis may only be worth it if you are xcd skiing on hard/dense snow. If they don't effectively offer more flotation- then I might as well step up to a much wider ski.

My typical skiing is on soft fresh snow- and my Eons tend to sink to the base- making the Epoch or Annum a better choice for me at 185lbs. I am hoping that the flex pattern of the Ingstad and/or E-109 offers better flotation- otherwise I have just wasted a pile of cash...If these mid-width skis are simply xcd skis for a hard/dense base- then they are clearly a niche ski for me. If I am going to be downhill-focused than I would be better to save my money and jump from the E-99/Glittertind/Gamme 54 right to the Objective Bc (or Asnes Tind 85...)

Fact of the matter is, regardless of what XC racing was doing... regular rec skiers generally could deal with a little bit slower, and less straight tracking ski to have a bit more dh control. This is why I think we see this trend.

Totally get your point- and agree with the downhill being the limiting factor- in a mountainous context. But in my experiences- backcountry skiing in Eastern Canada- I meet a lot more people xcountry skiing off-trail, than Nordic touring in mountainous terrain.

My point may be silly- even irrelevant to some- but I just wonder a mid-width backcountry-XCOUNTRY ski even exists anymore.

And why bother with all of the redundancy- what are the real differences between skis like the S-78, S-88 and E-109? IF the E-109 isn't more of a distance-focused xcountry ski, then why bother making it?

And don't get me wrong- I agree- the mid-width skis (Eon/Ingstad/E-109) are "easier" to turn than the narrower skis.

anrothar wrote:In the same 205 length, my Madshus Eon floats noticeably better than my Madshus Pellestova(62-52-57), and continued to float noticeably better when I switched to a Pellestova in 210.

My gf's appropriately sized Atomic Rainiers float better than my appropriately sized Pellestovas, and similarly to my Eons.

Her appropriately sized Glittertinds give her a noticeable advantage over my Pellestovas only when we're on marginal crust or a punchy wind slab. *EDIT* In retrospect, her Glittertinds are slightly undersized. She's in between sizes, and I tried to gently encourage her toward the longer size, but the sales lady encouraged her to buy the shorter size. She regretted it the first backpacking trip when the scale drag was immediately noticeable.

Just my take on it. I think there is a difference and it's noticeable enough in the variety of conditions I ski on/in.

Good stuff...What dimensions were the Rainier?

The other issue that is a major factor is flex pattern, skier weight , and skiing style...

My 12 year-old daughter flies around on powder on her Eons- in every context- downhill, uphill and xcountry...

As another comparison- last season, I tested my 205cm Eons regularly against my very crude Asnes USGI Combat skis. With a much stiffer flex, and a wider waist (67mm vs. 62mm), I found the Asnes offered noticeably better flotation over fresh, soft snow...BUT the flex pattern of the Eon offers much "better" downhill performance...

In short- I find when I really push my Eons- on soft snow- the waist just sinks into the abyss and I end up turning around and grabbing my Annums. When the snow is hard/dense, I find my Eons are too soft, and I want a stiffer flex pattern.

My initial flexing of the Ingstad/Combat Nato and the E-109 suggests that they both have more resistance than the Eon. I have already tried the E-109 and it feels much snappier under foot than the Eon.

I really see where you are going with this, I think, and that's: Why compromise?

Ski a highly dedicated XC ski when you want to XC in hard snow or broken track, and ski a wide ski when you want to float and break trail or ski up and down.

Oft times I've heard/read where people were confused about this class of skis. A lot of people think they are too much of a compromise in either direction. Too slow, not wide enough, don't turn well enough... but a lot think they are just right.

I'd say if we went for a typical BC XC tour in the Adirondacks, a ski like this would really show its promise. At least to me. And to a fair deal of other skiers I tend to see with them. With NNN-BC bindings and good boot (Alaska or the like) we'd ski 10-20 miles of varied terrain no problem. Narrow single-track trails. Wide old-logging roads. Take a dash through the hardwoods. Ideally we'd never feel compromised. I gotta say, when I ski my 98s (or the old Annums or Epochs) for that distance in rolling terrain I tend to feel it. Sure they climb better and descend much easier, but on the flats, particularly in a broken track, I'm wishing for something else.

I started off getting back into XC skiing with my Glittertinds. They promised to do everything... and they do, to a degree. The problem I had with them is in real tight, technical areas or less than ideal conditions i.e. short steeps, singletracks through tight bush, mushy snow, etc... I was really struggling. Given enough space (and much more practice) I can ski with them quite well. Even being on a little more maneuverable and shorter ski i.e. a mid-width XCD, I still can get tangled up quite easily... but for the most part, as a trail ski, they do pretty well. I usually make turns with them on wider trails going down just for fun and if I'm in tight stuff, I just head them through and turn them as needed.

Now I kind of feel if I'm going to use a long, thin ski it has to be the right conditions and terrain. When I do, they are fast and fun. If I try to push them I'm usually struggling with them.

As far as the wider ski - I really just use them when I have deep snow to contend with or when I'm messing around hunting for turns. I could ski them all the time, but on flat terrain or long tours where I don't need that much float, they don't do me much good. I still take my mid-width skis out to play around too (not really going anywhere) but they aren't as much fun unless I'm on something like corn snow - then they are a good time.