E89/99 195 or 200.

[John Dee]

I ordered a Transnordic 59 easyskin and a Transnordic 66 crown, both in 195cm. I realized that they may not be ideal, so I ordered them both in 200. So now I have both skis in 195 and 200cm. I'm 5' 10" and 160 lbs (180cm and 70.25 kg).

My question is whether I should start skiing on 195's or 200's. Depending on this, I will sell one or both of the 195's. I will keep the 200's to use or save for later.

I was new last year. I downhill skied for about 4 years as a kid. The 195's appear more inviting and intuitive to me, while the 200s look a little more awkward. But this is coming from skiing on way to short of skis last year, sbound crown 60-50-54 in 179cm.

I've been trying to visualize just what happens during the kick; how its affected by length, and therefore requiring more skill. I think that you hop and bend the ski on your way up/foward. This makes the front compress and then release some energy that assists you forward. Obviously if someone was standing on 20 ft skis, they wouldn't be able to leverage them and jump forward. Or maybe its just about deliberately compressing the wax pocket. But its still like chinese to me; I'd be curious for someone to describe just what makes a longer ski require more skill to kick.

[fisheater]

John, what actually happens is that you push down to gain grip, your other foot is sliding forward. The sliding foot slides nicely because most of your weight is on the push foot. The wax pocket rides without contacting the snow because your equally distributed weight is not enough for the grip wax to engage the snow. So as that gliding in front ski, come back beneath your center you push down to glide forward.
With good performing skis, you keep kicking at speed. The thing I get a kick out of is the speed you can get kicking down a slight downhill. I can go fast enough to have the wind whistle in my ears jus kicking down a slight incline. To me that’s pretty cool.
Longer skis generally are for a heavier skier as it take more weight to engage the wax in the pocket with the snow. Longer skis glide better.
Good luck

[John Dee]

Thank you for addressing me so nicely, but John Dee was the astrologer of Elizabeth I. It's unfortunately too late for me to process your post completely. So it will have to wait until tomorrow. The first part makes me think maybe my kick and glide is too "hoppy". I try to tone it down and just think "transfer weight, transfer weight, transfer weight..."

Here's what I really don't understand: I thought you are supposed to balance on one foot for the glide. So I don't understand how the wax pocket works. But really you are putting half your wait on the upturned ski? That doesn't seem to make sense.

[John Dee]

Oh I get it. You are just talking about the moment that you are kicking, not the whole glide. When gliding on one foot, the wax pocket must also be compressed somewhat.

p.s. I completely changed my question so maybe its easier to answer now.

Also, I put the Asnes GI skis next to the E99 and realized that 5cm isn't that much. But it gives the impression of creating much more performance. Also the E89s are about 1cm longer than other skis of the same advertised length, for whatever reason.

[fisheater]

The thing to understand is that if you were to stand on a smooth hard floor, with boots in bindings, and feet in boots, on a double cambered touring ski. If you were to stand weight equal on bot feet, and you put a dollar bill under the wax pocket, the dollar bill would slide out freely. However if you weighted one ski or the other, that wax pocket would squash down and hold that dollar bill firm.
That is all you are trying to accomplish on the kick and glide. Give a little downward pounce to grip and push forward. No jumping or hopping required. A good ski releases readily when that extra weight of the push isn’t there. The only thing I really concentrate on going uphill, when grip might be tougher is getting that little pounce. The rest just is regular skiing.
I will add although I can go pretty fast I’m no racer. I’m just a guy that enjoys going as fast as I can down the trail. However definitely will never be mistaken for a Nordic race skier

[John Dee]

If fully weighted flattens the wax pocket completely, then the wax is fully engaged when gliding on one foot. Alternately, I thought skis were only partially compressed when fully weighted, fully compressed only by kicking force?

[lilcliffy]

I think it is important to differntiate between groomed track skiing/touring and backcountry Nordic ski touring.

I- personally- would not want a ski with a truly effective double-cambered "wax pocket" if my intent is to tour in the backcountry- ESPECIALLY if I expected to ski on fresh/soft snow and/or hilly terrain. In other words- I want to be able to squash the camber of even my double-cambered touring skis with both feet equally weighted.

The "paper test" is intended for "Classic" double-cambered skis intended for a groomed track.

If you have to fully-weight a ski to compress its camber- it is going to be a slip-and-slide nightmare in the backcountry in my experience- and that is just on the flats- wait to you try to climb a steep hill on backcountry snow- let alone point them down a steep hill!!

[lilcliffy]

If fully weighted flattens the wax pocket completely, then the wax is fully engaged when gliding on one foot. Alternately, I thought skis were only partially compressed when fully weighted, fully compressed only by kicking force?

This is relevant for performance Classic technique on a groomed track.

[John Dee]

I'm interested in what you are saying, but it doesn't seem to make sense with so many double cambered touring skis being out there. Can you give me some background on just what a double camber does and doesn't do off of groomed tracks? I understand the problems it has with herring bones and turns, but that's about it.

It's time to get some skis mounted. I've been thinking about this and I definitely would appreciate the maneuverability of 195cm skis, at least for one season. So I was going to keep the TN66 in 195cm. But then I compared the flex of the shovel of the 195 to the 200cm, and the 200cm feels substantially stiffer there. If I'm correctly perceiving the shorter one to be softer tipped, then it seems like it could be an unacceptably mushy ski.

What I mean is that I'm holding the ski around where the scales start and pulling up on the tip. I don't know why different sizes would have different flex in the front because it seems like they would be subjected to the same force as they go over bumps or turn.

[fgd135]

John Dee,
You're in the upper range of suggested weight if you use the 195cm skis, per the 2021 Fischer ski dealer workbook, see page 59:
https://issuu.com/fischersportsgmbh/doc ... 52d9fb3a88
And in the middle range of suggested weight with a 200cm ski.
This tells me you're gonna be possibly getting some base drag and have less glide in many snow conditions with the shorter skis, especially if you are carrying a moderate wt pack, while the 200s should balance out glide vs. grip in similar conditions...with the nordic tip rocker in these skis, I don't think you will feel them too long when turning in the kind of terrain for which they are intended.