Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

Looking for some sizing advice for a lighter weight skier. I’m 5’7” and weigh 120lbs. For years I have been running a pair of Karhu XCD GT (172 length) skis with a sidecut of 83-62-70 and I’ve never got along with them as far as being able to go uphill. They have too much camber for me to be able to flatten and engage the fish scales when climbing and I end up having to either herringbone or sidestep up slopes that friends are able to cruise straight up. Massively frustrating!

This past weekend I rented a pair of Madshus Eon 62 skis (same sidecut as my Karhus) in 165 length and they felt perfect. They had enough grip to go uphill but also had plenty of glide for me. However, the Eon skis have now been replaced by the Panorama M62. The sidecut is the same but the ski length choices are either 162 or 172. Therefore my question is, will the 3 cm shorter length on the Panorama m62 skis in 162 length have any significant difference in glide to the 165 Eon skis? The ski shop guys say that the Panoramas--and Eons before them--have a softer camber than my old XCD GT skis so perhaps I would be okay buying the 172 length again? But I don’t want to end up with essentially another ski that I can’t climb on. On the other hand, if the Panorama skis ended up being a whole lot softer than the Eons I rented, would I end up not having any glide if I go with the 162 length? Any thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Is the sizing chart helpful? (even though it goes by height).
https://madshus.com/en-us/p/panorama-m62-skis-2023

Edit: Sorry -- that sizing chart does not even look relevant to the m62 even though it is on that page.

Good question, to which I totally relate; I'm between 5'6 or 7", 125 lbs. Quite familiar with needing to be selective with camber.
As far as the 3cm difference affecting glide, I'd say it would be quite negligible. Those XCD's, as I recall them, had a pretty robust camber in the 172's for our weight, though I had slightly better luck with them.
If the Panorama's are like the Annum's before them, they do have a softer camber. I've only skied them in a 165 (borowed for a brief spin), but suspect the 172 would also be fine; they're more turn oriented, so I'd think the 172's should still be soft enough.
Some folks will chime in who have more side by side experience, I expect.

I've heard with the new Madshus sizing, the skis are still the same, from the same mould as the older models. For example my 182cm Panorama M78's are the same ski as the old 185cm Annum. They just changed the numbers to end with a 2 with the very latest model. For another example my Panorama M62's waxable with the transition skin, which are the second to last model, are 195cm. They are the same ski as the new Panorama M62 192cm.

Many companies make many changes to their skis. I don't think that is the case with the basic structure of these Madshus skis. My M62 may be waxable and have the Transition Skin which are newer but now abandoned traits on this ski, but it seems to have the low single camber and soft flex like I've heard about the old Eon. My Fisher SB98 has more and stiffer camber even though it is a wider more downhill oriented ski. The M68 and M78 on the other hand are also soft. That is the MO of these Madshus skis.

Redbear wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 08, 2023 4:02 pm

This past weekend I rented a pair of Madshus Eon 62 skis (same sidecut as my Karhus) in 165 length and they felt perfect. They had enough grip to go uphill but also had plenty of glide for me. However, the Eon skis have now been replaced by the Panorama M62. The sidecut is the same but the ski length choices are either 162 or 172. Therefore my question is, will the 3 cm shorter length on the Panorama m62 skis in 162 length have any significant difference in glide to the 165 Eon skis?

If the 165 felt perfect, go with the 162. They're the same ski.

I would expect the 172 to perform essentially the same as the (problematic for you) 175.

Redbear wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 08, 2023 4:02 pm

The ski shop guys say that the Panoramas--and Eons before them--have a softer camber than my old XCD GT skis so

Whether this claim is correct depends on which "XCD GT" design one is speaking of-
over the decades, there were a number of different "XCD GT" designs, and many of the early ones were narrower than the Eon/Eon 62/M62- and more cambered.
The last-generation Karhu "XCD GT" was identical to the 1st-generation Madshus Eon- I can guarantee this, as I own both.

There was a brief Madshus redesign of the "M62" (the model with the smooth base and kicker skin insert)- that reportedly had a rockered shovel, and a single-downhill camber. There are a number of people @Rodbelan that own this model and can confirm this.

All reports seem to confirm that Madshus has gone back to the original last-gen "XCD GT" design with the current "M62".

The changes in "lengths" are irrelevant- they are the same ski- and the same length- "175"="172"- it is the same ski.
(I have absolutely no idea what Madhsus is doing with its confusing BC Nordic ski naming and length conventions...)

Thank so much for the great advice everyone! I ended up buying the shorter (supposedly 162 cm length) skis. I measured them when I got home and they are actually 165 cm in length. Which makes sense since the ski shop owner said that the Panoramas were built using the same mold as the previous generation Eons. I set the Panorama skis next to my old Karhu XCD GT skis (which are 175 cm in length —I misspoke when I said they were 172) and there is quite a difference in camber. Not sure if the photo shows this very well but just sitting on the work bench, the camber of the Panorama 62 in front is 1.2 cm while the XCD GT ski in back has a camber of 2.5 cm. Both measured at the center point. The other difference is that the Karhu XCD ski has a lengthwise groove on the bottom of the ski but the Panorama does not.

Will try to remember to post up how the skis perform for me after I get them out in the snow.

"the camber of the Panorama 62 in front is 1.2 cm while the XCD GT ski in back has a camber of 2.5 cm."

Camber is not measured or determined by height, rather by force of pounds/gk required to flatten the ski. So you may have a "low camber" ski that is actually on the stiffer side of a "high camber" ski with a softer flex.
Some time in the early days of my xcd'ing and associated shop work, I read something I still recall (remarkably!) and find a good general rule. Probably from Steve Barnett's book. Went something like this: For competitive type xc skis, you should be able to close the camber of the skis (together) with both hands. For more general xc touring, with one hand. For xcd, two fingers (and of course your opposing thumb). You can kinda get a feel for it that way. If you have the good fortune to pick up the skis in a shop, rather than from the interweb.

@phoenix +1↑

The other dimension is with regards to the degree of resistance/stiffness underfoot of a ski- which Phoenix's summary of Steve Barnett's explanations imply.
Regardless of the height of the camber- or the longitundinal stiffness- how much resistance is there when you try to compress that camber?

Dropping the track groove on the Madshus M62 is an interesting move- and perhaps a mistake IMO.
The 68/78 don't have a track groove- which makes sense, they have more sidecut, and even rounder flex- more turn oriented than the 62.