East Coast S Bound advice

[Woodserson]

I'm having a tough time deciding.

Let's say you could have any two pairs of the pre-2016 Fischer S-Bounds-- the 78, 88, 98, 112.

This season I can supplement my quiver with one S Bound. I already have the 78's. I can easily get the 88 and the 112, and sell the 78's, or keep the 78's and get the 98's. Either option is completely do-able, except the 98's will probably work well with my boots I have now and I won't have to sell the 78's. I want good ski versatility, which is the primary goal.

Skiing East Coast--- rolling terrain, forest roads, old ski trails, closed mountain auto roads, White Mountain Nat'l Forest land, bushwacking, and forays to downhill mountains like Mt. Cardigan with CCC downhill trails (no lifts), other treeless summits, Jackrabbit Trail, etc.

Here are the dimensions
78-61-69
88-68-78 (classic dimensions, a little more turn than the 78 but not much)
98-69-88 (same waist at the 88's, more sidecut)
112-78-95 (like my old alpine midfats)

I may need to up the bootage on the 112's, I'm rocking the Rossi BCX 6 75mm, might be a little squirrely. Either an Alaska or a Ross BCX 12. 3 pin 75mm on each of them.

Feel free to use Madshus analogies if you would like--
EPOCH for the 98
ANNUM for the 112

[MikeK]

Psshh... that's easy. Get the 98. Keep the 78.

It does pretty good in our freshies even with a fat guy like me. Go long too, that ski turns great.

The 88 may have more of a similar flex to the 78, enough to not make it worth having both. IMO the 112 is too big and heavy for our generally high water content powder. Probably will need more boot too.

You'll then have the same quiver as me, which I hope the 78 to be the main cruiser when I'm on gentler terrain or in broken track most of the time, the 98 for more dh focus and trail breaking or bushwacking.

[MikeK]

PS I don't know if either of those boots would be much of an upgrade. AFAIK the BCX 6 is a more stout boot than the 75mm Alaska.

The Svartisen 75mm is probably not much better either because of the weak sole. I'd say a ski like the 112 is more into Excursion territory or maybe one of the exotic boots that are hard to get in the US.

[connyro]

Keep the 78's. Get the 112's and upgrade your boots. Reason? Because you've already got a great light BC touring ski with the 78's. Us that for long distance, mellow tours, speed. Use 112's for deep snow, trail-breaking, rugged terrain, downhill oriented tours.

[MikeK]

Well at least we agree you should keep the 78s and if you go to the 112, get different boots.


You could probably get away with the 98 and your BCX6's from what I know of them. The 98s kinda suck with the Alaska 75mm - too squirrely for me.

If you want to stay away from plastic, it may be tough to find a good leather to handle a ski like the 112.

[Woodserson]

Ooof. Thanks guys. I'll wait for lilcliffy to join his two cents. I"m out to the ADKs for a few days, it'll help me ruminate over all these terrible ski choices I must make.

[Cannatonic]

I'd probably go with Sbound 88's and 78's. For me the simple 3-pin and lightweight boots setup isn't enough to control bigger skis, I have trouble rolling them up on edge, but I have weak foot bones. I've always needed more supportive boots. The 88's will be different with less camber, they should climb better and float better. It's not like you're taking these to a ski area.

[MikeK]

Whelp... there is 'nother school of thought I could confuse you with.

You could get rid of the 78 and just go for the 88. It would probably do everything well enough and simplify life. Based on my current ski knowledge, if I could have just one set of skis, it would be my Eons and I'd keep them mounted with the NNN-BC Magnums. Coupled with the Alaksas, they are an awesome all around ski.

I'm only speculating that the 88 is somewhat similar. In reality I know all the Fischers are quite a bit different than the Madshus skis, in some ways better, in some worse. I honestly don't mind the tracking of them (I've only skied the 98) and I like the waxless pattern better than the Madshus one. It seems to work better in sugary, cold snow where scales sometimes struggle (I know this directly comparing climbing abilities of the Epoch vs the 98). All the Fischers seem to have a higher camber and a stiffer camber than the Madshus skis. The 78 definitely seems to have a second camber, although very slight, and not ridiculously stiff - not sure if the 88 does as well? This kind of thing can hamper the turning ability but really help the glide. When you get into these middle skis you are really splitting hairs though.

The Eon really is a beautifully flexing ski. The waxless pattern glides well, like the other skis, but somewhat lacks grip in certain conditions. I feel like Fischer did this better. The 98 seems to make most of it's turning prowess from it's sidecut profile. The ski feels rather stiff but it doesn't take much effort to edge it, and when you do, it just seems to dig in and turn. I don't feel like I'm trying to weight and flex the ski, it just does it. I'll be interested to see how this translates on the 78s.

But in the end, I don't think you can go wrong - these series of S Bounds seem like great skis to me. I could be completely wrong but I feel like Fischer completely screwed this whole line with the easy skin thing. Might have been cool on the 112 and the 125, but the narrower skis... bahh... and what do I know, I've never tried it. I certainly won't buy a pair, so unlikely I'll try them unless Fischer sends me a free set (wink wink).

[Teleman]

First year the S Bound Rebound came out got a set of 169's (88-60-78)98 is a fat BC ski for the kind of skiing we do but with bottomless for my wife....Tested them in the BC...Turned instantly...At 169 the rear ski was prone to cross the fore ski....but...the ski was so turny....you could continue down while re doing the back ski....If you elongate like some of us do....not a couple to a few inches....like a foot or more on average....then you need a 189....they still turn beautifully....and ride the down as a stable powder ride the rail ski.....The Outtabounds....(78-68-78) are a bit stiffer....but still turn well....because of the stiffness going into a dip can run the ski into the lip....flight time.....The 98...we have the waxable....To wide for my taste but last year in very deep BC conditions for several months....they skied well at a 179....(but the boys skiing them wanted the 189)...We ski all the above with lace up leathers...or...double buckle leathers....(welted leather boots) Another Kingdom Tele Boy who was having trouble controlling the skinnies did well on the 112. (same leather boot)....Really guys....the 112 weighs very little and any kind of good leather boot will have NO trouble....The Rebounds were a very light total turn machine....They don't make them anymore....We broke all of them and now ski them at different lengths...(Teleking a 179 and a189)....My advise....78.....98....(98 for bottomless the 78 for everything else)....Remember the skis are light....almost no pressure will bring them around....The sidecut equals turns....A much more solid ski the 109 takes a bit more time to come around but can go anywhere and get you back....fast....TM

[MikeK]

My advise....78.....98....(98 for bottomless the 78 for everything else)....Remember the skis are light....almost no pressure will bring them around....The sidecut equals turns....A much more solid ski the 109 takes a bit more time to come around but can go anywhere and get you back....fast....TM

Probably one of the most useful things you've ever posted. Didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle.