Long winded Fischer S Bound 78

[lilcliffy]

Woodserson,

Just wondering- what type terrain and snow conditions do you find the S-78 most effective on?

Also- why did you choose the relatively short length?

[MikeK]

I think he went a little long for his weight (160lbs) - but for his height (6'-2") it's not a bad compromise IMO.

If I get these to ski down hills, I'd probably go for the 189 too. For my height in a telemark it's a manageable length.

[Woodserson]

I find the camber to be quite stiff, and if one sights down the edge while flexing the ski, the theoretical wax pocket area under the boot never flattens out. I find that at my weight I get good grip on the flats and quiet uphills, but it doesn't take much for me to lose traction uphill, I definitely carry skins with these skis and use them for anything steeper than what you would find on a mountain road. (I can climb mountain auto roads without skins, but that would be that). I like the length otherwise, I am more glide than grip. I can always change technique or slap on some skins, I can't improve glide.

They are suitable to all the usual conditions you'd use a waxless ski, I've been very happy with them. I used them recently at Acadia Nat'l Park, along the shore trails which were wet with ocean wetness, Sierra cement like snow, and they were wonderful for that.

[lilcliffy]

I have skied the S-78- but not as thoroughly as you.

Do you really think it has a wax pocket? (i.e. making it double-cambered?)

My impression was that the S-78 definitely had a stiffer flex than its fatter S-Bound brothers (e.g. S-88,98,112). I would think that this stiffness is for edge control/strength on firm, hard and/or dense snow.

As the S-Bounds get fatter; they also get gradually softer-flex- in order to offer better climbing and turning performance, in progressively deeper and deeper soft powder.

[Woodserson]

If I flatten the ski out and sight down the edge, there's a little concave area that doesn't flatten out like the Crowns, underneath the boot. I call it "theoretical" but maybe it's real. Of course a wax pocket on a no-wax ski is kind of ridiculous, just reporting what I see, that's all.

[MikeK]

Interesting skis. I got my set and I took a good look at them. It will be interesting to see how these perform, it will certainly be different than the Eon... they are vastly different.

First off - they are stiff. Typical for Fischer. The initial flex is much stiffer than my Glitts, and way stiffer than the Eon.

I *think* they aren't quite single camber. There does seem to be a very slight second camber. Hand flexing them back to back I can still see some light when I push together, but it's not like a true double camber ski. Flexing and sighting the center seems to go flat, but not really round. There's also a thicker, raised section where the binding goes that would tend to stiffen it up in this area. This is what I think what people would mean by camber and a half... it's a very mild double camber, but it's different than my Eons. It's also different than the S 98s, which are a stiff single camber.

Another interesting thing - they are short. I didn't put a tape to them but my 199s are shorter than my 200 Madshus. And it's not just the tip portion, the running portion is shorter as well.

My predictions:

They will glide pretty nice. Fischers Offtrack crown pattern is a good glider as it is, and with the camber and length these are going to be faster than any of the Madshus skis.

They won't turn as well as the Eon. Just a guess but the flex is not as good and they are fairly straight. My eye can't distinguish enough difference in the side cut profile (unlike the 98s and Epochs) so I doubt the snow will care much either.

They feel a little heavier than my Eons, but I should throw them on the scale. It's probably negligible but I can't do a good compare now because I still have bindings on the Eon.

[MikeK]

I'll update the comparison when I can do a back to back with the Eon in similar conditions.

Skied them today in some dense, really wet snow. Old snow. Temps in the mid 30s. A foot or more, but breaking was easy as the snow was so dense the skis didn't sink much.

Honestly, really... that snow isn't the best to rate a ski on... but... I think they are a better XC ski that the Eon. Initial impression is I find them harder to turn. That may change in some more fair snow.

They track, glide and grip wonderfully. The other thing is... other than the fact that they track straighter and are a little lighter, they feel almost like the 98s do. The spring they have and the way they glide.

I gotta say, whatever the camber is or isn't, Fischer did a great job with this waxless pattern. It just works. I like it better than the Eons, and especially in this really slippery, dense snow, it performed awesome.

I feel like they track just like the Eon does. No weird parabolic grabbiness. I had to exert quite a lot of effort to make them turn actually, and only did go smoothly in very large arcs (as you would expect from such little sidecut), and even then they ain't what I would call 'easy turnin'" skis. I don't know that the Eon is either, but it might be slightly more willing to bend backwards despite similar camber flex profiles... not really sure, nor would I draw any conclusion yet.

[MikeK]

Just another quick report in completely different conditions.

Very icy, refrozed snow with some fresh in more open areas. This normally would have been E89 territory in terms of base stiffness but I opted for the wider skis due to grip concerns.

This is where any waxless pattern tends to fail. Hard, icy stuff. I was able to keep moving but was slipping a bit here and there. Had to herringbone a bit up hills normally could have skied right up.

I made a few large arced esses on some of the descents. They sliced quite nice in this hard stuff. I did have trouble really cranking them to a stop. There were a couple descents where I had to cross logs and the icy fast conditions made it tough to control speed and come to a stop. Don't think it was a fault of the skis really.

[MikeK]

Just got back from another ski with these. I thought about doing my comp with the Eons today and skiing one on one foot and one on the other... I'm going to do it!

Did some dh... really low angle, not much snow... was just skidding the rear ski all over. It was pretty crappy.

So after that frustration I decided to go do one of my loops. Not much snow, rocks and roots showing everywhere. Kinda icy and beat up. Well to the point...

These skis are actually pretty fast. In my humble, humble opinion. The only faster time I've ever made it around the loop I did was on my E89s. Maybe it was just the icy snow, but as long a stride as I've every had from any ski.

Skiing this kind of garbage no ski really tracks great, but I wasn't all that impressed with them on 'flat' snow despite the speed. I had to kind of work at it. They really, really, really remind of the other S Bounds I have. It's uncanny how similar they feel and it's hard to put my finger on exactly what it is (despite different bindings, boots and dimensions). Must be something in the bases or how they flex... I get the same similarity, but a different feeling from all the Madshus skis.

[Woodserson]

So, I was pretty sure the 78s were going to be relegated to eBay after I bought the 88s and 98s... But I don't think that's going to happen now. I just had a great workout ski on them on gently rolling terrain, basically path following in tight woods packed by previous walkers/skiers etc in a local state park, and they were perfectly suited to the task. I basically need to do the same route again on the 88s to see. (In other news I LOVE the 88s but I need more than two runs to write a review.)

They are nimble and quick (lots of scale wear) and light on the feet and they just sung right along. I'm going to swap the Voile's with ST's and use the V's on something else though since they are not worth a cable.

I would confidently say 199s for scaled version of a Nansen would make those looking for XCd happy. It just seems to work.