Ski Review: 2018-2019 Fischer Traverse 78

[fisheater]

Then, what ski would you recommend as more turnable, in similar shape (width) and scale-based? Madshus Eon, now Panorama M62?

Eon/Panorama
T78
E109/TN82
Ingstad

Are all comparable skis dimensionally. But I think lilcliffy means completely out of this class when it comes to turning.

So- the thing is I don't get or buy in to the idea of a "short" XC ski for "downhill" skiing".
What I am speaking to here is that skis that are tuned for distance and XC kick and glide should be sized with that in mind.

There are- certainly are- XC skis that are tweaked to climb- tweaked to plane- tweaked to be turned- but that doesn't make them downhill skis.

I cannot speak to the current Fischer 78- I haven't even seen one- and it is starting to sound like it is tweaked again towards XC performance (i.e more camber and stiffness underfoot).

The Eon/XCDGT is "easier" to turn- for some- than my T78, because it softer underfoot than the my T78. I don't find our T78 harder to turn than our Eons- but I am 180+ lbs and a bit of an assertive skier. My wife does not find our T78 hard to turn, but she is an expert downhill skier and agressively weights her downhill/leading ski.

My point- some people will find the Eon easier to turn than the T78- some will not.
Regardless- I bet everyone/anyone would find the 78 to be a more efficient XC ski.

On the subject of "go short for hills"-
If one is going ot go "short for the hills" then why not consider a ski that is more downhill focused than either of these skis?

If you go short enough on a 78 to make it "manageable" in steep terrain, then it is going to be dead on the flats- so why not reach for a ski that is actually going to be fun downhill?

Hello Gareth and Woods,
In regards to the more turnable XC skis list, what is the most turnable while still offering kick and glide performance?

We talk about turnable here. I can turn my Gamme. I ski twisty steep trails on Gamme. It has made me think about what I mean by turnable? I have thought turnable should mean that I can bend the ski in a somewhat equally weighted two footed Telemark turn. However from correspondence I’ve had, there isn’t a ski with XC performance that I can bend in that equally weighted 2 footed turn.
I did come up with a definition of what I am looking for in a turnable ski. My definition would be a ski, that has XC performance, but that a skilled skier can link turns in reasonable snow conditions on moderate terrain. However even as I write this, I’m shooting myself in the foot, because I’m sure I could link some decent turns on my Gamme on a groomed Green piste.
This leaves me to believe perhaps the Holy Grail of turn ability lies with judiciously engineered rocker. Of the four skis on the turnable list, three are rockered.
T-78
E-109/TN82
Ingstad
Before I talk about the rockered skis, I will comment that the reviews I’ve read don’t speak glowingly of the XC performance of the Eon/Panorama 62. That is definitely reported for a guy in my 190 lb weight class.
So perhaps I’ve answered my own question, as I write this. It seems the answer is pick one of those three remaining skis on the list. We have enough reviews here to pick which ski suits the individual best, correct? The only other apparent alternative is to order a Otto, if it is even possible.
I would still appreciate your comments.
Thank you

[Krakus]

Lilcliffy,
My question was also a sort of an ongoing quest for Holy Grail, looking for something more turnable without significant sacrifice of XC performance

On the subject of "go short for hills"-
If one is going ot go "short for the hills" then why not consider a ski that is more downhill focused than either of these skis?
If you go short enough on a 78 to make it "manageable" in steep terrain, then it is going to be dead on the flats- so why not reach for a ski that is actually going to be fun downhill?

Totally agree on above. Some years ago, inspired by Steve Barnett enthusiastic opinion on this forum on Madshus Glittertinds, I bought them in 195 cm (scalebased), at least two sizes down with regard to my weight. As a result, I can turn them quite nicely, especially on groomed tracks, but as for XC performance they are close to hopeless.

[lilcliffy]

Hello Gareth and Woods,
In regards to the more turnable XC skis list, what is the most turnable while still offering kick and glide performance?

We talk about turnable here. I can turn my Gamme. I ski twisty steep trails on Gamme. It has made me think about what I mean by turnable? I have thought turnable should mean that I can bend the ski in a somewhat equally weighted two footed Telemark turn. However from correspondence I’ve had, there isn’t a ski with XC performance that I can bend in that equally weighted 2 footed turn.
I did come up with a definition of what I am looking for in a turnable ski. My definition would be a ski, that has XC performance, but that a skilled skier can link turns in reasonable snow conditions on moderate terrain. However even as I write this, I’m shooting myself in the foot, because I’m sure I could link some decent turns on my Gamme on a groomed Green piste.
This leaves me to believe perhaps the Holy Grail of turn ability lies with judiciously engineered rocker. Of the four skis on the turnable list, three are rockered.
T-78
E-109/TN82
Ingstad
Before I talk about the rockered skis, I will comment that the reviews I’ve read don’t speak glowingly of the XC performance of the Eon/Panorama 62. That is definitely reported for a guy in my 190 lb weight class.
So perhaps I’ve answered my own question, as I write this. It seems the answer is pick one of those three remaining skis on the list. We have enough reviews here to pick which ski suits the individual best, correct? The only other apparent alternative is to order a Otto, if it is even possible.
I would still appreciate your comments.
Thank you

Which ski is the fourth ski?

Of the three you list- in my experience- from easist to turn to least:
E109
Ingstad
78

(Can't speak for the TN82 as I still don't know if it is the same as the most recent E109 Xtralite)

Of the three above- the E109 is unstable in deep snow.
A 205cm E109 and a "199cm" 78 are equivalent in XC efficiency.
The Ingstad and the 78 are roughly equivalent in terms of stability and deep snow performance.
The Ingstad is equally efficient as a XC ski in soft and deep snow.

[Stephen]

Hello Gareth and Woods,
In regards to the more turnable XC skis list, what is the most turnable while still offering kick and glide performance?
.
.
This leaves me to believe perhaps the Holy Grail of turn ability lies with judiciously engineered rocker. Of the four skis on the turnable list, three are rockered.
T-78
E-109/TN82
Ingstad
Before I talk about the rockered skis, I will comment that the reviews I’ve read don’t speak glowingly of the XC performance of the Eon/Panorama 62.

The only other apparent alternative is to order a Otto, if it is even possible.
.
.

Which ski is the fourth ski?

Of the three you list- in my experience- from easist to turn to least:
E109
Ingstad
78
.
.

The 4th ski was the Eon/Panorama 62.

However, the reason for the post is to wonder how the Otto compares to the Traverse 78?
They have the same dimensions. Only visual difference is T78 traction pattern.
I’m sure they are different skis, and am wondering how they compare?
@lilcliffy, @Woodserson?
If the 20% sale at Varuste hadn’t popped up, I wouldn’t be thinking about this, but…

[lilcliffy]

@Stephen
I am going to answer in the "speculation" thread on the main forum-
#1 I don't know that the current 78 isn't changed from the 2018 model that I have
#2 I haven't strode on the Sverdrup ski yet, so it is still speculation at this point

[lilcliffy]

Note-
Flexing my 78 again this evening (or should I say Rebecca's 78...)- I am reminded that- alhtough these are significantly cambered Nordic touring skis- they lack the very stiff resistance underfoot of skis like the E99/Gamme 54/Sverdrup.
Both the Ingstad and the E109 are more resistant underfoot than the 78.

[Woodserson]

Note-
Flexing my 78 again this evening (or should I say Rebecca's 78...)- I am reminded that- alhtough these are significantly cambered Nordic touring skis- they lack the very stiff resistance underfoot of skis like the E99/Gamme 54/Sverdrup.
Both the Ingstad and the E109 are more resistant underfoot than the 78.

I can close the Traverse 78 quite easily. The SBound78 less so, but it's still not some big double camber.

[WinterWoodsman]

Hello All,

Quite the illuminating thread here. I am working on graduating from having a bunch of cheap weird BC XC skis that aren’t the right size for me to just having one solid pair that is correctly sized for me and the right ski for the terrain I am in. You guys are all a treasure trove of insight. I ski wilderness trails in northern Colorado once to twice a week about 6 months out of the year. I have typically skied on XC skis ranging from 90mm to 125mm in width at the shovel. We do get really deep snow here but the trails are pretty packed down most of the time. I love what I am hearing about the Fischer Traverse 78. I ski winding somewhat narrow wilderness trails with mellow slope angles. There are some little short steep drops here and there. There is also a bunch of uneven ground with big divots where it is sometimes difficult to get the scales to make contact with the snow. There are also some nice steady flats. I have only ever skied skis 179 cm and shorter. I am about 160 lbs and about 5’11”. I am leaning towards the 186 cm Traverse 78s for my skiing. I know a bunch of you guys would never ski a ski that short but for me anything around 200cm just kinda sounds insane. Any observations or opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance and enjoy the beautiful spring everybody!!

[greatgt]

When on skinnies go as long as you think you can take then go longer. The RIDE is worth it and keeps you up in the deeps. TM

[Manney]

Quite the illuminating thread here. I am working on graduating from having a bunch of cheap weird BC XC skis that aren’t the right size for me to just having one solid pair that is correctly sized for me and the right ski for the terrain I am in.

I ski wilderness trails in northern Colorado once to twice a week about 6 months out of the year. I have typically skied on XC skis ranging from 90mm to 125mm in width at the shovel. We do get really deep snow here but the trails are pretty packed down most of the time. I love what I am hearing about the Fischer Traverse 78. I ski winding somewhat narrow wilderness trails with mellow slope angles. There are some little short steep drops here and there. There is also a bunch of uneven ground with big divots where it is sometimes difficult to get the scales to make contact with the snow. There are also some nice steady flats.

I have only ever skied skis 179 cm and shorter. I am about 160 lbs and about 5’11”. I am leaning towards the 186 cm Traverse 78s for my skiing. I know a bunch of you guys would never ski a ski that short but for me anything around 200cm just kinda sounds insane.

Your thinking is correct. Skiing is a conditions based sport. DH, XC, or XCD. Terrain and snow matching important. You described your conditions well though. Scales work well on consolidated snow. Skins on shiny snow. Characteristics of snow crystals and all. Avoid DH oriented ski. Wide, flat, huge side cut wouldn’t work so well. No groove, poor tracking + uneven ground = misery.

Medium height, medium weight. Lots of options. Don’t forget the ##s you’re carrying. The ski that’s initially easy to start out on will be limiting as your comfort, skill progresses. Go to a shop for fitting. Bring the gear you take on the trail. Think bindings too. Enough but not too much. Skiing isn’t the X-Prize. Function not mechanical fashion.