Fischer S Bound 98 and Madshus Epoch

[MikeK]

CIMA I'll be interested in your take regarding the BC70 to the Glittertind. My thought, and personal observations, is that they will shine on completely different conditions.

The BC70 is also a good kick and glide ski. It's quite fast in a broken track. I thought it lacked grip in the scales and was too stiff to be much use off of groomed terrain, but that is only my opinion.

[lilcliffy]

I too am intrigued by the 109. It may be my next ski if I can find one cheap. Or it may be an Eon.

The intrigue to me is having a double camber ski that can turn better than the Glittertind.

I may retire my Glittertinds to NNN-BC bindings and only tour them in broken tracks and ski them down sledding hills in powder. They are so much fun for this.

If I went with a 109, that and my S bound 98 would be my main BC skis. One double, one single camber depending on conditions, difficulty and length of the tour.

I'm really starting to find I like the skis in the middle of the xcd range the best - but having a double camber or not is the real deciding factor for me.

Based on my brief testing- my assessment of the E109 is that it is a double-camber, backcountry-xcountry touring ski. The extra width over the E99 gives the E109 better flotation in deeper snow- though it is definitely slower in the glide than the E99 (the age-old trade-off). What baffles me is the parabolic sidecut in the E109 (it has more sidecut than the Eon, or comparable-width S-Bounds). The parabolic sidecut will negatively effect the kick and glide performance (it won't track straight). I do get the idea- double camber with turning performance...but the double camber is not designed for downhill turning. On a downhill turn; I would think that you would have to constantly fight to keep the E109 flat, in order to take advantage of the sidecut? The E109 would make more sense to me if it had less sidecut- or at least a profile more like its narrower little brothers...

The Eon is a true "hybrid" telemark-xcountry ski- much softer than the E109- and IME much easier to control in a downhill turn (despite having less of a parabolic shape). I have used the Eon as both a telemark ski and a backcountry-xcountry touring ski.

What I would like to be able to do is test the Eon against the E109 as far as kick and glide performance in moderately deep snow (IME neither of them are wide enough for very deep, soft snow). For xcountry skiing; I am starting to feel that I would like a bit more snap (i.e. more camber) than the Eon has, in the kick and glide phase. Perhaps the E109 is the answer..but why is it so curvy?

[lilcliffy]

The E109 is of course a significantly wider ski. You will have to share your experience!

All right, I will!
I found that the both skis have much softer cambers than Rossignol BC70 (170, 70-60-65) on which I skied for four years. Whether or not such softness will affect downhill performance positively...that is a question.

Cool that you are on SNS-BC. I love that binding- unfortunately I have never found an SNS boot that fit me properly. So for my light gear I am on NNNBC- currently with Alpina Alaska boots.

Haven't you ever had any troubles with NNN-BC bindings, such as icing? A friend of mine had that problem once.

Checked out your video link. Beautiful conditions- what's the location?

It's a closed ski area near my city. The number of ski areas in Japan has decreased by more than half in the past twenty years. Such quasi-BC areas are good spots for practicing XCD.

The Rossi BC70 is very stiff isn't it? The only time I used the Rossi BC70, I found myself yearning for grip wax, and/or kicker skins. I could not get effective traction with this ski. However the temperature and snow were very cold- too cold to truly test the Rossi's "positrack".

I guess my experience appears to be quite different to yours. In general; I have found double-camber skis difficult to control in downhill turns. I find myself fighting with the double camber. This is perhaps a difference in telemark technique? I find the softer "hybrid" telemark-xcountry skis (e.g. S-Bounds, Karhu/Madshus XCDs) much easier to control in downhill turns.

I have not had any issues with NNNBC manual bindings icing up. The best NNNBC binding is the "Magnum" version- as long as your skis are wide enough for them. The NNNBC automatic bindings are severely prone to icing up, and are really only suitable for groomed or broken trails. The NNNBC binding has wider platform than the SNS-BC binding; although the plate-ridge is longer on the SNS-BC. I find that, with a technique-focus on ball-of-foot control; the length of the plate-ridge is not an issue. In fact, I have grown to feel that the extra width of the NNNBC base plate is a greater advantage for BOF control.

Skiing in the mountains of Japan- awesome!

[lilcliffy]

I'm really starting to find I like the skis in the middle of the xcd range the best - but having a double camber or not is the real deciding factor for me.

The length and stiffness of the skis affect performance, too.
Actually we can't get too choosy because of low availability of the products in right price range.
We need to compromise somewhere.

Yes - for me I'd like a 200cm E109. It will surely affect the downhill performance but I need the flotation and the extra glide. This is the ski I'd select for longer tours with less hills.

My S bounds are 189cm, as long as they come. I always ski the longest ski I think I can tolerate. I find they turn excellent though despite the length. This is the ski I'd select for deep snow and/or more steep terrain.

MikeK- I hear you on length. My passion for speed and effortless glide causes me to always go for the longest length I can get- and then learn to improve my turning skills. (I am 5'10", 185lbs) I prefer 210cm in double-camber skis. I have 205cm Eons; 195cm Annums.

I agree with you, the S-Bounds, even in long lengths do turn beautifully. IME, the Madshus/Karhu XCDs require more effort to turn than the S-Bounds.

I too would select the E109 for more of a touring ski than for downhill turning.

I too- am amazed (CIMA) at your ability to turn double-cambered skis!

[CIMA]

I too- am amazed (CIMA) at your ability to turn double-cambered skis!

BC70 is my first XCD/SNS ski, and I didn't have care much about the its stiffness and camber size when I bought it.
It has no problem with downhill on consolidated or mildly-crud snow like this:


I'm looking forward to testing my new E109 and Glittertind forthcoming spring.

[MikeK]

I'm still on the fence about which direction to go. I honestly don't mind the parabolic shape for K&G.

What I may do is buy a pair of Eon for my wife, and try to get the E109 for myself. This way I get to try both, and if for some reason I hate the 109's, I'll sell them and get an Eon. I have pretty good confidence the Eon will be a great touring ski, but I'm thirsting for the extra camber. My wife prefers grip above glide, so I think she'd appreciate the Eon more.

lilcliffy, you are about like a fit me in terms of height and weight. Apparently I've been drinking beer faster than I can ski it off, so I'm in the 200's. I'd still opt for 200cm just to ease my headaches on narrow BC hiking trails - any longer than that and you wind up getting hung up on trees and rocks. Surely I should be on a 210-215, but I think I'd struggle too much. I'm pretty sure a 205 would be OK, and is big as they make the 109 anymore, but I've been on a 200 in my Glittertind, and I've become accustomed to it.

[lilcliffy]

That is a cool little video clip CIMA.

I think that I may of figured out part of the difference in our gear/technique differences (Of course it may be simply that you have better technique! ). CIMA stated above that his BC70s are 170cm long. That may be part of the key in being able to control the double-camber in a telemark turn.

170cm is shorter than anything I ski on. Even my "mountain" telemark setup is much longer than that (195cm Guides).

My use for double-cambered skis has been exclusive to off-trail xcountry skiing. My preference in an off-trail xcountry ski, for touring on gentle terrain, is for 200+cm.

After the death of my old double-cambered Karhus (210cm, waxable); I have been using the Madshus Eon (205cm, waxless- I wish I had bought waxable), as my everyday off-trail touring ski. I am content with the Eon for the most part. But when the snow is dense I find myself wanting something stiffer and faster.

The use of a short, double-cambered ski for downhill, telemark skiing (e.g. CIMA's BC70 example) is very interesting. My mountain skiing is very tour-orientated (although I certainly love the downhill runs). The lack of kick and glide performance in a 170cm ski, would drive me crazy (at my height and weight). In short; although I love downhill runs- my passion is backcountry touring (even in mountainous terrain). I am unwilling to completely sacrifice touring performance on the flats, for downhill turning performance. This is why I favor long lengths. It is also probably why I need the softer camber to effectively turn my longer skis. I have never tried telemark skiing with a short, double-cambered ski.

Back to you MikeK- I am with your train of thought. The extra camber of the E109 is probably what I would prefer over the Eon (as an off-trail xcountry touring ski). Neither the Eon, nor the E109 are wide enough, IMO, for deep, soft snow. So- for cruising, on up to a foot of powder, over a dense base- I think the extra stiffness and snap of the E109 would be much faster than the Eon (although, in a long length, the softer flex of the Eon should turn easier than the E109). Again I wish I could test them together! If I ever need to replace my Eons- I will seriously consider the E109 (if I can get it on sale!).

As far as my next purchase- an off-trail xcountry touring ski for dense, hard snow...although I am drawn to the Glittertind/E99- I keep having to remind myself that I want this ski for dense snow- I don't need the flotation- hence my consideration of the Voss/E89.

[Woodserson]

This is a great thread, thanks guys!

I used to be a big alpine/AT skier, but subsequent back injuries forced a retreat for the past several years into 100% XC and now I'm foraying back into downhill skiing on my XC equipment for some of that XCD magic! That being said, I'm a huge paramarker, the tele turn I try but it is tough, and I pardon myself beforehand.

I am rocking a pair of SBound 78's right now with 3pins, and have a pair of OutBack 68's with NNNBC for longer touring down low. (I just got the 68's and haven't ridden them yet). The other day I was on Mt. Cardigan in NH in snow that was so deeeeep I needed a snorkel and a jetpack to keep me moving downhill on the SBound 78s. (My partner was on 3G Revs, so he blazed the way and I followed). This particular situation made me feel like maybe I should up the width on a pair of skis for some more downhill. I've been in full debate over the 88's and the 98's but this thread has def pushed me into the 98 territory. Great write-up guys, I appreciate it.

[MikeK]

Woodserson - please give us a writeup on the S Bound 78. I'm particularly interested in this ski if I ever try to xcd at a resort.

BTW welcome to the mad house!

[lilcliffy]

Woodserson- also interested in your perspective on the S-78. Pretty sure that this is the narrowest single-cambered xcountry ski on the North American market? Please consider submitting a review in the gear review section!

Just a suggestion- if you are truly looking for a powder ski- take a look at the Madshus Annum and the S-Bound 112 as well. Neither of these skis are as efficient tourers as the S-98 or the Epoch- but they offer significantly better flotation in the pow.