Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

My current conclusion-

(As far as true distance-oriented XC performance is concerned- neither of these skis can keep up with longer narrower skis- such as the Fischer E99 or Asnes Gamme. More of my thoughts on this here: http://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2855)

To me, the primary advantage of the 78/88 is that you can get decent XC kick in a shorter compact geometry.
So in this context- I would recommend going with Fischer's length recommendations- willingly giving up maximum XC glide for a shorter and- perhaps- more maneuverable ski. (I say "perhaps" here because even my 210cm E99 is so light that I find them very maneuverable!)
AND- in this context- I do not see the advantage of the 78 over the 88- as one is giving up XC glide anyway- I would choose the 88 over the 78- more stable and more grip.
..................
(And as far as the 78 goes- IMO- the E99 ski beats the 78 at everything- I would choose a short E99 over a short 78.)

Another update here-

If one wants just one BC-XC ski- one ski that is good in all snow conditions- and is on the heavier side- the 88 is more versatile than the 78.

BUT!

Over time it is the 88 that has proven to be utterly redundant- because I do not have one ski.
I have MUCH better deep snow XC/XCd/XCD/xcD skis than the 88 (e.g. Combat Nato/Ingstad BC/Annum/Storetind).
So it is the 88 that is not getting any use- at least not from me (it is still getting use from family, friends, and guests).

The 78 is the ski that I am using- not the 88.
The 78 is a better XC ski on consolidated snow.
It is faster, lighter and just as good in wet, icy, transformed snow, crap, crud and breakable crust.
In the end- the 78 is my personal pick over the 88.
(BTW- a 210cm E99 Crown would be my pick if it had a more stable shovel, stiffer, higher tip, and less tip rocker.)

lilcliffy wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:55 pm

Another update here-

If one wants just one BC-XC ski- one ski that is good in all snow conditions- and is on the heavier side- the 88 is more versatile than the 78.

BUT!

Over time it is the 88 that has proven to be utterly redundant- because I do not have one ski.
I have MUCH better deep snow XC/XCd/XCD/xcD skis than the 88 (e.g. Combat Nato/Ingstad BC/Annum/Storetind).
So it is the 88 that is not getting any use- at least not from me (it is still getting use from family, friends, and guests).

The 78 is the ski that I am using- not the 88.
The 78 is a better XC ski on consolidated snow.
It is faster, lighter and just as good in wet, icy, transformed snow, crap, crud and breakable crust.
In the end- the 78 is my personal pick over the 88.
(BTW- a 210cm E99 Crown would be my pick if it had a more stable shovel, stiffer, higher tip, and less tip rocker.)

Its crazy to me how short the glide zone is on the 88. I'm glad I didn't go any shorter than the 199. When you factor in the Nordic rocker there's only a couple inches of effective forward glide zone. They do climb very well though. Even without skins.

ᚠᚨᚱ ᚾᛟᚱᚦ ᛊᚲᛁᛖᚱ wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 13, 2021 12:49 am

Its crazy to me how short the glide zone is on the 88. I'm glad I didn't go any shorter than the 199. When you factor in the Nordic rocker there's only a couple inches of effective forward glide zone. They do climb very well though. Even without skins.

Yes, exactly, you nailed it. This is why I'm always beating people up to go the next length up from Fischer's recs. This is the problem with the concept of excessive nordic rocker. Something happened at Fischer and they really ramped it up, especially on some skis that are tuned to go straight mostly like the T78 and E99. This was a conversation from before you signed on, I believe, you might find interesting. If you already saw it, disregard: http://telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 153fe2e753

Woodserson wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:42 am

ᚠᚨᚱ ᚾᛟᚱᚦ ᛊᚲᛁᛖᚱ wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 13, 2021 12:49 am

Its crazy to me how short the glide zone is on the 88. I'm glad I didn't go any shorter than the 199. When you factor in the Nordic rocker there's only a couple inches of effective forward glide zone. They do climb very well though. Even without skins.

Yes, exactly, you nailed it. This is why I'm always beating people up to go the next length up from Fischer's recs. This is the problem with the concept of excessive nordic rocker. Something happened at Fischer and they really ramped it up, especially on some skis that are tuned to go straight mostly like the T78 and E99. This was a conversation from before you signed on, I believe, you might find interesting. If you already saw it, disregard: http://telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 153fe2e753

Im skiing the 2019/20 version of the 78s at 199 and I would not consider the NR to be too much. The skis glide exceptionally well for scaled skis and they track very straight IME. They are fast and confidence inspiring and turn well considering how cambered and narrow they are. IMO Fischer nailed the 78s.

connyro wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:15 am

Im skiing the 2019/20 version of the 78s at 199 and I would not consider the NR to be too much. The skis glide exceptionally well for scaled skis and they track very straight IME. They are fast and confidence inspiring and turn well considering how cambered and narrow they are. IMO Fischer nailed the 78s.

Conny can you please help me out?

Do you have this much NR? Gareth is also happy with his. I wonder if I got a weird pair. Notice that is goes all the way back to the OTX symbol, about an inch above from where the pattern starts.

here's a photo of my 78s with camber compressed. While my photo is not as good as yours, it does show the NR ending above the OTX graphic by a couple of inches. Much different than yours:

connyro wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 13, 2021 12:30 pm

here's a photo of my 78s with camber compressed. While my photo is not as good as yours, it does show the NR ending above the OTX graphic by a couple of inches. Much different than yours:
583531434320175140.jpg

Thanks, dude. Yes, that's wildly different and probably similar to LC's pair as well.

That is completely reasonable NR, and how it should be for the 78, and what makes it such a great ski. It's obvious now that I must have an anomaly. A one off pair of weirdness. 4 pairs vs. 1 pair.

Dammit. REI purchase. not yet mounted. back they go.

Thanks again.

to mimic Conny's picture

The tip rocker on your set of 78s is wild Woods.

The tip rocker on my 199cm 78 is no more than Connyro's-

As another point of reference the tip rocker on my 199cm 88's is about the same as my 78- MUCH less than your 78 Woods.

It sounds like Master Nordic Ruin's ↑ 88 has as much rocker as Woods' 78...