Fischer S Bound 98 and Madshus Epoch

[riel]

Any updated thoughts comparing performance/use of S-bound 98 to what is now the Madshus m68?
I read early on in this thread that S-bound might be a bit more turn-oriented while the old Epoch might track better -- still? thoughts? (EZ skin is certainly one difference).

The S-Bound 98 changed dramatically over the past few years. The older (green) S-Bound 98 had a more stiff camber underfoot, making for better kick and glide, and potentially better flotation as well.

The current (blue) S-Bound 98 is significantly softer. However, I have not compared it side by side with a Madshus M68, so I do not know whether the current S-Bound 98 is as soft as the M68, or maybe even softer.

[riel]

My old wood skis from the 60s and 70s have profiles like (59/50/52) and (55/50/50), which are more narrow than the current E99s (66/54/61), but I would have thought that, by virtue of their stiffness, all generations of E99s would feel like traditional Nordic skis.

Do you regard your E89 crowns as more representative of the traditional Nordic ski type than your E99s ?

There are maybe a dozen different generations of E99 skis, but for purposes of this thread we can group them into two categories.

The first category are the E99 skis that have a true double camber, with relatively soft tips, and stiff flex underfoot. This includes the current TransNordic 66, E99 Xtralite, and the BCX E99 that came before it, as well as several E99 versions from the 1980s and 1990s, and probably some others. These skis are made for cruising long distances with a little more stability, turnability, and float than the E89 category.

The second category are the "E99 Tour" flex skis, which have a round, supportive flex along the entire length of the ski, with the tips slightly softer than the rest of the ski. These include the turn of the century Edelweiss E99 skis, the skis explicitly named "E99 Tour", and probably some others. These skis offer good stability on manky spring snow, allowing you to ski right over snowshoe post holes without missing a beat.

The E89 (crown or not) skis, and the Mountain Cross before it, are very stiff underfoot, with a somewhat softer tip and tail. The tip flexes more than the tail, because the soft part in front is longer than in the back. These are more similar to the narrow wood skis from the 1960s and 1970s. They do not float well on fresh snow, are a pain to turn, and can get unstable in soft spring conditions. However, they absolutely fly on hard packed snow, which is their real value.

[Love the Sierra]

Thank you all so much for this thread!!!!
I have 2014 or 2015 S-bound 88's, 169 length. I am 5'3 and weigh 120, 145 with my ski day pack, clothes, boots, etc. I love touring in them and like @lilcliffy BC touring is my favorite!!
I have, over the years found the squirminess mentioned when the snow is smashed up by snowmobilers or snow shoer's. I always thought it was me!
I also agree that the scales do not give me a ton of uphill grip and I have to resort to herring bone or skins for the least bit of incline. But I have so much enjoyed the light weight and the kick and glide.
We rarely have powder and I primarily ski on "Sierra Cement"
Wonderful thread and very interesting about the length and double vs single camber.

[Love the Sierra]

PS- I find it so sad that most of the skis mentioned in this thread no longer exist. SIGH

[Manney]

I also agree that the scales do not give me a ton of uphill grip and I have to resort to herring bone or skins for the least bit of incline.

Most scales don’t. Neither does wax tbh. Both provide enough traction for propulsion on reasonably level ground but not for any significant climbs.

Have you tried active weighting and aggressive technique, like Johannes Klaebo?



Klaebo’s technique involves plyometrics… high burst of energy over a short period of time. But it is very efficient and highly effective climbing method regardless of snow conditions (except deep power, where traction isn’t a problem anyway). It has been compared to running but is short stride/high frequency/foot planting with the goal of dynamically overloading one ski at a time to increase traction.

Transitioning from downhill glide to a Klaebo climb is very natural, unlike herringbone where forward velocity needs to drop before initiating the climb (which can be avoided with classic skis but is much more difficult with a wide, edged BC ski). Same with a transition from flats to climb… very easy to do.

Doesn’t matter if you’re using single or camber and a half camber skis, unlike herringbone.

The only time that a Klaebo technique wouldn’t work too well is with a very heavy plastic boot and binding set up. The overall weight of these ski systems are quite high, which drives the climbing economy down because much more energy is being used to lift gear.

It doesn’t have to be done at racing speed. The frequency determines the speed. The aggressive weight shift determines the traction. There is a minimum frequency or rhythm though… you can’t pause between weight shifts because you’ll unload the ski and lose traction.

This has changed my game in both XC and BC. Herringbone is now a third last resort (second last resort is skinning, last resort is sidestepping). Another tool for the toolbox besides walking or snowshoeing.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 4620300582

[lilcliffy]

I have 2014 or 2015 S-bound 88's, 169 length. I am 5'3 and weigh 120, 145 with my ski day pack, clothes, boots, etc.

I also agree that the scales do not give me a ton of uphill grip and I have to resort to herring bone or skins for the least bit of incline. But I have so much enjoyed the light weight and the kick and glide.

........
Disclaimer- I had forgotten about this thread- and gave it a speed-read- realizing that a lot of the comments I made were misinformed by not being aware of the many design changes in the flex and waxless designs in Fischer's S-Bound models (which used to include the "88")- especially the 98/Boundless.
Any comment I had made about lack of scale grip in the Fischer line would have been a result of me using older models without the "Offtrack Crown" insert.
...........
I am interested in your lack of grip with the 88- I am assuming it is a current model with the Offtrack Crown and kicker skin insert?

In my limited experience the kicking and climbing grip of Fischer's Offtrack Crown is second to none-
and when the snow conditions are good for scales I am impressed with what I can climb on scales alone.
..........
I only use scaled skis when the conditions are ideal (and therefore a bit of a mess to wax/klister). I find the Offtrack Crown so effective in these conditions that I barely use the Easy-Skins (unless I am pulling weight).

I must say that my local snow conditions are rarely ideal for scales (i.e. too cold and/or icy/crusty), so I rarely use my scaled skis.
............
What are your typical snow conditions like?
I wonder whether your lack of grip is-
- a function of snow conditions?
- ski camber and stiffness?
(or perhaps both?)

The 88 is a wide, stiff, cambered ski. You don't weigh much- even with your pack. If you stand on them evenly, do you completely squash the camber, or do you have to assertively pressure each ski to squash the camber?

Do you tour in rugged terrain- do you do a lot of climbing?
.........
My local touring is on rugged terrain- although there is a lot of wonderful easy XC skiing to many of my turs- I am constantly climbing (sometimes very steep pitches)- especially once the snow is deep enough to ski through the woods.

However- I primarily rely on grip and kick wax for traction- both XC kick and climbing traction. I therefore rarely use climbing or kicker skins (unless I am pulling significant weight). And I almost NEVER herringbone. If I find I need to herrigngbone- I stop and adjust something (usually a bit of wax) and continue. I don't want to have to pick up my skis (e.g, herringbone)- unless I am picking them up as part of a downhill turning technique.
........
(enough about me )
Do you get enough grip with the 88 on the flats?
Are you constantly putting your skins on to climb?

[Manney]

Same skis as her avatar shows. (Me being anal again after my military skis project. LOL)

Fischer advertised these skis as having an Offtrack Crown. Here’s the fit chart…

169 is a reasonable size/weight for @Love the Sierra. One size shorter would be ideal for a beginner but she’s been doing this for a while, so has had time to adapt technique accordingly. Perfect size with gear and her pack weight tho… at least according to the manufacturer.

Fischer is one of those companies that builds a bit of wiggle room into ski sizing. They will recommend different lengths according to skill level, which is nice and gives a bit more insight into their skis’ camber stiffness. Fischers tend to ski a bit faster because of their camber… so sometimes they reward a more active technique. My view only… others may have different views. Very much a technique issue.

Agree with your view on grip patterns, zones @lilcliffy.

Just throwing this out in case @Love the Sierra goes ski shopping. Getting measured on the table (fully weighting one ski) isn’t relevant on snow unless your technique fully weights one ski. If it doesn’t, then skis can appear to lack traction.

Waxable skis get around this… skiers just extend the grip zone. Comes at the expense of speed but it’s not something that people miss if they’re not aggressively skiing anyway. That explains mentioning Klaebo. None of us can ski like that guy. But applying his technique focuses on aggressive weight shift… and weight shift is one of those things that can be underrated by skiers and instructors teaching to novices.

[Love the Sierra]

@Manney I have used that running technique skijoring uphill. I didn’t know it had a name. I just started using it years ago after watching an amazing Norwegian nordic skier win her race in the Olympics by running uphill like that.
You are correct about weight shift, too easy to forget!
@lilcliffy I have the old 2015 and do not have the easy skin system. @Manney WOW, can’t believe that you could tell from the Avitar! Yes, my scales generally do a very good job on mild hills. I do ski in very rugged terrain and am always climbing up something or other to get the views. My scales work fine until we get to about 20-25 degree climbs. Then it is just easier to put on the skins for the remainder of the climb. Also, I may climb like that for a few hours and then kick turn down. (I will post a trip report from Dec and you can see the sort of stuff we climb.)
I also think that a stronger skier may be able to deal with the back slide and power through climbs on which I will just put on skins to save my energy, even though they are heavier.
I just got a set of Pomoca skins and they are light and glide incredibly well. They are an absolute joy to use! I will have to write a review.
So, what do you two think of the Panorama 68 vs the old Fischer 88’s? I think that my camber is still in good shape. Also, my son very lightly used his skis before he quit skiing so I can always use his that are like new.

[Manney]

Awesome, @Love the Sierra. That technique became associated with Johannes Klaebo when he started winning with it after refining technique in training. Probably as old as the dawn of time tho.

Provided they’re more than short rises, the angles you’re climbing are about the limit for any kind of diagonal stride without skins. Something with a softer camber, skins help. They’ll be slower on the flats but overall mobility would bebetter.

When most ppl talk XCD or BC on this forum, they’re not talking about steep chutes. (Well, some are, but they’re few in number). The kind of stuff you’re alluding to, on the downslope, is definitely worthy of a plastic or really stiff boot and maybe a turn oriented ski. It’s not about speed but stability and control, especially carrying a significant load.

Going wider (Panorama) is fine for this, provided the ski is still close to your all up weight. That ski has a fair amount of side cut too (30 mm) and a pulled in tail, so should be livelier in terrain.

Keep on thinking back to “ski system” tho. One size doesn’t fit all. Climb, carve (however mild), glide are catered to by slightly different skis, boots, bindings. Maybe a case where you choose one and live with the rest?

[lilcliffy]

@lilcliffy I have the old 2015 and do not have the easy skin system.

So your 88 has the Offtrack Crown insert?

Yes, my scales generally do a very good job on mild hills. I do ski in very rugged terrain and am always climbing up something or other to get the views. My scales work fine until we get to about 20-25 degree climbs. Then it is just easier to put on the skins for the remainder of the climb. Also, I may climb like that for a few hours and then kick turn down.

Ok- well getting up 35 to 45% inclines on scales- especially on wet-icy slippery snow is actually pretty good. And it seems like you have sustained climbs, so you do not have constant transitions that would require you to constantly deal with skins on/off. (For reference- my local low vertical BC touring requires constant up/down transitions!)

So, what do you two think of the Panorama 68 vs the old Fischer 88’s? I think that my camber is still in good shape. Also, my son very lightly used his skis before he quit skiing so I can always use his that are like new.

Have never inspected the "Panorama" 68- I am intimately familiar with the Karhu/Madshus "Epoch" 68.
(Recent reports seem to confirm that although Madshus temporarily moved to a complete redesign (with a kicker skin insert), that the current Panorama 68 has returned to the old design. I cannot confirm this personally, but have asked dealers that claim this to be true.)
Regardless- the Madshus XCD 68 is a very different ski than your Fischer 88:
- low, almost single camber
- soft round flex
- way more sidecut

The Madshus P68 should perform very differently than your stiffer, more cambered, less sidecut Fischer 88- despite being the same width underfoot. The Fischer 98 is a closer design to the Madshus P68 (sorry, pet peeve- but it drives me nuts that Fischer uses the shovel width to classify their BC Nordic touring skis!!! )
Your son has the P68? Have you tried it? What was it like in the deep "cement" and crust?
What is the scaled climbing performance of the Madshus P68 vs the Fischer 88? The Fischer 88 scales are waaay grippier- but the less cambered, softer Madshus P68 should be easier to pressure...
.....
For reference-
At my weight I have no use for the Madhus 68- I find it completely unstable (I much prefer the wider 78).
My oldest son- now 20 years old- is much lighter than me, and he loves the 68.
However- I am using this kind of ski in deep, soft cold snow- not "cement". At your weight, and in heavy wet snow, the 68 might be stable...
..........
I would think that the Madshus P68 would be much worse in crust than your Fischer 88-
I would think that the combination of sidecut and soft round flex would result in the shovel and tail riding on top of the crust and the waist breaking through? YUCK.
.........
Keen to hear your experience in your local conditions between these two different skis!