Tip and tails widths are the maximums at each end of the ski, waist in the minimum.
Sidecut is just the difference between the tip width and the waist width as measured.
Average mass is the average scale reading between the two skis with no bindings.
Geo should be self explanatory.
Camber height is for one ski, placed on a flat surface to the maximum gap. Same applies for load applied. Weight is applied approximately where the boot would apply the load.
The chart shows the flex of the ski in terms of the camber gap from the floor. I used 5lb lead weights and measure the gap to plot the change. I also checked the gap with half my weight which is zero as shown in the chart. We can deduce the gap goes to zero somewhere between 30 and 100 lbs but I have no idea where. I could devise another way to measure this, but it's fairly irrelevant to me. Once the ski goes flat at half my weight, I've lost most of my glide. As for other skiers, it may be more relevant but all skis will vary and different lengths will be different. Mainly what I wanted to show was the similarity or difference between the two skis I have.
Interpretation of Measurements:
So going in order of the table we can see Fischer lies a little about the profile. The real ski actually has more shovel width, less waist and more tail width than the profile they give. No surprise as they use a pretty aggressive sidecut profile. Madshus is pretty much on the money, just a little narrower all around. Overall the Eon has a little more sidecut but nothing significant. The actual details of the shape are probably more consequential.
In terms of heft, the Eon is a little lighter, but also a tad over a cm shorter. I didn't try to do any normalization based on that, it is what it is. These are the two closest comps on size. I don't know what it is, but the Eon always feel lighter in my hand. Might just be it's construction feeling a little cheaper. 60g is actually fairly hard to discern and if I switch hands with the skis it changes which one feels heavier or lighter. In other words, you won't be able to feel the difference.
On to the geo we see the exact same trend we saw with the S98 and the Epoch. The S78 has it's balance exactly at chord center. Also note a 199 S Bound is more like a 195, not sure why they use the 9 instead of 5 for the last digit? Stupid marketing distinction?
As far as the wax pattern, we also see the same thing as with the other S Bound vs the Madshus. The pattern is longer and farther forward on the ski. I don't know why it works or if it's the pattern itself, but with the other matchup in the real world the S Bounds climbs far better.
On to camber gap we can see the Eon has a higher initial gap but at 20lbs load both skis are pretty similar. Both close right up at 100lbs.
Looking closer at this with the graph you can see the Eon is initially softer, then it stiffens up to nearly the same rate as the S78. All this is within 30lbs of load. So in terms of body weight that's pretty inconsequential. Hand flexing the S78 feels stiffer, but in reality they are pretty darn close where it matters. Both are too soft for optimal gliding and both seem to be plenty soft enough for full engagement of the edge with 50% body weight.
Pictures and other details:
A couple pictures of the tails of each ski to show the track groove in the base and the different tail shapes. And another shot to show the different scale patterns.
Eon:
A couple other cool details about the S78 over the Eon...
There is a 3mm plate in the binding mount area. I assume this provides some level of reinforcement in that area (the Eon has and extra layer in this area) but also to provide additional turning leverage. Both skis are 19mm thick in the middle without the plate. This plate may also be the reason I tend to think the S Bound might have a second camber. It might just be a single but locally stiffened in this are enough that when I reverse flex it I don't see that round shape I'm looking for.
The S Bound has a notch for a skin clip in the tail. Eon has none. Kind of suggests the intended market of these skis although unlikely I'll ever use a skin on either.
I like the graphics on the S Bound much better. Doesn't mean crap, but I figured I'd throw that out there
Field Test:
My typical test is to take them through the woods on a 4 mile loop and then shoot them down a 15deg (about what a blue run would be at a resort) slope. I've tested every ski I own in this way and is my manner of telling how they tour vs how they turn. I turn them on the tour, but I focus on just the climbing and dh aspect on the hill. Snow conditions vary, so I'm hesitant to report any real data, just give some vague impression.
Both sets of skis will have NNN-BC Magnum bindings and be tested with the Alpina Alaska NNN boot.
Test Results:
I failed to do a field test the way I described above, but I have skied both of these skis enough to make an educated decision. The S Bound exceeds the performance of the Eon in every aspect, except maybe turning, in which case both skis seem to be very similar, if not the same. For some reason I feel the Eon reverse cambers a little nicer, not sure why, but it's just a feeling I get when skiing it.
Both skis glide excellent for having such little camber, and low camber stiffness. Their high L/W ratio coupled with nice gliding scales seem to impress me every time. One would think these skis would be slow, but honestly, I don't find them much, if any slower than double camber waxless skis like the E99 or the Glittertind. I've, in fact, made better times on the same tours with the S78 and the Eon feels every bit as fast.
Where the Eon loses it is grip. In the snows I've tested the S78 never faltered, but Eon would lose grip in certain types of snow, particularly crusty, crystalline snow or very crystalline powder. I've found the S78 to climb very nearly as good as the S98, which has more width under foot. I cannot distinguish a difference.
Both skis are excellent, rugged BC tourers and feel great with system bindings. Either can be skied with pin type bindings with no issues.
The Eon feels ever so slightly better turning in soft snow whereas the S78 feels a little better in harder, older snows. This is why I think the Eon might reverse a little nicer, and maybe the S78 is little stiffer torsionally, but this is marginal.
Neither ski is very adept at turning in deep snow. They have very long turning radii and don't float well enough to really exceed at this. They get by, and can get you down a hill on a tour with deep snow. The both like a little base to really feel alive though, both touring and turning.
I previously had a lot of love for the Eon until I skied more on the S78, and I was seduced by it doing pretty much everything the Eon does, but perhaps a little better.
The big kicker is Fischer no longer provides the S78 (now called the Traverse) in it's full length of 199cm. In that respect, if I'm limited to 189cm, I'd probably opt for a wider ski. I get similar float from a 189 S98 and 199 S78.
