Fischer E-109 vs. Asnes Ingstad

[MikeK]

Teleman, I think you'd probably really like the S Bound 78 @ 199. It's a light ski though. Slippery, climbs well, turns pretty easy. It's stupid that Fischer stopped making it in that length.

I just bought another for my wife for $190. Not garage sale cheap, but for what it is, a good deal.

[lilcliffy]

Bum-er....So the e109 that I ski is not the new 109.....Was even thinking of possibly buying a set of the now old kind of 109.....Oh well.....Know Telepole has a set of 190's and might see some in a garage sale but don't think there are to many of those around.....Sounds like the new 109 is like a S bound ski....S bound's are a decent ski for what they are supposed to do.....But cruising the forest for distance......not as good as a 109....TM

I think perhaps you misunderstand Cannatonic. The current E-Series are much more of a XC-ski (i.e. K&G) than the previous generation. Fischer has made a move to separate the E-Series (backcountry-xcountry) from the S-Bounds (XCD).

If you like the previous E-109 for long-distance cruising- I would expect you will like the new one even more- hopefully- despite the narrow waist!

[Cannatonic]

I think perhaps you misunderstand Cannatonic. The current E-Series are much more of a XC-ski (i.e. K&G) than the previous generation. Fischer has made a move to separate the E-Series (backcountry-xcountry) from the S-Bounds (XCD).

If you like the previous E-109 for long-distance cruising- I would expect you will like the new one even more- hopefully- despite the narrow waist!

yes, exactly. If anything the new E109's allow you to take a longer ski with the same maneuverability as the older ones. They're MORE different than the Sbound series now - lighter but still with camber. This is based on skiing new & old E99's, I haven't tried the 109's but I assume it's similar. The new E99 is so light, the 205 wasn't enough ski for me, I think I would need the 210. Still a double camber nordic-focused ski though.

I think E109's would be cool today because you get a wider ski with better flotation but the weight of the old E99's. The other brands skis' in the E109 dimensions are going to be heavier. Whether that's good or bad is up to you. I would love to have a pair of EZ skin E109's in the quiver.

[bgregoire]

I think perhaps you misunderstand Cannatonic. The current E-Series are much more of a XC-ski (i.e. K&G) than the previous generation. Fischer has made a move to separate the E-Series (backcountry-xcountry) from the S-Bounds (XCD).

If you like the previous E-109 for long-distance cruising- I would expect you will like the new one even more- hopefully- despite the narrow waist!

yes, exactly. If anything the new E109's allow you to take a longer ski with the same maneuverability as the older ones. They're MORE different than the Sbound series now - lighter but still with camber. This is based on skiing new & old E99's, I haven't tried the 109's but I assume it's similar. The new E99 is so light, the 205 wasn't enough ski for me, I think I would need the 210. Still a double camber nordic-focused ski though.

I think E109's would be cool today because you get a wider ski with better flotation but the weight of the old E99's. The other brands skis' in the E109 dimensions are going to be heavier. Whether that's good or bad is up to you. I would love to have a pair of EZ skin E109's in the quiver.

Guys, I don't think Teleman had it wrong. And the changes to the E99 are very different to those of the E109. The older E109 was stiffer (overall) and narrower. Whicle the older E99 was actually wider (by 2 mm i believe)! Looking at the SBOUND 78 and the new E109, I really can't see much difference. I can understand Teleman reaction given how much more sidecut the new E109 has and how much material (weight it lost).

[MikeK]

I read a review on the boundary waters forum of the modern E109 and the guy had a pair of S Bound 98s too.

http://www.bwca.com/index.cfm?fuseactio ... 6&confID=1

He claimed the E109 was now double camber. He said it was a lot more glidey than the S Bound 98.

My hands much be weak, because I can't flatten my S98s base to base with one hand, at least without straining a bit. The 78s are a bit stiffer and more cambered, but I don't think they are the same as what he is describing with the 109. It sounds more like a true double.

My guess is the 78 is in between the E109 and the S98 in terms of camber stiffness.

Teleman called his E109s camber and a half. Who knows? Maybe they were double camber at one time and they are just flexed out, or they are a stiff single camber like the S78 is now (or a very weak double).

[Cannatonic]

uh-oh!!!

>>>I really like the 3-pin Voile bindings and Crispi antartic boots that I got on my S-Bound 98's better than the NNN BC's on these skis. The 3-pin boots/bindings are actually less restrictive front-to-back for striding, and at the same time way more stable side-to-side. Also, the mechanism is much simpler, and much less likely to ice up. Plus, the Voile 3-pin mountaineer bindings are cheaper.

[bgregoire]

I read a review on the boundary waters forum of the modern E109 and the guy had a pair of S Bound 98s too.

http://www.bwca.com/index.cfm?fuseactio ... 6&confID=1

He claimed the E109 was now double camber. He said it was a lot more glidey than the S Bound 98.

My hands much be weak, because I can't flatten my S98s base to base with one hand, at least without straining a bit. The 78s are a bit stiffer and more cambered, but I don't think they are the same as what he is describing with the 109. It sounds more like a true double.

My guess is the 78 is in between the E109 and the S98 in terms of camber stiffness.

Teleman called his E109s camber and a half. Who knows? Maybe they were double camber at one time and they are just flexed out, or they are a stiff single camber like the S78 is now (or a very weak double).

I have skied both the old E109 and the new E109. They both have nordic camber, 1.5 or 2, whatever, one thing for sure is that they are both less stiff than the E99 which it my reference for double camber (outside of pure XC equipement). the new E109 has pretty much the max sidecut I would want for touring and rocker tips. how is that more XC than the previous version?

[MikeK]

I never said it was more XC. I was just referencing the report I read.

The S Bound 78 is a nice skiing XC ski IMO. It ain't fast, but in fresh snow it does just fine.

[bgregoire]

I read a review on the boundary waters forum of the modern E109 and the guy had a pair of S Bound 98s too.

http://www.bwca.com/index.cfm?fuseactio ... 6&confID=1

He claimed the E109 was now double camber.

Had a look at your source. I don't see any comparison there between the new and old E109. He says they "differ from "Backcountry" skis in that they are longer, and have WAAAYYY more camber than any backcountry ski I've seen"
...even though he has a pair of E89....

I mean, that doesn't mean much to me...

[bgregoire]

I never said it was more XC. I was just referencing the report I read.

The S Bound 78 is a nice skiing XC ski IMO. It ain't fast, but in fresh snow it does just fine.

yeah, lilcliffy said that above. i'm just conversing with all of ya.