Fischer S Bound 125

[lilcliffy]

I'm drowning in Fischers over here...

This made me laugh out loud- I actually have an image of you buried alive in Fischer skis!

What do you think? 175 or 185? I was waiting for the KOM to come out in the 174, which it now has, but when I up against them they just seem too short. If I'm going to use them in deep stuff, I would want the 185 (ideally a 180). I'm having a tough time weighing quick-turny awesome vs nice flotation for those lower-angle slower slopes...

PROFILES
S-Bound 125: 125-95-120mm
Kom: 124-98-120mm

That is not much difference under foot is it? 3mm...hmmm..The "profile" makes them appear almost identical- but at least from my perspective, they are quite different.

The Kom has early taper- the S-125 has a parabolic shape. The S-125 should turn more efficiently on a dense base. The Kom should track straighter when xcountry skiing.

The Kom has a truly rockered tip- as opposed to "Nordic rocker". The Kom should offer more effective early tip rise and excellent turn initiation- especially in deep snow. Despite having less of a parabolic shape, the Kom should turn at least as efficiently- if not more so- than the the S-125 in deep, soft snow.

The Kom has an elongated, broad, raised tip- it should break trail more efficiently.

Having never flexed either ski- I can't predict how they would perform in deep, soft snow. But I am at least under the impression that the flex pattern of the Kom was specifically designed and tested for deep, soft snow.

How do these differences affect performance in specific terrain and snow conditions? Hard to say without testing them back to back....SOUNDS FUN!!!!

Part of the significant problem I have with choosing a length with a lot of these skis is that the dimensions are not proportional to their length.

For example: a 185cm S-125 is a VERY different ski than the 165cm- proportionally the 165cm is a much fatter ski than the 185cm.

What are the skier weight recommendations for either ski in terms of length?

[Woodserson]

Exactly. Everything is dependent on the rocker and flex, of which the KOM has plenty, the SB125 is definitely more traditional.

I consider both skis to have the same dimensions, I'm not going to quibble over 3mm in the waist. These are strict go up/go down skis, I'm not worried about tracking. Fischer claims 145lbs-165lbs for the 175cm and 165+ for the 185cm. That being said, I've always considered their weight suggestions to be chronically undervalued... I'm 160lbs soaking wet, and if I used their recs for any of the other SBounds I would be MISERABLE. I'm on 189cm for all of them, there is no way I'd be on anything shorter. For every SBound but the 125 they suggest 179cm for people weighing 145-190lbs, and 185lbs for the 189cm. They are obviously marketing towards people who don't know how to ski. I'm theoretically 25lbs under weight for the 189cm and they grip, glide, and turn just fine from the 78 to the 98.

The 125 in another beast however which is why I scratch my head a bit. Not really sure how to go on these.

Altai really needs to be more clear on the Quebec origin of the KOM.

[MikeK]

I would give your vectors some time before you make a decision.

Perhaps compare the 112 to the Vector a bit. My guess is the KOM will be more Vector-like, and well, the S125 just an obese version of the 112 (for all intensive purposes).

I wouldn't hesitate to get a longer version, you aren't going to gain or lose much with a ski that wide IMO.

[Woodserson]

Oh there's time, I'm just wiling away the hours until it snows. Nothing in the immediate future. Most of my fat skis I have had always fell in the 180-182 range, and I almost always wish they were a few cm longer... The 112's are in a 189 and belong to my buddy who's a old veteran of a tele skier and weighs more than I do... they seem daunting to me in tele boots though would have been my go-to ski back in the late 90's...

[lilcliffy]

Fischer claims 145lbs-165lbs for the 175cm and 165+ for the 185cm. That being said, I've always considered their weight suggestions to be chronically undervalued... I'm 160lbs soaking wet, and if I used their recs for any of the other SBounds I would be MISERABLE. I'm on 189cm for all of them, there is no way I'd be on anything shorter.

I am with you here man.

They are obviously marketing towards people who don't know how to ski.

This made me laugh out loud- a big "guffaw" right in my office!

The 125 in another beast however which is why I scratch my head a bit. Not really sure how to go on these.

It might help to have a discussion with Nils from Altai about this- at least regarding a "suitable" length for the Kom- it might help with the S-125 as well? Nils is on the other end of the "contact us" email on the Altai Skis website. He is very experienced and knows his stuff, and is very keen to talk about it. I am seriously considering the Kom as well, and even the 174cm seems short to me (I weigh 185lbs). I will be discussing it with Nils before I decide- I get the impression from our initial conversation that he prefers the 162cm Kom...The Kom was designed to be 162cm- I bet there is an intelligent reason for that...

I personally would have a hard time not having the 185cm S-125...However- I am with you- I would only be looking at it as a climbing/turning ski- and seeing as how I would be using them in the densely forested hills and mountains of the Northeast, the 175cm is perhaps a better choice. Even at 175cm, the S-125 should be fat enough for the deepest Northeast pow, and the shorter length will make it more maneuverable in the woods...

[MikeK]

I will be discussing it with Nils before I decide- I get the impression from our initial conversation that he prefers the 162cm Kom...The Kom was designed to be 162cm- I bet there is an intelligent reason for that...

I don't pretend to know his mind, but off the top of my head there are two really easy ways to make skis turn easier (there are more than two, but humor me...)...

A) increase sidecut depth to make a smaller radius
B) decrease effective length

Flex and angulation aside, those two things dictate the turning radius of a ski - so if one wants to make a straighter ski that still turns really well, make it short... if one wants a ski that floats really well without it being long... make it wide! Voila! The KOM is born.

If the intent was for this to be a deep snow ski, then tracking and glide are compromised anyway, so make it WIDE and SHORT! If sidecut doesn't do as much as flex in deep snow, then make it straight so it has more surface area for flotation given the short length! And lastly, if you want to keep the tips from diving AND give it an even shorter effective turning length whilst still keeping a large area for flotation, add ROCKER!

Now I would think in order to complete this recipe the KOM would need a very mild camber (or even none) and a smooth, round flex. Torsional stiffness in deep, soft snow is less of a concern, but people will ski on other snow as well... so perhaps a mild camber and a stiff cap will help keep it in check. Less sidecut also translates to less torsional load on the tips and tails, so even a wide ski should hold its edge better.

Again... I'm not an expert... but from my microscope, this is what I see in the KOM.

If you want maneuverability in the woods or on steep, open slopes, ski it as short as you can!

[lilcliffy]

I don't pretend to know his mind, but off the top of my head there are two really easy ways to make skis turn easier (there are more than two, but humor me...)...

A) increase sidecut depth to make a smaller radius
B) decrease effective length

Flex and angulation aside, those two things dictate the turning radius of a ski - so if one wants to make a straighter ski that still turns really well, make it short... if one wants a ski that floats really well without it being long... make it wide! Voila! The KOM is born.

Good stuff Mike.

Now I would think in order to complete this recipe the KOM would need a very mild camber (or even none) and a smooth, round flex.

Pretty sure I asked Nils about this already- I am under the impression that the Kom is single-cambered underfoot, with a fully rockered tip, and a smooth round flex.

From initial reports, it appears that the S-125 has more camber and a stiffer flex than the Kom.

The Kom appears to have similar flex-camber properties to a ski like the Vector- but unlike the Vector, the Kom was designed from a XCD point of view- as opposed to a downhill point of view.

The S-125 at least appears to retain the same complex of traditional single camber, moderately stiff flex, and parabolic profile of it's narrower siblings. I remain undecided about what I think about that complex of attributes. For example, despite all of the updates and innovation that have gone into the S-Bound 112, I think I still prefer the flex pattern of the old Guide/Annum in deep, soft snow...

If the S-125 is as stiff and cambered as initial reports suggest- it is either XCD genius, or like riding a bucking bronco.

[fisheater]

That 3-pin hardwire is an amazing binding...I am so out of touch with modern Tele-tech that for years I assumed that the "cables" on the hardwire were not removable! Despite the extra cash, it has replaced the 3 pin-cable in my mind- especially for a ski as wide as the S-125. The fact that you can remove the cables makes it a truefully xcountry-downhill binding to me. Thank you Voile!!![/quote]

What to me about the HW that is even better, is that you can clip the heel throw to the back of the heel riser. Kick and glide at will, hit one of those sweet New Brunswick 300 meter downhills, clip your HW's on to you heels and say "There's no place like home!". Well at least I would say that if I was kicking my way to 300 meter downhills.

I ski a S-112, and for powder, and when I say powder I am referring to light fluff, not mashed potatoes, wind slab, sun crust, or crud. I am perfectly happy with the S-112 as a downhill ski. The tip comes up beautifully. I may not have a clue as to how Johnny makes such beautiful turns without cables, but I can make a teleturn in powder. The 112 turns fine. Perhaps the S-125 will get there easier, softer flex will help, but I think the shape is a detriment to the K&G required to get to the downhill. Although if you were not happy with the float of the S-98, perhaps the jump to 125 would be best.

That brings me to the Kom, which should track straighter while getting to the downhill. At 162 cm it should be more maneuverable than a S-112 at 189 cm, turn better is another story, I'm old and 189 cm is the shortest ski I have ever skied. So for me the S-125 is not a consideration. I still think the Hok in 145 cm is the ski for the thick and brushy woods we have around here, but maybe the 162 cm Kom would be better. I am leaning towards the Hoks, but I wish you guys would ski the Koms and give me a review !

Cheers!

[lilcliffy]

What to me about the HW that is even better, is that you can clip the heel throw to the back of the heel riser.

No doubt man! Awesome binding- the versatility of a traditional 3-pin binding, with the power of a modern telemark binding. Wow.

I ski a S-112, and for powder, and when I say powder I am referring to light fluff, not mashed potatoes, wind slab, sun crust, or crud. I am perfectly happy with the S-112 as a downhill ski.

I do not own the S-112, but I have tried it several times- once on a multi-day tour in Mount Valin QC. It is an awesome powder XCD ski- I agree- it is an excellent downhill ski. The S-98 and the S-112 are the most "turny" Nordic skis I have ever tested. The moderately-stiff single camber makes them acceptable XC skis as well- in soft snow. I find them to be all over the place when XC skiing on a dense base.

The 112 turns fine. Perhaps the S-125 will get there easier, softer flex will help, but I think the shape is a detriment to the K&G required to get to the downhill. Although if you were not happy with the float of the S-98, perhaps the jump to 125 would be best.

I have trouble seeing the S-125 in a different application than I would use a ski like the Voile Vector BC. Can a ski with the dimensions of the S-125 be intended for anything other than climbing and turning? And how can it compete with the Vector's fully-rockered tip and lower camber when it comes to climbing and turning?

That brings me to the Kom, which should track straighter while getting to the downhill. At 162 cm it should be more maneuverable than a S-112 at 189 cm, turn better is another story, I'm old and 189 cm is the shortest ski I have ever skied. So for me the S-125 is not a consideration.

Yeah- length! I have a hard time accepting a "XCD" ski that is so short that the XC part of XCD is simply a shuffle.

BUT- if I end up eventually pulling the trigger and buying something in the dimensions of the S-125/Vector/Kom, I am going to seriously consider a short ski. If I were to buy any of these skis it would be to ski extreme terrain in the Northeast. And when it comes to the Northeast- how much terrain is there to ski above tree line? VERY little. If I buy something as floaty and turny as any of these skis it will be to downhill ski in the steep and deep woods.

Pointing the Hok down some extreme forested ravines has reminded me that in certain skiing contexts, manoeuvrability trumps glide!

[SanJuanSam]

Hey there,

New to the forum, from southern Colorado (originally from PA). I thought I'd chime in on the discussion as I picked up a pair of Fischer S bound 125s last year. 178cm and I weigh about 150 or so. Currently they are set up with Voile 3-pins with the detachable cable on a 20mm riser. Their first trip was a hut trip to the blue lakes hut above Ridgeway, CO. Roughly a 5 mile ski in on a road grade. Some steep sections that required skins as I was pulling a toboggan. The tour in was fine, they don't track well on groomed surfaces, but are just fine in the skin track or ungroomed trails. As for backcountry skiing I thought they were great compared to my other light touring skis which are Madshus Eons in 185cm. Although, I did find them to be a little harder to turn than my backcountry set up which is the Icelantic Vanguard in 178cm with Voile Switchback X2s. This is most likely related to boot choice and rocker vs camber, and binding for that matter... After last season I grew to love the SB125, If I had to do it over I'd put switchbacks on them for a little more versatility.