It exists! Fischer Excursion 88 in a 199cm!!!

[Cannatonic]

What's going on here, I thought we had the Asnes fever. Don't they have a ski that will do everything the 88 will do but only better???

they have three not counting waxless! Ingstad, NATO, and Breidablikk

[MicahE]

Man, I'm trying to decide between these and the 78's...both in 199. The indecision is killing me.

[Woodserson]

The 88 turns better, hands down. But in this length, are you really looking for a turning ski? They both tour well. If you're in deeper snow, 88. If you're in shallow firmer snow 78.

You can't go wrong really with either ski they are both really great. I have stopped using my 88's and I use my 78's mostly, I wish I got the 199. Great BC touring ski!

But you need both. (OBVIOUSLY)

[MicahE]

The 88 turns better, hands down. But in this length, are you really looking for a turning ski? They both tour well. If you're in deeper snow, 88. If you're in shallow firmer snow 78.

You can't go wrong really with either ski they are both really great. I have stopped using my 88's and I use my 78's mostly, I wish I got the 199. Great BC touring ski!

But you need both. (OBVIOUSLY)

I'm going to be in both firm and deep snow, that's the tough part. I have a really old pair of xc skis that I'll use for trails and such, so I'm inclined to go wider with my first BC setup. I'm a solid 210 lbs so I feel like I'll be able to take advantage of the width of the ski.

So you wish you had gotten the 78's in 199? Why have you stopped using your 88's?

[Woodserson]

I'm going to be in both firm and deep snow, that's the tough part. I have a really old pair of xc skis that I'll use for trails and such, so I'm inclined to go wider with my first BC setup. I'm a solid 210 lbs so I feel like I'll be able to take advantage of the width of the ski.

So you wish you had gotten the 78's in 199? Why have you stopped using your 88's?

The 78 is a little slow in a 189cm for the skiing I would like to do with it (long distance with pack)
The 88's I gave to my brother to use and I don't really need them with the Gamme 54's. Granted they are different skis but that's how it shook out.

[WildlifeBio]

My enthusiasm was ill-timed! A little over a year ago the 199s were unavailable at REI (and seemingly not in production), so I went with the 189s. Great skis, but I suspect I'd be happier (improved glide) on the longer ones. For reference, I'm 6'4" and ~170#. The 189s work great in the trees, however. Maybe I need both pairs?!

[lilcliffy]

I truly put the 78 and the 88 to the test over the holidays. Went on an overnight lake-country tour in deep cold snow.

As a BC-XC ski- the E-99 and the Gammer 54 are WAAAY better skis than either the 78 or the 88.
Compared to the E-99/Gamme 54 the 78/88 are slow, heavy and boring.

My mind keeps telling me that the 88 should be better in deep soft snow...It just isn't. My 210cm E99 and 210cm Gamme 54 are just stable and supportive as the 88 in deep snow and MUCH faster.

You know- I am not even convinced that the 88 is all that much better than the 78 in deep snow...
I had several people test the 199cm 78 vs 88 in deep soft snow- and everyone felt that the 78 was more efficient than the 88...

The other thing-
The 78- and especially the 88- are quite a bit heavier than the E99 and Gamme 54- I find them waaay less manouverable...

My current perspective-
I don't know what the advantage of a 199cm 78/88 is over an equivalent-length- or longer- E99 or Gamme 54...
And- the Gamme 54 is even better than the current E99 at least on backcountry snow.
Gareth

[MicahE]

I truly put the 78 and the 88 to the test over the holidays. Went on an overnight lake-country tour in deep cold snow.

As a BC-XC ski- the E-99 and the Gammer 54 are WAAAY better skis than either the 78 or the 88.
Compared to the E-99/Gamme 54 the 78/88 are slow, heavy and boring.

My mind keeps telling me that the 88 should be better in deep soft snow...It just isn't. My 210cm E99 and 210cm Gamme 54 are just stable and supportive as the 88 in deep snow and MUCH faster.

You know- I am not even convinced that the 88 is all that much better than the 78 in deep snow...
I had several people test the 199cm 78 vs 88 in deep soft snow- and everyone felt that the 78 was more efficient than the 88...

The other thing-
The 78- and especially the 88- are quite a bit heavier than the E99 and Gamme 54- I find them waaay less manouverable...

My current perspective-
I don't know what the advantage of a 199cm 78/88 is over an equivalent-length- or longer- E99 or Gamme 54...
And- the Gamme 54 is even better than the current E99 at least on backcountry snow.
Gareth

Thank you, this is helpful to get an update. You seemed to originally find the 88 to be a very versatile ski but from what I'm reading from you, not so much...or no benefit to width.

I'm 210 lbs (95 kg) and am buying my first BC setup. My current rig is an 1980's or so 210 skinny Trak set that work well but zero stability in mixed terrain, boots are like slippers...my heel falls off to the side when navigating terrain. Forget about plow control on descents.

I will have this skinny setup for easy family or quick K&G ski outings but want to do more adventure skiing. This will include deep snow as well as above treeline icy stuff here and there (Mt. Hood, Oregon). Example, the mountains near me are forecast to get around a foot each day for the next few days. I do want to ski up deep powder and enjoy the descent with maybe some carving.

If I understand you correct, the 199 78's and 88's offer no benefit that a longer E99 (205 or 210) can't already do (other than EZ Skins). Asnes skis are not an option for me, nor do I want to build a big quiver, so this would be the only other ski I would have for a while (unless something comes along used/cheap someday).

[lilcliffy]

Hi MicahE-

You are correct- I did say that the Fischer 88 is an extremely versatile BC-XC ski- and it is.
It offers very good stability in deep snow and it as enough camber and stiffness to offer pretty decent XC performance on dense consolidated snow.

But- an E-99-class ski is just as versatile. Stable in deep snow and enough camber and stiffness to offer decent XC performance on dense consolidated snow.

The E-99 type ski is lighter narrower and a lot faster.

The 88 has a more compact geometry- and I suppose that- at least in terms of surface area- one could get a shorter 88 and have the same flotation and stability as a longer E-99 type ski.

As a XC ski- I find the 88 heavy and slow compared to the E-99 type ski.

Skiing downhill- although one can get away with a shorter 88- the 88 feels heavy and less maneuverable. PLUS- the current E-99 has more tip-rocker than the 88 and I actually find it easier to turn...

What I have discovered is that for all the skiing that I would reach for my 88- I would rather be on my E-99.

My current conclusion is especially this- a long 78/88 does not make sense to me when one can have an E-99.

And- if one wants a 78/88 for its more compact geometry (i,e, short) than there are much better downhill-oriented skis....

[MicahE]

Well, I bought the Excursion 88 in 199 and had the magnum bindings mounted. All said and done, one Excursion 88 at 199cm with magnum bindings weighs 1,596 grams on my digital scale. This is pretty much 1 lb more per ski than my old skinny 210 skis that are all I've ever known so far. The boots are of course heavier than the slippers that go with my other skis as well. This is all expected and given the extra width of ski and beefiness of the boots and bindings. My old skis/boots always felt very light to me so not expecting them to be a burden, especially if I'm able to tackle the snow/terrain more effectively with these new skis.

The bummer is that the closest snow to me is expecting rain most of the week