Does Fischer Transnordic 66 + 82 make sense?

[John Dee]

I have no idea what I'm talking about: If you don't have much hills than you might want to ditch the wide skis altogether and get a long, stiff trail breaking ski like the Gamme or Ingstad. I think that cutting through snow efficiently is more effective than trying to float on top of it with a soft/wide ski. There's some float involved, but its a mix of float and effective trail breaking. A lot of Asnes skis are really geared towards exploring and breaking trail.

For a cheaper ski, maybe you want the Rossi BC65 or something else stiff. I think the E109 is intended for a moderate to lot of downhill turns.

I've read about some dissatisfaction for the e99 xtralite because of its flexible front. It makes it less good at breaking trail, and causes falling through crust when you might otherwise not.

[John Dee]

But once the snow mobiles get to it,

why is it,
that when you break your own trail through an open field,
when you return to it another day,
looking forward to a fast kick and glide adventure,
the snowmobiles have obliterated your tracks?

I always tend to stay just inside the tree line at the edges of open fields,
for this reason, if I can help it.

I hear that! I don't understand why, when I've made the first tracks (like 10 feet wide) on a run and the whole damn mountain is available, someone then has to zig zag right through my tracks (at around 100 feet wide) before I even get half way up! Now, I'm riding the lift, but still, it's like an 11 minute circuit.

This reminds me of how they put the little bee sticker in the middle of urinals so that guys will piss on it without thinking.

[Woodserson]

As for the Otto Sverdrup for you, you might be in deeper snow more often than me. In which case, they're not a 'compromise ski', but the right one.

I think this depends on the flexibility of the tips. The translated description alludes to "flexible" or "soft" tips which would make turning nice but trailbreaking onerous depending on what soft means.

I just need to get my hands on them and we will have these answers!

[johnnycanuck]

'johnnycanuck', I believe we've communicated on another thread, and we're in the same boat:
- Southern Ontarians, looking for narrower and wider skis
- loathe to get a compromise ski
- and will take them aussi à la belle province

You might remember, I've gone with:
- Fischer S Bound Outabounds 88s, with 3-pins (because I got them for a song)
- Åsnes Gamme, with NNN BC (full retail on the skis and X-skins, sale last year on the bindings)

I'm a lot less experienced off-piste than many people here, and haven't skied either yet, but if I might offer a suggestion, from my own experience with sporting goods: don't buy all the equipment at once, because your experience with it will change your priorities and knowledge. You might end up with skis you don't want.

I have three threads I've created/contributed to now lol, I do remember seeing your quiver earlier.

With that being said, if you had to buy the skinny or the wide ski first, which do you go for? I imagine I'll see more time on the skinny ski but the conditions where the wide ski is used sounds more fun.

One other wrench in my search is that I'm looking at purchasing from Europe and the shipping costs are high, however it's the same for one pair or two. And given the lack of inventory available, I'm trying to get the ideal setup to avoid disappointment mid season. If these were the before times, I'd never be looking at two pairs at once.

[greatgt]

Scored my 109's about three years back.....Rocker hurts them some as one has to hit a lower angel for the up....They cruise well and are sweet on the down with outstanding turn-ability....99's are the most wonderful do anything ski i have ever skied....Mine are old and that says a lot as they are still in one piece....They are a true Cross Country ski that can do it all....Since i do all my skiing in the BC don't have anything for "Alpine" lift served type skis....Been seeing some decent non skied hills and Telekid sure liked what he saw....Will hit it this year....TM

[lilcliffy]

For context, I'm in south-eastern Ontario. I primarily ski right outside my backdoor, we're surrounded by farm fields, open meadows, and some forested areas. We've also got a provincial park not far from here that has sand dunes that provide some tiny hills to go up and down. As well, we've got family in Quebec City so looking for something that can tackle hills when they come up. Last year I had really mixed conditions: 12" of fresh snow, snowmobile trails, packed trails.

I'm thinking my most used ski will be the Transnordic 66 and for days with a lot of fresh snow (not that often) and I'm looking to break trail, the 82 will be nice. The 82 would also provide me something a bit better to use in the Quebec City area.

Hello Johnny!

I have both the TN66/E99 and TN82/E109 in both waxable Tour and waxless Crown versions.

Neither the TN66/E99 or the TN82/E109 are "trail-breaking skis" in their current design- neither of them have enough stability in the shovel and tip- and they both have low-profile tips.
The 82 will not offer any more float or stability in deep snow over the 66.

Think of the 82 as a 66 for steeper terrain- it has a little less camber and more sidecut.

The 82 will definitely be more fun and easier to manage in the Laurentians.

Some other skis that I've considered:

- Asnes Otto (possible all-in-one, but newer ski with no reviews)
- Fischer Traverse 78 (potential all-in-one, review mentions them as boring in comparison to the 82/E109)

I just write up a comparison between the 78 and the TN66/E99: https://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic. ... =10#p42079

[lilcliffy]

Do whatever costs the most!

LOL that is what it feels like - though getting the Asnes skis in would be more pricier than this setup... hmmm

I don't know that Asnes is necesarily much more expensive for us Canadians.

[lilcliffy]

My thinking is that the 82 would be for trekking across the farm land/meadow/swamp after a fresh snow. Last year we had ~12"+ of deep snow bury the open fields out here. But once the snow mobiles get to it, I don't think the 82 makes sense. At that point I'd switch down to the TN66. My fear with only having the TN66 is that it will be super sluggish in the fresh snow.

The 82 will not be better in deep snow than the 66.
The 82- while still a XC ski- is better in steeper terrain than the 66.

[lilcliffy]

Where as the E109 is highly regarded in the deeper snow and downhill.

E109/TN66 vs E99/TN82:
- better in deep snow→ no
- better in steep terrain→ yes

Now, the TN82 is not an exact replica of the E109, so YMMV.

Do we know if this is true? I don't think I have read/seen anything that would suggest it is any different...
I should be able to handle and flex both of these "new" models in my local shop in the coming weeks...

[johnnycanuck]

My thinking is that the 82 would be for trekking across the farm land/meadow/swamp after a fresh snow. Last year we had ~12"+ of deep snow bury the open fields out here. But once the snow mobiles get to it, I don't think the 82 makes sense. At that point I'd switch down to the TN66. My fear with only having the TN66 is that it will be super sluggish in the fresh snow.

The 82 will not be better in deep snow than the 66.
The 82- while still a XC ski- is better in steeper terrain than the 66.

Thanks for the info, curious what you would suggest in deeper snow in that case? Others have mentioned going the TN66 / Gamme paired with Ingstad, thoughts on that?

I am leaning towards buying the skinner ski this season mind you (Gamme or TN66) and then figuring out what I need in terms of a wider ski later on. But still, I am curious what you think.