narrow double-cambered off-trail xcountry ski

[MikeK]

Yeah by narrow I mean something below 70-65mm at the shovel. I'm simply looking for a XC-style ski that I can use for downhill and hardpack purposes only. Maybe the Sbounds 78 would be the best choice...

I think you should buy a S bound 78 before they discontinue it (lilcliffy mentioned they are going to in his talks with Fischer).

Those skis turn man... I'm so amazed at how well the 98 turns, I think you could actually carve them... I didn't like it on corduroy though, but that's probably just me. I can't imagine I would have liked my Glits on that either.

[lilcliffy]

In order to avoid any unnecessary S-Bound 78 anxiety/angst

I apologize if I gave anyone the impression that Fischer is planning on discontinuing the the S-78 (if I did- I didn't mean to!).

That being said- it would be interesting to know what the future of that ski is...At a 78mm shovel; it appears to be the last of the relatively "narrow" single-cambered XC skis that are still on the market.

Rossignol is still making a whole fleet of backcountry-xcountry skis that are smaller than the S-78 (BC59, BC65, BC68, BC70)- but they are all classic, tour-oriented double-cambered skis.

And I agree with MikeK- when it comes to the S-Bound fleet- they are the sweetest turning XC skis I have ever tested.

[MikeK]

Oh - so I misread that. Sorry... Johnny, you should still buy one It's only 90g too fat...

Yeah that ski seems odd to a person like me looking at it from a XCd (touring dominant skiing). It also seems a bit odd looking at it with my xcD (turn dominant skiing) cap on, but it makes more sense there. I'm actually guessing it could probably do both fairly well but one would probably consider the E109 the more XCd related choice although the extra side cut on the 109 makes it strange.

It almost seems like Fischer should have combined the profile of the E109 with the camber and flex of the S-78, and vice-versa.

[connyro]

For my newest addition to my "quiver" I am looking for a traditional, narrow, double-cambered xcountry ski (waxable). The use is speed/glide-orientated, off-trail xcountry skiing, on gentle terrain- on dense and/or hard snow (I have wider skis for soft powder).

I keep getting drawn to the Madshus Glittertind (68mm shovel), Fischer E99 (66mm shovel), and perhaps the Rossi BC68 (68mm shovel).

However- I keep reminding myself- that for the intended use- I don't need the flotation of the above skis.

So- I also considering the Madshus Voss (60mm shovel), Fischer E89 (59mm shovel), and the Rossi BC59 (59mm shovel).

Anyone have any advice, thoughts or comments?

Back to to OP, I know you said waxable, but The Fischer Spider 62 (http://www.fischersports.com/en/Nordic/ ... -Spider-62) is a double-camber metal edge ski that is real good for cruising around, similar to the Rossi BC65. My ski buddy is on these when I am on my Rossi BC65s and both are fast and light. Not great for turns and trail-breaking but are great on frozen packed snow (snowmobile trails) or any K+G on firm snow. A little glide wax on the tips/tails and lightly applied to the scales and they are good to go, but then again, I prefer waxless over waxable for this application.

[lilcliffy]

In my discussion with the Fischer Rep- the E109 is designed to offer double-camber performance in some moderate pow over a base. And in that context- the E109 would probably track better than it did when I tested it (I was on hardpack).

The E109 at 82-60-70mm may well be the fattest double-cambered ski on the North American market...is that true??

The Rep stated that the extra sidecut of the E109 is to offer some additional moderate turning performance...

My problem is that, in order to truly maximize the performance design of the E109 I would want at least a 200cm length- making it effectively impossible for me to hold it flat and carve with...For use as a double-cambered backcountry-xcountry touring ski; I would prefer less sidecut (i.e. track straighter on hardpack), and as a result more width underfoot (i.e. wider wax/traction pocket).

Here's a question that I don't even remember examining on the E109- does anyone know whether it has a track groove like the narrower E-series skis? I really can't remember...

And MikeK- I am with you- I am more in the XCd camp as well- I love a good downhill run- but am unwilling to completely sacrifice touring efficiency for turning efficiency.

Hey LoveJohnny- have you ever tried the Madshus Eon/Karhu XCD GT (83-62-70mm) as a XCD(i.e. telemark) ski? I know that it is not "narrow" in a traditional sense- but it is 1.5-cambered, soft flexed, has ample sidecut, and is torsionally quite rigid. I have been pleased with the downhill performance of the Eon.

You can get the Eon at a serious discount. The last pair I bought for my oldest daughter- I paid $140.

[lilcliffy]

Back to to OP, I know you said waxable, but The Fischer Spider 62 (http://www.fischersports.com/en/Nordic/ ... -Spider-62) is a double-camber metal edge ski that is real good for cruising around, similar to the Rossi BC65. My ski buddy is on these when I am on my Rossi BC65s and both are fast and light. Not great for turns and trail-breaking but are great on frozen packed snow (snowmobile trails) or any K+G on firm snow. A little glide wax on the tips/tails and lightly applied to the scales and they are good to go, but then again, I prefer waxless over waxable for this application.

Thanks for the response man!

I haven't tried the Spider 62- but I too have heard good things about it. I hesitate because it is awfully short (max. length of 189cm). I don't really get it...I agree with you- they are "not for turns and trail breaking"- but if not- why are they so damn short? If they are about "off-track cruising (as Fischer calls it) why don't they make them long enough to efficiently cruise?

[MikeK]

No offense to the spider 62, I'm sure it's a fine ski - but I think they are marketing those skis a certain way to a certain person:

I watched this video on their page a while back because I was talking to someone about these skis, and compacts in general:

http://www.fischersports.com/en/Nordic/ ... k-Cruising

I think that sums up what they are trying to get to. People who want to walk around on crusty snow 'off-trail' - well I'm also thinking that they might do that once, and then go ski them in tracks. But they aren't really skiing, more like walking with skis on. Despite that I'm sure those skis will slide in the right conditions.

But yeah for someone who is bigger, compacts aren't necessarily a good ski.

[bgregoire]

You might want to have a look at the little Offtrack Cruising promo video on the fisher website to give you an idea of who they produced this ski for:

http://www.fischersports.com/en/Nordic/ ... -Spider-62



I'm also big on the XCd, I would definitely suggest going for a full length double camber ski, with or without steel edges. I prefer wax for the cold temperatures. You should expect to wax beyond the nordic camber pocket in deep snow.

I've owned the E99 for years for XCd and have loved it. always off the groomed xc trails. I have the Fischer country crown too. I like how such a ski behaves on the flats without the metal edges but its too soft for my liking. Personnally, having read what were looking for at first, I would go with the E89 or equivalent if you going to always ski in less than 6-8 inches of pow on the flats. E99 or equivalent if you want a tad more turning ability. With thin skis, i'd say always better go for full nordic length to aid flotation in pow on the flats.

Dave has a bunch more information for you here too:

https://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/Dirtba ... rtbag.html

[bgregoire]

i had a good look at the new Xtralite E109s at the shop and even did get to try a friend's pair on the other day. Double camber or not, I agree with Teleman, they are definitely not as cambered as the E99. So much so, that I would take the E99 any day on the flats. The E109s are going to be better on the down of course.

Also of note, I have taken the E99s everywhere, included 10 days backcoutnry backpacking trips, and this on NNN BC. Not the best control on the down, but heck, they are light and I say, you can do anything on this ski.

[connyro]

No offense to the spider 62, I'm sure it's a fine ski - but I think they are marketing those skis a certain way to a certain person:

I watched this video on their page a while back because I was talking to someone about these skis, and compacts in general:

http://www.fischersports.com/en/Nordic/ ... k-Cruising

I think that sums up what they are trying to get to. People who want to walk around on crusty snow 'off-trail' - well I'm also thinking that they might do that once, and then go ski them in tracks. But they aren't really skiing, more like walking with skis on. Despite that I'm sure those skis will slide in the right conditions.

But yeah for someone who is bigger, compacts aren't necessarily a good ski.

They do seem to market them to to a specific audience. I see them as a sort of do-all nordic BC ski which can go in groomed tracks or taken to packed snomo trails with little fuss or fiddle, but with a weight limit. Compact skis work great if you are not too heavy. I ski the BC65s in 195 length and would not want to go much shorter for my 185 lbs. My buddy has the Spider 189s and seems to really like them and he's in the 180 lbs range. The shorter length is good for when you need to turn or slow down on a hard packed icy surface or maneuver in thick brush. They also come with the 'nordic rocker camber' so that they break trail better, but I'm not sure it makes any difference. Think easy, versatile, light, and convenient. These are the skis we use when the conditions dictate when we can't do laps on our favorite slopes, but want to get out and charge some distance at speed.