The ever-so-popular Madshus Eon

[MikeK]

Yes - my Eon has a track groove. I checked it last night.

[MikeK]

Very strange - Eon has 4cm of undeflected camber (base to base total) and the Epoch we own has 4.5cm!

I wonder if I have a defective pair of Eons?

[lilcliffy]

I will check my Eons. We have three pairs (mine, my wife and my daughter: 205cm, 195cm, and 165cm).

What about flex? Your Epoch stiffer than the Eon?

[MikeK]

You know it's a tough call - both feel the same stiffness to me. I think I'd actually have to measure with weights to tell for sure.

I'm going to try to get to a shop that has them in stock and feel another pair just to be sure.

[lilcliffy]

So- I have been back on my Eons for the last 10 days. Aside for another couple of Annum-filled powder days after the last dump- the snow conditions have been perfect around here for the Eon over the last couple of weeks: deep, dense, and firm base, with a few inches of variable snow on top. Temperatures have been hovering just below freezing.

I am on the waxless Eons.

Traction. As long as the snow is not icy, or very cold, I find the Omnitrack waxless traction to be more than adequate. The last couple of weeks I have had excellent traction- both in kick and glide and reasonable climbing (my weekday tours typically begin with 1/2km climb up a 15-20% slope). Mike- the slippage you described must be snow-condition related. I have no doubt your S-98 will out-climb the Eon- but they are completely different skis.

I still wish that I had a waxable Eon- would offer much more versatile traction.

Cimbing. Skins are definitely a must if you are going to be doing a lot of climbing with this ski.

Camber. Mike- I measured my Eons (205cm) and they have 4.4cm (1 3/4") unweighted deflection. Spoke to a Madshus rep that claims there has been no change to the Eon since Madshus has been manufacturing them. I do feel strongly that they are camber and a half. When I half-weight this ski (i.e. as in the glide phase) there is still a low traction/wax pocket in this ski. When I squeeze them together- about 80% of the flex is soft/easy- the last 10-20% is actually relatively stiff- offering that low wax pocket.

I think that one of our challenges in North America is our perhaps limited understanding of the full range of Nordic ski designs.

For example- was reading a UTE magazine review of backcountry Nordic skis last week- that not only discussed camber, but also varying types of flex patterns:
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... or-fjellet

Some skis have stiff double cambers underfoot with soft flexing tips/tails ( (e.g. Glittertind). Some skis have stiff double-cambers with stiff tips/tails...some have stiff tips/tails, but have the addition of rocker in the tip (e.g. the current E109). Some have full-length even flex/camber- the Eon and the Asnes Nansen seem to fit this flex/camber profile (although the Nansen is stiffer overall than the Eon).

UTE magazine describes the Eon as having slight rocker in the tip (10cm):
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... edit-text=

So- although I do find the Eon soft-flexing- I do find that there is a functional, slight, and long traction/wax pocket- especially in the ideal snow conditions.

On hard and/or icy snow the xcountry performance of the Eon deteriorates- this is probably to be expected.

What would perhaps be a most interesting comparison would be to test/compare the Eon to a more similar ski such as the E109. I shortly tested the E109 in a xcountry K&G context- my impression is that the E109 offers better performance as a classic xcountry ski. What I would very much like to compare is the downhill performance- my gut feeling is that the smooth, even flex of the Eon will offer better downhill performance.

[MikeK]

lilcliffy, there's probably something to be said about what they say about cambers in that article. Double camber doesn't mean the same thing on every ski. If you could feel/ski/flex the E89 vs the Voss, anyone would notice that immediately. But they still both have a strong, well defined wax pocket.

I wish I had a bench rig or something to convey what I see. I took this short video, and maybe you can see because I shot it with a white door behind, but this is just me lightly clamping both the Eon and the Epoch with one hand, base to base. I tried to rotate so you can see the but the gap remains nearly the same when I do that. The part you can't see, or rather I couldn't do on the camera is if I add my other hand, I can close that gap right up. I can't do it with one and hold the skis. Both the Eon and the Epoch feel the same to me. Way, way back to my initial review, the S Bound 98 and the Epoch do the same thing.

So maybe that slight gap I can't get the right leverage with, with one hand is really a second camber and all 3 of those skis, the Eon, the Epoch and the S98 are camber and a half. Or it's just I don't have the hand strength/balance to do what I can with both hands, which is flex them right up in one shot. I'm comparing now the force from my hands with the weight from my body - it's no contest. If I weight any of those skis, even 50/50, they will go flat.

[video][/video]

Now the interesting thing I should have put on my little video is if I take the Glittertind or Voss, and squeeze with the same force I do the Eon and Epoch, I still have a large gap - around 1cm or more. If I add more force with my second hand, I get more of a gap like you see in the Eon/Epoch shot with one hand.

What really convinces me is when I flex and sight the ski. I just don't see that wax pocket on any of those skis. And if I were to go up and down on the skis and show where that gap extends, it goes all the way along the ski out to the very tips and tails, not just under the foot section like when you really squeeze a double camber.

So maybe there really is something going on there that we could call camber and a half, or 'Noridc' camber, but is it a wax pocket per se? Or simply just a slightly stiffer single camber?

[lilcliffy]

I understand what you are saying Mike.

Perhaps part of our confusion is focusing solely on ski camber/flex design and not considering skier weight and snow condition context.

For example- our 195cm Eons perform very differently than the 205cm. Whether a ski is designed to have a wax/traction pocket or not- it can be utterly eliminated if the ski is too short for the skier's weight. At my weight- the 205cm Eons have a low wax/traction pocket- the 195cm Eons do not.

On very dense snow or hardpack, the low traction pocket of my 205cm Eons becomes less noticeable because the tips and tails are so soft. If the flex of the Eon was stiffer, the Eon would offer better K&G on dense snow (this IMO, is where the E109 would clearly outperform the Eon).

I do agree with you though- there is very little difference in flex/camber between the Eon, Epoch and Annum. If the Eon has more camber- it is marginal. The Eon is designed and produced to offer longer lengths for more efficient K&G performance. In other words- if I could get a 205cm Annum (listening Madshus??)- I might get a similar wax/traction pocket effect.

There is an unfortunate trend towards short skis- even in XC skiing.

Recent ski reviews I have read from the Nordic countries praise Asnes for stubbornly continuing to make backcountry Nordic skis in traditional lengths (up to 215cm) for those that want the touring performance. Many of Asnes' skis are single-cambered, but at long lengths are described as having an effective wax pocket.

I completely understand the desire for easy-turning skis...but I am definitely unwilling to give up touring performance. After all that is what I spend 95% of my time doing (even in mountainous terrain). I don't think I am alone.

I have been in many a ski shop in recent years- listening to retailers promoting short skis to xcountry skiers- because they are easier to turn!? This recommendation seems to be everywhere nowadays- "If in doubt- size down".

Inexperienced XC skiers often don't realize that easy-turning skis have nothing to do with the skiing they will actually be doing! I am convinced that this is a result of pushing waxless double-cambered skis- which often have very poor traction in traditional lengths.

Too short a ski in classic XC K&G (be it on track or in the backcountry) turns an effortless, flying experience, into a sliding shuffle.

[MikeK]

Man do I agree with that... If I could do it all over again I would have bought my skis in different order, and probably bought different skis. So much emphasis on turning these days when not every ski needs to be used for that.

I mentioned in another thread, but it was probably in vain, so I'll mention it here where it may have some use to someone else: for Adirondack Touring, the Eon + NNN BC Magnum + Alaska NNN BC is all you really need. It really is a quiver killer for xcD. The reason I didn't go for it initially is they don't fit in groomed tracks and I have a bad experience with cheap NNN boots, hence my choice of a Glittertind with pins. It's a nice ski, and forgiving, but it's much harder to control on hills even with pins than the Eon is. They both slide pretty well, and the Eon is better at breaking trail.

The ultimate would be the Eon Wax in 205cm. It might be a little bit more of a challenge on descents than my current 195cm but I'm sure I could manage it in most conditions.

If the focus is climbing and descending, or breaking trail in deep powder... there are obviously better choices, but if you are skiing backcountry ski/hiking trails like you would ride with a xc mountain bike, it's a great choice.

[CTMaher]

I love just how in depth this analysis is!

The waxless Eon was the ski I started learning to telemark on last season. I bought them a bit short (175cm - I weigh 155). I put some voile 3-pin cables on them and went to my local downhill area. I had soft boots at the time, rossi BC X12s. I spent a lot of time on the bunny slope, and even hit some blue runs with them. As a total novice skier, it was terrifying! I'd probably do better now. They are a terrific all-around ski though, and so are my newer Epochs (185cm). They tour well, skate well, and turn well.

After my last backcountry trip with the Epochs and my girlfriend on the Eons, I noticed the top of the ski has begun to separate from the edge and the base. Kind of crappy to see them go this way so soon.

Any advice on how to nip this in the bud, or if that is possible?

[lilcliffy]

Hey man- good to hear you are getting something out of my long-winded thought processes!

As far as your Eons...

First- I can say with some confidence that you probably have a defective pair of skis. You bought those new last season? How many miles do you figure you put on them? Is the terrain you are on, putting extreme stress on them?

I find it hard to believe that the construction on those skis would deteriorate so soon...

For a comparison- I have skied on my current pair of waxless Eons since 2008 (new). Other than some scratches in the waxless traction pattern (I hot wax the tips/tails- which offers some protection)- my Eons are still in great shape. I put well over 1000kms per season on these skis (these currently are my primary backcountry touring ski). I ski predominantly on moderate terrain- but I do take in as much steep terrain as I can (ravines, bowls, glades). I ski through the woods, frequently climbing over brooks, dead trees, and the occasional rock. My skis are constantly hitting saplings and small trees...

If you feel that your Eons are defective- my advice would be to go after Madshus/K2 for a replacement pair. You may even get to choose the longer length you want (with your Epochs in your quiver- go for the longest Eon! ) Over the years I have had very much success with getting manufactures to back their product.

As far as fixing them...I am afraid I have no idea. I have a past with fiberglass boat repair; and some basic carpentry skills- but fixing modern skis- no experience.

If you want to figure out how to fix them- start a new thread in the main forum. I would also post it in other XC ski forums. There is bound to be skiers that can give you some expert, experienced advice on this. This advice would be good even if you end up taking them to a shop technician. I have had too many bad experiences with "shop technicians". It's always prudent to know something about it so that you can judge if they really know what they are doing!