Fischer Traverse 78 Ski Length Recommendations

[trollskier]

Hi there,
In southwestern Wisconsin last winter, we had a lot of "big" snowfalls that had mostly melted away or iced up before anyone had a chance to groom it, so I wanted some skis I could make my own tracks with that could handle at least 25cm so of dense snow. I've got some Fischer Spider 62s, but its seems they don't do so well in more than 15cm of loose snow, and I only have NNN bindings on them so I was struggling with control.
I did some browsing online, and narrowed it down between the Fischer Traverse 78 and Fischer Excursion 88. I called a shop and they recommended the former to me, since we usually don't get THAT much snow, and while the topography of southwestern Wisconsin is very hilly, it's not mountainous. Based on my weight of ~75kg, we went with 186mm as the ski length since I was right in the middle according to Fischer's sizing chart.
The skis arrived, and oddly enough I noticed that the length was marked as 189mm. That wasn't (and apparently still isn't) an option when I placed my order. I tried to Google some Fischer size charts, and the ones I found only indicated that the skis came in 3 lengths (176, 186, 196). It was a head scratcher, but I didn't think much of it. What difference could 3cm make?
Finally, last night, I stumbled across what I'm guessing is a more recent sizing chart from Fischer, and I see that the Traverse 78 now comes in 4 lengths (169, 179, 189, 199). My weight is 10+ lbs (several kgs) below the recommended weight range for the 189s. I've been able to ski in some fairly deep snow (probably close to 50 cm), and while kick and glide seem fine, they did seem a bit unwieldy and difficult to control. I blamed it on technique, but perhaps these skis are too long for me.
For those familiar with the Traverse 78 - any opinions on going a size up from the manufacturer's recommendations? It does make these skis quite difficult to take on narrow forest trails, which is a bummer. But I would think it would give me better glide and possibly better float. Unfortunately, I'm well past the return window for these skis, so if it's more sensible to get rid of them and buy a more appropriate pair, I'd have to sell them secondhand.

[riel]

When you say you are 10lbs too light for your Traverse 78 skis, does that factor in only your body weight, or also the weight of your clothes, boots, backpack, and other winter gear?

Part of the difficulty in turning might be that the Spider 62 is a ski with a soft round flex, while the Traverse 78 has a stiff second camber underfoot. That means you might need a slightly different turning technique than you have been using with your other skis.

Stiff skis like that turn much better when you put maybe 70-80% of your weight on the outside ski in a turn, and push down with your heel.

[trollskier]

I'm factoring in gear. I've actually lost a few pounds since I first ordered the skis. But even at my previous weight, I was no more than maybe 170lbs with all of my gear on.

[Krakus]

That size chart doesn't seem to be up-to-date. Thera are skis on it that are no longer being produced, such as S-Bound 112. Am I right?
Could you do a paper sheet test, to check if you can squeeze the chamber?

[trollskier]

Fischer has quite a few size charts on their website apparently. I went to the Fischer Traverse 78 page and this is the sheet they linked to: https://fischersports.com/media/pdf/65/ ... _22l23.pdf. So now I'm thinking the shop probably shipped me an older version of the skis by accident? I have no clue. Would have been a pain to ship the skis back even if I had figured this out at the time.
I can try the paper test later. Like I said, I've had no issues with kick thus far, I seem to be able to compress the ski fully. It's just a bit unwiedly for turns and changing direction.

[Krakus]

Fischer changed the design of Traverse 78 recently. The new 23/24 version has no slot for short skins and comes in 169/179/189/199 cm lengths. Older version, with a slot for short skins, was 176/186/196 cm. So, I think your skis are in fact the newest. Maybe this ski is more biased towards XC?

[aclyon]

I have last years t78 in 186 cm. i am 75 kg and 175 cm tall. mounted with xplore.
in my experience--
this ski has great tracking and kick and glide in this length. it is not the best turning ski though, in regards to downhill. a ski like the s-bound 98 is better for turns, since it has more sidecut and runs a bit shorter. it can also handle a wider variety of snow conditions better, though the tracking will suffer on firmer surfaces.
that's not to say the t78 can't be used downhill. just requires developing technique, and that can take a while. i am only just now getting good at tele turns after 1.5 seasons skiing with this setup. i would like a "turnier" ski such as the falketind, in the future.
but what i would *not* want, is the traverse 78 in a shorter length. because i don't think it would turn *that* much better and i wouldn't want to lose an inch of its great kick and glide performance.
so in regards to you-- i would think that yes, you are a size long, but that's ok, because it just makes the traverse 78 better at what it is best at. and with some practice, i'm sure you can take it in the woods.

as for the advice you got-- i think a slightly wider ski like the 88 or 98 is a better starter setup, because even if you just have ankle deep powder, the traverse 78 is a cumbersome trail breaker.

[John Dee]

Im lighter than you. I bought 186's, immediately sold them and bought the 196's. They're my favorite XC ski now. They're great in 6-8 inches of snow, and they're still ok in 12+ inches of snow. I also enjoy them well enough in ski trails or other packed trails.

Neptune shows you as being at the top of the weight recommendation for 189s (not good) and at the bottom of the 199s (good). Click on "specs" to see this. https://neptunemountaineering.com/produ ... 8-cr-xtrlt. You didn't say how tall you are, but take you too very long to learn to ski 189's. I think you should be on 199's, but if you're happy with the 189s that's great. A longer ski = more glide and more float.

I don't know what the guy above is talking about with them being cumbersome at trail breaking, or why an e88 or s98 would be easier to ski in ankle deep snow.

[aclyon]

I don't know what the guy above is talking about with them being cumbersome at trail breaking, or why an e88 or s98 would be easier to ski in ankle deep snow.

yes i've found the wider skis better at breaking trail in deep fresh powder. why wouldn't they be? the 78 still breaks trail just fine, but not as efficiently as the wider skis. it doesn't float as much.
*easier to break trail in ankle deep snow. not to ski in general.