Fischer S-Bound vs Madshus Panorama

[André18]

Hi all,

I'm new to the forum. I've been looking around here a lot lately, but I still have a few questions in mind so I figured I should ask them directly. I'm looking for a new pair of skis. I'm aiming towards Fischer S-Bound 98 or Madshus Panorama 68 or 78. I understand these are three skis that can be compared in many aspects. However, there are old posts concerning old versions of them, but I am not sure they are very up to date. Hence the new thread.

Why do I consider these skis? I mostly ski in quite hilly terrain. The trails on which I ski often have virgin snow or are ski-doo trails. But I mostly use these trails to get in forested areas (mixed forest) where I ski off-track. Then again, it is hilly so I have to do some ascents and descents in many kinds of snow and it can be pretty tight in between those trees.

I already own a pair of Voilé V6 which is an awesome ski when I wanna tackle difficult terrain. It is however too heavy to use daily or to be my go-to ski. I also own a pair of Alpina Discovery 102, which I don't like very much. It sinks deep in powder and is very hard to control going downhill in the backcountry. Whenever I hit a patch of hard snow, I'm in for a faceplant.

This is why I am looking for a ski that floats. I also need good scales (I don't wanna mess with waxing). I do own a pair of full length skins but I don't like to hassle with them as I'm mostly doing short climbs. Therefore, good scales are a must. I don't need a ski that is very fast on the flats as I mostly ski alone. But, I don't want a ski that wobbles on the flats. I have tried a Kom mounted with NNN-BC in the past and it was horrible because it wobbled too much. It was hurting my knees.

Hence the Panorama and the S-Bound. According to my research, they are skis that have the characteristics I am looking for. I understand that everyone has their favorites. Do you all think that both of these skis travel well (enough) on the flats (no wobble) and have good scales?

For the record, I am 6'2 (187cm) and 175 pounds (74 kg), without a backpack. I'm not sure either on which ski size I should opt for. According to Fischer, 179cm would be the right size for me, but I'm thinking of going longer for better travel. Same thing with Madshus. They don't have size charts on their website, but I was thinking of going for a 192 cm instead of the 182cm. Do you think I have it right?

Also, I plan to use them with Xplore bindings with Alfa Skagets.

Finally, do you think that one of these skis has a better durability? Madshus are made in China while Fischers are made in Europe. But is there something more to know?

Thank you all for reading me and helping me in my quest for the perfect ski.

[Bavarian Cream]

Welcome, @André18 . All my gear is old, but I’m about 6’3” and 175, so I’ll chime in. While I don’t ski the most up to date versions of these skis, I do ski the S-bound 98 in 179cm and the Madshus Annum (predecessor to Panorama 78) in 195cm. From what I gather, the skis have gotten just slightly lighter over the years since the models I own, and the Madshus lengths have changed somewhat, but the performance is basically unchanged. Hopefully my similarities to your situation will be of some help.

To start with, I love the feel of the S-bound 98 with NNN BC, but the Madshus (at least in the longest length) are a bit too much ski for the typical NNN BC boot (some rigid boots could work). I do like the Madshus with a 3-pin binding without cable and a leather boot or Scarpa T3, so I think xplore and Alfa boots would work well on the Panorama 78, even in 192cm.

The kick and glide of the S-bound 98 seems better than the wider Madshus, but the Madshus offer a good deal more flotation (I ski in the CO Rockies, a land of soft, light powder). I have not had the chance to test what the difference would be if the skis were similar in length, but my suspicion is the Madshus would still float significantly better. I think both skis turn great in soft snow. I guess the thing to sort out is if you are more likely to need flotation or maneuverability. But at any rate, I think the skis/bindings/boots you’re considering make sense as pairings, and hopefully this helps you weigh some of the pros and cons!

[JB TELE]

I own a pair of Madshus Annums which I believe are the same thing as the Panorama 78s. They are good in powder and nearly impossible to control on firm snow. The s-bound 98s aren't great on firm snow but much better than the Annums. I'm not sure if this is simply because the s-bound 98s are narrower or if there is more to it. My experience is with stiff leathers and cable bindings.

The Annums don't grip as well as the s-bounds. Since the Annums don't have a proprietary kicker skin attachment and nobody is making a universal kicker-skin, I'm forced to put on full length skins in situations that are overkill. That issue alone means I would choose the s-bounds with their grippier scales and ez-skin option. I ended up with the Annums because I found them used for a great deal.

[wabene]

Hello being that I have both the SB98 at 189cm and the Madshus M78 at 182cm, I'll chime in. I'm 5' 9"and 182lbs. I have not skied the new M68, but did do a day of skiing laps on a friend's older version, the Epoch at 195cm (same ski as the current 192). The differences are clear. The SB98 has more camber, is stiffer and it has a center groove. The Fischer tracks much better for k & g on hardpack. It also holds an edge much better skiing downhill in firmer conditions. The scale pattern climbs better. The softer, wider M78 is really fun in soft snow. It grips well enough for the climb and I think it glides a little faster. The Madshus skis lack the center groove so along with a softer flex they are more squirrelly skiing packed trails.
I would say the SB98 is a really versatile backcountry ski. The addition of the Easy Skin adds to this versatility. It skis that flats well enough to be a utility ski, but then it's really fun when you point it downhill. When it's downhill fun in soft snow the M78 is awesome, but it is a less versatile ski.

[André18]

Thanks to all three of you for your insights.

For now, I think I'll go for the S-Bounds. Since the M78 is more oriented towards downhill and flotation, it is less useful to me as I own a pair of V6s. The versatility of the Fischer gives it and edge.

I'll take the weekend to think this through.

@wabene How do you find the SB98 189cm when going downhill? Are you able to do tele turns and/or alpine turns? I'm thinking of descents through relatively open trees and mild angle slopes (10 to 20 degrees).

I've always tend to go towards shorter skis as I was aiming for better turns. However, as I do get experience, I'm thinking of going for longer ones but I don't wanna regret it!

[lilcliffy]

Hello and welcome Andre18!
(BTW- I have a particular love for the Saguenay region!)

Why do I consider these skis? I mostly ski in quite hilly terrain. The trails on which I ski often have virgin snow or are ski-doo trails. But I mostly use these trails to get in forested areas (mixed forest) where I ski off-track. Then again, it is hilly so I have to do some ascents and descents in many kinds of snow and it can be pretty tight in between those trees.

Sounds farmiliar- this is similar to backcountry ski touring in interior and northwestern NB.

I already own a pair of Voilé V6 which is an awesome ski when I wanna tackle difficult terrain. It is however too heavy to use daily or to be my go-to ski. I also own a pair of Alpina Discovery 102, which I don't like very much. It sinks deep in powder and is very hard to control going downhill in the backcountry. Whenever I hit a patch of hard snow, I'm in for a faceplant.

I am curious about this above↑ What boot are you using with the V6 versus the Discovery 102?

This is why I am looking for a ski that floats.

If you are wanting a ski that "floats"- that is narrower than your V6- than- in my experience- you want to be considering the Madhus M78 or Fischer S-Bound 112-
The narrower 68mm Madshus/Fischer skis are great, but they do not "float" in truly deep soft snow.

I also need good scales (I don't wanna mess with waxing). I do own a pair of full length skins but I don't like to hassle with them as I'm mostly doing short climbs. Therefore, good scales are a must.

Fischer's Offtrack Crown scale cannot be beat in terms of traction- much more traction than the Karhu/Madshus Omnitrack design.

I don't need a ski that is very fast on the flats as I mostly ski alone. But, I don't want a ski that wobbles on the flats. I have tried a Kom mounted with NNN-BC in the past and it was horrible because it wobbled too much. It was hurting my knees.

Hmmm...well, the Kom is short, wide and rockered- that could be what made it "wobble" too much for you...The Kom is also in the class of your V6- so kinda redundant...

From my perspective any touring ski that is tuned for turning, inherently comprimises directional stability-
some design features that can reduce/compensate for this:
- track groove in the base (eg the Fischer S-Bound skis all have track grooves; the Madhsus 68/78 do not)
- length- everything being equal, choosing a longer length in this class of ski increases stabililty in all dimensions- including directional stability.

Hence the Panorama and the S-Bound. According to my research, they are skis that have the characteristics I am looking for. I understand that everyone has their favorites. Do you all think that both of these skis travel well (enough) on the flats (no wobble) and have good scales?

The Fischer models have grippier scale design.
They all "wander"/"wobble"- you need a long length to try and reduce this.

For the record, I am 6'2 (187cm) and 175 pounds (74 kg), without a backpack. I'm not sure either on which ski size I should opt for. According to Fischer, 179cm would be the right size for me, but I'm thinking of going longer for better travel. Same thing with Madshus. They don't have size charts on their website, but I was thinking of going for a 192 cm instead of the 182cm. Do you think I have it right?

If you choose a short length both the Fischer and the Madshus are going to wander all over the place- ESPECIALLY on consolidated snow (eg snowmobile track).

Also, I plan to use them with Xplore bindings with Alfa Skagets.

Great boot- and a great match on the 68mm Fischer S-98 and Madshus M68-
great on the Fischer S-112 and Madshus M78 on ideal snow- not enough boot on the 78mm waist on difficult snow (however the S-112 and M78 are terrible on difficult snow regardless).

Finally, do you think that one of these skis has a better durability? Madshus are made in China while Fischers are made in Europe. But is there something more to know?

We have a whole fleet of made-in-China Madshus XCD skis (ie 62;68;78) that have taken A LOT of abuse- durabilty is excelllent.

Fischer's BC Noridc ski build quality is very good as well (ie fit and finish), but their topsheets are not very durable.

I would actually rank the equivalent Madshus BC Nordic skis as more durable than Fischer's.

[lilcliffy]

The SB98 has more camber,

Curious-
what year S-Bound 98 are you speaking of?
There have certainly been many-a-gen S-Bound 98 that is significantly cambered- but some of the recent model-years have been much less cambered and softer...

[André18]

Hi @lilcliffy! Thank you for your helpful response and insights.

I'm glad to read that you love the Saguenay. I personally live in Sainte-Rose-du-Nord. I don't know if you've been there, but it is absolutely beautiful. So I recommend it for a future trip in Saguenay if you haven't been there already.

Long story short, I first bought a pair of Discovery 102 paired with Voile 3-pins and cable (but never really used the cable) and Alpina Alaska 75. These boots didn't last a month. I returned them and got Alfa Greenland boots. Those resisted for a winter and a half before they broke. Last year, I got a pair of T4s and I bought the V6 equipped with a Switchback (I already owned a pair of old T2s that I use for more challenging downhill). I skied the whole winter with T4s, whether I was skiing the Discovery or the V6. T4 and Discovery 102 isn't a great fit. I find these boots too bulky for XC oriented tours. But they sure help on the descent! At the end of the winter, I bought a pair of old Crispies on Ebay and I figured this would be my last shot with 75mm leather. However, they are a bit too small. So I can't really test this setup as it's too uncomfortable. All in all, I wanna get a pair of skis to replace the Discovery. I don't trust 3-pins and leathers in terms of durability, so I will move towards Xplore. I will keep the Discovery and small Crispy boots for the beginning of the season when there are some rocks in the trails. The Xplore is too expensive for me to buy two sets of them and equip the Discovery (for now at least).

Maybe that ''floating'' isn't exactly the right term to describe what I meant. I want a ski that mostly stays above the snowpack. The Discovery sinks too much. I find it inefficient when skiing in powder on the flats (lake or ungroomed trail or forest) and hard to control when I go down off-track. With more rocker, I believe, I will have more control and will skip some of the hazards hidden in the snow (branches mostly) when going down even if I don't float well above the snowpack. And I also think I will be more efficient on ungroomed flats. I mean, the V6 floats like a charm. So, I don't need something too similar.

I've tried the Kom with two different setups. They were borrowed the two times. When I tried them with NNN-BC, they were wobbling and it was not fun when I was skiing on packed snow. However, on fresh snow, it is quite nice. I also tried them with Switchbacks and my T2s in a Downhill oriented tour and they were really fun. But I consider as well that they are redundant with the V6 and I don't need them.

On durability, thank you, again, for your advice. It will not be my first criteria when choosing a ski but I think it's always good to consider it. If a ski has poor durability it's a no-go but if it is medium or better it's good enough to me. To my understanding, ski with scales will deteriorate faster since you can't do anything to repair scales and can't do much to prevent wear. So, unfortunately, durability will never be perfect with scaled skis.

With everything that you and others have written, I think that I'll try the SB98 189cm. I think that the local shop that sells them has a one week try period when you buy skis. So if they don't feel right I will return them. But I'll still take the weekend to think this through.

[cjk420]

For what its worth I discovered (no surprise as this is common) Madshus and Fischer measure their skis differently. For example a 172cm Madshus M62 will be as long (or perhaps slightly longer) as a 176cm Fischer Traverse (both purchased last year). The same may apply to the wider skis you are looking at. Knowing this I may have ordered the next size down in the Mashus 62 since it is slightly wider than the Fischer Traverse.

[wabene]

The SB98 has more camber,

Curious-
what year S-Bound 98 are you speaking of?
There have certainly been many-a-gen S-Bound 98 that is significantly cambered- but some of the recent model-years have been much less cambered and softer...

These are the models of Madshus M62-195cm, Fisher SB98-189cm and Madshus M78-182cm that I have. The M62 is the wax based version with the transition skin that was made for a couple of years (I did do a little customization of the top sheet).

The the relaxed camber measurement for each ski is M62-42mm, SB98-42mm and the M78-38mm.
The M78 is noticably the softest and the the M62 and SB98 are similar with the SB98 being a little stiffer. The SB98 has the most Nordic rocker extending past the tip opening on the M78 even though it is the longer ski. The M62 has almost no noticable Nordic rocker. I sure wish we had some snow. We don't have a forcasted high below freezing for two weeks. A disaster.