Madshus vs. Fischer vs. Rossi

bean valley wrote

So I assume the Fischers have evolved tremendously since the good old days...I have a pair of E99s from the mid-80s (straight, steel, fishscales, and LOOOOOONG). They're great skis for the tour, but seriously scare the hell out me on the downhills. I'm no slouch in the alpine environment (Well, maybe half-a-slouch..) but I have serious control issues with these longboards. I'm set up with NNN/NIS BC and X-10 boots (or comparable). More boot and binding? Or maybe I just suck...
Anyway, have these skis changed a whole lot in the last 20 years?

(signed)
Sitzmark

E99's actually have gone more to the touring side.  The pair we have is from maybe mid -2000's (yes 20 years later) and they had the same profile as the original.  They still aren't a downhill ski unless you are an ace or just nuts.  They like a good snowplow, step turn or a big-ass radius tele turn.  I can't say the flex is the same as the older ones, but it's definitely stiffer all-around than a Glittertind (which is a skinny ski that can be tele'd in powder).  We ski ours a bit shorter than traditional and that helps with the turning aspect as well, but by no means to I look for hills with those skis.  I like the <200cm rule of thumb for a trail ski.  I ski a 200cm in a skinny.  My old traditional XC skis used to be 210 to 215cm and I should be on that length for my weight.

Now have skis changed in the last 20 years?  Hell Yeah!  You can actually buy skis that are basically what was considered a downhill shape 20 years ago for BC touring.  Will they tour as well as a long skinny ski - NO.  Will they turn better.  You bet.  So now there are all sorts of models that cover your bases from a long, flattish tour to basically touring for turns.

For Fischers line up, look into the S-Bound Series:

http://www.fischersports.com/en/Nordic/Products/Skis/S-Bound

Rossi has the BC series:

http://www.rossignol.com/US/US/nordic-men-skis.html (scroll to the bottom for the BC skis)

and my personal favorite, Madshus:

http://madshus.com/skis?category=backcountry

Madshus made BC skis for Karhu, so some of those models are rebadged i.e. XCD GT is the Eon.

Generally wider = more downhill oriented but for me it is generally side cut, camber and flex that differentiate the skis.

Double camber, stiff flex with minimal side cut tours the best while single camber, softer flex with generous side cut turns better.

This is all very general.  Good luck!

Oh and yes, boots made a huge difference... but I wouldn't say enough so that I'd point E99's down something more than 10° unless it was hard packed or you have a really good tele turn.

Boots ARE everything.  Especially if your talking about a class of skis that traditionally are still paired with leather or leather/plastic combo boots and either 3-pin or SNS/NNN BC systems.  

I've always maintained that using a "bigger" boot than would be normally matched with a given ski results in better control and success in backcountry skiing.

TD

Telemark Dave wrote

Boots ARE everything.  Especially if your talking about a class of skis that traditionally are still paired with leather or leather/plastic combo boots and either 3-pin or SNS/NNN BC systems.  

I've always maintained that using a "bigger" boot than would be normally matched with a given ski results in better control and success in backcountry skiing.

TD

True.  But I'll maintain from the other end of the spectrum that a softer boot will allow for more efficient striding for long tours.

I like Dave M's groupings.  His logic of what boots with what skis makes the most sense to me.  For instance I wouldn't ski Excursions or T4s on a skinny touring ski.  Yeah you can horse it through a turn better, but the amount you lose on glide doesn't complement the ski well.  OTOH I wouldn't ski something like an Annum, Vector or Charger with a low-cuff leather boot unless I was using it purely in snowshoe mode (on flat terrain using the width for flotation).  Some mid-width, mid-side cut skis can be all arounders though with just a change of boots.  Something like the Epoch can ski anything (except groomed tracks, it's too wide) and do it damned well with just a change of boots.  Big boots for hills, soft slippers for long tours.

I wouldn't even consider NNN-BC a serious binding unless all you plan on doing is relatively flat tours, so there is no sense in my mind on putting those on a wide ski.  I think there is a HUGE difference in control going from the same boot from a NNN to a 3 pin.  Even snowplow and step turns become much easier, and for me it's almost a must when the snow gets deep.  NNN is too floppy for me.

One other thing I wanted to add about length is this:

My current BC skis are:

Annum 185cm
Epoch 185cm
Glittertind 200cm

I may up the Epoch to a 195cm and give my wife the 185's now that I have the Annums.

Technically for my weight I should be larger on all of them, but I trade off a little float and glide for control.

MikeK wrote

I wouldn't even consider NNN-BC a serious binding unless all you plan on doing is relatively flat tours, so there is no sense in my mind on putting those on a wide ski.

I wouldn't put NNN on any ski. Then again EVERY ski I own has a 75 mm binding.

The worst thing that almost happened to us... we skied on an extremely cold day. I think the high was 5 below.  We'd had problems in the past with an NNN binding freezing so you couldn't get your boots out. That's one thing. PITA.

But to be frozen out of them AFTER you took them off for a lunch break, deep in the Siamese, in four feet of snow ...holy crap.

Ultimately I nearly passed out by taking the booted footed and pressing on the binding very hard, after BLOWING breathe on the binding to try to warm it up.

No amount of weight saving is every worth giving up the ability to hack out ice (ala Rotte Super Telemark et al) or the option to warm the binding by a fire, without concern for melting the mechanism.

It's just not worth it IMO.

I concur on the SNS - NNN BC systems being useful for trail (untracked...?) skiing only.  Non of either system in my quiver.  In fact, for early season and non mechanically track-set trail skiing my wife and use light (<60mm) "touring" edge less skis mounted with SNS profil bindings and old skate ski boots that are broken in/down enough to allow striding.  Perfect re-purposing of old equipment.  (Or dirtbag tactics, FWIW)

My motto is:

"NNN for the track, 3 pin for the back"






Yes, I made that up

I learned to ski on pins and I was never excited about the switch to NNN.  I guess I just wasn't a fast enough skier to appreciate them.

When I introduced my wife to skiing I started her on NNN because that's what we could rent.  She hated it, but of course I wasn't taking her to nice groomed tracks all the time.  By the time she had tried pins she had become a better skier but also appreciated the ease with which she could control the ski.  Her confidence went up quite a bit.  Put her in pins and plastic boots and she almost likes going down hills.

MikeK wrote

My motto is:

"NNN for the track, 3 pin for the back"






Yes, I made that up

Nice one.

Oh, and to continue with the slight drift of the thread, both SBR and I are afficiendo's of old woodies, 70's era and older.  Nice and long (210-215), mounted with vintage correct pins, of course, and skied with leathers.  They rock on snowmobile trails and snow covered logging roads.  The only reason to turn 'em is because the trail turns.  

All that being said, we have an acquaintance and fellow woodie skier who skis his with NNN's.  Great pairing actually.  Old meets new.

TD

Here ya go.. Pic from a TR 4 seasons  ago

Telemark Dave wrote

Oh, and to continue with the slight drift of the thread, both SBR and I are afficiendo's of old woodies, 70's era and older.  Nice and long (210-215), mounted with vintage correct pins, of course, and skied with leathers.  They rock on snowmobile trails and snow covered logging roads.  The only reason to turn 'em is because the

I have a pair of 250s hanging on my wall. They are going to stay there.