The current E-109 has a ridiculously soft shovel that bows like a wet noodle rendering it completely unstable in deep, soft snow. The current E-109 has oodles of tip rocker- giving it a much shorter XC glide zone on consolidated snow. The E-109 should offer better XC performance…. The current E-109 is more cambered underfoot than the 88. (But if one was considering the Eon for its downhill manners- there are MUCH better downhill XC skis…) The Eon- with its soft tip and flex- is easier to pressure into skiddy, smeary turns… It is a better XC ski on all snow contexts. The 88 is a better Nordic touring ski than the Madshus Eon. Lengths: to 199cm (could do with a 209cm option).ěase: sintered tip/tail “Off-Track Crown” waxless-scaled insert.Ĝamber-rocker profile: slightly Nordic-rockered tip camber-and-a-half underfoot flat tail.Longitudinal flex: full-length, stable flex stiff.Tip shape: moderately-raised (from a Nordic ski perspective).This ski greatly reminds me of the Åsnes Combat (MT68) USGI surplus ski (read the review)- though the 88 is much lighter and easier to maneuver than the USGI ski. Quite simply the 88 is the best XC overall ski I have tested in recent years with a waist as wide as 68mm. That being said it will turn it is very stable and light and responsive downhill. With only 20mm of sidecut significant and stiff camber and only slight tip rocker- the 88 is not the downhill-focused XCD-skiers dream (especially if you get it long enough to offer decent XC performance). The “Easy-Skin” kicker skin insert is the stuff of dreams- very quickly increasing climbing grip and/or XC grip on snow that the scales won’t grip on. Its full 68mm width underfoot gives it significant XC flotation and grip in deep soft snow.įischer’s “Off-Track Crown” waxless scale insert offers highly effective grip (for a scaled base) and the stiff camber-and-a-half underfoot releases the scales form the snow when you stride forwards. Its full-length stable flex makes it completely stable in deep soft snow. It is the only Nordic touring ski that I have ever tested with a waist as wide as 68mm that actually offers very good XC performance on dense/consolidated snow. It- like the Traverse 78- performs well as a XC ski in every imaginable snow context. With a XC focus- this ski offers a simply amazing range of performance. This is a superb backcountry-cross-country ski. (To do this review justice- please read my review on the Traverse 78 first!) If you got the TransNordic we are in the 205-210cm range.Ski Review: 2018-2019 Fischer Excursion 88 Easy-Skin You may have outgrown the length on them a bit, you would probably be better in the 199's at your current weight, that would also be true for the Traverse or Excursion if you check their sizing scale. Any downhills will be fairly short here in Northern MN.Įdit to add - just noticed your weight to ski length on those 62's. I think I am most likely going to be doing more open lake trail breaking and cutting through woods on public lands, so something like the Traverse 78 and Excursion 88 look very appealing to me. They did tell me 62 was the widest for in track though as I was kind trying to poke towards the wider skis. The TransNordic caught my eye online though, I don't recall if I saw it in the store or not. I'm not sure if it's the length, or the longer fish scale under foot, or both. I mainly got them for something in track capable while still being off track skis.Īfter a couple track days, I am feeling like they are a little short for me to get into a very efficient stride. I've done a little trail breaking with them which they seem fine for, but I prefer my Altais. I have the Spider 62 as well in 199cm, I'm about about 86kg. I am looking into the 75mm NN and the Fischer BCX Transnordic 75 Waterproof boots. I struggle, and I think its because of my NNN bindings. I read some reviews and somehow I am attracted to the transnordic66 but also have a feeling that the 78 would better supplement my spider62.ĮDIT: I would add that I am not in the alps, the terrain here is very versatile, from flat semi-groomed trails, forest paths and moderate slopes.Īlso I would like to learn how to telemark. So I figured that my options would be to go wider with Traverse 78 or longer with Transnordic 66 or even 82. except when there is fresh snow, like today, they just do not provide enough lift for my 90 kgs. I got into xc skiing 2 year ago using a pair of spider 62-s (185cm) in rolling terrain in the middle of europe. what is the diff between the transnordic and otx lineup? I need some help understanding the fischer adventure line of skis.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |