What length BC55, E99 or similar?

[snow-mark]

Looking to get a pair of Fischer E99s, Madshus BC55s, or maybe the similar model from Asnes for my wife. She already has Madshus Eons and some speedy skis for groomed tracks, but I’ve convinced her she needs a BC ski with more camber and better tracking for flat and rolling terrain.

I followed Steve Barnett’s advice (back when he was on this board raving about the Glittertinds) and got them a bit short for me and I’ve been very happy with that.

So what length for my wife? She’s 5’4”, 125 lbs, usually skiing with a small to medium pack (figure 10-12 lbs). She prefers 3-pin bindings.

Thanks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[lilcliffy]

Hi Snow-Mark!
What are the length-weight recommendations?
........
An aside question:
For rolling to moderate terrain why would you go with a short length for a ski like the Glitt?

[snow-mark]

Hi Snow-Mark!
What are the length-weight recommendations?
........
An aside question:
For rolling to moderate terrain why would you go with a short length for a ski like the Glitt?

Well, I guess the manufacture recommendation would be a good place to start! I believe it is 185 for the BC55. Not sure about the others.

I went with a short ski because 1) i wanted a little better turn-ability, and 2) more maneuverable on tight trails. Plus, I already had a long, very stiff ski for speed (though they are heavy).

I think a slightly shorter length would also make my wife happy by helping to make sure she gets solid grip on short uphills.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Woodserson]

My wife is the same stats as yours, maybe an inch taller, and I would put her on a 185cm E99. She's on 190cm Fischer Country Crowns and 190cm Bonna 2400 (similar E99 dimensions but slightly softer due to age and wood). My wife has limited downhill experience, decent/strong XC skier, but is not an aggressive track stomping kind of skier.

We're in NH usually skiing gently rolling terrain where shorter steps can overcome grip problems... if you're in hillier terrain with steeper climbs maybe consider a 180? Tough to say, you know best.

[Rodbelan]

Hi Snow-Mark!
Well, I guess the manufacture recommendation would be a good place to start! I believe it is 185 for the BC55. Not sure about the others.

Do not follow Rossi recommandations; the scales won't grip. Go shorter. I used to have a Rossi BC90; the recommendations were offset... I end up with a terrible skiing experience.

[phoenix]

All the above posts offer good considerations.

I haven't skied or flexed any of these in recent years, so I can't say specifically what length... but camber (and how effective the grip pattern is) is hugely important. I would definitely find out more about a ski before buying. I'm a few inches taller than your wife, and the same weight. Several years back I was looking at the Rossi's, and they did seem to have more camber than I like. Had E99's when they first went to a cap construction, and they were pretty sweet for me in a 190; don't know how they are these days.
Also consider that when herringboning, step turning, and generally trying to maneuver, beyond kick and gliding, length becomes an issue, regardless of camber.

[Leo Tasker]

FYI, I think when he says BC55, he means the Madshus Glittertind, which seems to have been renamed? The Voss is also now the BC50. Kind of confusing to have very similar names to the Rossi ski in my opinion...

The recent Rossi (and Fischer) move into shorter,stiffer skis can work for some people - I have a pair of the Evo OT 65 which are very short for my height, but work well in some of the more twisty wooded trails near me. Not a ski for long days on flatter tracks though as they are pretty slow to kick and glide. They can make it more forgiving for beginners too, as herringbone, snowplough and general manoeuvrability techniques are easier to learn.

[Rodbelan]

Oh yeah... You re right! The Rossi is the BC59 and BC65... The Madshus are much better; I would go for 180. I have a pair of those that I like very much: it is the Glittertind (Flame version). Soft camber, easy to turn.

At the very end, you will see the setup. I should have cut the beginning...

[lilcliffy]

Great video!! Love it.

Soft cambered Glitt eh? It's amazing how much the camber and flex of that ski has changed over a fairly short period of time! The Glitt I am familiar with is not soft-cambered...I wonder what the current BC55 is like?

On another note- I too have had miserable experiences with Rossignols stiff and cambered waxless-scaled BC-XC skis...(e.g. BC65/BC70/BC90)
But- I do notice that they have undergone something of a redesign in recent years...I have no idea how the current models perform...

[snow-mark]

Yeah, I was taking about the Madshus skis, which I do find to be pretty soft, at least compared to others I’ve tried (or at least flexed in the store).

Funny story about the stiff camber on Rossi’s BC skis. I used to lead trips for the Colorado Mountain Club. There was an older woman, we’ll call her Ann, who weighed maybe 100 pounds (but she was pretty tough despite her age and size). Anyway, she had Rossi BC 90s I think, or one of those. She struggled mightily with those things, she just couldn’t get any grip because of the camber and her weight. My wife made a wisecrack to Ann that she should carry a couple bags of rice in her pack to solve the problem. Ann didn’t think that was very funny. I told her she needed different skis.

Separate but related question. What do you all think of the old Madshus Voss? I see some on closeout for a great price. Maybe that would be an ok ski for my wife? As I recall they’re a little skinnier than the glittertind and have a 3/4 metal edge.