This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web. We have fun here, come on in and be a part of it.
bgregoire wrote:
Man, I would definitely go 75mm on an Ingstad or even E109. But that's just me! Aren't you talking of buying a new pair of Alaskas? Could be an opportunity to renew with trad gear?
I don't really like the Alaska 75mm- I find the sole too soft, and I don't trust the long-term durability of the glued sole.
If I were to go back to a leather 3-pin-75mm boot- I would want a welted sole (e.g. Crispi Antarctic, Sydolpen).
Also- I have come to the point (despite being a stubborn traditionalist at points in my life) that I actually prefer NNNBC for XCD-"light".
If I need or want the extra power of a cable- I'm typically on steep enough terrain that I could use the extra power of plastic boots anyway.
SO- I am looking at either of these skis as XC-focused XCD skis- therefore I don't think I need the power of a cable binding.
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
I'm with you there. There are few things I like less than skiing in a snowmobile track.
Did you decide yet?
Also I think the Nansen seems like a great ski. I'm guessing it's similar flex to the Ingstad but just a hair narrower.
Oh and one other thing... are you sure a 210 is a good idea for you? I was looking at the weights for these skis and they recommend over 95kg for that ski. Just knowing that these skis tend to be on the stiff side, I'm wondering if you'll have trouble engaging it properly?
I'm pretty sure I'd opt for a 200 based on their charts.
Woodserson wrote:
I am confused about the fischer E-99 EXTRA light phenomenon. What are they trying to accomplish here? It's not a racing ski, a little extra material would be nice to have, if I am going to do a longer wilderness trek, I'm honest, the ExtraLite 99's do not inspire confidence. I've been looking around for another older pair of 99s without the ExtraLite, and will keep my extra's for snowmobiled roads. I'd rather take my 1950's Madshus on a longer wilderness trek. When I was swapping bindings on the ExtraLite 99's I had issues getting the center screw on the toe to hold because an "Air Channel" was running directly through the center of the ski. My drill bit when through the topsheet and found nothing but air. WTF? Seriously, WTF? I dumped a bunch of marine epoxy in there and waited for it to firm up, but It's bewildering for sure, especially on such a classic ski.
This is not the stuff of dreams and legends- this is criminal!
And for me it has nothing to do with performance- not in a meaningful sense- it has to do with reducing manufacturing cost and maximizing profit! Then you spin it as "xtralite" in order to sell it!
I don't think it is driven by the consumer/skier at all- it is driven by the company reducing costs.
The worst part is that the sale price has not been reduced to match the cheaper construction costs! Fischer skis are expensive man- which I don't have a problem with if the construction quality and durability match the sale price.
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
lilcliffy wrote:
And for me it has nothing to do with performance- not in a meaningful sense- it has to do with reducing manufacturing cost and maximizing profit! Then you spin it as "xtralite" in order to sell it!
That was my initial impression as well. But while I was happy with the weight of the older E99s, I really appreciate that the E109 xlites are as LIGHT as the new E99xlites, let alone the older E109. If only they gave us the choice between the two (expedition grade & xlite).
Still, I believe Fischer backcountry ski construction is better than most (Rossi, Salomon, Madshus). They should stand better behind their products than they do though given that the prestige of their 9 line has been built on a proven reputation of durability and reliabiliy. You know, the 9 skis were at fist telemark skis meant to fly and carve down mountains. when they first used as polar exploration tools, they were found to be very reliable. but now?
Last edited by bgregoire on Thu Dec 10, 2015 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I live for the Telemark arc....The feeeeeeel.....I ski miles to get to a place where there is guaranteed snow to do the deal....TM
MikeK wrote:The old E99 I had were awesome built skis. If they had the current waxless pattern they would have been even better.
I find the new "off-track" climbs better than the previous waxless base- but IMO, the previous waxless base on the E-99 had better glide- it was more optimized for K&G.
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
Typically in the industry I work in every weight savings costs you more, even if you use less material. For example on the skis to get the same stiffness and flex patterns they would have to do significant work with the composites to make up for the air core. Granted the internal fibers of the ski don't give it the majority of it's flex, but it has some contribution.
I really think it's a push to sell the consumer something new and better. It's also a point of difference on a spec sheet. It's hard to sell someone durability.
Keeping both would have been smart but looking at Fischers bloated line of backcountry skis is surprising they keep what they do. They must sell enough to make it worthwhile.
lilcliffy wrote:
And for me it has nothing to do with performance- not in a meaningful sense- it has to do with reducing manufacturing cost and maximizing profit! Then you spin it as "xtralite" in order to sell it!
That was my initial impression as well. But while I was happy with the weight of the older E99s, I really appreciate that the E109 xlites are as LIGHT as the new E99xlites, let alone the older E109. If only they gave us the choice between the two (expedition grade & xlite).
they're hoping you buy another pair when they break! I would not pay anywhere near list price for Fischers - the last couple years they've been showing up at Sierra Trading Post for big discounts, they had the full Sbound line and more last winter.
Asnes doesn't offer as many lengths - for Gamme 54 I had to choose b/w 200 and 210. Same with Ingstad, 210 Ingstad is going to be a lot of ski, I'd go 200 in those. If you want good climbing ability the shorter lengths are better. Hopefully I will be able to bend the 210 Gamme's, I'm 180 pounds with only 10-15 pound backpack. The 210 E99's feel just right to me. I would do 205cm Nansen.
"All wisdom is to be gained through suffering"
-Will Lange (quoting Inuit chieftan)
