![]() When I measured balance on the Epoch is was aft of chord, which I've noticed on most other skis. So anyway, both skis were recommended to be +1cm from chord for my boot size. Because my wife uses these and she's in the small boot range, I mounted these back at chord. So +1cm from chord is the recommended mounting point for my boot with these skis. I was curious where these were with respect to chord, so I measured. The Epoch has has marks on it for recommended mounting based on boot size. So Fischer has shifted the balance of the ski forward on these. I was curious where this point lined up with respect to the chord center: it's about +1cm. ![]() Seen as how I have an average boot size, I mounted right at the balance. The others are what I assume to be used for compensating for short or long boots. There are marks on the ski and the center mark turns out to be just about at balance. It's the relation of the balance point to the chord center and the suggested mounting position.įischer recommends mounting the skis on balance point just like a xc ski. So the pattern is obviously way farther forward on the ski. The length of the patterns is different as well, the Fischer being 10cm longer (Epoch 80cm, Fischer 90cm). ![]() Granted these skis are a little different length, from the rear of the ski, the Epoch starts at 46cm, the 98 at 54cm. Now this gets a little tricky to compare exactly but it's obvious that the 98's pattern in pushed way forward on the ski. Let's look for a point of difference.īiggest one I could find visually: The waxless pattern. OK, so right now we have really, really similar skis. I probably should have at least measured the tip rise but if they are a mm different what's that going to amount to in the real world? I didn't try to measure it, but yeah it does it. They claim the tips move up and the contact point of the tip moves back when the ski is flexed. I was particularly interested in this thing Fischer claims to have: Nordic Rocker. Next thing I looked at was how the ski flexes when it placed on a flat surface and force is applied near mid ski. So for all intensive purposes, they are similar. the Fischer feels maybe slightly stiffer (this is where a force/displacement test would be useful). Neither the Epoch or the 98 act that way. A true double camber flexes pretty easily about 3/4 of the way and the last little gap takes a lot of force to close. Base to base, when the skis are squeezed together, the flex acts the same, and not like a double camber ski. I could, but I don't have any weights around to do so. Well here you'll have to trust me because I didn't measure this scientifically. So yeah, they are similar, but that really doesn't tell you all about the camber does it? It's how it reacts under load as well. ![]() FWIW the Epochs are 185cm and the Fischers are 189cm. Both have a max gap of 46mm when skis are put base to base. I've heard that (and thought) the Fischer was a double camber. Not sure how much this will affect the performance but it may affect the straight line striding somewhat. My eye isn't so good at distinguishing a 1mm difference in width, but 4mm is noticeable. They are remarkably similar but there are some major differences.įirst off are the profiles, similar but the Fischer is noticeably wider in the tail. First off, I wanted to compare them to the Madshus on the bench. I just got the bindings mounted up and I'm looking forward to skiing them. My curiosity was getting the better of me and I found a pair of S Bound 98s for a decent price over the summer. I'd opted for the Epochs initially because I liked Madshus and a lot of people really liked the 10th Mountains, of which these are nominally the same ski. Before I purchased these skis I did some research to try to find a comparison between the two. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |