![]() 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 |