![]() ![]() The 88 is certainly more versatile than the 78.īUT- if you don’t need the extra float of the 88, the 78 is faster…įrom my perspective the 88 is simply a wider version of the 78. The 88- at 68mm underfoot- offers more flotation and grip in deep soft snow. The 88 is wider- and therefore a slower XC ski than the 78. The flex and camber of the 78 & 88 are basically identical. The deep snow flotation is similar between the two. The 78 has a more effective XC trail-breaking tip. Is easier to evenly pressure when downhill skiing.īUT- the current E99 Xtralite has more tip rocker than the 78,and- if one is willing to full-weight the downhill ski- the E99 offers a shorter turn-radius than the 78- despite the extra camber of the E99 (weird-eh?) ![]() Offers better climbing traction than the E99. Requires less of a focused “kick” than the E99. The Traverse is easier to pressure than the more cambered E99. The Ingstad BC climbs better and offers wondrous turning.īut the 78 is much better XC skiing on consolidated snow. The Ingstad BC absolutely kicks the 78’s ass in steep terrain. The XC performance is very similar…My Combat Nato is more than 10cm longer- and is therefore, both faster and more stable in deep snow…Would need a 200cm Combat Nato to offer a more fair comparison… The Combat Nato’s initial camber is softer- making it easier to pressure when climbing and turning than the 78. The Combat Nato’s tip breaks trail much more effectively. The 78 has a stiffer tip than the Combat Nato. In short- the 78 is a better all-round cruiser than the current E-109. There is no question that the E-109 is a lot more fun downhill than the 78, but- despite the extra camber of the E109- the 78 is a better XC ski over a wider range of snow conditions. The current E-109 has a ridiculously soft tip 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 78. The 78 offers better, more stable XC performance in variable backcountry snow. Neither the Eon nor the 78 offer downhill performance. Yeah-yeah- the Eon has a “relaxed, smooth ride”- blah, blah, blah…Meaning that the Eon is wimpy, soft and dead. I am afraid I just have to admit it (despite being a die-hard Karhu fanatic…). This is a better Nordic touring ski than the Madshus Eon.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |