![]() ![]() Any downhills will be fairly short here in Northern MN.Įdit to add - just noticed your weight to ski length on those 62's. I think I am most likely going to be doing more open lake trail breaking and cutting through woods on public lands, so something like the Traverse 78 and Excursion 88 look very appealing to me. They did tell me 62 was the widest for in track though as I was kind trying to poke towards the wider skis. The TransNordic caught my eye online though, I don't recall if I saw it in the store or not. I'm not sure if it's the length, or the longer fish scale under foot, or both. I mainly got them for something in track capable while still being off track skis.Īfter a couple track days, I am feeling like they are a little short for me to get into a very efficient stride. I've done a little trail breaking with them which they seem fine for, but I prefer my Altais. I have the Spider 62 as well in 199cm, I'm about about 86kg. I am looking into the 75mm NN and the Fischer BCX Transnordic 75 Waterproof boots. ![]() I struggle, and I think its because of my NNN bindings. ![]() I read some reviews and somehow I am attracted to the transnordic66 but also have a feeling that the 78 would better supplement my spider62.ĮDIT: I would add that I am not in the alps, the terrain here is very versatile, from flat semi-groomed trails, forest paths and moderate slopes.Īlso I would like to learn how to telemark. So I figured that my options would be to go wider with Traverse 78 or longer with Transnordic 66 or even 82. except when there is fresh snow, like today, they just do not provide enough lift for my 90 kgs. I got into xc skiing 2 year ago using a pair of spider 62-s (185cm) in rolling terrain in the middle of europe. what is the diff between the transnordic and otx lineup? I need some help understanding the fischer adventure line of skis. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |