Asnes FT62 - 180cm vs 188cm

[lilcliffy]

@Woodserson
Thank you for calling me out on this one ↑ and @Axamer Please forgive me for highjacking your thread on the 188cm vs 180cm FT62!

I agree with Woods → the FT62 is not a XC ski- it is downhill ski and there isn't really much value in comparing it to a XC ski like the Ingstad BC.
A good example is testing a "short" Ingstad BC against an equivalent-length FT62- I have tested and compared the Ingstad BC in 185cm/195cm/205cm against the 188cm FT62. For my size/weight I do not see any advantage to skiing a shorter Ingstad for hopes of improved turning performance- there is no contest- the FT62 is a better downhill ski.

I am finding a very narrow use for my 188cm FT62 in my local skiing touring context.
I sometimes wonder the opposite of what you are wondering- I sometimes wonder if I might have better off with a shorter FT 62 with an even shorter turn radius...
That being said I can easily make short radius turns with the 188cm FT62- I am not about to buy a shorter FT62 to find out!

Everything being equal a longer FT62 should be more stable than a shorter one- especially at speed...

[Woodserson]

That being said I can easily make short radius turns with the 188cm FT62- I am not about to buy a shorter FT62 to find out!

180 Rabb68.

More stability, smoother, better on harder snow.

Frankly, the FT62 and Rabb are fun, toy skis. I like them a lot, they are silly and fun. But they are not tools.

The Gamme/Nansen/Ingstad are tools. The Tindan86 is a tool. The FT and Rabb are light, fun skis that need soft snow and a light touch. When conditions are questionable beforehand, I don't take them.

[dhdaines]

I am finding a very narrow use for my 188cm FT62 in my local skiing touring context.

It turns out for me that the very narrow conditions that this ski is supposedly good for represent the vast majority of the skiing I do, at least this winter... for example the "parc des Bouleaux" in Morin-Heights:

https://www.morinheights.com/IMG/pdf/we ... x11_bw.pdf

You can already see that there is a lot of up and down and very little flat, but it's actually even more dramatic than you can see from 10m contour lines. And these trails are so heavily skied that some downhills look like they've been mechanically groomed within a day or two of a snowstorm. So anytime it snows even a little bit, it's perfect for these skis. The trail network in Sainte-Marguerite-du-lac-Masson (Munson, Cook, Jack-Gauthier) is pretty similar, it's rare that you are ever breaking trail in "la grosse neige folle".

[Axamer]

I agree with dhhaines you about the Morin Heigts area of ​​Bouleaux. If you go there a few days after a snowfall and forget it it gets very hard and especially track 16 which starts directly from the parking lot ...

[Axamer]

Ax,

In my opinion, there is some relative comparison that sometimes gets lost on this forum.

The Ingstad is a Cross-Country ski. It has a lot of rocker up front and is tuned for softer snow and hillier terrain. Do not beat yourself up. The Ingstads "turn easily" for a XC ski, but I won't say that they are a turny ski. They just turn a bit easier than a long straight ski like the Amundsen, for instance. But they are still a XC ski.

The FT62 is not a Cross-Country ski. It's a skinny downhill ski with deeply pronounced rocker, and very low camber. Of course it is going to track all over the place on firm snow. It's basically a saucer-for-your-feet which makes it much fun on the downhill. But it's shit going miles and miles on this thing unless gravity is pulling you a significant portion of the way.


Yes indeed your point is very relevant concerning the Ingstad vs the FT62. The FT62 is indeed a toy for restricted use and which requires very specific snow conditions. But when the snow conditions are right then it becomes a lot of fun.

[Axamer]

Yes indeed your point is very relevant concerning the Ingstad vs the FT62. The FT62 is indeed a toy for restricted use and which requires very specific snow conditions. But when the snow conditions are right then it becomes a lot of fun.

This is the reason why I have several pairs of skis in my garage in order to adapt to the snow conditions of the moment ...

I also read with interest yesterday the review of lilCliffy on the GAMME 54 of Asnes. Not being a fan of the NNNBC system, however, I have great hopes for the new Xplore system which should revolutionize the practice of Nordic skiing.

[Stephen]

This is probably a “YMMV” sort of thing, but, for me, I sure would not want to be skiing the FT62 on challenging compacted snow, or counting on much edging downhill in such conditions.

Others will know better than I, but I am starting to think that a narrower, relatively stiff (especially torsionally) ski is going to give more control on hard snow downhill.
The reason I think this (without the years to back it up) is that:
1. A narrower ski is easier to edge that a wider ski (especially in leather boots), and;
2. A torsionally stiffer ski is going to hold an edge better that a softer, more flexible ski (like the FT62).
But also, a ski without too much rocker (not a track ski?), so that the tips and tails aren’t running the show?

Interested to hear what others think of this...

[fisheater]

I find the FT 62 to be reasonably torsionally stiff. It can be a lot of fun with a stiff leather boot like a Ski March, on nice snow on black groomers.
What the FT 62 lacks is longitudinal stiffness. It gets pushed all over in crud, mank, crust, and slop. Correspondingly, it would be a lot of fun when corn snow first starts softening up, but pushed all over when it gets softer, deeper, and heavier.
While the FT 62 is dead for kick and glide on consolidated snow. It offers surprisingly good performance on that 3” to 8” of new.
So while not a mountain ski it offers really good XCD performance on the days I seek out XCD skiing. It is light and fast in those conditions. I enjoy k&g a few miles to a nice downhill, taking a few laps up and down, and down the trail. I enjoy it very much in that context, touring for turns, tours of 5-10 miles.
If I’m touring for turns and it’s deeper, I would chose a heavier ski.
In good snow it’s fun to play on riding lifts. In the right snow, I have skied 40 degrees in leather boots on this ski. It’s just super light, and lacks longitudinal stiffness. I would like a similar, that had that longitudinal stiffness, however still had that underfoot tension. My hope was that the 196 FT was much stiffer. I guess I’m different. I spent a lot of years alpine skiing steep terrain on 205 cm skis. I ski a 210 Gamme, I am more challenged by the camber than the length regarding turning. So for me a stiffer, longer, ski in this class would be more desirable.
I think Woods nailed it when he said the FT 62 was a fun ski, but not a tool. However I still MUCH prefer it to the older design XCD ski I have spent time on.

[dhdaines]

While the FT 62 is dead for kick and glide on consolidated snow. It offers surprisingly good performance on that 3” to 8” of new.
So while not a mountain ski it offers really good XCD performance on the days I seek out XCD skiing. It is light and fast in those conditions. I enjoy k&g a few miles to a nice downhill, taking a few laps up and down, and down the trail. I enjoy it very much in that context, touring for turns, tours of 5-10 miles.

We had a bit of an FT62 party at the Montagne Blanche yesterday in conditions just as you describe (20cm of new snow on a skied-in base) and coincidentally I ran into @Axamer and friend at the summit. Would be interested to hear his opinion on the day!

I ended up just skiing trails for 26km with about 10km of trail breaking, no problem at all on the shortest FT62s. They obviously don't have the same "spring" as double cambered skis and don't track arrow-straight like old E99s but they are perfectly acceptable for this distance. I sure wouldn't want to ski across the Baskatong on them or even lac Tremblant though. Maybe I am just a very strong XC skier?

[Axamer]

Hello @Dhdaines! I was with my new FT62 188cm in fresh snow conditions on a firm base and it was really nice. Regarding my new FT62 188cm while last week I was on an FT62 180cm, I would say that the overall experience was positive. I felt more stability on the descent which I liked. I could feel the flex of the ski when I turned in the beautiful all white whipped cream. I didn't feel limited in terms of tight corners. So I would say a better feeling downhill. Something more progressive than the 180cm. In return I found them a little more bulky uphill. But with several comparisons in terms of mounting compared to the FT62 180cm I have the impression that the technician would have installed my binding a little too far back, which would have the effect that I would have a little less grip on the direction of my ski in firmer snow . I also had a little difficulty going uphill as if I was not well centered. When I was sliding on the flat I also felt like I was putting a lot of pressure on the back of the ski. I also noticed that the notch for the skins was very far from the front of my binding unlike the FT62 180cm. But in short, I will validate all this with the technician when I see him.