Asnes Ingstad vs. Fischer S-bound 98?

[Ira]

My hesitation with Alpina Discovery 80 is that, as I recently remembered, it was my partner's first ski (2015), but it slipped out from under her every time (in a flat meadow). Granted, she's even more of a beginner than I am, and she got the longest length (still following the weight chart as she's twice my weight). And my length at 130 lbs is 186, just ~20 cm shorter than the one a 250+ lb person kept slipping on, and almost 20 cm longer than the length for my weight of most other skis I'm considering. Wondering if that length would make it less controllable than the 169 I'm used to.

After 3 or 4 skiing attempts she ended up quickly exchanging Alpina Discovery for a Rossi BC 110 back in 2015 (and even the not-so-great grip of the Rossi was better than the Alpina Discovery 80 in 2015). Her medical challenges are even more than mine so she only used the Rossi's a few times in 5 years and she just got the Hoks 'cause she likes to snowshoe.

So her 2015 Alpina Discovery 80 experience gives me pause on buying the current one. But then I heard the Alpina skis change a lot through the years.

Wondering if the grip/traction on the current Alpina Discovery is as good as it is on the Fischer Offtrack 78/88/98, and better than the old 2015 Rossi BC-90's?

Thanks!

[lilcliffy]

Wondering if the grip/traction on the current Alpina Discovery is as good as it is on the Fischer Offtrack 78/88/98, and better than the old 2015 Rossi BC-90's?

Thanks!

Hi Ira,
Did you get an answer to this question?

I have no actual skiing experience with Alpina's scaled bases.
From just comparing them to Fischer's Offtrack Crown insert in the shop (I have mulitple Offtrack Crown skis)-
I would be very surprised if the grip-glide of the Alpina scaled bases is as good as Fischer's Offtrack Crown...

[Nitram Tocrut]

Wondering if the grip/traction on the current Alpina Discovery is as good as it is on the Fischer Offtrack 78/88/98, and better than the old 2015 Rossi BC-90's?

Thanks!

All I can say is that I skied the Alpina Discovery 102 and they climbed like a mountain goat. I guess Alpina use the same pattern on their different ski. I have never used the other skis listed.

[connyro]

Wondering if the grip/traction on the current Alpina Discovery is as good as it is on the Fischer Offtrack 78/88/98, and better than the old 2015 Rossi BC-90's?

Thanks!

All I can say is that I skied the Alpina Discovery 102 and they climbed like a mountain goat. I guess Alpina use the same pattern on their different ski. I have never used the other skis listed.

The Alpina scales are every bit as grippy as the Fischers' scales. I've skied the old Alpina xterrains and man did those climb well especially when compared to the contemporary Karhu Guides and Rossi bc125s

[Ira]

Hi everyone,
This is good to hear that Discovery 80 is grippy. A few days ago I had ruled it out and decided to wait for Fischer Excursion 88's, Traverse 78's, or S-bound 98's (in 169: I tried the too-short S-bound 98's in 159's when we had our first snow of December, and found that, even with rub-on mountain flow eco-wax glide paste they were kick-and-stop instead of kick-and-glide --at my 130 lb weight -- 140 with gear).

I have decided my first choice is Fischer 88, 2nd 78, 3rd 98 (all only in 169).

I had talked to REI Product support a few days ago who referred me to the ski specialist in their Denver store, who told me the Discovery 80's in 186cm would be harder to control than the Fischer's in 169, and that both the grip and glide was not as good as Fischer 78's/88's.

But then after seeing Tom's wonderful video-review yesterday (and looking for my 3 top choice skis in multiple place -- not just REI -- unsuccessfully), and reading this feedback about the grip not being all that bad after all, I'm back to considering Discovery 80's if I can't get the Fischers in my size, but only if getting Discovery's in 175 (instead of the 186 that it's rated for in my weight) would not have the same glide-less result that 159's (vs 169) have in Rossis and Fischers.

REI had said that they're that much longer because the camber is slightly softer, but Tom's wonderful review actually found the Discovery's require the most poundage to compress.

I emailed the "contact" from Alpina's website ('elansports") and was told "There should be no ill effect of choosing the shorter length. Unless you are tall and need the extra length for distribution, we are only providing you with what the manufacturer recommends." I'm 5'4"

At my skill level, and with my physical challenges, and with my partner's experience of Discovery 80's-rated-for-175lbs-and-above sliding out from under her 250+ pounds, and since I'm used to skiing on 169 cm lengths, and needing to minimize falling risk, I have decided I don't want the 186. Plus I'm allergic to chemicals used in most hospitals and public places, which makes me more cautious in minimizing injury risk. Longer skis require more skill to control, and the extra 17 cm is just too much for me with all these other factors.

So I'm going to keep looking for the Fischers 78/88/98's in 169, and if I keep failing to find them, and also find out the Discovery'80 in 175 are ok for someone in my weight category, I might consider them again.

Thanks so much everyone!

[Stephen]

Hello @Ira.
Happy you’re feeling more clear about best options for your needs!

[Ira]

Thanks! So my remaining question is whether someone who is in my weight range (130-140 lbs), has found the shortest (175cm) Alpina Discovery 80 ski to have enough glide ('cause I'm definitely not getting the 186).

Also, if someone has seen the Fischer 78/88's or 98's anywhere available in 169 (those are my first choice). For the new Excursion 88's (the ones I'm most confident I'd be happy with) they don't have to be returnable.

Thanks!

[Ira]

Hi everyone,
Sharing both a PSA and an update.

PSA: REI, as of today, has Asnes Ingstad (as well as Nansen and the one that starts with a B without steel edges for skiers with dogs).

Update: I've been searching unsuccessfully for Fischer 88, 78's, or 98's in 169 (not just on REI).

Although I had ruled out Ingstads due to others' reports of not enough grip, and too fast, the fact I can't get my first 3 choices, and the lower risk of REI, and the fact that many have also reported the very high quality of these skis, and the rocker (a plus for not shoveling snow with the tips), is making me want to try and see if they're ok for me after all.

I'm wondering if I can resolve the too-short waxless-pattern-grip issue by getting the 165 (rated for up to 125 lbs, I'm 130), and then, on icy days that it won't grip, using the 45 mm all-mohair x-skins both-up-and-down. I realize using 165 vs the 175 ones rated for my weight, might affect float, but I'd use my Fischer 112's (soon to be mounted, hopefully) on deep-snow days (they'd be part of a 2-ski quiver).

Has anyone here still experienced a problem with Asnes Ingstad Waxless grip when using one shorter than your weight-rating? Has anyone had decent glide using one shorter than your weight-rated length? (doesn't have to be fast, just gliding rather than snow-shoe-like skiing).

Also, I heard of a paper method for testing whether a skiers weight is enough for a ski, but what's the best way to test (on a hardwood floor) whether a skier's weight is too much for the ski?

I'm not looking for speed but do want a good balance of grip and smooth glide (i.e. not snowshoe like as the Fischer S-98's in 159 seem to be). The Asnes are double-camber, with shorter and less aggressive fishscales, so perhaps going 165 on Ingstad won't have the same snowshoe-effect that the short option has on S-bounds (159's), while helping counteract the too-short waxless pattern to provide more grip and control?

Yes, I realize I did choose the Excursion 88 over the Ingstad, but I can't seem to get that one, so exploring Plan B.
Due to needing to self-isolate for medical reasons, the only time I leave the house is for outdoors exercise, so I don't want to wait until all the skis are gone.

Also, is Ingstad compatible with XPLORE? (REI doesn't have the latter at this time, but I'd love to know when they do).

[Ira]

Also, the Asnes Rep said that the waxless zone is 59 cm in all lengths, which means that at 165 cm the zone would be 36% rather than the 27% that folks using longer skis experience (which makes me wonder if that would prevent the grip-problems many report).

Yes, I realize that's still less than the grip-zone of the Excursion 88's (but I've had no luck finding the Fischers).

Thanks!

[Stephen]

The SB98 is a wider ski than the Ingstad and the 165 Ingstad is only 6cm longer than the 159 SB98 that you say is too short for you. If you think the SB98 in 159 is too short, it seems like you might think the same thing about a narrower ski that is only a bit more than 2” longer (the Ingstad in 165). When you use the skins with the 175 Ingstad, you will get better glide than you would with 165cm.
But, it seems like you prefer the 165 Ingstad, so maybe that’s what you would be happiest with.

With any of the skis you have been interested in, you could use any of the three bindings: 75mm, NNN BC, Xplore.
There is no limitation here, only minor differences and personal preference.
As said before, find a boot that works for you and the binding that matches the boot. Some boots will come in both 75mm and NNN BC, like the Alaska. Waiting for the Xplore binding has an uncertain outcome.