Asnes Ingstad vs. Fischer S-bound 98?

[Ira]

Hello community,
I'm new to this community. I’m a high-beginner or low-intermediate skier from California, an hour NW of Tahoe (with lots of melt-freeze cycles due to temps cycling above and below freezing). I’m now considering, for the first time, going with 2 sets of skis (for different conditions) -- the S-bound 112 for deep snow conditions, and a slightly narrower but still solidly backcountry waxless nordic touring ski for other conditions and variable snow (84mm-98mm tip). I wanted to ask advice about Asnes Ingstad waxless (84/62/74) vs. Fischer S-bound 98 (98-69-88) for the “mid-width” older-snow, melted and refrozen snow, sierra cement, and shallow-snow option (to complement the Fischer S-bound 112 being the deeper-snow ski in the quiver). I did spend about 5 plus hours reading various threads on Tele-talk mentioning these skis, but still have questions.

I ski almost daily (an hour a day, for exercise and recreation) during snow-season. I ski only ungroomed areas, backcountry forest service roads, and empty campgrounds. Due to hand disabilities and chemical sensitivities, I only ski waxless / fishscale. Since I ski only ungroomed areas, I’m not seeking anything narrower than the Ingstad. I spend 90% of the time on kick-and-glide but control is important to me for safety.

I want to have good kick and glide (which favors the Asnes Ingstad due to its less aggressive fishscale pattern) but also want to remain in good control on low-angle descent in variable-snow conditions (including icy/crusty ones), so wondering if the less aggressive Asnes pattern would lead to skiing out of control on forest service road descents on firmer-snow days? I only use leather boots (such as Fischer BCX 675) with 75mm Rotefella Super Tele Bindings (I might try cables too). I’m considering Alpina Alaska boots as well.

Due to foot/ankle problems, I don’t ski aggressively. Mostly just ski up a forest service road then ski down my same tracks, sometimes taking one ski out of my own tracks to snowplow/slow down (if the snow is older/harder/slicker), turning slightly to avoid snowshoe tracks or uneven areas. I don’t ski steep areas, but on icy days even a slight grade can quickly increase speed more than I like. I’m hoping to learn Tele Turns someday but right now the terrain near me doesn’t lend itself to that (there are steep drop-offs on the side of the forest service road, which is too narrow for zig-zag turns at my skill level). It’s great if the ski can someday be used for Tele Turns even if I’m not able to do those turns yet.

The first skis I ever purchased were Madshus Epochs (2014), and I really disliked them and quickly returned them because they felt too much like snowshoes (not enough glide), and the scales gathered sierra cement (even with Purl Sunflower Speed Paste wax) and got Rossignol BC-90’s instead (which worked better but unfortunately the tails delaminated in the first season, and continued to delaminate each year). Given those experiences, I’m not looking to go back to Madshus or Rossi. Also, in soft snow I create “steps” when breaking trail on the way up and the Rossi tips are not quite rockered enough to avoid getting lurched by those steps on the way down (I ski down my own up tracks) -- so I have to go up and down the same tracks a few times to smooth them out before it’s fun. And my old Rossi’s seem to gather snow on the tips creating a heavy snow shovel effect (shoveling Sierra cement). So the floating rocker of the Ingstad sounds beneficial.

I realize the Ingstad has less grip than Fischer, but does it also have less grip than Rossignol BC-90?

Would Ingstad shed sierra cement better than Fischer’s?

Given the factors above, which would you recommend to complement the S-bound 112 (i.e. for conditions other than deep powder) -- the S-bound 98 or the Asnes Ingstad?

Also: re skins. I’ve never used them before, but considering trying them. I don’t go up anything steep enough for skins, but on icy days they would help. I find if I struggle going up, excess speed is an issue going down, so wouldn’t use skins unless I can use them both ways. Neptune mentioned the all-mohair skins have some glide can be used to slow down descent on the Instad -- has anyone used the mohairs on descent in icy conditions (perhaps in rolling terrain, small hills) and was the descent lurchy or result in sudden stops?

Is there any place between Sierra City and Truckee, CA that demos the Asnes Ingstads?

For Asnes Ingstad, I’m looking at 175cm due to height/weight (169 for Fischer)

One other factor: I have access to the 112, and to the Asnes in my size, but of the 98 I'd have to wait a while (not available in 169).

The Asnes, if used, is non-returnable, so would love to learn from other folks' experience of that ski!

Thanks so much everyone for your patience with this almost-beginner skier (I realize I’ve asked a lot of questions).

[CwmRaider]

Have you considered the Excursion 88?
No doubt the Åsnes fishscales have better glide but also less kick grip...

[Stephen]

Hello Ira, and welcome.

It is easy to show up here with lots of questions — I did so myself about a year ago.
I can’t answer all your questions, but will have some thoughts, but thought it might help you get the info you want by trying to summarize your questions — I’ll do my best…

1. You want a ski for for what sounds like mid-altitude Sierra conditions;
2. It sounds like you have already firmly decided on the Sbound 112;
3. You want advice on a 2nd ski, maybe the Asnes Ingstad, or Sbound 98;
4. You require a waxless ski and want to know about the effectiveness of the Ingstad and SB98 traction pattern;
5. Your skills are fairly basic, and you ski somewhat conservatively;
6. You ski only ungroomed, fairly shallow angle snow;
7. The narrowest ski you would consider is 62 under foot / 84 tip (you want stability);
8. You want a ski that is easy to control for speed and direction;
9. You would like some advice on skins for the skis;
10. It sounds like availability is a consideration.

From me:
- You have stated the length you are thinking about, but if you gave your height / weight, you could get confirmation / recommendations from those, here.
- I think you will like skins. They make traction a non-issue. In icy conditions, they will give you more control and slow you down. They will not “grab” on the descents. While they tend to take on more moisture, the mohair, or mohair blend skins might be best (vs nylon, which are MUCH slower).
- If you are already going with the Fischer SB 112, you might want to stick with the SB 98. Then you could use the same skins on both skis, if you wanted, although you might not need skins when using the 112s in deeper snow.
- It looks like the SB 98 is available directly from Fischer, online:
https://www.fischersports.com/us_en/s-b ... 2972706677

Given everything, it seems like the SB 98 would be an okay choice, and get the skins for that, which you could use on the 112s if you ever wanted.

I’m sure others will also offer some thoughts.
Best of luck.

Hello community,
I'm new to this community. I’m a high-beginner or low-intermediate skier from California, an hour NW of Tahoe (with lots of melt-freeze cycles due to temps cycling above and below freezing). I’m now considering, for the first time, going with 2 sets of skis (for different conditions) -- the S-bound 112 for deep snow conditions, and a slightly narrower but still solidly backcountry waxless nordic touring ski for other conditions and variable snow (84mm-98mm tip). I wanted to ask advice about Asnes Ingstad waxless (84/62/74) vs. Fischer S-bound 98 (98-69-88) for the “mid-width” older-snow, melted and refrozen snow, sierra cement, and shallow-snow option (to complement the Fischer S-bound 112 being the deeper-snow ski in the quiver). I did spend about 5 plus hours reading various threads on Tele-talk mentioning these skis, but still have questions.

I ski almost daily (an hour a day, for exercise and recreation) during snow-season. I ski only ungroomed areas, backcountry forest service roads, and empty campgrounds. Due to hand disabilities and chemical sensitivities, I only ski waxless / fishscale. Since I ski only ungroomed areas, I’m not seeking anything narrower than the Ingstad. I spend 90% of the time on kick-and-glide but control is important to me for safety.

I want to have good kick and glide (which favors the Asnes Ingstad due to its less aggressive fishscale pattern) but also want to remain in good control on low-angle descent in variable-snow conditions (including icy/crusty ones), so wondering if the less aggressive Asnes pattern would lead to skiing out of control on forest service road descents on firmer-snow days? I only use leather boots (such as Fischer BCX 675) with 75mm Rotefella Super Tele Bindings (I might try cables too). I’m considering Alpina Alaska boots as well.

Due to foot/ankle problems, I don’t ski aggressively. Mostly just ski up a forest service road then ski down my same tracks, sometimes taking one ski out of my own tracks to snowplow/slow down (if the snow is older/harder/slicker), turning slightly to avoid snowshoe tracks or uneven areas. I don’t ski steep areas, but on icy days even a slight grade can quickly increase speed more than I like. I’m hoping to learn Tele Turns someday but right now the terrain near me doesn’t lend itself to that (there are steep drop-offs on the side of the forest service road, which is too narrow for zig-zag turns at my skill level). It’s great if the ski can someday be used for Tele Turns even if I’m not able to do those turns yet.

The first skis I ever purchased were Madshus Epochs (2014), and I really disliked them and quickly returned them because they felt too much like snowshoes (not enough glide), and the scales gathered sierra cement (even with Purl Sunflower Speed Paste wax) and got Rossignol BC-90’s instead (which worked better but unfortunately the tails delaminated in the first season, and continued to delaminate each year). Given those experiences, I’m not looking to go back to Madshus or Rossi. Also, in soft snow I create “steps” when breaking trail on the way up and the Rossi tips are not quite rockered enough to avoid getting lurched by those steps on the way down (I ski down my own up tracks) -- so I have to go up and down the same tracks a few times to smooth them out before it’s fun. And my old Rossi’s seem to gather snow on the tips creating a heavy snow shovel effect (shoveling Sierra cement). So the floating rocker of the Ingstad sounds beneficial.

I realize the Ingstad has less grip than Fischer, but does it also have less grip than Rossignol BC-90?

Would Ingstad shed sierra cement better than Fischer’s?

Given the factors above, which would you recommend to complement the S-bound 112 (i.e. for conditions other than deep powder) -- the S-bound 98 or the Asnes Ingstad?

Also: re skins. I’ve never used them before, but considering trying them. I don’t go up anything steep enough for skins, but on icy days they would help. I find if I struggle going up, excess speed is an issue going down, so wouldn’t use skins unless I can use them both ways. Neptune mentioned the all-mohair skins have some glide can be used to slow down descent on the Instad -- has anyone used the mohairs on descent in icy conditions (perhaps in rolling terrain, small hills) and was the descent lurchy or result in sudden stops?

Is there any place between Sierra City and Truckee, CA that demos the Asnes Ingstads?

For Asnes Ingstad, I’m looking at 175cm due to height/weight (169 for Fischer)

One other factor: I have access to the 112, and to the Asnes in my size, but of the 98 I'd have to wait a while (not available in 169).

The Asnes, if used, is non-returnable, so would love to learn from other folks' experience of that ski!

Thanks so much everyone for your patience with this almost-beginner skier (I realize I’ve asked a lot of questions).

[Ira]

Thanks Stephen!

Yes, thanks so much, that's a great summary of my questions (re: skins the main question is smoothness of low-angle descent in icy conditions on the Asnes X-skin 45mm Mohair)

Re height/weight: I'm 5'4", 130 lbs or 140 by the time I'm actually on the skis (175cm Asnes, 169 Fischer)

For me, being able to use the same skins on the mid-width ski and the SB 112 is not important, but rather smoothness of the glide on that skin is crucial. If I own 2 skis, I'd never use the 112 in skin-requiring conditions (I'd only use skins in icy conditions and 112 in deep new snow). Also I've heard/read the Fischer skins can be jerky on descent, so I'd only want to use mohairs (sudden stops throw me off so much that some afternoons, even a sunny patch right after a long shady one causes me to lurch).

If mohair X-skin effectively smoothly slows down low-angle descent on icy days, then that would make my decision for the Ingstad (due to the latter having 100% mohair X-skins). Wondering what folks' experience has been with Asnes Ingstad mohair X-skins on descent in rolling terrain.

The only times I want more traction (vs more glide) is on icy/crusty days (I use skiing to exercise daily, so go out even on icy days). Other times I prefer more glide than I currently get with the old delaminated Rossi BC-90's.

The grip on ascent is not very important to me (I find that it's actually helpful to struggle on the uphill because that tells me to stop and find a flatter area before I get myself in trouble on the downhill). What's more important to me is being able to control descent on the downhill (on crusty/icy days only), plus remaining stable on small snow bumps like those caused by snowshoes, plus gliding as well as possible on sticky-snow or mashed-potato-snow days.

Thanks!

[Stephen]

@Ira, I haven't skied the SB98, so don't know about that one.
The Ingstad has a reputation of not being very efficient on consolidated snow, partly because of its rocker.
In the attached picture, you will see how the rocker, when the ski is compressed, will raise the ski tips up off the snow (the ski on the left of the Ingstad, for comparision, is a Fischer Traverse 78). The paper is where the contact point is.
This makes them less efficient for glide, and they don't track as well as a ski with less rocker.
I don't know anything about the SB98 for comparison.

Maybe someone else will offer an opinion?
@lilcliffy, @Woodserson, @...?

.

[Woodserson]

I have been summoned

This is an interesting question, actually and deserves a deeper response than what I can post on my phone with limited patience for thumb swiping. It'll be a few days.

I will say that side stepping up and down a slope to make it smooth is a time honored tradition and no ski is going to do it any differently.

[Ira]

Thanks!

Re: Ingstad being less efficient in consolidated snow -- does that affect its stability skiing down in it's own tracks on consolidated snow on a sloped but not steep forest service road (like what is shown in the pictures), or when hitting small uneven areas? It's ok if it feels shorter than it is (I'm actually used to sking a ski 6 cm shorter than the Ingstad). The terrain in the picture is what I ski (up the FS road, then stand in my tracks and glide down, unless my tracks are icy in which case I ski one or both skis out of them).

I actually like the Nordic Rocker idea as my foot problems get worse when unintentionally shoveling snow with my tips (and when my ski tip hits my own steps with the tip too low).

Re: side-steps, I don't go up anything steep enough to require side-steps (though have done that in a pinch for the last 100 feet which are steeper than the rest of the road). But the use of mohairs would be to slightly slow descent on icy days to make it feel like a slightly less icy day (I really struggle with ice, although these same roads, on non-icy days, are super-easy).

Related to the icy days concern: when the Ingstad arrives new, are the metal edges flush with the base of the ski (to make it easier to catch an edge snowplowing in icy/crusty conditions).

Thanks!

[CwmRaider]

Hi Ira,
I previously owned a pair of Waxless Åsnes skis (Nansen) and I found the grip pattern to be OK for grip on flat terrain but poor on inclines. Experience here is generally mixed; Åsnes appears to have made a compromise to favor glide over grip, with the skin option to be used on inclines. If you search this forum with keywords Ingstad Waxless you get an idea.
They DID work OK when rubbing grip wax in front of the grip pattern until past the mounting holes for the skins. But apparently this is not an option for you. Also the Mohair skins are very good.

On the other hand I got along very well with E109 Crown. Unfortunately these are not made anymore, the closest thing is perhaps the Traverse 78, although they are very different skis.
My previous suggestion to look at Traverse 78 or Excursion 88 is my best recommendation.
I have no idea whether the S-Bound 98 is different enough from the 112 to warrant having both.

On my Nansens the edges were higher than the waxless pattern. This favored edge engagement on the underfoot portion of the ski. Probably it favors snowplowing but also potentially renders turning more tricky.

See lots of comments here, for example.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3712&sid=6dff839213 ... 3ec238b4ec

[Stephen]

For the type of snow in your pictures, the Ingstad would be a good ski. For icy, maybe a little skittish, but, if you were using skins, which I have the feeling you will like, the Ingstad would likely feel more stable / smooth / predictable.
It seems you have your mind set on the Ingstad and are trying to justify that choice? That ski is available locally for you?
I don’t think it’s *bad* choice. It’s hard to go too far wrong with skis.
They all slid on snow!
Overly simplistic, I know.

The waxless Ingstad ski base looks exactly like a wax ski base, except there is a NEGATIVE pattern under the foot, for traction. The pattern is indented into the base. Being waxless has no effect or change to the metal edges. Hope that answers your question.

[Ira]

Thanks so much Roelant. After reading the entire thread that you shared, I am having second thoughts about getting the Asnes Ingstad Waxless from a "no returns once you ski them" seller, unless I can try them first (and there's no place locally I know -- I'm 90 minutes Northwest of Tahoe -- that demos or sells them -- I only know of Neptune far away). I still want the Ingstad but perhaps I should wait either until REI or another seller with a good return policy has them, or until Asnes extends the waxless pattern. I'm hoping for the 2-ski quiver to last me 10 years, and don't want to be stuck with something that doesn't work (especially if the other ski, 112's, is so specialized for deep snow)!

I realize the thread re: WL slippage issues is from a while ago -- has Asnes taken the good advice of anyone in this forum (to extend the waxless base)?

Does forward-mounting fix this grip problem, and if so, by how much, and what are the drawbacks of forward-mounting?

Is someone right in the middle of the weight chart (130lbs, 5'4", but 140 with clothes and boots), and the 175 length for Ingstad, likely to have that same problem with lacking grip?

Also, wondering about folks' experience with Alpina Discovery 102? I realize it has more sidecut than Ingstad, but wondering whether it'll still track well on ungroomed unplowed forest service roads?

I have to admit, I have never gotten skis (or most other high-investment outdoor gear) at any place besides REI (that's why I thought of the Alpina Discovery, 'cause they have it). I don't like the risk of getting something that may or may not work, unreturnable, and this close call with Ingstad solidified that hesitation.

Thanks so much!