2022 Falketind 62 Xplore 196 cm First Impressions

[CwmRaider]

Very interested in your comments suggesting a difference between the Ingstad and Combat NATO. Have owned the latter for some time. Specs are very close to Ingstad, with minor difference in weight and a very slight bias towards a longer ski (5 cm) per weight category.

Do you see a difference in camber profile? Camber stiffness? Perhaps torsional stiffness? Rocker difference maybe? Be fascinated to know more because some ppl say that the Ingstad is just a Combat NATO with logos…

I owned Combat NATO. I have even heard shop "experts" claim the only difference is the color. This is completely wrong:

• The Combat NATO has virtually no rocker, the Ingstad has a lot of tip rocker. This makes the NATO better in certain snow conditions as XC ski, but less turny in descents.

• The Combat Nato has a white painted finish. The Ingstad has a plastic cap construction.

• The Combat Nato has an aluminium plate reinforcement for the binding area, the Ingstad doesnt.

• The Combat Nato has a milled out section in the base to have a more flush mounting of the X-Skin frontpiece with the base, the Ingstad doesnt.

• The Combat Nato has a hole in the tip for military sled assembly, or for using the ski as a tent anchor.

• The Combat Nato has a small hole through the ski, behind the ski binding which permits for fixing the nylon "NATO x-skin" with a pin. There is another purpose which I don't remember at the moment.

• The Combat Nato is ~15% heavier than the Ingstad. While I never skied an Ingstad I skied its little brother the Otto Sverdrup in 205cm. The 210cm Combat Nato is noticeably less maneuverable when sidestepping and kick turning due to more rotational inertia. For other purposes the weight difference may be not so noticeable

• The Combat Nato has a black base, which I generally prefer as it is easier to see where grip wax is worn off.

The Falketind Xplore is an OK-ish XC ski with excellent DH capabilities. I use the Falketind Xplore for touring for turns, it is excellent for that purpose. The end usually justifies the means if you want to have fun on the downhills.

For longer tours on mostly flat terrain a non-rockered ski or low-rockered ski like the NATO, Amundsen, Gamme, Ousland (ordered by optimal use for decreasing loose snow depth) will be better overall.

Rockered skis with medium sidecut like the Otto Sverdrup, or Ingstad are somewhere in the middle ground.

[Manney]

Thank you for the very detailed reply. Didn’t think things were as simple as Ingstad = Combat NATO. Haven’t compared the two side by side so had to ask.

Minor point… the Combat NATO definitely has a poly cap. Drill my own bindings, so saw what came off the drill bit. The plastic was clearly on the top sheet. Drilled out like an orange peel… clearly visible on the sidewall too (near the steel edge, like on an alpine ski). There was aluminum not too far below the cap… and a black material (could have been rubber damper or carbon fibre) sandwiched within the wood structure.

Read that some have, had white ptex bases. That makes sense for military use in snow… low visibility etc. Seen some references to black bases being called Jäeger (hunter) versions, identical in all respects to the military pattern except for ptex color. Not sure if that’s an official designation or a casual one.

[CwmRaider]

Minor point… the Combat NATO definitely has a poly cap. Drill my own bindings, so saw what came off the drill bit. The plastic was clearly on the top sheet. Drilled out like an orange peel… clearly visible on the sidewall too (near the steel edge, like on an alpine ski). There was aluminum not too far below the cap… and a black material (could have been rubber damper or carbon fibre) sandwiched within the wood structure.

I don't recall this when mounting my Nato's, so you may be right, but in any case the white outer finish is paint, and it gets scuff marks more easily than the plastic on other skis.

[Manney]

Yep. Agree.

[lilcliffy]

@lilcliffy Did you have time to test the Falketind Xplore at the end of last season?

A local shop has the FTX in 196 cm for sale. I am just considering whether I would have enough use for it because when I ski offtrack, trips often include 5-20 km XC in arctic tundra above treeline. Snow may be very hard there.

I have not had the FTX on snow yet- next season!

I am currently considerin the FTX as a possible replacement for my Ingstad BC...
I do take my Ingstad BC on 20+kms tours- but only when steep terrain (and downhill turning) is a key dimension of the tur.

I have determined that some of my other Nordic touring skis (e.g. Combat NATO, Amundsen) are so much more efficient as XC skis than the Ingstad, that I am wondering whether I might as well be on the FTX instead of the Ingstad...

The stiffer, supportive flex of the FTX (vs the 1st/2nd gen FT) has changed my perspective on this ski. The FTX certainly feels VERY different than the 1st/2nd-gen FT design...

I do expect the FTX to be as supportive and stable in deep snow as an equivalent length Ingstad BC. I expect the FTX to have a shorter turn radius than the Ingstad BC. I do not expect the FTX to be as effective at breaking trail in deep snow as the Ingstad BC- this may end up being a deal breaker...

I do not want the FTX as a "touring-for-turns" ski- I have other (better for me) skis for this touring objective.

If the FTX is almost as good as the Ingstad BC in XC mode- but even "better" downhill- the FTX may replace my Ingstad BC.
(Believe me- I know that this is an exercise in pure indulgence!)
..........
Your description of "5-20 km XC"; "snow may be very hard there"→ these statements don't seem to align with the FTX...
the Ingstad BC is a terrible XC ski on hard snow- I expect the FTX to be even worse in this context...
Perhaps I am missing something in your description- are you considering the FTX as a straighforward XC ski in the context you describe?
I would never take the FTX for purely XC skiing...

[lilcliffy]

But the lack of a raised tip is a true dealbreaker. I got the 188s for myself and skied around Ylläs. If there is more than 12cm fresh snow, the shovel will sink in. In deeper snow you will be walking as the broad tip rises higher up inside the snow, but then sinks as you step on it. While your ankle is dragging on the snow atop.

Ingstad is way better, Combat Nato even better. I'll probably change Falketinds for a Rabb (in 180) and get some 210 Combat Natos for those off-track travels where harder snow is expected but not a given

Thank you. Very useful information.

[tkarhu]

Your description of "5-20 km XC"; "snow may be very hard there"→ these statements don't seem to align with the FTX...
the Ingstad BC is a terrible XC ski on hard snow- I expect the FTX to be even worse in this context...
Perhaps I am missing something in your description- are you considering the FTX as a straighforward XC ski in the context you describe?
I would never take the FTX for purely XC skiing...

I thought the Ingstads are bad on hard snow because they have flexible tips. But do they even have a flexible tip, is it solid with a rocker. Or do the Ingstads just track poorly, "swim around"? Why would the FTX be even worse?

are you considering the FTX as a straighforward XC ski in the context you describe?
I would never take the FTX for purely XC skiing...

Maybe attached map explains my context. Red lines are XC tracks, and yellow areas are fjells, open tundra landscape above treeline. White areas are forest. I look for nice fjell landscapes, and some mellow downhill, when I would ski here.

At longer forest segments, I choose a track, when available. I ski often alone, so deep soft snow is too energy taking. However, in Northern Finland tracks have been so narrow / weirdly shaped that even Gammes no not fit in. So I thought, why not have a bit wider, downhill oriented skis, if I am skiing in skate ski lanes already on approaches.

On the other hand, in open landscape, winds beat snow hard in less than 24 hours, so I need to ski for some lees in order to find soft snow for downhill, mainly on hard snow again. I might always hit some crappy, wind beaten spots of snow even at best spots. So I want hard snow DH capability from my skis, too.

For these reasons, to find a sheltered spot in open landscape, I might ski the 5-20 km approaches.

I have determined that some of my other Nordic touring skis (e.g. Combat NATO, Amundsen) are so much more efficient as XC skis than the Ingstad, that I am wondering whether I might as well be on the FTX instead of the Ingstad...

I do not want the FTX as a "touring-for-turns" ski- I have other (better for me) skis for this touring objective.

What skis would you choose for "touring for turns" then? Thanks for the answers!

[lilcliffy]

I thought the Ingstads are bad on hard snow because they have flexible tips. But do they even have a flexible tip, is it solid with a rocker. Or do the Ingstads just track poorly, "swim around"? Why would the FTX be even worse?

The Ingstad BC has a relatively stiff, stable shovel and tip (i.e. stiffer and more stable than similar skis like the Madshus Eon or Fischer E109XL). The shovel on the Ingstad BC might feel realtively "flexible" in comparison to its resistant low-profile camber underfoot. The Ingstad is a poor XC ski on hard snow because it has loads of rocker in the shovel- giving the ski a very short glide zone on hard snow, making the ski feel short and unstable (this also gives it superb turn intitation however). The Ingstad BC has a stiff, straight tail- that tracks well. When I get stuck on hard snow with the Ingstad BC (typically a snowmobile track), I focus on weighting the tail- it is a bit frustrating and can be very tiring over significant distance. I try to avoid my Ingstad BC if I I am in explore mode and predict that I may end up on a hardpacked trail for significant distance. The Ingstad BC is my #1 favourite XC ski on deep soft snow and steep terrain- it tracks well in soft snow; is completely stable in deep soft snow; and makes wonderful open turns! If I am exploring new terrain and predict variable terrain with possible hardpacked trail- the Combat NATO (with no rocker) is my best option. The Ingstad BC is my favourite XC ski- but the Combat NATO is the one that I could not live without!

The FTX has rocker up front- but it also has a rockered and tapered tail- I expect the FTX to wander all over the place as a XC ski on hard snow- terrible for any significant distance...
The redesigned FTX has a stiffer and more stable flex than the previous design- I expect it to be as stable as the Ingstad BC- not as efficient in XC mode; but shorter turn radius than the Ingstad BC...

are you considering the FTX as a straighforward XC ski in the context you describe?
I would never take the FTX for purely XC skiing...

Maybe attached map explains my context. Red lines are XC tracks, and yellow areas are fjells, open tundra landscape above treeline. White areas are forest. I look for nice fjell landscapes, and some mellow downhill, when I would ski here.
IMG_2175.PNG

WOW!!! Would love to join you!!!
Everything local here is below treeline and densely forested- but old mature temperate hardwood and mixedwood forests offer superb skiing once the snow buries all of the dead fallen trees and debris!
If you have loads of room to ride those open fjell landscapes with "mellow downhill"- then I don't think that you need a downhill-focused ski. For example- the non-rockered Combat NATO is a much more efficient XC ski (in all conditions) than the Ingstad BC or FTX- but the Combat NATO is still wonderful downhill- especially if you have the space to make wide open turns!!

At longer forest segments, I choose a track, when available. I ski often alone, so deep soft snow is too energy taking. However, in Northern Finland tracks have been so narrow / weirdly shaped that even Gammes no not fit in. So I thought, why not have a bit wider, downhill oriented skis, if I am skiing in skate ski lanes already on approaches.

Ok- so you will be XC skiing on open groomed skate ski track? The Ingstad BC and the FTX will be terribly inefficient XC skis on a groomed skate track (though you can skate with the Ingstad! Can skate with the FTX as well I guess, but poorer with all of its sidecut). The non-rockered Combat NATO tracks fairly well- despite its sidecut- the longer glide zone and low-profile resistant camber underfoot is pretty good.

The other model to consider is the Nansen- less efficient XC ski (less camber and resistance underfoot) than the Combat NATO- but has a stable, supportive, round flex downhill. The Nansen is more downhilly than the Combat NATO- easier to bend it and carve it- but this won't matter if you have room to make wide open turns with the Combat NATO!

On the other hand, in open landscape, winds beat snow hard in less than 24 hours, so I need to ski for some lees in order to find soft snow for downhill, mainly on hard snow again. I might always hit some crappy, wind beaten spots of snow even at best spots. So I want hard snow DH capability from my skis, too.

Hmmm- this makes me think that the Nansen might be even more versatile than the Combat NATO...The Nansen is easier to bend and carve- it does not have the extra resistance and camber underfoot that the Combat NATO has...

I have determined that some of my other Nordic touring skis (e.g. Combat NATO, Amundsen) are so much more efficient as XC skis than the Ingstad, that I am wondering whether I might as well be on the FTX instead of the Ingstad...

I do not want the FTX as a "touring-for-turns" ski- I have other (better for me) skis for this touring objective.

What skis would you choose for "touring for turns" then? Thanks for the answers!

My current "touring-for-turns" focused skis:
- Altai Kom
- Asnes Rabb 68
- Asnes Storetind

I have been lusting over the Voile V6 for years...

I don't take any of the three above unless my #1 objective is downhill skiing-
although the Storetind can be remarkably good in XC mode when the snow is deep and soft- it is a a very stiff fast ski- I need a stiff boot to bend and carve the Storetind!
I am currently mesmerized with my new Rabb 68- I LOVE IT- it is simply dreamy- but, again it is a downhill ski.

[tkarhu]

are you considering the FTX as a straighforward XC ski in the context you describe?
I would never take the FTX for purely XC skiing...

Maybe attached map explains my context. Red lines are XC tracks, and yellow areas are fjells, open tundra landscape above treeline. White areas are forest. I look for nice fjell landscapes, and some mellow downhill, when I would ski here.
IMG_2175.PNG

WOW!!! Would love to join you!!!
Everything local here is below treeline and densely forested- but old mature temperate hardwood and mixedwood forests offer superb skiing once the snow buries all of the dead fallen trees and debris!
If you have loads of room to ride those open fjell landscapes with "mellow downhill"- then I don't think that you need a downhill-focused ski. For example- the non-rockered Combat NATO is a much more efficient XC ski (in all conditions) than the Ingstad BC or FTX- but the Combat NATO is still wonderful downhill- especially if you have the space to make wide open turns!!

I would love to go skiing together with you!

When I go skiing, I have 1000+ km to drive / by night train for the open fjell landscapes. Near my home, forests are probably similar with the ones near your home. Yet the winters near my home, it might be +2' C or -2' C, when it rains. So everytime it might be water or snow, and skiing conditions are thus unpredictable here. So I am most often missing your nice, soft and deep snow blankets.

The Ingstad BC has a relatively stiff, stable shovel and tip (i.e. stiffer and more stable than similar skis like the Madshus Eon or Fischer E109XL). The shovel on the Ingstad BC might feel realtively "flexible" in comparison to its resistant low-profile camber underfoot. The Ingstad is a poor XC ski on hard snow because it has loads of rocker in the shovel- giving the ski a very short glide zone on hard snow, making the ski feel short and unstable (this also gives it superb turn intitation however). The Ingstad BC has a stiff, straight tail- that tracks well. When I get stuck on hard snow with the Ingstad BC (typically a snowmobile track), I focus on weighting the tail- it is a bit frustrating and can be very tiring over significant distance. I try to avoid my Ingstad BC if I I am in explore mode and predict that I may end up on a hardpacked trail for significant distance. The Ingstad BC is my #1 favourite XC ski on deep soft snow and steep terrain- it tracks well in soft snow; is completely stable in deep soft snow; and makes wonderful open turns! If I am exploring new terrain and predict variable terrain with possible hardpacked trail- the Combat NATO (with no rocker) is my best option. The Ingstad BC is my favourite XC ski- but the Combat NATO is the one that I could not live without!

The FTX has rocker up front- but it also has a rockered and tapered tail- I expect the FTX to wander all over the place as a XC ski on hard snow- terrible for any significant distance...
The redesigned FTX has a stiffer and more stable flex than the previous design- I expect it to be as stable as the Ingstad BC- not as efficient in XC mode; but shorter turn radius than the Ingstad BC...

Ok- so you will be XC skiing on open groomed skate ski track? The Ingstad BC and the FTX will be terribly inefficient XC skis on a groomed skate track (though you can skate with the Ingstad! Can skate with the FTX as well I guess, but poorer with all of its sidecut).

This makes sense to me. So glide zone length makes a big difference, if I understand correctly, when skiing XC on hard snow.

My only practical understanding of rockers are the modest nordic rockers on my Gammes and Atomic RC-10 classic skis. It looks like more plenty and solid rocker would create a totally different kind of ski.

The non-rockered Combat NATO tracks fairly well- despite its sidecut- the longer glide zone and low-profile resistant camber underfoot is pretty good.

The other model to consider is the Nansen- less efficient XC ski (less camber and resistance underfoot) than the Combat NATO- but has a stable, supportive, round flex downhill. The Nansen is more downhilly than the Combat NATO- easier to bend it and carve it- but this won't matter if you have room to make wide open turns with the Combat NATO!

Hmmm- this makes me think that the Nansen might be even more versatile than the Combat NATO...The Nansen is easier to bend and carve- it does not have the extra resistance and camber underfoot that the Combat NATO has...

After your answer, I re-read the Telemark Talk Combat NATO and Nansen reviews. It looks like I have done my original research well, before I bought my Gammes. I remember reading that Gammes do float and turn almost as well as the Combat NATOs, but Combat NATOs are more stable on soft snow. So their use cases seems somewhat similar, like Roelant also writes above.

Nansens seem good, but might be soft and inefficient for my BC-XC. Also, if the Nansens are too soft for floating properly on soft snow, might make a difference to me. I still might have some deep snow here and there, too. Also, having Gammes already, would Nansens be different enough?

In Northern Finland, Combat NATO's might open possibilities of skiing to some wilderness huts that are in forest valleys a few km's away from beaten tracks. However, I feel a bit suspicious of skiing XCD alone even that far away from hard crusts of snow. Yet the Combat NATO's would pair up better with my Gammes than a pair of Nansens, I guess.

Once more thanks for all the information! - Teemu

[lilcliffy]

This makes sense to me. So glide zone length makes a big difference, if I understand correctly, when skiing XC on hard snow.

Yes- and once that rocker opens and lifts up- these significantly rockered skis feel very short and unstable- even in a long length.

After your answer, I re-read the Telemark Talk Combat NATO and Nansen reviews. It looks like I have done my original research well, before I bought my Gammes. I remember reading that Gammes do float and turn almost as well as the Combat NATOs, but Combat NATOs are more stable on soft snow. So their use cases seems somewhat similar, like Roelant also writes above.

Nansens seem good, but might be soft and inefficient for my BC-XC. Also, if the Nansens are too soft for floating properly on soft snow, might make a difference to me. I still might have some deep snow here and there, too. Also, having Gammes already, would Nansens be different enough?

A few notes in response to this above↑

In my limited experience the Gamme 54 does not offer as much flotation as the wider Combat NATO/Ingstad BC (and now assuming the FTX). The Gamme is totally stable (like the Amundsen), therefore it performs very well in deep snow- despite offering less flotation. The Gamme is harder to turn than the Combat NATO- it is very stiff and resistance over its length- the Combat NATO is easier to bend and carve, being more flexible in the shovel and tail. The Combat NATO also has an inherently shorter turn radius than the Gamme- due to having more sidecut.

The Nansen surprised me. The Nansen has a remarkably stable flex- despite it having a rounder flex, without extra resistance underfoot. I find the Nansen remarkably stable in deep snow- it surprised me. Again- like the Gamme/Amundsen- it does not offer as much flotation as the Combat NATO/Ingstad, but the Nansen is stable in deep snow. As a comparison- the Nansen is MUCH more stable in deep snow than the similar-dimensioned Sverdrup (the Sverdrup is terribly unstable in deep snow!!!)

In Northern Finland, Combat NATO's might open possibilities of skiing to some wilderness huts that are in forest valleys a few km's away from beaten tracks. However, I feel a bit suspicious of skiing XCD alone even that far away from hard crusts of snow. Yet the Combat NATO's would pair up better with my Gammes than a pair of Nansens, I guess.

Efficiency over distance; deep snow; and rugged terrain→ Combat NATO
Reasonable efficiency over distance; rugged terrain; bend and carve downhill→ Nansen

Once more thanks for all the information! - Teemu

You are most welcome mon ami! Thank-you!
Gareth