Fischer E-109 vs. Asnes Ingstad

[MikeK]

Yup - agree on that.

The one thing that gives me a lot of faith in Gamme's chart is the comparison from the E99 to the E89.

It's really a sharp dip in turning ability, and from what I've felt it's definitely true. Also the speed differential seem right to me. Both mine were waxless and the E89 is noticeably faster.

I think the thing is that even though both those skis are double cambered, and both pretty stiff, the E89 has a HUGE wax pocket. It's also a lot straighter, but it's the same difference as the Voss to the Glittertind, and they didn't feel a ton different to me. They had near identical flexes though.

I was watching some stuff recently about how Fischer sizes their race skis and how long the wax pocket should be, and it made me think about the E89, and what makes it feel more like a track ski. I think that is it. It's incredibly hard to handle too. It's what makes it a great ski for flat terrain and hard snow. Not necessarily very versatile as a BC ski though.

[lilcliffy]

Yeah- I have tried the current E-89 (waxable base)- it is stiff, double-cambered, straight and fast.

Not as stiff and cambered as a high-performance classic track ski, but I found them every bit as stiff as my Atomic waxable touring skis that I am using on the groomed track.

[bgregoire]

Lilcliff & co.,

I dropped in at the La Cordée Boutique, AKA Yéti, in montreal, on my way to sweden. Got to play around with the Asnes skis and Alfa boots. Through handling, I would rate the Insgtad camber as relatively soft for a touring ski. You can flatten them out with one hand if that helps figuring it out. They are perhaps as stiff or even less than the Fischer Sbound 98 if I recall right, as some say, 1,5 to single camber sound right.
Cheers.

Quick report from Sweden. I forgot to mention the pair on Ingstad I handled in Montreal was 180cm. I had a pair of 190s in my hands today, and have to report that these beasts have a stiffer camber than I led myself to believe. Could not squish those flat with one hand. So definetely in the realm of 1.5 camber. If you go for a size a little longer than they want you to, I do believe you could easily end up with a double camber. I would not do it personnaly. but hey, to each their own! Sorry for the confusion.

[lilcliffy]

Phew- that makes more sense...seems to have similar flex to the Asnes USGI combat skis...would you say the Ingstad has some rocker in the tip?

You peaked my interest Ben- why would you want a short Ingstad? If you wanted them to perform more like a single-cambered ski- why would you not choose an Eon, or an S-Bound 88 instead?

[Teleman]

Sped down a couple of trails yesterday on e 109;s, older model and to short.....(178).......They were fast and have to say rode like a larger ski...never did a turn just a speedy arc here and there where the old trail meandered....Almost think a 185-190 would be a dynamite skinny ski for BC conditions around here....They went up as good as anything with blue wax on....About 400 yards of low angle high speed cruising with a base of 4 inches with 4 inches of powder.....Damn good for the conditions.....TM

[bgregoire]

Phew- that makes more sense...seems to have similar flex to the Asnes USGI combat skis...would you say the Ingstad has some rocker in the tip?

You peaked my interest Ben- why would you want a short Ingstad? If you wanted them to perform more like a single-cambered ski- why would you not choose an Eon, or an S-Bound 88 instead?

Rocker...i don t think so, they are not advertized as such. One thing i observed comparing Amundsen and Ingstad in shop is that as you compress the camber on the Amundsen, they flatten haldway until you have to press even harder to fully flatten, its as if the camber contains a second stiffer camber. My guess is this is the real double camber. Anyways, when I compress the Ingstad with my hands they flatten out completely without hitting this second camber.

Why would I want a "short" Ingstad? Well, by short you mean 190cm for a 165lbs naked man. It s not reallty short, just shorter than 200 or 210cm:

First, I consider a Ingstad type ski as an all-round workhorse type ski. That means it will be used to break trails in the forest, go on multiday expeditions and have fun with tele-turning down some low angled slopes. I would definitely use a 3pin 75mm binding on it. In these conditions though, I would not expect super fast glide on hard snow. I got like three pair of 200cm double cambers for that.

Also, I already own a super amazing oldschool Karhu 10th mountain 84-68-78. Its a strong single camber. At 188cm, it really is just like the ingstad and its such a versatile ski. I can tele with excursions boots, and I got those Alfa Advance 175cm for lighter touring (I wont by a pair of Insgtads until these die).

So...to be specific, why 190cm and not longer?
A) Maneuvrability
In the woods and trails where I live, things often get complicated when my ski is 200cm or more.
B) Tele
I find it easier to tele on a ski betwenn 175-185cm than 200!

Hope that helps.

[athabascae]

Hi guys,

I'm new here but have been also trying to decide between the Fischer e109 and the Asnes Ingstad. This thread has been most helpful in sorting out the pros and cons of each, as I live in the Yukon and have to purchase online without handling either...

I think I'm going to go with the Ingstad, mainly because it sounds like they are better made and may be more durable.

I'm 195 lbs and am thinking of 200 cm - which is correct according to the Asnes chart for this ski.

For me, these will be mostly XCd context (longer day trips with a couple of multi-nights per season), but we have a few big hills here that will require a ski that turns well.

Sound right?

Thanks.

Tom

[MikeK]

Sounds good but if you do overnight trips, think about your pack. Depending on how much of that you do, you may want to size the ski a bit larger.

If you aren't worried about losing a little slide with your pack on, then you should have a great ski.

[bgregoire]

Sound right?

Thanks.

Tom

Sure Tom, sounds good. Might even go for 205cm if they have any. Lilcliff mught even recommend 210! Go shorter if you are new to the sport or will be dodging lots of trees in your trails. Go longer (plus 5 cm) if you are confident and want great K&G when on harder snow.

The Norsemen from Calgary will match a ski to your weight before they send out. given them a call.

You will find Åsnes weight recommdantions here:
http://www.asnes.com/produkt/ingstad/

If you cant get the right size for you, I m quite sure the E109 would also work for you too! Happy touring!

[athabascae]

Thanks again Guys. Most helpful.

I'm not new to XCD, but been away from it for a decade or so (work, kids, etc), except for easy short tours in the river valleys of southwestern Yukon. Previous skis for XCD have included Bonna Conquest with NNN BC, and Fischer e99 and Rossignal Randonnee 2002 with 75 mm, and single cambered Rossignol TRS skis and Asolo Extremes for the lifts (real long and skinny by todays standards).

Began telemarking on skinny skis around 1993 (but coming at it new again). Have done multi-night trips in Quebec, Ontario, Labrador, and New Hampshire, too. My emphasis is much more on touring rather than turning, but where I will tour will require turns.

I love this way of skiing/touring and want to pick it up again.

I hear you about 205s and struggle with whether to go with those or 200s. I'm leaning toward the 200s for Ingstads for a bit more control downhill, better uphill, trail breaking, and occasional skijoring - most use will be with a 5-12 pound pack, and I can sacrifice some glide for those multi-night tours with a heavier backpack. I can see a longer, lighter, skinner pair of 205/210s with 3/4 edges for next season to make a two ski quiver....

Because my skiing will be done in some pretty remote areas (that can get really cold and lonely), I'm going to put an emphasis on build quality and durability. Is it fair to say that the Asnes are among the better built and more durable skis for XCD? Comments about no solid wood underfoot on the Fischer e-series give me pause.

Tom