Fischer E-109 vs. Asnes Ingstad

[MikeK]

They appear to be burlier and better built from all reports we've had... sometimes that helps, sometimes the durability is sufficient from lighter gear. It's tough to say. Even tough, high quality gear can have defects or fail prematurely if pushed too hard (or if abused).

I'd love to put in a solid vote for you, but the engineer in me says no, durability isn't that easily understood. Most of the info we have here is anecdotal and in no way scientific (and even if it was, you could still be in 99.999th percentile that fails).

Practically, from the caveman POV, sure. More wood, more metal = more strong.

[athabascae]

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

Thanks! I did consult this earlier and, at 195 lbs without a heavy backpack, I'm a 200 cm according to the Asnes chart. But I do hum-and-ha if I should go to 205s.... I'd guess that I'll probably do 75% of my skiing on e109/Ingstads with a pack weighing no more than 12 lbs, which keeps me in the 200 cm slot.

[athabascae]

They appear to be burlier and better built from all reports we've had... sometimes that helps, sometimes the durability is sufficient from lighter gear. It's tough to say. Even tough, high quality gear can have defects or fail prematurely if pushed too hard (or if abused).

I'd love to put in a solid vote for you, but the engineer in me says no, durability isn't that easily understood. Most of the info we have here is anecdotal and in no way scientific (and even if it was, you could still be in 99.999th percentile that fails).

Practically, from the caveman POV, sure. More wood, more metal = more strong.

All great points. I get what you're saying. The caveman POV resonates as well.

I am interested in the e109, but was scared off about so much air channeling under foot...

Still debating between e109 and Ingstad, but leaning toward the Asnes. Any advice would be appreciated.

At the end of the day, I'm guessing they (along with the Eon), are all great skis in that size class. Its nice to have choices (I think )

Thanks.

Tom

[athabascae]

I'd say that the Ingstad is as XCD as you can get (if not too long).

What does this mean? As balanced (compromised) between XCd and xcD as currently available?

Sorry, not trying to be a smart arse, just trying to sort out all the great collective wisdom in this thread.

Thanks.

Tom

[bgregoire]

I'd say that the Ingstad is as XCD as you can get (if not too long).

What does this mean? As balanced (compromised) between XCd and xcD as currently available?

Sorry, not trying to be a smart arse, just trying to sort out all the great collective wisdom in this thread.

Thanks.

Tom

Yeah, thats what I meant, and yes it was not very clear! Sorry.

[Teleman]

The OLD 109 skis like a bigger ski....very solid....since I have an undersized....(178)...they turn like nothing and they RIDE stable and fast especially noted for a short ski....Teleking used them Sunday and agreed a 185-190 would be better....I weigh more than you all and have never worried much about length....Different conditions different skis but thinking if the new 109's are as good as the old...will consider getting them....A friend has some 190's will beg him to take out and see if they are as good as I remember...Took them for a ride in tight whippy woods a decade ago and they hung tough....And turned easily but I was a bit stronger back then....Still LC is saying that the new ones have a different? construction....That gives me pause...TM

[MikeK]

I'd say that the Ingstad is as XCD as you can get (if not too long).

What does this mean? As balanced (compromised) between XCd and xcD as currently available?

Sorry, not trying to be a smart arse, just trying to sort out all the great collective wisdom in this thread.

Thanks.

Tom

Those balanced skis, IMO would be:

Fischer: S78/88, E109

Asnes: Nansen/Ingstad

Madshus: Eon

Rossi: BC90


If wax is your preference, only the E109, Nansen/Igstad, and Eon are choices.

lilCliffy and I maybe disagree on this a bit, but to me the Eon is a healthy XCd ski. They have a nice round flex so in the right snow, they turn well but I also find my (cough cough) waxless to be quite glidey in the right snow. That is snow that isn't too wet or too deep. 6-8" of fresh over some kind of base seems ideal for them IMO. On hard snow there is surely stuff that is faster. In deeper, heavier snow, there are skis that grip better and float better. But a good compromise they are. Cheap too. You could buy a pair of wax and waxless for what an Asnes would cost you.

They are solid core, and light! No way is the Madshus quality on par with Fischer or Asnes, but I have no issues with any of mine in terms of function.

Sorry to add any confusion, just putting that out there.

Edit: FWIW these are all skis I am grouping into something I like to think of as "Mountain Touring Skis". They have the most balance between tour and turn of anything out there so they can go either way. But mostly if you want to tour in difficult terrain, they give you good control and allow you to cover lots of ground.

This is not be confused with Ski Mountaineering. That is entirely different. Mountain touring implies rugged touring. Ski mountaineering implies getting up high to summits or big snowfields to make turns.

[athabascae]

Super helpful thoughts guys. Thank you for your time and expertise.

This helps confirm that it is "mountain touring" class XCD skis that I'm looking for. I believe that skis of this class, coupled with skis of the e89/voss/vikafjell class, would make a wonderfully practical two-ski quiver for the type of XCD ski touring I would do in my part of the world (I would be avoiding the really big, steep mountain stuff - aka ski mountaineering).

Tom

[athabascae]

If wax is your preference, only the E109, Nansen/Igstad, and Eon are choices.

Yes, I'm stuck on waxing... I like waxing; and, its all I've ever known.... Plus, I live in a region where the snow is cold and dry and waxing can work really well. I'm hoping to use kicker skins instead of klister for spring conditions...

By all accounts, those waxable skis are all fantastic choices.

Thanks.

Tom

[MikeK]

Yes - that next class down I am calling lite touring. Great for covering distance on flats. Limited dh capability except maybe on wide open, mellow slopes.

Lite touring would be:

Fischer: E89/99

Asnes: Gamme 54/Amundsen

Madshus: Voss/Glittertind

Rossi: BC65/68/70

Basically double cambered skis with minimal sidecut that will still fit in prepared tracks.