Fischer E-109 vs. Asnes Ingstad

[MikeK]

I'm hoping to use kicker skins instead of klister for spring conditions...

If that is the case then I'd say forget the Eon and look into the integrated skin models. No idea which will work better, but Asnes has had theirs out for a while.

[lilcliffy]

Well- lots to catch up on here…

First of all- welcome to the conversation Tom!

Ben- you keep waving those legendary 10th mountains in my face! If they were another 10cm longer, I might have to travel up river and try and sweet talk you out of them!

As far as the maneuverability issue- the bush can be extremely dense in NB as well…I tend to stay on trails where it is dense, and plan my descents through relatively open stands (usually hardwood). The extra length doesn’t bother me a bit- I miss the glide and stride when I don’t have it!

Tom- I have no idea what your perspective is on a “ski that turns well”- but I would not describe either the E-109 or the Ingstad as skis that “turn well”- at least not in a modern sense.

The E-109 and the Ingstad are (IMO) old-school XCD skis (or perhaps more appropriately Scandinavian XCD skis). They are xcountry skis for Nordic touring in mountainous terrain (i.e. the "fjellski" is still a xcountry ski). As opposed to hybrid telemark-XC skis that offer much greater downhill/climbing performance- at the sacrifice of some XC performance (e.g. S-Bounds, Madshus XCDs).

In my experience, Northern European Nordic skiers would not consider skis like the S-Bounds or Madshus XCDs as xcountry skis.

Skis like the Ingstad and the E-109 offer some downhill control without sacrificing long-distance xcountry skiing performance. But one cannot have it all…to get that XC performance- they need to be long enough for your weight.

If you truly want them for XC-focused XCD –skiing, at your weight- I would go for 205/210cm. I probably sound neurotic about this- but I really notice a difference in XC performance with every increase in length. My 205cm Eons greatly outperform our 195cm Eons as xcountry skis- and I don’t find the 195cm any easier to turn. At 185lbs I would definitely want the E-109/Ingstad in 210cm- if I needed them to be more maneuverable I would be looking at a different ski to begin with.

Even at 200cm- one isn’t going to be doing short-radius turns with either of these skis- not unless you are striding/leaping through telemarks (check out Gamme’s video in this thread).

With a flexible boot- designed for striding- I don’t even try steering skis like the E-109/Ingstad- I stride my way through turns. I don’t find this any more difficult with 210cm than I do with 195cm.

All a 200cm E-109/Ingstad is going to give you is a slightly tighter turning radius on a ski that doesn’t have a tight turning radius to begin with.

As far as maneuverability- Tom- what is the cover like where you will be skiing? Open tundra/alpine? Or dense boreal forest?

Mike- I do agree with you- the Eon is a great XCd ski- but only if you get it long enough to bring out the K&G performance that it has to offer. If I wanted the Eon short enough to steer through tight-radius turns I would choose a more downhill-oriented ski (e.g. S-88). I do think that the Eon is still a hybrid ski…I don’t think it is as much a true xcountry ski as the E-109/Ingstad. With my limited experience with the E-109; the Eon is much easier to steer.

And I agree that the Eons are excellent value (I bought my latest pair of 205cm waxable-base for $150 new). And as far as build quality and durability? Man- I wish I could say the quality sucks because they are made in China…but you know, I am actually very impressed with the build quality and durability of the Madshus XCDs. Fischer’s are “better” because they are made in Europe…but I cannot honestly say anything negative about our Eons, Epochs and Annums- from a build-quality perspective…Fischer is investing way more in R&D when it comes to their backcountry Nordic skis…but does that translate into better build quality? And for those on a budget- you can buy a waxable and a waxless Eon (on sale) for the price of an E-109/Ingstad.

[Teleman]

Two things....We cruise BC with the hope of great cruising and getting some open hardwood telemarking....For cruising longer is better than shorter....Double camber is better than no camber....Our down when telemarking is heading them down....This is done on skis that SLICE the snow....a tiny pressure on the tip means we are in the snow which is a way to slow down...Turning is another way to slow down which is also used but in deep powder leads to stops...Ugh!.....Skinny skis to short will sink and slow....Long ones will surface but control can become a factor....On trails not a big deal but in the forest a big deal.....If we are heading out on a 4-5 mile cruise longer is better but at the end of the cruise might be a thousand drop....Shorter might be better.....Compromise is starting to look like the e109 @ 190.....Again they ski like a bigger....longer....ski....And they arc like a skinny should...TM

[MikeK]

Yeah we could have a nice tech talk about length and turning radius. Length doesn't really give you that much change - flex and sidecut are much more important.

What it does give you is maneuverability. A little wiggle room when you are going slow and having to step through trees or over logs.

I kind of prefer 200cm as my limit. As crazy as it sounds, the 5 cm or so that the Eon are shorter does make a difference to me.

I broke that rule with my E89s and if I buy a pair of Gammes, I'll break it again but I'd reserve those skis for stuff where I know maneuvering won't be an issue. You know, flat, wide stuff where you want the most touring efficiency.

For some reason, like 185-195cm just feels right to me. Less would feel too short, longer feels unwieldy. Maybe if I were taller it wouldn't, but I'm right about 180cm, so it makes sense to me.

[Cannatonic]

this is like discussing preference of ale vs. lager, white vs. red., etc. I'm closer to lilcliffy….longer is better. I have a very old pair of 205cm Kazama XC skis (Mountain High)….I enjoy using them but every time I'm wishing I had 210's. I weigh 180 pounds and 210 feels just right for nordic skiing.

When I read Tom's plan for these skis - mostly touring with a few turns - that's why I have the E99's and Asnes Gamme54's. Something like an Ingstad or Eon feels much slower to me when touring, I would be using Ingstad with skins for more up-and-down missions.

And there's 90's old-school and OLD-school from before the 90's, which is me. I skied all the mogul trails for years with 205-210cm stiff downhill racing skis and loved it! they made great short-radius turns for me. My standard woods skis were 207cm K2 racing skis. These 200-210 nordic and tele skis are feather-light and soft skis in comparison, with leather touring boots and Super Tele's the whole combo is so light you just pick up your feet and flick them around if you need to. I'm not interested in skis shorter than 200cm for anything….just hopelessly OLD school! Snowboards feel good at 170cm with your feet mounted across the width. I like the grace and power you get from long skis, not to mention faster glide.

I might consider 205cm Nansens for touring, they seem like a good compromise ski. The thought of skiing 5 or 10 mile tours in a ski like the Eon does not appeal to me. These skis don't have any "bounce" to them. But it's all relative…compared to an AT setup, 200cm Ingstads would be excellent touring skis. If you're in deep snow or breaking trail the whole way you won't benefit from double camber, and the width of the Ingstad would be good. 210's do pretty well at breaking trail through powder & crust though - with 210 you're making a longer snow bridge for yourself - I find 210's excel at keeping you on top of break-through crust - big difference b/w 205 and 210.

[athabascae]

SNAFU - See below

[athabascae]

As far as maneuverability- Tom- what is the cover like where you will be skiing? Open tundra/alpine? Or dense boreal forest?

Thanks guys.

Touring terrain where I live (the nexus of southwestern Yukon, northwestern BC, and southeastern Alaska) is basically anything you want:

- Super steep climbs and drops - got it (and avoid it).
- Vast alpine tundra plateaus with lower grade climbs and descents - got it.
- Rolling forested lower slopes - got it.
- Immense, interconnected lake systems - got it.
- Twisting, deeply incised and densely forested river valleys - got it.
- A matrix of mid-elevation meadows, slopes, and gently rolling open pine and aspen forest - got it.

Its XCD paradise

So, I'm looking for a ski that can balance both XCd and xcD - knowing it won't be stellar at either - hence the great e109/eon/ingstad debate...

I do think that the Eon is still a hybrid ski…I don’t think it is as much a true xcountry ski as the E-109/Ingstad

The E-109 and the Ingstad are (IMO) old-school XCD skis (or perhaps more appropriately Scandinavian XCD skis). They are xcountry skis for Nordic touring in mountainous terrain (i.e. the "fjellski" is still a xcountry ski). As opposed to hybrid telemark-XC skis that offer much greater downhill/climbing performance- at the sacrifice of some XC performance (e.g. S-Bounds, Madshus XCDs). In my experience, Northern European Nordic skiers would not consider skis like the S-Bounds or Madshus XCDs as xcountry skis.

The thought of skiing 5 or 10 mile tours in a ski like the Eon does not appeal to me. These skis don't have any "bounce" to them.

Because of these, and similar, comments, I'm going to rule out the Eon, even though it gets rave reviews. I'm looking for more camber and the associated increase in XC performance. I like bounce. Surprisingly, I am also intrigued by the integrated kicker skin option with the e109 and Ingstad - but its far from being a deal-breaker.

I'm really waffling between 200 and 205 Ingstads, but leaning toward 200s because a) that's what the Asnes size chart says for my mass, b) my gut (and some of the advice from this thread) says that is what I should get for these skis and my planned use of them as all-round wilderness tourers, and... c) I can't seem to find any 205s available in North America (but not my main reason at all).

When I read Tom's plan for these skis - mostly touring with a few turns - that's why I have the E99's and Asnes Gamme54's. Something like an Ingstad or Eon feels much slower to me when touring, I would be using Ingstad with skins for more up-and-down missions.

I did consider e99/Glitterend/Gamme class skis but I have had two pairs like that in the past (e99 and Rossignol Randonnee 2002) and they left me wanting - too wide and heavy for fast skiing on hardpack, and not enough float for breaking trail in unconsolidated snow. So, I'd rather a two ski quiver with an e109/eon/ingstad class ski being the all-round wilderness tourer.

For straight up fast day-touring on harder pack (windswept lakes and packed [not groomed] trails) I plan to replace my 207 cm track-style skis with 205/210 full-on double camber skinny XCd skis in the e89/voss/vilafjell size-class (~60-50-55). Lightweight and long, skinny and springy, and with a 3/4 steel edge. The old Bonna Conquest were like this and they were a blast. Fast and capable.

This should be a practical (and fun) quiver for how I'd ski where I live.

This thread has given me lots to digest and consider. Thank you.

Tom

[MikeK]

We often call skis XCd or xcD, but really those notations were meant to mean what you are doing, not what gear you are using.

For instance I almost always XCd. But I use skis that range from the e89 to the S Bound 98. It really depends on how much vert, how steep and how deep the snow is as to what ski I'll choose.

Certainly I'll attest that e89s friggin' suck on hills. But they are wicked fast. XCd ski? Sure I guess, but there is nothing stopping you from yo-yoing it. I have in fact, and I consider that xcD.

So Tom from what I gather you are going to be XCd most of the time, and just want to make sure you can handle some d when it comes.

If it were me, I'd buy the Ingstad 200cm with the skins and never look back. That ski sounds like a quiver killer for almost any BC touring one might do.

PS I think the Eon in a 195 (I'd get a 200 if I could) is quiver killer for what I've used. It would be even better if it was wax base with integrated skins. It has the profile and the flex to make it work really, really well in a lot of conditions. It's not snappy like a double camber ski, but I expect the Asnes won't be snappy like that either (just a guess). I'd expect the Fischer to feel more snappy, because they always do compared to Madshus skis. The Asnes might be more like the Fischer, but still I'm thinking pretty soft compared to the skinnier, lite touring class skis.

Also I'd say based on your description, steer clear of the Voss for your next ski. It's not bouncy at all even though it has a stiff second camber. The first camber is so soft it feels dead. The E89 has a much stronger initial camber and gives it a better pop.

[athabascae]

So Tom from what I gather you are going to be XCd most of the time, and just want to make sure you can handle some d when it comes.

Correct. XCd focus for sure, but that almost invariably includes some substantial downhill to consider.

If it were me, I'd buy the Ingstad 200cm with the skins and never look back. That ski sounds like a quiver killer for almost any BC touring one might do.

I just ordered the Ingstads in 200 cm and the skins.

I could not find any 205 Ingstads in North America - I only know of three Asnes retailers: located in Boulder, Calgary, and Montreal - so it was an easy choice after all. (Except the folks in Boulder won't sell to Canadians, even if we ship to a US address - WTH).

Thanks everyone for your thoughts; I appreciated your expertise and advise. I'll send some notes on my thoughts in a few weeks once I get them setup and have a few skis in varied terrain under my belt.

Now for a binding/boot match... Rotefella super telemark and Crispi Antarctica or NNN BC magnum and Alpina Alaskas...

Tom

[MikeK]

Very nice!

Now for a binding/boot match... Rotefella super telemark and Crispi Antarctica or NNN BC magnum and Alpina Alaskas...

Tom

Either would be excellent IMO.

I think the NNN will bring out more of the XC aspect of the skis, the ST more the DH aspect, but the Mags and the Alaska are a very capable boot for controlling a ski of that size.

I would again consider comfort and durability. The Alaska is most likely going to be more comfortable than the Crispi... it's just a softer split leather with lots of flex points cut in. It's also extremely warm. And from anything we've heard here, very durable in the NNN version.

The ST binding is light, simple and robust. NNN-BC has more parts, and more plastic although the report we had from bgregoire was that the metal bar clip broke on his. I can see exactly how this could happen when it gets jammed up with ice and snow.

My minor complaint with the NNN-BC is in deep, sticky snow, the lever box gets filled with snow and it's hard to get the latch fully closed. I wipe it out with my finger or pole, but in really deep, snowy conditions and trying to get your boot lined up, it fills in quick again

The toe bar on the NNN boots can get jammed with snow and ice too. Easy to bust out with a pole tip though.

You can also lose the rubber resistance bumpers on the NNN and have a floppy ski. I need to remind myself to carry spares.

All stuff to think about. I use both systems and like both systems and I'd have a hard time deciding which to use on a ski like the Ingstad. FWIW my two closest skis, the S-Bound 78 and Eon both have NNN-BC Mags on them. Either would be fine and ski great with pins, it was just a matter of preference that I liked the NNN Alaska boot much better than the 75mm version. That's really what drove my decision.