Ski Review: 2018-2019 Åsnes Ingstad BC

[Cannatonic]

OK, OK, the NATO is the same sidecut ski with less rocker AND different flex! are we accurate enough now? the same exact dimensions....they're pretty close IMO . A 100mm waisted, 165cm long telemark ski would be a very different ski to me.

If I was thinking mostly XC trail-breaking I might go in a different direction than these two metal-edge skis. I might be thinking of a longer (210cm), narrower ski and also one of the edgeless models - 210cm Finnmark come to mind. Removing the edges gives you a big weight reduction that feels good for long tours. Also they are now making 210cmm Brediblikk, another good one. no-edge skis improve glide speed as well.

[lilcliffy]

Hi lilcliffy,

I am primarily looking for a distance wax ski for optimal glide and turn-ability. I have Fischer E-88 that will take me most places and S-98 for turns in the woods. The skis I am looking for would be used in cold snow in both soft and consolidated conditions - no resort trails. I have older S-Bound Snowbound Crowns (78s) that I use on packed trails but would like more glide provided by wax skis.

The Combat Nato ski has a long enough glide zone and enough camber and stiffness underfoot to perform as a XC ski in a very wide range of snow conditions. As far as turn-ability- the Combat Nato does have sidecut- but has a XC flex- it does turn, but has a very wide turn radius.

The other type of ski to consider is an "E99-class" ski in a long XC length. Examples include the Fischer E99, the Asnes Gamme 54 and Ousland BC, and the Madshus Glittertind/BC55/Panorama 55.
I cannot speak to the Ousland or the current Madshus as I have never seen or tested them.

The current (and previous gen) Gamme 54 BC is remarkably stable and capable in deep snow (I would rate the Combat Nato and Ingstad BC as being slightly better in deep soft snow) and is more efficient on consolidated snow than the Combat Nato. The turn radius of the Gamme 54vs Combat Nato is near identical- despite the Gamme having less sidecut- as the Gamme 54 has a slightly rockered tip.

The current E99 Xtralite is more cambered than the Gamme 54 BC and perhaps has a bit more "kick" underfoot for consolidated snow- but it has more tip rocker than the Gamme and therefore a shorter glide zone (not as much tip rocker as a ski like the Ingstad BC). The E99 is "ok" in deep snow, but nowhere near as stable as the Gamme 54, because the E99 has a very soft unstable tip.

If you are considering the Combat Nato I would suggest taking a hard look at the Gamme 54 as well.

[lilcliffy]

OK, OK, the NATO is the same sidecut ski with less rocker AND different flex! are we accurate enough now? the same exact dimensions....they're pretty close IMO . A 100mm waisted, 165cm long telemark ski would be a very different ski to me.

TRUE that! Sorry for being an obsessive Nordic ski nerd!

If I was thinking mostly XC trail-breaking I might go in a different direction than these two metal-edge skis. I might be thinking of a longer (210cm), narrower ski and also one of the edgeless models - 210cm Finnmark come to mind. Removing the edges gives you a big weight reduction that feels good for long tours. Also they are now making 210cmm Brediblikk, another good one. no-edge skis improve glide speed as well.

This is thinking outside the box- and a good idea to consider! (As an aside- I am also very interested in the deep snow performance of the Kongsvold...though perhaps not for XC skiing...a 200cm Knogsvold must have quite a fair bit of surface area!)
The Finns use VERY long narrow skis (to 300cm!) for distance travel on very deep snow.
I have my eye- at some point- on a Peltonen Metsa (70mm) in 270cm!!!
http://www.peltonenski.fi/outdoor_touring/
Though a 270cm Metsa would not be turnable!!!

[treehugger]

I've decided on Ingstad for a powder touring ski. I've considered waxless version as we have a lot of warm sunny days with above freezing soft snow. As the Ingstad has been described as ideal in powder I think wax version will have the better performance when used in it's narrowly focused ideal conditions.

I'm less sure about size even thought there's already a lot of advice already in this post:

As Woods says- you can adjust- endlessly customize- your grip and kick wax- and that goes equally for improving glide with a shorter ski- as well as improving grip with a longer ski.

I am 5'10" and weigh 185lbs- I have the 205cm and love it- would not want the shorter ski for the skiing I am doing with it- distance-oriented tours in hilly to steep terrain and in very deep soft snow. One of my ski buddy's is your weight and has the 195cm- I have tried it back to back with my 205cm- much prefer the 205cm. The 205cm is a much more efficient XC ski and I do not notice any difference in the turn radius between the 195 vs 205.

To me the Ingstad BC is a narrowly-focused performance-oriented Nordic touring ski- crushing miles in deep soft snow and hilly to steep terrain.

The 195cm will definitely feel shorter and as a result, will feel more maneuverable if you are skiing any tight wooded trails. But the 205cm will be faster!

Shorter lengths do make these skis feel completely different in a downhill context.

The stiff, supportive rockered tip of the Ingstad BC is a game changer though. The full-length support of 205cm, combined with the tip rocker offering a shorter effective edge (with its resultant turn initiation), and early tip rise.
That tip rocker does sacrifice XC performance on snow that is not deep and soft though...

I love my new ingstad bc, they have a really good glide and stability in fresh snow. But I admit that they are quite sporty to manage downhill at 205cm with nnn alaska's.

One needs a LOT of room to ride a true open telemark turn on a 205cm, stiff XC ski- even with all of the Ingstad BC's tip rocker....

At 174lb and 6' I'm right in the middle of 195 range on size chart so that is what I'm leaning towards. I like the idea of sizing up based on recommendations from this forum but as a novice and need to be maneuverable in trees I don't think I want to be too long.

Asnes size recommendation: "Generally speaking, moving through rugged terrain calls for shorter skis than the open mountain plateau. And for beginners, short skis are easier to control"

Wax 195 seems like a good choice but am open to suggestions. I've been dragging this discission out as I've been out of town working until now, have no new snow in near future, and hoping for sales after Presidents day.

[fgd135]

I am primarily looking for a distance wax ski for optimal glide and turn-ability. I have Fischer E-88 that will take me most places and S-98 for turns in the woods. The skis I am looking for would be used in cold snow in both soft and consolidated conditions - no resort trails. I have older S-Bound Snowbound Crowns (78s) that I use on packed trails but would like more glide provided by wax skis.

A couple of days ago I skied about 8 miles in varied backcountry conditions, with 10 inches of still-falling fresh snow over the trail, on my new Asnes Combat skis. Climbing was great with the short skins for the first 2 miles, and no trouble with tip float when trail breaking. Next, a change to a hard wax for a long rolling section--with excellent turn initiation, good flotation and control on the light downhill stretches. I finally exited the backcountry via a multimile snow covered road--which felt almost like machine set track because the balanced kick and glide of the ski.
I've skied this trail many many times with lots of different xc skis, inc. the older Asnes MT 65's, a couple of different models of Fischer E99s, waxless Alpinas once in a while, the much-revered Epoke 1000's, and by far, the Combat topped them all. Would I want to ski down steep alpine slopes with a Combat? Probably not. Ski the Birkebeiner with them? Not a chance. But long moderate mountain tours, you bet. I was wowed by their performance overall.
Just my 2 cents.
Fwiw, it's very difficult to achieve an "optimal glide" a la long distance touring, with a sidecut that gives a great shorter-radius turn capability; they're almost mutually exclusive in so many ways--best distance kick and glide skiing requires a good balanced wax pocket and more length for support and straight tracking without wasting energy, but good turnability requires decent sidecut and a softer overall flex so the ski will not only initiate a turn easily but also continue thru the turn without slipping under the foot, esp. in harder snow conditions. More sidecut equals more drag when kicking and gliding.
Always a compromise, ain't it? Mebbe those Ingstad skis would be a good choice if they're a stable trail cruising ski. Certainly sounds like they turn well.

[bgregoire]

Meh, no such thing as a perfect ski. You basically nailed it before considering the ingstad. I say own a pair of ski and choose the one appropriate for the outing. If you want more turns, keep the nato combat but get a ft62 to complement your quiver.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lilcliffy]

I've decided on Ingstad for a powder touring ski. I've considered waxless version as we have a lot of warm sunny days with above freezing soft snow. As the Ingstad has been described as ideal in powder I think wax version will have the better performance when used in it's narrowly focused ideal conditions.

I'm less sure about size even thought there's already a lot of advice already in this post:


At 174lb and 6' I'm right in the middle of 195 range on size chart so that is what I'm leaning towards. I like the idea of sizing up based on recommendations from this forum but as a novice and need to be maneuverable in trees I don't think I want to be too long.

Asnes size recommendation: "Generally speaking, moving through rugged terrain calls for shorter skis than the open mountain plateau. And for beginners, short skis are easier to control"

Wax 195 seems like a good choice but am open to suggestions. I've been dragging this discission out as I've been out of town working until now, have no new snow in near future, and hoping for sales after Presidents day.

I weigh a bit more than you do- 81kg- (I have lost a bit of weight since I last weighed myself a few years ago) and am shorter at 178cm (5'10"). I have tested this ski in 185cm (Tonje), 195cm, and 205cm. I MUCH prefer the 205cm for the skiing I am doing with it- I must admit that I do not notice a significant difference in turn radius on deep snow between 185-205cm. (I would think that downhill skiing on consolidated snow the shorter effective edge would be MUCH more noticeable).

The only reason I would consider a short Ingstad BC is if you had to ski down a lot of steep, narrow trails- where the maneuverability of a short ski would be advantageous. AND- if you are looking for a XC ski to downhill ski steep tight lines I would strongly consider the Falketind 62 as well as the Ingstad BC- the FT62 is a better downhill ski.

On my local Ingstad tours, I plot my downhill runs through open hardwood forest- allows me to ride big open turns. I am also using these skis exclusively for deep soft snow- so the entire length is engaged with the turn. The considerable tip rocker greatly improves the planing and turn initiation over no rockered skis like the Combat Nato or Annum (other skis in my quiver).

What are terrain and cover like that you want to use the Ingstad?

[lilcliffy]

Always a compromise, ain't it? Mebbe those Ingstad skis would be a good choice if they're a stable trail cruising ski. Certainly sounds like they turn well.

The current Ingstad BC is a very stable and tracks efficiently in deep soft snow.
The considerable tip rocker of the Ingstad BC means that it has a much shorter glide zone on consolidated snow- MUCH shorter than your Combat Nato.

The Combat Nato is more versatile than the Ingstad BC. However- it is my Gamme 54 BC that is making my Combat Nato somewhat redundant...The Combat Nato and the Gamme offer similar Nordic touring versatility- the Combat a bit more efficient in deep snow- the Gamme a bit more efficient on consolidated snow...

[lilcliffy]

Just an update to my review of the Ingstad BC-

This Saturday I did a several hour tour on a new set of 205cm Ingstad BC- freshly mounted on Friday night.

As I had another set of yearling 205cm to compare to-
There is noticeably more camber on this new pair of Ingstad BCs...

I am wondering whether the difference is use (i.e. my yearling skis have less camber due to many, many days of hard skiing?)

The underfoot resistance is similar BTW- despite the extra camber- when I compress the two different sets- the low-profile resistance underfoot feels the same...
BTW- the degree of Nordic rocker is the same and the overall stability feels the same- the difference is in the height of camber.

I will compare these two 205s to my friend's 205 on Thursday (with much less use than my yearlings).

Anybody else notice a significant variation in camber and/or stiffness between Ingstad BC models?

[bgregoire]

Anybody else notice a significant variation in camber and/or stiffness between Ingstad BC models?

There are very few of us with the benefit of owning several skis of the same model, particularly in the same size. A few years back, it was nearly common knowledge that Asnes skis came in variable camber stiffnesses. Hence the reason with the Norsemen prefers to fit in shop. But I think you knew that already. Hope it helps...