Ski Review: 2018-2019 Åsnes Ingstad BC

[lilcliffy]

I didn't notice the difference in camber until Saturday night- when the two pairs were side by each on my porch.

I will have to try them back to back sometime soon and see if they actually feel/perform differently.

My friend has another 205 and I have never really compared them to mine...

I- too- have been told by the folks at the Norseman about the variation in camber and flex between pairs.

I know that waay back it was simply an inevitable result of handmade skis.

I wonder if it is still an inevitable result of making cambered XC skis with solid wood cores?

The Fischer BC-XC skis- in the shop- all seem to be identical in terms of camber and flex...But they are all wood-air-channel cored...

[treehugger]

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?

I will be using down hill and through trees in powder so some turning ability is needed XC touring my local area. I will not be using in any steep terrain that a down hill ski would be better choice. There are some flat areas in State park but always head into steeper terrain of National forest so my dog can come. Both are only blocks from my house. The fact that I'm a novice also is a consideration that makes me inclinded towards 195's. Main reason for me to get 205's is for better float and gliding. Right now I think I'm better with 195's but afraid in the future if I get FT62 or other downhill option I may wish Ingstads were longer. Your comparision of 195 and 205 are also a factor. I don't mind "growing into them" but it might slow my progression and challenge my confidence if the 205's are difficult to control.

[Woodserson]

All very valid thoughts. You've been thinking about this and going about it in the right direction and I agree with you.

I have the 195's and I'm 160lbs or so and I wish they were a little longer for float and better glide on consolidated snow. On unconsolidated snow they are very nice and they turn easy and well. If I had less skills I would be happy to be on them. I have more skills than less skills though, and I wonder if the 205's would have been better for longer flatter tours in deep snow. Yes, definitely. But then I'd be working harder at getting them to turn and using the skills I've accrued over the past several years to turn them and I would probably definitely not be reaching for them if I knew I was going into hillier terrain. So I'm on the balance between the two skis myself.

I think the 195 is a good place to start and later, as you gain experience you can sell them and upgrade to a longer ski, especially if you get a second ski that is "turnier." Or you may be very happy with the compromise of the 195s and decide to keep them.

[CwmRaider]

I wonder if it is still an inevitable result of making cambered XC skis with solid wood cores?

The Fischer BC-XC skis- in the shop- all seem to be identical in terms of camber and flex...But they are all wood-air-channel cored...

For XC track skis there is significant variation between two pairs of the same length, for skis from any brand as far as I know.
It may be an artefact of production but there is not attempt to resolve it because the variation is considered useful.
In fact, in Norway, where most kids learn to cross country ski in kindergarten, it is considered imperative to have XC track skis matched to exactly your weight, so that the wax pocket is the correct length for your weight and technique.
Almost all sports shops worth their salt in Norway have equipment for loading skis and finding the effective length of a wax pocket under specific loads.

I have also read reports on "fjellforum.no" about this being the case for fjellski but, I got both my pairs of Nansens sent to me and I did not specifically ask for stiffer or softer pairs, and both feel about the same. They also feel similar to my brothers E99s (qualitatively) and my E109s were probably comparable, or maybe a bit softer.
In any case they are much softer than my XC track skis which is fine.
I think there is no XCD ski which can provide me with a true wax pocket and still provide a fun downhill experience. I am 102 kg / 225 pounds when I get out of bed and I consider myself lucky to find fitting track skis.
I can try to find time to drop by the sports shop and squeeze a few pairs of the same ski model to see if I notice a difference.

[Franz]

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.

Thanks for the review. Where did you buy your Combat Nato skis?

[treehugger]

... I wonder if the 205's would have been better for longer flatter tours in deep snow. Yes, definitely. But then I'd be working harder at getting them to turn and using the skills I've accrued over the past several years to turn them and I would probably definitely not be reaching for them if I knew I was going into hillier terrain. So I'm on the balance between the two skis myself.

I think the 195 is a good place to start and later, as you gain experience you can sell them and upgrade to a longer ski, especially if you get a second ski that is "turnier." Or you may be very happy with the compromise of the 195s and decide to keep them.

Thanks this is exactly what I was thinking. I'll get 195 because they are better for my current ability and situation. If I do want to go longer later someone in the family will claim them.

I've always enjoyed spending time researching before buying. Makes the purchase more satisfying when I finally get them. Of course then I can start looking into whats next!

Speaking of research I'm reading more posts on people struggling with wax in warming conditions. My logic for wax is that Ingstad is best in fresh deep snow (which is why I'm getting it) which I've read is ideal for wax. Getting out during and right after storms when snow is cold and light is primary use but most days between storms is sunny and near or above freezing. Because of these frequent conditions am I going to wish I had waxless? Skins are an option (I guess) in warm dense snow? As is using a diferent ski in warm snow and just having Ingstad for nice powder days.

[Cannatonic]

I like the choice of wax skis - excuse me if this has already been said but the mohair kicker skins are the perfect companion to the wax Asnes and almost a mandatory accessory IMO. If you trim them off just behind your heel plate you get excellent traction and glide, and it works better than fishscales in many challenging types of snow conditions too.

If you get the fishscale skis you can still use the kicker skins but you'll never be able to get the performance of wax skis on cold, dry snow.

[treehugger]

I like the choice of wax skis - excuse me if this has already been said but the mohair kicker skins are the perfect companion to the wax Asnes and almost a mandatory accessory IMO. If you trim them off just behind your heel plate you get excellent traction and glide, and it works better than fishscales in many challenging types of snow conditions too.

If you get the fishscale skis you can still use the kicker skins but you'll never be able to get the performance of wax skis on cold, dry snow.

Great point that skins could be as effective as fishscales but that waxless can't match wax in ideal snow. Confirms what I was thinking.Wax sounds like better choice for this ski. Thanks!!!!!

[Woodserson]

Like Cannatonic... Get the mohair skins for this ski. The 30mm should be fine for flat travel, 45 or 58mm for serious vertical work. I use my 30mm mohairs on my Gamme 54's in waxless conditions all the time and trimmed right, they are fantabulous. Work great.

[fgd135]

Thanks for the review. Where did you buy your Combat Nato skis?

Although I work just up the street (literally less than one mile) from Neptune Mountaineering, the only US distributor for Åsnes, it turns out that Neptune doesn't stock the Combat ski. In fact, the staff I spoke with said they're never planning on selling it again, for whatever reason. Too bad, as I walked in with a wad of cash...ready to buy a pair. Neptune seems well stocked with other Åsnes skis, and skins, however.
Since I specifically wanted the Combat, I got dealer info from the Åsnes web site, corresponded with Pete at Norseman's in Calgary, AB, (btw, Pete was was incredibly helpful), purchased a pair of 200 Combats from Norseman,and had the skis shipped to me. The skis arrived in a little over a week, with no customs issues at all. I did have to pay Canadian GST, and applied for a refund of that tax since I purchased the skis from outside Canada. We'll see if the kind Canadian tax folks in Summerside PE decide to refund it, since it would help defray the shipping costs.
Fwiw, I did actually buy a pair of the short skins from Neptune. At least I try to support local shops!