asnes Ingstad waxless vs BC/waxable

[rhodekill]

Hi, new to forum!

Thanks for all the great XCD advice!

I am looking for backcountry setup and have been considering the whole range of Asnes skis. I grew up in Norway and XC raced through college, but more recently have been doing mostly tele skiing/skinning at resorts in scarpa T2 setup with G3 binding.

I am looking for a lighter setup to get out in the woods, be less resort reliant and hopefully be able to incorporate some tele turning with a leather boot setup. I live on east coast so variable conditions. Lots of tight trees! Based on discussions, I think I would go with the FT62 if I could get ahold of it, but it looks sold out at Sport Albert. It sounds like a fun ski and having something to play with on the downhills is a big part of what I am looking for. Considered the Voile hypervector and Fischer 98/112 but the Voile sounds a little clunky/slow and not sure if the downhill performance of the Fischers are worth the XC penalty.

Ultimately I would probably want 2 skis, a light AT turning setup with leather boot (?Alaska or the Crispi) and a more XC distance ski.

It seems that the Ingstad could serve as a distance ski (not looking to cover long stretches, just want to get in woods and make some headway-fireroads/mountain bike trails etc) and still have some fun on hills and be able to turn/bend a knee?

Wondering thoughts on the waxless Ingstad vs the "waxable"/BC Ingstad. It seems like wax pocket on this ski is a little short with the mild camber. Does the waxless really slow the ski down/sound annoyingly loud? Also, considering 195 vs 205 length (I am 6'2/185 lbs. -I would get 205 for the xc performance, but wondering if I should just go short to better enjoy the turn aspect of the ski.

Thanks for any advice-I know these skis have been talked to death but couldn't find much about the waxless Ingstad vs how the waxable Ingstad performs. Also interested in general what would be best ski/binding for tele with leather boot setup.

[Woodserson]

Where you located?

I have both Wax and WL 195cm Ingstads.

They are OK and I think suitable for what you are doing. They turn "easier" for a XC ski (but they are STILL a XC ski so don't expect swoopy happy turns) and they float OK. If you're not looking to crush miles on firm consolidated snow, they could be the ticket. The glide is a little short with all the rocker up front, which is substantial and totally baked into the description of the ski. It's a XC ski for steep hill terrain, not long flats or approaches, but it's not a DH ski. So it works very well in this application.

I'm somewhat mixed on the 195cm length myself, in deeper snow I think the 205 would be better for me for soft snow long distance XC travel (6'2" 160lbs), but the 195's hold their own skiing down hills. Last year I skied several days at lift-served mountains with just the Ingstad. Kind of funny stuff. Soft snow preferred over concrete hard loose granular. I'm using them as a fresh trail-breaking deeper snow XC ski.

WL vs Wax... well... For the jury is still out on the Asnes WL pattern. I am having mixed results. It is very short and not very aggressive. Wax is nice because you can adjust the pocket length but the snows in New England tend to lean towards waxless if you don't want to deal with the 33+degF waxing hassle.

The FT62 is a real downhill ski that can be skied in leathers. It's the best. But it's not a XC ski in any of the traditional senses. Good ski for the Avalanche Brook Trail or anywhere you'd use a Fischer S-Bound 98.

Lemme know if you got questions.

[rhodekill]

Thanks for reply!

Sounds like the FT 62 is the ski I am looking for-fun downhill performance without too much XC sacrifice.

I am in Northampton MA and ski mostly Berkshire East and Mt Snow skin up and tele down. Mostly XC ski tracked areas. Would like to get off track in the MA hilltowns/VT/NH. Just picked up Crispi Antarctic leather boot from Fey brothers and excited to try to tele with them. I decided to order the Ingstad 195 wax version with Rottefelle 75 Super tele binding, hoping that will add a little excitement to the downhills compared to my XC race skis!

How was skiing the Ingstad on the lift served mountain? Are you able to link turns pretty well?

With respect to the FT62 do you ski with short skins and leave it on for shorter hills or mostly skin up and then remove? Sounds like kickwax drags on that ski due to lack of camber. I am thinking of taking the FT in the woods-fire roads, MTB trails, sometimes hike to old ski mountains and tele down. How would you compare flat skiing the FT62 to a true downhill ski with skins?

[Woodserson]

Thanks for reply!

Sounds like the FT 62 is the ski I am looking for-fun downhill performance without too much XC sacrifice.

No, there IS XC sacrifice in my opinion with the FT. It has more camber than a traditional downhill ski, but it's not going to get you anywhere fast or efficiently compared to a XC BC ski designed for distance. The FT is great for rolly up and down terrain without long flats. But it's such a fun great ski. I love mine!

I am in Northampton MA and ski mostly Berkshire East and Mt Snow skin up and tele down. Mostly XC ski tracked areas. Would like to get off track in the MA hilltowns/VT/NH. Just picked up Crispi Antarctic leather boot from Fey brothers and excited to try to tele with them. I decided to order the Ingstad 195 wax version with Rottefelle 75 Super tele binding, hoping that will add a little excitement to the downhills compared to my XC race skis!

How was skiing the Ingstad on the lift served mountain? Are you able to link turns pretty well?

On dependable soft snow surfaces, yes, but longer arcs and I have to jump to stay on them. With the rocker they can get squirrelly on hardpack when going at speed. I use the ST on mine. Good choice!

If I'm insisting on using leathers I usually go for the 188cm FT's or 180cm Rabb68's. The Ingstad inbounds is just to get some weird looks. The other two skis ski better downhill.

Ingstad= XC Ski
FT62= uber-Light Randonée ski.

With respect to the FT62 do you ski with short skins and leave it on for shorter hills or mostly skin up and then remove? Sounds like kickwax drags on that ski due to lack of camber. I am thinking of taking the FT in the woods-fire roads, MTB trails, sometimes hike to old ski mountains and tele down. How would you compare flat skiing the FT62 to a true downhill ski with skins?

NO, I definitely ski these things with kickwax only and would only use the skins if climbing consistently for a longer descent (like if I was climbing up to HoJo's and skiing the Sherburne--- 2000' up and down). It depends on what I'm doing that day. Lots of up & down in short succession like Avalanche Brook Trail or something? kick wax. Don't grip wax a huge pocket, with the lower camber and rocker it doesn't need as much, but since it has more camber than a traditional downhill ski it does just fine. Great ski!

All my skis are available for others to use and try if we ever go skiing together, so keep that in mind. I don't hog my stuff! (if schedules ever allow it! haha)

[fisheater]

The FT is no double cambered ski, but in soft snow it does preserve a wax pocket. Furthermore while the wax pocket does drag on hardpack flats, I prefer it to the greater resistance of scale drag I experienced on my S-112.
If you’re in New Hampshire you’re going to need both. Don’t torture yourself, you can just get the ski you don’t buy this year, next year.

[Nitram Tocrut]

Thanks for reply!

Sounds like the FT 62 is the ski I am looking for-fun downhill performance without too much XC sacrifice.

With respect to the FT62 do you ski with short skins and leave it on for shorter hills or mostly skin up and then remove? Sounds like kickwax drags on that ski due to lack of camber. I am thinking of taking the FT in the woods-fire roads, MTB trails, sometimes hike to old ski mountains and tele down.

Well I can’t answer your original question as I only own the waxable Ingstad but I can give my opinion with the FT. I skied the FT62 188 cm and it has become my go to ski whenever there is turns involved. I sold them to buy the 196 cm as I expect to get better « XC » performance out of those extra 8cm and still be really easy to turn. I don’t intend to use them in trees because I prefer to be skiing than having a broken leg... Seriously I bought a shorter ski, 178 cm Objectives, to try my luck skiing in the trees. In another thread, LilCliffy wrote that he should have bought the 180 and even the 172 FT to ski in the trees.

So you may consider buying a shorter FT but then you would lose some “XC” efficiency. Speaking of XC efficiency I personally think that I do not sacrifice a lot with the FT. I have been actually quite surprised as it’s effectiveness when touring for turn in the fields and hills on an around my farm. I ski alone most of the time so I have no one to worry about in term of speed. Of course, if you have a long distance to cover to get some dh fun, you might find them a bit slow but you will forget about that when the dh fun starts... I find them much easier to turn than the Ingstad with leather boots but my Ingstad are 205 so that can make a difference as well. It’s not classified as an XC ski but for me

I don’t really use skins with those skis as most of the hills I ski around are not worth using skins as I would spend too much time dealing with them. I had really good results climbing not too steep slopes with grip wax and I don’t remember experiencing drag.

Well, I hoped you got some info out of my confused writing . You probably already know that there was a lot of discussions on the FT62 and a special contribution by Crister from Åsnes.

In conclusion... just to mix things even more in your head, if I had to do it again I would get the FT and the Nansen after what I read about this ski... But I am really happy with the FT and the Ingstad.... Good reflexion

[rhodekill]

Fisheater wrote: If you’re in New Hampshire you’re going to need both. Don’t torture yourself, you can just get the ski you don’t buy this year, next year.

thanks for making my life easier!!

I am thinking of ordering FT from Sport Albert. It looks like they can put a voile 3 pin binding and cable on there as a package deal. Do you like to have them mount bindings or do the mounting yourself when you order from sport Albert? I could get a super tele binding locally from Fey brothers with the cable, or get the voile somewhere else. I plan to ski a lot in the woods so am thinking FT 62 188 cm although I am a little heavy (87kg) . Sounds like 196 would be good in the open. I am a decent downhill skier on XC skis so I suppose I could get away with the longer ski, though am nervous about maneuvering between trees with a "longer" ski. Doing tele/downhill turns off trail in the woods with a fatter ski (compared to my XC skis) is somewhat new to me.

[fisheater]

I purchased my FT from Sport Albert. At that time the exchange rate made it more logical to order Voile 3 pin cable bindings in the Stares.
I mounted mine pins on balance point, which was the Åsnes’ recommendation. I would believe that Sport Albert employs excellent technicians, and they will use a jig as opposed to a paper template at home. Personally I prefer to mount my own, but I tolerate my mistakes much better than I would had I paid to have the work done. We all do what is best for us, when we are able.
Good luck

[CwmRaider]

Oh well. Snow has come to Central Norway. And it didn't take more than 36 hours and spotting a good deal for my honorable resolve to do it all with 1 pair of BC skis, to evaporate.
This afternoon I spotted FT62s in 196cm 30% off.
I just ordered them mounted with Rottefella ST Hardwire bindings and 10mm riser plates.

[Woodserson]

Oh well. Snow has come to Central Norway. And it didn't take more than 36 hours and spotting a good deal for my honorable resolve to do it all with 1 pair of BC skis, to evaporate.
This afternoon I spotted FT62s in 196cm 30% off.
I just ordered them mounted with Rottefella ST Hardwire bindings and 10mm riser plates.

YES! GOOD CALL!

You have, of course, DA FEVAH

You won't regret. Great ski, so much fun! I have my bindings on 10mm plates too. Perfect, really sweet.