2022 Falketind 62 Xplore 196 cm First Impressions

[Nitram Tocrut]

These skis are pretty nice. 196cm length.
I went on a 11km tour with them of which about 6km on groomed xc corduroy. The rest was ups and downs. The picture below is from the summit, it is 340m above the lake in the center left so you get an idea of the relief.

PXL_20230224_112455918.jpg

Anyways we had Swix blue conditions. 3 layers corked in, i did not notice a drop in grip by the end of the tour so the wax pocket works fine even for me at over 105 kg skiing weight. Good kick and glide, but on corduroy it takes some effort to make the skis track straight. Not really surprising. When skiing on hard base with 5 to 10cm of powder they track straight, and there are obviously many xc skis more suited to corduroy xc tracks.æ, but it's passable.
I noticed in the past 4 tours that the shovel chatters a lot less than gen2 of this ski. Probably due to higher stiffness.
This is a very good and playful combo with Alfa Free. It's not magic and the hard flexor is very useful to help with downhill sections, but the ski turns easily and predictably. I do not notice worse DH performance due to increased stiffness compared to Gen2.

@Roelant just out of curiosity... How do they compare with your Sverdrup? Have you skied them in the same terrain and conditions? I find the Sverdrup easier to turn then the 2nd generation FT... do you?

[CwmRaider]

The Sverdrup is a better xc ski without a doubt (at least for hard snow conditions or a thin layer of soft snow). Due to the high rocker I find that downhill on hard pack the Sverdrup needs to be inclined quite a lot for the edges at the tip to bite and to enjoy the turn radius promised by the sidecut. When only slightly inclining the ski the effective sidecut is less (as the broad tip doesn't contact the snow) and the ski will want to go straighter. At the same time the Sverdrups high maneuverability is largely thanks to its rocker.
The Falketind Xplore tip edges bite earlier in my experience resulting in better use of the sidecut to carve turns. I've squeezed both the Otto Sverdrup and the Falketind Xplore together. The rocker amount appears to be much lower on the FTX.
In any case my hunch is that the Otto Sverdrup feels shorter and perhaps more maneuverable due to the higher rocker. But the FTX gives me more confidence in downhill sections, perhaps its lower rocker makes it more predictable?
Looking at this thread here http://telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f ... =10#p58407
I'd say the Sverdrup rocker looks similar to Ingstad, but Falketind rocker is significantly lower in height (although overall length may be similar)

[CwmRaider]

I measured the rocker on the 196cm Åsnes Falketind Xplore, the Åsnes Otto Sverdrup 205cm and the 2015/16 Fischer E99 Crown Xtralite 200cm, as a function of height of ski above the base when the ski is compressed.
Method:
- clamp skis firmly together at the BOF
- place tips against a wooden block
- At 5 cm increments from the wooden block measure the distance between ski bases with a caliper
- divide this distance in two to get base height above flat.

Note that the diagram has vertical exaggeration. The "0" point is where a piece of paper gets stuck under its own weight when skis are compressed together. I thought my E99 Crowns were 2014 but they are actually 2015/16 with wood color, navy blue and lime green.

In brief, the rocker length for the Falketind Xplore is about the same as for the Otto Sverdrup. But, the Otto Sverdrup has a rocker almost twice as high as the Falketind Xplore from about ~20cm horizontally from the tip of the ski until the point where the rocker starts. Also in the same zone the Falketind Xplore has less rocker than the 2015/16 E99 Crown Xtralite.
So to me it seems that the Otto Sverdrup owes its high maneuverability to its rocker which makes it ski like a much shorter ski than it is. The Falketind Xplore has high maneuverability partially due to rocker but more so due to much more sidecut, rounder flex and lower overall stiffness.
Each approach has different strengths and weaknesses.

[lilcliffy]

Excellence encore Master Roelant!

Nerdy thought-question-

I wonder how much of this is a function of "Nordic" rocker vs conventional rocker-

With a conventionally-rockered ski (i.e. common profile in modern alpine skis)- the ski is "permanently" rockered in its profile to varying degrees-

With Nordic rocker, the shovel does not open up until the camber is compressed-
the dynamics of this is very different than conventional rocker-

My point-
I am wondering whether the degree of camber underfoot is a physical variable in the degree of rocker "height" with respect to Nordic rocker...

For example- as the FTX has little camber- does that limit the protential "height" of the Nordic rocker when pressured?
Alternatively- the E99/Sverdrup have significantly more camber than the FTX- does this increase the potential "height" of the Nordic rocker when pressured?

Utlimately- if the depth of the rocker is the same (in an equivalent length), does it make any difference of the height of the rocker is greater, or lesser?

Taking an intuitive shot at it- all things being equal-
my thought is that a higher Nordic rocker will have a greater impact on performance when XC skiing and climbing (NEGATIVE inpact)- and, perhaps little to no impact when downhill skiing-
...

[CwmRaider]

Excellence encore Master Roelant!

Nerdy thought-question-

I wonder how much of this is a function of "Nordic" rocker vs conventional rocker-

With a conventionally-rockered ski (i.e. common profile in modern alpine skis)- the ski is "permanently" rockered in its profile to varying degrees-

With Nordic rocker, the shovel does not open up until the camber is compressed-
the dynamics of this is very different than conventional rocker-

My point-
I am wondering whether the degree of camber underfoot is a physical variable in the degree of rocker "height" with respect to Nordic rocker...

For example- as the FTX has little camber- does that limit the protential "height" of the Nordic rocker when pressured?
Alternatively- the E99/Sverdrup have significantly more camber than the FTX- does this increase the potential "height" of the Nordic rocker when pressured?

Utlimately- if the depth of the rocker is the same (in an equivalent length), does it make any difference of the height of the rocker is greater, or lesser?

Taking an intuitive shot at it- all things being equal-
my thought is that a higher Nordic rocker will have a greater impact on performance when XC skiing and climbing (NEGATIVE inpact)- and, perhaps little to no impact when downhill skiing-
...

I measured the rocker profiles with the skis completely compressed. I flatten all these skis completely when distributing weight on both skis. An unweighted ski will ski "longer" but does it matter if there is no weight on it?
Im pretty sure the Sverdrup benefits from its rocker in downhill performance as it is far easier to turn in loose snow than the Nansen which has similar sidecut.
If you incline the skis slightly the Sverdrup will not arc as much as the other skis and will want to go straighter. The Nansen and Combat Nato (without rocker) both are more "carvy" than the Sverdrup on groomed alpine slopes. The Falketind Xplore is far more carvy. So the less highly rockered skis with more sidecut are better "norpine" skis.

So yes I believe rocker height makes a difference.

[Salto]

Howdy.

Considering the FT explore ski for Colorado trail and downhills. Tours are typically up a FS trail (Gradient is usually 1k vertical in a mile or two - so not kick and glide rolling terrain) then hit a glade or some tight tree steeps, then back down the toboggan run.

I have some old karhu guides and excursions. Work great for above, but would like to get lighter gear to ski with alpina alaska 75mm. Sticking with 75mm cause I have tons of binders and the boots.

The tough part with the light gear is when the trails get firm and snow gets firm to breakable, then the light gear becomes terrifying. How does the FTX do in harder pack to icey conditions? And for referenced skiing?

I am also just considering a Madshus M68 cause they are really cheap and for most conditions will be great and easy turners. Is the FTX that much better for soft snow?

I am not afraid of wax but scales are quite easy when the conditions warm....I have a pair of BC90 skis for that, but they leave a lot to be desired on the downhill.

Thanks!

[fisheater]

The FT X is in a class beyond the Panorama/S-bound skis. The FT X is much more torsional rigid, much more secure on hard snow. It’s truly a higher class of ski.
That being said it is still a light ski, it does not plow through mank like a heavier ski. It is more capable than the previous version. I was out at a local Midwest ski hill, I was skiing a black hill that had a couple spots without any white snow, only softening frozen snowcat tracks. The FT X held an edge fine, however being light it did a fine job a transmitting vibration as well. It seemed similar when I ran across isolated boiler plate in the past. Please be aware these are isolated incidents as I reach for a different ski, and my T-4 if I think I will be running into more difficult conditions. I only ski the FT X with leather boots.
I was out in melting snow recently, and had good kick and glide, and climb with a 45 mm mohair X-skin

[lilcliffy]

Have a new set of 196 FTX sitting in my office this week-
Been flexing and stroking them obsessively.

Compared to 2nd gen FT- my FTX is:
- less rockered shovel
- longitudinally stiffer
- appears slightly more cambered out of the box

Compared to my Ingstad BC- the FTX is:
- less rockered shovel
- rockered tail (Ingstad has no tail rocker)
- tapered tail
- similar longitudinal stiffness
- rounder flex (Ingstad has significantly more resistance underfoot)
- slightly less cambered than Ingstad (but the biggest difference is the resistance underfoot- not the camber)
- low profile, round tip (Ingstad has raised, triangular tip)

Some key points from recent UTE magazine tests of the FTX and Ingstad:
- no difference in flotation in deep snow
- FTX has much narrower turn radius; directionally unstable on consolidated snow ("wants" to turn)
- Ingstad more efficient XC ski; more directionally stable in general

In my experience, the Ingstad is terribly directionally unstable on consolidated snow as well- but directionally stable on soft snow.

I will be rigoroudly testing the FTX against the Ingstad- into next season.
While I know that I will appreciate the downhill performance of the FTX- the lack of a raised, triangular, trail-breaking tip may be a deal-breaker for me...
I will find out!

Regardless, the redesigned FTX has a much more stable flex than the previous designs- it will suit my use much more than the previous designs.

Going to mount XP on it.

[CwmRaider]

Today I went to the local ski hill with the FTX 196cm, Alfa Free and Xplore binding with hard flexors. My GPS watch tells me I skied down 2932m (for imperial unit addicts that would be nearly 10000 feet).
Snow conditions were really good, there was a bit poor visibility sometimes due to fresh snow falling.
Anyways I really liked the skis in a DH context. They were supportive and stable. The whole combination had enough torsional stiffness that I could skid brake with them without noticing the ski or boot sole twisting and I am heavy at 105kg.
I mostly skied on groomed slopes but I also spent some time on ungroomed ones with about 30cm fresh snow I discovered towards the end. Control was excellent - for an XC/ BC ski setup.
At 188 cm height I wondered if I would have been better served with a shorter (188cm) FTX shortly after ordering mine. I was pretty happy with the 196cm length today. The skis did not chatter and were stable at high speed up to 58 km/h. That is plenty fast for me with non releasable bindings. I made no efforts to go faster.

There was a question here earlier about how the Xplore bindings compare to 3 pin cable. First of all this is highly boot dependent. With Alfa Free the Lateral and torsional rigidity gives control levels, comparable to, or maybe better than the stiffest leather boots in 3 pin with hardwire. The Alfa Free with a hard flexor is however still easier to flex forwards than a good boot locked in a 3 pin HW binding, and to keep the rear ski weighted in a telemark turn requires some focus and effort. So, the 3 pin hardwire allows more aggressive telemark skiing than xplore, whereas "other" downhill techniques are probably about similar, control wise.
Considering the weight and ergonomics of the Xplore, clearly this is a very good product for XCD.
Very happy overall with this setup.

[lilcliffy]

At 188 cm height I wondered if I would have been better served with a shorter (188cm) FTX shortly after ordering mine. I was pretty happy with the 196cm length today. The skis did not chatter and were stable at high speed up to 58 km/h.

This is interesting and relevant with regards to the intended skiing objective with this ski-

with the the 1st/2nd gen FT- I was considering it as a strictly downhill-focused ski- and found it wanting in the local snow conditions that are suited to downhill skiing (i.e. deep snow)-

with my recent touring with the Rabb 68- this is the ski that suits my downhill-focused pursuit.

I am considering the FTX as a possible replacement for my Ingstad- offering similar XC stability in deep snow, with better downhill performance.

My question for you-
if you would consider a shorter FTX- am I correct in assuming that is to ski tighter downhill turns?
And- if so- why would you have a shorter FTX and not the Rabb 68?