Fischer E-109 vs. Asnes Ingstad

[lilcliffy]

That could be... but I'm not sure it is.

Typically in the industry I work in every weight savings costs you more, even if you use less material. For example on the skis to get the same stiffness and flex patterns they would have to do significant work with the composites to make up for the air core. Granted the internal fibers of the ski don't give it the majority of it's flex, but it has some contribution.

I really think it's a push to sell the consumer something new and better. It's also a point of difference on a spec sheet. It's hard to sell someone durability.

Keeping both would have been smart but looking at Fischers bloated line of backcountry skis is surprising they keep what they do. They must sell enough to make it worthwhile.

I follow you here- and I agree when it comes to high performance tech...

But wood-air cores are not high-tech- they are cheap- much cheaper than solid wood cores, and especially "ultralite" solid wood cores, reinforced with carbon fiber! AIR is just empty space- and it is cheap.

I agree the reduced weight of the current E-109 is big step forward in performance over the previous- but there are more durable ways of getting there than adding air.

[MikeK]

The old E99 I had were awesome built skis. If they had the current waxless pattern they would have been even better.

I find the new "off-track" climbs better than the previous waxless base- but IMO, the previous waxless base on the E-99 had better glide- it was more optimized for K&G.

Yeah I'm up in the air on the one. The new pattern seems to glide very well to me. I don't have any true test data to distinguish one way or the other. One would think just based on it being a negative pattern that it would gilde better, especially in harder conditions (particularly the ones where it gripped for shit).

It certainly seemed better than the Madshus MGV+ in terms of glide, but that might just be a a stiffness thing too.

Lots of confounding inputs make it really difficult to say what is better. Fischer no doubt did a lot of work to develop this new pattern, but IIRC it was most likely due to the number of complaints they received about the mountain crown. There are certain conditions where it just doesn't work well at all.

Seems like a scale pattern like that might have made more sense with the Easy Skin. At least in theory you'd have a good glider and some grip without the ski. Throw the skin on for the steeper or more difficult snow. No way would they go backwards and re-implement a scale pattern that they supposedly improved upon though.

[lilcliffy]

Did you decide yet?

Also I think the Nansen seems like a great ski. I'm guessing it's similar flex to the Ingstad but just a hair narrower.

Oh and one other thing... are you sure a 210 is a good idea for you? I was looking at the weights for these skis and they recommend over 95kg for that ski. Just knowing that these skis tend to be on the stiff side, I'm wondering if you'll have trouble engaging it properly?

I'm pretty sure I'd opt for a 200 based on their charts.

WELL- I have been wanting Asnes skis for a very long time...The Ingstad is what I want...I guess I was wondering if the flex pattern and performance was going to be similar or very different between the two skis...Have we figured that one out? Is the Ingstad stiffer than the E-109? Which one is more of a XC ski?

The Nansen- according to Asnes- is significantly stiffer than the Ingstad- the Ingstad being intended for deeper, softer snow.

[bgregoire]

WELL- I have been wanting Asnes skis for a very long time...The Ingstad is what I want...I guess I was wondering if the flex pattern and performance was going to be similar or very different between the two skis...Have we figured that one out? Is the Ingstad stiffer than the E-109? Which one is more of a XC ski?

Perhaps I can perform a hands on camber test in a shop at the olf Yeti (in MTL) or Stockholm between Xmas and New Year for you?

I'm also going to find this great vid make by a norwegian superhero who charts all these skis according to three variables including camber...

[lilcliffy]

I'm pretty sure I'd opt for a 200 based on their charts.

I too would go shorter than longer with Asnes skis. I like my E99 at 200cm (I'm 165lbs max) but wish my Amundsen 201s were in fact 196.

Yeah- but the Amundsen is a whole other class of stiff ski isn't it? I would imagine that getting the perfect length per weight is critical with a ski like the Amundsen?

I am under the impression that the width and flex pattern of the Ingstad is designed for soft, fresh snow?

In general- I like as long a skis as I can get away with...especially in a XCd context. Unless the Ingstad is stiffer than I think- I am pretty sure I want the 210cm.

[MikeK]

I follow you here- and I agree when it comes to high performance tech...

But wood-air cores are not high-tech- they are cheap- much cheaper than solid wood cores, and especially "ultralite" solid wood cores, reinforced with carbon fiber! AIR is just empty space- and it is cheap.

I agree the reduced weight of the current E-109 is big step forward in performance over the previous- but there are more durable ways of getting there than adding air.

True but the lightest skis that I know of have honeycomb or foam cores. It's just filler, like air, except air is hard to mold around because it's amorphous. All the stiffness and structure is in the outside of the box of a ski cross section. The best ski in terms of mass would have zero core but this is hard to do and create the ski shape.

The problem comes if you do have some small failure in your outer composite shell like a nick, or an old binding hole... hit it just right and SNAP, you are done. A full wood core is kind of like case hardened steel (or an M&M candy). You have a very stiff, but brittle out layer and soft, flexible inner core. If you have a minor failure in the outer core, the inner core can still support it. But it adds weight and relatively little flexible properties.

I'm completely in-line with why they do it but you have those issue coupled with binding support issues.

Bri7 and I were talking about this and lightweight ski design. I suggested if you were making a custom ski and you knew where the binding would mount that you'd maybe try to mold in some aluminum bosses (very robust) during manufacture. This was mainly in response to honeycomb cores and binding mounting strength and stiffness.

[lilcliffy]

Perhaps I can perform a hands on camber test in a shop at the olf Yeti (in MTL) or Stockholm between Xmas and New Year for you?

I'm also going to find this great vid make by a norwegian superhero who charts all these skis according to three variables including camber...

That would be awesome man- on both counts!

[bgregoire]

Ok found it!

You guys will love this!

Cannondale, this is Gamme's Papa!

All you have to do now is learn Norwegian!

http://www.fftv.no/fjellskiskolen-ep-3-valg-av-ski

[lilcliffy]

I'm following you- but aren't the new Fischer "xtralites" just wood-air channeled?

[MikeK]

I'm following you- but aren't the new Fischer "xtralites" just wood-air channeled?

Yes, I believe so. Most of their models have air channels though. I think the S Bounds do. It might be a difference in how aggressive they are in removing wood and adding air.

But I think they change the outer structure of the ski too. I don't think it's at all the same composite. Even though the wood contributes little, the outer fibers do, and wood has a certain feel to it. So I think they must have done some engineering and composite work to make it feel similar (assuming it's still a relatively snappy xc focuses ski).

But back to the Ingstad... All data now points me to this being more of xcD ski. Maybe on the stiff end of the spectrum, but I don't know. I'm going based on the little bit of data we have on this thread and the little bit of data on their website. Only they could tell you for sure. I'm really thinking it's more in the class of the Eon or the S78. Maybe the E109 is the ski?

I'm wondering IF the Nansen would be more of a soft snow XCd ski or if it's intended to be more of a hard snow xcD ski. It's really hard to say but they do point out it's balance between 'hiking and turning'.