Fischer E-109 vs. Asnes Ingstad

[bgregoire]

Wish there were more shots of him telemarking on the Gamme 54s- man that's some powerful tele! And on NNNBC!

Oh! This is for you Lilcliff:

http://www.fftv.no/fjellskiskolen-ep-1-svingteknikk-12

http://www.fftv.no/fjellskiskolen-ep-2-svingteknikk-22

What the hell, there's a bunch of them:

http://www.fftv.no/tag/fjellskiskolen

[Cannatonic]

he wouldn't have to jump up & down so much if he switched to 3-pin! The Scandanavians love their NNNBC apparently. For me upgrading to 3-pin was like a religious experience, it seems so much easier for downhill turns. The Fischer boots don't fit my feet well, I'm sure that's part of it.

[MikeK]

Look at the description of Amundsen - sounds like it will be impossible to turn. I had some old Merrell-badged Asnes skis last year that simply refused to turn. In fact I think LJ tried them as well.

I flexed those skis. They were very, very stiff. I thought they might have even been double cambered. When I flexed them I thought I could see a wax pocket. I had such a hard time flexing them though, I could barely sight them.

They were really, really straight too. Nice graphics though.

[lilcliffy]

Well- now I have some more video to watch (will have to be later- got too many chores to clear up before dark- killing birds today)

Again- I wish I could understand Norwegian, because I believe there is a lot of detailed explanation that we're not getting...

Stiff, double-cambered skis are terrible and deep, dry powder snow- the tips/tails get driven down with the kick- and the wax pocket does not properly engage with the snow.

The climate in Scandanavia is wet and humid- especially in western, mountainous Norway (the forests in western Norway are actually technically rainforests). Deep, dry powder snow is actually rare in Scandinavia (Finland has a much drier colder, true Boreal climate- and interestingly Finnish backcountry skis traditionally have a softer flex than Scandinavian skis).

I think part of our confusion is assuming that "flotation" always applies to deep, dry powder snow (it certainly does in western interior North America). Deep fresh snow in Scandinavia is still relatively dense- and there would always be a stable base below it. If the base is relatively dense and stable a stiff ski like the Amundsen may well offer decent "flotation" in deep, fresh snow- the tips/tails don't sink into the abyss, and the wax pocket will engage.

And whether we like it or not- deep, dry powder snow is not typical in the humid Northeast either. I live in a snowbelt (on purpose)- we typically have a 2m snow base by the beginning of February. But the climate is very humid, and typically dry, deep powder does not last very long (last winter was unique- I was on my powder skis most of the winter). Most fresh snow skiing for me is a foot or more of soft stuff on top of a stable, dense base- this is more like Scandinavia than it is western interior NA.

The reason I am interested in skis like the E-109 and the Ingstad is because I want more float than a ski like the E-99 or Nansen- for skiing on fresh snow- but I want more stiffness than a ski like the Eon or S-78/S-88 for better K&G performance.

I try to take advantage of every fresh snow fall that I can- and I find skis like the E-99/Nansen/BC59-65-70 don't offer the ideal flotation and flex for the fresh stuff. Hence my interest in a moderately stiff (at least stiffer than the Eon/S-78) ski in the 80mm shovel range.

I am not concerned with turning either the E-109 or the Ingstad- I have enough experience and skill that I feel confident that I can- even at 200+cm.

In the end my primary question is which one offers the best true XC performance- it looks like the Ingstad- which makes me happy, because that's the one I wanted in the first place- just because I have a certain thing for Asnes skis!

When my kids get older, and I can pursue some long-distance, multi-day XC expeditions- I will be interested in a ski like the Amundsen.

[lilcliffy]

he wouldn't have to jump up & down so much if he switched to 3-pin! The Scandanavians love their NNNBC apparently. For me upgrading to 3-pin was like a religious experience, it seems so much easier for downhill turns. The Fischer boots don't fit my feet well, I'm sure that's part of it.

I don't agree- the telemark technique that Gamme is using has more to do with the ski he is using and the dense, wet snow he is skiing on. The Gamme 54 is not an "easy-turnin" ski |(not in the modern parabolic context)- and that dense, wet snow is not easy to steer through either. I doubt very much that Gamme uses the same telemark technique in more favorable snow conditions. One thing is for sure Gamme is not steering his way into the telemark, he is striding/jumping. You would need some incredibly powerful boots/bindings to steer your way through turns, in that kind of snow- with as ski like the Gamme 54.

From personal experience NNNBC does not inherently require such aggresive, powerful telemark technique. I am not one for making ski videos- but check out CIMAs posts some time- the terrain and snow he is skiing on allow him and his buds to use some of the most relaxed telemark technique I have ever seen!

IME, NNNBC offers at least equivalent downhill performance as "plain-jane" 3-pin. To me the difference at that level of binding power has more to do with the boot than the binding.

I would imagine he is using NNNBC on the Gamme 54 for improved K&G performance- due to the very effective binding resistance of NNNBC.

(that generation of Fischer BCX6 boots were murder on my metatarsus! Apparently the new model is more comfortable- but less supportive)

[MikeK]

Hahaha! My wife skis down hills exactly like a 1920s Norwegian solider! Wide stance, butt out, snowplow then BAM!

[MikeK]

IME, NNNBC offers at least equivalent downhill performance as "plain-jane" 3-pin. To me the difference at that level of binding power has more to do with the boot than the binding.

Mechanically speaking, the 75mm plate has more leverage than 68mm plate of the widest NNN binding for rolling the ski on edge. The wings on the 75mm plate offer more yaw control because there is virtually no slop between the side of the boot and the wings where the NNN relies mainly on the ridges on base plate to accomplish the same task.

Despite all this it comes down to the boot. If you can't transmit the force from the foot to the binding effectively, then the binding is less relevant. This is where it can be become a wash when comparing NNN to a plain 3 pin.

I still feel at some point you don't have enough leverage for the weight and width of the ski for NNN to be as effective. On a skinny ski, you don't need as much torque to roll it on edge, although if it has a mighty camber, you'll have to fight that to get the ski to flex into a shape that turns.

My personal thought is somewhere in the range of 1100g per ski and 65mm or so waist width is where you might want to consider switching. That then assumes you also use a 75mm boot that is fairly stiff as well. With a very soft 75mm boot you have comparable, or maybe less turning capability than the NNN.

Those numbers are swags and mainly based on what I've observed with my own skis and how ski manufacturers tend to design their skis for each binding. For example look at the S Bound line, the previous version 78 and 88 seemed to me to be designed for system bindings (promo pictures even showed them mounted with such) and the 98 and 112 for 3 pin bindings (the promos show no bindings, but Fischers doesn't have a branded 3 pin binding - surprised by them being naked? Me either).

But it doesn't matter. There will always be those who favor pins for skinnies and push NNN BC on fatties. There are no hard and fast rules, it's whatever works for you. Just don't get caught on the stigma that NNN BC doesn't work, it does, you just may not have tried the right boot/ski combo or your type of skiing may not lend itself to such.

[Cannatonic]

Hey I've got many, many miles logged on NNNBC skis, that's all I used for years. I know what they do, they're a lot of fun. But I feel much more in control with the thick rubber 75mm sole clamped into place. I see the films of NNNBC tele skiing and I think the people look weird, having to use exaggerated movement to transition from one edge to the other.

Obviously thousands of happy viking-people would disagree. it's the boot too. All the NNN boots must conform into the same pre-molded sole. The welted leather boot can expand more to fit oddly shaped feet. The fischer/rossi BC boots absolutely killed my mutant feet.

[MikeK]

What are you using for boots now Can?

I don't jump at all on my skis, but I would have to, to make my stiffly cambered E89 skis turn. I don't really turn them that way though. I find it's best to ski them like what they are, a metal edged track ski. Step turns work the best. Obviously not in deep snow or down steep slopes, but I don't ski them in those conditions.

My softly cambered Eons (I know, slow compared to stiff wax skis) require only light unweighting to turn. I find them a delight with NNN BC bindings.

My slightly stiffer feeling, but shapely S Bound 98s require just a setting the edge and they dig and turn aggressively. I have pins on them and I don't think I'd like them as much with NNN BC. I would try it though with the proper boot like the Svartisen NNN BC. They aren't fast enough striders though that I'd consider the NNN BC a real advantage anyway. It would be more of novelty or to use a pair of boots I really liked.

Anyway I believe the reason Gamme is jumping so much is to really flex that stiff camber of his Gamme skis. If you watch the vids you can see once he pounces on them he gets the ski to flex in a relatively tight arc, which is good for skiing steep terrain. As you can see in the sideshots of the vids, he's on about a 30deg slope of somewhat icy hardpack. If he was skiing down something milder with a larger turn radius, he'd be able to weight and turn the skis without jumping I believe.

[coxcer]

I'm not doubting Neptune's expertise, but also don't doubt Asnes either... I'm wondering why they put you on such a long ski? Granted maybe for a traditional ski you might be in the right length but according to Asnes' tables you should be looking more for like a 180 to 185.

A guy my size, at 200lb, is more amenable to a 200cm, maybe even a 210cm.

Perhaps if you did want to push this more towards xc performance ski, you might have went the right direction, but what I could tell from Gamme's chart, these are supposed to be a soft snow, middle ground ski. I think you may give up a fair deal of their turning performance by going so long relative to the Asnes chart.

Either way, good luck and enjoy the skis and boots!

They put me on that size of ski because that is how the ski performs. If you weigh 200 and get on a 200cm then your wax pocket will always be engaged and therefore won't get the glide part (or kick for that matter) of the KNG. You are right that it is a XC performance ski, so you really should treat it that way. You wouldn't buy a Ferrari and then put monster truck tires on it, so if you want them to flex and turn like a true downhill telemark ski then maybe you should be looking into a downhill telemark ski.

I skied the Ingstads again today and tried out the kicker skins. They work VERY well because the ski is designed to pull the skin off of the snow and allow somewhat of a glide. Much better system than the shitty BD kicker skins where the plate digs in under foot. I was able to go straight up hills that I would normally be using a herringbone and then kinda kick and glide when it flattened out.