Fischer E-109 vs. Asnes Ingstad

[lilcliffy]

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.

This is very useful stuff coxcer! I am now convinced- the Ingstad is the fresh snow ski I have been looking for- and I too want the XC performance this ski is capable of. As I weigh more than you (185lbs) I want the 210cm.

The skinlock system is awesome- gives you that step up in climbing traction...also can be used to pull weight.

[MikeK]

Obviously Asnes is too far over my head... I better stick to my low quality waxless 'telemark' skis

[Woodserson]

Great stuff Coxcer. Thanks for the report! Send pics! We're starving out here in the East. Terrible.

[The Lovely Bear]

[Cannatonic]

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.

Mike, last year I used the Antarctic, also some soft-leather Alico boots. I've got bunionized feet and also need rigid orthodics with big arch supports. The leathers work well because they can be stretched into different shapes, the Antarctic stretch really well even though they have thinsulate inside, it's still full-grain leather with no seams to restrict stretching.

You're right about Mr. Gamme doing a bit of jump-turning to handle the steeper slope. He does a good job of getting those edges to bite hard. I find with true XC skis like E89 they can't be tele-turned, keeping them parallel with both heels down works better, like that video of the backcountry skate-skiing someone just posted. The Eons aren't bad…I got 205's expecting them to run well over the flats. With less camber than XC skis, the scales drag more and feel slow to me. You expect that with wider powder skis…just have to match the right ski with your route.

Cox, thanks for the info, I'm glad to hear the Asnes skins work better than BD. Can't wait to try it. I'm still waffling over where to mount the bindings. I had a pair of E99's mounted 1cm forward of balance point, I need to ski them to see if it's a mistake or not. Neptune always mounts on balance point no matter what, I think they're probably right. I have size 13's and was thinking I'm move my foot up a bit to compensate. But Neptune says that will make the tail drag on the bent-knee foot when you're doing tele turns.

totally agree on longer lengths w/ Asnes - you have to figure out what the ski is designed for. I skied an old pair of E99 200's and I crushed the camber right out of them, they went almost flat after a couple dozen trips. That doesn't happen to the 210's, they are more appropriate for my weight. The S-bounds max out at 189cm, clearly they're designed to be skied at shorter lengths.

[MikeK]

Cool - I've been curious about the Antarctic. It was the first boot I looked into before I bought my Alaska. It might be cool to have a pair of Norwegian welted 3 pin boots.

How were they for break-in?

Neptune always mounts on balance point no matter what, I think they're probably right. I have size 13's and was thinking I'm move my foot up a bit to compensate. But Neptune says that will make the tail drag on the bent-knee foot when you're doing tele turns.

totally agree on longer lengths w/ Asnes - you have to figure out what the ski is designed for. I skied an old pair of E99 200's and I crushed the camber right out of them, they went almost flat after a couple dozen trips. That doesn't happen to the 210's, they are more appropriate for my weight. The S-bounds max out at 189cm, clearly they're designed to be skied at shorter lengths.

Just a suggestion but measure where balance is relative chord center (measure from tip to tail and divide by 2). If chord and balance are real close, mount at balance. If chord and balance vary and chord is more forward, mount at chord.

S-Bounds at 189 flatten out pretty easily. I never had any issue with the E99 as it's a double camber ski, even at 190cm length they still had a wax pocket with half my weight on them.

And without ruffling too many feathers, it really depends on what you want to do with the ski. I don't mind having it flatten out on skis I want good control in and plan on skiing through fresh snow. It doesn't seem to impede me too much. I can't just pole along, but even a lot of double camber waxless skis have issues with that. I wouldn't expect to have a wax pocket with half my weight with a ski like the Ingstad. You'll still glide, but you also be able to flex the ski a bit for dh control. If you want it to perform like a double cambered xc ski, then you need to make sure it has a gap with half your weight, but it will also be difficult to steer, less so in deep snow IMO though.

You also have to recall the the final gliding phase takes place with 100% of your weight on the forward ski, assuming you've done a full lunge and kicked to full extension. You still slide even though your wax should be completely flat to the snow.

[bgregoire]

Just a suggestion but measure where balance is relative chord center (measure from tip to tail and divide by 2). If chord and balance are real close, mount at balance. If chord and balance vary and chord is more forward, mount at chord.

Mikek, your oh so diplomatic! A convoluted way of saying: "Mount at chord"?

[Cannatonic]

Mike - the Antarctic leather is fairly soft & pliable, they break in quickly. I never got any blisters or anything like that. There's something in the heel area to stiffen it up, otherwise the leather is soft. It's not like some of the older, heavier boots from Asolo and Alico where you can barely bend the leather. I went to XC ski areas a couple times with the Antarctic and some traditional XC skis and they work great for that too. I hope to get a pair of stiffer leathers from Andrew at some point to drive the bigger & heavier tele skis.

I had some Alpina BC1600 for a season and those were the best NNNBC boots I ever had. But they were still too narrow for me, the Antarctic width can be pushed out another 1/2 to an inch by a cobbler or with these:

http://www.footfitter.com/p/101-002/foo ... tcher.html

choosing skis is like wine or beer - there will never be consensus on what's best. I did XC skiing for a long time without any telemarking, so double-camber skis just feel right to me, anything less feels slow. But you need something wider & softer for extensive downhill skiing & turns so it's OK. Those Instad/Breidablikks look good to me for this purpose. You can tune the wax or use skins to get the glide/grip ratio you want. They come in longer designs which I prefer too.

[MikeK]

On the S Bounds balance is at or forward of chord, but they may be oddballs. All the Madshus skis have balance aft of chord.

I don't notice much difference based on mounting points to be honest but for some reason my brain likes to think being balanced is better.

I've read some quite convincing literature that said all that is a bunch of hoopla and your foot should be centered over the wax pocket and nothing else.

Seems to me a well designed ski should be able to meet all these constraints.

[Cannatonic]

Just a suggestion but measure where balance is relative chord center (measure from tip to tail and divide by 2). If chord and balance are real close, mount at balance. If chord and balance vary and chord is more forward, mount at chord.

Mikek, your oh so diplomatic! A convoluted way of saying: "Mount at chord"?

With balance point I always feels too far back - my center of gravity is going to be 1" back on the skis from someone with size 10 feet. However, I think Neptune is right. If the skis have camber, it messes everything up if your foot isn't over the center of the camber. I know Madshus Eon/Epoch have marks on them that move the mounting point forward for big shoe size. But those skis don't have double camber. 1cm either way probably won't make much difference.

FWIW, Neptune insists on BP for Gamme 54 and Ingstad/Breidblikk. I didn't ask them what they do with Storetind, etc.

this winter is looking brutal, I just need to take a quick spin to check the bindings, who knows when I'll get the chance at this point. I'm heading to Quebec over New Years, surely they'll have snow by then right????