Ski Review: 2018-2019 Åsnes Ingstad BC

[Petetheswede]

Lil Cliffy

Your last post leads to the question, is the FT62 with NNNBC actually a more allround xcD ski being narrower than the Storetind but of similar proportions?

[lilcliffy]

Hello Petter!
I have yet to try and put the FT62 through its paces in a distance tour.
I have been out doing yo-yo laps with it on my own in some steep fields and glades (as well as doing relentless short laps on the steep little sidehill behind our barn with my 5-year-old daughter on her Balla Hoks!)

I would not describe the FT62 as a XC ski...So far my experience is that the FT 62 is a miniaturized modern "alpine touring ski" It is like having a miniature Voile Vector...

I think of it as "acceptable" when XC skiing in soft snow- same as the wider Storetind that I have. Certainly not as effective as a XC ski with a more traditional profile.

I personally would not describe the FT62 as a well-rounded Nordic touring ski- it is a downhill-focused ski. From my perspective, all of that downhill performance comes with a very significant loss in XC performance.

All of that being said- if skiing down steep terrain outweighs XC performance- a ski like the FT 62 is definitely an ideal uberlight touring ski- and I can seriously charge downhill on them with my Alaska BC and Svartisen BC boots!

I would personally describe the Ingstad BC as a better balanced XCD ski than the FT62.

[lilcliffy]

This context brings me to a view that there is now considerable overlap between the Ingstad and the Asnes 68 (i.e. Storetind/Falketind 68/Rabb 68).

I would like to take this comment back.
Was out for an extended tour on my 188cm Storetind yesterday. I suppose I should not suggest anything about the Rabb, but the Ingstad BC and the Storetind are too very different skis. The Ingstad is still a much better XC ski. The Storetind a downhill ski- with enough stability to be acceptable when XC skiing in deep snow.

Although I think that the Ingstad BC would be perhaps more versatile with less tip rocker (i.e. longer XC glide surface)- it is a dream XC ski for steep terrain and deep, soft snow.

Considering the equipment of my friends that I do extended-touring with- the Ingstad BC is seeing a lot more snow than the Storetind. Being able to crush linked turns on the Storetind doesn't help me much when my ski group looks at the map and decides to crush 5 miles on XC skis on an abandoned road...

[Petetheswede]

Thanks for all your wisdom Gareth! All I know is that i want a companion to my Gammes. Since the Gammes are the perfect allround skis for me I can accept a significant reduction in speed on hard surfaces as long as i get something in return. The obvious here of course is downhill performance and as far as My experience (which is not much) has taught me is that downhill performance is a mix between turning and stability on variable snow. The latter is a big deal in Sweden. One moment its concrete and the next its soft. This is where i felt the Gammes failed a bit.

Have i understood you right that the problem with the ingstad on hard surfaces is that the rocker is constantly active and thus the ski behaves more like a downhill ski when you want it to be xc-performing? It sounds from your experience that the ingstad is Still faster than the FT62. If so the duel continues to downhill. Of course the ft62 is more of a downhill ski. What is important is, is the ingstad Still a capable downhill ski on consolidated Snow?

Do i make any sense?

Cheers

[lilcliffy]

Thanks for all your wisdom Gareth!

HA! Thank you! Not so sure it is wisdom!! Part of my problem is that I am almost hardwired to be an ecologist- a systems thinker- I actually find it easier to draw connections between things- to see networks- as opposed to drawing neat lines around the parts...

All I know is that i want a companion to my Gammes. Since the Gammes are the perfect allround skis for me I can accept a significant reduction in speed on hard surfaces as long as i get something in return. The obvious here of course is downhill performance and as far as My experience (which is not much) has taught me is that downhill performance is a mix between turning and stability on variable snow. The latter is a big deal in Sweden. One moment its concrete and the next its soft. This is where i felt the Gammes failed a bit.

Have i understood you right that the problem with the ingstad on hard surfaces is that the rocker is constantly active and thus the ski behaves more like a downhill ski when you want it to be xc-performing?

No the Ingstad feels short and a bit unbalanced when XC skiing on consolidated snow. The abundance of tip rocker significantly shortens the effective XC glide surface of the Ingstad BC on consolidated snow. Well- not really unbalanced- just short.

It sounds from your experience that the ingstad is Still faster than the FT62.

The Ingstad is a much faster XC ski than the FT62. The Ingstad has camber-and-a-half underfoot- though evenly squashable, the wax pocket releases when XC skiing- even on consolidated snow. The FT62 XC glides quite well on soft snow- but it feels completely dead as a XC ski on consolidated snow. ALSO- the Ingstad tracks much straighter than the FT62 on consolidated snow- both due to less sidecut, and the extra camber and tension underfoot.

If so the duel continues to downhill. Of course the ft62 is more of a downhill ski. What is important is, is the ingstad Still a capable downhill ski on consolidated Snow?

Yes- the Ingstad BC is very capable downhill on consolidated snow- better than any cambered XC ski I have ever tested, but the FT62 is a higher-performing downhill ski overall than the Ingstad BC.

Some thoughts:
1) The Ingstad BC and the FT62 are more stable on steep terrain than the Gamme 54.
2) The Ingstad BC is a better XC ski than the FT62 across the board- including consolidated snow.
3) The FT62 has the camber and flex of a downhill ski- therefore it is a high-performing downhill ski than the Ingstad BC.

So- in my mind- choose the Ingstad BC when you want to ski long distances but still enjoy very steep terrain.
Choose the FT62 if as a touring for turns ski- when downhill skiing is the entire purpose of the tour- and cannot be ruined by long XC stretches.

As an example- my full-day tours involve skiing 20-some kms over hilly ridges- punctuated by steep ravines and moderate-sloped hardwood "bowls". The approach we take is to cover extensive distances on gentle to moderate slopes- strategically connecting sweet steep downhill sites. So we might ski some 5+kms at once- at speed. The FT62 and the Storetind don't really work great in this context (especially seeing all of my ski partners are on XC skis.)

So my question- you looking for a XC ski that is more stable and more fun on steep terrain? = Ingstad BC
Or an uberlight touring-for-turns ski? = FT62

[lilcliffy]

And- before I get to mention this-

Woodserson spent a considerable amount of time downhill skiing with his Ingstad BC and Alaska BC boots- at a groomed ski hill- early in the season.
He would be able to give you a more complete take on the downhill performance of the Ingstad BC on consolidated snow.

(I have only tested the Ingstad BC on our steep field on consolidated snow. Otherwise- to date- I have used the Ingstad BC exclusively on distance tours, on soft snow in the local hills.)

[Petetheswede]

Thank you!
Seems like it will have to be the ingstad if (when...) I pull the trigger. Especially since it significantly cheaper (on sale for some 300us) and more environme tally friendly not being made of space materials.

/Petter

[Nitram Tocrut]

As an aside- I had two ski partners with me- one on his 195cm Ingstad BC- the other on my 205cm E109 Xtralite.
I really should have traded a few times to compare the 195cm vs 205cm...Didn't think of it- I was so thrilled with the 205cm I guess!!!

Sizing skis seems very complicated to me... I wonder what are the height and weight of your friend with the 195 cm and what about you on your 205?

The Combat Nato remains a better XC ski.

I have a 1000$ question for you.. If you had to choose between buying the Combat Nato and the Ingstad what would be your choice if you were: 1-skiing around 3 km daily during the week and enjoying some turns on a low hill 2- once a week skiing about 7 km on mostly flat terrain to get to your playground which consist of a hill of about 40-50m dénivellation on a grazed field (grazed after the winter of course and a more challenging hill with no so open forest but gentle slope 3- the last day skiing narrow forest trail up and down some hill about 100 m dénivellation with no much room for turning in the trails. 4- Doing a yearly "expedition" of 3-4 days in mountains with up to 400 m elevation for a single day and the distance traveled being between 6-15 km.

You know it is a 1000$ question because I can't afford to buy too many pairs of ski. I suggested those 2 but maybe you will come up with a different suggestion.

Thank you and sorry if I asked a question you already answered.... I tried to go all the posts but there is so many of them

[lilcliffy]

Sizing skis seems very complicated to me... I wonder what are the height and weight of your friend with the 195 cm and what about you on your 205?

Me: 185 lbs on 205cm.
My friend: 160lbs on 195cm.

I have a 1000$ question for you.. If you had to choose between buying the Combat Nato and the Ingstad what would be your choice if you were: 1-skiing around 3 km daily during the week and enjoying some turns on a low hill 2- once a week skiing about 7 km on mostly flat terrain to get to your playground which consist of a hill of about 40-50m dénivellation on a grazed field (grazed after the winter of course and a more challenging hill with no so open forest but gentle slope 3- the last day skiing narrow forest trail up and down some hill about 100 m dénivellation with no much room for turning in the trails. 4- Doing a yearly "expedition" of 3-4 days in mountains with up to 400 m elevation for a single day and the distance traveled being between 6-15 km.

You know it is a 1000$ question because I can't afford to buy too many pairs of ski. I suggested those 2 but maybe you will come up with a different suggestion.

Thank you and sorry if I asked a question you already answered.... I tried to go all the posts but there is so many of them

The Combat Nato is more versatile than the Ingstad BC across all the scenarios that you describe.

The current Ingstad BC is a XC ski for deep snow and steep terrain. The Ingstad Bc's downhill performance- in terms of making linked terms is much greater. It is actually a very good XC ski in deep soft snow- due to it's stiff, supportive tip. Where the Ingstad BC really falls down is XC skiing on consolidated snow- due to all of its tip rocker. (The Ingstad BC is still better XC skiing on consolidated snow than wider, less cambered skis with more sidecut (e.g. S-Bounds; Epoch;Annum; Rabb 68; etc.)

But- here is the thing...If one ones a E99/Gamme 54 class ski AND an Ingstad BC- then the Combat Nato becomes somewhat redundant....

I can't remember what you already have in your quiver? Whether the Combat Nato or the Ingstad BC is a better choice somewhat depends on what you already have...

[lilcliffy]

I have been putting a lot of hours and miles on my Gamme 54 over the last couple of weeks.

I know that this thread is about the Ingstad BC, but my time on the Gamme 54 BC helps me realize the value of the Ingstad BC...

If one were to have only one Asnes XC for hilly/steep terrain:
- Combat Nato if deep soft snow snow predominates
- Gamme 54 BC if snow is highly variable- with lots of consolidated snow

HOWEVER- if one is willing able to have two skis- and one of them is the Gamme 54 BC- then the other XC ski to have is, in fact, the Ingstad BC.

The Gamme 54 BC is a truly remarkably versatile BC-XC ski. Owning one allows one to justify other skis with a more narrow range of performance.

I am in love with the performance of the Ingstad BC when it fits the skiing context perfectly.
Owning a Gamme 54/E99 class ski allows me to fully appreciate the Ingstad BC!!!