Ski Review: 2018-2019 Åsnes Ingstad BC

[lilcliffy]

Confirmed:
The Ingstad BC is at least the equal of the Combat Nato when it comes to XC skiing in very deep snow. If anything, the Ingstad is even more stable than the Combat.
The Ingstad BC I have been striding, climbing, charging, and turning on deep cold snow for weeks now. I have never experienced its equal.
It has made all of my mid-width, soft-flexing XCD skis obsolete (e.g. Eon, E109, Epoch, Annum, Combat Nato)- on deep soft snow.
Though it is not as capable a downhill ski as my Storetind Carbon- it is a much better XC ski and therefore is a better balanced xcd ski than the Storetind.
The Ingstad is not as good a XC ski on difficult snow (e.g. breakable crust; dense consolidated; icy-refrozen, etc.) as the Combat Nato.
BUT- the Gamme 54 BC is a better XC ski on difficult snow (i.e. not deep and soft) than the Combat Nato.

I am afraid that owning both an Ingstad BC and a Gamme 54 BC has made my Combat Nato obsolete!

If I had to have just one BC-XCD ski it would be the Ingstad BC.
This is due to my local abundance of cold fresh snow.
If my typical snow was not fresh and cold- the Gamme 54 BC would be my #1 BC-XCD pick.

[lilcliffy]

Meant to say this in my last post-

This ski is a masterpiece.

It is not high-performing in all contexts- no high-performance ski is.

I know that I suggested earlier that perhaps this ski should have less sidecut (i.e. more width UF) and perhaps less tip rocker.

I take this back.

This ski has such a stable flex that it is completely stable in deep soft snow- despite the degree of sidecut and tip rocker.

I trust the judgement of Asnes.
Well done.

[bgregoire]

LC, are you comparing the Combat Nato and Ingstad BC in the same lengths? What are those lengths again, 210 and 205cm respectfully?

IMO, if there is even as little as a 5cm difference between the two, I'll bet some decent amount of the experienced difference is due to that. Not to say the two versions and identical, oh no. But I have felt important differences between the Fisher E99 in 195 and 200, and the Fischer Country in 200 and 205. For the E99s, the shorter skis are just so much easier to turn (even comparing the older E99 195cm to the longer E99 Xtralite 200cm), and the camber flattens out much easier for me in the BC...they really feel like two different skis.

Best wishes, Ben

[lilcliffy]

Excellent points and thoughts Ben.
I am skiing on:
- 210cm Combat Nato
- 205cm Ingstad BC
- 205cm E-109 Xtralite
- 205cm Eon
- 210cm Gamme 54 BC
- 210cm E99 Xtralite

Shorter lengths do make these skis feel completely different in a downhill context.

The stiff, supportive rockered tip of the Ingstad BC is a game changer though. The full-length support of 205cm, combined with the tip rocker offering a shorter effective edge (with its resultant turn initiation), and early tip rise.
That tip rocker does sacrifice XC performance on snow that is not deep and soft though...

[boby13]

I got my self a pair of ingstad bc 205cm last February, I was tired to kick and glide on low angle downhill with my Excursion 88. I mostly have dry cold snow all winter long and scales are very slow on that stuff.

I love my new ingstad bc, they have a really good glide and stability in fresh snow. But I admit that they are quite sporty to manage downhill at 205cm with nnn alaska's.

What I would really like is an ingstad bc with a little bit of a rounder flex and the side cut of the fischer excursion 88 (88-68-78). Please Asnes, that would be so awesome !
And also Asnes should name it the Jackrabbit, in honor of Herman Smith-Johannsen, the greatest Norwegian XCD skier of all time to us North-Americans. That guy was still xc skiing at a 100 years old.


Here is my very first descent with my ingstad's
15-20 cm of relatively compact but dry fresh powder
Swix blue wax
https://youtu.be/R4p9O5Sgq-8


Couple days later, descent at the end of a long trip.
Going off track in a nice natural glade, I was really tired.
45mm mohair x-skin
https://youtu.be/8uAdll3lfEs


A other one... nice little powder on the sides.
Almost lost control at the beginning but since the skis are so stable, I stayed easily on my feet.
Swix blue extra
https://youtu.be/Ux3ZXb4WkgQ

[Cannatonic]

nice videos - I love the "Jackrabbit" name - that would be a great name for a new Waxless Gamme ski

The Excursion sidecut is pretty close - only 4mm different from Ingstad - are you looking for more width?

[boby13]

Yes, I would like a ski like the ingstad but wider!

With wider ingstad's, I would go shorter like 195cm instead of 205cm without loosing much flotation.
And I believe it should be easier to navigate thru tight and steep forest.

But I mainly want to see that old Jackrabitt face on a pair of Asnes skis
and I think it would be good for Asnes sales in north-America!

[lilcliffy]

boby13-

Thank you again for the videos!

The snow, terrain and forest-cover conditions you are skiing in are essentially identical to my local, backyard backcountry skiing.

I don't know what your experience and skill level is- and it is difficult to tell too much from a first-person perspective...

My impression is that your technique is quite different than mine with a XC ski...

Please forgive me if I am being unhelpful, obnoxous or plain presumptuous- for all I know you are more of an expert skier than me!

My first suggestion is to try moving your feet more- to transfer your weight more.

Unlike conventional downhill skiing- both Alpine and Telemark- where one can overpower and drive a ski-

Downhill skiing with both XC boots and and XC skis (with XC length) can take one of two basic forms IMHO-

1) Evenly pressured, wide, round- and very wide- radius turns. This requires a LOT of momentum and space.

2) Assertive constant adjustment- where one constantly transfers weight from one ski to the other and does not hesitate to stride into a turn initiation and even physically pick up the lead ski to initiate a tight turn.

One needs a LOT of room to ride a true open telemark turn on a 205cm, stiff XC ski- even with all of the Ingstad BC's tip rocker....

Watching your videos-
My impression is that you are riding and smearing your skis into turns-
This is working better with the shorter 88s.
I suggest it would work even better with a softer, rounder-fleing ski than the 88....Have you ever tried an Epoch/XCD 10th Mtn, or an Annum/Guide? (The Falketind 62 with your Alaska boot would blow your mind BTW...)

What I suggest is that you are more assertive with your turn initiation with the Ingstad BC- that you step down hard on that lead/downhill ski, and then weight the uphill ski.
To ski even tighter lines, pick the lead ski right up and step or even jump into the turn!
...............
Again- please forgive me if I am waaay off base here.
............
I am no ski instructor! But- I do know that I am loving my 205cm Ingstad BC in the same skiing context as you (and have the exact same boot!)
AND- interestingly- I find the Ingstad BC much easier to turn than the Fischer 88!!! (Though I do have a 199cm 88...)

[lilcliffy]

And- BTW- I too would like to try and compare a ski with the same flex pattern as the Ingstad BC- but with less sidecut.

Not sure if I would want a rounder, softer flex though...

[lilcliffy]

And- BTW- I too would like to try and compare a ski with the same flex pattern as the Ingstad BC- but with less sidecut.

Not sure if I would want a rounder, softer flex though...

An 88 with a softer, rounder flex is essentially a Madshus Epoch/Karhu XCD 10th MTN isn't it?