This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web. We have fun here, come on in and be a part of it.
I don’t know what you weigh, I’m 5’9” and 190 lbs. I’m have a196 cm FT Xplore and wouldn’t consider shorter for my use, and the whole idea is to make turns downhill. However I still need to k&g to get there.
The only reason to send both those skis back is that they are so short. You’re going to need one sooner or later. That’s need, not want. Sorry skis are like Lay’s Potato Chips, nobody can have just one!
Sorry Dx, I will be up front. First, I’m older from twenty until my mid thirties I skied 205 cm downhill. Back then if you didn’t ski at least 200 cm you probably couldn’t ski well. Well, then mid-fats came out and I dropped to 189 cm. I’ll add up until my early forties, I poured concrete and rode a mountain bike all week. I only weighed 165, but I was nothing but muscle, skin, and bone back then. So 165 lbs is enough to bend a full size ski if you are an aggressive skier.
Now when we talk about skis that need to kick and glide to go downhill, there is no substitute for length when it comes to glide. Personally in my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions, I wouldn’t want less than a 188 in a Falketind. If you have a specialty use such as tight tree skiing or tight mountain trails then go short. I definitely don’t like short for a Telemark mounted ski. I like some edge and ski in front of me, it’s too easy to stick a tip aggressively going downhill, and no locked heel to prevent going over the bars.
So ignore me if you prefer, I do have strong opinions on short skis, I have about as much desire for short skis as I do for flat beer, or being around crabby women.
That is the reason why I'm here in the forum and posting a lot, it is to learn from you guys the experts ! I like the FT62 and Rabb 68 (they are gorgeous looking) but as I said both of them are going back to REI. It still be foolish for me to get 2 new skis off the bat as a total newbie. I plan to stick with just one for the season, the Ingstad WL and learn my way around the sport. I am sure that I will be getting a second sticks soon that serve different need vs the touring/camping Ingstad WL.
Please do keep all the advise heading my way as I said, this has been a great forum board and I really appreciate everybody's help. Without everybody's help I would gave mounted my voile 3 pin binding on that 172cm Rabb68 and used that as my touring backpacking skis with the 58mm nylon skins
It's a good choice to go waxless for your first ski, but if you didn't mind dealing with kick wax I think the Rabb 68 with a cable binding and those leather boots would have been great. I was thinking about getting that ski for my first Asnes ski. I think it would be good with leather or light plastic boots.
i too just ordered Ingstad WLs from REI. made the choice mostly due to the great info on this forum. they're due to arrive in about a week.
the Ingstads will be my deep snow/making trails skis on rolling terrain. my long-term trusty karhu catamounts will (hopefully) become my rock skis.
also looking for a thinner/faster ski for the other end of the bc K&G spectrum - cant find e99 / transnordic 66s in 210 and am massively confused about the amundsen/gamme/ousland/sverdrup choice.
thanks to this forum and its dedicated contributors!
also looking for a thinner/faster ski for the other end of the bc K&G spectrum - cant find e99 / transnordic 66s in 210 and am massively confused about the amundsen/gamme/ousland/sverdrup choice.
You should look up for @lilcliffy in depth review of the Gamme and Admundsen. He is probably preparing a preliminary report on the Sverdrup as well
It's a good choice to go waxless for your first ski, but if you didn't mind dealing with kick wax I think the Rabb 68 with a cable binding and those leather boots would have been great. I was thinking about getting that ski for my first Asnes ski. I think it would be good with leather or light plastic boots.
I definitely will be eyeing on the Rabb 68 for my next skis ! I got my Ingstad WL to learn on and is for BC-XC exclusively. The Rabb 68 and FT 62 has that classic simple nordic design and they are gorgeous !
It's a good choice to go waxless for your first ski, but if you didn't mind dealing with kick wax I think the Rabb 68 with a cable binding and those leather boots would have been great. I was thinking about getting that ski for my first Asnes ski. I think it would be good with leather or light plastic boots.
It's a good choice to go waxless for your first ski, but if you didn't mind dealing with kick wax I think the Rabb 68 with a cable binding and those leather boots would have been great. I was thinking about getting that ski for my first Asnes ski. I think it would be good with leather or light plastic boots.
