Fischer E-109 vs. Asnes Ingstad

[coxcer]

I just got some Ingstad's with Voile cable bindings mounted up and driven with Alpina Alaska boots! Been for 1 ski so far and they were great! It was a good combination of packed well traveled trails and also breaking some trail.

I also have a pair of the Asnes Amundsen Expedition's that I haven't mounted up yet. Might have to sell those because the Ingstad's will probably satisfy all of my needs. As others mentioned in the thread, the Asnes seem to be really well built and will hopefully last as long as my Rossignol BC90 that were replaced with the Ingstad. They finally started to delaminate, but were otherwise very good skis too.

[Cannatonic]

I traveled to New Brunswick a couple times for work, gorgeous place - like Maine emptied of the people. St. John is a beautiful small city. I liked Moncton too. Really nice people up there.

coxcer just curious, did you take the Ingstad's out in warm spring snow at all? I got the smallest kicker skins they sell, I'm wondering if they can be used for kick-and-glide on wet snow, somewhat skeptical of that actually working. those Amundsen should be good for speed cruising where you don't need to turn.

[Woodserson]

Coxcer, where are you and where did you get them? Feel free to write review on the ski review forum!

[lilcliffy]

YES- please do start a review on them!

What length did you buy? (how much do you weigh- if you don't mind?)

Sounds like you were doing some XC skiing with them...what is the flex/camber like? Compared to the Amundsen? Compared to the BC110?

How do they feel with the Alaska- enough boot power?

[coxcer]

coxcer just curious, did you take the Ingstad's out in warm spring snow at all? I got the smallest kicker skins they sell, I'm wondering if they can be used for kick-and-glide on wet snow, somewhat skeptical of that actually working. those Amundsen should be good for speed cruising where you don't need to turn.

I just got them and I live in Colorado. The snow was dry Colorado goodness! I didn't try out the skins, but I'm sure they will work great this spring. The Ingstads have the perfect amount of kick and glide for me, so just don't need the Amundsen.

[coxcer]

Coxcer, where are you and where did you get them? Feel free to write review on the ski review forum!

I live in Denver and got them from Neptune Mountaineering in Boulder. Best store ever!

[coxcer]

YES- please do start a review on them!

What length did you buy? (how much do you weigh- if you don't mind?)

Sounds like you were doing some XC skiing with them...what is the flex/camber like? Compared to the Amundsen? Compared to the BC110?

How do they feel with the Alaska- enough boot power?

I'll do a review once I ski on them a little more. They fitted me at the store by doing the ole sliding the paper under the ski while I had my weight on both skis and then again with all my weight on one ski. I weight 150 and went with the 200s.

I have not even mounted or riden the Amundsen yet, but they seem to be fairly similar flex/camber. The BC90s that I replaced were like a wet noodle compared to the Ingstads. The guys at the shop said that the Ingstad has a camber and a half.

The Alpina Alaska boots are a little soft, but they had plenty of power.

[Woodserson]

Ooooooh Neptune! Asnes epicenter of the US. Welcome Coxcer!

[MikeK]

Hey coxcer, welcome!

Please do write a review in the other subforum once you've had a chance to try the skis. Lately there has been a lot of interest.

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!

[lilcliffy]

They fitted me at the store by doing the ole sliding the paper under the ski while I had my weight on both skis and then again with all my weight on one ski. I weight 150 and went with the 200s.

I have not even mounted or riden the Amundsen yet, but they seem to be fairly similar flex/camber. The BC90s that I replaced were like a wet noodle compared to the Ingstads. The guys at the shop said that the Ingstad has a camber and a half.

The Alpina Alaska boots are a little soft, but they had plenty of power.

That's enough for me! If you did the classic XC-camber test and went with 200cm- I want the 210cm.

What length are the Amundsens you got? My understanding is that the Amundsen is a lot stiffer than the Ingstad- anyone else? Ben- what do you think? My impression is that the Amundsen is designed to be a stiff expedition ski- the Ingstad is an old school XCD ski.

There's that camber and a half thing again...this is where the paper camber test matters. If you went with a shorter Ingstad- it would perform like a single-cambered ski. This is the same issue with the Eon- at 205cm I get a small wax pocket- at 195cm I do not (I would actually take the Eon in a 215cm)

Your comparison with the BC110 helps too. If the Ingstad is stiffer than the BC110- it has a stiffer flex than the Eon as well- just as I thought.

That soft top of the Alaska makes it an awesome striding boot!