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.
MikeK wrote:I think you may give up a fair deal of their turning performance by going so long relative to the Asnes chart.
While I agree that short skis are "easier" to maneuver than long skis- I don't see the profile and flex of the Ingstad making it a "modern" easy-turning ski. To me the Ingstad is an old-school XCD ski- it has the flex and camber necessary to actually offer XC performance- but with some sidecut and a moderate flex for traditional telemarks. I don't see anyone steering the Ingstad without a very short length and very powerful boots-bindings.
Powerful telemark striding, or long tele-arcs are what I predict on this ski.
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
If I ski on a short double camber ski and can flex it all the way with half my weight, does that make it a camber and a half? No, it's still a double camber, just not using the proper load for the skis intention.
Same could be said for a single camber ski with a lighter skier on it. It doesn't make it a double camber but it may perform more like a double camber xc ski.
bgregoire wrote:
He keeps Ingstad for the end and praises it for deep snow travel. It turns well he says, just a tad less than Nansen.
I think it important to consider telemark technique here as well...
If you observe the telemark technique shown in the video(!)- stiffness, and nimbleness are key to being able to use that technique- especially in such short-radius turns. The ski has to be nimble and stiff enough to respond to all of that striding power. The Ingstad- with a flex pattern designed for deeper, softer snow- may not be stiff and nimble enough to respond like the Nansen does.
So (damn I wish I understood Norwegian)- perhaps what Gamme is measuring is responsiveness in relation to turning. The Nansen is definitely stiffer than the Ingstad- but it is more responsive the Ingstad- making it easier to turn?
As a comparison- highly-responsive Alpine skis are stiff and rigid compared to Alpine powder skis.
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
If I ski on a short double camber ski and can flex it all the way with half my weight, does that make it a camber and a half? No, it's still a double camber, just not using the proper load for the skis intention.
Same could be said for a single camber ski with a lighter skier on it. It doesn't make it a double camber but it may perform more like a double camber xc ski.
Yeah- I agree.
But- the trick in classic XCD is getting true XC performance, while still having a smooth even flex for making downhill turns.
You can "XC" ski around on Alpine skis- but that doesn't mean you have an effective wax/traction pocket.
You can have a full-on stiff double-cambered wax pocket- but that doesn't mean the ski will be easy to control in a downhill turn.
To get an effective wax pocket in a single-cambered ski it must be long enough as well.
What I respect most about Asnes is that they still get it- you want to truly get xcountry and downhill performance? You need to make single-cambered skis that are long enough!
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
lilcliffy wrote:
If you observe the telemark technique shown in the video(!)- stiffness, and nimbleness are key to being able to use that technique- especially in such short-radius turns. The ski has to be nimble and stiff enough to respond to all of that striding power. The Ingstad- with a flex pattern designed for deeper, softer snow- may not be stiff and nimble enough to respond like the Nansen does.
So (damn I wish I understood Norwegian)- perhaps what Gamme is measuring is responsiveness in relation to turning. The Nansen is definitely stiffer than the Ingstad- but it is more responsive the Ingstad- making it easier to turn?
Pretty sure the Nansen must have a lighter camber. The horizontal axis is definitely speed/glide/cross-country aspect. If you translate the words they are literally fastness and cross-country.
Anyway they show the Nansen to be a slower ski! Seen as how it is skinnier and by the the Asnes charts, skied longer per unit weight, it should by all means be a faster gliding ski. The only thing that would make it not so is that it has a softer camber.
It's also lighter too, so that may contribute to it's rating on the turn/steering axis.
I'm also not entirely sure I understand some of the Norwegian way of thinking, especially in terms of the flotation. It makes sense for every ski but the Amundsen. There is something I don't understand about that ski.
Based on reading the chart in the video and Asnes description, I believe the Amundsen is a REALLY stiff ski. It's length to width gives it a moderate speed in comparison to some of the other skinnier skis, but it's camber is what would really push it low on the turn axis. In the descriptions they also point to it being used with a heavy pack or a pulk. It's an expedition ski, not meant for difficult terrain but for carrying heavy loads as I interpret the info. Why it is rated as a good floater is a mystery to me but I also recall the Scandinavians favoring heavy cambers for flotation on relatively skinny skis. This doesn't make a ton of sense to me except that if you looked at the actual psi exerted on the ground for a similarly sized ski with a lesser camber that the load would be carried more under the foot where the ski has less width than at the tips and tails where it has greater width.
lilcliffy wrote:
The Ingstad is in the middle of the range- and it has a big red circle...
Ben's GF/translator said the red circle is flotation. It makes sense with every ski except the Amundsen, unless you think of it like a Norwegian... (see my previous post).
Also I think based on every bit of info I've amassed from studying what's out there, I would actually want TWO skis from the current Asnes lineup.
Gamme 54 in 205 or 210cm for tracked out trail or hard snow.
Ingstad in 200cm for everything else.
I'd surely go NNN on the Gamme... the Ingstad I'd have to feel in my hand. It's right on the edge based on weight where it might feel better with pins to me. I think it could do either, and Asnes lists both as recommendations. I think you'd just really want a very nice NNN boot to bring the most out of the ski.
TO ME, the Nansen seems like it would be a compromise for someone who wants a single ski that could handle some more serious mountain terrain. From the specs it looks like it should fit in between the Gamme and the Ingstad but the performance chart shows it outside the range of each.
lilcliffy wrote: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.
When I spoke to the Norsemen folk in Calgary, Alberta that import Asnes, they told me there was a significant variation in the stiffness of Asnes skis, so they basically test each pair and asign the ski according to the person, independently of the charts. Otherwise, all I can say is that I did try out a pair of Admunsens 201s in Sweden that were perfect, but the 201s a got used here in canada seem way stiffer, and I have probably gained a little way since then. They are truly stiffer than my 200cm E99s and harder to turn but oh soooo faster.
I am convinced the Ingstad is not as stiff as Admundsen. 1 and a half camber sounds like a decent assessment, but I only get to touch a pair this coming Saturday.
*Just in case, I'd like to remind y'all that the Ingstad is simply the civilian version of the NATO Combat ski with graphics. So I think we can base our assumptions of its intended use on just that: the needs of Norwegians soldiers fighting an incoming invader. Its a workhorse. A ski for all conditions, hardpack or soft fluff, pulling sleighs, backpacks or escaping the enemy as light as can be. Gracefully carving your way down a hill sound a little accessory.
Oh, and look how well American troop fare in snow:
I live for the Telemark arc....The feeeeeeel.....I ski miles to get to a place where there is guaranteed snow to do the deal....TM
Look at the description of Amundsen - sounds like it will be impossible to turn. I had some old Merrell-badged Asnes skis last year that simply refused to turn. In fact I think LJ tried them as well.
>Amundsen Back Country is the perfect ski for long hikes with a backpack or sledge/sleighs. Amundsen is delivered with steel edges and are equipped with a distinct wax pocket to preserve the wax. The wax pocket makes this ski suitable for pulling sledges and heavy loads. The ski is narrow enough to fit machine-groomed tracks.
probably best to see what goes on sale & stay flexible. they won't have all the lengths & skis available in March. I think the Gamme/Nansen/Ingstad will all be versatile enough for turns & covering ground in the flats.
"All wisdom is to be gained through suffering"
-Will Lange (quoting Inuit chieftan)
