Ski Length Dilemma

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.
User avatar
jyw5
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:52 am

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by jyw5 » Sun Sep 13, 2020 2:44 pm

Booze is manditory. We bring wine on all of our trips. 1 bottle/person/night. And steaks too. On our last trip, we also had king crab. You need wider, longer skis to carry all that.

Here's a few photos from May to get you all excited for the upcoming season!
FB_IMG_1600015961290.jpg
FB_IMG_1600016022366.jpg
FB_IMG_1600016004633.jpg
FB_IMG_1600015935599.jpg
FB_IMG_1600015946354.jpg

Stephen
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:49 am
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by Stephen » Sun Sep 13, 2020 5:34 pm

Where are the yaks to carry all that...stuff?!
Impressive.

This is all fantastic.
Nitram is telling me he has a twisted sense of humor — Bring it on!
That he’s sorry he hit me over the head with a 2 X 4 — No, no, it was necessary. I’m just that dense, sometimes.

And now lilcliffy is messing with my head by saying “I would go ahead with your 196cm order man.”

Believe me, I have a twisted sense of humor and worry sometimes that the censor in between my brain and my fingertips or mouth will fall asleep and let me say the silent part out loud!

The painful reality is that often there is no one right, best answer and I just have to muddle my way through as best as possible. Which I have a hard time with, since I really want the “right” answer.

Is Sunday group therapy day, or is this just my individual session?
:lol:

User avatar
jyw5
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:52 am

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by jyw5 » Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:26 am

There is no right answer! that's what makes it so fun.

I'm actually going to attempt to ski tomorrow. Day trips are great...light packs, minimal gear. Fast ascents and even faster descents.

The snow was still good last month but I totally missed skiing in august because of work and tons of home repairs....I have 84 days for the year, so I can at least easily finish over 100 for the year and will try getting all 12 consecutive months in the coming year if I can get a ski day tomorrow as the rest of the month is unlikely. September is the toughest month due to bad weather...rain and heavy snowfall up high. I heard there was 2 consecutive days of snow up at 5000ft...I will have to hike up 3000 ft and 6 miles one way to get the goods, and the last 1000ft is glacier mixed rock and ice/snow...quite exciting and perilous. wish me luck. I will report back in a day or two with some pictures.

Joe

User avatar
jyw5
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:52 am

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by jyw5 » Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:42 am

Stephen wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 6:06 pm
But, how could I NOT choose the Falketinde62:
Johnny wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:37 am

The FT62 is classified as a backcountry ski according to Asnes. ...


It is very, very light. The lightest DH ski you can get. Its light weight and narrow profile make it a tiny bit easier to control than the Rabb. With leathers, almost no muscle power is required to control them, no matter if you are skiing rolling hills or 45deg slopes. They just ski like magic. You can almost see a trail of ***stardust*** behind the tails when you go down. Edge hold is surprisingly good on harder snow despite the huge NR tips. And the tails add that magic surfy touch anywhere you ski.

The FT62 is an amazing do-it-all backcountry nordic ski that can turn on a dime, anywhere. It reminds me of the old Alpina Light/Cross Terrain ski series, but a million times better.
:P

Well, yes the trail of stardust is awesome when the powder is excellent. On many days where I encountered crusts of death, I was seeing stars rather than stardust as I was brushing off the snow from my face and everything else.


This was in february on a nordic trail.
FB_IMG_1600058516757.jpg

Stephen
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:49 am
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by Stephen » Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:52 am

I don’t know...
I don’t see any tracks, no bent ski poles, no blood, and certainly no stardust ...
;)

User avatar
fisheater
Posts: 914
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:06 pm
Location: Oakland County, MI
Occupation: Construction Manager
Has liked: 37 times
Been liked: 9 times

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by fisheater » Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:25 pm

That’s IOWA
I OUGHT of WENT AROUND

User avatar
Åsnes1922
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:12 am
Location: Voss, Norway
Ski style: Former downhill & biathlon skier, avid telemarker.
Favorite Skis: Åsnes Ingstad, Åsnes Falketind 62, Åsnes Breidablikk, Åsnes Voss Z'N and Åsnes Fjøro 92
Favorite boots: Asolo Extreme Plus, Alpina Alaska BC and 75mm, Alfa Polar and Dynafit Vulcan.
Occupation: Former Royal Norwegian Special Forces operator and instructor.
Professional ski- and mountain guide, Åsnes employee - marketing and development potato, and outdoors guy.
Website: https://www.asnes.com
Contact:

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by Åsnes1922 » Wed Sep 16, 2020 3:06 am

lilcliffy wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:17 pm
Just to be clear- I tend towards long skis in general- especially with any ski that I want to crush some miles on.
And- if I was living in the mountains and downhill-touring above treeline- I would be on a long stable downhill ski.

But- I don't live in the mountains anymore and my local BC downhill touring involves skiing tight lines in the woods.

I don't know what the conditions are like where Crister is using the 196cm FT62- but I suspect he is using them above treeline...

I own the 188cm FT62 and after two full seasons, I now wish that I bought a shorter FT62 to downhill ski tighter lines in the woods. If I was "xcd" touring with the FT62 above tree line, I would definitely want the 196cm.

At 196cm- touring in the Northwoods- the use of the FT62 has to be VERY close to the Ingstad. And the Ingstad is a MUCH better XC ski and very good downhill for a XC ski. (The Ingstad is also much more stable when XC skiing in deep snow.)

I guess what I am saying is that if one wants to open up the FT62 and truly charge and carve downhill- IMO, one needs a lot of room to openly turn a 196cm.
You are right, my good man.

I choose the FT62 for use above treeline, and when traversing in more open and flatter terrain. For more technical and playful skiing, I have the FT62 in 188cm as my "go-to" ski for most days. To be hones, I prefer the Ingstad 205cm if I want more K&G - as in the conditions and terrain where I would choose the 196cm FT62. The Ingstad is more directional, and more efficient when travelling longer distances over flat terrain - even though the FT62 196cm is surprisingly good as well.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that at FT62 in 196cm might be really good for a heavier and longer skier than me (I'm 178cm and about 78-80kg) OR if you just want a single ski compromise (mostly focused on playful DH skiing) that than handle most things.
With mountainous regards from,

Crister Aa. Næss
Marketing | Åsnes | Pomoca | Colltex


ASNES.COM I FACEBOOK LIKE! INSTAGRAM @asnes1922

Active Brands AS
Regimentsvegen 158 | 5705 Voss | Norway

User avatar
Nitram Tocrut
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:50 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada
Ski style: "Doorstep" backcountry skiing and groomed trails
Favorite Skis: Asnes Ingstad and FT62, Fischer Europa 99 and Madschus TL-70
Favorite boots: Alpina Alaska 75 mm
Occupation: Organic vegetable grower and many other things!
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by Nitram Tocrut » Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:22 pm

Åsnes1922 wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 3:06 am

You are right, my good man.

I choose the FT62 for use above treeline, and when traversing in more open and flatter terrain. For more technical and playful skiing, I have the FT62 in 188cm as my "go-to" ski for most days. To be hones, I prefer the Ingstad 205cm if I want more K&G - as in the conditions and terrain where I would choose the 196cm FT62. The Ingstad is more directional, and more efficient when travelling longer distances over flat terrain - even though the FT62 196cm is surprisingly good as well.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that at FT62 in 196cm might be really good for a heavier and longer skier than me (I'm 178cm and about 78-80kg) OR if you just want a single ski compromise (mostly focused on playful DH skiing) that than handle most things.
Crister, what you are trying to say is that you made those especially for me... I perfectly suit your description and I can tell my wife that I can’t lose weigth because I would not fit the FT62 196cm body profile 8-)

User avatar
Åsnes1922
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:12 am
Location: Voss, Norway
Ski style: Former downhill & biathlon skier, avid telemarker.
Favorite Skis: Åsnes Ingstad, Åsnes Falketind 62, Åsnes Breidablikk, Åsnes Voss Z'N and Åsnes Fjøro 92
Favorite boots: Asolo Extreme Plus, Alpina Alaska BC and 75mm, Alfa Polar and Dynafit Vulcan.
Occupation: Former Royal Norwegian Special Forces operator and instructor.
Professional ski- and mountain guide, Åsnes employee - marketing and development potato, and outdoors guy.
Website: https://www.asnes.com
Contact:

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by Åsnes1922 » Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:15 am

Nitram Tocrut wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:22 pm
Åsnes1922 wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 3:06 am

You are right, my good man.

I choose the FT62 for use above treeline, and when traversing in more open and flatter terrain. For more technical and playful skiing, I have the FT62 in 188cm as my "go-to" ski for most days. To be hones, I prefer the Ingstad 205cm if I want more K&G - as in the conditions and terrain where I would choose the 196cm FT62. The Ingstad is more directional, and more efficient when travelling longer distances over flat terrain - even though the FT62 196cm is surprisingly good as well.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that at FT62 in 196cm might be really good for a heavier and longer skier than me (I'm 178cm and about 78-80kg) OR if you just want a single ski compromise (mostly focused on playful DH skiing) that than handle most things.
Crister, what you are trying to say is that you made those especially for me... I perfectly suit your description and I can tell my wife that I can’t lose weigth because I would not fit the FT62 196cm body profile 8-)

Hahahahaha! Thanks for the laugh! :lol:

I will remember this one, I might have to say something similar one day!
With mountainous regards from,

Crister Aa. Næss
Marketing | Åsnes | Pomoca | Colltex


ASNES.COM I FACEBOOK LIKE! INSTAGRAM @asnes1922

Active Brands AS
Regimentsvegen 158 | 5705 Voss | Norway

User avatar
Nitram Tocrut
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:50 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada
Ski style: "Doorstep" backcountry skiing and groomed trails
Favorite Skis: Asnes Ingstad and FT62, Fischer Europa 99 and Madschus TL-70
Favorite boots: Alpina Alaska 75 mm
Occupation: Organic vegetable grower and many other things!
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by Nitram Tocrut » Thu Sep 17, 2020 3:27 pm

Åsnes1922 wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:15 am
Nitram Tocrut wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:22 pm
Åsnes1922 wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 3:06 am

You are right, my good man.

I choose the FT62 for use above treeline, and when traversing in more open and flatter terrain. For more technical and playful skiing, I have the FT62 in 188cm as my "go-to" ski for most days. To be hones, I prefer the Ingstad 205cm if I want more K&G - as in the conditions and terrain where I would choose the 196cm FT62. The Ingstad is more directional, and more efficient when travelling longer distances over flat terrain - even though the FT62 196cm is surprisingly good as well.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that at FT62 in 196cm might be really good for a heavier and longer skier than me (I'm 178cm and about 78-80kg) OR if you just want a single ski compromise (mostly focused on playful DH skiing) that than handle most things.
Crister, what you are trying to say is that you made those especially for me... I perfectly suit your description and I can tell my wife that I can’t lose weigth because I would not fit the FT62 196cm body profile 8-)

Hahahahaha! Thanks for the laugh! :lol:
e
I will remember this one, I might have to say something similar one day!
Hi Crister,

On a more serious note about the FT62, if the 196 cm meet my expectations I kind of think my Ingstad 205 will see a lot less of snow. I have a lot of rolling terrains with many very short DH sections and I just have more fun dh with the FT62 and even at 188 I was very happy with the K&G. I mostly ski alone and I don't have to worry about skiing partners being on faster skis like the Ingstad. I really have high expectations for this longer FT62 and if I really miss the 188 I will just have to steal them from my friend :D

Post Reply