Which ski for heavy skier?

[Chriso]

Thanks to @CwmRaider I am able to test out Falketind in 196 this weekend Did a quick run up the hill behind the cabin tonight. Beautiful full moon. To early for any conclusions yet, but its looking good.

First quick test of Falketind x.

@lilcliffy wife had a quick run on the Ingstad and came back smiling. I'll post more spesifics after the weekend.

[lilcliffy]

Very cool.

[Chriso]

So I got to test the FTX 196 and Ingstad 185 this weekend. I allso did a quick run on Gamme 200 and Breidablikk 200. The last two on nnn bc, the first two on Xplore.

Conditions where from heavy powder about 15 cm above a crust (that I easily broke when hiking) below was grainy lose snow. Then the wind set in and conditions turned to packed. Last day we had rain, so snow was heavy and not so fun.

The Falketind was a joy downhill. I even got good floatation at lower speeds. I felt it was willing to turn quite easy, and managed some nice teleturns, even tho I have not ben practising it much before. I felt wery secure and stable on them. They were wery forgiving and flat light with surpricee bumps and drops did not trouble me so much.

On the xc part I felt they were a bit front heavy compared to the Ingstad. I allso felt the higher weight over the Ingstad, but have to take into consideration the difference in lengh aswell. When beaking trail I could fell them bend alot where the snow were deep. They did feel somewhat like a banana... On the Ingstad I felt only the front of the ski bending in the deeper parts, I could feel the tail being stiffer. Allso this might have somthing to do with a shorter ski? I could not tell any big difference in support in deep snow, even tho the falketind had 11 cm on the Ingstad. I think I would need a wider ski to not sink so deep in the snow with my weight would Rabb be a better option lengthwise I did like the nimble 185 Ingstad, but 196 on Falketind felt good aswell. I'm not sure I would apriciate a much longer ski tho.

I tested both skis with wax and skins. I could tell no big difference between them on k&g. A Ingstad in the appropriate length might have shown otherwise. I allso had my wife test this, and she could feel much more response from the Ingstad over the FTX.

The Xplore system felt wery good. Much more suport over nn bc. (boots being a big bias here tho) It felt strange at first, but once I got used to it I did not want to put on my old nn bc boots again.

The Alfa skaget felt good. Werry stiff sole( but I gess it's the same sole as all other Xplore boots? Easy to lase upp with different tightness over different parts. More than warm enough for me. They sure do run big in size and I could feel some heel play at times. I had to use 1 thin and 1 medium sock at least, but could allso fit 1 thin and 1 thick. (raggsokk) I fear if I go down 1 size tho they might be to short.

So what ski will I get? I still don't know... Rabb in 188 might be an idea? I allso started thinking about the Combat Nato..
Between the Ingstad and FTX tho. The FTX produced moust smiles but the Ingstad felt lighter and better to brake trail with. Feels like picking between the sensible boooring choice and the exciting fun one that one might regret.

My wife's report on the new setup was that she realy loved the Xplore system. She felt much more response from the Ingstad vs here old ski Cecile. She felt werry happy with here choice of ski.

[CwmRaider]

@Chriso nice that you had a good time. Flotation comes from stiffness along the length and width underfoot mostly.
Agree that wax vs. mohair skins gives comparable glide in powder, more difference on hard snow or prepared tracks.
The NATO is a good ski but i would say it's closer to the gamme than the Falketind in terms of ideal use.
You already have a gamme, if you want to diversify for downhill smiles then I would stick with a wider ski.
As I mentioned to you I would have gotten a Rabb were it not for a smoking deal on the Falketind at 4000nok for skis + xplore bindings.

[telerat]

I too managed to test my Falketind 62 XP on two short tours this weekend, after mounting them on Friday. Mine are 180 cm though, so shorter, lighter and more maneuverable. The conditions were a mix of hard packed snow and deep corn/loose snow with a thin crust on top. On Saturday with hard snow it turned well and felt stable when going straight. The tip stayed on top or sought to the surface, but there were no deep homogenous loose snow. On Sunday I broke trail with my wife following on narrow skis. When the ski broke through the crust into deep snow, the softer tip often stayed on top or easily sought to the surface, while the waist and tail sunk. When going back in the same track, the tip could of course not seek to the surface and followed the track. This with the wide tips gave quite a bit of resistance, so speed was a bit slower than desired. My E109 (or Ingstad) would probably have been a better choice for that tour, but I wanted to test the Falketind. The wide kicker/short skins gave great grip and was very nice on the steepest ascent, which is not very steep, but harder to scale on wax from pervious experiences.

I would (as lilcliffy also wrote earlier) go for a shorter Rabb 68 instead of a longer Falketind 62, if float and playfulness is what you are after. I want mine to perform great on harder surfaces so I have chosen Falketind, but could probably just as well gone with Rabb. Speed helps with float in loose snow, so the deeper the steeper terrain you want to ski. If the snow is loose enough you will eventually encounter avalanche terrain, so be vigilant. I don't think it is very applicable to this class of ski/equipment though; I would pick my telemark gear for that.

I assume the 185 cm Ingstad was you wife's?

Did you go with size 43 or 44 for your Skaget? My size 41 also has a stiff sole, so they were a bit unfamiliar to walk/hike with, but works fine after I got used to them. This is probably also much of the reason for the increased downhill performance, together with a supportive upper. My Alfa Free was noticeable more supportive than Skaget though.

[Chriso]

@Chriso nice that you had a good time. Flotation comes from stiffness along the length and width underfoot mostly.
Agree that wax vs. mohair skins gives comparable glide in powder, more difference on hard snow or prepared tracks.
The NATO is a good ski but i would say it's closer to the gamme than the Falketind in terms of ideal use.
You already have a gamme, if you want to diversify for downhill smiles then I would stick with a wider ski.

Thanks again for lending out your FTX This is really helpfull!
Regarding the Combat Nato, I was thinking this would be a ski with better trailbraking properties in deeper snow than both the Gamme and FTX. Taking the same with underfoot as the FTX but being alot stiffer. I would allso think it was better than Gamme downhill in loose/deeper snow condition? Allso I was thinking this ski would support my weight better since it is reinforced midski and are made for carrying big loads. But if the Combat Nato are more like the Gamme than I belive, I agree with you on it not being what I am looking for.

[Chriso]

I too managed to test my Falketind 62 XP on two short tours this weekend, after mounting them on Friday. Mine are 180 cm though, so shorter, lighter and more maneuverable. The conditions were a mix of hard packed snow and deep corn/loose snow with a thin crust on top. On Saturday with hard snow it turned well and felt stable when going straight. The tip stayed on top or sought to the surface, but there were no deep homogenous loose snow. On Sunday I broke trail with my wife following on narrow skis. When the ski broke through the crust into deep snow, the softer tip often stayed on top or easily sought to the surface, while the waist and tail sunk. When going back in the same track, the tip could of course not seek to the surface and followed the track. This with the wide tips gave quite a bit of resistance, so speed was a bit slower than desired. My E109 (or Ingstad) would probably have been a better choice for that tour, but I wanted to test the Falketind. The wide kicker/short skins gave great grip and was very nice on the steepest ascent, which is not very steep, but harder to scale on wax from pervious experiences.

This is wery helpfull information! It is the trailbraking abilities of the Ingstad I think i might be missing if I went FTX.

I would (as lilcliffy also wrote earlier) go for a shorter Rabb 68 instead of a longer Falketind 62, if float and playfulness is what you are after. I want mine to perform great on harder surfaces so I have chosen Falketind, but could probably just as well gone with Rabb.

Wich would you say performer best allround of a FTX 196, Rabb 188 or Ingstad 205? I think these are the lengths I would go for...

I assume the 185 cm Ingstad was you wife's?

That's spot on

Did you go with size 43 or 44 for your Skaget?

I went 43. They form quite alot around the foot, atleast when they get exposed to wet conditions. I have a 30 days 100% satisfied guarantee on them, think I have a week or so left, I might go check out 42 to see if they will feel better on the heel without being to tight elsewhere.

[telerat]

...My E109 (or Ingstad) would probably have been a better choice for that tour...

This is wery helpfull information! It is the trailbraking abilities of the Ingstad I think i might be missing if I went FTX.

To clarify; it was on the broken trail going down, that the tips slowed me down due to sides of the trail having firm snow. I am not sure of how much difference there would be when breaking a new trail in deep snow, or downhill in soft snow conditions. If the snow was loose I think Falketind would have performed well breaking trail. The tour also included some skiing on prepared track/surface which I should have mentioned, and colored my suggestion that E109/Ingstad would have been a better choice for that tour.

I would (as lilcliffy also wrote earlier) go for a shorter Rabb 68 instead of a longer Falketind 62, if float and playfulness is what you are after. I want mine to perform great on harder surfaces so I have chosen Falketind, but could probably just as well gone with Rabb.

Wich would you say performer best allroand of a FTX 196, Rabb 188 or Ingstad 205? I think these are the lengths I would go for...

I have not tried any of them, except FTX in 180. Any ski has advantages and trade-offs, so you have to decide what you value most. All of your suggestions value touring efficiency and float above playfulness. You also have Gamme, so performance on hard snow is covered. I personally would likely choose the Rabb, as that is the shortest, most fun for descents and furthest from your Gamme. Alternatively Falketind if I got a much better offer on it. Ingstad 205 would be the best for covering long distances, but at that length would not be the most fun downhill.

We have forgotten to ask what skis you have for the alpine touring setup? A friend of a friend uses EVI Fury as bc/xcd ski. It is 86mm wide, but weight is actually lighter than Rabb and very similar to Falketind 62 XP. It is a much more expensive ski though: https://www.eviski.com/ski-advisor (you can click any ski to get details).

[Chriso]

We have forgotten to ask what skis you have for the alpine touring setup? A friend of a friend uses EVI Fury as bc/xcd ski. It is 86mm wide, but weight is actually lighter than Rabb and very similar to Falketind 62 XP. It is a much more expensive ski though: https://www.eviski.com/ski-advisor (you can click any ski to get details).

Real neat site, loved the way you could put in your preferences in the skisearcher. Not so found about the prices tho...

My AT setup is a pair of Old K2 coomback 181cm(135/102/121) with a sturdy G3 onyx binding. So I guess I'm covered for deep powder and really steep acsends.

[lilcliffy]

The Falketind was a joy downhill. I even got good floatation at lower speeds. I felt it was willing to turn quite easy, and managed some nice teleturns, even tho I have not ben practising it much before. I felt wery secure and stable on them. They were wery forgiving and flat light with surpricee bumps and drops did not trouble me so much.

When the conditions are good- this ski is sublime downhill!

On the xc part I felt they were a bit front heavy compared to the Ingstad. I allso felt the higher weight over the Ingstad, but have to take into consideration the difference in lengh aswell. When beaking trail I could fell them bend alot where the snow were deep. They did feel somewhat like a banana... On the Ingstad I felt only the front of the ski bending in the deeper parts, I could feel the tail being stiffer. Allso this might have somthing to do with a shorter ski? I could not tell any big difference in support in deep snow, even tho the falketind had 11 cm on the Ingstad. I think I would need a wider ski to not sink so deep in the snow with my weight would Rabb be a better option lengthwise I did like the nimble 185 Ingstad, but 196 on Falketind felt good aswell. I'm not sure I would apriciate a much longer ski tho.

Interesting stuff here-
simply put, the Ingstad is a "better"/more efficient XC ski than the FTX- there are a number of features that contribute to this- and the degree of impact depends greatly on the snow conditions.
For example, I have had a number of wonderful tours on the 196 FTX this winter, where the conditions were such that the FTX was just great in XC mode; and incredible downhill. But- outside of that "goldi-locks" zone...
The FTX is a "better" downhill ski than the Ingstad, but the FTX is so narrow- and has so much rocker and sidecut- that it is not stable in very difficult snow (not that I DO love the Ingstad downhill- but, with its stiff flat tail, it has a much longer turn radius).
As far as the "bananna" effect (AKA "pool cover syndrome")- any ski that is narrow at the waist + a round flex and/or significant rocker, is going to be prone to it- and add wide floaty shovel and tail makes it even worse.
The current FTX is definitely more stable in deep snow that previous models, due to it being longitudinally stiffer.
The Ingstad is more stable in deep snow than the FTX for two reasons- it is longitudinally stiffer than the FTX; and it has less sidecut. And you are correct, the tail of the Ingstad is stiffer than its shovel- but you are also feeling the effect of the deep shovel-rocker. The shovel on the Ingstad is still relatively stiff and stable in deep snow- but the rocker makes it "pre-bent".
I can confirm for you that the 68mm Rabb 68 is more stable in deep snow than the 62mmm FTX.
The "front-heavy" feel of the FTX is likely that broad flat tip pushing its way through deep snow- very inefficient. I would like a FTX with a triangular raised tip (or an Ingstad with a more playful/shapely tail!)
Yes- you are correct the FTX does not offer more flotation in deep snow than the Ingstad- in fact in many snow contexts the Ingstad is more stable.
Yes- you will want a wider ski underfoot for better flotation/stability in truly deep snow- unless you go with a much longer and stiffer ski.

I tested both skis with wax and skins. I could tell no big difference between them on k&g. A Ingstad in the appropriate length might have shown otherwise. I allso had my wife test this, and she could feel much more response from the Ingstad over the FTX.

What do you mean by "more response from the Ingstad"?

The Xplore system felt wery good. Much more suport over nn bc. (boots being a big bias here tho) It felt strange at first, but once I got used to it I did not want to put on my old nn bc boots again.

Cool. Foot/feet full weighted on the ski- I don't feel/see any big difference between NNNBC vs Xplore- HOWEVER- the connection between the boot and binding is so much more rigid/solid than NNNBC (or 3pin) that the control/responsiveness- when the foot/feet are not fully-weighted is sooo much more effective with Xplore. (And I cannot speak for you, but I know for a fact that my foot is not full-weighted on the ski more than it is when I am BC Nordic ski touring (especially in steep terrain)).

The Alfa skaget felt good. Werry stiff sole( but I gess it's the same sole as all other Xplore boots?

Reports suggest that there is some variation in sole stiffness and flex pattern between different XP boots. For me- once broken in- the flex of the Skaget sole is the perfect balance between striding flex and stability.

So what ski will I get? I still don't know... Rabb in 188 might be an idea? I allso started thinking about the Combat Nato..

As stated eslewhere- the Combat NATO is even more directional than the Ingstad. It does make wonderful turns, but it has a very wide turn radius (tighter than the Gamme 54; but much wider than the Ingstad). As Roelant mentioned- in many ways the Combat NATO is similar to your Gamme- but, the Combat NATO ski is better in deep snow, and it has a tighter turn than the Gamme...
The Rabb 68 will definitely be more stable in deep snow than the FTX, if that is the primary issue- and of all these skis, it offers the best downhill performance.

Between the Ingstad and FTX tho. The FTX produced moust smiles but the Ingstad felt lighter and better to brake trail with. Feels like picking between the sensible boooring choice and the exciting fun one that one might regret.

Ha! Well, the most "sensible" (or versatile) choice in the skis you have mentioned is the Combat NATO- it just works- in all snow and terrain. BUT- it is certainly not as fun/playful downhill as the other skis!

My wife's report on the new setup was that she realy loved the Xplore system. She felt much more response from the Ingstad vs here old ski Cecile. She felt werry happy with here choice of ski.

Very cool!