Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

The Gamme54 do have rocker, readily visible without compression, looks like a little more than my 2012-era E99's. The Gamme feels similar to the E99 except noticeably stiffer.

I'm guessing they wanted to make the Ingstad a little more tele-friendly like the Nansen. I'm starting to realize skis are like wine, you want to get a sample of each vintage! They intentionally change things up to sell more skis. I just hope Asnes keeps their trademark thick edges. Over the years edge thickness seems directly tied to durability for me.

Seems like the new Ingstad would be better for deep powder. You can ski 205 and float better for the same weight penalty as 200's, and they should turn just as easily with the rockered tips. It's difficult to look at this Asnes stuff in summer I get a nervous twitch in my stomach - I want to be out there! Also I did not make it through the spring sales without another Asnes purchase...oh dear...resistance is futile!

Cannatonic wrote:The Gamme54 do have rocker, readily visible without compression,

Cool- well my guess is that the new Ingstad will have a fully-rockered tip like the Gamme 54. No question it will offer more effective turn initiation. At downhill speed, it will also offer effective tip rise in deep snow. BUT- at XC speeds- they better design the overall flex of the ski VERY carefully...

The Gamme 54 has significantly less sidecut than the Ingstad- yes?

When XC skiing in deep, soft snow, my E99s are actually more stable than the E-109- the E-99 has a similar profile and flex to the Gamme 54...

No question that a rockered tip on a XC ski improves turn intitation...BUT- I think it is a very delicate complex of sidecut and flex that determines whether it is effective in a XC context. IME- it works better with the less curvy E-99 than the E-109...

, and they should turn just as easily with the rockered tips.

My experience is that it makes a bigger difference than sidecut on deep fresh snow. My rockered E-99s have easier turn initiation than my curvier Combat Natos.
(Woods reports a similar experience with the curvy S-Bound 98 vs. more rockered 88- he claims that the more-rockered 88 turns easier than the curvier 98...)

My hope for the Ingstad was for full-length stability/flex; a rockered tip; and more width underfoot/less sidecut...

BUT- Asnes are the experts, not me! I certainly trust that they know what they are doing!

BUT- if the new Ingstad become more of a downhill-oriented ski- with a loss of XC performance- I will be glad that I have my 210cm Combat Nato XCD machines!

Your 210's are now a collector's item! Who knows when they'll be available again. Yes, ski performance seems to be blend of many design factors. Something about the E99's makes them easy to turn. I think it's soft-flexing tips, versus having a lot of rocker.

I don't see myself buying any more skis for a few years, over 3 years I've slowly converted to Asnes. Most of the skis I want aren't made by anyone else anymore. Last year I wanted a simple pair of 210cm waxing XC skis, NOT telemark, just XC. This market niche is completely gone other than Asnes! There is no other option, it's frightening. I don't know how people can enjoy long, flat tours with short & stubby skis with little camber. That seems to be what Fischer & Rossi are making these days.

*edit, I checked, Madshus still made the BC50 (Voss) in 210's last year.

Cannatonic wrote: Something about the E99's makes them easy to turn. I think it's soft-flexing tips, versus having a lot of rocker.

My E-99s(2016 model) have significant Nordic rocker- in fact, they open up more than the same model-year E-109s I have. But- those open tips are only available when the camber is compressed (i.e. not a truly rockered tip). The Nordic rocker on both skis (E99/E109) is wonderful at downhill speeds- the E109 being even turnier with more sidecut and a softer second camber. BUT- it all seems to fall apart on the curvier E-109 when XC skiing- the tip floats so much higher than the skinnier waist- I hate it actually...The less curvy E99 is more stable than the E109 when XC skiing on deep backcountry snow.

The flex pattern of my Combat Natos is completely different than the E99/E109. The full-length stability of the Combat Nato means that its narrow waist is less of a XC liability in deep snow than the E109. However- funny thing is- I find the open tips of the E99 make easier turn initiation than the curvier Combat Nato...(of course this is all a complex! - the Combat Nato is a bigger ski- if I had a more powerful boot on it...)

My Combat Natos do offer MUCH more effective flotation and traction in truly deep snow than the narrower E99- I find this has as much- if not more- to do with flex (both in terms of traction and stability), than it has to do with the 8mm of extra width underfoot...

No matter what- it is great that Asnes has enough of a market to continue to develop their BC-XC tech! If they get the recipe of flex-camber-sidecut just right, the new Ingstad could be an even more amazing balance of xcountry and downhill performance in the backcountry, than the old one!

How is the Asnes Tonje Blomseth different than the Asnes Ingstad? As a ski designed for women, will it be softer flexing, lighter weight or have a different profile than the Ingstad?

lilcliffy wrote: My E-99s(2016 model) have significant Nordic rocker- in fact, they open up more than the same model-year E-109s I have. But- those open tips are only available when the camber is compressed (i.e. not a truly rockered tip). The Nordic rocker on both skis (E99/E109) is wonderful at downhill speeds- the E109 being even turnier with more sidecut and a softer second camber. BUT- it all seems to fall apart on the curvier E-109 when XC skiing- the tip floats so much higher than the skinnier waist- I hate it actually...The less curvy E99 is more stable than the E109 when XC skiing on deep backcountry snow.

Interesting - so I guess 2016 was not a good year for E109's! Now Ingstad will be nearly as light as E109, I hope they don't mess with the flex or construction too much.

STG wrote:How is the Asnes Tonje Blomseth different than the Asnes Ingstad? As a ski designed for women, will it be softer flexing, lighter weight or have a different profile than the Ingstad?

I'm pretty sure it will be the same profile but with a softer camber... Not sure they will make them longer than 190cm though...

Cannatonic wrote: Also I did not make it through the spring sales without another Asnes purchase...oh dear...resistance is futile!

Woooaaah... I'm looking forward to read your review...!
What made you pick the 51's over the lighter ones?

LoveJohnny wrote: Woooaaah... I'm looking forward to read your review...!
What made you pick the 51's over the lighter ones?

good question! I suppose the extra 3mm waist width over Mountain Race 48- I have EEEE width feet, I like the extra stability, also I'm using 3-pin bindings. I think the absolute minimum width needed for the holes is 47mm, so 48mm does not leave much extra room.

I was replacing an old pair of Kharu XC skis, they were also 51mm waist width. I haven't skied the MT51 yet, but they look extremely durable, they should last me forever. Thick edges to protect the bases, but the front and tail have no edges, which is good for light weight and possibly skiing into dogs' legs. The prices on the MT's are pretty good too - one of the cheapest Asnes. You can use shortened kicker skins for spring snow.

will be interesting to see what lengths are made of the Tonje ski. Pretty girls and huskies? I'm sure some guys would take that over Ingstad's glare! I see Ingstad is looking a little happier on this year's ski.

Cannatonic wrote: I think the absolute minimum width needed for the holes is 47mm, so 48mm does not leave much extra room.

NNN...

Cannatonic wrote: will be interesting to see what lengths are made of the Tonje ski. Pretty girls and huskies? I'm sure some guys would take that over Ingstad's glare! I see Ingstad is looking a little happier on this year's ski.

Ahem... That's pretty much why I bought the Skogs...

LoveJohnny wrote: NNN...

Hummm... Actually, I was thinking about the NIS plates... But I realized the screws on mounting pattern of the plates are the same as NNN/3p...