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.
Woodserson wrote:I think there is a place for a mid-60 ski, a mid-80 ski, and then a fat ski.lilcliffy wrote:I am too- what is the difference in performance between the 68/76/86? Obviously the 86 would offer more float than the 68- but if you want a powder ski, why wouldn't you go even wider? PLUS- I am sure all of these skis have different camber/rocker profiles- intended for different snow conditions.I am also curious about the two Tind skis.
The 68 is intended to be a hybrid between a BC-XC ski and an "AT" ski- what about the 76/86?
I would love to drive a FT62 around some of our rolling xcD terrain here, like Mount Cardigan, the Jackson Valley Trail, etc. Good free heel lower-angle yet still exciting skiing. It would probably be a perfect fit for this kind of terrain and pair wonderfully with the Alaskas for long days of touring up and down.
Then, when the snow gets deeper or I want to go faster on steeper terrain up it up to the mid-85 ski which is now owned by my Objectives. These are great skis for harder charging in variable snow, and new snow up to 6-8" in plastic boots. After that, we're off to the races with some sort of fat ski. I need a fat ski, I know this now. Something mid-to-high 90's in the waist.
The 76 waisted ski would be a weird one for me.
I for one, have had designs on their fatter plastic-boot friendly skis like the EGGI 98 or TIND 85 (basically what my Objectives are now).
Not possible. All the Tinds have been in production for a few years now.fisheater wrote:I am hoping that Johnny has a 76 or an 86 in that box,
Markedly Wax Pocket = True double camber
Moderate Wax Pocket = Camber and a half
Marked Chamber (FT62, RABB68) = Camber and a half with a lower profile than MWP
Classic Camber (TINDAN86) = Flat, single camber perhaps?
There is no info at all on the wider AT skis, so I suppose no info = single camber...?
Thanks for this fish. I am still interested in the FT62 but am still struggling to figure out my Fischer SBound collection. For 2018-2019 I've settled on a 205cm E99 Crown (I like), a 189cm Traverse 78 (I like), and a 179cm Excursion 88. I think I'm done with the SB98 completely (except for the Boundless Wax, which I like), it was a failed experiment for what I was looking for. The applications I would use the FT62 in are probably going to be covered by the 88. So we'll see how that works. If it doesn't, FT62 is next up on the docket for this niche.fisheater wrote: Woods, the FT 62 is a fun ski. I have a very good feel for what the FT 68 must be, from both my experience on the 62 and Gareth's reviews. DON'T ORDER THE 62 short, there is no need unless you are in very tight trees. I agree that the 62 may be better paired with NNN bindings, do not doubt that this ski can be pressed harder with a stiff leather boots and a 3-pin binding.
I would interested in reviews of the 76, but I understand the thought "why go narrowe". From my perspective my old mid-fats had only about a 70 mm waist, and I skied very deep snow in Utah in those days. I know that width has more than enough float, if you point them downhill and just have a little room to turn. Eastern trees are a little too tight in those conditions, and additional width would be critical for climbing. I am hoping that Johnny has a 76 or an 86 in that box, but then I'm still waiting on his review of the Ingstad
Why the Asnes 62 and not the 68?Woodserson wrote:If it doesn't, FT62 is next up on the docket for this niche.
I am very happy with my long touring skis, I am very happy with my telemark skis (Objective, KOM, Atomics), it's this one weird in between that I'm still struggling to make perfect for the longer moderate downhill tours like the Wildcat Valley Trail.
Didn't you talk me out of it for NNN-BC? I think the 62s would be better suited to my Alaska's and the 68's to some sort of 75mm combo. I am light, not strong, and if I recall, we decided that would be a better option. Didn't we?lilcliffy wrote: Why the Asnes 62 and not the 68?