Best ski for Nnn-BC xcD

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

Posts: 2065
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:20 pm
Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada
Ski style: Nordic backcountry touring
Favorite Skis: Asnes Gamme 54 BC/Asnes Combat Nato; Asnes Ingstad BC; Asnes Storetind
Favorite boots: Alpina Alaska; Scarpa T4
Occupation: Forestry Professional
Instructor at Maritime College of Forest Technology
Husband, father, farmer and logger

Re: Best ski for Nnn-BC xcD

Postby lilcliffy » Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:38 am

Petetheswede wrote: First a ton of work and then i went skiing to lick my wounds.

This resonated with me!
After a lot of thinking (during skiing) i feel like any ski i would use has to be good for k&g because in Most Swedish settings this is always the biggest part of any tour

This is the same context as my local skiing.

My thinking is also since i want a moderate quiver this ski would be my powder tourer as well as my xcD ski.

What do you mean- specifically- when you say "powder"? How deep? Dry? Wet? Moisture-rich? Deep and unstable- or, deep and stable?

My previous (bad) experience with the nansen leads me to believe that any too soft ski is out of the game. Not downhill thrill in the world is worth pool cover Darkness to Me.

Well put- and can completely relate. A very soft ski needs a LOT of width underfoot for it to have any stability in deep soft snow!

This leads me to the conclusion that i probably want either falketind 62 in 188cm or the new ingstsd in either 195 or possibly eveb 205 for superfloaty Oil tanker downhill.

Questions then:
Cliffy (Gareth?). What do you think of Ingstsd length, it has to float. I weigh 75kg and carry max 15extra.

Fisheater: how do you feel the falketinds tiur in deep snow? Pool cover effect? Decent float? Decent k&g?

Hey Petter (yes- "LilCliffy" is me- Gareth- my middle name is Clifford- after my Grandfather- one of my childhood friends who is very tall always calls me "LilCliffy"),

We all need an end of season report from Johnny on the deep snow performance of the new Ingstad. This site describes the new Ingstad as having a low camber and soft flex: ... c-binding/

The Combat Nato is amazingly stable in very deep snow- and has a camber and flex perfectly tuned for soft, fresh snow- but, it has no tip rocker and has a flex pattern more tuned to XC skiing.

I am VERY interested in the new Ingstad- but, if its softer flex renders it unstable when XC skiing in deep snow (just like the Eon and E109...)- then I am not interested in it at all.

There are at least 2 skiers on this forum that skied the new Ingstad this winter- perhaps start a new thread- ask the specific question of the deep snow performance of the new Ingstad?

The FT62 is a very different ski than the Ingstad- less cambered, stiffer, and torsionally rigid. The FT62 appears to have way more sidecut than the Ingstad, but all of that tip rocker- plus tail rocker- changes the physics of this ski. The effective edge of this ski does not include the fat and rockered tip/tail of the FT62. That fat rockered tip is to offer early-tip rise allowing the ski to plane in deep snow- it is not to increase the sidecut of the ski- the tip is not part of the effective edge of that ski.

The new Ingstad still has the geometry of a traditional BC-XC ski- with the addition of tip rocker. The addition of tip rocker does amazing things to this type of ski when downhill skiing- it shortens the effective edge of the ski- producing a tighter turn-radius- and, it produces the effect of moving the mounting point forwards on the effective edge- greatly enhancing turn initiation (AMAZING!)- it also produces early-tip rise at downhill speeds. The trick is whether the overall flex of the ski is supportive- including the tip- otherwise, this ski will suck in deep snow (just like the rockered E109).

The FT62 does not have the geometry of a XC ski- it has the geometry of a modern downhill ski- and as such is obviously going to be a higher-performing downhill ski than the Ingstad.

How does the FT62 perform as a XC ski? Bob's the man!

As an alternate example- my Storetind/FT68- is a bit dead (low cambered) and all over the place when XC skiing on dense consolidated snow- but, the ST/FT68 actually performs beautifully as a XC ski on soft snow- it does have camber- and the stiff full-length flex performs very well when XC skiing on deep snow.

Bob needs to weigh-in on the XC performance of the FT62...

Assuming the Ingstad is stable in deep snow- it is clearly the choice if you plan on XC skiing long distances with a desire to make smooth controlled turns.

The FT62 is clearly designed to be a downhill-focused ski.

(BTW- the "pool-cover syndrome" you speak of with unstable ski is no joke- sounds like the Gamme 54 is more stable than the Nansen- the E99 is more stable than the E109 in deep snow- despite the E109's extra width! The deep snow stability of the new Ingstad could easily have been ruined in an attempt to make them easy-turning...)
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.

User avatar

Rank: XCD Guide
XCD Guide
Posts: 532
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:06 pm
Location: Oakland County, MI
Occupation: Construction Manager

Re: Best ski for Nnn-BC xcD

Postby fisheater » Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:43 pm

Pete, I bought my FT 62 for two specific purposes. The first was to tour for the purpose of skiing downhill. This could be on the short vertical, but nicely pitched hills around my home (glacially deposited). To ski abandoned ski areas, where I would use winding trails to access the top of the hills. We also have dunes on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan in quite a few areas along that shore. If timed properly there is good trail access to excellent skiing.

I also purchased these skis to ski my low vertical, but reasonably steep(if you desire) lift served.

I am happy with my purchase for my purposes. I have been happy with this ski for cross country skiing, but the miles are limited at this time. I have used this ski to cross country ski, on trails I would normally use another ski. I did that just to test it as a cross country ski. It seems to be a pretty good cross county ski at least on soft snow. This ski seems to be designed for soft snow. That is my impression, the flex seems designed for the rockered front to plane the ski right about on the heel. I have only had it in about a foot of fresh snow, but the ski offered great support. It was very pleasant for breaking trail. It was also great going downhill.As for kick and glide on hard snow, that I have only done on a limited basis at lift served hills. It did wander, but not terribly. The wax pocket definitely did drag, but I thing some wax adjustments would alleviate some of that drag.
All this being said, if I was ski touring, skiing with kicking and gliding consuming most of my ski. With some open downhills mixed in, I would consider the new Ingstad with rocker. The few reviews we have had, stated it was good for putting on miles. If your turns a relatively open, I believe it may be the better option. The FT 62 is a relatively flat cambered ski. However in as little as 4" of fresh it does come alive. The front and rear plane on the soft snow, preserving the wax pocket, and eliminating pocket wax drag.

Return to “Telemark Talk Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests