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.
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:
http://www.outdoorbergen.no/skiutstyr/a ... 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...)