Downhill performance : Ingstad vs Rossi BC 110 vs Raab 68

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.
Post Reply
User avatar
Nitram Tocrut
XCD Pinhead
XCD Pinhead
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:50 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada
Ski style: "Doorstep" backcountry skiing and groomed trails
Favorite Skis: Asnes Ingstad, Europa 99 and Salomon Equipe 8
Favorite boots: Alpina Alaska 75 mm
Occupation: Organic vegetable grower and many other things!

Downhill performance : Ingstad vs Rossi BC 110 vs Raab 68

Post by Nitram Tocrut » Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:24 pm

I really should be thinking of something else but I can’t help myself doing extensive research for my next ski purchase. I am a seasoned XC skier, over 40 years of skiing, and I spend many days every year skiing in fields and forest breaking trails but I never got into the downhill part before this winter.

I own a pair of Ingstad with Alaska 75 that I like very much but when I go do « intensive » up and down with my friends I can feel the « limitations » of this ski (and even more important my limitations :( ) which at his core is a XC ski. Last week we were switching ski and I tried the wider underfoot BC 110 and I saw a big difference in my downhill « performance «  but they felt really heavy compared to my Ingstad. I don’t really consider buying the Rossi 110 but I am using it as a compraison.

Lately I have been considering the Tindan but after reading Johnny’s comment I think this ski is not suited for most of my needs as I mostly ski around my farm and I have a lot to explore still (I have spotted some « tour for turn » spot around my farm or close). He suggested the FT 62 or the Raab and I have read extensively on those 2 skis ( actually I must have read the Raab thread at least 3 time :o ). I think that the FT underfoot is too slim (same as the Ingstad) and I wonder how I would feel on the Raab which is only slightly wider than the Ingstad. I am a bit scared of the speed of the Raab as I am already scared at how fast I can gain speed with the Ingstad... although I am getting SLOWLY better with some practice. I wonder how easier it is to control the speed of the Raab as compared to the Ingstad. I guess the Raab are way easier to turn sue in part to the different camber and also the rockered(?) tail. I have read that the Raab is not as effective as the FT 62 for the XC part but I am already well covered for that aspect with the Ingstad.

Thanks in advance for helping me through my reflexion ;)

Martin

User avatar
bgregoire
XCD KNIGHT
XCD KNIGHT
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 9:31 am
Location: Rimouski, Québec
Ski style: Nordic backcountry touring with lots of turns
Favorite Skis: Fisher E99, Åsnes Ingstad & Cecilie, K2 Wayback 88
Favorite boots: Crispi Sydpolen, Alico Teletour & Alfa Polar
Website: http://living-laponia.tumblr.com

Re: Downhill performance : Ingstad vs Rossi BC 110 vs Raab 68

Post by bgregoire » Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:50 am

Martin,

Man that is some severe case of gottagetmoretelemarkilingus you got there! I tried my best to slow it down, but it seems like nothing can be done at the moment.

Of course, the Rabb 68 is a better Downhill ski. You have eliminated the Rossi BC 110 so I guess $$ is no longer an issue.

Scales kill speed on many types of snow. Fast skis are the best.

The telemark turn is essentially a move to bleed speed on the down. The easier your skis can turn, the easier you should be able to slow 'em down. Some skill and good control (boot/binding combo) over the ski is required here of course.

Hence my recommendation to hone-in your tele skills over a few days at some resort. I hardshell boot like the Excursion or the T4 would also help you better control a ski of those dimensions, especially under non-ideal snow conditions and when you want to push really hard.

I just got another pair of Excursions for 50$ so they do come cheap in the used market.

The 3-pin cable is a fine binding for a ski like the Rabb 68, especially if you are hoping to enjoy it on the flats on the way to the DH zone. The Switchback (and X2) is also a good option but I would avoid it if you have to walk lots to get your XCD turns.

If you are interested in the Rabb68, you could always consider the Voile Objective as well. It also comes in a scaled version (waxless).

Anyways, was not really sure what your question was here other than a request for authorization from the higher tele gods to get yourself a brand spanking new pair of Rabbs.

Enjoy!
I live for the Telemark arc....The feeeeeeel.....I ski miles to get to a place where there is guaranteed snow to do the deal....TM

User avatar
fisheater
XCD Guide
XCD Guide
Posts: 679
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:06 pm
Location: Oakland County, MI
Occupation: Construction Manager

Re: Downhill performance : Ingstad vs Rossi BC 110 vs Raab 68

Post by fisheater » Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:23 pm

Nitram, you cannot compare the FT 62 to the Ingstad, not in XC or downhill. I have not skied downhill where the FT 62 was not at least the equal of the S Bound 112 (which many believe to have the same core as the BC 110, but different bases and topsheet) The S-112 is nice in powder, no doubt, but the FT 62 is also nice in powder. That 62 mm waist just makes it easy to put on edge. In soft snow it preserves a wax pocket.
The FT 62 has turned my S 112 into loaner skis.
Now between the FT 62 and the Rabb 68, I really don't think there is a bad choice. I believe the guys that own both or similar lean towards the Rabb 68. I certainly don't feel bad about buying an FT 62. It also is a sweet, fun, ski.

User avatar
lilcliffy
XCD KNIGHT
XCD KNIGHT
Posts: 2305
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:20 pm
Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada
Ski style: Nordic backcountry touring
Favorite Skis: Asnes Ingstad BC; Asnes Gamme 54 BC; Asnes Storetind Carbon
Favorite boots: Alpina Alaska; Scarpa T4
Occupation: Forestry Professional
Instructor at Maritime College of Forest Technology
Husband, father, farmer and logger

Re: Downhill performance : Ingstad vs Rossi BC 110 vs Raab 68

Post by lilcliffy » Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:32 am

fisheater wrote:Nitram, you cannot compare the FT 62 to the Ingstad, not in XC or downhill.
Yes- they are very different skis. The FT62 is a downhill ski, with a downhill flex and camber.
I have not skied downhill where the FT 62 was not at least the equal of the S Bound 112 (which many believe to have the same core as the BC 110, but different bases and topsheet) The S-112 is nice in powder, no doubt, but the FT 62 is also nice in powder. That 62 mm waist just makes it easy to put on edge.
From my perspective, the S-Bound 112/BC-110 is a "wide" XC ski intended for ideal soft snow and gentle to moderate slopes (i.e. similar to the Madshus Annum/Epoch). The FT62 is a downhill ski.

Now between the FT 62 and the Rabb 68, I really don't think there is a bad choice. I believe the guys that own both or similar lean towards the Rabb 68. I certainly don't feel bad about buying an FT 62. It also is a sweet, fun, ski.
I have been on my FT62 much more than my Storetind this winter. Why? Because I can fully enjoy the FT62 with my XC boots. Unfortunately, my Storetind + T4 is not compatible with the kits my touring partners are on...
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.

User avatar
lilcliffy
XCD KNIGHT
XCD KNIGHT
Posts: 2305
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:20 pm
Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada
Ski style: Nordic backcountry touring
Favorite Skis: Asnes Ingstad BC; Asnes Gamme 54 BC; Asnes Storetind Carbon
Favorite boots: Alpina Alaska; Scarpa T4
Occupation: Forestry Professional
Instructor at Maritime College of Forest Technology
Husband, father, farmer and logger

Re: Downhill performance : Ingstad vs Rossi BC 110 vs Raab 68

Post by lilcliffy » Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:02 pm

Nitram Tocrut wrote: Last week we were switching ski and I tried the wider underfoot BC 110 and I saw a big difference in my downhill « performance «  but they felt really heavy compared to my Ingstad. I don’t really consider buying the Rossi 110 but I am using it as a compraison.
This is very interesting...I am wondering if it is mainly a stability issue? The BC-110/S-Bound 112 is a LOT wider underfoot than the Ingstad BC (78 vs. 62mm) underfoot...What length is the BC-110? Your Ingstad is 195cm?
I think that the FT underfoot is too slim (same as the Ingstad)
Why do you think the FT62 is too slim?
and I wonder how I would feel on the Raab which is only slightly wider than the Ingstad.
Even 6mm of extra width underfoot can have a very significant effect on how a ski performs. And- the Rabb68 has a downhill camber and flex, and much more sidecut than the Ingstad BC...
I am a bit scared of the speed of the Raab as I am already scared at how fast I can gain speed with the Ingstad...
Neither the FT62 or the Rabb68 are going to be anywhere near as fast as a ski like the Ingstad BC. And the FT62/Rabb68 are both downhill skis that have been designed to turn- heck they practically turn themselves (as Johnny describes it)- and they both have a massively shorter turning radius than the Ingstad BC.
I wonder how easier it is to control the speed of the Raab as compared to the Ingstad. I guess the Raab are way easier to turn sue in part to the different camber and also the rockered(?) tail.
The Rabb68 and the FT62 are both downhill skis with tight turning radii. They are both much easier to stay in control when skiing tight downhill lines. The Ingstad BC also is easy to turn- but it has a much wider turn radius- one needs to use step/striding/jump turns to ski a tight line with the Ingstad.
I have read that the Raab is not as effective as the FT 62 for the XC part but I am already well covered for that aspect with the Ingstad.
I would expect the XC performance of the FT62/Rabb68 to be almost identical due to them having the same rocker/camber and flex and lots of sidecut. The 68 has the potential to offer considerably more flotation than the 62- but, Verskis report suggests that the round flex of these two skis negatively affects deep-snow XC performance, such that the XC performance of the two skis may be identical.
................
This is my advice...

What is your desire?
To tour for turns with your soft Alaska boots? If so- FT62.

Or- do you want to be able to downhill ski aggressively and drive the ski with a rigid downhill boot? If so- Rabb68.

You can certainly enjoy both the 62 and the 68 on ideal snow and terrain with your Alaska. But- IMHO- the Alaska is not enough boot to take you as far as the 68 can take you!
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.

Post Reply