Ski Length Dilemma

[Stephen]

Have you ever had an unreasonable boss?
You know, the one that says he wants good work, and he wants in done NOW!

I don't want to be that guy, but darn, I want both:
I want DH and XC in one ski (realizing that there will be compromises for both).

I already have an XC ski (MR48), and I want something that clearly can do DH.
If the gap between the two is too wide, I guess I can fill that with a third ski, like maybe the Ousland, Gamme , or Nansen.
But I don't see myself going beyond something like the FT62 in width. I want to stick to lighter equipment: lighter skis, Alfa Guard boots, and NNN BC bindings.

I'm not trying to convince anybody, or justify my thought process -- just laying it out there for comment (or ridicule!), hoping that what others say will help me clarify my own thinking.
I'm really grateful for the comments of others so far, because it really has made me think, and sharpened my focus (even if it doesn't look like it to others!)

[lowangle al]

I think the falktind is a good choice for you especially since your previous post mentioned "fun"and "hills" in the same statement. The 188s will help you enjoy what the ski has to offer sooner than the longer ones and speed up the learning curve. So to sum it up, you want to have fun on the hills, you're inexperienced and you are in the Rocky Mountains, go shorter.

[Nitram Tocrut]

At 196cm- touring in the Northwoods- the use of the FT62 has to be VERY close to the Ingstad. And the Ingstad is a MUCH better XC ski and very good downhill for a XC ski. (The Ingstad is also much more stable when XC skiing in deep snow.)

I guess what I am saying is that if one wants to open up the FT62 and truly charge and carve downhill- IMO, one needs a lot of room to openly turn a 196cm.

I am the one who took the chance to switch from 188 to 196 and I don’t know the result yet. I also own 205 Ingstad and as LilCliffy said they are better XC ski but the FT is more DH oriented and easier to turn. Well easier for me as I probably don’t have the technical hability that LilCliffy have, especially in the trees. My sweet spot for DH is an open hill where there is room for turning just as LilCliffy suggested. So in the end it comes down to your terrain, your hability and many other factors.

As I said before I was VERY happy with the 188 but as I have about 7 km to ski, mostly on flat terrain, to my sweet spot the potentially better K&G is interesting. But if you don’t have to cover a lot of distance maybe you are better off with the shorter FT that should be even easier to turn and as you weigth about 50 pounds less than me the extra length is maybe not that important...

It’s funny to read you... it reminds me of... me . And LikCliffy could testify as we discussed so much about choosing a ski... so my advice is to stop overthinking it and go ahead. A lot of people are advising you to get the 188 so if you came here for wisdom you should listen to the voice of reasons

[Stephen]

A lot of people are advising you to get the 188 so if you came here for wisdom you should listen to the voice of reasons

Ha ha.
I can be a little dense sometimes, but I think I heard Nitram that time.
Sometimes it takes a 2 X 4 to get through!
Thanks, man!

[Nitram Tocrut]

A lot of people are advising you to get the 188 so if you came here for wisdom you should listen to the voice of reasons

Ha ha.
I can be a little dense sometimes, but I think I heard Nitram that time.
Sometimes it takes a 2 X 4 to get through!
Thanks, man!

So? What is the verdict? 188 or 196? Looks like 188 when we read you but never sure... you remind me so much of me...was i so intense when I first posted on TTalk

I think nobody mentioned it but maybe there is a TTF... the Telemark Talk Fever and you have been stroke pretty nad

Can’t wait to read your report and also when you have to choose your next pair

[Stephen]

I’ll be banned if I bring up a next pair!


It’s easy to think something, but miss getting it down in black and white...
Yes, Nitram hit me over the head with a 2 X 4 and made me see that the advice I have been asking for is: 188.
(If I could make the 188 blink and flash, I would.)

So, I accept and appreciate the advice — 188 it is.

Now...
I just have to see if I can get the special order for the skis changed from 196 to 188 .......
(I had to place the order on one-day notice, before I had time to ask for advice.)

Just in case anyone else was interested in a special order through Neptune - I believe their Asnes order went in on Friday, so maybe it’s possible to sneak something in on Monday morning?

[Musk Ox]

That is a nice looking boot!
Does it have a full felt liner or just a felt sole?
Have you ever tried the Alfa Guard — I wonder how the two boots would compare?
(The Alfa Guards do have a Goretex liner.)
If I’m in Europe, I would check out the Lundhags.

They're really beautifully made. These have a removable felt lining. You can wear them for padding about in a cabin in an overnight stay.

The Lundhags ‘Opti’ last is famously wide and long at the toes, so they're super comfy for those with flippers, especially when you're coming down off a mountain in hiking boots made with the same last.

The philosophy is that Gore-Tex membranes tend to fail pretty regularly in walking boots which which get a lot of creasing and punishment, and if your boots are saturated on the surface they’re not going to be breathing anyway – so you may as well use rubber with wool socks to soak up the foot juice. I love my Lundhags hiking boots too, but I really like to hike in Gore-Tex'd trail running shoes if its warm... although this is a subject for another thread and indeed forum!

I've actually never had a pair of the Guards, but I've definitely tried them on in the shop at some point. I'm pretty confident they'll be stiffer all the way up the shaft than the Lundhags Guides. The Expeditions are stiffer.

[lilcliffy]

I hope you realize that no matter how much I am trying to "help" someone with this kind of choice- I am always speaking from my personal perspective:
- my ecological context- terrain, snow, vegetation, etc.
- my touring context- XC vs D (and the fact that my ecological context influences this)
- my limited understanding, skills and abilities
- my style and preferences

My point is that the 196cm FT62 may well be a better choice for your BC-XCD touring in your local "backcountry".

The 196cm FT62 is not a good fit for me because I would end up using it in the same touring application as my Ingstad/E-109.

Your skiing context is likely very different than mine- the 196cm FT62 may be just the ride.
I would go ahead with your 196cm order man.
I am looking forward to your reports of riding them!

[Nitram Tocrut]

I’ll be banned if I bring up a next pair!


It’s easy to think something, but miss getting it down in black and white...
Yes, Nitram hit me over the head with a 2 X 4 and made me see that the advice I have been asking for is: 188.
(If I could make the 188 blink and flash, I would.)

So, I accept and appreciate the advice — 188 it is.

Now...
I just have to see if I can get the special order for the skis changed from 196 to 188 .......
(I had to place the order on one-day notice, before I had time to ask for advice.)

Just in case anyone else was interested in a special order through Neptune - I believe their Asnes order went in on Friday, so maybe it’s possible to sneak something in on Monday morning?

Just so you know Stephen, I have a twisted sense of humor and I did not want to dictate your choice of ski length because the majority said so... As LilCliffy wrote, we all give advice from our own perspective and we must keep that in mind when choosing a ski. Last year I was divided between buying the Rabb or the FT and I finally got the Rabb which is a great ski but not designed for what the terrain around where I live offers me. I have been a backdoor skier for most of my life and I rarely invest time into getting to a skiing spot... I invest that time in skiing. So for me, the FT was a way better choice but I learned the hard way. But as much as I like it, I know that the snow conditions are not always good for it so I end up skiing my Europa99 a lot and even much skinnier skis as sometime I ski over the thinnest snow cover on my neighbor frozen hay field. And when I go for a multi day trip in “bigger” mountains with a heavy backpack I will take my 205 Ingstad although I know there will be moments when I which I had the FT but I don’t think they are made to support a heavy load. But something I really think about is to bring less booze on those trip and bring my FT as a second pair of ski. I know these would have been great in Les Monts-Valins and at l’Intercentre... those from Quebec surely know what I am talking about

So Stephen, sorry if I hit you with a 2x4 but in the end choose your ski accordingly to your terrain and as for technical hability, you should not worry that much because in the right conditions the FT62 are easy to ski... IMO

I know I am just adding to the “mess” in your head but that comes with frequenting TTalk

[Woodserson]

And when I go for a multi day trip in “bigger” mountains with a heavy backpack I will take my 205 Ingstad although I know there will be moments when I which I had the FT but I don’t think they are made to support a heavy load. But something I really think about is to bring less booze on those trip and bring my FT as a second pair of ski.

The booze is important, you can't leave that behind.

Go in on your Ingstads and A-frame your FT's on your pack around the booze. Done and done, best of both worlds!