Ski Length Dilemma

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
lowangle al
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:36 pm

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by lowangle al » Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:01 pm

I wouldn't go longer than the 188s. Whenever I had to decide between two different lengths I always went longer and was always sorry. If you want to up your game in more challenging stuff shorter will help. At your weight they should glide plenty fast when waxed well.

User avatar
Stephen
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:49 am

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by Stephen » Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:14 pm

Hi lowangle al,
Thanks for the comments.
I’m interested in why you were sorry when you chose the longer ski length?

It’s challenging to read the tea leaves on length.
For example, Åsnes1922 / Christer’s comments pull me towards longer.
He is a both shorter and heavier than I am, so does that make us about equal for ski length?
But maybe he is a better skier than I am?

Nitram Tocrut sold his 188s to get 196, but I think he is heavier than I am (and, maybe he is a better skier :)).

Åsnes1922 wrote:
Tue Sep 01, 2020 7:03 am

Nitram Tocrut wrote “Oh well Crister you better be rigth because I sold my 188 FT for the promise of better K&G with the 196. :shock: I was really happy with the 188 but I expect the 196 to be even better for my body size and my terrain.”

You will definitely get better K&G performance with the longest ski! That is just a fact.

Choosing a length of ski doesn't really have a specified, correct, and universal answer. It all depends on skill, personal preference, use, body weight, body length, and so many other factors. A lightweight skier can easily manage with a short ski whereas a heavier skier needs a longer ski. A good skier can easily handle a long ski, and a more novice skier can not. There is just a lot of factors here.

But, from a simplified perspective; yes, it will probably be more beneficial for many to choose a longer FT62.

With a simplified perspective, I mean the following:

If one only takes body weight and body length to consideration, and give all skiers the benefit of the doubt as "excellent skiers", most would probably choose a longer ski for the K&G performance.

It's like with anything else. When you add up the +/- most really good skiers will probably choose a longer ski 90% of the time - because there are just more advantages with a longer ski versus a shorter ski. Beginners and intermediate skiers, will probably go for a shorter ski, as they probably see more benefits of a ski that is easier to handle.

Please keep the comments coming!

User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 2482
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 Falketind 62;Asnes Storetind Carbon
Favorite boots: Alfa Guard Advance BC; Alpina Alaska BC; Scarpa T4
Occupation: Forestry Professional
Instructor at Maritime College of Forest Technology
Husband, father, farmer and logger

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by lilcliffy » Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:17 pm

Just to be clear- I tend towards long skis in general- especially with any ski that I want to crush some miles on.
And- if I was living in the mountains and downhill-touring above treeline- I would be on a long stable downhill ski.

But- I don't live in the mountains anymore and my local BC downhill touring involves skiing tight lines in the woods.

I don't know what the conditions are like where Crister is using the 196cm FT62- but I suspect he is using them above treeline...

I own the 188cm FT62 and after two full seasons, I now wish that I bought a shorter FT62 to downhill ski tighter lines in the woods. If I was "xcd" touring with the FT62 above tree line, I would definitely want the 196cm.

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.
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.

User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 2482
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 Falketind 62;Asnes Storetind Carbon
Favorite boots: Alfa Guard Advance BC; Alpina Alaska BC; Scarpa T4
Occupation: Forestry Professional
Instructor at Maritime College of Forest Technology
Husband, father, farmer and logger

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by lilcliffy » Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:22 pm

Stephen wrote:
Mon Sep 07, 2020 6:19 am
I’m sure it can vary by type of ski, so let’s say XC to XCd, with maybe some XCD.
Not skate, not race, not mostly track, not XCD
Hi Stephen,
I re-read your OP and I am wondering why you have chosen the FT62?
IMO the FT62 is a modern BC downhill ski in a narrow package- making it manageable with Nordic touring boots.
If you are not looking for a downhill ski- why would you choose the FT62 over a ski with better XC performance (e.g. E109/Ingstad)?
Gareth
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.

User avatar
Stephen
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:49 am

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by Stephen » Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:22 pm

It’s impossible!
This is why people end up with a bazillion skis.

The ingstad sounds great, the FT62 sounds great, they all sound great.
Not only can’t I zero in on a ski, ski length is a moving target, also.

lowangle al said get something even wider that the FT62 if I wanted to limit it to the MR48 and one other ski.
You say something narrower.
All based on what I say my objectives are and other’s interpretation of that, based on their own filters.
_________________________
Asnes says:
The Falketind 62 is a wide and ultra-light backcountry ski designed, simply, to be great fun.

Its generous sidecut makes it excellent on the turn...

Designed with a moderate wax pocket ...
...ideal for those planning longer trips in demanding and steep terrain.

It is the ski for those who love to be on skis – climbing far for the pleasure of the descent.
_________________________

All that sounds pretty close to what I’m looking for.
But, the write-up on the Ingstad sounds good, also.
And if I got the Ingstad, would it be the 195 (seems short) or the 205?

User avatar
Woodserson
Posts: 1694
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:25 am
Location: New Hampshire
Ski style: Bumps, trees, and steeps and long woodsy XC tours
Favorite Skis: DH: Voile V6, Altai KOMs, XC: Asnes Gamme 54, Classy Woodies
Favorite boots: T2Eco, T4, Alaska
Occupation: Retro Rager-grouch. Flailmeister. E99 Nerd

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by Woodserson » Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:01 pm

Stephen wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:22 pm

_________________________
Asnes says:
The Falketind 62 is a wide and ultra-light backcountry ski designed, simply, to be great fun.

Its generous sidecut makes it excellent on the turn...

Designed with a moderate wax pocket ...
...ideal for those planning longer trips in demanding and steep terrain.

It is the ski for those who love to be on skis – climbing far for the pleasure of the descent.
This means it's a ski meant to turn, but you can K&G your way, somewhat, to the Turning Grounds. Literally, climbing up the hill to ski down on light equipment. Moderate wax pocket does not equal K&G efficiency, but do-ability.


_________________________

All that sounds pretty close to what I’m looking for.
But, the write-up on the Ingstad sounds good, also.
And if I got the Ingstad, would it be the 195 (seems short) or the 205?
The Ingstad is a XC ski to travel over hilly terrain in deep snow efficiently, and turn down said hilly terrain. You're not out hunting for turns specifically, you're turning over the course of travel, K&G being the priority.

Do you want to XC ski, or do you want to ski down hills? Only you can answer the question. Go long with the Ingstads, if you are going to use them for their intended purpose.

And yes, you need a bazillion skis.

User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 2482
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 Falketind 62;Asnes Storetind Carbon
Favorite boots: Alfa Guard Advance BC; Alpina Alaska BC; Scarpa T4
Occupation: Forestry Professional
Instructor at Maritime College of Forest Technology
Husband, father, farmer and logger

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by lilcliffy » Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:08 pm

Woodserson wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:01 pm
And yes, you need a bazillion skis.
This made me laugh out loud my dear friend!
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.

User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 2482
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 Falketind 62;Asnes Storetind Carbon
Favorite boots: Alfa Guard Advance BC; Alpina Alaska BC; Scarpa T4
Occupation: Forestry Professional
Instructor at Maritime College of Forest Technology
Husband, father, farmer and logger

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by lilcliffy » Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:18 pm

Stephen wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:22 pm
lowangle al said get something even wider that the FT62 if I wanted to limit it to the MR48 and one other ski.
You say something narrower.
Sorry- if my terrible English confused you. I did not mean to give you the impression that I am suggesting something narrower- not at all.

Al is suggesting something totally different in its intent and use- and associated geometry- not necessarily something wider.
For example- the Ingstad and the MR48 actually have more in common than the Ingstad and the FT62.
The FT62 is a downhill ski.
The Ingstad and the MR48 are XC skis.
I am only bringing the Ingstad/E-109 back onto the table because I didn't think you wanted a downhill ski.
If you want a downhill ski- then by all means choose the FT62- especially if you want to downhill ski with a soft Nordic touring boot.
_________________________
Asnes says:

It is the ski for those who love to be on skis – climbing far for the pleasure of the descent.
All that sounds pretty close to what I’m looking for.
I think that I am confused about what you are looking for...
And if I got the Ingstad, would it be the 195 (seems short) or the 205?
LONG. If you want a short ski for downhill turns then get a downhill ski.
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.

User avatar
Stephen
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:49 am

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by Stephen » Sat Sep 12, 2020 6:06 pm

lilcliffy wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:22 pm
Stephen wrote:
Mon Sep 07, 2020 6:19 am
I’m sure it can vary by type of ski, so let’s say XC to XCd, with maybe some XCD.
Not skate, not race, not mostly track, not XCD
Hi Stephen,
I re-read your OP and I am wondering why you have chosen the FT62?
Gareth
In fairness to lilcliffy, I think my criteria has drifted a little more towards DH in what I’m looking for.
Makes it hard to decide between the Ingstad and the Falketind 62.
Of course, what I envision and what I end up doing can be different.

But, to try this once agin:
A ski that has credible XC capabilities, and will be fun whenever there is the opportunity to find a slope to ski down — Anything from rolling hills, to steeper powder, to the very occasional blue square ski run.
I hope that is clearer!
;)

But, how could I NOT choose the Falketinde62:
Johnny wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:37 am

The FT62 is classified as a backcountry ski according to Asnes. Unlike the Rabb 68, the FT62 has a groove track in the base for better XC performance. It has a “Marked Chamber”, which would translate into something like a camber-and-a-quarter. Or classic alpine camber with guts. Or true alpine camber with a bit of resistance. It has very nice Nordic Rockered tips and very surfy tails.

It is very, very light. The lightest DH ski you can get. Its light weight and narrow profile make it a tiny bit easier to control than the Rabb. With leathers, almost no muscle power is required to control them, no matter if you are skiing rolling hills or 45deg slopes. They just ski like magic. You can almost see a trail of ***stardust*** behind the tails when you go down. Edge hold is surprisingly good on harder snow despite the huge NR tips. And the tails add that magic surfy touch anywhere you ski.

The FT62 is an amazing do-it-all backcountry nordic ski that can turn on a dime, anywhere. It reminds me of the old Alpina Light/Cross Terrain ski series, but a million times better.
:P

User avatar
Woodserson
Posts: 1694
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:25 am
Location: New Hampshire
Ski style: Bumps, trees, and steeps and long woodsy XC tours
Favorite Skis: DH: Voile V6, Altai KOMs, XC: Asnes Gamme 54, Classy Woodies
Favorite boots: T2Eco, T4, Alaska
Occupation: Retro Rager-grouch. Flailmeister. E99 Nerd

Re: Ski Length Dilemma

Post by Woodserson » Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:02 pm

Just answer:

Do you want a XC ski
or
Do you want a DH ski

Post Reply