Annum vs Ingstad vs S112?

[voilenerd]

I’m looking for a ski in between my Voile Vectors and E99s. I got a pair of Annums/Panorams on order but they are back ordered for awhile. I want something that is turns easily like my Vectors but kick and glides well. Any feed back would be appreciated. I’m 6ft 3 about 200lbs. Was thinking on the 182 Annums, 189 S112 or 195 Igstads? Let me know what you think on lengths and personal opinions if you tried skis.


Thanks and happy turning!

[fisheater]

I’m 190 lbs, and I own a S-112. It is a nice turning ski downhill, however it lacks torsional rigidity. In soft snow it performs well downhill.
Mine is the old brown version, 189 cm, I’m not sure if the camber changed. Mine is terrible on consolidated snow for kick and glide. I really don’t like it in soft snow for kick and glide either. I can’t quantify why, but depending upon depth of snow I would much rather be on my Falketind 62 or my Tind 86. Maybe I just don’t like the scales? I’m not sure.
The Falketind has a snow depth limit. I pulled the trigger on the new version Falketind Explore. It has yet to arrive, so I haven’t even flexed it.
I had wanted to purchase an Ingstad 205cm, but couldn’t find one. I wasn’t paying shipping from Sport Albert, but they didn’t have one either. I just received an email today from Varuste. They now have Ingstad in 205 cm. Their pricing with shipping isn’t bad.

https://varuste.net/p92764/%C3%A5snes-ingstad-bc

[Stephen]

I have Gamme in 210 (like your E99) and Voile Objective BC in 178 (with NNN BC).
My in between ski is the Ingstad in 205
6’3” / 170 (195 all up)
I really like the Ingstad.
Not the best for on the flats or for downhill, but definitely good enough and covers a broad range.
Some of my most fun days were downhills on the Ingstad in friendly snow.

[lilcliffy]

From a downhill perspective my experience is that all three of these skis perform best in soft snow and moderately-steep terrain.

The Annum has the roundest flex and is definitely the easiest to turn and smear at slower speeds.

The Ingstad performs best when downhill skiing in soft snow at speed- when it will plane.

I cannot speak to the current S112, but every older version I have tested was stiffer than the Guide/Annum.

The Ingstad is by far the most efficient XC ski- if one gets it at a XC length.
My point here is that if you choose a very short Ingstad- to get a tighter turn raduis- than it might not be a more efificient XC ski.

As the S112 has been stiffer than the Annum- one might assume it would be a more efficient XC ski- that has not been my personal experience. Neither of these skis are tuned for traditional K&G skiing in my opinion.

Theoretically, one can put a full-blown Telemark binding on the Annum/S112 and use them as full-blown modern Telemark/AT skis- I have always been underwhelmed by them in that application. If I want a modern BC-downhill ski- there are much better skis available.

Don't know if I am being helpful!

[voilenerd]

I got a chance to try the Annums in 185. Skied a bit short and the tips were soft. Kick and glide was so so but they turned great. I’m gonna go with the 192 and hardwires. Looks like Madshus shorted their lengths by 3cm on the Panoramas.

I also got a chance to see a pair of Fischer 112s they were a lot stiffer then the Annum when flexing them. Friend told me they didn’t turn as easy as the Madshus Annums.

[lilcliffy]

Looks like Madshus shorted their lengths by 3cm on the Panoramas.

I will be surprised if they are actually shorter...
They look to be the exact same mold as the old Guide...

Please keep us posted and let us know how you make out with this ski!

[voilenerd]

Here are the specs of the old version of the Annums.

SIZES: 165, 175, 185, 195
SKI LENGTH: 165-195/10cm
SKI SIDECUT: 109-78-95mm
SKI WEIGHT: 2622g/185cm (pair)
SKI CORE: Multicore (Wood)

Panorama 78 Specs.

SIZE: 162,172,182,192
SKI SIDECUT: 109-78-95
SKI WEIGHT: 2530/182 cm


According to the charts they are shorter on the new version. So the 192 should work great for my height and weight since I felt the 185 Annums skied an bit short.

[riel]

According to the charts they are shorter on the new version. So the 192 should work great for my height and weight since I felt the 185 Annums skied an bit short.

You cannot always trust those charts. Woodserson and I compared his Fischer Traverse 78 with my 2018 Alpina Discovery 80 skis, and it turns out they're the same ski.

They have a different sidecut and length on paper (eg. Fischer 78/61/69 @189 vs Alpina 80/58/69 @188), but holding the skis side by side and measuring with a caliper showed them to be the same dimensions.

The 195 vs 192 may well be "measured tip to tail along the bottom of the ski" vs "measured tip to tail in a straight line", and no real changes to the way the ski is manufactured. They could be a little different from before, but they could also be identical, and nobody would know until they hold two pairs side by side to compare.

[voilenerd]

My guess is the new Panorama 78 series are shorter then the old Annums. Madshus also publishes the weight too and they are about 100grams lighter which is probably due to them being shorter.

I can reach out to their support to confirm.

[Woodserson]

My guess is the new Panorama 78 series are shorter then the old Annums. Madshus also publishes the weight too and they are about 100grams lighter which is probably due to them being shorter.

I can reach out to their support to confirm.

They are physically shorter. Same with Fischer. Factory fire is the suspect. Dealers were sprung with new lengths with no notice as well! "Oh here's my order... What the hell!?"