This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
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.
Wich would you say performer best allround of a FTX 196, Rabb 188 or Ingstad 205? I think these are the lengths I would go for...
HA! Nice try!
The 188 Rabb will offer the best downhill performance (and best stability underfoot);
The 205 Ingstad will offer the best XC performance (and excellent stability over its length);
The 196 FTX will be in between the two above (and offer the least stability in very deep snow).
Last edited by lilcliffy on Tue Jan 30, 2024 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
...My E109 (or Ingstad) would probably have been a better choice for that tour...
This is wery helpfull information! It is the trailbraking abilities of the Ingstad I think i might be missing if I went FTX.
To clarify; it was on the broken trail going down, that the tips slowed me down due to sides of the trail having firm snow. I am not sure of how much difference there would be when breaking a new trail in deep snow, or downhill in soft snow conditions. If the snow was loose I think Falketind would have performed well breaking trail. The tour also included some skiing on prepared track/surface which I should have mentioned, and colored my suggestion that E109/Ingstad would have been a better choice for that tour.
Yes- and the broad tip + rocker of the FTX performs beautifully at downill speeds→ encourages early tip rise, planing, and easy turn intiation. Unfortunately that same tip profile does not break trail (ie carve its way through snow) as efficiently as a traditional raised triangular tip. Early tip rise and planing only "work" at downhill speeds...
All of your suggestions value touring efficiency and float above playfulness.
This is usefull feedback- if correct.
Last edited by lilcliffy on Tue Jan 30, 2024 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
@lilcliffy Thank you for the great response. Alot of helpfull answers. I am surtenly starting to have alot of information on these skis, witch should help me atleast understand the consequences of witch ski I go for. Now it's down to deciding what I want to prioritize. I feel like any of the 3 skies, Ingstad, FTX or Rabb, wil be an improvement in DH, deep snow and trailbraking performance over my Gamme. Right now I'm leaning towards getting the FTX.. However I am not sure on lenght yet. If I were aiming for a 3 ski quiver tho.... Gamme, Ingstad and Rabb
What do you mean by "more response from the Ingstad"?
She experienced the FTX as flater than the Ingstad. Giving less back from the tension in the ski for every kick. This is allso expected taking the two skis properties. I however did not notice that much of a difference. My take from this is that a heavier person like myselfe might be losing less in K&g performance between the Ingstad and FTX than a lighter person, since they are to heavy to get much help from the tension and wil most likely compress the wax pocket on both skis the same even tho one have a higher pocket... (hope you get my meaning)
What do you mean by "more response from the Ingstad"?
She experienced the FTX as flater than the Ingstad. Giving less back from the tension in the ski for every kick. This is allso expected taking the two skis properties. I however did not notice that much of a difference. My take from this is that a heavier person like myselfe might be losing less in K&g performance between the Ingstad and FTX than a lighter person, since they are to heavy to get much help from the tension and wil most likely compress the wax pocket on both skis the same even tho one have a higher pocket... (hope you get my meaning)
Got it.
Yes- the Ingstad (though still tuned for soft snow) is significantly more cambered and resistant underfoot than the FTX.
And- yes skier weight makes a massive difference in whether this camber is effective-
you would certainly need the 205 Ingstad to feel it!
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
@Chriso I purchased my Falketind X the first year it came out. The Rabb was certainly not available at 196cm at the time. I have been quite pleased with the performance of the Falketind X at 196cm for my 190+ pounds. I’m not sure if I wouldn’t be too heavy 20 lbs heavier. The suggestion I am offering, is what about a Rabb at 196 cm. @lilcliffy stated the camber was pretty similar between the Rabb and the FT, however the Rabb is stiffer, possibly because of the extra width.
Considering you are a larger man that might be just the support you need in deeper snow. I am confident it would still be a very nice turning ski downhill.
From photos it doesn't look like you need to navigate tight spaces between trees on the downhill and can ride out some wider arcing turns. @fisheater has a good suggestion, since the benefit of shorter ski is lower swing weight and shorter turn radius making it more agile for tighter spaces, while the longer more supportive ski will do you just fine in a more open terrain. Also, the 3 ski quiver of gamme, ingstad and rabb sounds pretty good with enough difference between them to not have huge overlap.
@Chriso I purchased my Falketind X the first year it came out. The Rabb was certainly not available at 196cm at the time. I have been quite pleased with the performance of the Falketind X at 196cm for my 190+ pounds. I’m not sure if I wouldn’t be too heavy 20 lbs heavier. The suggestion I am offering, is what about a Rabb at 196 cm. @lilcliffy stated the camber was pretty similar between the Rabb and the FT, however the Rabb is stiffer, possibly because of the extra width.
Considering you are a larger man that might be just the support you need in deeper snow. I am confident it would still be a very nice turning ski downhill.
@Chriso I purchased my Falketind X the first year it came out. The Rabb was certainly not available at 196cm at the time. I have been quite pleased with the performance of the Falketind X at 196cm for my 190+ pounds. I’m not sure if I wouldn’t be too heavy 20 lbs heavier. The suggestion I am offering, is what about a Rabb at 196 cm. @lilcliffy stated the camber was pretty similar between the Rabb and the FT, however the Rabb is stiffer, possibly because of the extra width.
Considering you are a larger man that might be just the support you need in deeper snow. I am confident it would still be a very nice turning ski downhill.
The Rabb in 196 weigh in at 2460g, this is starting to sound a bit heavy if compared to the Ingstad which is 2050g in 195. FTX sits right between with 2200g. How wil the Rabb 196 compare to the FTX for touring and K&g? I think the heavier ski along with less touring efficiency and reduced playfulness are pushing me more towards getting a long Ingstad for now. Then I cold get a shorter Rabb later on if I feel the need. (considering my low level of skill for teleturns) It would be wery interesting to test tho but I am not sure I am prepared to sink 6500 NOK (780$) on it... (price includes Xplore bindings)
Glad this thread could help on providing some new information. In this case by Fisheater.
I actually held a pair of Rabb 196 yesterday. They are in store at a lokal dealer here in Trondheim.
Comparing FTX and Rabb in the shop it is hard to see any difference in flex. Testing with a paper cheet both skies seemed to have the same "wax pocket" and Nordic rocker when fully compressed.
but I am not sure I am prepared to sink 6500 NOK (780$) on it... 
