Request for input - current gen E99 vs Ingstad waxless

[MicahE]

I have read many accounts of many skis here, thank you all so much. If anyone has experience skiing the current generation of E99 and Ingstad skis, I would appreciate reading their impressions.

Me: 210 lbs, looking for first BC setup, finally found great fitting boot: Alpina BC-1600. My other ride would be old 210 Trak skis with slipper like boots that work well for mild trails. I'm looking for fun in mixed terrain, mixed snow conditions that include deep snow and descents. Adventure.

Lilcliffy has got me off of the 78/88 path and I'm pretty sure 210 E99 would be a good fit for me but recently found cheaper source for Ingstad waxless so looking into those before I make a purchase tomorrowish. Many discussions on both of these skis but finding often for older versions of these skis and they are changing (more rocker).

I get that the Ingstads are more focused on downhill performance and reading mixed reviews on their general XC performance. In either ski, I would go with the longest available (205/210).

Thanks...getting closer

[lilcliffy]

The Ingstad BC is a XC ski that is narrowly focused towards deep soft snow and hilly/steep terrain.

The E-99-class ski is a XC ski that is designed to be highly versatile and perform on all BC snow conditions and still be manageable in hilly terrain. (There other BC-XC skis that are even more efficient as BC-XC skis- due to being stiffer and more cambered- but are too much to manage and enjoy in hilly terrain).

E-99-class ski vs Ingstad BC:
- E-99-class ski has more camber and tension underfoot. More efficient as a XC ski in general, but especially on dense/consolidated snow. Still stable and very good in deep snow.
- the Ingstad BC- due to its stiff and stable tip- is an excellent XC ski in deep soft snow.
- the Ingstad BC- due to having less camber and stiffness underfoot- is a less efficient XC ski than the E99-class ski.
- the Ingstad BC- due its abundance of tip rocker- offers much easier turn initiation- but has a very short glide zone on consolidated snow.

If you want to crush miles on variable terrain and variable snow- nothing beats an E99-class ski IMHO.
Owning an "E99" ski as a BC-XC allows one to justify other skis that are more narrowly-focused in performance (i.e. Ingstad BC).

The Ingstad BC is my most favorite XC ski- but I would not be able to enjoy it as much as I do if I didn't own an E99-type ski.

Hope I am helping you with my "broken-record" responses!
Gareth

[MicahE]

The Ingstad BC is a XC ski that is narrowly focused towards deep soft snow and hilly/steep terrain.

The E-99-class ski is a XC ski that is designed to be highly versatile and perform on all BC snow conditions and still be manageable in hilly terrain. (There other BC-XC skis that are even more efficient as BC-XC skis- due to being stiffer and more cambered- but are too much to manage and enjoy in hilly terrain).

E-99-class ski vs Ingstad BC:
- E-99-class ski has more camber and tension underfoot. More efficient as a XC ski in general, but especially on dense/consolidated snow. Still stable and very good in deep snow.
- the Ingstad BC- due to its stiff and stable tip- is an excellent XC ski in deep soft snow.
- the Ingstad BC- due to having less camber and stiffness underfoot- is a less efficient XC ski than the E99-class ski.
- the Ingstad BC- due its abundance of tip rocker- offers much easier turn initiation- but has a very short glide zone on consolidated snow.

If you want to crush miles on variable terrain and variable snow- nothing beats an E99-class ski IMHO.
Owning an "E99" ski as a BC-XC allows one to justify other skis that are more narrowly-focused in performance (i.e. Ingstad BC).

The Ingstad BC is my most favorite XC ski- but I would not be able to enjoy it as much as I do if I didn't own an E99-type ski.

Hope I am helping you with my "broken-record" responses!
Gareth

Thank you. If you're a broken record, it's only because I'm asking variations of the same questions... I very much appreciate your input. It now clearly makes sense for me to get a 210 E99. Sounds like the perfect starting point for BC skiing then branch out later if needs demand it. Sometimes I dig perhaps a little too deep before making purchases.

I just got down off the mountain for fun with the family. They had received 3' over the past two days and it was still snowing hard. Was pretty much impossible to walk without snowshoes or skis, my dog was having a challenging time. I really wished that I had my BC skis already today...maybe next weekend.

Thanks again.

[lilcliffy]

A couple more issues before you pull the trigger on a Fischer E-99-

What are your personal specs again- over 200lbs without a pack?

If, so- I really think you should consider a ski with a stiffer tip- such as the Gamme 54 BC.
I find the current 210cm E-99 Xtralite stable enough in deep soft snow- despite its soft tip. I weigh 185lbs.
(I find the 205cm E-109 Xtralite completely unstable in deep soft snow because the wide noodily soft tip wants to float, while the waspy waist and tail sinks into the abyss.)
I find the Gamme 54 BC much more stable in deep soft snow due to its stiff, stable tip.
I might weigh considerably less than you...I am concerned that the E-99 Xtralite's soft tip might be unstable for your heavier weight...
There are trade-offs of course-
- the softer tip of the E-99 Xtralite makes them perform better in a groomed track than th Gamme 54- in case that matters.
- the softer and more rockered tip of the E-99 Xtralite makes them easier to turn than the Gamme 54 BC- in case that matters.

Considering your personal specs- might make sense to ask others on the forum with similar specs what they think of the E-99 Xtralite vs Gamme 54 BC.

For comparison- I weigh 185lbs and have both the E-99 Xtralite and the Gamme 54 BC in 210cm.

Second question-

- E-99 Tour Xtralite (smooth waxable base)?
- or- E-99 Crown Xtralite (scaled waxable base)?

The Easy-Skin kicker skin insert is currently only availabe with the smooth base ("Tour" model).
(WHY? Why Fischer? Please make the E-99 Crown Xtralite with the Easy-Skin insert! (And please fix the damn noodily tip of the E-109!))

[MicahE]

A couple more issues before you pull the trigger on a Fischer E-99-

What are your personal specs again- over 200lbs without a pack?

If, so- I really think you should consider a ski with a stiffer tip- such as the Gamme 54 BC.
I find the current 210cm E-99 Xtralite stable enough in deep soft snow- despite its soft tip. I weigh 185lbs.
(I find the 205cm E-109 Xtralite completely unstable in deep soft snow because the wide noodily soft tip wants to float, while the waspy waist and tail sinks into the abyss.)
I find the Gamme 54 BC much more stable in deep soft snow due to its stiff, stable tip.
I might weigh considerably less than you...I am concerned that the E-99 Xtralite's soft tip might be unstable for your heavier weight...
There are trade-offs of course-
- the softer tip of the E-99 Xtralite makes them perform better in a groomed track than th Gamme 54- in case that matters.
- the softer and more rockered tip of the E-99 Xtralite makes them easier to turn than the Gamme 54 BC- in case that matters.

Considering your personal specs- might make sense to ask others on the forum with similar specs what they think of the E-99 Xtralite vs Gamme 54 BC.

For comparison- I weigh 185lbs and have both the E-99 Xtralite and the Gamme 54 BC in 210cm.

Second question-

- E-99 Tour Xtralite (smooth waxable base)?
- or- E-99 Crown Xtralite (scaled waxable base)?

The Easy-Skin kicker skin insert is currently only availabe with the smooth base ("Tour" model).
(WHY? Why Fischer? Please make the E-99 Crown Xtralite with the Easy-Skin insert! (And please fix the damn noodily tip of the E-109!))

Yes, I'm a solid 210 lbs nekkid. And yes, I wish that the E99 crown came with the EZ skin insert.

I'm only interested in a waxless base so the Gamme is not an option for me. I've also wondered about the Nansen (in addition to the Ingstad), wondering if it were more similar to the E99.

Oye, I wish I could test out different skis but alas, that's not an option. It's kind of driving me up a wall.

Any other skis come to mind?

[WildlifeBio]

Hello MicahE-

I've been going through some of the same questions, not too far from you either (Idaho Palouse). Another E99-class option you might consider is Madshus' new Panorama M55 Intelligrips. I went back back and forth between those and the E99 Crowns, and ended up pulling the trigger on the M55s. They're arriving Thursday, so I should have something to report by this coming weekend.

[MicahE]

Hello MicahE-

I've been going through some of the same questions, not too far from you either (Idaho Palouse). Another E99-class option you might consider is Madshus' new Panorama M55 Intelligrips. I went back back and forth between those and the E99 Crowns, and ended up pulling the trigger on the M55s. They're arriving Thursday, so I should have something to report by this coming weekend.

Thanks. I’m pretty set on a waxless ski so it appears that drops Madshus BC lineup out of the running.

[greatgt]

E99!....When pricing Asnes.....they were a bit on the expensive side....Been skiing 99 for decades....Not only for cruising....when MUCH younger and far more able found they could do ANYTHING....yesterday was getting a few turns after the rain....during the rain....and the first sun in...forever....The bones (fishscales) on the beat Rebounds were slow....if you want to feel the 99's in all their beauty.....get waxable....109's if you adjust your mind they go up quite well and are a dream on the down....Would prefer the oldies of 109's but they sure do turn....Doubt they would cruise like LC likes.....99's have energy.....Serious camber which transfers into energy when clamping them down then relieve pressure....semi air tele!!!!! Figure Asnes has some in the range of the 99's.....but the cost stops me like a Rock maple....highlands holding up but NEED mucho snow and am hearing faint rumblings of thingers heading this way....TM

[lilcliffy]

Don't know much about the Nansen other than-
- less camber than an E-99-class ski
- softer flex than an E-99-class ski
- much less tip rocker than the Ingstad BC/E-109
- more sidecut than E-99-class ski- similar to the Ingstad/E-109

The Nansen seems to be somewhat in a class of its own at the moment. I don't see it being as efficient a XC ski as an E-99, but it would be more manageable downhill...Don't know how stable its flex is in deep snow- we have mixed reports on this site regarding that. Heavier skiers seem to report that it unstable in deep soft snow...

If waxless scales are a must and you want a kicker skin then you could consider these-
https://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/e ... 1_cfg.html
I have used this for years with my Karhu/Madshus waxless-scaled touring skis.

AND- going back around the big circle-
There is NOTHING wrong with the Fischer 78/88- they are just not as efficient as the E99.
The Fischer 78/88 are just as versatile a BC-XCD touring ski as the E99.
If you must have scales and you want the integrated kicker skin- and you want a BC-XC ski that performs in all snow contexts- then I think a 199cm 78/88 are the best bet. And- at your weight I would go for a 199cm 88 if you are going to encounter deep soft snow.
Believe me- you won't be disapointed with a 199cm 88.

[Inspiredcapers]

Any other skis come to mind?

I really enjoy my Alpina Discovery 80’s. I was about 205 pounds when I got them last year and found flotation very good. I’m down to 190 now and find them a little ‘springier’ than last year during kick n’ glide opportunities. I haven’t been able to bury the tips either despite my best efforts.

I’ve been experimenting with wearing my plastic boots (Garmont Liberos) with them. Putting a liner from a taller boot in and just having them snug is making for a pretty comfortable outing and a lot more control than my leather Alicos.