Adding more skis to my quiver

[lilcliffy]

Good Morning Mattafix!
Just woke up to a fresh spring snowfall!

From your description- It doesn't sound like you need a lot of width underfoot-

Question- why are you not considering Fischer? The S-Bound 98 is a great ski- it has an excellent, grippy scale insert- with just enough camber for the scales to release when striding forwards; Easy-Skin insert; stiff and stable; moderate turn radius. The S98 is not efficient XC ski- but, it is directionally stable and shuffles along just fine in XC mode.

I am not farmiliar with the current design of the Madshus 68- though reports suggest that Madshus has returned to the original Karhu design (ie Karhu XCD 10th Mountain), which has a very soft, round flex. If it is this ski- it is very easy to pressure into a turn, but completely unstable in challeging terrain/snow and deep snow. Madshus/Karhu's Omnitrack scale is very good in XC mode- it is not as grippy as Fischer's Off-Track Crown design- you will need skins and/or grip wax- A LOT- in steep terrain. The M68 (if it is the old design) is not directionally stable- it is all over the place in XC mode.

Ingstad has a much stiffer-stable flex than the Madshus 68 (again assuming that the M68 is the old design)- but, it has a deeply rockered shovel- the Ingstad skis very short on consolidated/hardpack snow- it is an unstable and tedious XC on hardpack snow- though wonderfully stable in deep snow. The Asnes scale design is very similar to the Omnitrack in terms of performance- I grip wax them. I grip wax all of my scaled Nordic touring skis though- even the Off-Track Crown.

In terms of surface area- the M68 should offer more flotation than the 62mm Ingstad- but the Ingstad has a much more stable flex and therefore is more stable in truly deep snow- the M68 bows like a banana (ie "pool-cover syndrome"). One can pressure the M68 into a much tighter turn than the Ingstad though.

As far as "float"- or rather, touring performance in truly deep snow-
I think the question is whether:
a) you want to actually float on top of truly deep snow (ie modern downhill powder ski)
b) you want to be stable in the deep snow, and be able to move through deep snow efficiently (ie traditional deep snow Nordic touring ski)

If you want a ski that floats high in truly deep snow, then IME you need a ski that is at least 80mm (and most modern powder skis are much wider than that!)-

I don't think that any of the skis that you are considering offer "float" in the modern sense.

The Asnes Ingstad and Nansen are longitudinally stable- and are therefore very stable in deep snow- and due to their traditional, raised, triangular tip- break trail very well in truly deep snow-
the Nansen is actually probably more efficient in this context due to its non-rockered shovel-
the Ingstad planes at downhill speed in deep snow.

The Nansen can certainly be used as a traditional Nordic touring ski- in a long XC length-
at a short length, the Nansen is a wicked downhill carving ski- I have a 185 Nansen- wow, what a blast on hardpack! As the Nansen does not have a rockered shovel- I would love to try a 175 or 180 Nansen- might be even tighter!
The Nansen has a relatively stiff, stable, but smooth and round flex. It is a legacy of the past- it is a classic traditional Nordic downhill (ie old-school Telemark) ski. Due to its non-rockered shovel it is a more versatile Nordic touring ski than the Ingstad- choose the Nansen in a long length to maximize XC efficiency- choose it in a downhill length for tight turns!

[Mattafix]

Lilcliffy, good morning
Why not considering Fischer: Conviction. Of an emotional way. There just isn’t more to it. Like owning a highly functional car from a big, successful company; everything so slick and smooth. But what about the relational level? This, admittedly, from a distance because the only Fischers I’ve ever skied are my pretty short and old Boundless and E99s.
After reading all the comments, I’m convinced that at least one pair of skis in my quiver has to be „a classic, traditional Nordic downhill ski“, an oldschool telemark ski. I pretty am sure they give me this feeling that sent me down the „touring for turns on Nordic gear road“ from the first steps I took.
The larger part of my skiing is on wide, modern skis like my Waybacks 106, wearing at least three buckled plastic boots. The skis of course got plenty of float, and I enjoy skiing steeper terrain from mountain tops. But I also enjoy being on leathers and my Dynastar Assaults in the resort. This kind of skiing is so addictive!
I am fully aware of the fact that you are absolutely right that I ask these questions here from a Nordic, more oldschool view.
I already rejected the idea of looking at the Ingstads. Yours and the thoughts and insights from others make me feel l should get skis like the Nansens. Plus I am getting my head around wax skis what would open a whole new world.
Thank you so much, guys!

[JohnSKepler]

@Mattafix , I too am 'waiting' on a scaled FT62. Given this year's conditions in Northern Utah (warmer than normal but freezing at night) I've found myself using the FT62 a lot more than the Voile Objective BC that I usually use more. Both are mounted Xplore and I mostly ski them with Lundhags Abisku. I can also mount the Transit TTS on the Objective which I ski with old Scarpa Bellows F1, a combination you might consider.

[fisheater]

I live in Michigan, temperature wise, I think we are similar with temperatures swinging on both sides of 0 C. However I don’t have elevation. I ski glacial formations. Multiple day adventure would complicate waxing even more. I understand your preference to stay waxless.
My Nansen WL is a really nice ski. It is supportive in deep snow. It does bend, so you can make turns. I skied with a friend this winter, he was on a Nansen waxable, he had much better glide that was most noticeable on the slight downhills. If we were racing he would have easily beaten me, but since we were just two guys skiing together it didn’t make too much of a difference.
I look at the Nansen as the most capable to handle anything cross country I have been on. With its width, and flex, yet still being supportive it inspires confidence. The kick and glide isn’t going to win races, but it is certainly satisfactory for me.
@lilcliffy Has both long Nansen’s and short Nansen’s. Hopefully he will chime in, I believe he has some interesting home terrain, and his experience with both long and short versions of the Nansen would be helpful insight.

[aclyon]

you've gotten some great advice already, i just want to add that i think the fischer s-bounds are totally superior to the madshus M's. those madshus skis are so insanely soft, they feel like rubber. although @fisheater might be correct that the s-bounds aren't very rigid compared to some of the offerings from Asnes, they are still more rigid than the madshus skis. aaaaand the fischer fish-scales are IMO as good as it gets, way grippier than the M. madshus doesn't take a kicker skin either which for me has become essential (i can climb very steep pitches with just the kicker).

so basically... my opinion-- if you are eyeballing the madshus, maybe instead consider the sb98 or 112. the M's are probably really fun to turn with that soft flex but other than that I can't think of a single advantage they have over the s-bounds.

I'm wanting to add an FTX or Rabb 68 to my quiver, but I won't use kick wax at all, i'll just use the X-skin, after my very positive experiences with the fischer kicker skin. at least on the fischers, transitions have been lightning quick, and rolly DH it's fine to leave them on.

[Mattafix]

@Mattafix , I too am 'waiting' on a scaled FT62. Given this year's conditions in Northern Utah (warmer than normal but freezing at night) I've found myself using the FT62 a lot more than the Voile Objective BC that I usually use more. Both are mounted Xplore and I mostly ski them with Lundhags Abisku. I can also mount the Transit TTS on the Objective which I ski with old Scarpa Bellows F1, a combination you might consider.

Regarding Objectives (or the Endeavours) with scales, I definitely will add a pair. I was too late for this season. TP and Aventures Nordiques are sold out with my length. Ordering from the US is too expensive, unfortunately. Couldn’t find a pair elsewhere.
I’ll put in inserts with the traditional 4 hole pattern for various 75mm bindings plus two more inserts for the Kreuzspitze telemark plates. I’m a F1/race and F3 boot hoarder. I really am looking forward to these - they’d be my first Voilé skis!
I hope your knees are doing well by now

[Mattafix]

...I've found myself using the FT62 a lot more...

I’d love to test one. But more likely I’ll just buy a Falketind blindly (after a Nansen and an Endeavour/Objective) because everyone praises it. Can’t be wrong

[Mattafix]

@aclyon Ok,ok Seems like I really have to test the Fischers before judging them! Thank you for your opinion on the Madshus. I’ve got skating skis from this company and they’re holding up well for a looong time already despite using them a lot and not treating them very kindly. And they’re fast! I just liked Madshus. But for skis for the intended purpose it seems I should look elsewhere.

[Mattafix]

@fisheater Lilcliffy already got me like absolutely wanting a Nansen. Your vote for them even more!

[Mattafix]

Thank you all, guys for your help and information. I ordered a Nansen WL in 195 at TP. Thank you @pacificnomad for coming up with this idea!
Now I can think about how to go on to fill the remaining gaps in my quiver. But first of all, I’m really looking forward to skiing the Nansens