Asnes Falketind 62 Xplore vs Ingstad BC

[lowangle al]

Stephen, I think xcd skis started getting significantly shorter before they became significantly wider, this would have been the early 90's. At some point the typical 210cm ski became the typical 195 as far as recommended skier weight. They had a little more shape, being only a couple mm wider in the tips and tails, but the big difference was that they were much stiffer and less DH oriented IMO. They were lighter and I assume cheaper to produce, but that satisfied what the market was after.(blame the weight wienies) It was about this time that I switched to a single camber AT ski to pair with leather boots.

[lilcliffy]

And it seems like as the skis get wider, the recommended length gets shorter.
But as the skis get shorter, they still have to support the same skier weight.
And often do that in looser, deeper snow than a narrow ski would get used in.

Yes- but I'm not sure that I agree that the FTX is effectively wider than the Ingstad-
they are both 62mm underfoot.
The FTX is shorter and more shapely as it is intended to offer better downhill performance.
I kinda doubt that the wider tip and tail of the FTX truly offers significantly more effective surface area over the Ingstad- especially since the FTX's tip-tail are signficantly rockered to encourage planing, turn initiation and smeary turn release.

The Rabb 68 is wider- as it is wider underfoot.

As alternate comparison- I have skied the Fischer 98 and 88 bak to back many times.
They are both the same width underfoot.
I do not see any difference between the two of them is terms of effective, load-bearing surface area- despite the wider tip-tail of the 98. However, the more shapely 98 is definitely more turny.
(In fact if the current, 98 is softer and rounder than the 88 it might offer less effective load-bearing surface area...)

As another comparison-
I personally do not notice any difference in stability and float between the Fischer 78 vs 88 (that have near identical profile and flex)-
but, my much bigger and heavier friend (over 225lbs) definitely gets more effective stability and float from the 88.

It doesn’t seem like wider skies should be assumed to be less supportive than narrower skis, which seems like what @lilcliffy is saying, to some degree.

Sorry if I gave you that impression-
I am not assuming that wider skis are less supportive than narrower skis!
What I question is the assumption that a ski that is the same width underfoot- yet has a wider tip-tail- is effectively wider in terms of load-bearing surface area compared to a ski that is the same width underfoot with less sidecut.

I question the asumption that the FTX is effectively wider than the Ingstad BC- I don't see it as wider.
I would have to feel it to believe it- I really have trouble believing that a 188 FTX would have the same load-bearing effective surface area of a 205 Ingstad BC...

Regardless- at a mere 62mm underfoot- I doubt very much that the downhill-oriented FTX is intended for truly deep snow.

And the real question is, if this ski is not as supportive as the Ingstad, how to size it?

Asnes does not use weight-based length recommendations for the FTX-
I think that Asnes' recommendation is a good starting point- the skier's height-
shorter or longer depending on the skier's specifc complex context of terrain, tree cover, snow conditions, and skill-skiing style.

For example- in my local conditions, I can't really use the longest FTX- not unless I use it in the same application as my Ingstad BC- therefore making one or the other redundant.

If I was touriing above treeline- with endless room to ride- then I could see the application for the longest FTX.
But- I still wouldn't be taking the FTX out in truly deep snow, as it is not a wide ski tuned for deep soft snow.

[lilcliffy]

And the real question is, if this ski is not as supportive as the Ingstad, how to size it?

I have no idea if the new FTX is not as supportive as the Ingstad BC-
Fish's report suggests that the FTX pretty much is as supportive as the Ingstad.
Asnes clearly is recommending sizing the FTX from a primarily downhill perspective (i.e. skier height).

[Stephen]

And the real question is, if this ski is not as supportive as the Ingstad, how to size it?

I have no idea if the new FTX is not as supportive as the Ingstad BC-
Fish's report suggests that the FTX pretty much is as supportive as the Ingstad.
Asnes clearly is recommending sizing the FTX from a primarily downhill perspective (i.e. skier height).

Somehow I seem to end up in between sizes.
Me: 191, so top of 188 size or bottom of 196 size.

FTX sizing options as:
Kroppslengde Skilengde
168-177 cm ___ 172 cm
175-185 cm ___ 180 cm
183-192 cm ___ 188 cm
188+ cm ______ 196 cm

Since I have 205 Ingstad, seems like 188 FTX for turns would be the way to go?

Also, wondering if, based on videos posted by Asnes, and

But- I still wouldn't be taking the FTX out in truly deep snow, as it is not a wide ski tuned for deep soft snow.

if this ski is targeted at certain conditions, like new, high moisture content snow, soft corn, light new on firm base, along those lines? And not a deep powder ski?

[lilcliffy]

if this ski is targeted at certain conditions, like new, high moisture content snow, soft corn, light new on firm base, along those lines? And not a deep powder ski?

Worth asking Asnes directly-
But I struggle to see how a ski that is tapered and rockered at both ends (i.e. tuned for turning) would be intended for truly deep snow at only 62mm underfoot...

My gut suggests to me that these two skis remain quite different...

Anybody have access to a recent UTE test of the new FTX?

[Stephen]

195 Ingstad and 196 FTX

(I would normally ski a 205cm Ingstad and 196cm FTX.)

The Ingstad is about 2mm thicker, under foot.
Just by feel, I would say the overall flex of the FTX is a little softer, and that is because of the stiffness under foot of the Ingstad. I would say the tail stiffness is similar.
The front of the FTX is stiffer than the Ingstad, for sure. Not extremely, but is definitely firmer. I can see the FTX tip being more supportive, especially with the extra tip width. Extra FTX tail width might make up for the support lost to the tail rocker?
I can understand @fisheater’s enthusiasm for the ski!

The Ingstad has more tip rise:
.

.
The Ingstad has slightly longer Nordic Rocker, and much more pronounced (the slip of paper marks the ski base contact point):
.

.
The Ingstad has about 4mm more initial camber:
.

.
The FTX (L) has a smoother flex than the Ingstad (R), with its double camber (each ski has 23 pounds on the foot area):
.

.
The FTX has some tail rocker, although the initial angle is slight:
.

.
Comparison of the compressed rocker. FTX has some tail rocker, the Ingstad has none. The Ingstad has slightly more tip rocker, and more pronounced (more splay). Slip of paper marks end of rocker:
.

[lilcliffy]

@Stephen
Wow!
That was fantastic! Thank you!
Looking forward to your reports from skiing both!
Not that I didnt believe everyone already- but the FTX is clearly a very different ski than the 1st/2nd-gen FT62.

Very interesting that the FTX has a less-rockered shovel than the 1st/2nd-gen FT62 as well as the Ingstad...

Well- I certainly dont need one- but it would be super fun to try the new FTX!

I have little doubt that the FTX is more turn-oriented than the Ingstad-
I am intrigued has to which one will perform better in deep soft snow- both XC and downhill.
.........
Additional musings-
if one is a ridiculous skier- like me- that has both the Ingstad and the Combat NATO-
I think I have realized that I don't need to go longer for the Ingstad (as I already have the long Combat NATO for deep snow mile-crushing in hilly terrain)-
so if I end up choosing a shorter Ingstad- giving up some XC performance for a tighter turn radius- this when the FTX comes in to question for me- and if it is stable- it is probably the better choice...
If one is not ridiculous and one only wants one deep snow Nordic touring ski for deep snow and hilly terrain- a long Ingstad BC still seems the way to go for me personally.
Unless the FTX blows away the Ingstad entirely!! Looking forward to your test comparison!

[lilcliffy]

@Stephen
Whatcha going to mount on the FTX?

[telerat]

Thanks for awesome pictures and comparison Stephen. Regarding support or float; my previous experience with an extreme example (Elan SCX 115-60-110 mm) in loose snow was that the tip floated well, but the middle didn't float and the tail sunk, so the ski plowed through the snow instead instead of floating. My theory is that the width in the middle determines the float of a ski in loose snow, although rocker and/or a large tip can help it stay afloat, while in more consolidated snow a stiffer flex is also needed to increase support/float.

I'm still very fond of skis with a lot of sidecut for telemark or tours involving more descent and turning.

[Stephen]

Regarding support or float; my previous experience with an extreme example (Elan SCX 115-60-110 mm) in loose snow was that the tip floated well, but the middle didn't float and the tail sunk, so the ski plowed through the snow instead of floating.

I have even noticed this tendency with the 210 Gamme (for which I am light), in certain conditions. The feeling of walking uphill on the flats. Each step forward left a notch down in the snow, behind the tail, when the underfoot and tail punched through the snow platform already made by the ski’s forward travel.
Much extra effort.