Asnes Ingstad BC Sizing (second try)

[Kneedle Drop]

I thought I might follow Stephen's suggestion and say some more about the kind of skiing I am looking to do and how I want to expand my quiver.

Current XCD Setup
As mentioned, I already own the 145cm Hoks, which I have just converted to the Xplore bindings (New Alpina Pioneer Pros arrived last night!). I've been using these for years with T4s, which I found to be much too heavy. The Hoks are terrific for trekking through the trees and for descents in singletrack trails. They just aren't skis. Too slow on the flats and not that much fun going down (not terrible, just not as fun).

Terrain
Around Whitehorse we have a lot of options. A lot of it is rolling backcountry with plenty of lakes and nearly infinite mtb trails. Slightly further afield (and I really mean slightly) we have moderate mountains (no avalanche risk and easily summited without equipment). Close to my home there is a cross-country park that is volunteer groomed (for "volunteer" read "infrequently") that connects to some decent hills and ungroomed single-track trails. In my two winters so far in Whitehorse we have had pretty deep snow by January, but I am total by long-time residents that we don't usually get that much snow. Could be climate change is bringing more moisture to the region than used to be the case. I've attached some pics for your viewing pleasure.

Priority 1
For now the Hoks allow me to explore the steep terrain. I think I eventually want to complement them with two pairs of skis. My first priority is a good backcountry cross-country ski, something that will move me efficiently through the rolling terrain and crossing frozen lakes. I think I would prioritize untracked snow performance over the ability to fit in groomed tracks. I was keen on the Asnes Amundsen, but these don't seem to be available in Canada. Considered the Tranverse 78, but I was surprised at how heavy they are and think I would prefer a waxable ski. Was also considering the Panorama T55.

Priority 2
Eventually I would like a ski for seeking out turns, a good climber-descender. I already have backcountry gear for the truly steep and deep (fat skis, stiff boots, NTN). I want a ski that I would be manageable with my Xplore boots/bindings. I learned to telemark in leather boots and really prefer a lighter setup for tele skiing.

In Canada it appears we have access to only a limited range of Asnes skis (Rabb 68, Falketind 62, Nansen, Ingstad, Sverdrup, Ousland, Mtn Race 48). I guess I was seeing the Ingstad as a ski that would suit both my priorities, but it might make more sense to look for a pair of skis for each. The 205s might work for priority 1, but the 195s might be better for priority 2.

Your thoughts are invited and appreciated.

Chris

[tkarhu]

Your landscape sounds and looks nice, and not that different from what I ski.

Your Amundsen plan sounds good. From the skis you have available locally, I think Ousland would be quite similar to Amundsen and Gamme. With nicer top sheets than the current Gamme That may be more essential than the functional differences of the three skis.

[Stephen]

I’ve ended up with way too many skis because it’s hard for me to accept limitations and each ski can be defined to be particularly good in a particular set of conditions.
That being said, if you want to test the waters with one ski this year, I’m tempted to recommend the Falketind 62.
It’s a decent XC ski (flats, rolling terrain), and would be fun on the descents.
Somewhat like the Ingstad (same waist, at 62), but more sidecut.
Won’t work in tracks.
For your height and weight, 196 if you want deep snow efficiency, but if turning is more important, you could probably go down to the 188.
I’m 6’3” and 175# and ski the 196.

Any ski you choose will feel great sometimes and lacking at others, there’s no way around that!

Just one idea out of many possibilities…

[mca80]

Asnes Combat NATO is available at the Norseman in Calgary. It's what the Ingstad was modeled after, but is a far more effective XC ski that can still turn if you have the space and skills. @lilcliffy has called it his apocalypse ski. It won't do priority 2 as well as Ingstad but will be much better with priority 1. That said it seems to be most useful in deep snow. If your snow isn't that deep the MR48 or MT51 might be decent and both are also at the norseman.

From the pictures it looks like some deep snow, some not so deep, and fairly open terrain, i.e. you may not need the rocker and tighter turning ability of Ingstad and NATO would work.

[CwmRaider]

+1 for Combat NATO for this use. It certainly will be heavier than the Traverse 78 though.

[lilcliffy]

Hi Chris,

Priority 1
For now the Hoks allow me to explore the steep terrain. I think I eventually want to complement them with two pairs of skis. My first priority is a good backcountry cross-country ski, something that will move me efficiently through the rolling terrain and crossing frozen lakes. I think I would prioritize untracked snow performance over the ability to fit in groomed tracks. I was keen on the Asnes Amundsen, but these don't seem to be available in Canada. Considered the Tranverse 78, but I was surprised at how heavy they are and think I would prefer a waxable ski. Was also considering the Panorama T55.

Well- "+3" for the Asnes Combat Nato- especially if you want/need deep snow XC performance + turnability.
The other thing to consider- if turnability is not an issue in "P1"- then perhaps consider a Finnish forest ski...
If XC performance on dense/consolidated/hardpack snow is critical- the Combat Nato isn't terrible here, but skis like the Amundsen/Gamme/Ousland are better. Fischer Transnordic 66 Tour another option- though not as good in deep snow and/or crust as the Asnes trio, due to the TN66's very soft and very rockered shovel.
Yes- to the Traverse 78, if you had to have waxless scales (which you don't).

Priority 2
Eventually I would like a ski for seeking out turns, a good climber-descender. I already have backcountry gear for the truly steep and deep (fat skis, stiff boots, NTN). I want a ski that I would be manageable with my Xplore boots/bindings. I learned to telemark in leather boots and really prefer a lighter setup for tele skiing.

With you here as well. Are you thinking wax base here as well?
A ski like the Ingstad is a turnable BC-XC ski- highly recommended if "P2" involves a lot distance to get to the "goods"-
the FTX is a more turnable alternative here- it is actually my primary experiment this winter→ 205 Ingstad BC vs 196 FTX...The FTX surely does not track as well- or break trail as effectively as the Ingstad- but, if the redesigned FTX is stable enough in deep snow; and- obviously- better downhill- it just may replace my beloved Ingstad BC- I remain for the moment skeptical...
For "P2"- the Asnes Rabb is simply a dream on cold soft snow with a BC-XC boot (eg XP/BC/NN)- especially when grip-kick wax is dreamy, and is the perfect easy balance of grip and glide to not need climbing skins!!!
I think I may have finally committed to buying a Fischer S-Bound 98+XP for "P2" on warm wet snow...

In Canada it appears we have access to only a limited range of Asnes skis (Rabb 68, Falketind 62, Nansen, Ingstad, Sverdrup, Ousland, Mtn Race 48). I guess I was seeing the Ingstad as a ski that would suit both my priorities, but it might make more sense to look for a pair of skis for each. The 205s might work for priority 1, but the 195s might be better for priority 2.

Well- the Ingstad BC will definitely do both tour "P1&2"- as long as you are not trying to crush many kms on dense/hardpack snow; and you have lots of room to turn in your "P2".
The Combat Nato will do it all well (including hardpack)- including "P2", if again you have lots of room to turn them.
The Nansen will also do it all well (including hardpack)- including holding on edge on hard/icy difficult snow- stable, but, not as good in truly deep snow as the Combat Nato/Ingstad...
Gareth

[lilcliffy]

+1 for Combat NATO for this use. It certainly will be heavier than the Traverse 78 though.

Is the Combat NATO heavier than the Fischer 78?

[CwmRaider]

+1 for Combat NATO for this use. It certainly will be heavier than the Traverse 78 though.

Is the Combat NATO heavier than the Fischer 78?

Fischer Traverse 78: 1070 g pr ski size 198 (source https://www.utemagasinet.no/fjellski#te ... crown-skin)
Åsnes Combat Nato: 1200g pr ski size 200 (source Åsnes)

10% difference roughly, apples to apples. Fair enough for a ski with metal reinforcements.

[Kneedle Drop]

The Fischer web site lists the Tranverse 78 as 1880g per ski. (https://www.fischersports.com/us_en/tra ... alite-3883). I wonder why these numbers are different.

Thanks again, everyone, for the excellent advice. There is plenty to think about. On purely an aesthetic level I am drawn to the Falketind 62, so my interest is certainly piqued.

I forgot to include the Nato is also available at La Cordee (I think I overlooked that in my post), but they do not carry the 200, just 170, 190, 210. Would 210 be appropriate if the ski is not being used as a dedicated turner? I mean for someone around 185lbs. I didn't know about Norseman in Calgary, so thank you for that tip.

There is one pair of S-bound 98s for sale here in Whitehorse. Maybe worth picking up? I think I am more inclined to go waxless, though. I've seen Tom M's videos, and he is obviously getting some great days on those.

Chris

[tkarhu]

I think 210 cm should be good for you, Combat NATO is not overly stiff.

Combat NATO may be better for your location, like others recommended, than Ousland, if you have cold and deep snow. However, photos looked like you have open places, so if they are windswept, you will not need deep snow capatiblity that often maybe.

I have Gammes, and was thinking of Combat NATO. Then I decided they would be too similar to my Gammes, and went for Falketind Xplore 196 cm. Yet I bought the FTX’s for downhill / touring for turns with long approaches. FTX tips are low, which Theme found a deal breaker for his deep snow inland with forest location.

Actually I owned the 210 cm Combat NATO for a moment, but had it for a moment at a local shop only. It was a beautiful ski, too, not that much different from the Finnish forest skis that lilcliffy recommended. True minimalism visually with a functional and durable feel.