Fischer E-109 vs. Asnes Ingstad

[Cannatonic]

Thanks. I got them in 200 cm, which is what Asnes recommends for my weight (195 lbs) and it was all I could find. I do think that 210s may have been too much ski for me - wish they made 205...

Asnes says either NNN BC or 75 for the Ingstad, and Fischer recommends NNN BC for their e109, which seems similar to the Ingstad. Lots of folks appear to use either on similar sized eons....

I would take 200 as well, 210 would be a lot of ski in this width. I hear you on the boots, if you can't find comfortable boots the type of bindings doesn't matter very much. The only 3-pin boots available here that I like are Antarctic and Alico Double, neither are widely available.

[bgregoire]

Thanks. I got them in 200 cm, which is what Asnes recommends for my weight (195 lbs) and it was all I could find. I do think that 210s may have been too much ski for me - wish they made 205...

Asnes says either NNN BC or 75 for the Ingstad, and Fischer recommends NNN BC for their e109, which seems similar to the Ingstad. Lots of folks appear to use either on similar sized eons....

I would take 200 as well, 210 would be a lot of ski in this width. I hear you on the boots, if you can't find comfortable boots the type of bindings doesn't matter very much. The only 3-pin boots available here that I like are Antarctic and Alico Double, neither are widely available.

This ski is definitely an either/or binding type ski. Canna is right, fit of the boot is of utmost importance. Then, the siffness of the boot itself will have a huge impact on the same factors your are trying to control choosing between a 75mm and NNN BC binding. If you find comfy and stiff-to your liking boots in both NNN-BC and 75mm, then ask yourself if you will mostly be travelling light & fast or heavy (pack) & over more abrupt terrain. Choose NNNBC for the first, 75mm for the second: case closed, now enjoy the snow.

[athabascae]

Thanks alot for the comments and advice on the boots and bindings guys. I'm not allowed to ski until I see the doctor again in two weeks about a busted knee (which feels okay now), so I still have a bit of time to hum-and-haw before I mount either NNN-BC or super tele! I appreciate the advice that the boot is more important, and to just get on with it - either will probably work great on the Ingstad! For me, part of the fun of new skis is figuring out the optimal setup for my needs - I just like wrestling with those questions.

As for the camber of the Ingstad, I'll preface my statements by saying that I don't have a lot to compare it to, this is the fattest BC/XCD ski I've ever owned, and I don't have access to many to check out in the local shop. But I have some old rossignol BC skis at home and have fondled the rossignol BC59/70/90/110 and Madshus Voss in the local shop. I also fairly honestly remember the general feel of my old e99 and Bonna Conquests (both stiff double cambered skis), and I have a host of stiff double cambered track skis to compare it too.

Having said that, the camber is softer than I was expecting - which may be why they have much more floatation than the e109 in Gamme's chart - I dunno. I'm not disappointed, just a bit surprised.

They are definitely not single cambered, or what I would call with a "stiff" double camber. I can get about 90-95% closure with one hand without much effort; though, flattening out the final bit requires some huffing-and-puffing and two hands, and a small wax pocket is definitely preserved. They are most likely what some would call a "stiff" 1.5 camber.

The Ingstad is not as stiff as the BC59 or my old e99 for sure, but they do have markedly more of camber than a BC70/90.

I learned the other day that a co-worker has a pair of XCD GT, so I'll check out the camber on those and see how the Ingstad compares - stay tuned....

Final note: Asnes integrated skin seems really well constructed (like the whole ski) and I'm impressed - somewhat surprisingly, as I wasn't fully sold on the idea.

I'm keen to give them a whirl on the snow!

Sorry Mike, no graphs other than that by Gamme.

Tom

[MikeK]

Man they sound perfect. It's really hard to say for sure without putting your weight on them, but it sounds about like an Eon or S78. If you recall my curve, they were pretty soft up to the last few tenths of a mm of camber height and then they really went up in the force.

I'm always curious to sight them and reverse flex them, but you'll be able to feel that the first time you are on the snow.

I think based on this intel they are going to be an EXCELLENT all around BC ski. Unless you are skiing in tracks or really hard snow, they are going to be sick, and even then they'll probably still do great.

I really think I could toss out all my other skis and have one like this. The only thing I'd miss is being able to ski in set tracks when the snow is bad, hence why it's nice to always have a ski less than 70mm max width around.

[athabascae]

Yeah. Good to hear. Fits with my plan, which all along was to team the Ingstad/eon/e109 up with a stiff skinny ski (60-50-55 class) for a 2 ski quiver.

[lilcliffy]

They are definitely not single cambered, or what I would call with a "stiff" double camber. I can get about 90-95% closure with one hand without much effort; though, flattening out the final bit requires some huffing-and-puffing and two hands, and a small wax pocket is definitely preserved. They are most likely what some would call a "stiff" 1.5 camber.

The Ingstad is not as stiff as the BC59 or my old e99 for sure, but they do have markedly more of camber than a BC70/90.
Tom

This is actually exactly what I was expecting/hoping for- if they have more camber/stiffness than a BC90 they will offer a much more effective Nordic "kick" than a soft-flexing ski like the Eon.

BC-XC skiing on the Asnes Combats this winter has caused my mind and body to again revisit my thoughts on sidecut in a BC-XC ski, designed for soft snow...

Compared to my Eons- I have "proven" to myself that the Combat not only tracks more efficiently than the Eon- it also offers better flotation and grip with a significantly wider waist (67mm vs. 62mm)...

The Ingstad clearly has a stiffer and more cambered flex-pattern compared to the Eon (and returning to my original question- sounds closer to the E-109 than the Eon)- but it has the almost the identical profile (Ingstad: 84-62-74mm vs. Eon: 83-62-70mm). (The E-109 is even narrower at the waist (82-60-70mm)!)

I am personally finding that "mid-width" tip of 83-84mm means very little when it comes to effective flotation....the Combat with a narrower tip (78mm) has significantly better flotation than the Eon...

Does that sidecut make them "easier" to turn- with a shorter turning radius? Sure it does, of course it does! But, when it comes to BC-XC skiing over the years I am finding that "easy-turnin" attribute to means less and less to me...

I am not using boots and bindings that are powerful enough to consistently steer any of these mid-width skis. My pursuit of using K&G-focused-performance boots-bindings has caused my downhill technique to evolve into something that I would not describe as steering...I would describe it as striding down the hill...in other words, I make my skis turn- I rarely effectively use the sidecut to steer into turn transitions...

I am convinced that the Ingstad offers much better XC performance than the Eon (due to it's flex pattern)- but I expect that it does not offer any better flotation (unless the stiffer flex makes the difference...)

This will still leave a void in my quiver between the Eon/Ingstad/E-109 and a fat powder ski...a void that is currently being filled by the Asnes Combat (78-67-73mm).

I re-read Gamme's review of the Ingstad again (UTE magazine):
http://www.utemagasinet.no/Utstyr/TEST-Ski-for-fjellet

Gamme seems surprised and perhaps disapointed with the effective flotation, despite the width:
"We were a bit surprised that this widest mountain ski sank so far down in loose snow." (Gamme, UTE, Google translation)

Week to week, I get fresh snow typically 2-3 times a week. If it's only a few inches the width of the Eon is ideal...but if we get 16-20 inches- I find the waist of the Eon sinks down to the base and I get poor performance...

But with only 16-20 inches of snow I find a powder ski is overkill and slips and slides around all over the place...

I guess I want a "mid-width" ski to offer effective flotation and tracking in those "mid-depth" snow conditions...

[lilcliffy]

And the flotation issue is likely a complex of waist-width, profile and flex pattern...

In deep snow- when I drive the Eon waist down in a "kick", the ski reverse-flexes, with the tip/tail floating higher in the snow. This flex response is excellent in a downhill turn on soft snow- but it produces terrible K&G performance. (I am definitely re-thinking whether the Eon is weighted towards the XC of XCD...despite how well it tracks...)

The problem may simply be that the Eon is just too damn soft!

If the Ingstad has a stiffer flex pattern (which seems clear); the stiffness will not only support a more effective "kick"- but it likely also more effectively support the waist- offering more effective flotation.

Gotta get me an Ingstad!

Just finished some marking...we got more fresh soft stuff last night...going for tour!!!!

[MikeK]

(I am definitely re-thinking whether the Eon is weighted towards the XC of XCD...despite how well it tracks...)

Guess it depends on which end of the spectrum you look from. Looking from the Annum down, it's definitely XC, looking from the Voss up, it's pretty DH.

The current Madshus Omnitrack and S Bound seemed to be biased toward turning ability vs. touring speed.

Going back in time it seems that this series of skis was more touring focused and less turning focused i.e. more camber, thinner profiles, etc.

[Cannatonic]

FWIW….the Asnes and Madshus skis have stayed the same since the Ute review, but the E99 and E109 are totally different skis today from back then. These are now lighter and more nordic-focused than the older ones. The older ones have a heavier, damped feeling to them, more stable in turns but more effort in the flats. I would expect the Ingstad is much heavier and more durable than the E109, and thus more stable in turns.

[Teleman]

Bum-er....So the e109 that I ski is not the new 109.....Was even thinking of possibly buying a set of the now old kind of 109.....Oh well.....Know Telepole has a set of 190's and might see some in a garage sale but don't think there are to many of those around.....Sounds like the new 109 is like a S bound ski....S bound's are a decent ski for what they are supposed to do.....But cruising the forest for distance......not as good as a 109....TM