Fischer E-109 vs. Asnes Ingstad

[bgregoire]

Sounds like XCD to me

Of course it is. I mean SB is the man behind XCD. Still, teleing double cambered skinnies is a totally different experience than when on lets say my Karhu 10th MTN (84-86-78) w/ pins.

[athabascae]

Finnish Hunting skis are either very long and skinny (70mm undergoot) or short and fat (like the one you linked). Neither are designed for turning but rather for moving around in rather flat forests. They got no sidecut, so turning is entirely the responsability of the skier. Never tried them myself so can't comment.

Yeah, as person with a scientific interest in evolutionary solutions to biological problems, I find it poignant that the Finns like either super long skis or super short ones - two polar responses to the same problem of traveling in flatland forests, and both probably make sense. Divergent evolution.

A technician that works with me is born and raised in northern Finland and her favourite ski is the Altai Kom. She doesn't get the design of skis of a Norwegian or Quebec lineage.

[athabascae]

Well- I don't know yet whether the Ingstad will cut it...but Gamme's disappointment/surprise with the lack of flotation of the Ingstad doesn't surprise me with a 62mm waist...

I'm not sure what I think of this. I too read this in the Google Translate version of the UTE showdown; however, everything else I read (not much) said the Ingstad was designed for deeper snow, and Gamme's chart shows it one of the best of the skis tested for flotation. Personally, I'm thinking there is something lost in translation with that part of the UTE text....

I'll get my first impression of them in deep snow next weekend. Stay tuned.

Tom

[bgregoire]

Well- I don't know yet whether the Ingstad will cut it...but Gamme's disappointment/surprise with the lack of flotation of the Ingstad doesn't surprise me with a 62mm waist...

I'm not sure what I think of this.

I think you need to interpret that dissapointed within the proper context. Here is the text, translated by google:

The explanation was the soft front and the tail that bends smoothly for variations in terrain and snow conditions (and that we have been somewhat spoiled by løssnøski with around 100 mm center width).

Of the fjallski tested, Ingstad had the softest tip and tail. This is something that has not been discussed in any length of this forum, at least in the last while. We have been talking quite a bit about width underfoot and the effect of sidecut on floatation. But if you tips and tails are too soft, the center of your ski just digs deep into loose snow. think Salomon XADV 89.

Next, and heres the crux, the writers mention they have been spoiled by the used of fat powder skis (AT or Tele), 100mm width underfoot. Well, there you have it. Of course, if you are comparing the Ingstad, or any nordic backcrountry ski to FAT powder skis, of course, you'll think they don't float well.

Given the type of skiing you are interested in, rest assured that you have purchased one of the best, if not the BEST skis currently made on earth. We are all jealous. Enjoy the ride!

[Teleman]

"It's not the SKI it's the SKIER, so said Teleking yesterday at "Hunting" camp up on Little Mountain @ 20+ below. Saw King heading down on his new WHITE FAT SKI WITH A HILE ON THE TOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, man he looked good on that little trail.....Later when heading them down in the woods.....a different story.....I hope you had a good laugh about the skis because they are the skis you think they are....and Teleking the skier made the skis look good....but chuckle it wasn't easy!!!!!!! 109's while slow in the cold went up like nothing and 10 minutes into it my right hand was partially frozen....(I lost my leather mittens.) The expensive downhill leather big time gloves are useless like fat down hill skis in the bush.....Had to head back...The ride was wonderful....the 109's picked up speed and it was a total head them down with an arc here and there.....From that time on it was beer, steak, keep the fire going....The boys went out now and again and had fun on low angle cruising with many good tele's to be had....But Camp was where it was at....TM

[bgregoire]

"It's not the SKI it's the SKIER, so said Teleking yesterday at "Hunting" camp up on Little Mountain @ 20+ below. Saw King heading down on his new WHITE FAT SKI WITH A HILE ON THE TOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, man he looked good on that little trail.....Later when heading them down in the woods.....a different story.....I hope you had a good laugh about the skis because they are the skis you think they are....and Teleking the skier made the skis look good....but chuckle it wasn't easy!!!!!!! 109's while slow in the cold went up like nothing and 10 minutes into it my right hand was partially frozen....(I lost my leather mittens.) The expensive downhill leather big time gloves are useless like fat down hill skis in the bush.....Had to head back...The ride was wonderful....the 109's picked up speed and it was a total head them down with an arc here and there.....From that time on it was beer, steak, keep the fire going....The boys went out now and again and had fun on low angle cruising with many good tele's to be had....But Camp was where it was at....TM

I seem to recall you loosing you mittens before, on some epic dump day. Guess the excitement for the down is just that strong. Were these the vintage Combats or the newer breed? We stayed out of the exposed hills yesterday. It was more like -35C here including the chill factor. We gliding through the forests instead best we could given how abrasive the snow was.

[Teleman]

I've forgotten my poles....but usually don't lose gloves....Think the "White" ski was the new one...Have to say it was quite the laugh at camp....Felt so good out there yesterday....Will go purchase some serious mittens soon....Polar wax was even slow yesterday.....We had to huddle around the stove when not skiing....the camp never heated up beyond the 30's but felt tropical compared to outside....TM

[lilcliffy]

I think you need to interpret that dissapointed within the proper context. Here is the text, translated by google:

The explanation was the soft front and the tail that bends smoothly for variations in terrain and snow conditions (and that we have been somewhat spoiled by løssnøski with around 100 mm center width).

Of the fjallski tested, Ingstad had the softest tip and tail. This is something that has not been discussed in any length of this forum, at least in the last while. We have been talking quite a bit about width underfoot and the effect of sidecut on floatation. But if you tips and tails are too soft, the center of your ski just digs deep into loose snow. think Salomon XADV 89.

Exactly my disappointment with the Eon...I am just trusting that the moderately-stiff flex of the Ingstad better supports the waist.

Next, and heres the crux, the writers mention they have been spoiled by the used of fat powder skis (AT or Tele), 100mm width underfoot. Well, there you have it. Of course, if you are comparing the Ingstad, or any nordic backcrountry ski to FAT powder skis, of course, you'll think they don't float well.

Thanks for this clarification Ben- you are correct. It is very important to compare "apples to apples".

Apples to apples would currently be the Ingstad, E-109, Eon, S-78 ans S-88...leaving anything out?

So- I own the Eon, and I have tested the S-78/S-88 and the E-109. I do not find the S-78/S-88 to be significantly stiffer than the Eon- otherwise I would have already bought one. I find the E-109 to be stiffer than the S-78/S-88.

So- does the Ingstad have a stiffer flex than than the Eon, S-78 and S-88?

That's the deal breaker for me. I want the flex to support the waist- both for flotation and "kick".

Given the type of skiing you are interested in, rest assured that you have purchased one of the best, if not the BEST skis currently made on earth. We are all jealous. Enjoy the ride!

And yes- I am jealous! Can't afford it right now.

[MikeK]

Grey man:

[athabascae]

The grey man rocks! I'm going to enjoy his company on some solo trips in the middle of nowhere...

A couple of small tidbits are that he married a woman 20 someodd years his junior, and he lived to 101. I wonder if the two factoids are related