Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

The other ski you might seriously consider is the Nansen WL.
I have one and am very impressed with it.
It is a different design again- and a bit narrower- but, it is a more versatile Nordic touring ski than the rockered Ingstad.

mca80 wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 12, 2023 11:45 am

Woodserson wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 12, 2023 10:08 am

Not much difference except edges with the Breids and the Ingstads though.

I had read in various posts over a long period of time that the Breidablik were an edgeless NATO, and that they were an edgless Ingstad, and that the Ingstad was at one time the NATO. Do you know woods?

Ah, good to know.

Is all good, if WL Asnes works, don't mess with an unknown jump to Fischer, which was my primary point. I can't really get the Asnes WL to work for me, too light. Wish I could.

So, how would the performance vary between the Nansen and the Ingstad both in the waxless?

LTDinPNW wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 12, 2023 3:59 pm

So, how would the performance vary between the Nansen and the Ingstad both in the waxless?

As the Nansen doesn't have a rockered shovel- vs the Ingstad:
- it has a longer effective edge and associated glide zone (esp on hardpack)→ better climbing grip; more effective XC glide; more stable at speed
- it breaks trail more effectively- in deep snow, and especially through crust

As the Ingstad does have a rockered shovel- vs the Nansen:
- it has a shorter effective edge→ much shorter turn radius
- pressured- the skier is much further forward on the effective edge→ easier turn initiation
- the rockered shovel does facilitate the ski to go up and over crud
- the rockered shovel facilitates early-tip-rise and "planing" at downhill speeds
- in XC mode it feels like two completely different skis- depending on snow conditions→ on hardpack snow the Ingstad feels like a very short unstable ski; in deep snow the Ingstad is a stable XC ski

As the Ingstad is wider underfoot- vs the Nansen:
- it does offer more surface area/flotation in deep snow- and because the Ingstad has a longitudinally-stable flex- the wider Ingstad does feel more stable in deep snow- both downhill and XC (the Nansen is more stable at speed on hardpack)

As the Nansen has less camber, plus a smoother, rounder flex- vs the Ingstad:
- it is easier to pressure when climbing and turning- easier to bend and carve
- it does not release the grip zone (ie scales/skin/wax) as effectively when striding forwards

And don't get me wrong here- the Nansen offers decent performance across all the variables described above- just because the Ingstad offers better performance in specific contexts, does not mean that the Nansen is terrible in that context.

The Ingstad's design makes it most finely tuned to deep snow-
The Nansen is a more versatile design.
With my widely varying snow conditions (even in mid-winter)- if I had to have one ski it would be the Nansen.
However, the Ingstad is my favorite Nordic touring ski. I appreciate having both!

@lilcliffy , that a bunch for that detailed breakdown! Much appreciated!

Which of the two would complement my Breidablikks the best for right now? I'm a bit of a gear-whore, so… likely to have both in the future. But sans metal edges, which would you recommend going with? FYI — I am always going to choose breaking trail/deep snow vs. groomed/track. And on most winters , I'm able to hit deeper snows pretty regularly.

@LTDinPNW
A bit confused...when you say "sans edges"- are you referrring to your Breid- or, are you referring to getting another edgeless ski?

The Combat NATO is somewhat of a hybrid of the Nansen and the Ingstad with respect to camber and flex- the Combat NATO- like the Ingstad- is more cambered than the Nansen-

While the Breid ski is the same profile as the Combat NATO- the lack of steel edges should cause your Breid to have a significantly softer flex than a Combat NATO.

The Combat NATO ski is actually a more efficient XC ski than the Nansen- due to its more significant camber- but the Nansen's lower-camber and rounder flex- makes it easier to pressure and carve (this is despite the Combat NATO having a tighter inherent sidecut-derived turn radius).

I find the Ingstad to be a very good deep snow XC ski (although the Combat NATO is even better)- it has a stable flex, and breaks trail very well with its traditional triangular raised tip-
the Nansen is noticeably better in crust- due to the lack of rockered-shovel.

So if you are not dealing with crust- and deep snow performance trumps the versatility of the Nansen- then the Ingstad is your ski.
Hopefully I am helping you!
Gareth

I had a shit-ton of fun this morning on Ingy cruising the FSR roads n’ trails I favour. Ingy was quite steerable on a few inches of powder on a consolidated base…Gareth, if I’m to interpret what you had to say about the Nansen he would have been somewhat more controllable?

@lilcliffy, that was one of the “best” (most succinct, clear, and informative) ski comparision I have seen from you.
Just sayin’

Inspiredcapers wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 13, 2023 4:56 pm

I had a shit-ton of fun this morning on Ingy cruising the FSR roads n’ trails I favour. Ingy was quite steerable on a few inches of powder on a consolidated base…Gareth, if I’m to interpret what you had to say about the Nansen he would have been somewhat more controllable?

Well...
Fridtjof has a longer effective edge- and more of a "downhill" camber and flex- but its turn radius is much wider than Helge!
Sounds like Helge was perfect for the conditions. Hard for one to say whether the Nansen would be more controllable in those conditions. But, the longer effective edge and camber-flex pattern of the Nansen does make it more stable in many conditions- especially at speed on difficult snow.