Asnes FT62 - 180cm vs 188cm

[Axamer]

I just bought an Asnes FT62, 180cm that I ski with a 75mm binding and a Garmont Excursion boot. I am 1.75m or 5'9 '' tall and with my backpack I weigh at least 84kg or 185lbs.

I consider myself to be an advanced off-piste telemarker and when I go Nordic skiing with lighter equipment I always try to find places where I will be able to make turns. I mostly ski unmarked marked trails.

I really like skiing and its set up with the boot and the binding. The ski turns very well without effort. But I wonder if I should not have bought a 188cm to slightly facilitate the glide on certain flat sections and also to have a little more stability on the descent although the ski is when quite stable.

Also considering the nature of the ski which has a Nordic rocker and a twin tip at the back, I have the impression that the contact surface with the snow means that the ski is really shorter than the size indicated.

I lent my FT62 to my friend who has the same boot and bindings set as me. He measures 1.65m or 5'5 '' and weighs 70 kg or 155 lbs and he really loved the 180cm.

Logically if I trust my friend's experience I should have no problem skiing 188cm, but unfortunately it is difficult to try out your skis and that is why I am talking to you to have another point of view.

It is not a certainty but I have the impression that with a 188cm I would be more able to get what I am looking for (a little more sliding on flat ground and a ski a little less nervous in descent which is slightly more stable, without devoting more effort to turning the ski which turns brilliantly.

I know this ski is quite popular and that is why I am turning to you for your opinions.

[Stephen]

With pack, I am just about the same weight as you (I am taller, at 6’3”).
I have the FT62 in 188.
I REALLY agonized about going to the 196cm.
I am pretty happy with the 188.
For reference, I have the Ingstad in 205.
I think in deeper snow, it has better downhill glide, and seems to turn ALMOST as easily as the FT62 (more experienced skiers may have a different experience).
I find the FT62 to have little directional stability on a firm skin track, for example.
It just seems to want to swivel under my foot, or slide off to one side or the other.
Again, a more experienced skier may have less trouble with this.
On descents, I am able to turn the ski quite easily, and am probably not as good a skier as you are.
Bottom line, if a switch is possible, I think you would be quite happy with the FT62 in 188cm.
.

[lilcliffy]

Hello and Welcome Axamer!
@Stephen This is good stuff man! And a good start at a comparison between the FT62 and the Ingstad BC in deep snow...
(I know that your question is not about the Ingstad BC vs FT62- but I will have to come back to that...)

For reference I am178cm tall and 80kg.
I own the FT62 in the 188cm length. I love this ski in "ideal" snow. And when I say "ideal" snow I am speaking of soft snow on top of a solid, stable base that is Swix-blue heaven kick-wax temperature.
In these conditions the FT62 is a dream to go play on hills- and grip-kcik waxing is so easy that you climb and turn all day without skins/scales.

Otherwise- I must admit that I am not sold on the FT62 and therefore I do not use it very much.

My fresh snow is usually very deep- too deep for the narrow-rounding flexing FT62- it is too unstable.

When the snow conditions are just right I can make very tight turns with the 188cm FT62.
In my local hills much of my best dowhill skiing is in forested ravines and glades. I often wonder whether a shorter FT62 might enable me to ski even tighter lines through the trees...

All of that being said when the snow gets too deep I find the narrow, round FT62 unstable and actually prefer the longer more stable Ingstad BC dowhill and XC.

My perspective is if one ends up considering a long FT62 for more stability- then one should also consider the Ingstad BC...Specifically- if you were to consider a 188cm FT62, I would be really cool if you could also test a 185cm and 195cm Ingstad BC to compare...

As a sidenote I have been out in very few conditions were I have been truly pleased with the XC performance of the FT62, therefore I use it almost exclusively for playing on hills when the snow is ideal for it. It is truly a ski with a very narrow niche for my local skiing.

However, when the conditions are just right it is a ton of fun!

[Stephen]

+1 to @lilcliffy

[Nitram Tocrut]

I have had the FT62 for 2 winter and really happy I got it in my quiver. But I must say this winter has not been the best for it as we did not get any kind of base so the snow kind of stayed “ loose” all winter. This ski is best used, as so many said so on this forum, on a few Cm of powder over a good base. The conditions were good for a couple of days even in late November and early December when we only had a few inches of snow over the frozen ground.

Last winter I had the 188 but I bought the 196 this year on the assumption that they would glide better and that would not make a big difference for ease of turn. Well, I think they are marginally better glider but I am not sure it was worth the gamble. After reading your post, actually me and the OP had a lot of discussion about the FT over Messenger prior to his post, I took my FT62 for a ride with my T4. For one thing, it confirmed I want to ski them with leather boots... The conditions were great with about 10 Cm of fresh snow. The K&G was really good along the greenhouses where I blew the snow last weekend. FT 62 dreamy conditions... fresh snow over hard base... the FT62 were flying! As soon as I entered the untouched snow in the fields, they significantly slowed down and I am not sure that the 188 would have been slower than the 196. Then I entered a section where we have short low angle slopes. Where there is an old snowmobile track the FT62 come alive but as soon as I got out of the snowmobile trail, the FT62 really slowed down and they become unstable, especially when you get to the base of the hill where there is frequently more snow. I am with LilCliffy on that one, under those conditions, the Ingstad are better.... but I can’t ski the Ingstad on few Cm of fresh snow over a hard base... I like when people can help me justify buying all those skis

If you read David review of the 172 FT62 that he bought from my wife, I am pretty sure he was sold to them when he skied them over the Snowmobile/snowshoe trail where the conditions were great for the FT. He tried them before in deep untouched snow and although he kind of like them, I “closed” the sale whe he tried them in FT dreamy conditions.

So... that is a lot of words to say that you should better stick with the 180 if you actually enjoy them already. I don’t regret going longer but I don’t think I am happier with the 196 as opposed to the 188. BUT, you are obviously a better telemarker than me so maybe you could benefit from a longer skis. But for a pan average or below average telemarker (me), I don’t think it’s not worth it... But all said, I know their will be great skiing to do this spring with the FT... just got to wait for the proper conditions... is not it the reason why we have a quiver

[Axamer]

Hello and Welcome Axamer!
@Stephen This is good stuff man! And a good start at a comparison between the FT62 and the Ingstad BC in deep snow...
(I know that your question is not about the Ingstad BC vs FT62- but I will have to come back to that...)

For reference I am178cm tall and 80kg.
I own the FT62 in the 188cm length. I love this ski in "ideal" snow. And when I say "ideal" snow I am speaking of soft snow on top of a solid, stable base that is Swix-blue heaven kick-wax temperature.
In these conditions the FT62 is a dream to go play on hills- and grip-kcik waxing is so easy that you climb and turn all day without skins/scales.

Otherwise- I must admit that I am not sold on the FT62 and therefore I do not use it very much.

My fresh snow is usually very deep- too deep for the narrow-rounding flexing FT62- it is too unstable.

When the snow conditions are just right I can make very tight turns with the 188cm FT62.
In my local hills much of my best dowhill skiing is in forested ravines and glades. I often wonder whether a shorter FT62 might enable me to ski even tighter lines through the trees...

All of that being said when the snow gets too deep I find the narrow, round FT62 unstable and actually prefer the longer more stable Ingstad BC dowhill and XC.

My perspective is if one ends up considering a long FT62 for more stability- then one should also consider the Ingstad BC...Specifically- if you were to consider a 188cm FT62, I would be really cool if you could also test a 185cm and 195cm Ingstad BC to compare...

As a sidenote I have been out in very few conditions were I have been truly pleased with the XC performance of the FT62, therefore I use it almost exclusively for playing on hills when the snow is ideal for it. It is truly a ski with a very narrow niche for my local skiing.

However, when the conditions are just right it is a ton of fun!

Thanks Stephen for your comment. I think all skiers who have an FT62 also have an Ingstad which is obviously the case for me. I have a 195cm Ingstad. I bought this ski thinking it would turn easily which it didn't. Its construction is totally different from the FT62. The Ingstad is good for the distance, but so much so that when the Xplore system hits the market I might consider the Nansen for speed.

[Axamer]

Hello and Welcome Axamer!
@Stephen This is good stuff man! And a good start at a comparison between the FT62 and the Ingstad BC in deep snow...
(I know that your question is not about the Ingstad BC vs FT62- but I will have to come back to that...)

For reference I am178cm tall and 80kg.
I own the FT62 in the 188cm length. I love this ski in "ideal" snow. And when I say "ideal" snow I am speaking of soft snow on top of a solid, stable base that is Swix-blue heaven kick-wax temperature.
In these conditions the FT62 is a dream to go play on hills- and grip-kcik waxing is so easy that you climb and turn all day without skins/scales.

Otherwise- I must admit that I am not sold on the FT62 and therefore I do not use it very much.

My fresh snow is usually very deep- too deep for the narrow-rounding flexing FT62- it is too unstable.

When the snow conditions are just right I can make very tight turns with the 188cm FT62.
In my local hills much of my best dowhill skiing is in forested ravines and glades. I often wonder whether a shorter FT62 might enable me to ski even tighter lines through the trees...

All of that being said when the snow gets too deep I find the narrow, round FT62 unstable and actually prefer the longer more stable Ingstad BC dowhill and XC.

My perspective is if one ends up considering a long FT62 for more stability- then one should also consider the Ingstad BC...Specifically- if you were to consider a 188cm FT62, I would be really cool if you could also test a 185cm and 195cm Ingstad BC to compare...

As a sidenote I have been out in very few conditions were I have been truly pleased with the XC performance of the FT62, therefore I use it almost exclusively for playing on hills when the snow is ideal for it. It is truly a ski with a very narrow niche for my local skiing.

However, when the conditions are just right it is a ton of fun!

Thanks Lilcliffy for your response. Indeed the FT62 performs at its best on a firm base with a nice cushion of soft snow and a blue wax. I agree 100% with you and it is really in this type of condition that this ski becomes very interesting. Considering that we have roughly the same physical dimensions your comment is relevant. Yes I have the Insgtad 195cm and on firm ground I cannot say that this ski gave me a lot of pleasure. I had a lot of expectations but ... But again we have a rather special winter in Quebec this year. It doesn't snow very often.

[Axamer]

With pack, I am just about the same weight as you (I am taller, at 6’3”).
I have the FT62 in 188.
I REALLY agonized about going to the 196cm.
I am pretty happy with the 188.
For reference, I have the Ingstad in 205.
I think in deeper snow, it has better downhill glide, and seems to turn ALMOST as easily as the FT62 (more experienced skiers may have a different experience).
I find the FT62 to have little directional stability on a firm skin track, for example.
It just seems to want to swivel under my foot, or slide off to one side or the other.
Again, a more experienced skier may have less trouble with this.
On descents, I am able to turn the ski quite easily, and am probably not as good a skier as you are.
Bottom line, if a switch is possible, I think you would be quite happy with the FT62 in 188cm.
.
68227460-36B1-4595-83DF-F455977BE827.jpeg

Thanks Stephen for your comment. I think all skiers who have an FT62 also have an Ingstad which is obviously the case for me. I have a 195cm Ingstad. I bought this ski thinking it would turn easily which it didn't. Its construction is totally different from the FT62. The Ingstad is good for the distance, but so much so that when the Xplore system hits the market I might consider the Nansen for speed.

[Axamer]

I have had the FT62 for 2 winter and really happy I got it in my quiver. But I must say this winter has not been the best for it as we did not get any kind of base so the snow kind of stayed “ loose” all winter. This ski is best used, as so many said so on this forum, on a few Cm of powder over a good base. The conditions were good for a couple of days even in late November and early December when we only had a few inches of snow over the frozen ground.

Last winter I had the 188 but I bought the 196 this year on the assumption that they would glide better and that would not make a big difference for ease of turn. Well, I think they are marginally better glider but I am not sure it was worth the gamble. After reading your post, actually me and the OP had a lot of discussion about the FT over Messenger prior to his post, I took my FT62 for a ride with my T4. For one thing, it confirmed I want to ski them with leather boots... The conditions were great with about 10 Cm of fresh snow. The K&G was really good along the greenhouses where I blew the snow last weekend. FT 62 dreamy conditions... fresh snow over hard base... the FT62 were flying! As soon as I entered the untouched snow in the fields, they significantly slowed down and I am not sure that the 188 would have been slower than the 196. Then I entered a section where we have short low angle slopes. Where there is an old snowmobile track the FT62 come alive but as soon as I got out of the snowmobile trail, the FT62 really slowed down and they become unstable, especially when you get to the base of the hill where there is frequently more snow. I am with LilCliffy on that one, under those conditions, the Ingstad are better.... but I can’t ski the Ingstad on few Cm of fresh snow over a hard base... I like when people can help me justify buying all those skis

If you read David review of the 172 FT62 that he bought from my wife, I am pretty sure he was sold to them when he skied them over the Snowmobile/snowshoe trail where the conditions were great for the FT. He tried them before in deep untouched snow and although he kind of like them, I “closed” the sale whe he tried them in FT dreamy conditions.

So... that is a lot of words to say that you should better stick with the 180 if you actually enjoy them already. I don’t regret going longer but I don’t think I am happier with the 196 as opposed to the 188. BUT, you are obviously a better telemarker than me so maybe you could benefit from a longer skis. But for a pan average or below average telemarker (me), I don’t think it’s not worth it... But all said, I know their will be great skiing to do this spring with the FT... just got to wait for the proper conditions... is not it the reason why we have a quiver

Merci Martin ! Je t'ai reconnu

[Woodserson]

Thanks Stephen for your comment. I think all skiers who have an FT62 also have an Ingstad which is obviously the case for me. I have a 195cm Ingstad. I bought this ski thinking it would turn easily which it didn't. Its construction is totally different from the FT62. The Ingstad is good for the distance, but so much so that when the Xplore system hits the market I might consider the Nansen for speed.

Ax,

In my opinion, there is some relative comparison that sometimes gets lost on this forum.

The Ingstad is a Cross-Country ski. It has a lot of rocker up front and is tuned for softer snow and hillier terrain. Do not beat yourself up. The Ingstads "turn easily" for a XC ski, but I won't say that they are a turny ski. They just turn a bit easier than a long straight ski like the Amundsen, for instance. But they are still a XC ski.

The FT62 is not a Cross-Country ski. It's a skinny downhill ski with deeply pronounced rocker, and very low camber. Of course it is going to track all over the place on firm snow. It's basically a saucer-for-your-feet which makes it much fun on the downhill. But it's shit going miles and miles on this thing unless gravity is pulling you a significant portion of the way.

We can use the Ingstad and go down hills, and we can use the FT62 and XC miles... but they are, IMO, the wrong tools for those jobs, but that doesn't mean we can't do it.

I think the Nansen/Ingstad/Gamme skis turn like crap compared to downhill skis. But they turn pretty good for XC skis (The Ingstad the easiest of the three)... it's important to keep this relative comparison in mind.

You mention the Nansen- I have it, wonderful ski. Stable and forgiving. I find it as about the same speed as the Ingstad in soft snow, but slightly faster on firm snow than the Ingstad. But it is slower than the E99/Gamme on firmer snow, due to its lower camber. Something to keep in mind.