Ski recommendation

This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web. We have fun here, come on in and be a part of it.
User avatar
Stephen
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:49 am
Ski style: Aspirational
Favorite Skis: Gamme (210), Ingstad (205), Objective BC (178)
Favorite boots: Alfa Guard Advance
Occupation: Beyond

Re: Ski recommendation

Post by Stephen » Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:30 pm

lilcliffy wrote:
Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:52 am
...
As far as a BC Nordic Touring ski that has some decent downhill performance- to me there are three categories:

1) Old-School Telemark skis: long, narrow, low-cambered, round-flexing. (Example: Asnes Nansen- this is the only ski I can think of that still fits this criteria.)

2) XC skis tuned for steep terrain: long, narrow, camber and resistance underfoot- but rockered and/or flexible shovel/tail to facilitate turning (Examples: E109; Eon(M62); Ingstad; Combat Nato; Fischer 78; etc.).

3) So-called Hybrid Nordic Touring skis: Nordic touring skis that have a lot of the geometry and features of AT skis (Examples: FT62; Rabb 68; Fischer 98/112; Madshus Epoch(M68)/Annum(M78); etc.)

On the subject of #3 category above ("Hybrid" skis)- after more than 20 years using this class of skis- I have kinda given up on them as everyday touring skis. I find I am never really satisfied with any of them. They basicly suck as XC skis, and they are really not that great downhill skis either- at least not compared to a fully-committed modern AT ski. My point is that if you are seriously considering skis like the examples listed above in #3- I would strongly recommend you consider modern AT skis as well. For example- I am not convinced that a Fischer 112 or Madshus is any more efficient as a XC ski than a modern AT ski and the difference in downhill performance is massive. There was a time that these "hybrid" designs had the Nordic Touring benefit of being much lighter than AT skis- this is no longer the case. Heck- a Voile Objective BC weighs LESS than a Madshus 78...

My continued interest in hybrid skis is purely a function of passion and the desire to support passion. What I mean is that I bought a Falketind 62 for the fun of trying it and supporting a ski manufacturer's passion project. To be completely honest I find the FT62 fun in ideal conditions- otherwise I am currently not thrilled with it.

... If you really want a "backcountry" ski that is an efficient XC ski- but manageable in steep terrain- then I still think a XC ski that is tuned for steep terrain is the best choice (category #2 above).

If you want a downhill ski- then look for a downhill ski- and widen your search to include modern light AT skis.
So, @lilcliffy, when you mention the Voile Objective, do you see that as an AT ski (with AT bindings and boot)?
And, would you see the Objective being in your Category #3, if paired with NNN BC and leather boots?

Just curious what your thinking is on that.
I think, along with others, I’m feeling the same as you do about the FT62.
And, similarly happy with the Ingstad for XC and XCd in 3D snow.

On the Objective, I have been overall very happy. Yesterday was a mixed bag.
10 miles, 2,000 vertical.
Transformed / spring snow.
Snow temp varying above and below freezing.
On the flats, when the snow was slightly soft, great speed / glide, mediocre tracking.
On the flats, when the snow was frozen (and snowmobile tracks all over the place), great speed / glide, terrible tracking, not fun, but al least fairly fast.
On the down slopes (turns), when the snow was slightly soft (untracked slopes), good glide, good edging, great fun.
On the down slopes (turns), when the snow was frozen (untracked slopes), no edging, no control, no fun.
On the down slopes (ski out), when the snow was frozen (and snowmobile tracks ALL over the place), great speed / glide, terrible tracking, slightly scary, not fun.

User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 2932
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:20 pm
Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada
Ski style: Nordic backcountry touring
Favorite Skis: Asnes Ingstad BC; Asnes Gamme 54 BC; Asnes Storetind Carbon; Madshus Annum; Asnes Comabt Nato
Favorite boots: Alfa Guard Advance BC; Alpina Alaska BC; Crispi Svartisen BC; Scarpa T4
Occupation: Forestry Professional
Instructor at Maritime College of Forest Technology
Husband, father, farmer and logger

Re: Ski recommendation

Post by lilcliffy » Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:30 pm

Stephen wrote:
Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:30 pm
So, lilcliffy, when you mention the Voile Objective, do you see that as an AT ski (with AT bindings and boot)?
And, would you see the Objective being in your Category #3, if paired with NNN BC and leather boots?
When I was using the term "AT"/"Topptur" ski I am simply refering to Backcountry Downhill skis- as opposed to Backcountry Nordic Touring (i.e. "BC-XC"/"fjellski") skis. I don't mean to imply that they need to be used with AT bindings and boots.
To me the Voile Objective is an "AT" ski- regardless of what boot-binding is used- or even how it is used. One could take the Objective to the groomed skate track- mounted with a XC skate boot- that doesn't make it a skate ski- any more than skiing a steep slope with my Ingstad/E109 makes either of theses skis downhill skis...
On the Objective, I have been overall very happy. Yesterday was a mixed bag.
10 miles, 2,000 vertical.
Transformed / spring snow.
Snow temp varying above and below freezing.
On the flats, when the snow was slightly soft, great speed / glide, mediocre tracking.
On the flats, when the snow was frozen (and snowmobile tracks all over the place), great speed / glide, terrible tracking, not fun, but al least fairly fast.
On the down slopes (turns), when the snow was slightly soft (untracked slopes), good glide, good edging, great fun.
On the down slopes (turns), when the snow was frozen (untracked slopes), no edging, no control, no fun.
On the down slopes (ski out), when the snow was frozen (and snowmobile tracks ALL over the place), great speed / glide, terrible tracking, slightly scary, not fun.
To me this demonstrates quite a number of things- starting with the obvious- the Objective is not an effective XC ski.

On the "no fun"/"not fun"/"no control"/"no edging"/"no control"/"slightly scary" comments above ↑- I would suggest that if you used a downhill Telemark boot on the Objective you would be able to drive the Objective in icy, more difficult snow.

I don't know whether the Objective is known for its downhill stability on icy, refrozen snow- but I would suggest that it is hard to judge this with a soft XC boot like the Alfa Guard...

Regardless- your comments above suggest that the Objective is just fine with a soft XC boot in ideal snow conditions...
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.





User avatar
spopepro
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:15 pm

Re: Ski recommendation

Post by spopepro » Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:24 pm

The objective, is in fact, not a good ice ski. T2eco boots and 3pin voile bindings still make it a wild ride. I just think it's too light, and the combo of rocker and camber is not well adapted to ice on any slope. There are those out there who are better skiers who I'm sure will say it's fine... but really that ski is tuned to shine in shallow to moderate powder and corn and makes compromises elsewhere. I will say that the lack of tracking seems to bother me less that what's noted here.





User avatar
Larshaha
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:21 pm

Re: Ski recommendation

Post by Larshaha » Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:41 am

lilcliffy wrote:
Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:52 am
You are saying that the distance warrants a "backcountry" ski (i.e. "fjellski"/"Nordic Touring ski") as opposed to an "Alpine Touring" ski (i.e. "Toppturski")- yes?
But you are looking for a BC Nordic Touring ski that is decent/fun downhill- yes?
Yes, this is a good conclutsion. A fjellski that can downhill. I have ski touring equipment (though not telemark style) in addition.
lilcliffy wrote:
Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:52 am
As far as a BC Nordic Touring ski that has some decent downhill performance- to me there are three categories:

1) Old-School Telemark skis: long, narrow, low-cambered, round-flexing. (Example: Asnes Nansen- this is the only ski I can think of that still fits this criteria.)

2) XC skis tuned for steep terrain: long, narrow, camber and resistance underfoot- but rockered and/or flexible shovel/tail to facilitate turning (Examples: E109; Eon(M62); Ingstad; Combat Nato; Fischer 78; etc.).

3) So-called Hybrid Nordic Touring skis: Nordic touring skis that have a lot of the geometry and features of AT skis (Examples: FT62; Rabb 68; Fischer 98/112; Madshus Epoch(M68)/Annum(M78); etc.)
Yeah, this is a great overview and Im sure this post will be useful for many here on the forum. For me it seems like it narrows down to the caregory 2 here (potentially with the Nansen included).

Roelant wrote:
Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:04 am
Which Ingstad generation does your father have?
I will go to the cabin this weekend and bring my fathers Ingstads (this years model). My impressions is that this might be the ideal ski for me, though its not too tempting to buy a ski I could borrow whenever... Which ski would you recommend then if I want one that is in the same category but different? For me it could be an option to wait for e.g this Otto Sverdrup ski that is coming out as Im not in a rush, but I then again Ifeel the E109, Nansen og Nato could be good options. If these are all good options, then I might see which I can get a better deal and make a decision based on that.

Thanks again for answers and for sharing your very broad knowledge. I will hopefully know a bit more after spending a weekend with the Ingstads and my Andrews





User avatar
Larshaha
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:21 pm

Re: Ski recommendation

Post by Larshaha » Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:12 am

Update:
I have now used the Ingstads for one weekend on both a long summit trip (35k, 1700 altitude meters) and a shorter trip behind the cabin for some nice turns. I have to say I'm really happy with it and dont have anything negative to say. I was skiing in very varied conditions (lots of ice, crusted snow, some ridges and also softer snow). My favorite was the firm and even icy conditions where the skis easily listened to my feet and gave full control on the downhill.

My cousin was using the combat natos (not really sure whats the main difference there) and my friend has Fischer E109, and they both seemed very happy as well. Im 100% sure Ill be happy if I get these skis, so I guess there isnt too much to think about even though my father has the same ones.

Edit: Been reading up on the combat natos. Seems they are very similar but stiffer than Ingstads, thus better for CX but more difficult and less playful downhill. They also weight 200 grams more which is significant! Correct?





User avatar
Roelant
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed May 15, 2019 6:33 am
Location: Subarctic Scandinavian Taiga
Ski style: Backcountry in the wild, cross country on trails
Favorite Skis: Nansen, FT62, Combat NATO
Favorite boots: Crispi Bre, Scarpa T4
Occupation: Ion Counter

Re: Ski recommendation

Post by Roelant » Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:57 am

So nice that you like the Ingstads.
The main difference between the NATO and current Ingstad is that the latter has nordic rocker. This means that the Nato has a longer glide surface especially on consolidated snow, and it will be more efficient on the distance. The Ingstad will tend to want to float to the surface and the shorter contact length will make it easier to initiate turns, but make them less directional (more squirrely) on consolidated snow with kick and glide.

@lilcliffy compared the flex of both earlier in this thread.

I really like my NATOs. They are great all-round XC skis considering their relative width. I got them in the longest length, 210cm. The extra weight compared to the Nansens (similar weight to Ingstads) in 205cm for example is noticeable in kick turns and step turns, so they are less playful. The weight is less noticeable in forward motion. Some of this extra weight is due to a metal reinforcement plate in the binding area. I like the plain white graphics but the paint is more prone to marks than the plastic cap on the other Åsnes skis.
I could have chosen the Ingstads, however I wanted a good waxable, distance oriented ski with good turnability. I don't tour with speed demons and don't yet feel the need for more efficient skis (Amundsen, Gamme).





User avatar
エイダン.シダル
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:36 pm

Re: Ski recommendation

Post by エイダン.シダル » Tue Apr 27, 2021 9:21 am

I've read so much about the difference between the Ingstad and Combat NATO, wanting to buy one (but now I'm waiting for the Otto Sverdrup), but gave up in confusion. So I emailed Åsnes about the difference.

"Good afternoon.

I will be buying one of [Ingstad or Combat NATO], and short skins. Apart from the top sheet, is there a significant difference: how they ski?

Thank you."

Reply:

"Ingstad and Combat are about the same ski.
Attach the link here so you can read about them."

Take that for what it's worth, as I haven't skied either. NATO are heavier.





User avatar
エイダン.シダル
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:36 pm

Re: Ski recommendation

Post by エイダン.シダル » Tue Apr 27, 2021 10:04 am

In case anyone is interested in the upcoming Åsnes Otto Sverdrup. You'll find them on p. 17.

https://issuu.com/jukfra/docs/_snes_katalog_2021_eng

I'm interested, because they look to be a Nordic-oriented backcountry ski (camber/wax-pocket) that splits width difference between Nansen and Ingstad/NATO. And in Southern Ontario; and the Québec Laurentians, Charlevoix, and Chic-Chocs: just the ticket.





User avatar
Larshaha
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:21 pm

Re: Ski recommendation

Post by Larshaha » Tue Apr 27, 2021 10:11 am

Thanks again, Roleant. I also believe this would be a great ski for me.

Very strange that Åsnes is being so short and not very helpful when you ask for assistance... Clearly everyone thinks there is a significant enough difference to comment on. There is also a quite large weight difference and they recommend different lengths for those two skis.

Ive been looking online today to buy skis (both Combat Nato and Ingstad) and its getting pretty sold out for this season in my lengths. I am 185, weighing about 80 and the recommended length is then about 200, but only 190 available. It seems most recommend a size up rather than down?

If I have to wait for next season to get my own skis, then I can also see what kind of reviews this Sverdrup ends up getting.





User avatar
エイダン.シダル
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:36 pm

Re: Ski recommendation

Post by エイダン.シダル » Tue Apr 27, 2021 10:18 am

"Very strange that Åsnes is being so short and not very helpful when you ask for assistance..."

Is that a Norwegian thing? I honestly don't know much about the culture, so I'm not taking the brevity personally. I know that a Japanese response would be fulsome, and unnecessarily apologetic, but I speak it passably, have lived there, and married into the culture. I can't judge a Norwegian response.





Post Reply