The current Ingstad sucks in breakable crust- due to the considerable tip-shovel rocker.ᚠᚨᚱ ᚾᛟᚱᚦ ᛊᚲᛁᛖᚱ wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:23 pmIt actually isn't that big of an issue, but when it is, it is a big one. I'm very curious what the Ingstad offers in this context.
The current Ingstad is no fun and terribly inefficient on a snowmobile track- I only put up with it for short distances.*After re-reading your review on the Ingstad I think I understand. It would definitely be a ski I would like to try and there are some contexts where it would be a lot of fun. My longest tour this winter would've benefited from it on the descent, at least early on. The longest portion of the descent was very gradual on snowmobile trails, which the Ingstad might not be so good for. This does not reflect my typical tour, however, which is described below.
The current Ingstad is stable in deep soft snow- despite its rocker- it has a longitudinaly stable flex (unlike similar-class skis like the E109/Eon- which are totally unstable in deep soft snow). The current Ingstad has a stiffer shovel-tip than the Combat Nato. The current Ingstad is not as longitudinally stiff as the Gamme 54/Amundsen.What I have a lot of, or rather, what I choose to ski on most often, is deep soft snow. Mostly flat or rolling. But with the occasional tree studded hill.
The only Fischer waxless ski that would fit this bill would be the Traverse 78- and Fischer needs to make a model that is 10cm longer.At the end of winter it was deep soft snow with a breakable crust. I am mostly looking at this from a XCd perspective, but with the occasional downhill. I have a wide downhill ski for up down laps, I have the Fischer 88 (which isn't terrible in the conditions I've described). I was kind of thinking I wanted to get a narrower (than the 88), fast (when skiing over previously broken trail), waxless ski that is stable for touring in deep soft snow.
The E99 Crown Xtralite is completely unstable in deep soft snow and absolutely atrocious in breakable crust.
If you want the waxless- Amundsen Fram WL.
Why waxless- wouldn't kicker skins be ideal in this context- when kick wax isn't ideal?
I don't know much about the Finnmark WL- but it surely has a softer tip than the Gamme 54, without steel edges- I doubt that the Finnmark is as good as the Gamme in breakable crust.
If you are only dealing with the occasional downhill I would stongly consider the Amundsen BC/WL over the Gamme 54.
IMO- the primary downhill advantage that the Gamme has is it is lighter- perhaps easier to make step/striding/jump turns than the Amundsen (don't know for sure about this as I don't have an Amundsen to compare).
As far as downhill with the Gamme 54:
- The Gamme 54 does plane at downhill speeds.
- The tip rocker improves turn initiation on consolidated snow.
Well you definitely don't want an E109/Eon.What I don't want for this context is a ski that bows too much or has a softer, rockered tip that will flex up while the rest of the ski sinks (this problem seems to he magnified in breakable crust).
As I said above the Ingstad BC is great in deep snow- not in breakable crust.
Well the USGI ski (MT65) is a great ski- stiff and rock-soild stable- breaks trail like a champ. Very heavy.I'm strongly considering some USGI skis until I've generated enough goodwill with the spouse to justify purchasing new skis (I'm leaning toward Gamme at the moment). I'm also thinking of getting a few extra sets of the USGIs that I can loan out to others who might be interested.