Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

John Dee wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 19, 2021 5:11 pm

lilcliffy wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 19, 2021 2:05 pm

Not as stiff as the Combat Nato underfoot- this is not expected...

He said a 205 Sverdup isn't as stiff as the 210 combat nato. Can we assume that to mean one is less stiff?

I am sorry man, but I don't understand...

lilcliffy wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:46 pm

I am sorry man, but I don't understand...

You said the Sverdup is less stiff than the Combat Nato. Are we sure of that by comparing a 205 Sverdup to a 210 Combat Nato?

lilcliffy wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:44 pm

Yes we shall! I have a growing theory about these skis- I am going to wait to ponder on it more until a certain package arrives...

You blew your cover! Mine sometime in January.

This thread IS "WILDLY SPECULATIVE TALK" so have out with it-- what's the "growing theory?!" C'mon man!

Woodserson wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 19, 2021 9:13 pm

lilcliffy wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:44 pm

Yes we shall! I have a growing theory about these skis- I am going to wait to ponder on it more until a certain package arrives...

You blew your cover! Mine sometime in January.

This thread IS "WILDLY SPECULATIVE TALK" so have out with it-- what's the "growing theory?!" C'mon man!

Tomorrow I should be able to compare both in the store… so @Woodserson and
@lilcliffy sleep well while i try to »unconfuse » you

Honestly when I squeeze my Combat Nato together I'm surprised by how stiff they are.
I dont think I have a way of comparing stiffness accurately other than feel, which is neither precise nor accurate. So it's possible that my impression is incorrect.
I can measure the camber height, both without and with some fixed load. If we assume that the work required to compress a ski flat is a function of camber height and material rigidity, perhaps this gives some indication.

I don't think there is a consistent relationship between camber height and stiffness. I had a ski with very high camber yet it skied soft.

lowangle al wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 20, 2021 6:13 am

I don't think there is a consistent relationship between camber height and stiffness. I had a ski with very high camber yet it skied soft.

The Traverse 78 is like this compared to the Sbound 78. Higher camber but a softer ski.

New FT Explore 196 cm has arrived. The difference between this ski and my original FT in 189 cm is much like the color of the skis, black and white. There are significant differences. I have chores to finish, then I will see if I can be more quantitative than significantly different.
If I were Norwegian I would just say we tweeked the camber, taper, and wax pocket, no major changes!

John Dee wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 19, 2021 8:04 pm

lilcliffy wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:46 pm

I am sorry man, but I don't understand...

You said the Sverdup is less stiff than the Combat Nato. Are we sure of that by comparing a 205 Sverdup to a 210 Combat Nato?

Oh- well- don't know- longer BC-XC/XCD (Fjellskis) are not always stiffer underfoot than their shorter counterparts. A lot of longer Nordic touring skis are rated for heavier/taller skiers just because they are longer- have longer glide surfaces, larger load bearing surface area, longer effective edges and are more stable in deep snow and at speed.

I have four children, a large extended family, and many skiing friends of diverse sizes and ski preferences-
I have flexed many Nordic ski models of different lengths that are all of similar stiffness underfoot.
When you pressure a ski, your weight is distributed over the entire surface of the ski that is in contact with the snow.

I am sure that it takes more mass/weight/force to compress the camber of a 205 vs 195, but I am thinking that has more to do with the force being distributed over the surface area, as opposed to the 205 being actually stiffer than the 195...

For example, my 205cm Eons are not stiffer underfoot than our 165,175, 185, 195 models- but the 205 is faster, more stable and more supportive for me.

So- yes- a 200 vs 200 would be the best comparison, but I would be surprised if Asnes has tuned each model to the point that a 205cm Sverdrup is intentionally stiffer than a 195...
(these are not performance racing skis)

Don't know...we should ask Asnes!

Woodserson wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 19, 2021 9:13 pm

lilcliffy wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:44 pm

Yes we shall! I have a growing theory about these skis- I am going to wait to ponder on it more until a certain package arrives...

You blew your cover! Mine sometime in January.

This thread IS "WILDLY SPECULATIVE TALK" so have out with it-- what's the "growing theory?!" C'mon man!

Well, I have added old Roald to Helge, Aleksander, and the special-forces-ski-commando staring at me in my home office...

And, apparently Otto and his partner Fridtjof are on their way to join them...

(I also have received another live report from mon Quebecois-Canadien ami stroking and flexing all of them on the floor at the shop this afternoon (and the rumour is that Otto went home with le gars to the homestead...))

Well my growing theory is that-
Its really more of a perspective than a theory-

I think that each of these skis is an individual passion- a work- a work of passion-
Obviously they are manufactured by the same company, so the designers and skiers in the company are aware of the particular nature of each of theses skis-

But, I don't think the overlap between these skis concern that passionate research and design- each ski is an individual journey and process of design and skiing.

For a few years the overly logical-analytical part of my mind has been trying to sort these skis into descrete categories- each their own slice of a spectrum- but the niche of each of these skis does not fit neat and tight up against each other.

Take the FT62 and the Rabb 68-
When the first-gen FT62 and FT68 first came out I was logically perplexed-
what is the difference between these skis- why would one choose one over the other? As the design and testing of these two skis progresses it becomes clearer that there is a different work of passion at play with each of these skis- which makes them different, but by default- not intent- creates and maintains a lot of functional overlap between them.

So- my perspective is that each of these skis is the result of modern R&D steeped in ancient tradition and passion- a passion for skiing in the wilderness.

So despite the design-intent for each of these skis to be uniquely different, the passionate feedback of skiers to the designers results in much functional overlap between them.

On top of all of that, they are traditional, wood-cored skis- I am confident that each pair is a little different from the other in terms of stiffness, camber and flex, and would be best hand-selected by the skier.
..............

Regardless of all that crap I just wrote-

I have it from a reliable source (le gars/ le fermier) that:
- the Sverdrup has visibily less pronounces shovel-tip rocker than the Ingstad
- the Sverdrup has visibly much more pronounced underfoot camber than the Ingstad
- the Sverdup is signifcantly stiffer than the Ingstad underfoot
- the Sverdrup has a bit of a raised tail- compared to the Ingstad- was described to me as even a bit similar to the new FT62...

I am VERY excited about meeting Otto.