E89/99 195 or 200.

[John Dee]

BUT- with increasingly extreme winter temperature and precipitation fluctuations- I am dealing with more and more refrozen snow and breakable crust. It sounds like the Sverdrup is going to have significant tip-shovel rocker (i.e. like the Ingstad)- which SUCKS when breaking trail in breakable ice and crud.

That sounds true for this area, too. It's a reality that I'm trying not to think about. I'm not talking about climate doom, just snow conditions.

I haven't been very tuned into ski conditions in the long term. I think what's been happening more is that we have brown winters. We get 8-12 inches over a few days, and its gone in a week. The real slap in the face is how a lot of storms have been followed by warm fronts and rain almost immediately. Driving conditions have been really bad because of this.

Why do you think that the Ingstad is more the "perfect" ski than the TN66? Do you have a lot of deep cold snow and steep terrain that you want to tour in?

Its a combination of reading the complaints here, and my own uneducated impression of just how soft and rockered the front is. The rocker does go way back almost to the crown (I'm not quite sure how to measure it?), and the whole front is really easily flexed. I don't know exactly what that will translate to. On a very basic level. It seems like so much soft-flex counteracts what an xcski is supposed to be, a long straight thing to distribute weight, not a noodle. I also think that I enjoy feeling feedback from the front of the ski.

I know that they do some things great, but that is why I don't think they are the perfect backcountry ski.

[lilcliffy]

I haven't been very tuned into ski conditions in the long term. I think what's been happening more is that we have brown winters. We get 8-12 inches over a few days, and its gone in a week. The real slap in the face is how a lot of storms have been followed by warm fronts and rain almost immediately. Driving conditions have been really bad because of this.

Well, we are lucky enough here to have consistent stable base from late November to late April (often late October to early May). We are still getting lots of snow- in fact probably more actual snowfall- and the weather prediction is for more and more winter precipitation in my ecozone as the Century advances.
But, the weather and temperatures are increasingly vairable and at times extreme- so I want/need enough variation in my touring skis to enjoy it all- even the refrozen white concrete after a midwinter rain event, followed by -30C!!!!

Why do you think that the Ingstad is more the "perfect" ski than the TN66? Do you have a lot of deep cold snow and steep terrain that you want to tour in?

Its a combination of reading the complaints here, and my own uneducated impression of just how soft and rockered the front is. The rocker does go way back almost to the crown (I'm not quite sure how to measure it?), and the whole front is really easily flexed. I don't know exactly what that will translate to. On a very basic level. It seems like so much soft-flex counteracts what an xcski is supposed to be, a long straight thing to distribute weight, not a noodle. I also think that I enjoy feeling feedback from the front of the ski.

I know that they do some things great, but that is why I don't think they are the perfect backcountry ski.

10-4
I have barely used either of my E-99s since I got the Gamme 54. My Ingstad has also replaced my E109 Tour- though I do still use the E109 crown in the Spring- love it.

The supple flexible shovel does facilitate turn initiation- but is not necesary with a rockered shovel-tip.
The E99/E109 Xtralites are unstable in deep snow compared to the Gamme/Ingstad- and according to Woods and others- the Nansen has a stiff, stable shovel as well.

However- the reason I asked is that I do think that the Ingstad BC is an inefficient XC on consolidated snow. If I ever end up on a snowmobile track with my Ingstad, I always wish I could instantly transform them into a ski with less rocker. The Ingstad BC is my favourite XC ski,but not the one I use the most.

[John Dee]

If I ever end up on a snowmobile track with my Ingstad, I always wish I could instantly transform them into a ski with less rocker. The Ingstad BC is my favourite XC ski,but not the one I use the most.

I thought that camber, stiffness, and sidecut would be more important factors here? And that a reasonable amount of rocker wouldn't be too detrimental.

[Woodserson]

The Ingstad has a lot of pronounced rocker, so it's effectively a shorter ski on consolidated snow. It also has less camber/resistance underfoot than the Gamme or E99/66. In softer snow it's a different story.

The E99/TN66 is a good affordable ski that does a lot. If you want one ski and not break the bank this is a good ski to get. If you want to build a quiver with skis that are more targeted to specific conditions, then you can do that too. Just depends on what you want.

[John Dee]

So what does rocker do in soft snow? How does it help or not matter when moving forward?

[lilcliffy]

So what does rocker do in soft snow? How does it help or not matter when moving forward?

(Please forgive me if I am explaining things you aleady know)

XC skiing and climbing with tip-shovel rocker:
- Rocker does not improve trail-breaking efficiency at XC speeds.
- Rocker does encourage a ski to go up and over frozen unbreakable crud/debris (etc)- which is apparently a real issue in extreme Arctic touring- especially over the sheet ice.
- Rocker is TERRIBLE when breaking trail through breakable crust (the slight rocker combined with a stiff tip-shovel on the Gamme 54 is about as much as one can get away with)
- Rocker when combined with a soft-supple shovel, can make "pool-cover syndrome" super bad
- Rocker when combined with a soft-supple shovel+lots of sidecut, can make "pool-cover syndrome" EXTREME
- Rocker reduces the glide surface of a ski on consolidated snow- this can make the ski less efficient as well as make it unstable

Downhill skiing- with tip-shovel rocker:
- rocker encourage early-tip rise and planing
- rocker shortens the effective edge of a ski
- rocker can "move" the mounting point forwards on that shortened effective edge- facilitating turn intitiation

My limited experience is that even a slight tip rocker will encourage early-tip-rise and planing once you get up enough speed.

But no human can XC ski fast enough to get a ski to truly plane.

[Woodserson]

But no human can XC ski fast enough to get a ski to truly plane.

Unless going down a hill and then the ski behaves very nicely for turning down the hill. Gareth means in the context of actually XC skiing as in kick& glide

John, if it would help and your near the CT River Valley maybe we could meet up and I could bring some skis your thinking about and you can see them in the flesh. I'm not making any promises with my schedule but send me a PM if you're interested. No worries if not either.

[John Dee]

The Ingstad is a wide ski. So its slow as far as XC skis go, right? I'm not sure why I didn't realize that because I know they are a similar dimensions as the USGI skis. I suppose that I just kept seeing the Nansen and Ingstad being compared so much that I grouped them together.

[lilcliffy]

Hmmm...I don't think that I would describe the Ingstad as "wide"-

It is an inefficient XC on dense consolidated snow- not because of its width, but because of its very significant rocker (it is also not as cambered and resistant as other XC skis such as the E99/Gamme).

The Ingstad is a wonderfull efficient XC ski in deep soft snow due to its full-length stable flex.

[greatgt]

From my perspective the e99 can ski anything and cruises the BC easily.....Not only that but they produce an incredible feeling while flying down through Hardwoods....As I aged I purchased a set of 109's with rocker....Don't care for rocker one bit but they too can rip through the Hardwoods leaving beautiful tracks....Great skis....Thanks Fischer! TM