Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

Looking for opinions, I am at decision paralysis here.

Replacing an old set of Atomic Rainers that are 170ish. They were cheap at a ski swap years ago and have now served their useful life. The scales are an icing nightmare on anything but fresh dry powder. No amount of scraping/brushing/waxing has brought them back. I also have broken the sole of my SNS BC boots and these skis are not worth the effort to mount 75mm bindings.

Skier: 6' 0, 175 pounds - shorter 2 - 4 hour trips so 10-20 pound pack, carrying water/snacks and emergency gear for myself and a young kid who is on a pair of DIY fishscaled Alpine skis and G-rex boots

Location: South Central AK (Kenai Peninsula), highly variable conditions, some years warm and wet, some years cold and powdery. This year we already have had 105+ inches of heavy powder in the last 3 weeks. Recent typical has been 100-150" for the season

Typically looking at multiple 100 - 400ft vertical changes as rolling ridges and hills. The steepest stuff we hit is 15-20 degrees as we are staying well out of avalanche terrain for now, again skiing with a younger child. But we like finding a decent slope/run and running laps for the turns we can get out of it.

Experience: I have been on nordic skis since I could walk, though cursed with spending my first 30 years of skiing in the Ohio flatlands. Been XCDing for 10 years now, along with plenty of in track classic and skate days. I would rate my tele skills as proficient at this point and getting lots better as alpine skiing greens with the little one proved boring engough I picked up some Synergys and a pair of Hammerheads on Gotmas last year. I will be skiing these with Ski March boots for now, though I am sure I will add a pair of 2 buckle plastics.

I have spent some time reading the reviews and I am thinking the 196 might be the better choice though most of the 196 reviews are from heavier skiers.

Do you want to prioritize hill climbing and turning, or speed and distance?

That would be the defining factor, I think at 175lbs + a backpack. You could definitely go either way. If you were already thinking of an Ingstad, then I think you are prioritizing Kick & Glide and going the distance rather than turning, so I would go 196.

I think the 196 would give you the benefits of both-- it would actually turn easier and with more grace than the Ingstad but still retain OK K+G with the new stiffer flex, and you wouldn't stuff the tip as easily. Also, more float for the deeper snow.

(Did you call Ragged Mountain Equipment if they have a 205 Ingstad? I saw one at least earlier this season. Specify wax/waxless when calling)

Thanks for the pointer to Ragged Mountain. Hadn't though of them in years. I used to get to the Whites 3 or 4 times a winter before I move up here.

After thinking it over, and seeing how messed up shipping rates are currently for lower 48 to AK, especially for over 2m long boxes. I went ahead and ordered a pair of 196cm FT62 from varuste (customs brokerage and duty will still beat domestic shipping). One of the big factors is the snow is not consolidating into a base much at all. Still 5-6 feet of very loose powder all the way down. At least for this year, it is looking like float wins over k&g performance for ski selection. I have a pair of the Karhu 80s USGI surplus skis and also a couple pairs of the Asnes surplus so I have some other options. The Asnes USGI surplus are actually a nice k&g ski for our snow conditions.

perhaps its too late now, but as of this morning, rei lists the ingstad 205s in stock.

sounds like you will end up with some great skis in any event.