Asnes Falketind 62 Xplore vs Ingstad BC

[lilcliffy]

So- I kinda of almost did it- I almost bought a new Falketind 62 Xlplore (they were on sale this week)-

but I didn't buy them.

Why?
1) I already have the Ingstad BC- in two different lengths (205&185)- (actually five if you count all of the Ingstad/Tonjes in our family fleet 165, 175, 185, 195, 205).

2) I already have the 1st and 2nd gen Falketind 62 in 188cm.

3) Even for steep tight Nordic touring- I think I prefer my 185 Ingstad over the 188 Falketind...

Which leads me to the core question of this post/thread-

Why would one choose the Falketind 62 Xplore (FT62X) over the Ingstad BC?

With the redesign of the FT62X- and the many reports coming in that it is more tweaked towards XC skiing than the 1st/2nd-gen FT-
Why the FT62X and not the Ingstad BC?

[fisheater]

Deleted repost

[fisheater]

Hey Gareth! I hope all is well. I can tell you why I gambled on the FT X. I had two skis I was happy with, the Gamme 54 in 210 cm which I am very pleased with. I also have a Tindan 86 in 187 cm which is my plastic boot skiing ski. I know that really isn’t a class of ski, but it is the ski that isn’t over powered by my T4 or the opposite.
I wasn’t happy with the ski in the middle. The original FT didn’t cut it, although I never put the ski that I replaced with the FT on after the day the FT arrived. However the FT had shortcomings, it was a lot of fun downhill in 12” (30cm) of fresh, but no fun
touring in that fresh powder. The old FT had a limited window of really good.
I thought maybe Nansen, but Woods gave me honest answers and insights. I considered Ingstad, I don’t remember if I messaged you privately or not. You have written so much about the Ingstad. The bottom line is that the Ingstad is a double camber touring ski, I didn’t believe it would bend into a turn.
I wanted a ski that turned. I was fully prepared to be completely disappointed and take a loss on the FT X. I am very pleased instead. I am curious, do you prefer the 185 Ingstad because it tours far better in deep snow, or is also the stiffer Ingstad is also more reliable in changing snow conditions? I could see both. Would a 196 cm FT X tour faster than a 185 cm Ingstad? I will never know unless someone else reports.
From my reading of your reports, the Ingstad is a great deep snow touring ski that turns very well in deep snow.
The FT X is best XCD ski I have been on. It kicks and glides on consolidated bases and on soft bases. It’s fully supportive in deep snow at 196 cm and my 190 lbs plus gear. It tracks well on consolidated bases, but I'm sure it has to wander in really bad tracking conditions. I am most likely touring on Gamme’s in those conditions. It isn’t surfy like the original FT, but it will not get kicked around nearly as easily. As far as downhill performance, I believe the FT X is a powerful match to a leather boot and a neutrally active cable binding. If you are going to plastic boots go to a more powerful ski.
I wouldn’t want to sell you on an FT X, not that I could. I am just explaining how I came to the FT X.
I would also like to add that I’m not Mr. NNN-BC, although I can drop my knee on the Gamme in the right conditions. I don’t see getting the downhill performance out of the FT X with NNN-BC, that I get with the ST with the cable. I will be the first to admit that the cable is it’s own issue. Maybe the Xplore binding is the answer, but I am not sold yet.

[lilcliffy]

The bottom line is that the Ingstad is a double camber touring ski, I didn’t believe it would bend into a turn.

The Ingstad BC does indeeed have more resistance underfoot than the 1st/2nd-gen FT62- not sure how it compares to the FT62X- but the Ingstad BC is not a highly cambered ski and with the significant rocker it certainly planes and turns.

do you prefer the 185 Ingstad because it tours far better in deep snow, or is also the stiffer Ingstad is also more reliable in changing snow conditions? I could see both.

I find the stiffer flex of the 185 Ingstad more stable than the 188 FT62 in all conditions- both XC and downhill skiing.
The FT62- with its soft, round flex and rocker in both the shovel and tail definitely has a shorter turn radius than the Ingstad. In ideal snow conditions I love the FT62- but overall I find the Ingstad BC a better downhill ski.
Also- the FT62 is so narrow that in deep snow I find I need to get it up to warp speed in order for it to plane and surf.

Would a 196 cm FT X tour faster than a 185 cm Ingstad? I will never know unless someone else reports.

I bet a 195 Ingstad vs 196 FTX are very similar touring skis- based on your reports (i.e. the FTX is stable in deep snow).

The FT X is best XCD ski I have been on. It kicks and glides on consolidated bases

See- this is quite something- and suggests that the resistance underfoor must be damn similar to the Ingstad BC.
While I do find that the Ingstad is a better XC ski than the FT62 on consolidated snow- it still drives me nuts as it skis so short and wanders all over the place. If I am certain that I am going to need to charge down snowmobile track at the beginning/end of a deep snow tour, the non-rockered Combat NATO is so much better than the Ingstad, that I am more and more likely to take it over the Ingstad- despite how much more fun the Ingstad is on hills.

It’s fully supportive in deep snow at 196 cm and my 190 lbs plus gear.

This is totally different than the 1st/2nd-gen FT62 that bows like a banana.

It isn’t surfy like the original FT,

I only find the original FT surfy when-
a) I have it up to warp speed- or
b) I am on hero shallow soft snow over a consolidated base
In deep snow the 1st/2nd-gen FT is not surfy- not at anything less than warp speed.

I believe the FT X is a powerful match to a leather boot and a neutrally active cable binding. If you are going to plastic boots go to a more powerful ski.
I wouldn’t want to sell you on an FT X, not that I could. I am just explaining how I came to the FT X.
I would also like to add that I’m not Mr. NNN-BC, although I can drop my knee on the Gamme in the right conditions. I don’t see getting the downhill performance out of the FT X with NNN-BC, that I get with the ST with the cable. I will be the first to admit that the cable is it’s own issue. Maybe the Xplore binding is the answer, but I am not sold yet.

Hmmm...
I have no doubt that the FT62X is a very different ski than the FT62- I am just not sold on how/where I would use it over my beloved Ingstad.
Perhaps impossible to know without testing them back to back...

[Stephen]

Why would one choose the Falketind 62 Xplore (FT62X) over the Ingstad BC?

Interestingly, I was asking myself the same question two days ago — seriously.
I have the white/green version FT62 188 and Ingstad in 195, so could compare shape.
I had the thought that the Ingstad and the new FTX might be somewhat similar.
Same waist at 62.
No getting away from the fact that they are close enough to have real overlap in application.
Even at 205 on the Ingstad, I have had some smile-inducing days of XCD/XCd — it’s no slouch in that department.

As for differences, as has been said, the flex pattern is different.
The Ingstad has that cambered flat spot under foot, whereas the FTX, I’m guessing, has a smoother arc in the flex.
And the FTX has way more sidecut.
And I’m curious if the FTX is stiffer and more supportive in the shovel than the Ingstad.

In the end, maybe it comes down to the feel of the ski, the terrain and snow, and personal preference.
And how many skis one can ski and how much conditions will favor one ski over another.
So far, it seems no one has both an Ingstad and FTX for comparison.
@lilcliffy, you missed the leading edge opportunity!

[fisheater]

Hmmm...
I have no doubt that the FT62X is a very different ski than the FT62- I am just not sold on how/where I would use it over my beloved Ingstad.
Perhaps impossible to know without testing them back to back...

I think they similar, but different skis. If I was skiing with your group in NB Gareth, I would be on the Ingstad. It has to be a better touring ski as I am assuming it is thicker underfoot. If those can make a thin underfoot XCD ski like the FT X kick, they most certainly would make the Ingstad kick better, noticeably better. If I was hanging with your group I certainly wouldn’t want to put myself at that disadvantage. I would already be behind just because I don’t come from your terrain, snow conditions, and length of season.
However for me, and I know it might seem like blasphemy here, I don’t like lots of skis. I like a reliable tool on my feet. While equipment definitely makes a difference, skill overcomes minor differences in equipment every time. That being said I have a friend, ten years younger than me, who runs and mountain bikes, and is just in better shape then me. Gamme makes the difference over his Fischer cross country skis. I don’t know the model, but it’s quality gear, he’s a physician, he buys nice gear. So other than that exception to the rule, I personally prefer to keep to my smaller three ski quiver. If I lived in a different area, I may want more skis, but even then, I don’t know if I would want both Ingstad and FT X. Not to judge another man’s quiver, but from my view high up on the internet, I think my friend in New Brunswick would be much happier with a V-6 than the FT X

[lilcliffy]

Ha!
Yes- well- if I was not so busy in the winter- teaching; looking after my autistic son; farm chores- and could drop everything when the snow conditions are ideal- I would already own a V6!

I have no plans to buy the FTX- and for what I would use it for, I am already more than happy with what I have (i.e. shortish Ingstad; FT62; Storetind).

Without directly testing the FTX to the Ingstad back-to-back- ironically I think that the FTX might just actually make more sense for me over the Ingstad...

Let me explain-

(Again assuming that the stability of the updated FTX suits me)

I think that you are right- for me- just one steep and deep Nordic touring ski→ long Ingstad BC.

BUT- if one already has a long Combat NATO- then one might as well have a shorter Ingstad BC in order to ski tighter lines for tours that are focused on steep and tight terrain/cover...

And if one is reaching for a shortish Ingstad- and the FTX is stable- then the FTX is likely the better choice.

I have no immediate plans to find out- but if anyone out there ever ends up with both the Ingstad BC and the Falketind 62 Xplore- would love to hear your perspective on both!

[Stephen]

One thing I forgot to mention in my last post is that I did a calculation to compare the surface area of the Ingstad to the FTX. A 188 FTX has similar surface area as a 205 Ingstad, so if the shovel and tail of the FTX are as supportive as @fisheater says, then for deeper snow, it seems like the two skis would have similar support or “float.”

[lilcliffy]

One thing I forgot to mention in my last post is that I did a calculation to compare the surface area of the Ingstad to the FTX. A 188 FTX has similar surface area as a 205 Ingstad, so if the shovel and tail of the FTX are as supportive as @fisheater says, then for deeper snow, it seems like the two skis would have similar support or “float.”

While the arithmetic supports this- I have yet to find that it does in the real world.
And if the FTX has an open, tapered and rockered shovel and tail to facilitate turning it is not going to have the same support-over-length that the Ingstad BC does...
I personally dobut very much that a 188FTX has the same supportive surface area as a 205 Ingstad BC.
I would project that- at best- they are equivalent in this regard over length-
I would expect- at best- a 188 FTX has a similar supportive surface area to a 185 Ingstad in deep snow.
(As a comparison the 188 1st/2nd-gen FT62 sure does not.)

[Stephen]

One thing I forgot to mention in my last post is that I did a calculation to compare the surface area of the Ingstad to the FTX. A 188 FTX has similar surface area as a 205 Ingstad, so if the shovel and tail of the FTX are as supportive as @fisheater says, then for deeper snow, it seems like the two skis would have similar support or “float.”

While the arithmetic supports this- I have yet to find that it does in the real world.
And if the FTX has an open, tapered and rockered shovel and tail to facilitate turning it is not going to have the same support-over-length that the Ingstad BC does...
I personally dobut very much that a 188FTX has the same supportive surface area as a 205 Ingstad BC.
I would project that- at best- they are equivalent in this regard over length-
I would expect- at best- a 188 FTX has a similar supportive surface area to a 185 Ingstad in deep snow.
(As a comparison the 188 1st/2nd-gen FT62 sure does not.)

Hmm; interesting food for thought.

This is what I’m trying to figure out:
It seems like there is a logical break between skis like Gamme, Otto, Nansen, Ingstad and skis like FTX; Rabb, on up…
And it seems like as the skis get wider, the recommended length gets shorter.
But as the skis get shorter, they still have to support the same skier weight.
And often do that in looser, deeper snow than a narrow ski would get used in.

How should I be thinking about or understanding this?

It doesn’t seem like wider skies should be assumed to be less supportive than narrower skis, which seems like what @lilcliffy is saying, to some degree.
I’m not at all pushing back on Gareth’s post, just being curious.
And the real question is, if this ski is not as supportive as the Ingstad, how to size it?