Replacing Madshus Epochs

[snow-mark]

Temptation is getting the best of me and I think I want a new set of skis. I can get various Asnes locally and am leaning that way but would consider other brands. I’m in Colorado, so I tend to ski dry powder. I would use these skis the way I use my Epochs - days with lots of up and down and (usually) a decent amount of fresh snow. I don’t tend to go chasing turns, but will do some tele turns when my downhill runs allow for it. I have Glittertinds and other skis for days on flatter terrain. I don’t plan on getting new boots so the new skis would be set up with 3pin and I’d use them with either Alaskas or Fischer BCX875s.

I don’t think I want to go any fatter than the Epochs and might even lean toward something skinnier. I always found the Epochs to be a little hard for tele with my boots.

I’ve read some of the threads about the Ingstad BC and the Falketind Xplor. Can I use the FT Xplor with 3pin? Any reason to lean one way or the other for my uses? Any other skis I should look at?

[jalp]

I can't speak of the FT X. I have only seen and flexed a pair once in a shop. I can however offer my brief apples to apples comparison of the Epoch and Ingstad.

Ingstad takes it for distance tours with turns. Fast and supportive in deep soft snow. Initiates turns easily but I have to work to hold it in a turn. It kind of wants to pop out of, rather than lock into a turn for me but maybe it's my technique at fault. It is significantly stiffer than the Epoch. Tours beautifully in soft conditions.

Epoch (10th Mt. in my case) favors turns over distance touring. Noticeably softer and easier to bend into and hold in turns, but for the same reason, can be a chore to tour on in deep loose snow. Useless on hard/icy snow. Love this ski for turns on 20ish degree slopes with 4-6” fresh pow over firm base. A blast on spring corn.

IMO the Epoch and Ingstad are two different concepts intended for similar terrain yet different expectations. Each has it's place. I have both in 195cm and wouldn't want to be without either.

I wonder if FT X would be a decent balance between the touring characteristics of the Ingstad and the soft turnability of an Epoch.

[fisheater]

I have my FT Xplore mounted Rottefella Super Telemark with cable. I find the Rotte ST clamps onto my Alaska 75 much more securely than the Voile 3-pin. The Rotte cable is also laterally much more supportive. While I ski the Rotte ST with the tension just enough for the heel throw to clamp securely (barely snap), it isn’t the same as skiing without the cable. Pointing the skis downhill the cable makes a very significant difference with the Alaska 75 boot.
I am thinking about putting Voile risers on the ski, for more seamless engagement of the cable. It makes sense because the Alaska 75 is such a nice boot to kick along with, and the cable makes a significant difference on the downhill. It just seems so silly to put a riser on a 62 mm underfoot ski.

[snow-mark]

I can't speak of the FT X. I have only seen and flexed a pair once in a shop. I can however offer my brief apples to apples comparison of the Epoch and Ingstad.

Ingstad takes it for distance tours with turns. Fast and supportive in deep soft snow. Initiates turns easily but I have to work to hold it in a turn. It kind of wants to pop out of, rather than lock into a turn for me but maybe it's my technique at fault. It is significantly stiffer than the Epoch. Tours beautifully in soft conditions.

Epoch (10th Mt. in my case) favors turns over distance touring. Noticeably softer and easier to bend into and hold in turns, but for the same reason, can be a chore to tour on in deep loose snow. Useless on hard/icy snow. Love this ski for turns on 20ish degree slopes with 4-6” fresh pow over firm base. A blast on spring corn.

IMO the Epoch and Ingstad are two different concepts intended for similar terrain yet different expectations. Each has it's place. I have both in 195cm and wouldn't want to be without either.

I wonder if FT X would be a decent balance between the touring characteristics of the Ingstad and the soft turnability of an Epoch.

Thanks. What binding and boot are you using with each ski?

[snow-mark]

I have my FT Xplore mounted Rottefella Super Telemark with cable. I find the Rotte ST clamps onto my Alaska 75 much more securely than the Voile 3-pin. The Rotte cable is also laterally much more supportive. While I ski the Rotte ST with the tension just enough for the heel throw to clamp securely (barely snap), it isn’t the same as skiing without the cable. Pointing the skis downhill the cable makes a very significant difference with the Alaska 75 boot.
I am thinking about putting Voile risers on the ski, for more seamless engagement of the cable. It makes sense because the Alaska 75 is such a nice boot to kick along with, and the cable makes a significant difference on the downhill. It just seems so silly to put a riser on a 62 mm underfoot ski.

I have the same problem with Voile 3pin and my Alaskas. I added anti-icing plates to take up a bit of the slack, but it’s a much better hold in my old Rottefellas.

I’ve seen your threads about the FTX. What are your tours like with them? How long and how much elevation gain is typical? How do they perform breaking trail?

[wabene]

I have my FT Xplore mounted Rottefella Super Telemark with cable. I find the Rotte ST clamps onto my Alaska 75 much more securely than the Voile 3-pin. The Rotte cable is also laterally much more supportive. While I ski the Rotte ST with the tension just enough for the heel throw to clamp securely (barely snap), it isn’t the same as skiing without the cable. Pointing the skis downhill the cable makes a very significant difference with the Alaska 75 boot.
I am thinking about putting Voile risers on the ski, for more seamless engagement of the cable. It makes sense because the Alaska 75 is such a nice boot to kick along with, and the cable makes a significant difference on the downhill. It just seems so silly to put a riser on a 62 mm underfoot ski.

I have the same problem with Voile 3pin and my Alaskas. I added anti-icing plates to take up a bit of the slack, but it’s a much better hold in my old Rottefellas.

I’ve seen your threads about the FTX. What are your tours like with them? How long and how much elevation gain is typical? How do they perform breaking trail?

It's a bit of work, but if you want to use what you have you could glue a shim on the duckbill. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5106#p50981
The Alaska is too narrow in the forefoot for me, but if it was my main boot, I would probably go with the Super Tele bindings. All of my boots have thick duckbills except the lightweight Merrill experiment in that linked thread. I haven't used them yet and @jalp said when he tried a similar fix he noticed some delamination on the Alaska bill.

[fisheater]

My typical tours on the FT X around my house, and in my state of Michigan in the lower peninsula where I live, are rolling tours. A good elevation gain is a couple hundred feet, a foot of fresh is really nice. I think about taking the FT X out for near home tours when I get about 6” over a base. I have some fun turning laps I can make at that depth. If things are more consolidated I have more fun on rolling, twisty trails, skiing as fast as my older body is capable on my Gamme. My Gamme is my most used ski.
I went down to Whitegrass in West Virginia last year. Fortunately all those years of driving thru Lake Superior lake effect at night made driving thru the Allegheny at night feel just like home! Elevation gain at Whitegrass was 1100 feet. I broke a lot of trail on my first trip up, but made touring friends right away. The trails are a very moderate uphill. Snow depth Day 1 was 16”-18” powder, Day 2 was 12” consolidating powder, Day 3 was above freezing. I skied trails on the way up, and the way down was a mix of trails and glades.
I have not skied the FT X in mank. The funkiest snow I skied was at Midwest Telefest last winter. It was powder that was wind buff with another foot or so of powder with wind buff on top. Hardly bad conditions at all, but two layers of wind buff didn’t kick the the FT X around.
For me the FT X offers the comfort of good touring in a leather boot. Coupled with the Rotte ST with cable binding I find the Alaska 75 to offer very powerful turning, although I sometimes have gone up to my Alico Ski March boot. I think if you need more downhill performance you would be better off with a plastic boot and a more powerful ski. Definitely beyond Annum/S-112 class

[lilcliffy]

Ingstad takes it for distance tours with turns. Fast and supportive in deep soft snow. Initiates turns easily but I have to work to hold it in a turn. It kind of wants to pop out of, rather than lock into a turn for me but maybe it's my technique at fault. It is significantly stiffer than the Epoch. Tours beautifully in soft conditions.

Epoch (10th Mt. in my case) favors turns over distance touring. Noticeably softer and easier to bend into and hold in turns, but for the same reason, can be a chore to tour on in deep loose snow. Useless on hard/icy snow. Love this ski for turns on 20ish degree slopes with 4-6” fresh pow over firm base. A blast on spring corn.

IMO the Epoch and Ingstad are two different concepts intended for similar terrain yet different expectations. Each has it's place. I have both in 195cm and wouldn't want to be without either.

This is a most excellent comparison between these two skis.

[lilcliffy]

@snow-mark
Considering the Ingstad BC or the Falketind 62 Xplore-
Are you into using grip wax?

[lilcliffy]

I’ve read some of the threads about the Ingstad BC and the Falketind Xplor. Can I use the FT Xplor with 3pin? Any reason to lean one way or the other for my uses? Any other skis I should look at?

3pin ideal on both the Ingstad and the FTX.

We have another thread active right now re Ingstad vs FTX.

Other "similar" skis?

"Similar" to Epoch:
Madshus M68
Madshus M78
Fischer S98
Fischer S112
Asnes Rabb 68

Similar to Ingstad BC:
Madshus M62
Fischer Transnordic 82

The current reports on the FTX suggest that its performance lies inbetween the two groups above.