Asnes Ingstad BC Sizing (second try)

[Kneedle Drop]

Hi,

I am new poster. Thought I had posted this question earlier in the day, but it looks like I did something wrong. Apologies if this ends up getting posted twice.

I am having difficulty deciding on the 195cm vs 205 cm Ingstad, which is on sale today at La Cordee. I have searched through previous posts and have surmised that there is a general preference for the 205 cm, but I am not sure of the height and weight of those who hold this view. I am 5'11" and 185 lbs, which Asnes says puts me on the 195 cm. I understand that the longer skis would be faster, but I am concerned that they will be difficult to ski downhill on mountain trails. I already have Altai Hoks (145), which are great in tight woods but very slow and not great tele skis.

Chris

[spopepro]

I am very close to your height and weight and I have the 195s. I think the choice comes down to flat vs downhill efficiency. Because I intended to ski some steeper stuff with them, I went a bit shorter. If I was primarily interested in touring efficiency I'd have gone with the 205. FWIW I prefer my downhill-oriented skis in the 185-195 range.

[lilcliffy]

Hello Kneedle Drop (like your username BTW!) and WELCOME!
You and I are of very close height and weight.

I am very close to your height and weight and I have the 195s. I think the choice comes down to flat vs downhill efficiency. Because I intended to ski some steeper stuff with them, I went a bit shorter. If I was primarily interested in touring efficiency I'd have gone with the 205. FWIW I prefer my downhill-oriented skis in the 185-195 range.

This↑ is sound perspective and advice-

However- having tried both the 195 and the 205 ( and the 175, 185)- I can say that I do not experience a noticeable "improvement" in downhill performance with the 195-
I do notice a marked improvement in XC and deep snow performance with the 205-
However- lighter skiers in our ski clan (including fit and skilled) have definitely found the 205 a bit too much to pressure downhill-

My limited experience- at your weight- if you are a fit and good skier- you will have no issue with the 205 downhill- and you will greatly appreciate the extra length and load-bearing surface area- especially if you are carrying any weight at all...

Let us know how you make out!
Gareth

[lilcliffy]

I will add that I did own the 195 and the 205 at one time- and I gave up the 195-
And I exclusively use this ski in steep tight (dense forest) terrain and deep snow.

[John Dee]

200 would be just right.

[John Dee]

Seriously, I'm not sure that its the right ski for you. I weight a lot less than you and I have the 195cm. Without a lot of time on them, I gravitate towards my Traverse 78s and Transnordic 66s (<7 inches snow) because they seem to glide more. However, the Ingstads are really good tele skis, and so I will take them with climbing skins when the snow isn't deep. This up down focus could probably be translated to a hilly place if I could wax them like my fischer xcrowns could climb.

So anyways, coming around full circle, I doubt you will find the 195cm to be a XC ski, your also the same height as me and I don't think Id want so tele on a 205cm ski.

[spopepro]

@lilcliffy is of course correct—and a better source than I am since I’ve not been on the 205s.

But I think I should be more precise when I say steep, since we all have different definitions. I wanted to be confident in holding an edge on a 30deg slope. The 195 does that for me. If the target terrain is all 20deg or lower, go for the 205s.

[Kneedle Drop]

Thanks for all the great advice. I decided not to pull the trigger on the Ingstads. John Dee's comment about this possibly being the wrong ski for me tickled doubts that were already in my mind. Rather than replace my Hoks, I am looking to build my quiver in a way that complements them. I need to spend more the winter with my Hoks, pushing them to their limit, building a clearer picture of what is missing in this terrain and our conditions. I think I want two pairs, one that is very cross-country biased and one that is very downhill biased. Maybe the Ingstad is too inbetween. I am just not certain, so a 15% sale doesn't seem like enough of a discount to rush the decision.

I hope you are all getting snow in your parts. It was looking good here a week ago, but our two inches have since melted and frozen into cratered ice.

Chris

[Stephen]

Hi Chris, @Kneedle Drop, not sure if you have completely decided to hold off for now, or if you’re just not certain what ski would be the best match for what you’re looking for.
If you’re still wanting a ski besides the Hoks, maybe you can post a more detailed description of what you want to do with a different ski and you could get plenty of advice from the forum to help fine tune you selection.
It looks like La Cordee has a few other Asnes skis that might be a match, such as the Falketind 62, Combat NATO, Otto Sverdrup, and Nansen.
I am 6’3” 175# and have enjoyed the 205 Ingstad in a variety of conditions (but not breakable crust!).

I would love to visit Yellowknife sometime!

[lilcliffy]

Hi Chris @Kneedle Drop ,
I second Stephen's post above↑

It doesn't seem clear to me that the Ingstad is not the "right ski" for your skiing pusuit and context-

the Ingstad BC remains my favorite BC Nordic touring ski for deep soft snow and steep tight terrain- it is stable in deep soft snow; is a very good BC-XC ski deep soft snow; it's low camber makes it easy to pressure when climbing and turning; the rocker greatly facilitates planing and turning.

The Ingstad BC is a pretty terrible XC ski on dense-consolidated snow- and it's short effective edge makes it less stable downholl on dens-consolidated snow than a ski like the Nansen...

Regradless- the Ingstad- obviously- is completely different than the Hok.
As mentioned above- the Ingstad is quite different than the Fischer 78- but in the appropriate conditions, the Ingstad blows the 78 away. The Fischer TN 66 is completely different class of touring ski vs the Ingstad.
Gareth