Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

Hello all!

I am looking at getting a new pair of skis for backcountry hiking and some summit descends. I live in mid Norway and the mountains ain't to steep here, moustly around 500 m descends. Not going on any expeditions, and moustly light packed on my trips. Longest I usualy go is 5-7 hour trips and on those trips I do mainly climb and descend.

I have posted on this topic in another tread, but to not pollute that tread further with my personal stuff i am starting this one. I have got a lot of answers, questions and suggestions from the thread below. Among many helpers are @lilcliffy , @fisheater @telerat and @The GCW i apritiate youre responce.

https://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic. ... &start=100

Quick info on me: 43 years old, 181 cm tall/short, 110 kg. Skill level in XCD is mediocre at best. Current gear Åsnes Gamme (200 cm) Rottefella BC Magnum and Alfa Quest Advanced. I also have pure xc skies, skate skies and alpine skies with tech bindings and plastic boots. I spend most of my free time at my cabin and my trips mainly starts from there. Ill post some pictures of the terrain further down.

Why do i want another ski? I find the Gamme to skinny for loose and deeper snow. They work fine on most of my short trips and on hard packed snow, but i want a pair of skis that better support my weight in softer, deeper snow both on trips in flat terrain and for summit climbing/descending. I would say i weight xc vs downhill attributes 50/50.

I have ben looking into Falketind 62 xplore, Ingstad and Rabb 68, all from Åsnes.
Planing to use Rottefella Xplore bindings and the Alfa Skaget on the new ski.

Main issue seems to be what length i should go for, shorter and wider ski vs longer and narrower. XCD vs XCD

Any experience on the subject are welcome

Keen to try my Falketind xplores in 196? You can, but i expect them to be returned in the condition they are in.

Your terrain near Trondheim looks wonderful to me! You also wouldn’t have difficulty returning my Falketind X in the same condition you received them, lots of on mountain stone grinding, lots of marks on the tails from short herringboning on those last steep bits.
On a serious note, I don’t think you would go wrong with a Rabb or a Falketind X.
Good looking family, they sure have a beautiful playground in the back yard!

That is a spectacular landscape in your photos Chriso!!!
You certainly have open terrain to ski in!!

Thank you for starting this thread-
There are MANY skiers out there in your weight range- I regularly ski with two men that are in your weight range.
Both of my sons are going to turn out much larger than me and will be well over 95kgs in shape!

Chriso wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 21, 2024 7:04 am

I am looking at getting a new pair of skis for backcountry hiking and some summit descends. I live in mid Norway and the mountains ain't to steep here, moustly around 500 m descends. Not going on any expeditions, and moustly light packed on my trips. Longest I usualy go is 5-7 hour trips and on those trips I do mainly climb and descend.

Quick info on me: 43 years old, 181 cm tall/short, 110 kg. Skill level in XCD is mediocre at best. Current gear Åsnes Gamme (200 cm) Rottefella BC Magnum and Alfa Quest Advanced.

BTW- keep your eyes out for a low price on a 208 Amundsen BC...

Why do i want another ski? I find the Gamme to skinny for loose and deeper snow. They work fine on most of my short trips and on hard packed snow, but i want a pair of skis that better support my weight in softer, deeper snow both on trips in flat terrain and for summit climbing/descending. I would say i weight xc vs downhill attributes 50/50.

I have ben looking into Falketind 62 xplore, Ingstad and Rabb 68, all from Åsnes.
Planing to use Rottefella Xplore bindings and the Alfa Skaget on the new ski.

The Skaget boot is wonderful- I am very impressed. The Skaget is well suited to the Falketind and the Rabb. (You could also go wider (eg Nosi 76)- but, that width underfoot will be too much underfoot for that boot in hard, icy snow.) With the Skaget, I wouldn't recommend going wider than the Rabb 68 for allround downhill skiing.

Main issue seems to be what length i should go for, shorter and wider ski vs longer and narrower. XCD vs XCD

With the "50/50" XC/D objective- objectively, a long Falketind 62 Xplore should be the right choice...
BUT- at your weight, I question whether the 62mm waist of the Falketind will give you the stability/float that you are looking for in deep/loose snow...
The extra width underfoot of the Rabb 68 does make a siginifcant difference...

Generally, the longer 196 Falketind will give you more directional stability than the 188 Rabb- BUT- at your weight- in truly deep soft snow, the extra width underfoot of the 188 Rabb is going to give you better stability/float.
I think it depends on which of the two above are more important in your local snow conditions.

Regardless- you want the longest length of either of these skis. And looking at the landscape you have to ski in (!!!) you have all the room in the world to turn them!!!

It would certainly be best for you to test these skis...
And unless you are like me and prepared to buy and test both (!!)- CwmRaider's offer for you to borrow his is pretty sweet!

With your 50/50 focus on xc and downhill I would look at check out CwmRaider's offer. If you find Falketind 196 supportive enough, but want a shorter ski go for Rabb in 188 cm. If it has a bit too little support, Rabb 196 cm might be a good alternative. Wider skis are an alternative for pure soft snow use, but suitable conditions will be fewer/less.

My brother in law and a friend of mine both has Ingstad, and use them for a mix of xc and downhill. It should be a more efficient xc ski if you find the Falketind a bit slow. It is the waist width together with ski stiffness that determines float, so ignore tip/tail width a bit. A larger side-cut is fun for turning though, so good luck whatever you decide.

CwmRaider wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 21, 2024 8:29 am

Keen to try my Falketind xplores in 196? You can, but i expect them to be returned in the condition they are in.

I might just take you up on this offer

fisheater wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 21, 2024 9:18 am

I don’t think you would go wrong with a Rabb or a Falketind X.
Good looking family, they sure have a beautiful playground in the back yard!

Thank you, we do enjoy our time at the cabin

lilcliffy wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 21, 2024 12:44 pm

BTW- keep your eyes out for a low price on a 208 Amundsen BC...

I take it, this being an expedition ski, thus having more stiffness, would suit my hefty wight better? Even tho i have no plan on crossing Greenland anytime soon

The Skaget boot is wonderful- I am very impressed. The Skaget is well suited to the Falketind and the Rabb. (You could also go wider (eg Nosi 76)- but, that width underfoot will be too much underfoot for that boot in hard, icy snow.) With the Skaget, I wouldn't recommend going wider than the Rabb 68 for allround downhill skiing.

Yes the Skaget seems like a good boot, i like the price tag on it as well. To me it seems more supportive than the Vista. I am actually sitting here testing sizes on the Skaget right now. How much movement in the heel should i allow for when testing just walking in the living room? I was set on 43, but now they seem a bit tight with double socks on... 44 tho slipp a bit in the heel part.

The Nosi 76 i think would be to much downwardsoriented for me.

Generally, the longer 196 Falketind will give you more directional stability than the 188 Rabb- BUT- at your weight- in truly deep soft snow, the extra width underfoot of the 188 Rabb is going to give you better stability/float.
I think it depends on which of the two above are more important in your local snow conditions.

I think there will be more days where I benefit from the directional stability over deep snow characteristics. Besides, if its powder heaven, i do have a pair of K2 Coomback laying around

telerat wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 21, 2024 5:44 pm

My brother in law and a friend of mine both has Ingstad, and use them for a mix of xc and downhill. It should be a more efficient xc ski if you find the Falketind a bit slow. It is the waist width together with ski stiffness that determines float, so ignore tip/tail width a bit. A larger side-cut is fun for turning though, so good luck whatever you decide.

Thank you! I have truly considered the Ingstad. I am buying a pair in 185 for my wife this week. Excited to see how she likes them. She have ben on Cecilie BC until now, but not to happy with those.

Chriso wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 21, 2024 6:42 pm

lilcliffy wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 21, 2024 12:44 pm

BTW- keep your eyes out for a low price on a 208 Amundsen BC...

I take it, this being an expedition ski, thus having more stiffness, would suit my hefty wight better? Even tho i have no plan on crossing Greenland anytime soon

If you like the 200 Gamme on your more gentle tours-
a 208 Amundsen (57mm underfoot and no rocker) will blow you away.

Yes the Skaget seems like a good boot, i like the price tag on it as well. To me it seems more supportive than the Vista. I am actually sitting here testing sizes on the Skaget right now. How much movement in the heel should i allow for when testing just walking in the living room? I was set on 43, but now they seem a bit tight with double socks on... 44 tho slipp a bit in the heel part.

The Skaget is definitely more supportive than the Vista.
The Skaget should stretch and conform to your foot-
it has no interior shell liner.

I think there will be more days where I benefit from the directional stability over deep snow characteristics.

This is important for you to keep clear in your mind- will help you make a decision.
Regardless- I don't really think anyone should be thinking of the FTX as a ski for truly deep snow- it is only 62mm underfoot!!!!

Thank you! I have truly considered the Ingstad. I am buying a pair in 185 for my wife this week. Excited to see how she likes them. She have ben on Cecilie BC until now, but not to happy with those.

My wife has the 185 Tonje (Ingstad)- loves it- my daugher has the 165 Tonje.
Curious- why is your wife unhappy with the Cecile (Nansen) ski?

lilcliffy wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 21, 2024 7:10 pm

Curious- why is your wife unhappy with the Cecile (Nansen) ski?

My wife was used to mostly prepared tracks for skiing before she met me. She also competed on a national level in cross-country skiing in her younger days. I gess her experience with skis that do have much better glide abilities made the experience with mountain skis a bit harsh, so I am not saying that the Cecilie is at fault Also she is on 180s in Cecilie, perhaps a bit short for her wight. I do belive the Cecilie is a bit softer than the Nansen, at least back in the days when she bought it. She feels the ski is to slow on hard packed and to little support/float in deeper snow. Rather than going for a stiffer ski she now wants to try one with better abilities for deeper snow and downhill. She needs a new ski anyways as her Cecilies got damaged. Also she needs new boots due to cold feet She is also testing Skaget.

Good to hear your girls are happy with Tonje/Ingstad

I think Alfa Skaget is a very good boot. See also the review for my experience:
https://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=6448
I find my Skaget plenty warm and would probably go with the smaller size, but that depends on how easily you freeze. My wife switched from too small Alpina Alaska 75mm to Skaget last spring and they seems both to fit her well, as well as being warm enough even though she freezes easily.

My wife also has a pair of Cecilie, which we are trying to sell now. She found them slow and dead, and much prefer her old Fischer E99 as well as a pair of well used Åsnes Rago waxless for when the snow is thin. The E99 seems almost too good to be true, with the soft tip and tail that makes turning effortless as well as following the terrain well, while the stiff middle gives support and kick and glide properties. It also fits prepared tracks decently. We will see if Tonje/Ingstad is in the future for her and me as a ski for covering distances in looser snow, but we have both just bought Falketind 62 XP and will check it out first.

@Chriso @telerat
Yes- agree- the Cecile/Nansen ski is essentially a single-cambered ski with a round flex-
this ski does not have the stiffness and resistance underfoot to offer true kick & glide performance- especially on hard, consolidated snow (that flex pattern does make them a good downhill ski though...)

@Chriso Will be interested in what your wife thinks of the Ingstad/Tonje ski (compared to the Cecile).