I was able to test the two back-to-back for some runs. This will just be some initial impressions. Let me start by saying that I have limited experience with other mountain-/downhill skis. My opinions are my own, you may feel different and your milage my vary. That said, I’ve skied XC track skiing actively for 20 years. I have good balance, technique, and endurance. I’m still new to the backcountry/downhill game, but I hope my experience can let me describe the differences in feel between the skis.
Upper ski: Falketind 62 188cm. Bottom ski: Rabb 68 188cm. Both with Rottefella Xplore binding
.So, the Falketind 62 (FT) and the Rabb 68 (R). Both 2022 models, tuned with the Rottefella Xplore system in mind. Let’s start by agreeing that, yes, the skis are different. The FT are better for kick and glide (K&G). The R are better downhill. But, in both cases the word “just” springs to mind. Just better at K&G. Just better at downhill. Ultimately, the skis feel and act very similar. This surprised me, as I expected the skis characteristics to be quite different.
The conditions were old, grainy, and wet snow on a sunny, mild day (+4C), also with some hardpacked, icy trails. I skied both pairs at 188cm length, which is the Åsnes recommended for my 186cm height (and, I’d assume, my 80kg in-shower-weight). I used my newly purchased Alfa Frees, with both the normal and the hard flexors.
Now, the first time I used the Xplore system I skied R at 180cm with the Alfas. The R felt too short, so I tested at 188cm this time around. However, contrary to last time I felt unstable on the back foot. The “tip-toed” feeling everyone was asking about was finally giving me a hard time. I was unable to fully control my back ski in the turns and ended up falling a lot. This frustrated me as I had been teleturning my XC track skis the day prior with success.
After some thought, I think it has to do with the fact that my technique has changed since last time I tried Xplore and Alfa Free. I got some valuable feedback from this forum that I should try to put down my front foot, and not tippy-toe in the turns, on my XC skis. I've changed to a XC boot with a softer sole and have picture proof that it makes a difference (picture 1 prior to me changing boot and technique, picture 2 post change).
Picture 1: Stiff sole XC boot, using the torsional stiff boot sole and cuff to drive the turn.
Picture 2: Softer sole XC boot, using the pressure of the forefoot to drive the turn
Also, I feel I’m much more in control of XC track skis now with more of the foot down in the turn. That said, the Alfa Frees sole are much stiffer than my current boots. They are like my old boots. So, with me relying more on having my forefoot down in the turn, the Alfa’s now felt way too stiff. I was not achieving either of the techniques above, I was somewhere in between having my toes down and not the whole forefoot. This made for a worse technique and control. However, once I understood what had happened I adjusted my technique back the way it was (picture 1), and I was once again feeling comfortable and in control of the skis with the Alfas. The skis are approx. 100g different, with FT being the lightest. I only noticed this doing herringbone or turning 180 degrees. At those times the FT felt lighter. For downhill, climbing or K&G I didn’t notice any difference during my short time (10km total / 5km on each pair).
I did think the FT being narrower (and, according to Åsnes with a more pronounced wax pocket) would make them go faster on the K&G sections. I could not verify this. Honestly, coming from groomed tracks and kick wax the skis both felt slow with a short skin (48mm). On K&G both pairs tracked well in the wet, grainy snow. On the icy trails, the metal edges of the R did not catch as easily. The skis would drift off when the slope was slanting sideways. The FT being narrower underfoot, the edge would catch effortlessly and track better. Not a huge problem, just a small difference in how the skis acted. I’d prefer the FT for K&G in hardpacked conditions, but in softer conditions the R felt just as suitable.
Speaking of metal edges, since the FT catching more effortlessly on icy, hardpacked snow you’d be right to assume the FT are better suited for those conditions. However, due to FT being softer in the tip (rocker), the front of the ski would lift and not stick to the surface. As a result, the skis felt shorter, and I did not think them to be designed for hardpacked snow. The skis felt too short in these situations --I then wished for the 196cm versions. The R however, are stiffer in the front (rocker), not bending upwards but sticking to the surface even on hardpacked snow. The edges on the R are harder to put down in the turns (the ski is 0.6cm wider underfoot), making me skid uncontrollably in varying conditions. Maybe a better technique (or a plastic boot setup) would solve this. Bottom line, none of the skis are good at icy conditions with the Xplore binding, but I’d prefer the R due to the added longitudinal stiffness.
In the downhills I expected to feel more secure on the R. Compared to the FT, I half expected to feel like I was skiing with training wheels on the R. This was not the case. I did not think I was skiing any differently between the pairs, they both performed well and let me do my business. In the flatter areas, the FT might slow down a tad more due to sinking more into the snow. The R might feel a bit more stable in the steeper parts, but only just. This is a huge bravo to the FT, they really skied like a downhill ski. The R might be better in drier, deeper conditions. They might be better on hardpacked snow with improved technique. On the soft, grainy snow the FT performed just as well. Initially I thought the lighter ski would feel more playful and easier to shift my weight on. Both skis felt playful and light. I still prefer the R for downhill since they might prove to be more of an all-round ski in demanding conditions. Last time, at 180cm the R felt surfy (then in dry powder), this was not the case on 188cm (and grainy, old snow).
But, what about the flexors I hear you ask! Did the hard flexor make any difference? Yes. In fact, it made K&G way worse for both skis. I'd probably get blisters on my toes if I'd ski many hours with these. The standard flexor is superior for K&G feeling. Going downhill? I'd say it might improve my turning over time, as I learn to take advantage of the added flex in my stiff Alfas. Maybe will the flexor allow me to ski with my current XC track ski technique. However, during my short testing I could not tell you that I felt better in control on one or the other. Bottom line, the hard flexor might help if you're able to adjust your technique to maximize the potential of the added stiffness / enabled flex of boot.
So, which pair of skis would I get for myself? I thought the 100g weight difference and better tracking on K&G would make me want the FT. They even ski so well downhill, I couldn’t go wrong with them. The R however impressed me also. They did not feel slower than the FT on K&G. They tracked almost as good. Rarely did I feel the 100g extra. Lastly, they felt stiffer on hardpacked snow downhill. If I wanted the K&G part to be optimized, I’d choose the FT. However, I’m skiing for the downhills. Today, the FT was brilliant downhill. In more demanding conditions I’d probably do well to choose the R? Speculation. I’m not sure as I haven’t been able to test. I do think I’d do perfectly fine with both pairs. What I’m left thinking is that the skis are remarkable either way. The mountain ski FT skis like a downhill ski. The downhill ski R track and glides like a mountain ski. Way to go Åsnes!
Happy skiing!
--Marius
