2022 Falketind 62 Xplore 196 cm First Impressions

[Chriso]

Hello! Hoping for some advice on the falketind x from this thread.

First of, excuse my English for any misspelling, it is not my main language.

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.

My stats: 110kg, 181 cm. Ben skiing all my life, but no expert on teleskiing. I have a pair of Gamme on nnnbc I have ben using, the tip of one of the skies have splitt, but i think it's fixable. So I wil keep those for going on flat and hard packed snow. I allso have a randonee kit, but hardly use it due to the lack of deacent descents in my area (to much hassle for to little fun)

Looking for a ski that wil work well on anything but hardpacked and ice. I have concidered falketind x, Rabb and ingstad as moust suited for my use, but the falketind looks moust apeeling to me. Now I wonder what length would be best for me. The charts say 180 cm, but I am afraid my weight wil compress to hard on the wax pocket. Allso if I get a longer ski will I notice better k&g? And wil a longer ski be much more difficult to handle for my basic skills? Am I better of getting an ingstad with more tension or even just go Rabb for more support on loose snow?

I see alot of you are not as heavy as me, but a bit longer tho, are going 188 or 196.

Anyone with experience on any of these skis have any pointers for me?

[The GCW]

Here’s some thoughts.

Best: Since You are in Norway, it may be possible to test the skis on a weight board. Do that!

I AM the new proud owner of a pair of 172 cm Åsnes Falktind 62X. Only out 4 times so not ready to speak much about performance, however, in testing for size, this is what I found.

With help by a person who knew about such things, On the weight board or what ever that thing is called, it was pretty clear:
The 180 cm would have had a very small wax pocket and that would have negatively effected ascending.
The 172 cm had a good wax pocket and it’s the size recommended by Åsnes and I want to use them for descending.

(I tested skis without the pack on)

-Not descending very steep terrain but I want something more comfortable & even easier to turn than My 180 cm Gamme’s or 195 Nansen’s when on steeper spooky skinny ski terrain. -More UP & down than mellow. & hopefully on flakey stuff rather than hard packed or worse conditions. & I want to ease into making tele turns…

If it’s very steep, I use alpine skis as I don’t know much about telemark skiing but I’m good at steeps on alpine skis so I’m unlikely to expand that in honest steep terrain.

Me: 135 lbs = 61.2 kg / with 8 lb pack = 64.8 kg. & 173 cm = 5’8”.

[telerat]

Thanks @The GCW I am curious on your Falketind wax pocket observations; Did the 180 cm length have a smaller or larger wax pocket than the 172 cm?

I would expect the 180 cm version to be stiffer and thus have a larger wax pocket than the 172 cm. That would as you say make ascending harder, due to less grip, and would also make it harder to turn on descents. On the opposite side it would make the longer ski more stable at higher speed, give less striding resistance from wax or skins, as well as better support/float in loose snow.

Anyway, congratulations on nice skis. It sounds as you have chosen the correct length for your length, weight and use. My wife at 160cm has them in 164cm length and was very pleased after the first outing on spring snow last year, and they also seemed to work well on a short tour in deep snow this winter. I am 175cm and 72kg, and have chosen 180cm length. I look forward to mounting and trying them out, hopefully this weekend. Åsnes recommends 172 cm for body length 168-177 cm and 180 cm for 175-185 cm. I am not sure I agree and would rather put those length recommendations on Rabb and Nosi, but it depends on what you prefer. I have wider telemark skis for steeper tours, so this will cover more mellow tours.

[The GCW]

telerat,

I have it twisted around, however, when (testing) standing & compressing the 180 cm ski with both feet & alternatively with 1 foot, I would only have a small amount of grip for My weight.

So the 180 cm = bigger wax pocket with less grip.

[Chriso]

Thanks for the input guys It's right on the money about wax pocket issues. Only for me I fear it's the other way around. I think at my weight (110kg) I'd get god traction even on 210 Falketids if they existed. I do think the 180 would be best for me downhill, easier to turn and handle. They would allso be ideal for tight woods when I go hunting etc. My consern is with the k&g on flats. To smaal wax pocket for my weight. Would a 188 be any better on that point or would I still compress the wax pocket just as much as on a 180, thus gaining nothing on k&g but loosing out on handling and turning downhill. And if so am I better of just sticking to 180 or even go a totaly different ski, like the Ingstad who have a higher wax pocket? Kinda fallen for the FTx tho

I have contacted Åsnes on this consern, and they sugest to stick to 180 for my hight. A longer ski would be harder to handle they say. One of the Lokal dealers I have visited say the same,another one sugest 188 or even 196...

I gess my best option is to try find a way to test the different lengths on a weight board like @The GCW sugest.

[telerat]

@Chriso The wax pockets on most backcountry/mountain skis are quite low, and especially on a ski like Falketind. As you state you would probably compress both 180 and 188 cm, and I do not expect you would notice much of a difference in glide. Float. stability and turning radius would be the difference.

The question is what you prefer and prioritize; shorter turning radius and maneuverability in forested areas, or more float/support on looser snow and stability. Ingstad could also be good alternative with more efficient xc performance and less tendency to wander on packed snow. It has a higher tip that rises easier to the surface and it still has good turnability. Rabb would be an alternative with better downhill, but worse xc performance. An alternative with better float and xc performance could be Rossignol BC 100. Good luck.

You state that you have NNN-BC boots on your Gamme; which model is it and do you plan on using it with the Falketind? A more through discussion on the different ski alternatives and boots deserves its own thread in the main forum.

PS. I am curious on where you live. I live in Trondheim and have done the classical tours around here like Storhornet, Kråkvasstind and Roksdalskammen in Oppdal, as well as Trolltind, Fløtatind and Dronningkrona in Sunndalen, as well as others, on telemark equipment.

[tkarhu]

I had an oppurtunity to ski downhill in 30-70 cm powder with my new 2022 FTX’s. The skis are 196 cm, for my 83 kg weight. I also skied some XC on my way back, it was a nice and sunny blue wax day

On a 10°slope, the FTX’s worked well, when there was about 50 cm or less powder. In 70 cm of soft snow, the skis started to collect a pile of snow in front of my ankles. The snow piles cut speed so that I needed to ski XC down the slope.

On a 15+° slope, you could still turn the skis in 70 cm powder. In the conditions, the FTX’s worked alright.

I then skied about 10 km XC back from the hill. I was averaging 7 km/h. I was skiing between XC tracks, where there was about 5 cm soft snow on a groomed ground. I skied at same pace with slower classic track skiers.

The FTX’s tracked well on the soft ground, but swam a little around on a harder and mushy skate track. On the uneven skate track, the skis wanted to turn like alpine skis on a groomed piste.

[fisheater]

I am about 175 cm, 86 kg. I ski a 196 cm Falketind X. I find it supportive in deep snow, offers acceptable kick and glide, and is very maneuverable downhill.
Coming from ancient times, I skied downhill at the resort on 205 cm for many years. While shorter skis are more maneuverable, a 196 cm Falketind X is pretty nimble.
The reason I have the Falketind is to tour, and to turn. The Falketind does both quite well. I ski it at 196 cm, I don’t think it would tour as well at 188, but I don’t think I would turn the 188 cm noticeably easier. The 180 cm would definitely be noticeably less efficient touring, and that less efficient touring might also translate to turning downhill.
Perhaps if you want to ski short, you should consider the Rabb? It would be a bit wider, and would be a bit more supportive shorter.

[lilcliffy]

Hello! Hoping for some advice on the falketind x from this thread.

First of, excuse my English for any misspelling, it is not my main language.

Hello and welcome Chriso!
(My Welsh grandmother always said that my problem was that my first language was english (and not Welsh))

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.

Sounds wonderful!!

My stats: 110kg, 181 cm. Ben skiing all my life, but no expert on teleskiing. I have a pair of Gamme on nnnbc I have ben using, the tip of one of the skies have splitt, but i think it's fixable. So I wil keep those for going on flat and hard packed snow.

Curious- what length Gamme 54 do you have- and are you happy with it? Do you find it stable in deep snow?

Looking for a ski that wil work well on anything but hardpacked and ice. I have concidered falketind x, Rabb and ingstad as moust suited for my use, but the falketind looks moust apeeling to me. Now I wonder what length would be best for me. The charts say 180 cm, but I am afraid my weight wil compress to hard on the wax pocket.

The Falketind and the Rabb have a low-profile single downhill camber- they do not have a wax pocket.
The Ingstad has both a slightly higher and stiffer camber underfoot.

Allso if I get a longer ski will I notice better k&g?

At your weight, the longer ski (196) will be significantly more stable in all conditions- including XC and downhill skiing.

And wil a longer ski be much more difficult to handle for my basic skills?

The Falketind is very light. It has rocker and taper in both the shovel and the tail. It "skis short" as it has a short effective edge for its length. The Falketind is light, nimble, highly manoverable and very easy to turn.

Am I better of getting an ingstad with more tension

The Ingstad is a more efficient XC ski- especially when breaking trail in deep snow. The Ingstad is more directionally stable, but it has a much wider turn radius with a straight, stiff, flat tail.

or even just go Rabb for more support on loose snow?

The Rabb is definitely offerd more stability/flotation underfoot than the Falketind.
If you are leaning towards a shorter ski- I would definitely go with the Rabb at your weight.

I see alot of you are not as heavy as me, but a bit longer tho, are going 188 or 196.

I am 178cm and 84kg.
I have the current Falketind 62 Xplore in a 196.
I have the previous generation Falketind 62 in a 188.
I MUCH prefer the 196 Falketind 62 Xplore.
(I also have the current Rabb 68 in a 180.)

My current perspective is that if the Falketind has any performance advantages over the Rabb- it is a function of length.
A longer Falketind is going to offer more directional stability, and therefore is going to be more effective in XC mode.
I would not want a Falketind in a shorter length for this reason.

If one is considering a shortish Falketind for downhill performance, then I personally think that the Rabb is a better choice.

The redesigned Falketind 62 Xplore is sublime. It has a much more supportive and stable flex than the previous design. It is a decent XC ski in good conditions, and it is pure buttery smooth and wonderous downhill. Not only does it have superb early-tip-rise- the rockered and tapered tail is so buttery smooth!

At 110kg, the real question for me is whether even a 196 Falketind is going to offer you enough stability underfoot...
The Rabb is significantly wider...
A 196 Falketind objectively should offer more directional stability than a 188 Rabb- but, at 110kg will that be "outweighed" by the narrow Falketind bowing too much in deep snow?

[lilcliffy]

Here’s some thoughts.

Best: Since You are in Norway, it may be possible to test the skis on a weight board. Do that!

I AM the new proud owner of a pair of 172 cm Åsnes Falktind 62X. Only out 4 times so not ready to speak much about performance, however, in testing for size, this is what I found.

With help by a person who knew about such things, On the weight board or what ever that thing is called, it was pretty clear:
The 180 cm would have had a very small wax pocket and that would have negatively effected ascending.
The 172 cm had a good wax pocket and it’s the size recommended by Åsnes and I want to use them for descending.

Me: 135 lbs = 61.2 kg / with 8 lb pack = 64.8 kg. & 173 cm = 5’8”.

........
I am assuming that you mean that the 180 had a larger "wax pocket" than the 172?
.....
This is very interesting. At 61kg there is actually a "wax pocket" on a 180 FTX!
By "wax pocket", do you mean that the camber was not fully compressed on the 180, with your skis evenly weighted?
......
At 84kg there is zero "wax pocket" on my 196 FTX.

So- at 110kg I am not sure that a wax pocket test will reveal anything on a board test.
The OP weighs over 100lbs more!

Regardless- GCW's report above further supports that the redesigned Fallketind 62 Xplore is longitudinally stiffer than the previous generation-

Also- I am not convinced that this indicates that the FTX actually has a wax pocket- it may simply indicate that a very light skier may not be heavy enough to evenly compress the camber on a longer ski.