2022 Falketind 62 Xplore 196 cm First Impressions

[Stephen]

Yeah, norther Rockies sounds good (generally drier, lighter snow).
With the longer ski length, more open lines will be easier.
Trying to learn, while not hitting trees, makes it tougher.
You could do the same thing on a 195 or 200cm Ingstad for example, and have maybe a bit more general use ski.
The FT X will probably not be your favorite ski in all conditions, and then you might look at something like a Gamme or Nansen.

EDIT: I see you have the Gamme — what length?
Do you have boots and binding picked out?
NNN BC would be fine for both the Gamme and FT X.
Otherwise, you’re into a second set of boots and another binding (like Xplore) for FT X.
I suppose you could use Xplore binding on Gamme, but seems overkill?

@fisheater, I hear what you’re saying about the Asnes chart, but I really think the chart takes into consideration weight by assuming that someone of a certain height will also fall within a certain weight range.
If one is heavier / stronger skier / has preference for longer skis, they will know that and can size up.
If one is lighter than typical / less strong skier / prefers lots of quick turns, they will know that and can size down.

[grizz_bait]

I ski a 200 cm Gamme with NNN-BC and Alaskas. Love that
combo. Was planning on mounting the FTs with NNN-BC
and using my Alaskas as well. I think my ideal quiver is Gamme, FT, and Ingstad or Combat NATO. A ski for distance, a ski for touring and turning, and a ski for distance in deep snow.

Most of the places I ski are open meadows, so avoiding trees isn’t too much of a concern.

[Stephen]

If the FT is the ski for turns and touring, you want to decide how much of each.
If you had a Gamme and an Ingstad, the FT might swing more towards turns (because the others cover touring pretty well), in which case the 188 FT might be nice.
@Nitram Tocrut said he went from 188 to 196 hoping for better touring, but didn’t really get much improvement, whereas, he lost some of the turn.
Just food for thought…

[fisheater]

@grizz_bait I respect a man with a strong will. I have an Alaska BC and an Alaska 75. Now this may sound a bit off, but I don’t think the Alaska BC is really a better XC boot. And I am starting to think that the Alaska BC is a better downhill boot. However for downhill hands down, no comparison, not even close, when I put the cables (hardwire) on my Rotte ST, the Alaska/FT X combo becomes very downhill competent. I put them on and took them off today, my ego wishes I could say I don’t need a cable, and while I may not need it the difference in control is night an day. While I can be powerful without the cable, the cable allows supple control that makes all the difference.
You’re young, and nothing makes better grizz bait than a beat up tender young skier on fresh spring corn. I think they have that on the menu at fancy grizzly bear restaurants!
Just kidding, like I said, I respect strong willed people. From my old man, becoming more humble as I need to use the restroom more often perspective. I’ll take the greater versatility of the ST with the cable. I’m happier ripping (a little) with my training wheels.

[fisheater]

If the FT is the ski for turns and touring, you want to decide how much of each.
If you had a Gamme and an Ingstad, the FT might swing more towards turns (because the others cover touring pretty well), in which case the 188 FT might be nice.
@Nitram Tocrut said he went from 188 to 196 hoping for better touring, but didn’t really get much improvement, whereas, he lost some of the turn.
Just food for thought…

The Xplore is a completely different ski. The longitudinal stiffness and the change in camber have made a complete change. While it certainly should not be the best XC ski in your quiver, it is the XC ski you take to tour for downhills.
Your advice is good, especially if you can handle turning a shorter ski easier and you get good kick and glide on a 200 cm Gamme.

[Nitram Tocrut]

If the FT is the ski for turns and touring, you want to decide how much of each.
If you had a Gamme and an Ingstad, the FT might swing more towards turns (because the others cover touring pretty well), in which case the 188 FT might be nice.
@Nitram Tocrut said he went from 188 to 196 hoping for better touring, but didn’t really get much improvement, whereas, he lost some of the turn.
Just food for thought…

Some precisions here… I just read that the OP terrain is open meadows in the Northern Rockies and trees are not a factor. In that case my comments are not really relevant then. I king of bought those skis dreaming of what they could do but in the end I dont have the terrain to meet its strength. Actually, I only took them out once this year and I might put them up for sale. I also own the previous generation Rabb and I will choose them over the FT62 when I go to my local bunny hill with an open meadow. The Rabb is more dh oriented and more stable so that is good for not that great telemark skills. But the major factor that relegated the FT is that I bought the Sverdrup… I am NOT suggesting you buy them but for the terrain I have access too they just blow out the FT out of the snow.
I really don’t want to mess up with your head, I just wanted to add those precisions. If you have access to dream FT62 snow conditions and open terrain then the 196 is most likely a wise choice. Finally, just by curiosity, can you be more specific about where you are located? I need to plan a ski trip there

[grizz_bait]

Nordic touring is a delightfully passé sport where I live. I’d prefer to keep it that way! Not that I ever see Nordic touring becoming popular in this modern world of faster, steeper, scarier. Against my better judgement, I have broadcasted my location on these forums, I’ve even declared the skiing in my area as world class. So where I live is in my post history if you’re interested in finding out. I’d be more than happy to show anyone from this small corner of the internet around though, don’t get me wrong.

[lilcliffy]

Bob's comments regarding the addition of the heel-"cable" on his Rotte ST binding are a clear example of the inherent flexibility and broad range of boot options available on the 3pin 75mm platform- which to me is its PRIMARY advantage.

For me, I never see myself wanting a more capable boot than my Alaska BC/Svartisen BC on a ski like the FT62-
If I want more boot than that- than I also want a wider more downhill ski than that.
I have NNNBC on my FT62.
I have 3-pin-cable on my Storetind.

This is simply my limited experience (and I have zero experience with the new FTX ski).

As for the other comments- both my experience- and the comparison tests I have read (e.g. UTE Magazine)- confirm that the BC versions of these boots (e.g. Alaska/Svartisen) have more stable, supportive soles.
I much prefer the Alaska BC over the Alaska 75.
But I do like to take my Storetind out with a soft leather boot on occasion- as well as my T4- therefore the 3PC binding.
Xplore may well prove to be the sweet-spot here...

And- I do agree with Bob (I know some claim that the "cable" makes no difference when downhill skiing with a soft leather boot)- I agree with Bob, my experience is that the heel cable makes a VERY significant difference downhill skiing. Personally, I would never buy a plain-jane 3pin binding without the heel cable.

[AdamA]

Hey Friends,

I'm probably going to be annoying asking this, but I figure I will. You all have way more experience than me, so why not before I spring for new skis.

I'm 6'5" and 220-260 (200 body weight with 20-60lbs in my pack). I regular Baxter State Park - which means 10+ mile days, fairly limited (>12") powder, to get to some good tree skiing.

I had my heart set on the 196s, but just wanted to double check with you all. Anyone have any ideas?

[grizz_bait]

I'm no expert, but if the 188 is the right size for me at 172#, I'd definitely go for the 196 in your case. If you only ski trees though, and they're very closely spaced, perhaps the 188 would be a better choice.