Asnes Ingstad/Nansen/Nato flex comparison

[Woodserson]

Starting a new thread which was born from this one: viewtopic.php?f=19&p=41229#p41229

I don't think that the Combat NATO ski has ever been updated.

Woods- you also have the current Ingstad- it would help to have that ski in comparison as well.

What I am interested is in the combination of flex pattern and stability in the tail of these Nordic touring skis.

Roelant's examination of the flex pattern of the mid-section and shovel of the Combat NATO and the Nansen is very revealing- the Nansen clearly has a "rounder" flex than the Combat- making it easier to pressure into a turn.
What I am wondering is what the tail flex of the Nansen is like...

The current Ingstad does not have a "round" flex- it is quite stiff and resistant over its length- maintaining stability in deep snow-
the rockered shovel clearly enables planing and turn intiation-
but the stiff tail of the Ingstad is not easy to pressure and smear-
(the tail of the Combat NATO is stiff and resistant as well)

What I am wondering is what the tail of the Nansen feels like under pressure...

Ok, well this was a fun diversion from things around here. Happy to oblige. I decided to take a page from Roelant's test with the clamps, and added index cards for a "card test" which we are all familiar with. I tried to take pictures sighting down the ski but the nuance just wasn't coming out, unfortunately.

Asnes Ingstad 205cm
Asnes Nansne 205cm
Asnes Combat Nato 200cm

Skis were placed shovel and tail on 3 inches of stacked pine. All clamp centers were positioned 75mm aft of pinline to accomodate for the different binding types. I clamped until bases closed under clamps, then slid the cards.

As you can see, big differences here. The Ingstad and the Nansen seemingly share the same tail dynamics, while the Ingstad retains good flat ahead of the binding. The Nansen goes into that banana shape people are always talking about, even without nordic rocker (like the Ingstad).

The Combat Nato holds on to the most contact area when flexed, and it can be surmised that it is the stiffest underfoot.

The distance of the contact point to the tail:

Combat Nato

Ingstad

Nansen

There's only 5mm difference between the Nansen and the Ingstad with the Nansen tail being a tad flexier.
The Nato is 28mm off from the Ingstad, but it's also 50mm shorter. So what does that mean? I don't know if it's clear to discount 25mm off the difference leaving it with 3mm stiffer than the Ingstad, but maybe?

[Woodserson]

I wish I had an OTTO to compare these with! I am hoping to see a bit more forward than the Ingstad, forward of the snake bite, like Nato. But with rocker up front. Should be very interesting.

Now one thing, Gareth is you asked for "feel" which is terribly subjective and prone to big ass arguments but I am going say, from my hand flexing, with my hands in the same spot on the skis, that the Ingstad and Nansen are indistinguishable and the Nato is slightly stiffer.

[Johnny]

Now one thing, Gareth is you asked for "feel" which is terribly subjective and prone to big ass arguments

Very nice test Skimeister Woods!!!

You right about subjectivity... For me when someone mentions "Feel", I tend to think about boys festivals, beer-drinking, monomarks, broken skis and double planting... Not exactly my personal definition of feel...

I am going say, from my hand flexing, with my hands in the same spot on the skis, that the Ingstad and Nansen are indistinguishable and the Nato is slightly stiffer.

Very good answer!

I can confirm that both Ingstad and Nansen tails flex are indistinguishable. Well, almost because I can subjectively feel an almost-indistinguishable difference, the Nansen being almost-indistinguishably softer... But not because of a different design, but probably because of the 8mm width difference... And in the case we could really prove with a scientific arsenal that there exists an almost-indistinguishable difference, the difference would not change a thing at all on snow... Width does make a difference in the tails here, but not flex...

Keep talking!
Only 2.7 months to go!

[lilcliffy]

Very, very cool.
Thank you Master Woods!

I would siggest that Johnny is correct- the subtle flex difference in the Nansen is likely due to the greater width- more wood.

The stiffness through the midsection of the Combat Nato is very pronounced compared to the Nansen/Ingstad-
and this is even without the NNNBC binding plate-
(I have noticed- every time I have mounted them- that the NNNBC binding plate does stiffen up that section of the ski.)

The shovel of the Nansen is clearly softer and rounder than the other two- heck it bows clear to the bar line, despite the fact that there are three mounting screws forward of the contact point!!!

As an aside- the overall flex pattern of the Nansen is appears identical to the Karhu/Madshus XCDGT/Eon-
round-flexing shovel, resistance underfoot and relatively stiffer, more resistant tail (i.e. stiffer and more resistant than its shovel). However- the Nansen is clearly stiffer overall than the Eon (as its tail is as stiff as the Ingstad), but the flex pattern seems identical.

The relatively soft round-flexing shovel of the Nansen illustrates the tradional approach to improving turn initiation in a Nordic touring ski. The downside of this- especially coupled with significant sidecut- leads to instability when XC skiing in deep soft snow.

A rockered shovel changes everything. The shovel is already pre-bent. This enables the shovel to be stiffer and more stable- yet still be "bent" into a turn. With a stiffer more stable shovel the ski is more stable at speed and in deep soft snow. My point is that one can get away with a stiffer shovel on a rockered ski- yet still encourage turn intiation. (BTW- it doesn't appear to me that Fischer has figured this out...The Xtralite E99/E109 both have a very soft shovel plus ample rocker- a BAD combination in my opinion for a Nordic touring ski. I wonder what the shovels are like on their "new" Transnordic 66/82?)

On the other hand-
When XC skiing on consolidated snow and through the crust- the non-rockered shovel is an advantage-
- longer glide zone
- crust carving

HOWEVER- I wonder if the more effective kick zone underfoot on the Ingstad makes up for the shorter glide zone on consolidated snow? Perhaps the XC performance on consolidated snow is much the same in the end between the Nansen/Ingstad (i.e. tolerable for short distances, but nowhere near as efficient as the Gamme/Amundsen/E99).

Another question-
What is the flex like between the Nansen vs Ingstad- forward of that contact point in the photo?
Am I correct in assuming that the Nansen has a softer more flexible shovel overall than the Ingstad?

............
On the subject of the upcoming Sverdrup ski-
Crister describes it as being a more efficient XC ski than the Nansen (despite the Sverdrup having a rockered shovel)- yet still being as manageable (even "playful") downhill as the Nansen. IIRC, Crister suggests that the camber and resistance underfoot if the Sverdrup ski is closer to the Gamme/Amundsen than the Nansen...

So- if the Sverdrup is going to be a more efficient XC ski- yet still be as good downhill- surely, it will have a more flexible tail than the Nansen?
If so- I will like this combination very much. I do like to be able to schmear out of a turn when I want to- especially on consolidated snow- and I find the stiff tail of the Ingstad resists this (I know- I know- this is probably at least partly due to the fact that I am on a 205cm Ingstad (but I want the length in deep snow).)
If Asnes pulls all of this off- the one dimension that the Nansen should still outperform the Sverdrup is in breakable crust (due to the rockered shovel)...

Thanks again mon amis!
Gareth

[Woodserson]

HOWEVER- I wonder if the more effective kick zone underfoot on the Ingstad makes up for the shorter glide zone on consolidated snow? Perhaps the XC performance on consolidated snow is much the same in the end between the Nansen/Ingstad (i.e. tolerable for short distances, but nowhere near as efficient as the Gamme/Amundsen/E99).

I have found that on consolidated snow the Nansen is better. HOWEVER: I am on the longest length (205cm), and the recommendation for my weight is 195cm (plus or minus a size up or down). I am willing to bet that the 195 Nansen and the 195 Ingstad probably have the same glide on consolidated snow. Or close to it. I have both 205 Ingstad and Nansen and I think the Nansen is slightly faster. It's slower than the Gamme however. In UNconsolidated snow the Ingstad is as fast, maybe faster, and turning is much more stable.

Which is why the OTTO Sverdrup is so intriguing to me, with more camber and a 205 with rocker I'm hoping to get the performance of the Gamme with the stability of the Nansen, and maybe even more stability in turns due to the rocker.

Another question-
What is the flex like between the Nansen vs Ingstad- forward of that contact point in the photo?
Am I correct in assuming that the Nansen has a softer more flexible shovel overall than the Ingstad?

............

Surprisingly, it's about the same. I think the difference in flex between the two skis is actually in the central portion of the ski, snakebite position aft.

On the subject of the upcoming Sverdrup ski-
Crister describes it as being a more efficient XC ski than the Nansen (despite the Sverdrup having a rockered shovel)- yet still being as manageable (even "playful") downhill as the Nansen. IIRC, Crister suggests that the camber and resistance underfoot if the Sverdrup ski is closer to the Gamme/Amundsen than the Nansen...

So- if the Sverdrup is going to be a more efficient XC ski- yet still be as good downhill- surely, it will have a more flexible tail than the Nansen?
If so- I will like this combination very much. I do like to be able to schmear out of a turn when I want to- especially on consolidated snow- and I find the stiff tail of the Ingstad resists this (I know- I know- this is probably at least partly due to the fact that I am on a 205cm Ingstad (but I want the length in deep snow).)
If Asnes pulls all of this off- the one dimension that the Nansen should still outperform the Sverdrup is in breakable crust (due to the rockered shovel)...

Thanks again mon amis!
Gareth

I am willing to bet a good Belgian ale that the tail will be the same as the Nansen and Ingstad, and actually, I hope it is. I see this as a XC ski foremost and stability when traveling in unconsolidated snow is more important than schmearability.

The Nansen schmears better than the Ingstad. I think it's more of DIMENSIONAL thing than a flex thing when it comes to XC skis. It's only +2mm difference between waist-tail on the Ingstad but I think that matters. (Nansen 56-66, Ingstad 62-74)

In this same vein, the Rabb 68's tail has an aggressive flaring out which also resists schmearing. It also gets hung up on firm snow. Tuck the tails in a bit and the skier has options.

[lilcliffy]

I have found that on consolidated snow the Nansen is better. HOWEVER: I am on the longest length (205cm), and the recommendation for my weight is 195cm (plus or minus a size up or down). I am willing to bet that the 195 Nansen and the 195 Ingstad probably have the same glide on consolidated snow. Or close to it.

Do you mean that you think that the glide zone between the 195cm Nansen and the 205cm Ingstad is similar?

I have both 205 Ingstad and Nansen and I think the Nansen is slightly faster. It's slower than the Gamme however.

There are times when I get stuck on a snowmobile track for a few miles and wish that I could transform my Ingstad into a Gamme!!

In UNconsolidated snow the Ingstad is as fast, maybe faster, and turning is much more stable.

Yes. Makes sense.

Which is why the OTTO Sverdrup is so intriguing to me, with more camber and a 205 with rocker I'm hoping to get the performance of the Gamme with the stability of the Nansen, and maybe even more stability in turns due to the rocker.

It will be very interesting how this ski turns out and who and where skiers prefer the Sverdrup over the Nansen...The Sverdrup clearly intends to be an even more versatile ski than the Nansen- with better XC performance, and perhaps even better downhll performance. This is a very difficult thing to get just right.
For light skiers and/or inexperienced skiers I am thinking that selecting length is going to be a key to the success of the Sverdrup as an XCD ski. With the camber-stiffness of a Gamme/Amundsen underfoot the Sverdrup could be very difficult climbing hills and pressuring into turns if it is too long...I will have to ponder this myself if I decide to buy one...

Another question-
What is the flex like between the Nansen vs Ingstad- forward of that contact point in the photo?
Am I correct in assuming that the Nansen has a softer more flexible shovel overall than the Ingstad?

............

Surprisingly, it's about the same. I think the difference in flex between the two skis is actually in the central portion of the ski, snakebite position aft.

Interesting. Very interesting. So Asnes has managed to give the Nansen a rounder flex profile while still maintaining stability in the shovel- very interesting. (And- as an aside- VERY different than Fischer's approach with the current E99/E109- as well as Madshus' approach with the Glitt/Voss).

It continues to amaze me how different all of Asnes' Fjellski designs are! Passion man!

I am willing to bet a good Belgian ale that the tail will be the same as the Nansen and Ingstad, and actually, I hope it is. I see this as a XC ski foremost and stability when traveling in unconsolidated snow is more important than schmearability.

The Nansen schmears better than the Ingstad. I think it's more of DIMENSIONAL thing than a flex thing when it comes to XC skis. It's only +2mm difference between waist-tail on the Ingstad but I think that matters. (Nansen 56-66, Ingstad 62-74)

In this same vein, the Rabb 68's tail has an aggressive flaring out which also resists schmearing. It also gets hung up on firm snow. Tuck the tails in a bit and the skier has options.

Hmmm...Again I think that length selection is going to more critical with the Sverdrup than the Nansen...

Thanks again man!
Gareth

[Woodserson]

Do you mean that you think that the glide zone between the 195cm Nansen and the 205cm Ingstad is similar?

No, between the 195 and 195. I'm just off the charts in terms of weight vs ski length, so I'm making a hypothetical here. In my experience on the two 205's I've had there is a speed difference but if I got on the skis that were rated for my weight... I'm assuming they would maybe be very close to each other speed wise. I don't know, I'm guessing. I don't want people to look at Woodserson who is two lengths over recommended and then say, why so slow? when they get skis that are recommended at their length.

[fisheater]

I am considering a ski in this class. However my use for this ski is really just a small niche. I need a ski that can tour on consolidated, packed trails. I want a ski that I can bend on consolidated downhills. I can live with some wax drag, I believe going to klister and maintaining a rather small wax pocket will make wax drag more tolerable, and less of an issue over multiple layers of soft wax applied heel to tip. I believe a judiciously layer of klister properly applied to offer better grip on transformed snow. I also believe the klister to be thinner in one layer than 3 or four layers of wax I find I need to get grip in similar conditions. However a ski has to track! A couple of seasons on Gamme has ruined me!
I am of a different opinion than Gareth, or I am looking at Otto from a different perspective. Rocker requires 3D snow to be effective. An inch or two of 3D makes the Gamme rocker work. I get a little bow it the front of the ski, utilize a bit of rotation, and I turn. However I can’t really bend a Gamme, so really turning is still mostly accomplished by step turning. I believe Otto will suffer the same fate. If you buy the ski long enough to use that big effective wax pocket, you aren’t going to be able to bend that ski in a two footed Telemark turn. My belief is that you will just have a lot more rocker to surf cool turns. That is a lot of fun! I am looking for a ski I can engage edges under foot with both feet simultaneously. I know I really cannot do that on Gamme, not a real carve. I can’t see it happening on Otto.
I am back to seriously considering a Nansen in 205 for my 190 + lbs. I have a few weeks to think about it, Neptune does not have it in stock, and I’m not up to that 1rst class plane ticket from Europe, well not yet!
If there is soft snow, depending upon depth I am quite happy with the FT / Tindan combo I have. I don’t ride chairs, and my deep snow is infrequent enough that I don’t require a straight up deep snow touring ski. What I usually have is trail touring only conditions, Gamme handles that. For me deep and fresh is turns oriented. This touring for turns on consolidated snow is definitely a niche activity for me.