Ski Review: 2018-2019 Åsnes Ingstad BC

[Petetheswede]

Nicely put and uncomplicated. Thank you!

[Nitram Tocrut]

Sizing skis seems very complicated to me... I wonder what are the height and weight of your friend with the 195 cm and what about you on your 205?

Me: 185 lbs on 205cm.
My friend: 160lbs on 195cm.

I am actually around 205lbs and aiming for 200... I was almost at 220 after New Year's eve. I actually tried the Ingstad 195cm in the store and the wax pocket was fine. I am sure I would have a better glide with the 205 but I would prefer a shorter size as I like to make my own trail in our not so clean forest and shorter skis are better for that.

By the way, I am not in a rush to buy a pair this winter... I am doing early shopping


But- here is the thing...If one ones a E99/Gamme 54 class ski AND an Ingstad BC- then the Combat Nato becomes somewhat redundant....

I can't remember what you already have in your quiver? Whether the Combat Nato or the Ingstad BC is a better choice somewhat depends on what you already have...

I actually own 2 pairs of Europa 99 (I keep calling them Europa 99 instead of E99 because I guess they are pretty old version of the E99 and, I guess, pretty different in term of technical characteristics ). One is 210 cm mounted on a Voile 3 pin with optional cables and the other are 220 mounted on a Salomon bindings (I forgot which specific type), that I used in groomed trails when the metal edge can make a difference in tight downhill and harder snow when it would be "suicidal" to use my skinny Salomon Equipe 8. Finally I have a pair of Alpina's 102 that I recently bought and with which I have love/hate relationship especially because they are so short and so slow when skiing on not even that hard snow. It is a really good ski, no question about that, but I will probably end up selling them because they are too short. They would better fit someone around 185lbs maximum... anyone interested

From what I read from you it seems like I would be better off with the Ingstad as I already own E99. Like I said there is no rush and I will keep reading, and hopefully trying, before committing myself to new skis... or maybe my disease "I want new skis", very common of participants in this Forum , will cure by itself

Speaking of trying before buying, I should take a ride east to New Brunswick and try some of your skis in your quiver. It's only about an 8 hours drive from home, it's closer than the Chic-Choc... I will go this weekend

[Cannatonic]

One is 210 cm mounted on a Voile 3 pin with optional cables and the other are 220 mounted on a Salomon bindings (I forgot which specific type), that I used in groomed trails when the metal edge can make a difference in tight downhill and harder snow when it would be "suicidal" to use my skinny Salomon Equipe 8. )

this is the crux of ski sizing - it comes down to your age. Those that grew up in certain era have different standards. My parents still have the typical XC skis in the basement given to newbies from the early 80's - Trak 215 for the man, 205's for the lady. To me having XC-type skis in less than 210cm is silly. Younger people get very nervous with any ski over 200cm! seems to produce a lot of angst. In the 90's I was on alpine skis of 207,213, 215cm in length for lift-serving skiing.

The Asnes website says I should have Mountain Tour 51's in a 195cm? that's crazy talk! The 210's are perfect. People over 200 pounds are SOL nowadays, they're never going to find a ski that glides well.

[Nitram Tocrut]

this is the crux of ski sizing - it comes down to your age. Those that grew up in certain era have different standards. My parents still have the typical XC skis in the basement given to newbies from the early 80's - Trak 215 for the man, 205's for the lady. To me having XC-type skis in less than 210cm is silly. Younger people get very nervous with any ski over 200cm! seems to produce a lot of angst. In the 90's I was on alpine skis of 207,213, 215cm in length for lift-serving skiing.

I am 51 years and I grew up skiing on long skis and we would do lot of crazy things on them in very narrow trail down the hills in the forest with my friends. We would make jumps and do some "Big Air" with skinny XC skis... we had our own X-Games We had no helmets or any other security devices... and our parents did not care , they were just happy we were playing outside the house.

The Asnes website says I should have Mountain Tour 51's in a 195cm? that's crazy talk! The 210's are perfect. People over 200 pounds are SOL nowadays, they're never going to find a ski that glides well.[/quote]

Well I guess I still have to lose weight then For the Ingstad, I kind of fall between the 195 and 205 depending if I use my weight or my height as a measurement... I really need to visit Gareth so I can try his skis and his friend skis as well

[lilcliffy]

With the E99s in your quiver- the Ingstad BC would give you a XC ski that is much more capable downhill. If downhill performance is more important than XC performance on a wide range of snow- Ingstad BC.

A Combat Nato will give you more stability than the E99- but it isn't that great of a difference really. The E99 and the Combat Nato are similar in scope really. The E99 being more cambered and faster. The Combat Nato being less cambered- slower, but more stable on steep terrain. But- again- they are both designed to be highly-versatile BC-XC skis.

The Ingstad BC ha a much narrower focus- XC ski for steep terrain.

On the subject of XC ski length-
I really don't get the point of going short on a XC ski.
I sold a brand-new 195cm Ingstad BC in order to free up the cash when given the chance to get the 205cm.
What is the point of losing all of that glide and stability to get a teeny-weeny bit shorter turn radius?
I don't even consider turn-radius in a ski intended to crush miles. No one is making short-radius linked turns on distance-oriented XC skis (I know- I know- skiers are with short XC skis- doing "XCD" from a downhill perspective).

Certainly, if you are light enough- take the shorter ski.

What I can tell you is that I am 5'10" and 185lbs without a pack- I would not want an Ingstad BC shorter than 205cm unless it was PURELY for downhill skiing. And if it was PURELY for downhill skiing- I would rather have a FT62 over an Ingstad BC!

[Cannatonic]

going shorter on a wider, more turny ski like the Ingstad/NATO makes more sense to me - I'm happy with the NATO's in 200cm, I appreciate the ease of turning. I would have chosen 205 if given the chance. 210's would be a world of difference, floating high in deep snow and gliding like an XC ski, but a lot more ski to get turning as well.

thinking I'd love to get me some of those new fishscale Ingstads in 205's! That would be very cool.

[Nitram Tocrut]

With the E99s in your quiver- the Ingstad BC would give you a XC ski that is much more capable downhill. If downhill performance is more important than XC performance on a wide range of snow- Ingstad BC.

A Combat Nato will give you more stability than the E99- but it isn't that great of a difference really. The E99 and the Combat Nato are similar in scope really. The E99 being more cambered and faster. The Combat Nato being less cambered- slower, but more stable on steep terrain. But- again- they are both designed to be highly-versatile BC-XC skis.

The Ingstad BC ha a much narrower focus- XC ski for steep terrain.

Again, thank you for your detailed answer to my questionS. I actually really appreciate the E99 and they have been the only pair of BC XC skis I ever owned before this year. The limitations of those skis have always been the no so good control downhill in the narrow trails on and around my farm and in the steep and narrow trails of my friend mountains (well they are more like big hills but still quite steep). So the Ingstad seems to make sense as partners for my E99

On the subject of XC ski length-
I really don't get the point of going short on a XC ski.
I sold a brand-new 195cm Ingstad BC in order to free up the cash when given the chance to get the 205cm.
What is the point of losing all of that glide and stability to get a teeny-weeny bit shorter turn radius?
I don't even consider turn-radius in a ski intended to crush miles. No one is making short-radius linked turns on distance-oriented XC skis (I know- I know- skiers are with short XC skis- doing "XCD" from a downhill perspective).

The ski length dilemma!!! My point of going shorter would be to gain maneuverability in steep and narrow trails. My E99 are 210 so it would make sense to get 195 Ingstad for their intended use. I would be willing to lose some glide as I mostly ski alone and when I ski with my friends they all have short and wide skis so speed is not an issue. As for stability you think that a lot of it is lost between 205 and 195. I am used to ski with the "narrow" E99 and I manage most of the downhill so I think (hope...) that I could handle a 195 Ingstad.

Certainly, if you are light enough- take the shorter ski.

I am working on that... 10 pounds lost since New Year

What I can tell you is that I am 5'10" and 185lbs without a pack- I would not want an Ingstad BC shorter than 205cm unless it was PURELY for downhill skiing. And if it was PURELY for downhill skiing- I would rather have a FT62 over an Ingstad BC!

This last comment is killing me I was trying to convince me that a pair of 195 would be fine... but how can I justify buying 195 after I read that comment

There is so much fun in shopping for a new pair of skis. It reminds me when I was young (well younger...) and I was going through the Sears catalogue and imagining all the fun I could have with THE toy I dreamed of... Actually it was almost and sometime more fun than actually playing with the toy itself!

[Nitram Tocrut]

According to my previous post I obviously have problems understanding how to quote from a previous post when replying so my post and the previous post are all mixed up.

I looked in the FAQ but did not find the info. Any tips...

Thank you!

Looking forward our first major snowstorm of the season. We had many days with snow but no major one but hopefully it does not rain again to turn it into a ice rink!

[lilcliffy]

You can "reply with quote"- this will quote the entire post. If you look closely there is formatting added to the text at the beginning and end of the quotation inside square [ ] brackets:

quote at the beginning- inside [ ]
/quote at the end- inside [ ]

I typically "reply with quote" and then edit it- breaking up the entire quotation with my own responses.

[Buda]

After getting about 35 to 40 cms overnight on Tuesday, I spent the next day at a local ski resort with the Ingstads. One of the runs wasn't groomed and that's where I skied all day. I don't have experience with many different skis but the Ingtads' were easy to control with Alico Teletours and were great fun!