Ski Review: 2018-2019 Åsnes Ingstad BC

[boby13]

I don't know what your experience and skill level is- and it is difficult to tell too much from a first-person perspective...

Yes its hard to compare our selves over an internet forum. (especially with first person videos)

I can say that I am pretty experienced, I started skiing at 3 years old and I've been raised by a level 4 alliance ski instructor. But I turned my back to skiing at 9 years old for snowboarding because it was way cooler . In my early 20's, my hate for snowshoes pushed me to ride old beaten up rental fishscale xc skis on floppy nnn boots in slowshoe trails around my house, extremely sketchy but I loved it.

And then, 4 years ago, I upgraded to NNN bc pushed by the tales of Jackrabbit exploring the summits of the Tremblant mountain range in the early 30's.

Last winter, at 30 years old, for the fist time in 20 years, I tried one of my father's slalom skis on groomers and came to the conclusion that I really like snowboarding more than alpine skiing for resort skiing. But I like XCD in the side/backcountry even more! Right now, I'm 90% XCD / 10% snowboard.

My first suggestion is to try moving your feet more- to transfer your weight more.

Unlike conventional downhill skiing- both Alpine and Telemark- where one can overpower and drive a ski-

Downhill skiing with both XC boots and and XC skis (with XC length) can take one of two basic forms IMHO-

1) Evenly pressured, wide, round- and very wide- radius turns. This requires a LOT of momentum and space.

2) Assertive constant adjustment- where one constantly transfers weight from one ski to the other and does not hesitate to stride into a turn initiation and even physically pick up the lead ski to initiate a tight turn.

I'm with you on all the above, I think I was caught off guard with these long ingstads mainly because they are harder to break into a skid at moderate speed.
-Going fast, they are easy to P turn.
-Going slow, they are easy to stride into a telemark turn.
So I'm working on my tele turn at higher speed and I'm getting better, its not getting into the turn that's hard, its riding it all the way on uneven terrain.

If you look at my 3rd video, witch was my 3rd time with the ingstads and look at the tip of my skis, you will se that I do a couple of long strided tele turn and I'm transferring my weight a lot from ski to ski doing mini tele turn to slow me down.
But its hard to see with my shaky camera, maybe I should mount on my head instead of my chest... and look like a teletubies.

I suggest it would work even better with a softer, rounder-fleing ski than the 88....Have you ever tried an Epoch/XCD 10th Mtn, or an Annum/Guide? (The Falketind 62 with your Alaska boot would blow your mind BTW...)

Yea I think I will get myself a pair of falketind 62 for next winter... that was my secret plan... And it will remain secret to my girlfriend forever.

And don't get me wrong, I love my ingstads, what you see in my videos is about 30% of my skiing, the other 70% is on rolling terrain. That's why I needed long deep snow skis to cover distance.

[Cannatonic]

>>Right now, I'm 90% XCD / 10% snowboard.

I thought I was the only one! This is my breakdown as well. In fact, if you have snowshoes, the snowboard can be used instead of AT gear for climbing and descending steeper downhill ski routes.

[boby13]

Yes that's an option but here where I ski, any steep downhill is for sure followed by a flat section somewhere and that's the main reason I'm XCD skiing.

And also XCD is still a challenge for me... I think going down a steep powder field or trail on nnnbc gear is the closest thing to real surfing on the ocean because you really need to be balanced all the time.

But yea... snowboard... I would need a trip on the west side of the continent to fall in love with my board again.

[bgregoire]

Hi Guys!

I used to snowboard too. But I got bored. These days, when I want some resort time, I will pull out a telemark ski kit or one of my waxless XCD/backcountry skis and leathers. A world of fun!

Besides, IMO, complimenting our daily XCD/nordic backountry diet with an occasional meal of modern resort telemark, classic and skate cross-country skiing is surely one of the best ways to round off and improve our technique, and hence, appreciation of the sport.

Be well!

[Leona44]

Ski Review: 2018-2019 Åsnes Ingstad BC

“People are underrated”
• Elon Musk
I admire Elon.
This is not just because he believes in people- in the intelligence, creativity, innovation of humans…
This is not just because he fires front-line supervisors that actively suppress workers that critically question procedures and come forward with innovative ideas…
This is not just because he hires innovative Millennial nerds from Newfoundland (one of the most special places and people in the universe juice- and an awesome Nordic ski touring destination BTW):
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfound ... -1.4663270

I admire Elon first and foremost because he must appreciate Mel Brooks’ classic movie “Space Balls”- and I like to tell myself that this tells me something important about Elon - enough to name a drive mode in a Tesla car off of LUDICROUS SPEED from that movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp41d3Z2ypI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk7VWcuVOf0

So I recently got up to Ludicrous Speed on my new 205cm Ingstad BC....

I have been skiing in hilly and mountainous terrain on long Nordic touring skis for some time now…
Since ancient times, a long narrow Nordic touring ski was completely supported by the snow when skiing in deep soft snow:
• When XC-skiing, the elongated-raised tip carved and plowed a channel through the deep snow for the rest of the ski to follow.
• When downhill skiing, the ski stayed submerged in the snow and the snow itself provided support to the skier as she rode long, open turns through the deep snow.

Then Åsnes went and built the Ingstad BC- a XC ski with a full-length stable XC flex, and a low-profile camber-and-a-half underfoot for crushing miles on soft backcountry snow. Oh- and Åsnes also built in Nordic-rocker into the tip- a lot of it.

A rockered tip does a lot of things for a ski when downhill skiing- not limited to:
• Reducing the effective edge of the ski.
• “Moving” the mounting point further forward on the effective edge of the ski.
• Early-tip rise- causing the ski to want to rise up and plane on top of the snow at downhill speeds.

Modern downhill skis designed for powder skiing not only have a lot of tip rocker- producing early tip rise- but they are also very wide underfoot and round flexing, so that the skier can surf and smear on top of the snow as the wide, rockered tip keeps planing on top of the powder. Modern powder skis are wide enough underfoot that they feel stable when planing and surfing on top of the pow.

The Ingstad BC is not wide underfoot. It is a meagre, waspy 62mm underfoot…It might seem wide underfoot for a XC touring ski- but man, it is not wide at Ludicrous Speed...

The Ingstad BC has a stiff stable tip. It has a ton of Nordic rocker- when the camber is compressed, not only do the tips open waaay up, but they also rise waaaay up- more than any XC ski I have ever seen or heard of.

On consolidated snow, the rockered tip makes these skis feel remarkably short and maneuverable (I have a 205cm Ingstad). When I pounce on and pressure this ski the turn initiation is quick and effortless on consolidated snow.

On deep soft snow- when downhill skiing- this ski feels long and round and smooth- the tip wants to rise and the ski wants to ride wide open smooth magical Nordic turns.

About 10 days ago, I kinda got carried away by the Gnardisk Mahgik…

I was making a downhill run- on about 18 inches of powder- through an open hardwood forest glade and got caught up in the Gnardisk Mahgik and I just let it all go and let the ski take me away…

I reached ludicrous speed and this ski rose up right on top of the powder like a hydroplane boat…And then due to the narrow nervous waist- I twitched a few millimetres and completely wiped out- it could have been bad- I was lucky, I did a couple of somersaults- but it could easily have been bad- real bad.

What can I tell you?
The completely stable rockered tips on the Ingstad are the stuff of dreams for XC Nordic touring in hilly/mountainous terrain.
I challenge anyone to find a better turning true-XC ski on the planet- in the history of the XC ski. It outpaces and outturns the most curvaceous S-Bound or Karhu XCD ski ever made.

Is it a downhill ski? No- it is a cross-country ski- a ski that wants to crush miles on soft snow and yet also make wondrous turns.

But I come with a warning.
With great power comes great responsibility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5d6rTQcU2U

This ski can take the mortal XCD skier to speeds and heavenly heights that cannot be managed by mortals.
At Ludicrous Speed, this ski rises up into the heavens to the point that even the slightest twitch sends a mere mortal like me crashing down into the abyss…

The solution-do not get intoxicated at downhill speeds with this ski- keep it turning and you will survive!!! Keep it turning and you will keep smiling- and you won’t reach Ludicrous Speed.

The Specs:
Here are the specs on one of Åsnes’ many current masterpieces:
• Sidecut profile: 84-62-74mm
• Effective sidecut: 76-62-74mm
• Camber-flex:
o Stable, stiff, Nordic-rockered tip
o Full-length stable flex
o Flat, stable tail
o Low-profile, resistant, camber-and-a-half underfoot
• Traditional, broad, raised tip
• Full-wrap steel edges
• Wood core
• Sintered waxable base
• X-skin/Skin-Lock inserts

Overview

The current Ingstad BC is on the cutting edge of backcountry Nordic touring design, innovation and experience. It is an ultimate example of innovation steeped in ancient tradition.

With the Ingstad BC, Åsnes takes advantage of the last 20 years of downhill ski innovation and brings it to Nordic ski touring (and is clearly paying attention to what other manufacturers of BC-XC skis are doing- like Fischer for example…)

The Ingstad remains a “wide” distance-oriented Nordic touring ski- specifically designed for distance-oriented skiing on deep, soft, backcountry snow and in hilly/mountainous terrain.

In the ancient tradition, “powder” Nordic skis have taken two different forms:
• Short and fat for skiing through the dense Northwoods.
• Very long and stable for covering distance on trails, watercourses and barrens.
The Ingstad width and length is clearly for covering distance on soft snow. The full-length stable flex and low-profile resistant camber is perfectly tuned for soft snow.

But despite all of this tradition, the Ingstad BC is new- completely new. Saint Sondre is likely dancing a jig in Valhalla over this ski!

What is new? A stiff supportive tip with oooooooodles of Nordic rocker- that is new.

A lot of traditional backcountry-XC skis have had soft tips- soft tips intended to deal with variable snow and terrain, and to hopefully facilitate downhill turns. I must be honest with myself here. Do soft tips really, truly, make a ski easy to turn- especially when it is stiff and resistant underfoot?

For comparison- take the legendary Karhu XCD 10th Mountain/Madshus Epoch. This ski has a soft, supple tip. This ski is relatively easy to turn- but, not really because of its tip, but because it has lots of sidecut, has little camber and has a soft round flex that is easy to pressure into a turn. But that soft round flex makes the Epoch unstable when XC skiing, and a wet noodle when pushed hard downhill skiing…

IMHO, the modern innovation of rocker makes soft tips somewhat redundant.

The tip is already pre-flexed- pre-engineered to reverse flex- like a rocking chair. Rocker allows a ski to be as stiff and supportive as a racing ski yet be hardwired to rise to the surface and TURN!

Things I can guarantee:
• The Ingstad BC has a stable tip and full-length stable flex.
• The Ingstad BC is a XC ski with enough camber and resistance to offer excellent XC performance- specifically tuned for soft backcountry snow.
• The Ingstad BC wants to turn- wants to turn in all conditions- and wants to rise and plane- to a fault- don’t get carried away- this is not a modern downhill ski- don’t get out of control- you could get hurt- bad!

I have tested this ski in a fairly wide range of conditions already this season including:
• Soft snow on top of a consolidated base: DREAMY in every possible XC and downhill context.
• Refrozen breakable crust: the stable and substantial tip rises and breaks through the crust-it’s not great in this context- nowhere near as effective as the Combat Nato- but, much better than the E-109/Eon/E-99 Xtralite…
• Windswept packed snow (I don’t know the precise name for this kind of snow- wish I spoke an Inuit language)- the snow that is consolidated by wind such that the surface is almost like Styrofoam, but won’t quite support your weight: this ski reasonably carves its way through this snow. The rockered tip seems to almost fight with itself- it wants to rise up on top of this snow but it is stiff and stable enough that it survives and carves a path. Again- not as good as the non-rockered tip of the Combat Nato, but MUCH better than the soft wimpy tips of skis like the E109/Eon/E99…
• Dense, consolidated snow:
o This ski feels short and unstable when XC skiing on dense consolidated snow- due to all of that tip rocker.
o This ski skis short and feels aggressive and carvy when downhill skiing on a dense consolidated base.

There remains one condition that I have yet to test this ski:
Cross-country skiing in truly deep soft snow.
I remain skeptical that all of that tip rocker will be an asset when XC-skiing in deep pow.
There is no way to glide fast enough for a ski to rise up and plane when XC skiing…

As a comparison- the Fischer E109 and the Madshus Eon both have very soft wimpy tips that rise up to the surface of soft snow, leaving their waspy waist in the abyss- they are both miserable when XC skiing in deep soft snow.

I am thinking that the Ingstad’s tip is stiff enough that it should be reasonably stable in truly deep soft snow…
I will keep you updated…

Comparison #1: Ingstad BC vs. Combat Nato
• The Ingstad is waaay turnier, in all conditions. As a note- I think that the Combat Nato makes wonderful open, long-radius turns- but I need a lot of room to make complete, linked turns on my 210cm Combat Nato!!
• The Combat Nato is truly a better XC ski- in all conditions.
• The Ingstad has a stiffer more supportive tip.
• The Combat Nato has a more effective trail-breaking, crust-breaking, tip.
• Both tuned for soft snow- the Combat Nato is “acceptable”- if not superfast- when XC skiing on dense, hard snow.

Comparison #2: Ingstad BC vs. Madshus Eon
• The Ingstad is a better XC ski.
• The Ingstad is a better downhill ski.
• The Ingstad is more stable- in all conditions.

Comparison #3: Ingstad BC vs. Fischer E-109 Tour Xtralite
• Both are equally good soft-snow XC skis.
• Both are equally turny.
• The Ingstad is easier to pressure in a downhill turn.
• The Ingstad is much more stable in deep snow.
• The Ingstad is much more stable in difficult snow and breakable crust.
• The E-109 is completely unstable in deep soft snow and breakable crust.
• The E-109 is noticeably more cambered underfoot (I am noticing that all of Asnes’ Fjellskis- except perhaps the Amundsen- have “low"-profile camber- compared to a conventional double-cambered ski…). The stiff resistance underfoot is awful close though…Without actually objectively measuring it- I would say that the E-109 is a little bit stiffer underfoot…

Comparison #4: Ingstad BC vs E99/Gamme 54
I include this “apples-to-oranges” to perhaps help someone choose (comparison between the E99/Gamme 54 to come in a later review!). The E99/Gamme 54 class of ski is definitely more versatile than the Ingstad BC, offering a wider range of performance and efficiency. Though not as floaty and certainly not as turny the E-99/Gamme 54 class offers these differences:
• E99/Gamme quite supportive and decent in deep snow
• E99/Gamme 54 much more efficient when XC skiing in general- except in truly deep soft snow (though I am not certain about the Ingstad BC in this context- certainly the Combat Nato is a better deep pow XC ski than the E99/Gamme 54.)

Current Conclusions/Impressions
I feel confident- at this moment- in saying that the current Åsnes Ingstad BC is the best distance-oriented Nordic touring ski for hilly/mountainous terrain ever made. (I know that is a mouthful- but I don’t know how else to say it…)

YES- this ski is still a XC ski- an unapologetic XC ski- made for crushing miles on soft backcountry snow.
But it is also made to be able to deal comfortably- with joy in fact- steep slopes on that XC trek.
It is not a downhill ski- definitely not.
Rachat de crédit
This ski is the stuff of dreams for skiers that want to cover distance on soft snow in hilly/mountainous terrain.

2018-2019 Åsnes Ingstad BC
Cross-Country*: 100/100 EDIT: 90/100 (The Combat Nato is 100/100)
Downhill*: 75/100

EDIT: * I give these ratings purely in a soft backcountry snow context .

Gnardisk Mahgik.
Gareth Davies
December 31st, 2018
Stanley, New Brunswick
Canada

BTW- I now openly challenge Fischer and Madshus to do better!

he is a very remarkable man, I admire him

[JohnnyB]

So I wonder where the Breidablikk fits in all of this? It has the same dimensions as the new Ingstad. But I wonder if it has the same nordic rocker and is the Instad sans metal edges, or it is something different?

[lilcliffy]

Hi JohhnyB!

I asked Asnes directly- here is their email response:

Dear Gareth.

Thank you for your email.

Yes, Breidablikk is based on the same profile as the Combat Nato. But it's a bit wider in the front/tip.
Ingstad has been upgraded, but not Breidablikk.
You also know that Breidablikk has no steel edge, that makes it a bit lighter than Ingstad and Combat who have steel edges.

Wish you a nice day ahead.

Med vennlig hilsen/Best Regards

Gro Silje Herre Viveli
Customer Service

Active Brands AS
Regimentsvegen 158, 5705 Voss, Norway

[JohnnyB]

Hmm interesting,

So its more like the previous generation of the Ingstad but without metal edges. Good to know.

[mike202]

Deleted

[mike202]

I am looking to purchase a pair of Ingstads. Do you guys suggest the waxless or waxable base? I'm in Montana- mostly dry snow and long climbs/long descents. Some rolling terrain. Do you have any recommendations for short and long skins? Mohair vs Nylon?