This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
Real reviews by real skiers. What a concept! Add your own today. Reviews only please, questions can be posted as replies but new threads looking for opinions should be posted to the main Telemark Talk Forum.
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?
Mohair is way faster in almost every snow conditions. I have used my nylons a few times and every time wish I had just stuck with my mohairs, even in wet conditions. The nylons are incredibly grippy.
If you have consistently cold snow (less than 31) most of the time, I would go with WAX and learn to grip wax and use the X-Skins for the wet or spring days. I prefer a WAX ski over a non-wax and I've used my Asnes mohairs plenty here in New England on what would normally be a non-wax day to with little issue. Here in New England I could probably go 50/50 on which ski, but if your snow is dry and cold, WAX is the way to go, unless you absolutely don't want to deal with waxing. The Asnes waxless base is very nicely designed and doesn't overdo it.
I second Woods' recommendation for the waxable Ingstad BC- especially if you have long periods of consistent cold, dry snow.
If you want to use this same ski on wet, consolidated spring snow- then you might consider the waxless version and grip wax it as well.
Last season I abandoned glide wax on even my waxless-scaled touring skis and have been using a hard grip wax as my base. I am thrilled with the results. It has GREATLY improved the performance of the ski in cold dry snow and they perform great in spring conditions- also saving me from fussing over trying to get glide wax just right when it is very cold and refrozen in the early morning, yet warm and wet in the afternoon. Our early spring nights are very cold- producing cold, icy refrozen snow in the morning, and warm wet snow in the afternoon sun.
I have one scaled ski left in my quiver to grip wax- my Altai Kom, and grip wax may just save it from being culled from my quiver.
Forgive my ramblings- many skiers have sneered at me for grip waxing my waxless touring skis, but it certainly works for my local skiing!
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
>>Forgive my ramblings- many skiers have sneered at me for grip waxing my waxless touring skis, but it certainly works for my local skiing!
no sneering! this is following the teaching of "Pinnah" and many others. For Montana I would take waxing Ingstads all the way! Get a pair of mohair Xskins to "cover your bases" for all conditions. I've gone almost completely to waxing bases, I keep a trusty older pair of Sbound 78's for fishscale action on wet snow. They're perfect for yo-yoing turns on short laps in the spring, the one area where kicker skins aren't good.
The nylon skins are great for climbing & feel a lot like full skins, but much smaller & easier to carry. Putting them on & removing them is easier too. I suggest getting the widest nylon Xskin possible and maybe a narrower mohair one.
"All wisdom is to be gained through suffering"
-Will Lange (quoting Inuit chieftan)
Thank you for your feedback! It seems that most people here are advocates for longer skis. I am 5'9", 165 lb. and I plan on carrying between 0 and 35 lb. What length ski do you recommend: 195 or 205? Thanks again!
Thank you for your feedback! It seems that most people here are advocates for longer skis. I am 5'9", 165 lb. and I plan on carrying between 0 and 35 lb. What length ski do you recommend: 195 or 205? Thanks again!
Tough to say, big personal preference here, generally longer for flat efficiency and shorter for beginner or lots of touring. Let's see from a previous post: Montana, lots of up and down, some rolling, but not miles of flat, right? If you get the wax ski, I'd say the 195 due to your height+need for grip for long climbs+need for turning for long descents, and you can adjust for a smaller wax pocket as you add weight in your backpack to continue to get decent glide. If you're going to be making doing more flat distance you can think about the 205 but that would be a very long ski for you.
As Woods says- you can adjust- endlessly customize- your grip and kick wax- and that goes equally for improving glide with a shorter ski- as well as improving grip with a longer ski.
I am 5'10" and weigh 185lbs- I have the 205cm and love it- would not want the shorter ski for the skiing I am doing with it- distance-oriented tours in hilly to steep terrain and in very deep soft snow. One of my ski buddy's is your weight and has the 195cm- I have tried it back to back with my 205cm- much prefer the 205cm. The 205cm is a much more efficient XC ski and I do not notice any difference in the turn radius between the 195 vs 205.
The only reason I would want a shorter Ingstad BC is for downhill-focused skiing- and if I wanted it for that, I would reach for my 188cm Falketind 62.
To me the Ingstad BC is a narrowly-focused performance-oriented Nordic touring ski- crushing miles in deep soft snow and hilly to steep terrain.
The Ingstad BC does have a distance-oriented camber and flex, but it is no classic double-cambered ski- my weight completely squashes the camber of the 205cm when they are equally weighted. We have three 205cm and one 195cm Ingstad BCs in our ski clan and the 165lber squashes the camber on both the 205cm and the 195cm.
In short- unlike a truly double-cambered ski (e.g. Gamme 54/E99; etc.)- I don't think you would have any grip problems with a longer Ingstad BC.
The 195cm will definitely feel shorter and as a result, will feel more maneuverable if you are skiing any tight wooded trails. But the 205cm will be faster!
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
The Ingstad has been described an not optimal for consolidated snow. Can anyone describe how the ski behaves on a packed trail? Not a resort trail but say, a groomed cross country ski trail - not concerned about track skiing.
I find it behaves well, but with the considerable rocker, it skis short and therefore inefficiently on packed, groomed snow. In these conditions a significant amount of the ski is hovering above the snow.
It is tuned to softer, deeper snow, and excels in those conditions.
for the price of a little more weight the NATO Combat is the same ski with less rocker. It comes in 200cm which offers another option for length. IMO you want the 200cm+ length for more flotation, it will be harder to log miles in deep snow with a shorter ski.
"All wisdom is to be gained through suffering"
-Will Lange (quoting Inuit chieftan)
