Ski Review: 2018-2019 Åsnes Ingstad BC

[Cannatonic]

good job, I believe Neptune is still the only place in the USA selling the Asnes mohair skins.

A couple years ago, Neptune said they could order anything from Asnes for me over the off-season and I could get it in the fall, don't know if they still do that, would be another option if you're not in a hurry. Obviously you'd be paying list price.

Too bad about the NATOs, Neptune is where I bought mine (under the former owners)

[lilcliffy]

For XC track skis there is significant variation between two pairs of the same length, for skis from any brand as far as I know.
It may be an artefact of production but there is not attempt to resolve it because the variation is considered useful.
In fact, in Norway, where most kids learn to cross country ski in kindergarten, it is considered imperative to have XC track skis matched to exactly your weight, so that the wax pocket is the correct length for your weight and technique.
Almost all sports shops worth their salt in Norway have equipment for loading skis and finding the effective length of a wax pocket under specific loads.

Thank you for giving this context.

I think there is no XCD ski which can provide me with a true wax pocket and still provide a fun downhill experience.

This is very true and very important. I weigh 178lbs and even my stiff 210cm Gamme 54 is easy to compress and get grip on soft BC snow. And its not just the need to pressure skis into turns- a BC ski with a true wax pocket is also miserable to climb a steep slope- and even the soft snow XC performance is challenging to engage the kick zone.

I can try to find time to drop by the sports shop and squeeze a few pairs of the same ski model to see if I notice a difference.

That would be cool!
I examined the camber on my friend's 205cm Ingstad BC yesterday- it is in between the other two (i.e. the newest is the most cambered- my personal pair has the least). My personal pair is the least cambered- but it has hundreds more kilometres of hard skiing on it than the other two.
However- when I compress the camber on all three they feel like they have about the same resistance underfoot.
(And you know what is interesting- I think that the actual resistance underfoot between my Gamme 54s and Ingstad BC is actually very close...I think the big difference in performance between the Ingstad BC/Gamme 54 BC is not due to a difference in camber/stiffness underfoot, but due to the overall geometry and flex pattern being so different between the two skis.)

[Petetheswede]

I just want to share my first Ingstad experience. Bought them after long hard thinking in size 195cm. Approx 75kg. Nnn-BC with a stiff boot. Due to climate change this was My first opportunity. I was unable to source polar wax at the shop so i did the full length grip wax with swix green and blue in the kick zone. Snow was not good for this ski solid base with crusty rop. At some places better with some soft om top. Temperatures hovered between just below zero and quite a bit above.

My thoughts are these:
Lovely ski overall.
Very sweet downhill even on the crust. Carved nicely and i love the rising tips. Feels safe. I have faceplanted om gamme...
Fast gliding, the skin in the last very wet day (only skin day) revealed a dry area of about 25-30 cm which i believe is the true pocket. Behind this the skin is wet. Comparison with the gammes in 200cm ridden by my girlfriend who is a little bit lighter than me revealed almost twice as Long dry area (highly scientific measurement of camber).
Greenwaxing the entire base worked fine in higher temperatures and made it possible to abstain from red wax which i assume is good for skins and general wellbeing.

Cheers
Petter

[Petetheswede]

Oh, will i regret not going 205? Probably...

[treehugger]

Like Cannatonic... Get the mohair skins for this ski. The 30mm should be fine for flat travel, 45 or 58mm for serious vertical work. I use my 30mm mohairs on my Gamme 54's in waxless conditions all the time and trimmed right, they are fantabulous. Work great.

Been using 45 mohair a lot and they work great! Better grip and glide than my waxless (but very different skis). Impressed that skins are so functional. Would like to also get 58mm for climbing. Would 58 mohair be enough of a difference or should I get nylon? I've read posts where this has been discussed and think I might be disappointed with nylon.

Ingstad BC have been perfect for my needs. After only 4" in Feb last few days we've gotten 4+ feet at lake level. With resorts closed I'm getting out every day on Ingstads in all kinds of powder. The other evening wax was working amazing. Snow coming down, 4" dry powder. It was a spiritual experience: the world just slipped away and I felt like I was flying. I'm sure others know the feeling. I get why wax is worth the trouble. With skins it isn't even a compromise.

I've been able to try them in everything from 2" of powder to 4ft. No surprise that they don't work in waist deep snow. In 9" they are a dream. I've been out in the woods a few times but getting some tracks established is HARD work. Not a lot of other people around to help. Another day or so and snow may get denser and allow me to do some deeper touring. Mainly just hitting the streets in between plowing. With 2-3" an hour snowfall it can get a foot deep between plows.

[treehugger]

Deep dry powder turns to sierra cement and I couldn't be happier! In real deep powder Ingstad has been pretty difficult. Things warmed up to 30º and snow is much denser (5'-6' compressing to 3'-4'). With center compressing a foot under surface tips float nicely. Easy to get some glide going. Perfect for sierra cement conditions! What a nice surprise.

[Laurence C]

Hello all,
Laurence C from Quebec. As many here, even after reading all, still struggling between Nato and Ingstad BC, if someone can help.

Here is the context, if you are not a big reader, just jump to the last paragraph

I started making small ski "expeditions" (5-10 days, 120-250 km) in the Appalachians maybe 10 years ago (2-3 times per winter). I did it with old Fischer in tracks cross country skis (don't recall model), old NNN fix, flimsy boots, jeans, a way too heavy backpack, and used climbing skins. A lot of climbing steep hills and of going down mountain (like steps or zig zag way of going down with a lot of trees (a lot of falls, face first, or on the sides, loosing control because of fear of the speed, because of bumps, because skis slow down all of a sudden because going under the snow, or because it was the best way to stop, and a lot of hard time getting up). More often that other, snow could be over the knee, with often some kind of a crust on top, sometime skiing under it and breaking the crust with the leg (ouch) or having to pull the skis over it because the ski didn't try to go up on its own (ouch leg joints) and then break it with the ski (like walking with big shoes). Often we had to do like 100 meters of trail breaking each, and relay. Sometime we found ice, or skidoo tracks or even frozen ski tracks that we had to fit it in some way. All of that to say, I like those small expeditions, even if sometime I got to walk with a cane for some weeks after . I'm getting older, got a child, and am not in shape anymore but I have a bit more money and want to continue doing that. I think I could do it with plywood tied to my feet but I feel luxurious now.

In between I got myslef Asnes Amundsen (Gamme were out of stock here) for ski tracks (because sometime I find tracks and wish to fit in) and flat things (the best I could afford, money and knowledge wise, was better than what I had). I did one small expedition with it, was good although I had problems with my skins (the tip rubber/metal material was not adapted and was scraping snow and slowing me during all trip, ouch) and I wish skis could float on snow or at least try to go over.

So now I'm looking for an all-rounder, looking to go from A to B where a lot of different obstacles will come up and snow conditions change. Hard to predict situation in remote areas over 10 days. I don't mind not going fast at all. On flat, those easy moments can go an hour or two longer, I have headlamp. Still, since I'm not alone in those trips, I also want to be able to follow those who have longer narrow skis I guess (is the Ingstad that slow, I mean really that slow?). I'd like to climb well, sliding while going up is a total energy lost. Mostly, I'd like to go down well (to have a good control if I need to turn or to slow down, on ice and on most kinds of snow, to avoid skis digging down in snow until I stop or fall). More often than not, I have to break trail in not easy condition, heavy snow that don't hold my weight, breaking hard crust, name it. I read Nato is good at breaking trail... but is it if there is snow way over the knee? My fear of having a relatively large wide ski or tip, is to feel like I have a shovel when I need to pull the ski outside of the snow (it is muscle breaking with a narrow ski, so I can't imagine). So for those conditions, is the nordic rocker (Ingstad) better or is the Nato unrockered but upward tip better? This is my main concern here. I'd like the tip to go upward on it's own, but in a useful way (like I can imagine it can be unproductive sometimes).

I understand there is no one-best-ski for all, but while I'm out many days I don't have access to a quiver of skis.

Thanks for reading and sharing your wisdom,

L

[bgregoire]

So now I'm looking for an all-rounder, looking to go from A to B where a lot of different obstacles will come up and snow conditions change. Hard to predict situation in remote areas over 10 days. I don't mind not going fast at all. On flat, those easy moments can go an hour or two longer, I have headlamp. Still, since I'm not alone in those trips, I also want to be able to follow those who have longer narrow skis I guess (is the Ingstad that slow, I mean really that slow?). I'd like to climb well, sliding while going up is a total energy lost. Mostly, I'd like to go down well (to have a good control if I need to turn or to slow down, on ice and on most kinds of snow, to avoid skis digging down in snow until I stop or fall). More often than not, I have to break trail in not easy condition, heavy snow that don't hold my weight, breaking hard crust, name it. I read Nato is good at breaking trail... but is it if there is snow way over the knee? My fear of having a relatively large wide ski or tip, is to feel like I have a shovel when I need to pull the ski outside of the snow (it is muscle breaking with a narrow ski, so I can't imagine). So for those conditions, is the nordic rocker (Ingstad) better or is the Nato unrockered but upward tip better? This is my main concern here. I'd like the tip to go upward on it's own, but in a useful way (like I can imagine it can be unproductive sometimes).

I understand there is no one-best-ski for all, but while I'm out many days I don't have access to a quiver of skis.

Thanks for reading and sharing your wisdom,

L

salut Laurence,

Selon moi il faut limiter ses attentes en lien avec la "flottabilité" de skis de fond nordique dans la grosse poudreuse forestiere du Québec (en mode traversé). Néanmoins, il est préférable d'avoir un ski avec moins de rocker pour éviter l'effet "banane" une fois le skis comprimé dans la neige. Malheureusement, la version actuelle du Ingstad est encore plus banane que le Nansen une fois comprimé sur la neige folle. Possible que ta meilleure option serait la version Asnes Combat Nato ou encore le Nansen.Perso, je trouve que le Gamme/E99 est aussi un bon ski en traversé, si choisit a 200cm ou moins, et surtout en équipe. Le Amundsen est trop raide pour la neige profonde.

En ce qui concerne l'effort des traversées dans la neige profonde, je sympathise entièrement. Dans ce cas, il est préférable, plus que le modèle de skis, d'avoir le bon modèle d'amis. Si fait faites la traversé en mode "train", en se remplaçant à l'avant au 2-3 minutes max, en rotation continue, il n'y a vraiment rien de mieux. Mais ca fonctionne juste quand tout le monde à le bon esprit d'équipe. D'habitute, ya toujours un ou deux "machos" qui tiennent mordicus à rester à l'avant, et l'esprit d'équipe s'épuise et le tout se ralentit.

[Laurence C]

English follows

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alors @bgregoire , d'abord merci. Et j'ai l'impression que tu comprends bien le type de randonnée dont je parle.

Si je résume ton point pour m'assurer de comprendre, veux tu dire que la largeur des Ingstad ou des Nato n'est pas vraiment un avantage (puisque ça ne donne pas de flotaison)? Dans leur cas ça augmente le sidecut pour aider à tourner plus facilement, et le rocker encore davantage (tu ne vois pas un avantage ici pour le tournant?). Pour le rocker et l'effet banane, je pensais ça aidait aussi les skis à remonter à la surface (ce que je souhaite, plutôt que de planter ou s'enfoncer)... et du même souffle tu dis que les Gamme sont bien, mais ils ont pas mal de rocker je pense. Merci encore!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks bgregoire!I feel you understand my context.
Just to be sure, maybe I don't understand, are you saying that Ingstad or Natos width are not that an advantage since it wont really help that much for flotation in our context? The sidecut helps for turning (and rocker even more) but that's it. Also that nordic rocker and its banana effect is not that helpful for my needs for "long" traverses from A to B? Is it because it will slow me down? Thanks again for your wisdom.

[bgregoire]

Laurence, lots of little details to consider.

While trekking in deep snow, a ski that floats above theoretically sounds great but unfortunately, its really hard to make that happen. One way is to get them really long, like 3m, but there is no way you are going to maneuver trees in Quebec style winer trails. The other is to make them fat, but to get them fat enough to float, they are going to be as wide as shovels, and well, you can imagine the amount of snow you will have to carry on your skis to go forward. So the entire thing is a compromise. (Sure the Ingstad will be easier to "float" on powder than the Gamme, but my point is that width change is not that significant compared to other factors).

Another issue with several skis is their overall rigidity or flexibility. Many of the rocketed skis of today are meant to help you float on the descent. Same kinda goes with nordic rocketed skis. Sure, the flex might help you stay a little more above the snow on the flats, but the downside is potentially more problematic. These softer skis will bend like bananas so to speak under you weight and over soft snow, and that will make it even harder for you to move forwards as you will have to constanty "climb" an extra hump up snow at every step (The new rocketed xtralite E99 and E109 also have this issue IMO).

So yeah. The Amundsen are most probably too stiff to be an ideal ski, they really are a packed snow ski, but the Ingstad, with a soft tip, might be well, too soft to be the ideal ski for you (but still a better choice). The Combat Nato seems like a great compromise ski to me, especially if you go out alone or in small groups. The Gamme is not to stiff not too soft from what I understand. It could be the perfect porridge for you, especially if you are going in large groups and like to go fast. The Nansen is probably awesome as well for you. A bit of a better turning ski, no front rocker, but still RELATIVELY soft. I own the new Ingstad, and I would not recommend it per say as the tip is so soft (but it will work). Then again, all of these skis are relatively fast and relatively narrow. You will have no trouble following your friends with them but the Ingstad might be harder to push through a trail prepared by a group of 6 people on E99s (Gammes). Not a deal breaker, especially if you feel that extra control on the down, which is its greatest advantage.

If you really want to get into the details of every ski and how they perform in deep snow, you should really hunt down @lilcliffy's various reviews. He goes into a lot of detail and also does a lot of trekking in deep snow.