Åsnes Falketind 62 vs Rabb 68 (21/22 season)

[telemarius]

Hi all,
My first post on this forum "Thoughts on Xplore from a XC racing enthusiast" ended up being so long, that I decided to ask my question in a separate thread (hope that's ok).

(Note: I've read all there is to read on Teletalk and tele ski review about the two skis. I'm just a bit confused on their differences, so hoping this post will clarify this).

My goal is to buy one pair of all-round skis that would have me covered for a few years in 80% of conditions. I'm going to use them with the Rottefella Xplore + Alfa Free. I'm stuck between Falketind 62 XP and the Rabb 68. Note that I'm focusing on the new 21/22 models. I've tried the Rabb's, and liked them a lot. However, I felt they did not edge so well downhill on icy snow, and at the same time they felt almost too easy to ski on the soft parts. Mind that I did ski in a not too steep hill. I'd have liked them to be a bit more balanced: better on the icy parts and a bit more challenge on the soft parts.

I'm wondering if the Falketind's would be more rounded challenge in the downhills, and therefore more fun (that's how I view it at least). By that I mean better on the icy parts, and less ideal on the soft parts, but overall more technical challenging. Mind that I do a lot of teleturns on XC racing equipment, so I'm used to the feeling of almost dying every second turn (again: my definition of fun). At the same time I'd hate it if the FT's would exclude me from using them on some light alpine touring trips due to their narrower waist.

I'm not sure if my rant makes any sense. Still, I'd like to humbly listen to people who have more experience than myself. Who would you recommend the FT's/Rabb's to? Even if the Rabb's are portraited as a more capable downhill ski than FT, does that mean that FT can't ski the same terrain? Or does this depend more on the skier? Are they more similar than I think, would I be happy either way?

(Also: Is it still the rule that teleskis be the same length as your own height?)

Happy skiing!
--Marius

[fisheater]

The FT Xplore is capable as an XC ski. It offers kick and glide in consolidated snow as well as soft snow. It also tracks well on consolidated snow. It is supportive in deeps snow.
On the downhill, while the rocker makes for easier turn initiation and does direct the ski to the surface. The arc of the rocker is one stiff supportive arc that is all part of the natural arc of the ski. It is not a soft flopping tip. The previous version was torsionally stiff, and the Xplore model is specified as being further reinforced. The HUGE difference is that the new FT X is longitudinally stiff. Fortunately for me, but unfortunately for you, I have skied powder, but not ice as of yet. What I can say is the previous model got kicked around in mank, and refrozen crud, because it was longitudinally soft, this model is significantly stiffer.
If your tours don’t involve a good portion of kick and glide you may want to go with the Rabb. Not because the FT X isn’t a good downhill ski, but because it is both an XC ski and a downhill ski. It makes those XCD skis that have only received new topsheets for the past 15 years or so obsolete dinosaurs. It has set the standard. Now the Rabb is advertised for more downhill oriented adventures in soft boots. Asnes has been refining these models for a few years. They have been improving these skis. If I was going mostly up, and definitely if I was going up into alpine terrain I would consider the Rabb. For my skiing which never sees a tree line, and always had approaches I’m a huge fan of the Falketind Xplore.

[fisheater]

I’m 5’9” (around 175 cm) I weigh 190 lbs (186 K+) I ski a 196 FT X.
My FT was 188, but that was the longest available. The original FT was soft and surfy, skiing it short for tight trees could make sense. The new FT X isn’t soft, it turns quickly, but it isn’t soft and surfy. I see no reason to ski it short. Besides when I was young short skis were for girls! I’m very happy my formative years were not in politically correct times.
My FT X is 196 cm and would consider a shorter version for downhill skiing that requires a tour to get to the turns.

[telemarius]

If your tours don’t involve a good portion of kick and glide you may want to go with the Rabb. Not because the FT X isn’t a good downhill ski, but because it is both an XC ski and a downhill ski.

Thanks for sharing your experience fisheater! I've read your initial impressions over at ski reviews, but this helped clarify how the FT X behaves. From what you write, I'd say FT X would fit the bill.

A friend of mine who competes in randonee racing, uses the same type of dimensions on his skis as the FT X with the Italian Skitrab (https://www.fjellutstyr.no/skitrab/1176 ... p-70-21-22), and he seeks more extreme terrain than me. I have no idea if the skis would behave similar (his skis have a turning radius of 23.6m, even being shorter at 162cm), but it might give a pointer what I could survive.

Thing is, I'm not sure I want to exclude having that K&G for when I do want to go on a ski touring trip. I just don't want to suffer because I hastily chose the ski I didn't try beforehand (not possible so far to test the FT X). But, from what I'm reading it seems I'll be happy with the FT X, it doesn't seem like a bad compromise.