2022 Falketind 62 Xplore 196 cm First Impressions

[fisheater]

190-195lbs, call the pack 30lbs, at 225 lbs I still have kick and glide on the 196 FT X.
Your mileage may vary.

[AdamA]

Perfect. Thanks for the confirmation.

[fisheater]

Perfect. Thanks for the confirmation.

Well if it works out for you, does that qualify me for a guided tour at Baxter State Park? I hear they have a high point that is interesting. Heck, I would probably find halfway up the high point interesting. Lol
Good luck with your decision.

Btw, I’ve only written this 100 times, but I can’t believe the versatility of mounting this ski Rottefella Super Telemark with cable.

[AdamA]

Perfect. Thanks for the confirmation.

Well if it works out for you, does that qualify me for a guided tour at Baxter State Park? I hear they have a high point that is interesting. Heck, I would probably find halfway up the high point interesting. Lol
Good luck with your decision.

Btw, I’ve only written this 100 times, but I can’t believe the versatility of mounting this ski Rottefella Super Telemark with cable.

Any time you make it out here, let me know! It’s a wonderfully remote place to spend some time.

And that’s the plan. I’m thinking that the skis+super teles with cable + my BCX waterproofs might be my dream setup for years to come.

[grizz_bait]

Took the FT62X out for its first real tour today and the ski far exceeded my expectations. When I was reading TT about this ski, it was called a toy and not a tool. Perhaps that was true of previous generations, but I would absolutely call the FT62X a wilderness-hardy adventure tool. I skied ~17 miles round trip and 2,500' of vert, through a variety of conditions: breakable crust, firm crust with dust on top, cold north-facing powder, frozen ski tracks, and slush. Quite variable. The FT handled it all amazingly well, except for the frozen ski tracks, but what ski does well in that situation, especially when the ski tracks were left by skinny skis and you're following with a 98mm shovel. Kick and glide was pretty damn impressive, although it doesn't track quite as straight as my Gamme, which is to be expected. But on firm crust with a cm of dust on top, the ski flies and seems to track better than on hard/frozen snow.

The FT reminds me of my favorite ski mountaineering (not skimo) skis: agile, light, excellent edge grip on steep, hard traverses, stiff but soft where it needs to be. This thing climbs beautifully. Most surprisingly, I was able to turn this ski reasonably well. It did great in firm conditions, didn't put up a fight at all. I didn't get to practice teleturning given the off and on breakable crust, but I'm looking forward to practicing in better conditions when I get the chance. The FT is also very stable at speed when pointing 'em straight downhill. Turns on a dime. I don't regret the 188 at all, I think it would be a great ski even for tight tree skiing, or steep trails with lots of turns.

The Falketind is a competent and versatile mountain ski. I was somewhat concerned this ski would fill a very small niche in the skiing I do, but after today I think it will be my go-to ski on tours where I climb and descend a significant amount of vertical, say 1,000' or greater.

[fisheater]

@grizz_bait Nicely written, I agree 100% with the exception that I had the original Falketind 62, the Xplore is much more versatile and just flat out a much better ski for most uses.

[Stephen]

I am having a hard time understanding ski sizing in this class of ski (FTX).
I think I have something of a handle on narrower XC skis and Alpine ski sizing.
On the narrower XC skis (like Gamme), length = efficiency and float, at the expense of maneuverability and uphill grip (short version).
On the Gamme sizing chart, I (at 185# skiing weight / 6’3+” — 84kg / 191cm) would get a 200cm for weight and 210 for hight.
So, either one, depending.

On the FTX, based on the Asnes recommendation of:
Body Length _ Ski Length
168-177 cm __ 172 cm
175-185 cm __ 180 cm
183-192 cm __ 188 cm
188+ cm _____ 196 cm

I (at 191cm) am in between 188 and 196, but a little closer to the 196.
I read of people more stout than I skiing the 196, and some around my height skiing the 188.
This makes me think 188 would be the right length for me, except I’m happily skiing the Ingstad and Gamme in the longest lengths, which makes me wonder about the FTX 196, instead?

The other factor I’m thinking about is surface area relative to length.
If the FTX is a powder dream ski, at 62 in the waist, how does that square with all the 90 - 100++ waisted Alpine and Touring skis?
I mean, it seems like one would want some extra length to make up for the lost surface area due to being a narrower ski?
For example, an Alpine ski with an average width of 10.5cm x 180cm length has an area of 1890.
The FTX has an average width of say 75mm, or 7.5cm.
So, 1890 / 7.5 = 252cm ski for comparable surface area, which isn’t happening for the FTX!

Maybe I’m missing something, maybe I’m just over-thinking it.

Once again, I know there is no “right” answer — it just depends on one’s priorities, but would love to hear any thoughts on this!

[Woodserson]

I am having a hard time understanding ski sizing in this class of ski (FTX).
I think I have something of a handle on narrower XC skis and Alpine ski sizing.
On the narrower XC skis (like Gamme), length = efficiency and float, at the expense of maneuverability and uphill grip (short version).
On the Gamme sizing chart, I (at 185# skiing weight / 6’3+” — 84kg / 191cm) would get a 200cm for weight and 210 for hight.
So, either one, depending.

On the FTX, based on the Asnes recommendation of:
Body Length _ Ski Length
168-177 cm __ 172 cm
175-185 cm __ 180 cm
183-192 cm __ 188 cm
188+ cm _____ 196 cm

I (at 191cm) am in between 188 and 196, but a little closer to the 196.
I read of people more stout than I skiing the 196, and some around my height skiing the 188.
This makes me think 188 would be the right length for me, except I’m happily skiing the Ingstad and Gamme in the longest lengths, which makes me wonder about the FTX 196, instead?

The other factor I’m thinking about is surface area relative to length.
If the FTX is a powder dream ski, at 62 in the waist, how does that square with all the 90 - 100++ waisted Alpine and Touring skis?
I mean, it seems like one would want some extra length to make up for the lost surface area due to being a narrower ski?
For example, an Alpine ski with an average width of 10.5cm x 180cm length has an area of 1890.
The FTX has an average width of say 75mm, or 7.5cm.
So, 1890 / 7.5 = 252cm ski for comparable surface area, which isn’t happening for the FTX!

Maybe I’m missing something, maybe I’m just over-thinking it.

Once again, I know there is no “right” answer — it just depends on one’s priorities, but would love to hear any thoughts on this!

Because it’s a nordic touring ski, not a downhill alpine ski. Try to get snappy kick and glide out of the 105 waisted ski. Apples to oranges comparison.

Now length wise, that’s where one has to decide on application and personal levels of use. I could see you going with either, for sure.

Btw, have you handled any others than your green? Wondering what the flex is like between first gen and Xplore

[Stephen]

Because it’s a nordic touring ski, not a downhill alpine ski. Try to get snappy kick and glide out of the 105 waisted ski. Apples to oranges comparison.

Now length wise, that’s where one has to decide on application and personal levels of use. I could see you going with either, for sure.

Btw, have you handled any others than your green? Wondering what the flex is like between first gen and Xplore

Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying, but I was not comparing Nordic skis to Alpine skis.
I was just thinking of these things that slide on snow (that we call skis) across the range of width and length (as well as flex and shape) and how that affects the skier’s experience (in my own geeky way).
And about “float” and speed (or lack of) in deeper snow relative to surface area.

I have not touched the FTX — availability seems pretty limited.
I have touched just the White/Green version.

[Woodserson]

what does this mean

The other factor I’m thinking about is surface area relative to length.
If the FTX is a powder dream ski, at 62 in the waist, how does that square with all the 90 - 100++ waisted Alpine and Touring skis?