2022 Falketind 62 Xplore 196 cm First Impressions

[lilcliffy]

Sort of came down to wanting it to be an all a rounder, and knowing the 205 Ingstad seemed to work great for me in downhill mode, so thinking 9cm shorted on the FTX should still be good for turns.
But, the tip of the FTX is stiffer and less rockered than the Ingstad, so that’s going to push back on the turns.
But, the FTX has a rounder, more even flex — not as stiff under foot as the Ingstad.
The 23.2m turn radius on the 196 FTX seems geared toward bigger turns?

The FTX has got to have a shorter turn radius vs an equivalent-length Ingstad-
I am sure Asnes would be able to give us the exact metrics.

And with less resistance underfoot + rounder flex- the FTX will be easier to pressure evenly through turns than the Ingstad.

[Stephen]

…
The 23.2m turn radius on the 196 FTX seems geared toward bigger turns?

The FTX has got to have a shorter turn radius vs an equivalent-length Ingstad-
I am sure Asnes would be able to give us the exact metrics.

And with less resistance underfoot + rounder flex- the FTX will be easier to pressure evenly through turns than the Ingstad.

“Rounder flex” for sure.
Not sure about the “less resistance underfoot” part. They felt pretty similar in full-length stiffness.
“… the FTX will be easier to pressure evenly through turns than the Ingstad.” I think this will be true.

I’m wondering if the double camber skis (like the Ingstad) even have a true turn radius? I mean, yea, there is an arc, tip to tail, but the flat spot underfoot messes with that. The FTX does seem to have a smoother arc, and does have 23.2m turn radius marked on the ski (for 196cm). Never seen a turn radius spec’ed for a double camber ski?

[lilcliffy]

“Rounder flex” for sure.
Not sure about the “less resistance underfoot” part. They felt pretty similar in full-length stiffness.
“… the FTX will be easier to pressure evenly through turns than the Ingstad.” I think this will be true.

Your photo in the other thread- with the weight on both the FTX and the Ingstad- clearly illustrates that the Ingstad has more resistance underfoot than the FTX.
Also- wondeirng how the FTX can have a rounder flex than the Ingstad- yet, still have the same resistance underfoot as the Ingstad?

If the Ingstad is "double-cambered"- and the FTX is not- does the Ingstad not have more resistance underfoot than the FTX?

I’m wondering if the double camber skis (like the Ingstad) even have a true turn radius? I mean, yea, there is an arc, tip to tail, but the flat spot underfoot messes with that. The FTX does seem to have a smoother arc, and does have 23.2m turn radius marked on the ski (for 196cm). Never seen a turn radius spec’ed for a double camber ski?

I am almost 100% certain that Asnes sent me the metrics on the turn radius of the Ingstad BC vs Nansen (and perhaps vs Combat Nato as well)-
I will try and find it- or perhaps contact Asnes again about this.

I don't think I understand-
Why would a double-cambered ski not have a turn radius?
The only skis that would not have an inherent turn radius are skis that have no effective/working sidecut- no?

[lilcliffy]

From email communication on January, 2019:

Hi Gareth

Thanks for your email.

The turn radius on Nansen BC is 52 m (200 cm length ski).

The turn radius on Ingstad is 39,5 m (200 cm length ski).

Hope this was helpful.

Have a nice day!

Med venleg helsing / Best regards

[Stephen]

I’ve been sitting at the keyboard for a while now, trying to figure out how I can respond to @lilcliffy’s comments, without just making things more unclear and obfuscated.
I’ll do my best…
.

I don't think I understand-
Why would a double-cambered ski not have a turn radius?
The only skis that would not have an inherent turn radius are skis that have no effective/working sidecut- no?

Sure, a double camber ski can have a turn radius, but I don’t like the concept.
That ski has a flat spot underfoot that a single camber ski doesn’t.
A single camber ski can carve an arc. I would say that a double camber ski does not “carve” an arc, because of what’s happening in that flat spot under the foot.
Maybe it’s just semantics…
.

Your photo in the other thread- with the weight on both the FTX and the Ingstad- clearly illustrates that the Ingstad has more resistance underfoot than the FTX.
Also- wondering how the FTX can have a rounder flex than the Ingstad- yet, still have the same resistance underfoot as the Ingstad?

Maybe there is more than one way to think of “resistance under foot.”
One way is to think of it as from the double camber section of the ski.
Another would be from resistance felt by the entire camber of the ski.
I was thinking of resistance under foot in the latter way, in which case, the skis felt similar (but, the Ingstad is actually stiffer).
If resistance under foot is the double camber part of the ski, the Ingstad is much stiffer than the FTX in that section.

After more looking and flexing and weights on skis, I say:
The tail of the FTX and Ingstad seem to have about the same flex.
The tips behave differently, in part because the ingstad has more built-in Nordic Rocker than the FTX. NR means the un-flexed ski is already “bent” someplace in between the binding and the shovel of the ski.
The Ingstad is stiffer in the tip, somewhat, but not entirely, offset by the additional built in Nordic Rocker. The NR doesn’t affect the stiffness, but does affect the shape of the ski when it is flexed into an arc.

And, finally, I was comparing the 195 Ingstad and 196 FTX, which have their similarities and differences.
But, I wouldn’t be skiing a 195 Ingstad, I ski it in 205, so any similarities are blurred and the differences are magnified.

From email communication on January, 2019:
The turn radius on Nansen BC is 52 m (200 cm length ski).
The turn radius on Ingstad is 39,5 m (200 cm length ski).

Those look like the radius of Downhill or Super GS Skis!

Clear as mud?
. .

[lilcliffy]

A single camber ski can carve an arc. I would say that a double camber ski does not “carve” an arc, because of what’s happening in that flat spot under the foot.
Maybe it’s just semantics…

If the camber is compressed, and the effective edge is engaged in the turn- isn't that it? (Regardless of its camber profile?)

A single-cambered ski is going to be much easier to compress and engage the effective edge, than a double-camber or camber-and-a-half ski-
but, I don't see how that precludes a double-cambered ski from being pressured into a carved turn...

For example, the FTX will be easier to pressure into a carved turn (i.e. single-cambered) than the Ingstad (i.e. double-cambered/camber-and-a-half)- but, that doesn't mean that the Ingstad cannot be pressured into a carved turn- I do it all the time.

Given how the current FTX has a stiffer, more stable flex than the 1st/2nd-gen FT62- a very light skier might have difficulty pressuring a long FTX into a a carved turn.

At 180lbs, I do not have "trouble" pressuring my 205 Ingstad- but I do need to assertively pressure it. For reference, I completely compress the camber of the 205 Ingstad when standing on them evenly on a hard floor, but I can certainly feel the resistance under my feet. When I lift even a little weight off of one ski I can immediately feel the ski respond and rebound.

I also have a 185 Ingstad that I use in very tight steep terrain- at 180lbs it is much easier to evenly pressure the 185 vs the 205 Ingstad (but the XC performance of the 185 is pretty poor!) For reference, I do not feel that resistance underfoot when I stand on the 185.

Maybe there is more than one way to think of “resistance under foot.”
One way is to think of it as from the double camber section of the ski.
Another would be from resistance felt by the entire camber of the ski.
I was thinking of resistance under foot in the latter way, in which case, the skis felt similar (but, the Ingstad is actually stiffer).
If resistance under foot is the double camber part of the ski, the Ingstad is much stiffer than the FTX in that section.

Well- when I say "resistance underfoot"- I am speaking of the resistance/camber that is specifically underfoot- I am not speaking to the longitudinal flex of the entire ski.
For example- the Fischer E-109 Xtralite has even more camber and resistance underfoot than the Ingstad- yet the Ingstad is longitudinally stiffer and more supportive than the E109.

The extra resistance-camber underfoot of a ski like the Ingstad (vs the FTX) makes it a more efficient XC kick and glide ski- in all snow conditions. Ironically, I feel and appreciate the extra resistance underfoot of the Ingstad more in deep soft snow than on consolidated snow. The Ingstad is not a highly cambered ski- it feels pretty dead when XC skiing on hardpack- it may track better than my FT62- but it does not offer the Classic kick and rebound of highly-cambered Classic XC ski. For example, the E109-XL offer more XC kick on hardpack than the Ingstad.

The current FTX may be siffer than the 1st/2nd-gen FT62- but it sure looks like a single-cambered ski in this video:


I still don't see how it can have the same amount of resistance underfoot as the camber-and-a-half Ingstad...

[lilcliffy]

But, the FTX has a rounder, more even flex — not as stiff under foot as the Ingstad.

[Stephen]

Ok, you win!


I’ll adjust my thinking to match commonly used terminology.

Resistance under foot comes from the mid section of the ski, in XC skis, the wax pocket or second camber?

Double camber ski turn radius: If I make myself stop thinking about that flat section under foot, then the front and back of a bent double camber ski are bent into an arc that has a radius. The underfoot section is not part of that radius, it’s doing something else.

I still don't see how it can have the same amount of resistance underfoot as the camber-and-a-half Ingstad...

Neither do I. Did i say that? I can’t remember at this point…
(Please don’t waste any time going back and finding where I said that — I’m sure you have better things to do.)

[GrimSurfer]

There’s probably a term for it but I also think of camber resistance. Kind of like a weight rating thing, but trickier in a double camber ski.

Some of those skis initially compress quite easily, so they appear to have reasonable flex. It takes a lot to completely flatten them. They glide well and kick well in powder. Don’t kick worth a damn in firmer snow because the grip zone doesn’t engage unless the wax pocket is extended, which has an effect on glide.

They might have the same weight rating as a single camber ski but their response to load is different. Like a rising rate spring.

I guess this can affect turning because of the way the side it engages (or not). Dunno…

[lowangle al]

I don't think dbl camber skis stay compressed long enough for turn radius to matter.

On single camber you can quietly ride your edges through not only the turn, but the transitions too. Both skis evenly weighted and edged, from edge change to edge change, gliding silently barely disturbing a thing.