Asnes Ingstad BC Sizing (second try)

[mca80]

Would 210 be appropriate if the ski is not being used as a dedicated turner? I mean for someone around 185lbs. I didn't know about Norseman in Calgary, so thank you for that tip.

185lbs puts you smack in the middle of Asnes' range for 200s. Many folks here recommend sizing up one for all Asnes skis unless they're really dedicated for downhill turns. All my Asnes are 1 size larger than recommended and I wouldn't change it except for maybe shorter on my Nansen because I am basically only using it now for downhill and uphill with mininal traversing. So, 210 should be fine for your purpose, especially if 185 is without a pack and clothes and whatnot.

Norseman doesn't list much on their website. There's a thread here discussing their stock for this season, with pictures. I am kinda curious about the MR48 and MT51 they have, but I need to quit buying skis until I build an addition on my cabin to store them.

[John Dee]

I forgot to include the Nato is also available at La Cordee (I think I overlooked that in my post), but they do not carry the 200, just 170, 190, 210. Would 210 be appropriate if the ski is not being used as a dedicated turner?

210 is dang long ski. I would ask them when it will be in stock.

[lilcliffy]

At 185lbs (moi) the 210 Combat NATO is the bomb-
stable in deep snow→ on the flats; up the hills; and riding beatutiful wide open turns!

At your weight, you will squash the camber on the 210 Combat NATO without effort- but the camber will release your kick wax/kicker skin when you stride forwards.

210 is not long by any traditional Nordic touring standard.
Based on your photos- if that snow is often cold, deep and soft→ you may be best in your "P1" with a 270 Finnish forest ski...the Uralic-Finnic backcountry skiers have this figured out, and dialed in- PERIOD.

The only reason a 210 Combat Nato would be "too much" is if you would have trouble compressing and pressuring the camber-
the Combat NATO is not a highly cambered ski (in fact it is less cambered than a Fischer 78/88, for example)- but it is stiff and resistant underfoot with a flexible shovel-
but, at your weight- you will have no issue pressuring the 210 Combat NATO.

the Combat Nato is very turnable- it just has a very long turn radius- so at a long length, one needs lots of room to make linked turns with this ski.
It is PERFECT for your "P1" context.

@tkarhu 's point of windswept snow is a key question here-
the big advantage of the Combat NATO vs the Ingstad BC, is the Combat's much better performance on dense-hardpack snow-
otherwise the Ingstad BC is a very good soft snow XC ski- and it offers a much tighter turn radius than the Combat NATO when you point it downhill.

[Capercaillie]

Very satisfied skier of 195cm Ingstads here. 82cm inseam, 75kg. I am going to be a bit of a contrarian on the topic.

"Whitehorse records snowiest December since 1980, says Environment Canada… The snow-on-ground measurement, which Environment and Climate Change Canada measures at the airport, found 58 cm as of Dec. 31."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/wh ... -1.6300135

Sounds like no Finnish forest skis needed there.

To decide on length, how easy do you find herringbone and side-stepping at 205cm? At 195cm? For me the difference between 195cm and 205cm is very noticeable (and a lot more significant than between 205cm and 220cm). 10cm is not a lot (only 5cm at the tip and 5cm at the tail…) so it is down to your physiology (inseam, flexibility, etc.) If you can rent/borrow XC skis in different lengths you should be able to find your own "sweet spot."

At 195cm with Xplore bindings the Ingstads rip on mountain bike trails and downhill, are great uphill, and excel at bushwhacking (I think the pivoting precision of Xplore really helps there). I find it harder to do any of those things on either of my 205cm skis (but I still prefer 205cm for anything other than singletrack). I enjoy firm lake snow on Ingstads; unconsolidated and deep lake snow makes me wish for my 220cm skis.

Fischer seems to be mistakenly listing pair weight as weight per ski in their marketing and dealer materials (same thing last season…).

As usual, I think the consensus is that you need many, many skis.

[corlay]

it is actually my primary experiment this winter→ 205 Ingstad BC vs 196 FTX...

if that snow is often cold, deep and soft→ you may be best in your "P1" with a 270 Finnish forest ski...the Uralic-Finnic backcountry skiers have this figured out, and dialed in- PERIOD.

^THIS will be my "primary experiment" this season
(as long as El Nino cooperates...)

[tkarhu]

"Whitehorse records snowiest December since 1980, says Environment Canada… The snow-on-ground measurement, which Environment and Climate Change Canada measures at the airport, found 58 cm as of Dec. 31."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/wh ... -1.6300135

Also:

"Whitehorse has a dry subarctic climate with extreme variations between seasonal temperatures. [...] Average annual snowfall is 4.76ft (145 cm) while the annual rainfall is 6.4 inches (163 mm), making Whitehorse Canada's driest city.

https://www.tripreport.com/cities/whitehorse/climate

If the 145 cm means five big dumps of snow a year, there will be quite a lot of windswept, hard snow at open locations. On the other hand, may forests have a meter of soft snow at the same time?

Even if two guys are skiing similar type of stuff from a village, their needs for skis may vary. If you are leading a clan of skiers through subarctic taiga, it may be nice to ski in forests. Yet if you are enjoying quiet of nature in solidute, it might be difficult to go several kilometers in the deep snows. A lone skier may try to find routes through open spots, which have windswept snow.

For one skier Ouslands might be good, and for many Combat NATO's might be better. Actually, it looks like there is 375 g weight difference per ski between the skis in 200 cm, which might make a difference (class 825 vs 1200 g). The Ouslands are actually quite a lot lighter than Gammes and Amundsens, which are 1010 g per ski. Yet Combat NATO's and Ouslands are similar XC oriented fjell skis, so you maybe would not really need both.

[Kneedle Drop]

This has been very helpful. The breadth and depth of knowledge here is remarkable. Now I need to do some thinking, thinking I would prefer to do on the trails, but alas the snow gods have not been smiling on us. The local ski hill opens today, and they just posted this sad piece of cartography.

[LTDinPNW]

Well, I will re-stoke this discussion.

I want to pick up a pair of edged touring skis this season for when I'm not out with the dogs. I've been on a 200 Waxless Breidablikks mounted with Xplore bindings for the past 2 years. I've had a blast on them, and I owe much of these experiences to getting me back into touring, to begin with.

Until landing on this post yesterday, I was set on a set of the T78 in a 199. I'm well over the 250 lbs. mark with a light pack. I generally put in somewhere between 2 to 5 miles tours and do that 2-3x weekly. I live in central Oregon (all of my skiing is between Bend and Sisters), so we get deeper snow amounts. I was just out last week after a 12+" dump. I'm generally in milder to moderate terrain, but most of the time, I'm headed out; it's uphill for a few of those miles with continuous climbs.

I'd like to know what the group here has experience/suggestions with amongst the following skis that might suit me best, seeing as I'm unable to demo these anywhere locally.

Current considerations:
199 Fisher T78 vs. 205 Asnes Ingstad vs. 210 Asnes Combat Nato.

I'll be mounting them up with another set of Xplore, too. I'm also open to something other than this brief list I might not know about.

I don't need anything that hammers downhill per se, like a full plastic boot and heavy-duty binding ( I did that for 16 years before switching to a split board for those days). I'm looking for a touring ski that floats well, grips well for sustained mild to moderate climbs, and is fun and more controllable on gentle descents.

Thanks in advance for your input/insight,

-A-

[Woodserson]

200 would be just right.

Correct answer
and a 205 Gamme

[Woodserson]

Well, I will re-stoke this discussion.

I want to pick up a pair of edged touring skis this season for when I'm not out with the dogs. I've been on a Breidablikks mounted with Xplore bindings for the past 2 years. I've had a blast on them, and I owe much of these experiences to getting me back into touring, to begin with.

Until landing on this post yesterday, I was set on a set of the T78 in a 199. I'm well over the 250 lbs. mark with a light pack. I generally put in somewhere between 2 to 5 miles tours and do that 2-3x weekly. I live in central Oregon (all of my skiing is between Bend and Sisters), so we get deeper snow amounts. I was just out last week after a 12+" dump. I'm generally in milder to moderate terrain, but most of the time, I'm headed out; it's uphill for a few of those miles with continuous climbs.

I'd like to know what the group here has experience/suggestions with amongst the following skis that might suit me best, seeing as I'm unable to demo these anywhere locally.

Current considerations:
199 Fisher T78 vs. 205 Asnes Ingstad vs. 210 Asnes Combat Nato.

I'll be mounting them up with another set of Xplore, too. I'm also open to something other than this brief list I might not know about.

I don't need anything that hammers downhill per se, like a full plastic boot and heavy-duty binding ( I did that for 16 years before switching to a split board for those days). I'm looking for a touring ski that floats well, grips well for sustained mild to moderate climbs, and is fun and more controllable on gentle descents.

Thanks in advance for your input/insight,

-A-

Breidabllikks in what length? Wax or Waxless?

Fischer has very big aggressive pattern. I'm afraid you will crush the ski and get poor glide. I'm 170 and happy on the 199 T78. But I prioritize glide.
I have a friend that is about 240 and I put him on 200 NATO's and he's happy on them, we did two day tours of 8 and 7 miles respectively in loose snow and it was good. He's also a neophyte XC skier. On compacted hard groomed snow they would be less ideal-- the 210's would be better but he is smaller in stature-- 5'7" or so, I think the 200 is a good compromise and we got him some MT51's for firm snow.

If your Breidabllikks are WL then you know the Asnes pattern works for you-- stick with that, I wouldn't jump over to Fischer. If they were WAX and you were using X-Skins, etc. then stick with that as well. I think you would happy on either the Ingstad or NATO, it just depends what you want out of the ski. Not much difference except edges with the Breids and the Ingstads though.