2022 Falketind 62 Xplore 196 cm First Impressions

[Chriso]

So not to pollute this thread with to much of me and to little of the Faketinds i have started another thread in the talk forum.

https://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6466

Any questions i have not answered so far, please feel free to ask on the other thread

Ill be sure to post any experience i find about the Falketind X in my prosess of aquiring new skis.

Thanks for the information so far guys

[lilcliffy]

@The GCW
Thank you for the further information and explanation-
Curious-
considering your specific use case- more downhill than XC-
why would you choose a short Falketind 62 vs a short Rabb 68?

[lilcliffy]

...
I think that the advantage of the Falketind over the Rabb is only effectively realized in a longer length- offer more directional stability. I don't think that there is any advantage of a short Falketind vs a Rabb...

Åsnes states that Falketind is more like a BC ski e.g. Ingstad, while Rabb is more akin to alpine touring ski, e.g. Nosi, but the difference is not large. The similarities sounds larger than the differences, so length probably makes more of a difference.

I know that Asnes claims that the FT is more like a Nordic touring ski (they even refer to it as having a "double camber" in their promotional video that you posted)-
if the FTX has a "double camber" it is the most subtle version of one I have ever experienced-
the FTX is less cambered and has less resitance underfoot than the Ingstad- and the Ingstad is not a highly cambered ski by any stretch...
Personally, I don't see/feel any difference in camber and resistance underfoot between the FTX and the Rabb 68-
if it is there, it is a very subtle difference...
(Overall- over its length- the Rabb feels a bit stiffer than the FTX- but, that is probably just because it is wider- more material)

Regardless, the camber and flex of the current Falketind 62 and Rabb 68 are much closer to each other than they are to the Ingstad.

I kind of want a pair of Ingstad in addition to my Falketind 62 XP for flatter and longer tours, but I already have an old pair of Fischer E109 in 188 and Ingstad also only comes in 185 or 195 cm length.

The Ingstad comes in lengths to 205- and the previous design Combat NATO comes in lengths to 210.
Which version of the E109 do you have?
On paper the E-109 Xtralite is near identical to the Ingstad BC in terms of geometry- but, the Ingstad BC has a stiffer flex over its length.

I will try my Falketind 62 XP 180 cm and see if it can replace the E109 for my use,

My primary interest in the FTX is to see if I can live without my Ingstad. The Ingstad breaks trail in deep snow more effectively, but the FTX offers much smoother butter turns.
I think what I want is an FTX with the Ingstad's raised, triangular tip...

[telerat]

I kind of want a pair of Ingstad in addition to my Falketind 62 XP for flatter and longer tours, but I already have an old pair of Fischer E109 in 188 and Ingstad also only comes in 185 or 195 cm length.

The Ingstad comes in lengths to 205- and the previous design Combat NATO comes in lengths to 210.
Which version of the E09 do you have?
On paper the E-109 Xtralite is near identical to the Ingstad BC in terms of geometry- but, the Ingstad BC has a stiffer flex over its length.

My E109 is from 2005 or so. It turns nice and floats better than my previous xcd/bc skis, but wanders quite a bit on firm snow and support on soft snow feels a bit mediocre. I first remounted the E109 with Xplore reusing the old 75mm holes, which put the the binding 2.4 cm behind the pin line. Striding in deep loose snow was not good, especially uphill, but moving the binding 3 cm forward made a noticeable improvement. I would choose Ingstad now due to the stiffer flex and better distance covering properties, but I wonder how large the difference is so it would be nice to try them side by side. I do have Ousland for use in firm(er) conditions now.

I will try my Falketind 62 XP 180 cm and see if it can replace the E109 for my use,

My primary interest in the FTX is to see if I can live without my Ingstad. The Ingstad breaks trail in deep snow more effectively, but the FTX offers much smoother butter turns.
I think what I want is an FTX with the Ingstad's raised, triangular tip...

My interest in FTX is for mellow alpine touring (possibly longer/flatter approaches, before mostly up and then down), where my plastic telemark boots, NTN/75mm cable bindings and wider skis are heavy, slow and overkill. The FTX's lower tip can deflect less when hitting obstacles, which is nice at higher speeds.

If FTX with its large side-cut can work almost as well as Ingstad for covering distance, I totally agree that a higher tip would be nice, even though I have not tried my FTX yet. Ski length obviously matters. Åsnes recommended 172 cm length for my 175 cm height, but I chose 180 for all-round use. If my focus was more on covering distances I would have chosen 188 and if it was purely up and down ski with a focus on playfulness I would have gone with 172.

Ingstad and FXT have the same waist width, which should make float about the same disregarding any difference in stiffness/support. It also makes cross use of x-skins possible, which could be nice. I am trying to reduce my ski collection, but am tempted to buy a pair of Ingstad in 195 cm length to try out. I would prefer it in 190 cm length though, so the NATO Jeger BC could be an alternative. If I need more support in soft snow, I would prefer to go wider instead of longer, i.e. Rabb 68, Rossignol BC100 or possibly Madshus M78. If the terrain is open without trees and with little downhill, longer would also work well. I will wait and see how the FTX works out first now.

[lilcliffy]

My E109 is from 2005 or so.

Right- that is what I thought-
pre "Xtralite" design- without the soft and deeply rockered shovel.
Correct me if I am wrong, but my memory is that your E109 has a more stable flex than the E109 Xtralite...

My interest in FTX is for mellow alpine touring (possibly longer/flatter approaches, before mostly up and then down), where my plastic telemark boots, NTN/75mm cable bindings and wider skis are heavy, slow and overkill. The FTX's lower tip can deflect less when hitting obstacles, which is nice at higher speeds.

The shovel and tip of the Falketind is superb at downhill speeds-
Where I find it wanting is breaking trail on the flats and when climbing.

If FTX with its large side-cut can work almost as well as Ingstad for covering distance, I totally agree that a higher tip would be nice, even though I have not tried my FTX yet. Ski length obviously matters. Åsnes recommended 172 cm length for my 175 cm height, but I chose 180 for all-round use. If my focus was more on covering distances I would have chosen 188 and if it was purely up and down ski with a focus on playfulness I would have gone with 172.

Yes- and based on my experiences with both the current FTX and the Rabb 68-
my current evaluation is that if one is considering a short FTX for downhill focus, I think a short Rabb is a better choice.

Ingstad and FXT have the same waist width, which should make float about the same disregarding any difference in stiffness/support.

Yes- and this is congruent with UTE magazine tests of the FTX and Ingstad BC.
I have not tested the FTX in truly deep snow yet- I will in the coming weeks-
If I can enjoy the 196 FTX when breaking trail in truly deep snow- it will make my Ingstad redundant (as I have a 210 Combat NATO which is better at breaking trail in deep snow than all of them).

[lilcliffy]

Another superb tur on my 196 FTX today-
love this ski.
I can confirm without doubt that it has a stiffer, more stable flex than the previous 1st/2nd generation Falketind.
The FTX is more stable in deep snow- it is more directionally stable- and it still offers wonderful, smooth, buttery turns!
I actually think it performs better downhill overall than the previous gen, becasue it is more stable.

Yesterday- we got a good 20cm of soft fresh snow on top of cold, soft mult-layered snow, over a very cold refrozen base.
Snow was fast today- even with trail-breaking.

I went out for three separate tours today-
196 FTX
205 Ingstad BC
180 Rabb 68

205 Ingstad BC noticeably most efficient trailbreaker and fastest in XC mode.
196 FTX noticeably faster than 180 Rabb 68- mostly in these conditions.
180 Rabb noticeably offered the most flotation and stability underfoot- that was most significant downhill.

Ideal snow conditions for all three of these skis- both XC and downhill.
Rabb 68 offered the best downhill performance- wow.
FTX significantly better downhill (tighter, smoother turns) than the Ingstad.
FTX reasonably efficient in XC mode today (and so was the Rabb)- we shall see what they are like in much deeper snow...

I LOVE the tail on the FTX (and the Rabb). It is the tail design that completely changes the downhill performance of the FTX vs the Ingstad...

Skaget XP used today on all three skis.

(I think I am about to pull the 75mm binding off my 188 Storetind and mount XP...)

[lilcliffy]

The FTX failed me today-

~30cm of cold, soft, fresh snow over a thin breakable crust- over more than a metre of multi-layered base.

The waspy waist of the FTX broke through the crust below, and the shovel and tail floated on top- BLAH- terrible.
Went back to my vehicle and broke out the big guns.

[Chriso]

@lilcliffy sounds like simulare conditions and experience I had this weekend.

[telerat]

My E109 is from 2005 or so.

Right- that is what I thought-
pre "Xtralite" design with the soft and deeply rockered shovel.
Correct me if I am wrong, but my memory is that your E109 has a more stable flex than the E109 Xtralite...

I have no idea how the two versions of E109 compares and I am unsure what stable flex means. If my model is stiffer/more supportive, then I would not want the newer Xtralite-version.. I think I would rather want a more supportive/stiffer ski and wonder if Ingstad could be that. Falketind would cover the more up/down/fun skiing anyway. There are other holes in my ski quiver that needs patching before I would buy an Ingstad though.


I finally managed to test my Falketind 62 XP on two short tours this weekend, after mounting them on Friday. Mine are 180 cm for my 175 cm length. The conditions were a mix of hard packed snow and deep corn/loose snow with crust on top.

On Saturday I used the with Alfa Free and on with hard snow it turned well and felt stable when going straight. The tip stayed on top or sought to the surface, but there were no deep homogenous loose snow. Flat light and especially the high winds cut the tour short.

On Sunday I used Alfa Skaget and first followed a prepared track and then broke trail, with my wife following on narrow skis. When Falketind broke through the crust into deep snow, the softer tip often stayed on top or easily sought to the surface, while the waist and tail sunk. When going back in the same track, the tip could of course not seek to the surface and followed the track. This with the wide tip, gave quite a bit of resistance, so speed was a bit slower than desired. My E109 (or Ingstad) would probably have been a better choice for that tour, but I wanted to test the Falketind. The wide kicker/short skins gave great grip and was very nice on the steepest ascent, which although not very steep are hard to scale with wax on my E109s from previous experiences.

[lilcliffy]

@lilcliffy sounds like simulare conditions and experience I had this weekend.

Yes!
I am kinda convinced (at least for me!) that 68mm underfoot is a significant control point in ski design...
In my limited experience a ski narrower than ~68mm underfoot needs to be longitudinally stiff enough to be supportive in truly deep snow and/or crust and/or multi-layered snow...

For example, the 68mm Rabb 68 was waaaay more stable on that crust than the 196 FTX.
I would have taken the Rabb had my objective been to ski slopes-
but, my pursuit was to cover some distance and confirm the status of local timber harvesting operations and check out a ridge traverse.
The Combat NATO is longitudinally stable enough to compensate for its narrow waist, and it is more efficient trail-breaking and over distance than the Rabb 68.

Of note-
I was 100 to 200m higher in elevation yesterday than I was Friday and Saturday-
I didn't even notice the crust on Friday-Saturday, because it was thicker, and the soft snow above the crust supported my weight with the FTX.
Yesterday, the crust below was thinner at higher elevation, and did not support my weight- causing the waist of the FTX to break the crust and the shovel and tail to float on the soft snow above it.