Excursion 88 vs. Ingstad vs. transnordic 82

[fisheater]

My 196 cm Falketind Xplore gives acceptable XC performance for an XCD ski. That being said I recently purchased a Nansen in 205 cm. It will certainly offer better XC performance than the FT X. I’ve owned the FT X for several years, but I never remember cursing or praising its performance on consolidated snow. Trying to think back, I believe it works well enough with my typical glide on the low side steel edge. I certainly don’t have any nightmare memories of the FT X wandering all over the place. I do have memories of being on consolidated snow and not thinking about my skis.
I am fond of the performance of the Falketind X, however it’s also true that I wanted an XC ski that turns better than my Gamme. It will be interesting to see where Nansen fits in the mix. They are really two completely different skis. The FT X a XCD ski with kick, but more so than the Fischer skis, high quality edges, and a carbon/wood core that isn’t a noodle on edge. The Nansen is a real off track XC ski, it has a real wax pocket, but it is just soft enough it may bend a bit in a turn (I don’t know yet).

I only posted to muddy the waters . Not really, if anything I think a better morel of this story is different skis do different jobs. You will probably add a different ski for different conditions over the next few years. Pick a ski that performs. In my mind, while the FT X in 196 cm should be a much better XC ski than a short Rabb, they are close to the same type of ski. I would include the SB 98 in that group. However if you ski an XC ski short, you may give up the k&g performance of the XC ski. You also mentioned going on slopes under 30 degrees. Well, 25 degrees is intermediate run at a ski resort. If you’re on terrain like that I would be on a wood core XCD ski with real edges.

[fisheater]

Lastly, do you think the Asnes falketind or the Combat nato could do a better job on trips such as mountain traverses in varied snow and terrain with a backpack? Compared to Excursion 88.

The construction of the Falketind looks very similar to the Rabb, just slimmer. This could indicate its also more suited for soft snow conditions?

From having skied the Falketind, it is okay for flat and rolling terrain XC wise, but on traverses it's not the best, it kinda wants to veer off from its path. Assume the very same from the Rabb, get to test it soon hopefully.

The tips are profiled lower so these two skis are not really distance oriented XC skis in deeper snow. 10-15cn pow is okay, any deeper the tips sink. Steep sidecut also makes grip worse in loose snow as the pressure is on shovel and tail instead of the grip zone. I got full skins instead of the Easyskin that hardly worked going uphill in steep enough grade

Nato/E88 certainly would be better for distance travel and would offer better edge hold. But FT/R are way better downhill skis that make approaches okay. I would assume Ingstad climbs better and is more fun downhill too. But more distance/deep snow oriented over the FT/R skis

Just curious at Theme, I routinely ski off camber, post holed trails. It’s routine for me to set an edge on my glide foot. I do it all the time, at least on Gamme and Falketind X. Is this part of your repretoire?

[Theme]

Just curious at Theme, I routinely ski off camber, post holed trails. It’s routine for me to set an edge on my glide foot. I do it all the time, at least on Gamme and Falketind X. Is this part of your repretoire?

I am not sure if I understood what you mean by setting an edge? Tilting the ski over its longitudal axis to hold and edge on one side to keep direction over boot track?

Yes sometimes do that. Though what I referred to, FTX tends to start turning upwards on hardpack traverses, then have to adjust the stride downwards again. It was quite directional in all other scenarios, honestly. On par with Ingstad if not better. Softer flex but probably that has to do something with it working better than the wandery skiing on hard surfaces on the Ingstad

Nansen definitely will arc, it is a softer ski

I went shorter with the Rabb, got 180 instead of previous 188 FTX. Mainly to accommodate steep trees skiing better & because I was super happy with K&G of the Falketind, figured a Rabb in slightly shorter length can't be that much worse. Probably less directional but that's not a concern on most of my day trips around here in softer snow/walking tracks/windpack/soft snow in trees. Shorter approaches than before as I happened to move inbetween these two skis.

[fisheater]

Thanks @Theme I appreciate your impressions. I’m not skiing the mountains you ski. Well, at least unless I drive a close to a half day.

[lilcliffy]

Lastly, do you think the Asnes falketind or the Combat nato could do a better job on trips such as mountain traverses in varied snow and terrain with a backpack? Compared to Excursion 88.

I don't think that the FTX or the Combat NATO would be "better on trips such as mountain traverses in varied snow and terrain with a backpack"-

The FTX is a better/smoother- shorter turn radius + rockered and tapered + low, alpine camber- downhill ski than the Combat NATO and the Fischer 88.

The FTX is rockered and tapered, and has very little camber- it is not an efficient XC ski compared to the Combat NATO and the Fischer 88.

The Combat NATO and the Fischer 88 are perhaps equally efficient XC skis on consolidated snow (the 88 is a bit more efficient due to higher camber)-
The Combat NATO is a more efficient trail-breaker in truly deep snow.
The Combat NATO has a shorter/narrower turn radius than the Fischer 88.

If one does not need/want a scaled base- the Combat NATO is a more efficient XC ski than the 88 (except perhaps on hardpack snow), and it is a smoother more nimble downhill ski.

The construction of the Falketind looks very similar to the Rabb, just slimmer. This could indicate its also more suited for soft snow conditions?

Yes- I think and my experience is that the FTX is tuned for soft snow. I think that the FTX does have more resistance underfoot than the Rabb, but I think one has to be significantly lighter than us to take advantage of it. At 84kg, I really don't see the relevance of the FTX to be honest...I do have a 196 FTX, and it is great- but, I would trade in for a 196 Rabb if I could...

I dont know much about the Combat other than it is a more burly version of Ingstad. Do you think that ski is worth considering for this purpose?

The only thing that the Combat NATO and the Ingstad BC share is sidecut measurements-
- the Combat NATO has no rocker- the Ingstad has a deeply rockered shovel.

The Ingstad BC has a shorter/narrower turn radius than the Combat NATO, but it has a much shorter glide zone/effective edge- the Ingstad tracks well in deep snow, but it is all over the place on hardpack- tedious to exhausting over long distance.

The FTX and Rabb actually have less rocker than the Ingstad BC. Although the traditional, raised triangular tip of the Ingstad BC breaks trail more efficiently- interestingly, overall, the FTX and the Rabb are probably more efficient XC skis than the Ingstad BC- due to having less rocker and a longer glide zone...

I am not ready to say it yet- but, I think that FTX/Rabb may make my beloved Ingstad BC obsolete...

Back to the Combat ski- if I had to have one backcountry Nordic touring ski- it would be the Combat NATO.
If I didn't get so much snowfall- the Asnes Gamme 54.

I may have become a little wiser about my needs in a ski. Since I'm not looking for a purely XCD ski, but rather an XC ski with XCD capabilities.

Christian

The Fischer 88 and the Asnes Combat NATO are XC skis with XCD capabilities.
(The Ingstad BC is as well- and is even better downhill than the Combat- but it is a terrible XC ski on hardpack snow)

The Fischer 98, and Asnes FTX/Rabb are downhill-oriented Nordic skis- with middling XC performance- depending on the snow conditions.

The Asnes Nansen, and also the Gamme 54 are skis to consider as well...The Nansen having a smooth downhill flex; the Gamme 54 is very stiff and efficient, with a slightly rockered shovel (does not turn as smoothly as the Nansen- but is a more efficient XC ski).

Have you decided whether you are content with a smooth wax base- or do you want scales?
Gareth

[lilcliffy]

(Asnes FTX)
The tips are profiled lower so these two skis are not really distance oriented XC skis in deeper snow. 10-15cn pow is okay, any deeper the tips sink.

My experience as well.

(Asnes FTX)
Steep sidecut also makes grip worse in loose snow as the pressure is on shovel and tail instead of the grip zone.

My experience as well.

Nato/E88 certainly would be better for distance travel and would offer better edge hold. But FT/R are way better downhill skis that make approaches okay. I would assume Ingstad climbs better and is more fun downhill too. But more distance/deep snow oriented over the FT/R skis

Agree.

[lilcliffy]

In my mind, while the FT X in 196 cm should be a much better XC ski than a short Rabb,

This is true- as I have the 196 FTX, and the 180 Rabb-
but I don't necesarily think that at 196 FTX is a better XC ski than a 196 Rabb...
I think it depends on skier weight...

However if you ski an XC ski short, you may give up the k&g performance of the XC ski.

To infinity and beyond!

You also mentioned going on slopes under 30 degrees. Well, 25 degrees is intermediate run at a ski resort. If you’re on terrain like that I would be on a wood core XCD ski with real edges.

Yes. As much as I enjoyed the Fischer 98 last "winter"- it has no torsional stability.

[Christian96moeller]

Lastly, do you think the Asnes falketind or the Combat nato could do a better job on trips such as mountain traverses in varied snow and terrain with a backpack? Compared to Excursion 88.

I don't think that the FTX or the Combat NATO would be "better on trips such as mountain traverses in varied snow and terrain with a backpack"-

The FTX is a better/smoother- shorter turn radius + rockered and tapered + low, alpine camber- downhill ski than the Combat NATO and the Fischer 88.

The FTX is rockered and tapered, and has very little camber- it is not an efficient XC ski compared to the Combat NATO and the Fischer 88.

The Combat NATO and the Fischer 88 are perhaps equally efficient XC skis on consolidated snow (the 88 is a bit more efficient due to higher camber)-
The Combat NATO is a more efficient trail-breaker in truly deep snow.
The Combat NATO has a shorter/narrower turn radius than the Fischer 88.

If one does not need/want a scaled base- the Combat NATO is a more efficient XC ski than the 88 (except perhaps on hardpack snow), and it is a smoother more nimble downhill ski.

The construction of the Falketind looks very similar to the Rabb, just slimmer. This could indicate its also more suited for soft snow conditions?

Yes- I think and my experience is that the FTX is tuned for soft snow. I think that the FTX does have more resistance underfoot than the Rabb, but I think one has to be significantly lighter than us to take advantage of it. At 84kg, I really don't see the relevance of the FTX to be honest...I do have a 196 FTX, and it is great- but, I would trade in for a 196 Rabb if I could...

I dont know much about the Combat other than it is a more burly version of Ingstad. Do you think that ski is worth considering for this purpose?

The only thing that the Combat NATO and the Ingstad BC share is sidecut measurements-
- the Combat NATO has no rocker- the Ingstad has a deeply rockered shovel.

The Ingstad BC has a shorter/narrower turn radius than the Combat NATO, but it has a much shorter glide zone/effective edge- the Ingstad tracks well in deep snow, but it is all over the place on hardpack- tedious to exhausting over long distance.

The FTX and Rabb actually have less rocker than the Ingstad BC. Although the traditional, raised triangular tip of the Ingstad BC breaks trail more efficiently- interestingly, overall, the FTX and the Rabb are probably more efficient XC skis than the Ingstad BC- due to having less rocker and a longer glide zone...

I am not ready to say it yet- but, I think that FTX/Rabb may make my beloved Ingstad BC obsolete...

Back to the Combat ski- if I had to have one backcountry Nordic touring ski- it would be the Combat NATO.
If I didn't get so much snowfall- the Asnes Gamme 54.

I may have become a little wiser about my needs in a ski. Since I'm not looking for a purely XCD ski, but rather an XC ski with XCD capabilities.

Christian

The Fischer 88 and the Asnes Combat NATO are XC skis with XCD capabilities.
(The Ingstad BC is as well- and is even better downhill than the Combat- but it is a terrible XC ski on hardpack snow)

The Fischer 98, and Asnes FTX/Rabb are downhill-oriented Nordic skis- with middling XC performance- depending on the snow conditions.

The Asnes Nansen, and also the Gamme 54 are skis to consider as well...The Nansen having a smooth downhill flex; the Gamme 54 is very stiff and efficient, with a slightly rockered shovel (does not turn as smoothly as the Nansen- but is a more efficient XC ski).

Have you decided whether you are content with a smooth wax base- or do you want scales?
Gareth

Amazing to see all the activity in the thread! A lot of great inputs!

I have mostly thought about using skins. Scales seems like a nice option when skins are a bit overkill. I have never owned a pair FIscher skis, so I dont have any personal experience with them. I can imagine some of their downsides, but for my part scales would mainly be a positive feautre.

Another thing I just want to clearify is the so called moountain traverses. By this I just mean trips where I go from point A to point B.

The combat Nato seems to have a stronger construction than the F88's with a poplar wooden, which could explain why asnes skis seems to have more torsional stiffness.

Nansen has been mentioned a few times and it seems like a really good option too. Maybe it because I dream of wider ski or the aesthetics of the ski (not a good reason, i know) which make me hesitant.

Christian

[Christian96moeller]

My 196 cm Falketind Xplore gives acceptable XC performance for an XCD ski. That being said I recently purchased a Nansen in 205 cm. It will certainly offer better XC performance than the FT X. I’ve owned the FT X for several years, but I never remember cursing or praising its performance on consolidated snow. Trying to think back, I believe it works well enough with my typical glide on the low side steel edge. I certainly don’t have any nightmare memories of the FT X wandering all over the place. I do have memories of being on consolidated snow and not thinking about my skis.
I am fond of the performance of the Falketind X, however it’s also true that I wanted an XC ski that turns better than my Gamme. It will be interesting to see where Nansen fits in the mix. They are really two completely different skis. The FT X a XCD ski with kick, but more so than the Fischer skis, high quality edges, and a carbon/wood core that isn’t a noodle on edge. The Nansen is a real off track XC ski, it has a real wax pocket, but it is just soft enough it may bend a bit in a turn (I don’t know yet).

I only posted to muddy the waters . Not really, if anything I think a better morel of this story is different skis do different jobs. You will probably add a different ski for different conditions over the next few years. Pick a ski that performs. In my mind, while the FT X in 196 cm should be a much better XC ski than a short Rabb, they are close to the same type of ski. I would include the SB 98 in that group. However if you ski an XC ski short, you may give up the k&g performance of the XC ski. You also mentioned going on slopes under 30 degrees. Well, 25 degrees is intermediate run at a ski resort. If you’re on terrain like that I would be on a wood core XCD ski with real edges.

Thanks for your response @fisheater !

When you say a stronger ski with a wooden core, do you refer to proper telemark ski then?

Christian

[fisheater]

The Fischer and Madshus XCD skis have a laminated wood “air core”. I am aware Kastle is now offering XCD skis, I don’t know anything about OAC skis, or the many Skimo type designs. I do know the Asnes backcountry and Mountain touring skis have mostly poplar/carbon cores.
I believe Kastle is offering scaled models, but have no information as to their construction.
I have skied air core skis on piste on 30 degree firm slopes. I did it for a couple years. The lack of torsional rigidity did not allow for confidence at speed on firm surfaces. The skis are torsional noodles.