Page 1 of 1

Ingstad 205 vs 195

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 11:16 pm
by Nitram Tocrut
Not too sure if I should have posted that here or the general forum... but anyway I wanted to share my impressions on the Ingstad 205 vs 195 as it might help someone picking the right length.

I just got the 205 as a replacement for my 195 that had a small defect on one ski. Of course I could not resist the tentation of trying them despite our very thin snow cover. They are mounted on Voile 3 pins cable as opposed to a Voile Traverse on the 195.

First impression, they seem to be flatter than the 195 with a less pronounce camber (it is an impression, not an affirmation ;) ) That led me to think that they could be easier to weight when turning. I was actually right as I felt they were easier to turn despite the longer length. They really felt more stable than the 195 even without the cable. My back ski was less prone to « squirrel » around. I forgot to say that I am a novice telemarker but a seasoned XC skier. That was with the Alaska and I plan to try the T4 tomorrow and I am looking forward to it.

Second impression. You won’t be surprise if I say that it was such an improvement for the touring part. It is amazing the difference 10 cm can make. They kick better, they glide better and the fun is way better. I also have the impression that they will climb better. I am looking for even more improvement with the right was as I used blue but I should have used a slightly colder wax.

I am 6,1 and 205-210 pounds. On the Asnes site, for my height they recommend the 195 but there is no way I regret getting the 205 as a replacement. I have always skied long skis (I have 210 and 220 Europa99 and long groomed track skis) and I like this old way of thinking :D

Re: Ingstad 205 vs 195

Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 2:28 pm
by Danylewich
Similarly I got the FT62 at the longest length possible (188 cm, only three sizes available). At 6'1" and 170lbs, I was just on the low end of the Asnes recommendation for 188 and just from reading the charts the next size down would have seemed the better pick. But I think the 188 is perfect for me. Very similar experience with Nansen, I got too small, though I was hesitant and decided to downsize 5cm and it felt very small. My take on all this is to add 5cm to Asnes recommendations!

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


Re: Ingstad 205 vs 195

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:42 pm
by Woodserson
Nitram Tocrut wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 11:16 pm

First impression, they seem to be flatter than the 195 with a less pronounce camber (it is an impression, not an affirmation ;) ) That led me to think that they could be easier to weight when turning.

Second impression. You won’t be surprise if I say that it was such an improvement for the touring part. It is amazing the difference 10 cm can make. They kick better, they glide better and the fun is way better. I also have the impression that they will climb better. I am looking for even more improvement with the right was as I used blue but I should have used a slightly colder wax.
First impression: I had a few pairs of Ingstads at one point in this house and I had one ski with a non-matching serial number with a lot less flex. I think the "flatter" ski you have in the 205 could be on a pair-by-pair basis and not the rule that the 205 is actually less cambered. There is variation of camber within the fleet. Regardless, you now have the optimum combination with less camber and the longer length.

Second impression: I believe this 100%. I got the 195 and I know the 205 will tour better. I am on the fence on doing a swap to the longer length for this reason.

Re: Ingstad 205 vs 195

Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 12:55 am
by Johnny
Skis under 200cm are not real skis...

Re: Ingstad 205 vs 195

Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:57 am
by bgregoire
Johnny wrote:
Tue Dec 10, 2019 12:55 am
Skis under 200cm are not real skis...
Perhaps....when you are 6+ feet yourself.

So should we throw away our Rabbs and FT62 188s? I'll take 'em, thanks.

Re: Ingstad 205 vs 195

Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:13 am
by Nitram Tocrut
bgregoire wrote:
Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:57 am
Johnny wrote:
Tue Dec 10, 2019 12:55 am
Skis under 200cm are not real skis...
Perhaps....when you are 6+ feet yourself.

So should we throw away our Rabbs and FT62 188s? I'll take 'em, thanks.
No way Benjamin... I already asked a couple of weeks ago for the 188 FT62 so I am first in line ;)

The 188 Rabbs are just fine for me so I assume the FT62 would be just great as well... I bought 172 FT62 for my wife so I am just waiting for her to try them first before I try them... or maybe I should not so the Asnes fever won’t strike again :lol:

Re: Ingstad 205 vs 195

Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:03 pm
by Cannatonic
Skis under 200cm are not real skis...
[/quote]

So should we throw away our Rabbs and FT62 188s? I'll take 'em, thanks.
[/quote]

those aren't skis, they're actually dual snowboards :lol: :lol: