Comparison of Falketind 62 and Rabb 68 (+thoughts on Alfa Free, flexors)

Real reviews by real skiers. What a concept! Add your own today. Reviews only please, questions can be posted as replies but new threads looking for opinions should be posted to the main Telemark Talk Forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
telemarius
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2022 9:39 am
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Ski style: XC track skiing, Telerando
Favorite Skis: Åsnes Rabb || Madshus Nanosonic
Favorite boots: Alfa Free || Madshus Nano Carbon Pursuit
Occupation: Student

Comparison of Falketind 62 and Rabb 68 (+thoughts on Alfa Free, flexors)

Post by telemarius » Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:20 pm

Hi all,

I was able to test the two back-to-back for some runs. This will just be some initial impressions. Let me start by saying that I have limited experience with other mountain-/downhill skis. My opinions are my own, you may feel different and your milage my vary. That said, I’ve skied XC track skiing actively for 20 years. I have good balance, technique, and endurance. I’m still new to the backcountry/downhill game, but I hope my experience can let me describe the differences in feel between the skis.
IMG_20220322_172028.jpg
Upper ski: Falketind 62 188cm. Bottom ski: Rabb 68 188cm. Both with Rottefella Xplore binding
.
So, the Falketind 62 (FT) and the Rabb 68 (R). Both 2022 models, tuned with the Rottefella Xplore system in mind. Let’s start by agreeing that, yes, the skis are different. The FT are better for kick and glide (K&G). The R are better downhill. But, in both cases the word “just” springs to mind. Just better at K&G. Just better at downhill. Ultimately, the skis feel and act very similar. This surprised me, as I expected the skis characteristics to be quite different.

The conditions were old, grainy, and wet snow on a sunny, mild day (+4C), also with some hardpacked, icy trails. I skied both pairs at 188cm length, which is the Åsnes recommended for my 186cm height (and, I’d assume, my 80kg in-shower-weight). I used my newly purchased Alfa Frees, with both the normal and the hard flexors.

Now, the first time I used the Xplore system I skied R at 180cm with the Alfas. The R felt too short, so I tested at 188cm this time around. However, contrary to last time I felt unstable on the back foot. The “tip-toed” feeling everyone was asking about was finally giving me a hard time. I was unable to fully control my back ski in the turns and ended up falling a lot. This frustrated me as I had been teleturning my XC track skis the day prior with success.

After some thought, I think it has to do with the fact that my technique has changed since last time I tried Xplore and Alfa Free. I got some valuable feedback from this forum that I should try to put down my front foot, and not tippy-toe in the turns, on my XC skis. I've changed to a XC boot with a softer sole and have picture proof that it makes a difference (picture 1 prior to me changing boot and technique, picture 2 post change).
2.jpg
Picture 1: Stiff sole XC boot, using the torsional stiff boot sole and cuff to drive the turn.
1.jpg
Picture 2: Softer sole XC boot, using the pressure of the forefoot to drive the turn
Also, I feel I’m much more in control of XC track skis now with more of the foot down in the turn. That said, the Alfa Frees sole are much stiffer than my current boots. They are like my old boots. So, with me relying more on having my forefoot down in the turn, the Alfa’s now felt way too stiff. I was not achieving either of the techniques above, I was somewhere in between having my toes down and not the whole forefoot. This made for a worse technique and control. However, once I understood what had happened I adjusted my technique back the way it was (picture 1), and I was once again feeling comfortable and in control of the skis with the Alfas.

The skis are approx. 100g different, with FT being the lightest. I only noticed this doing herringbone or turning 180 degrees. At those times the FT felt lighter. For downhill, climbing or K&G I didn’t notice any difference during my short time (10km total / 5km on each pair).

I did think the FT being narrower (and, according to Åsnes with a more pronounced wax pocket) would make them go faster on the K&G sections. I could not verify this. Honestly, coming from groomed tracks and kick wax the skis both felt slow with a short skin (48mm). On K&G both pairs tracked well in the wet, grainy snow. On the icy trails, the metal edges of the R did not catch as easily. The skis would drift off when the slope was slanting sideways. The FT being narrower underfoot, the edge would catch effortlessly and track better. Not a huge problem, just a small difference in how the skis acted. I’d prefer the FT for K&G in hardpacked conditions, but in softer conditions the R felt just as suitable.

Speaking of metal edges, since the FT catching more effortlessly on icy, hardpacked snow you’d be right to assume the FT are better suited for those conditions. However, due to FT being softer in the tip (rocker), the front of the ski would lift and not stick to the surface. As a result, the skis felt shorter, and I did not think them to be designed for hardpacked snow. The skis felt too short in these situations --I then wished for the 196cm versions. The R however, are stiffer in the front (rocker), not bending upwards but sticking to the surface even on hardpacked snow. The edges on the R are harder to put down in the turns (the ski is 0.6cm wider underfoot), making me skid uncontrollably in varying conditions. Maybe a better technique (or a plastic boot setup) would solve this. Bottom line, none of the skis are good at icy conditions with the Xplore binding, but I’d prefer the R due to the added longitudinal stiffness.

In the downhills I expected to feel more secure on the R. Compared to the FT, I half expected to feel like I was skiing with training wheels on the R. This was not the case. I did not think I was skiing any differently between the pairs, they both performed well and let me do my business. In the flatter areas, the FT might slow down a tad more due to sinking more into the snow. The R might feel a bit more stable in the steeper parts, but only just. This is a huge bravo to the FT, they really skied like a downhill ski. The R might be better in drier, deeper conditions. They might be better on hardpacked snow with improved technique. On the soft, grainy snow the FT performed just as well. Initially I thought the lighter ski would feel more playful and easier to shift my weight on. Both skis felt playful and light. I still prefer the R for downhill since they might prove to be more of an all-round ski in demanding conditions. Last time, at 180cm the R felt surfy (then in dry powder), this was not the case on 188cm (and grainy, old snow).

But, what about the flexors I hear you ask! Did the hard flexor make any difference? Yes. In fact, it made K&G way worse for both skis. I'd probably get blisters on my toes if I'd ski many hours with these. The standard flexor is superior for K&G feeling. Going downhill? I'd say it might improve my turning over time, as I learn to take advantage of the added flex in my stiff Alfas. Maybe will the flexor allow me to ski with my current XC track ski technique. However, during my short testing I could not tell you that I felt better in control on one or the other. Bottom line, the hard flexor might help if you're able to adjust your technique to maximize the potential of the added stiffness / enabled flex of boot.

So, which pair of skis would I get for myself? I thought the 100g weight difference and better tracking on K&G would make me want the FT. They even ski so well downhill, I couldn’t go wrong with them. The R however impressed me also. They did not feel slower than the FT on K&G. They tracked almost as good. Rarely did I feel the 100g extra. Lastly, they felt stiffer on hardpacked snow downhill. If I wanted the K&G part to be optimized, I’d choose the FT. However, I’m skiing for the downhills. Today, the FT was brilliant downhill. In more demanding conditions I’d probably do well to choose the R? Speculation. I’m not sure as I haven’t been able to test. I do think I’d do perfectly fine with both pairs. What I’m left thinking is that the skis are remarkable either way. The mountain ski FT skis like a downhill ski. The downhill ski R track and glides like a mountain ski. Way to go Åsnes!

Happy skiing!
--Marius
Last edited by telemarius on Thu Mar 24, 2022 5:30 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Stephen
Posts: 1451
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:49 am
Location: PNW USA
Ski style: Aspirational Hack
Favorite Skis: Armada Tracer 118 (195), Gamme (210), Ingstad (205), Objective BC (178), Nordica Enforcer 94
Favorite boots: Alfa Guard Advance, Scarpa TX Pro
Occupation: Beyond
6’3” / 191cm — 172# / 78kg, size 47 / 30 mondo

Re: Comparison of Falketind 62 and Rabb 68 (+thoughts on Alfa Free, flexors)

Post by Stephen » Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:01 am

@telemarius, thanks for posting your thoughts. I’m not particularly interested in either ski (I am interested in the boots and bindings), but the observations on the various equipment and technique is interesting and helps to broaden general understanding.



User avatar
fisheater
Posts: 2510
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:06 pm
Location: Oakland County, MI
Ski style: All my own, and age doesn't help
Favorite Skis: Gamme 54, Falketind 62, I hope to add a third soon
Favorite boots: Alpina Alaska, Alico Ski March
Occupation: Construction Manager

Re: Comparison of Falketind 62 and Rabb 68 (+thoughts on Alfa Free, flexors)

Post by fisheater » Wed Mar 23, 2022 9:41 pm

@telemarius Nice report, it’s good to here the Rabb performed so well. I’m absolutely tickled with my FT X at 196 cm. I know the FT would kick much better with wax, however it still isn’t a track ski.
It sounds like you can’t go wrong with either ski. It really should be a surprise, Asnes is on their 3rd version of the FT in about 5 years or so. They have been very serious about making the absolute best skis in this category.



User avatar
telemarius
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2022 9:39 am
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Ski style: XC track skiing, Telerando
Favorite Skis: Åsnes Rabb || Madshus Nanosonic
Favorite boots: Alfa Free || Madshus Nano Carbon Pursuit
Occupation: Student

Re: Comparison of Falketind 62 and Rabb 68 (+thoughts on Alfa Free, flexors)

Post by telemarius » Thu Mar 24, 2022 4:54 am

@Stephen That's good if it can shed some light on the new system! I'd like to add that the hard flexors felt fine to me for K&G, when not compared directly to the standards. Wanted to test the Rabb on a hilly K&G tour. Brought hard flexors only, went skiing for 15km/9miles (with two downhill sections of 120m vertical each). If I'd switched between the two flexors, I'd probably react like last time. Not having the normals to compare to, the hard flexors felt adequate.

@fisheater Bob, I'd like to try the FTX at 196cm. Although they then would weight approx. the same as the 188cm Rabb, loosing that advantage. Today I'm sore from skiing the Rabb 188cm for a 2h tour yesterday. I was not sore from skiing the FT X 188cm for 3h in similar terrain and conditions last week. So while the 100g is not that noticeable during touring, my body is definitely telling me it makes a difference afterwards :lol:



User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 4112
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm
Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada
Ski style: backcountry Nordic ski touring
Favorite Skis: Asnes Ingstad, Combat Nato, Amundsen, Rabb 68; Altai Kom
Favorite boots: Alpina Alaska BC; Lundhags Expedition; Alfa Skaget XP; Scarpa T4
Occupation: Forestry Professional
Instructor at Maritime College of Forest Technology
Husband, father, farmer and logger

Re: Comparison of Falketind 62 and Rabb 68 (+thoughts on Alfa Free, flexors)

Post by lilcliffy » Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:10 am

Hello Marius,
Thank you for your excellent and very helpful comparison of these two skis.
While on the one hand- they seem to have more in common than they don't→ very helpful that you don't see any very significant increase in XC K&G performance between the two-

On the other hand→ the narrower waist of the FT seems to make them more manageable downhill with XC boots- especially on hard icy snow.

You report clearly suggests that the Rabb is a more capable downhill ski that perhaps would benefit from more boot than the Free on very steep and/or difficult snow...
Gareth
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.



Post Reply