Rec for new skis?

[jyw5]

I thought I would chime in since I have skiied out west for a long time. I live in Alaska now, where the snow and slopes have the most variability I have ever seen. It's a good excuse to own 10 pairs of skis...at least.

The skis I describe below are all mounted with NNN BC and use leather boots. I'm 5'8", 135lbs. always ski with at least 10 lbs. I lost over 10 lbs this year from skiing so much.

The forever problems I have are long flattish approaches to logarithmically steep ascents/descents. that coupled with variable snow as temps fluctuate by the hour and by even the slightest evelation gain and slightest changes in position of mountain face vs. the sun. I think you all know what I mean. Also, in the sierras you get refrozen hard snow that turns to slush as the day progresses...not as extreme as Alaska but still annoyingly challenging.

So, having said that... my S112s have been a treat from April to July on that soft late season snow. When its crusty in the morning, I put the kick skins on and just leave them on. They perform poorly on hard snow (or I do anyway) and are soooo slow on flat terrain...less than 5 miles/hr on flat nordic trails. But they are perfect for soft summer corn/slush! They are now my rock skis as I have put hundreds of thousands of vertical on them just this year. they are also light enough to A-frame carry for miles. Despite its shortcomings, they are still my favorite skis. You would need these in 200cm or get similar skis with similar specs or slightly wider like the Voile.

FT62s are amazing up and down on powder and dry snow and not too bad on flat terrain. They are waxable so I didn't use them late season. I regularly skiied 1000+ foot vertical up and down using full length pomoca race skins going up like a skimo racer. I can ski up to an equiv of a blue square at a resort with these. and up to a black or double black if the snow conditions are optimal. however, it seems I will get the least use from them because they are blazing fast and great when conditions are the best. they are the least forgiving ski and I'm sad to say, unless I get shutdown again for covid, I won't be using them all that much because they are only great for specific snow conditions that are rare here in Alaska.
For your size/weight...sounds like the Nosi 76 or Tindan 86 would be better or 200cm+ FT62s.


I am finally getting the Ingstad WL this month as I think it may be the perfect day trip mid winter all arounder...not too slow on the flat, better than the S112 on harder less forgiving snow. and good for breaking trail if needed. not as downhill oriented as the ft62 but better on rolling long distance terrain. And overall will cope better with changing snow.

I also just ordered the mt51 WL for nongroomed xc. They just built and opened 5+ miles of xc/bike/hike trails 5 minutes from my house...it will be ungroomed in the winter.

If you aren't skiing steeps, I think for your weight, long (200cm+) WL Ingstads may be good as the snow is deep and can get heavy out west. I believe the rocker tips will help. And the xskins are awesome.

In summary,

S112 for late season corn/slush/dirty snow (see my pics and sad videos)...don't ever use them on icy slopes! they are horrible!!!
pros: easy to turn with good downhill performance
cons: unusable on boiler plate snow
slow as dirt on flat terrain...I can walk faster

FT62 for perfect powder days. ski like a skimo racer
pros: feather light, easy to turn, fast, great downhill
cons: not forgiving

Ingstad WL for most of the winter and moderate ascents/decents
will have an update later this year.

mt51 WL for ungroomed xc flattish trails
I have a good feeling about this one. everyone raves about the mr48...I got the mt51 because it was on sale.

I may add the Cecilie/Nansen as I heard they do better on icy trails and low/moderate grade...and might fill in the blanks for me and make my AT/resort setup obsolete...(except that I can't figure out a way to attach leashes...and I have no skills to diy drill the skis to add metal loops)

You may find you need more setups if you are planning to ski year round. The best late season setup for me is the S112 without a doubt.

[jyw5]

I have one more thing to add about wax vs waxless...

WL is great when it's wet out.

Waxable shines when it's cold and dry and if using the pomoca mohair xskins they are amazing on cold, dry snow. they climb well and k&g is not bad. I hot wax the skins and the skis from tail to tip with polar glide wax. (see waxing instructions by other more experienced members in other posts).

The straight full length pomoca race 2.0 with only tip attachments when used on the ft62s in optimal dry powder is like skimo but for thousands less. Alfa Guard adv + NNN BC + FT62 + skins = $1000. I have skiied on both my AT setup and this setup in the same day on 1500ft vertical for 2.5 miles, and my time was only slower on the ft62s by a few minutes, but had way more fun.

So ultimately, your choices depend on your use. Unless you ski all time or just want to burn a hole in your pocket, the ft62 are awesome...its like having a ferrari...you aren't going to drag it through the mud day after day. I take it out when conditions are prime.

If they ever made a WL Nosi or Tindan, I would get it to replace my beaten-up S112s...but you may be waiting a long time.

[lilcliffy]

The main issue I'm grappling with now is the lack of waxless versions of those Asnes skis. It looks like the Amundsen is the only waxless Asnes ski in that range, but from what I've read, it's much worse for turning than the Gamme or Ousland, which I'm not too keen on.

There is the Nansen waxless- less cambered and more round flex than the Gamme (by all reports- I don't have one)- better downhill than the Gamme- slower on the flats than the Gamme. The only waxless "Gamme" is the Finnmark waxless, with no steel edges. The Nansen might be perfectly acceptable if you are XC skiing in hilly terrain. (The Ingstad waxless is another option- similar tension underfoot as the Nansen, but has a short XC glide zone on consolidated snow, due to its considerable tip rocker. The Ingstad is an amazing XC ski in deep snow and hilly/steep terrain.)

The E99 Crown Xtralite is very good. (I am not crazy about its very soft shovel in unstable snow.) It does not have the Easy-Skin attachment- but, you can get aftermarket kicker skins for it.

The Fischer Traverse is a worthy substitute here- it is not as fast as the E99, but it is more stable and offers the Easy-Skin attachment.

Getting wax right in the warm, wet Sierra Cement where I'll be skiing sounds challenging, so I'd probably have to resort to using the X-skins quite a bit if I went with a Gamme. I'd presume scales are more efficient / better glide than relying on X-skins, but I've never really used them before, so I have no idea. If X-skins were close enough to scales in terms of K&G speed/efficiency, I'd probably grab a Gamme/Ousland without much hesitation. Would I be crazy to get waxable skis if I had to rely on the X-skins, say, half the time?

I agree with Woods here- the mohair X-skins have excellent grip and glide. I do take them off if I have any significant downhill.

Based on the snow and terrain you are describing- I do think a waxless-scaled XC ski with a skin- when you need it- would be best.

snowfalls get pretty deep here. I guess I'd call this more Nordic touring than downhill ski touring.

I am starting to think that the Ingstad Waxless might do it all for you...

Basically, I'd want something that I can use when the snow is too deep for the Gamme-class ski or if I want to do some very mellow downhill turns, maybe tighter turns down packed trails to check speed, etc. I'm definitely not planning to charge down anything right now, although it would be nice if there were a ski that I could use for those purposes as well in the future with a heavier boot.

There are two types of Nordic touring skis that fit this bill:
1) long "wide" BC-XC skis (e.g. Asnes Ingstad; Fischer E-109)
2) compact "shaped" "xcd" skis (e.g. FT62; Epoch; Annum; S-98; S-112)

In the skiing context you describe (i.e. NOT downhill skiing)- my personal preference between these two groups is #1- I love both the E-109 and the Ingstad- but prefer the stability of the Ingstad in very deep and difficult snow.

Group #2 are really best when chosen at a downhill-ski length IMO. And at those shorter lengths kinda suck as XC skis. I used to use a long Annum (195cm) for distance-oriented hilly/steep tours in deep snow, but my E-109/Ingstad has made it obsolete. I love the FT62- but it is much less efficient in XC mode than the E-109/Ingstad- therefore I kinda wish I had got a shorter FT62 for more pure touring for turns outings...

From what I've read of the Hok, it sounds like it checks the box for deep snow use and turnability, but might be slow/inefficient in many use cases.

The Hok is VERY VERY slow. It is a bushwacking, shuffling ski.

I figured the Kom might do a lot of the same things with more speed on the flats than the Hok, although if it's really best used as a downhill ski, maybe that's overkill for my use?

Th Kom is marginally "faster" on the flats than the Hok- it is definitely a better downhill ski than the Hok.

Ultimately, I see this more as a deep snow XC ski that I can use as kind of a go-anywhere ski in the Sierras with the ability to do some low speed cruising on not-too-steep descents.

E-109/Ingstad Waxless. I really think that this is the ticket. Get em long and I guess that might force the Ingstad as the E-109 Crown is no longer available. (Again a long Annum or S-112 might do as well- but it might not be any better downhill unless it is short and then it will be very slow on the flats...this leads me back to the Ingstad Waxless.)

I am starting to think that I would recommend starting with a long Ingstad Waxless- you might just find it is all you need at this point...

The Voiles sound nice too, although I got the impression from other reviews that they might not be as good for deep snow use, and in any event I might be a bit too big for them.

The Voiles are made for "deep snow" and backcountry downhill skiing.

[Stephen]

Hi jyw5,

I’m curious — can you say more about the parts in red, below:

FT62s are amazing up and down on powder and dry snow and not too bad on flat terrain. They are waxable so I didn't use them late season. I regularly skiied 1000+ foot vertical up and down using full length pomoca race skins going up like a skimo racer. I can ski up to an equiv of a blue square at a resort with these. and up to a black or double black if the snow conditions are optimal. however, it seems I will get the least use from them because they are blazing fast and great when conditions are the best. they are the least forgiving ski and I'm sad to say, unless I get shutdown again for covid, I won't be using them all that much because they are only great for specific snow conditions that are rare here in Alaska.

I’m buying these skis and trying to decide between 188 and 196.
I’m 6’ 3” and 160
Skiing Colorado
You’re a better skier than I am!

Thanks for any comments!

PS
Love your pics and trip reports, and the content you are contributing.

[jyw5]

Hi jyw5,

I’m curious — can you say more about the parts in red, below:

FT62s are amazing up and down on powder and dry snow and not too bad on flat terrain. They are waxable so I didn't use them late season. I regularly skiied 1000+ foot vertical up and down using full length pomoca race skins going up like a skimo racer. I can ski up to an equiv of a blue square at a resort with these. and up to a black or double black if the snow conditions are optimal. however, it seems I will get the least use from them because they are blazing fast and great when conditions are the best. they are the least forgiving ski and I'm sad to say, unless I get shutdown again for covid, I won't be using them all that much because they are only great for specific snow conditions that are rare here in Alaska.

I’m buying these skis and trying to decide between 188 and 196.
I’m 6’ 3” and 160
Skiing Colorado
You’re a better skier than I am!

Thanks for any comments!

PS
Love your pics and trip reports, and the content you are contributing.

Hi Stephen,

thanks for looking at my posts and pics. I've been a pretty sloppy skiier most of life. I drink alot of booze, ski fatty 110s underfoot with stiff plastic boots and AT frame bindings. At the resort, I plow through steep big moguled slopes with not a whole lot of turns. Coming from that background, skiing in the backcountry over the past 6 years has been a re-education. So when I downsized to the skinnier FT62s, it was a steep learning curve. They aren't forgiving in the sense that if you don't have good form, you are going down.

As far as conditions go, when the snow is light fresh powder, you float and you blaze down the mountain effortlessly. As soon as the snow becomes packed and icy, your rocker tips start to slide everywhere requiring you to really distribute your weight accordingly. And when the snow is heavy and deep, you often times have to make more parallel turns as it becomes very difficult to connect teleturns. Here in Alaska, fresh snow doesn't stay fresh for long because we are so close to sea level and limited access points leads to overpopulation/overuse. The fresh snow at high elevation is preserved but only accessible by plane, heli, or multiday expeditions. So for quick day trips, skiing from the parking lot, that snow is usually junk...refrozen crap with footprints from dog walkers and snowboarders who shockingly love to ruin the skin track, walking sometimes well over 1000ft of vertical. Skiiers digging avy pits and random holes in the snow. And the snowmachiners that poach the mountain. The FT62s are horrible in those conditions. Like a race car on a race track, FT62s excel on pristine snow. Sports cars do terribly on rough rugged roads with potholes. I hope you get that analogy.

My wife messed up her ankle in March going down a moderate slope. someone post holed up the mountain days before...the deep frozen foot prints (a foot deep in some spots) were covered with some fresh snow. well, she unknowingly went over them and one of her ski tips got caught in there and that was it. took her 2 months to recover.

Be realistic about what and where you are going to ski. I have realized that my FT62s are a dreamy ski for an equally dreamy mountain. when the mountain gets hammered with six inches of fresh and the road just gets plowed, it's a bluebird day and I am the first in the parking lot. Unfortunately, when this scenario occurs, I'm not in the parking lot. I'm at work and by the time I show up, a hundred ski tracks littering the best parts of the mountains have refrozen solid all over.

As far as length, I'm not sure what would be right for you. The 172cm is perfect for me. I wouldnt want them any longer or shorter. I don't like long skis in general because I have short legs and it's easier to make kick turns when needed. Also, shorter skis are easier to carry in the summer time.

Thats my very nontechnical assessment and explanation.

Perhaps someone else can speak more technically about it.


I think the ft62 is great for dry mid-winter snow. Way better than the S112 and any other skis I have ever tried when it's cold, dry, and the snow is fresh powder. But as soon it becomes crusty or wet/heavy, it really sucks...you are wishing for a wider ski.

I love the ft62...light, fast ascents, and the pomoca race pro 2.0 62mm full skins fit perfectly and easy to remove without taking your skis off!! my boot, binding, skis, skins weighs 9lbs! I think if I were a better skiier I could spend more days on them. But I have such a good time on my S112s that its hard to reach for the ft62s. Most outings with the ft62s feel like I am practicing and taking ski lessons, whereas I am not thinking much about my skiing ability when I am on my S112s.

I think it depends what you want out of it. If you think you can dedicate more hours to learning to become a better skiier, the ft62s are great. But if you want to passively tour for turns, the S112 is better for that. I know people here will disagree with me, but they are also much better skiiers than I am.

And being in Colorado, if you want to ski year round, the S112s are hard to beat. Some of my best ski days are in June...steep, no avy danger, mild weather, long days, and best of all, no other skiiers. You need a waxless ski for that.

[Stephen]

Thank jyw5!

I love all the details and nuance in your last post.

Even without the firsthand experience, I believe I’m accurately picturing what you’re saying.

Makes me wonder if I would be happier with the Ingstad at 205, rather than the FT62 at 188?
Not that they are similar skis at all, but that the totality of my skiing experience would be more satisfying.

Do you think the Ingstad would be more stable in the conditions that challenge the FT62?
It wouldn’t be as good in the ideal conditions, but maybe a better experience, overall?

Something to think about...

[lilcliffy]

Do you think the Ingstad would be more stable in the conditions that challenge the FT62?
It wouldn’t be as good in the ideal conditions, but maybe a better experience, overall?

The Ingstad is not more stable than the FT62 when downhill skiing- the Ingstad is more stable- and tracks more efficiently- when XC skiing.
The Ingstad is more stable when XC skiing in very deep snow- the FT62 has a softer and rounder flex- it suffers from dreaded "pool-cover syndrome" when XC skiing in very deep snow.
The Ingstad is more stable when XC skiing through wind-compacted and icy crust- the tip is stiffer and more stable and crust busting (I must add here that it is not as good at this as the non-rockered Combat Nato, nor the less-rockered Gamme).
Both the FT62 and the Ingstad BC are pretty crappy XC skiing on compacted snow- the Ingstad is much better than the FT62- which isn't saying much as the FT62 is terriably inefficient when XC skiing on dense compacted snow-
the FT62 is not unique in this regard however for a downhill-oriented ski- just read jyw5's description of skiing on the flats with the S-Bound 112...

I agree with jyw5- the FT62 is dreamy and very fast when downhill skiing on soft fresh snow (and it is not bad as a XC ski on soft snow that is not too deep...)
If you have an abundance of these where you will be touring- the FT62 will be fine.

[Woodserson]

Dammit now I really need a SBound 112.

[jyw5]

Lilcliffy summed it up nicely!!

I can't wait to get on the Ingstads! Last winter was a bit frustrating. We had like 5 ideal powder days out of 100 (well, actually 97 days, but who's counting?). The FT62s saw less than 20 days on the snow and will probably get about 10 days or less this season.

My S112s saw more than half of the days. I did most of my skiing between April to July and the S112s were fantastic on the north facing snow chutes and summer glaciers. Three years ago, I started reading posts from this site because I thought I made a mistake in buying these skis/bindings. I was about to ditch the whole NNN BC nonsense. They just weren't working for me and besides, no one here even uses them! I haven't seen a single person on NNN BCs in my 6 years of backcountry skiing. I'm glad I stuck with it and I am grateful for this site and the detailed posts and videos!! My wife on the other hand has a very different opinion...

The S112s are great early season and very late season in Alaska. I think the Ingstad will be my mid winter companion. And the FT62s will be for light fresh powder days. And I plan to break XC trails with the MT51s.

I think I finally got it...lol!

I just need a crust busting downhill ski for chutes that can also speed skate over frozen creeks and lakes...not gonna happen.

Choose the ski that most fits your terrain and ski ability.

[lowangle al]

jyw5, why do you think you will get so little use out of your FT62s? Is it because of poor touring ability or there DH performance?