Rec for new skis?

[jyw5]

It's the poor snow quality and weather. The trails at hatcher pass were littered and ruined by the hundreds of people who had no where to go this winter due to covid. I have found a few secret spots somewhere else that I am going to try out.

also, I tried skiing in Anchorage in february near powerline pass and found the snow varied considerably over just 1500ft of vertical. It just wasn't a smooth ride ... chaos and face plants would be a more adequate description. The groomed sections were icy most of the time and traditional nordic skis were better. The off trail was a mix of powder, deep powder, ice and wind/sun crust.

And on flat trails (which are high traffic), I'm better off using cheap traditional nordic skis.

I think I would gain more use from them if I found a less skiied area that wasn't so blistering cold (-13F bluebird days produce the best snow conditions but just too darn cold!)...again, limited access points by car in AK is a big problem. 99.99% of terrain in Alaska cannot be accessed by car (e.g., a short 10 minute flight fixes the problem). Also, many ideal slopes are either avy prone or in an avy runout zone. The mountains are abruptly steep and approaches are flat and long...very few "hills" in Alaska above the treeline. meaning if you want hills, you get a lot of bushwacking or have to fight the dog walkers and fat tire bikers. Getting to ideal snow also means long 4-10 mile flat approaches and/or steep expedition style ski mountaineering...which the FT62 is not good for.

North facing powder produces avalanches and have long shadows and are super cold and light is usually flat. South facing slopes produce breakable crust and wet avalanches. Any routes away from avys are riddled with snowmachine tracks and footprints unless you are the first one there.

And spring skiing has short crust skiing windows... a few wks max and 2-3 hours max. Corn snow opportunities exist for months but are a short window of a few hours or less than an hour during the day.

The best snow this winter was on a glacier at 6000ft in April...it took 2 days of mountaineering to get there..and glacier landings in that area are not permitted. It would have been heavenly on any setup! I skiied it with my mountaineering boots + Silvretta bindings + Sbound 125. It was out of this world.

And I guess I have become very picky and spoiled...

Here's near Hut Peak, Han's Hut on Whiteout Glacier in April. That only track you see is mine.

[jyw5]

Stephen,


read this thread if you haven't already...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2270&sid=acc82ce211 ... =30#p29807

[jyw5]

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?

DH performance is great IF the snow is good. its slow on flattish terrain, but not as slow as the S112s. I just feel like I'm going to fall all the time...especially skiing over frozen fat tire bike tracks and snowmachine rutts...maybe I'm doing something wrong. (bad terrain is unavoidable unless you take your skis off and walk)

[lowangle al]

I'm surprised that your traditional xc gear is that much better than the FTs on those crappy trails. When the trails get like that I need to jump up to my T4s.

Skiing is inherently dangerous and I'd rather get hurt skiing something good than crashing on a hard packed, rutted up low angle access trail, which is easy to do.

[Stephen]

Stephen,

read this thread if you haven't already...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2270&sid=acc82ce211 ... =30#p29807

Jim, I had seen some of that, but still found some new info with lots of good perspectives.

My thinking is moved way to easily by the last piece of information I have received.
First the FT62 sound great, then the Ingstad, then the FT62, ...

Is there medication for this?
I can already hear the answer...
Sure, just buy more skis!

But one thing is becoming more clear — local snow conditions (and terrain) play a big part in decision making process.
jyw5 is dealing with more challenging snow conditions than my intended use (the Rockies).
So if I have “better” snow, and less man-made degradation: dogs, walkers, bikers, snow machines, etc., then I should expect to get more enjoyable use out of the FT62 in the Rockies than he has in Anchorage, Alaska.

More input is fine, but I’m not asking for it. I just have to choose FT62 or Ingstad, and move on.

[Woodserson]

You have a XC ski. Get a DH ski. (FT)

Start there and then fill in the gaps after a season. You'll know more and there will be less speculation.

[Nitram Tocrut]

You have a XC ski. Get a DH ski. (FT)

Start there and then fill in the gaps after a season. You'll know more and there will be less speculation.

I second Woods on that. You already got yourself a really potent XC ski, so get yourself a DH ski which as a bonus is pretty good at XC... well from my perspective. If you are looking for easier turn the FT is the obvious choice. Just accept that you will probably buy more skis or maybe you will hit the Holy Grail. S for the length, have you read Crister comment in the Asnes thread... I assume so. You could even summon him to come visit TTalk and give his opinion.

Also, have look at Crister post on the FT? https://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic. ... &start=170 And look at his comments on May 22

Also his comment on the 196 https://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic. ... &start=280
On August 10th

Your are almost there Stephen, hold on your choice is coming

[fisheater]

Dammit now I really need a SBound 112.

No you don’t!!!

[Stephen]

Hello Nitram,

Thanks for the encouragement and the links.
Yes, I had seen those before -- but it never hurts to re-read and find more detail.
Yes, I like Woodserson's advice.
Yes, (I'll just keep with a positive vibe here!) almost there!
And, Yes, I did PM Christer / Åsnes1922, (and even Quoted him, so he might get a ping) but have not heard anything yet.

Yes, it's pretty clear to me that I don't have the weight to fully exploit the 196, and yet I can't help myself.
The way Christer paints a picture of the 196 is just so alluring. It's ski porn -- I want it!

It's hard to not be able to see and hold the skis to see which one bonds with me.
The best I could do was pull out some skis I have, 180 and 210, as well as cut some pieces of wood to 188 and 196, gaze at them, and try to grok the essence of the 188 and 196 through the ether, to their home in Valhalla.

For one thing, there is so little difference between 188 and 196 ( ~3-1/8", 1-1/2" behind and 1-1/2" in front of the foot, not so much). I am 191, so 188 is just a little shorter than I am, and 196 just a little taller.
For another, I picture perfect powder snow, a blank canvas rolling out before me, waiting to be caressed by those long, graceful 198s.

Yes, I'm a hopeless romantic, with pictures of beautiful perfection floating across my field of view.
Reality can wait for now...

It sounds like Asnes has made a few changes to the 20/21 FT62. I hope the graphics are just awesome.

[Woodserson]

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 love my MT51's. Classic double cambered XC ski with some crud-busting weight, which I think gives it an edge over the MR48s if you're in squirrelly snow conditions. It's a real winner of a ski for going the distance, I think it would be perfect for what you're going to use it for. Cannatonic has some issues with the MT51 WL, says it doesn't grip as much as he would like, but uses the Xskin with much success, and YMMV. You'll figure it out. It's a REAL XC ski, no rocker, no BS, just pure traditional K&G. LOVE