The Åsnes Thread (News for 2020-2021!)

[lilcliffy]

Sorry- I guess I didnt answer your question very well- yes I think that the Alaska is a better fit on the 62, than the 68.

But- whether the Alaska is enough for the 68, depends on the terrain one is going to ski with it...

Of note- based on Bob-s experience- the 62 is a very capable downhill ski as well- and, he is accessing that downhill performance with a much stiffer boot than the Alaska...

[fisheater]

Woods, the FT 62 is a fun ski. I have a very good feel for what the FT 68 must be, from both my experience on the 62 and Gareth's reviews. DON'T ORDER THE 62 short, there is no need unless you are in very tight trees. I agree that the 62 may be better paired with NNN bindings, do not doubt that this ski can be pressed harder with a stiff leather boots and a 3-pin binding.
I would interested in reviews of the 76, but I understand the thought "why go narrowe". From my perspective my old mid-fats had only about a 70 mm waist, and I skied very deep snow in Utah in those days. I know that width has more than enough float, if you point them downhill and just have a little room to turn. Eastern trees are a little too tight in those conditions, and additional width would be critical for climbing. I am hoping that Johnny has a 76 or an 86 in that box, but then I'm still waiting on his review of the Ingstad

Thanks for this fish. I am still interested in the FT62 but am still struggling to figure out my Fischer SBound collection. For 2018-2019 I've settled on a 205cm E99 Crown (I like), a 189cm Traverse 78 (I like), and a 179cm Excursion 88. I think I'm done with the SB98 completely (except for the Boundless Wax, which I like), it was a failed experiment for what I was looking for. The applications I would use the FT62 in are probably going to be covered by the 88. So we'll see how that works. If it doesn't, FT62 is next up on the docket for this niche.

I am very happy with my long touring skis, I am very happy with my telemark skis (Objective, KOM, Atomics), it's this one weird in between that I'm still struggling to make perfect for the longer moderate downhill tours like the Wildcat Valley Trail.

Woods,
The FT 62 can replace an E-88, S-98, and a S-112. The only difficulty would be choosing between the FT 62 or the FT 68. I guess if you want to ski NNN go FT 62. I believe you could be happy with a FT 68 with 3 pins. Based upon my experience with the FT 62 and Gareth's reviews, I do not think NNN would match well with an FT 68.
These skis are much different than S-bounds, they are what we always wanted this class of skis to be

[Johnny]

The Storetind is both a better XC touring ski and a MUCH better downhill ski than any of the conventional "hybrid" skis (e.g. Epoch/S-98/Annum/S-112).

Hummm.... Not sure what makes the ST a better DH ski than the S98/10MTN? The overall flex and the tips? Actually, the resistance underfoot of the ST scares me a bit... Sounds like more work trying to crush that second camber on the downhill... Only one way to know, I sure will buy a pair this fall...

I guess if you want to ski NNN go FT 62. I believe you could be happy with a FT 68 with 3 pins. Based upon my experience with the FT 62 and Gareth's reviews, I do not think NNN would match well with an FT 68.
These skis are much different than S-bounds, they are what we always wanted this class of skis to be

NNN is pretty cool on any skis for distance and touring, if you're not planning to turn. One thing I LOVE about NNN boots is that they are super-comfy compared to 3pin leathers. I'm sure they would be fun on the 68's on the flats, Asnes skis are so light. On the other hand, NNN-BC can handle anything much better than pins, from heavy alpine skis to super-fat powder boards... (Hey, this is my first time bragging about the superiority of bars over pins since 2017... )

[fisheater]

The Storetind is both a better XC touring ski and a MUCH better downhill ski than any of the conventional "hybrid" skis (e.g. Epoch/S-98/Annum/S-112).

Hummm.... Not sure what makes the ST a better DH ski than the S98/10MTN? The overall flex and the tips? Actually, the resistance underfoot of the ST scares me a bit... Sounds like more work trying to crush that second camber on the downhill... Only one way to know, I sure will buy a pair this fall...

I guess if you want to ski NNN go FT 62. I believe you could be happy with a FT 68 with 3 pins. Based upon my experience with the FT 62 and Gareth's reviews, I do not think NNN would match well with an FT 68.
These skis are much different than S-bounds, they are what we always wanted this class of skis to be

NNN is pretty cool on any skis for distance and touring, if you're not planning to turn. One thing I LOVE about NNN boots is that they are super-comfy compared to 3pin leathers. I'm sure they would be fun on the 68's on the flats, Asnes skis are so light. On the other hand, NNN-BC can handle anything much better than pins, from heavy alpine skis to super-fat powder boards... (Hey, this is my first time bragging about the superiority of bars over pins since 2017... )

Johnny I have not skied the ST 68, but what makes the FT 62 a better downhill ski than the S-112 in most conditions is that it is torsionally more rigid, it has far superior edges, and what I was worried about being excessive sidecut isn't about turning it is about planing to the surface. It is also about kick and glide in soft snow. To me there is no camber and a half or second camber in the FT 62, however after a day of skiing a area at a small MI resort that has an area that requires a quarter mile skate or kick and glide back. I still had a wax pocket with kick wax. The wider tip and tail support the ski allowing minimal contact while gliding on soft snow. On hard snow you will have wax pocket drag. I think the ST 68 being a bit heavier (and stronger) would be affected to a lesser degree.
These skis are from a design perspective much different than S-bounds. I hope you buy those 68's, I am looking forward to a video set in the Laurentian hardwoods.

[lilcliffy]

Hummm.... Not sure what makes the ST a better DH ski than the S98/10MTN? The overall flex and the tips? Actually, the resistance underfoot of the ST scares me a bit... Sounds like more work trying to crush that second camber on the downhill... Only one way to know, I sure will buy a pair this fall...

They are better for a complex of reasons- most of which are a result of their downhill-focused geometry and camber:
-open rockered tip
-low profile traditional alpine camber underfoot
-slightly open, rockered tail
-torsionally rigid
-stable, supportive flex

The result of all of this when you point them downhill:
-the open rockered tips reduce the effective edge, offering effortless turn initiation
-the open rockered tips offer very effective tip rise/flotation
-the traditional camber underfoot produces effective edge hold
-the slightly open tail allow one to smear the end of the turn- at least a bit- not as much as a true powder ski
-the torsional rigidness of this ski allows it to be extremely responsive and hold a fantastic edge- the combination of the skis lightness and rigidness produce fantastic nimbleness, responsiveness and stability.
-the ski is stable and supportive- rock solid- inspires confidence- I feel completely balanced on this ski

That bit of extra resistance underfoot has not proven to be a downhill issue for me at all- I think for a number of reasons:
-the primary camber of this ski is low profile (i.e. traditional "Alpine" profile)- they certainly don't feel like XC skis at all- interms of camber.
-the camber- including the extra resitance- is very short, and is not extended beyond the binding zone of this ski. YES- I can feel that resitance and snap underfoot- especially when XC skiing- but it is easy to squash, and there is no resistance/camber to squash out there beyond the ball of your foot...

I can see that extra resistance in the "moderate wax pocket" being a real downhill challenge if one had a 68 that was too long for their weight. At 185lbs I do not find the 188cm ST68 too long or stiff- in fact I think if they were much shorter they would lose their snap and their stability.

I have always been a bit underwhelmed by all of the conventional "hybrid" XCD skis- my favourite has always been the Annum/Guide- probably, primarily becasue they bend and twist all over the place when I push them- they are fine on gentle to moderate terrain and ideal snow- but when I push them- even with a true Telemark boot-binding- they bend and twist all over the place- they are not responsive, stable, balanced or stable if I truly push them.

The ST68 inspires the same kind of balance, stability and responsivess of a ski like the Voile Vector. I will never forget my first real test of the Vector- against the Annum/Guide and the S-112- the Vector absolutely blew the other two away downhill skiing. I have wanted a "Vector" ever since, but have hesitated thinking that it is more ski than I need in my backyard backcountry- and, I have discovered it is- the Asnes 68 fits the bill perfectly!!! The Voile Objective would lilkely be equally suitable as my local downhill-focused ski- but, I seriously doubt that the Objective offers the XC performance of the ST68...

I have never tested a ski that is the equal of the ST68 when it comes to superb downhill performance and decent XC performance- a "hybrid" truly is! The secret to this has been to tweak a downhill geometry- rather than adding some Alpine ski characteristics to essentially XC skis. With the ST68 Asnes have simply added a teeny bit of extra tension underfoot to an otherwise modern and state of the art Alpine touring ski.
(I must add an important note that the ST68 is only effective XC ski on soft backcountry snow- it is all over the place as a XC ski on dense, consolidated snow!)

Johnny- like Bob- I am greatly interested in what you end up experiencing riding the 68! Have you decided on a length for a 68?

Beyond the width and design of the 68 we are clearly dealing with purely downhill backcountry skis- and, I don't see why the Asnes AT line would be any better than any other downhill backcountry ski line- like say Voile? Perhaps the Asnes "Toppturski" line is a bit more Nordic/Telemark oriented? BUT- Voile certainly still makes and sells very successful Telemark bindings- can't imagine they don't design and test with Telemark skiers in mind as well as Alpine...

Would certainly be interesting to test Asnes wider Toppturskis against the competition- perhaps when I retire and have an umlimted ski purchase and travel budget!!

I guess if you want to ski NNN go FT 62. I believe you could be happy with a FT 68 with 3 pins. Based upon my experience with the FT 62 and Gareth's reviews, I do not think NNN would match well with an FT 68.
These skis are much different than S-bounds, they are what we always wanted this class of skis to be

NNN is pretty cool on any skis for distance and touring, if you're not planning to turn. One thing I LOVE about NNN boots is that they are super-comfy compared to 3pin leathers. I'm sure they would be fun on the 68's on the flats, Asnes skis are so light. On the other hand, NNN-BC can handle anything much better than pins, from heavy alpine skis to super-fat powder boards... (Hey, this is my first time bragging about the superiority of bars over pins since 2017... )

I actually regret- a teeny bit- not testing my ST68 with NNNBC first- I am actually confident that it would have been superb (I have been sking the Annum with NNNBC for years now!)- but, in the end it was the option of mt T4 on the ST68 that pushed me towards a Telemark binding- man what you can do with that ski and a T4 boot...

My T4s always seem like overkill and such as waste on skis like my old Guides/10th Mtn (Annum.Epoch)- sure the boot is more suportive than a leather BC-XC boot- but, when I push the Guide/10th Mtn with the T4 they just bend and twist all over the place. The Guide is a fat, soft XC ski. The ST68 is a narrow, light downhill ski- and the irony is that the ST68 is a WAAAY more effective XC ski than the Guide/Annum/10th Mtn/Epoch because its flex is so much more supportive, and it has that extra teeny bit of snap underfoot!

[Johnny]

Thanks again for the info LC...

We all know that there will never be a perfect XCD ski, it's not scientifically possible. It will always be a matter of compromise between XC and DH performance. That moderate wax pocket, as small as it is, is a bit problematic for me on hard pack. Well ok, no, it's not problematic. I just personally rather sacrifice touring performance completely and having a true single camber ski for xcD. (While I don't mind having triple camber 260cm toothpicks for XCd... )

Hey, you know the rating system from all alpine ski companies...? Rating their skis like 80% Frontside 20% Backcountry...? They should do it for XCD too. That would give us more hints about camber, flex and rigidness. Here's my view on the mentioned skis according to geometry, flex and camber:

XC/D ratio:
Annum: 20/80
Epoch: 20/80
S98: 30/70*
Vector: 10/90
Objective: 20/80
Ingstad: 70/30
Nansen: 80/20
Asnes ST-FT: 40/60 from what I read...? (The best compromise of them all?)

They are better for a complex of reasons- most of which are a result of their downhill-focused geometry and camber:

There is a big matter of taste here too. A few months ago, Woods was asking me if the Objectives would make a nice spring corn ski. I answered I would never use Objectives for spring skiing, because I like to ski corn with super stiff, long and skinny racing skis to get a perfect grip on the compacted snow below. But I know a lot of people prefer spring skiing with super soft fat boards to get a smooth, slippers / pajama feel, which is exactly what he was looking for and what the Objective is. Poles apart from what I personally like in the spring, but both fun...!

And the focus is totally different from the plastic or leather POV. With leathers, I sometimes like a super soft and noodly ski for DH, to feel like smoothly spreading peanut butter on the slopes. And some other mornings I feel like having a super rigid and stiff knife for dissecting the same slopes on the exact same conditions. Variety is fun. Now which ski would be called "better"? None of them, just different fun ways of killing time on ski forums...

I really can't wait for that Nordic Nerds Tele Fest to try your Tinds! (I'm pretty sure you are responsible for a big percentage of the Asnes ski sales in North America... )

* The S98 is quite a special ski. I would actually give it a impossible 30/90 XC/D ratio...

[lowangle al]

Thanks again for the info LC...

We all know that there will never be a perfect XCD ski, it's not scientifically possible. It will always be a matter of compromise between XC and DH performance. That moderate wax pocket, as small as it is, is a bit problematic for me on hard pack. Well ok, no, it's not problematic. I just personally rather sacrifice touring performance completely and having a true single camber ski for xcD. (While I don't mind having triple camber 260cm toothpicks for XCd... )

Hey, you know the rating system from all alpine ski companies...? Rating their skis like 80% Frontside 20% Backcountry...? They should do it for XCD too. That would give us more hints about camber, flex and rigidness. Here's my view on the mentioned skis according to geometry, flex and camber:

XC/D ratio:
Annum: 20/80
Epoch: 20/80
S98: 30/70*
Vector: 10/90
Objective: 20/80
Ingstad: 70/30
Nansen: 80/20
Asnes ST-FT: 40/60 from what I read...? (The best compromise of them all?)

They are better for a complex of reasons- most of which are a result of their downhill-focused geometry and camber:

There is a big matter of taste here too. A few months ago, Woods was asking me if the Objectives would make a nice spring corn ski. I answered I would never use Objectives for spring skiing, because I like to ski corn with super stiff, long and skinny racing skis to get a perfect grip on the compacted snow below. But I know a lot of people prefer spring skiing with super soft fat boards to get a smooth, slippers / pajama feel, which is exactly what he was looking for and what the Objective is. Poles apart from what I personally like in the spring, but both fun...!

And the focus is totally different from the plastic or leather POV. With leathers, I sometimes like a super soft and noodly ski for DH, to feel like smoothly spreading peanut butter on the slopes. And some other mornings I feel like having a super rigid and stiff knife for dissecting the same slopes on the exact same conditions. Variety is fun. Now which ski would be called "better"? None of them, just different fun ways of killing time on ski forums...

I really can't wait for that Nordic Nerds Tele Fest to try your Tinds! (I'm pretty sure you are responsible for a big percentage of the Asnes ski sales in North America... )

* The S98 is quite a special ski. I would actually give it a impossible 30/90 XC/D ratio...

I agree with everything you said except I would give the vector a higher rating for xc. I like the way shorter, fatter skis tour, I think they're energy efficient. I'm comparing them to almost 30 years skiing the same trails on 200-210cm single and double camber waxed skis. They have good glide, but it's more than that. The added stability and better tracking help lessen fatigue for me. I won't say they're faster, just easier.


Life's not fair, LC sells skis for them and you get the freebies, couldn't you hook him up with some Asnes stickers, or maybe a hat?

[Johnny]

I agree with everything you said except I would give the vector a higher rating for xc

Voile skis are awesome for touring. But my super rating system implies that a 0/100 ski would be a pure XC, skinny, double camber and 900g ski. At almost 7lbs a pair, the Vector is far from that point.. I know, my system is not perfect yet, I'm working on it...

Life's not fair, LC sells skis for them and you get the freebies

Most of the time, our perspective of life is wrong... Life is an illusion, it is not what is seems to be...

(At the last XCD World Council meeting last week, I heard from the Norwegian Gods that some Asnes coasters were already sent to New Brunswick last year and lately. Not sure if that rumor is true though... I don't even have any myself...)

[lilcliffy]

Here's my view on the mentioned skis according to geometry, flex and camber:

XC/D ratio:
Annum: 20/80
Epoch: 20/80
S98: 30/70*
Vector: 10/90
Objective: 20/80
Ingstad: 70/30
Nansen: 80/20
Asnes ST-FT: 40/60 from what I read...? (The best compromise of them all?)

I'll have to think how I would rate the Asnes Storetind on this scale...
It's difficult to fit the Storetind (ST) in this scale:

On the D-scale the ST is vastly superior to any of the non-Voile skis in that list. I have never tried the Objective- but I would predict its downhill performance to be comparable. If the Vector is a "better" downhill ski than the Storetind, I would think that would only apply in truly deep dry snow.

On the XC-scale the ST is certainly better than the soft, round-flexing Annum/Guide or the Epoch/10th Mtn. I also find it more supportive and stable than the S-98/S-112. If the snow is dense and moisture-rich the ST is a better XC ski than the Vector and the Objective- but in deep dry snow, I would think that the Vector/Objective would compete with the ST as a XC ski. All of this being said- all of the above listed true XC skis (Ingstad/Gamme/Nansen) are better XC skis than the ST- unless the snow is too deep and soft...(BTW- the Combat Nato is the first XC ski I have tried that truly performs as a XC ski in very deep soft snow- I would expect a 70mm, 270cm Finnish forest-touring ski would be even better than all of these for pure XC skiing in truly deep snow).

I think it is probably unfair to compare all of these skis in one group as far as XC/D performance. The Voile skis are not traditional Nordic touring skis- they are backcountry Alpine touring skis. In truly deep soft snow they offer great XC performance (though again, I am certain a 270cm 70mm forest-touring ski would leave them in the dust on the flats!). So I agree with your scoring of the Volie skis- I just think scoring them against an Ingstad or an E99 doesn't really work. The Voile skis are downhill skis.

The Asnes ST is a downhill ski as well- and therefore doesn't offer the XC performance of a ski like a Gamme 54 or an E99. But it is the first downhill ski I have tested that offers just a bit of the XC snap and stability of a XC ski. It truly does blur the line between "Fjellski" and "Toppturski"- though if I had to classify it I would put it in the "Toppturski" category...

For comparison, though owning some downhill ski characteristics I personally would put all of the Karhu/Madshus XCD skis and the Fischer S-Bounds in the "fjellski" category...

Perhaps it would be easier to score if the two dimensions were scored separately- rather than as a ratio?

Ingstad:
xcountry: 80/100
downhill 30/100

Game 54:
xcountry 90/100
downhill 20/100

Combat Nato:
xcountry 90/100
downhill 20/100

Amundsen
xcountry 100/100
downhill 0/100

Storetind
xcountry 40/100
downhill 100/100

Vector BC
xcountry 10/100
downhill 100/100

Finnish forest-touring ski
xcountry 100/100
downhill 0/100

(These are just ideas of scores- and again it assumes a stable enough base to stride on a double-cambered XC ski- a ski like the Amundsen would be useless in very deep soft snow compared to the Vector BC...)

* The S98 is quite a special ski. I would actually give it a impossible 30/90 XC/D ratio...

This may have a lot to do with skier weight but I cannot get either the S98 or the Epoch/10th Mtn to perform for me...I much prefer the Guide/Annum and the S-112...

Using the scoring, rather than the ratio I would give these scores-

S-Bound 98:
xcountry 40/100
downhill 50/100

XCD 10th Mtn/Epoch:
xcountry 30/100
downhill 60/100

Again just impressions- not based on any real measurably tests!

[Johnny]

Perhaps it would be easier to score if the two dimensions were scored separately- rather than as a ratio?

Oh! A much better system already! I love it! Let's add this to all our new reviews...!

* The S98 is quite a special ski. I would actually give it a impossible 30/90 XC/D ratio...
This may have a lot to do with skier weight but I cannot get either the S98 or the Epoch/10th Mtn to perform for me...I much prefer the Guide/Annum and the S-112...

Really? Gee the S98 is so freaking easy to turn... Much easier than 10th Mtns, Guides or Findrs... But again, just impressions- not based on any real measurably tests...

With the same waist as the S98 but with wider tips, I suspect the new Asnes RABB 68's to be even better... They look like Ultimate Turning Machines...!