Asnes Ski Length Body Weight Recommendations

[Stephen]

I would venture that there are multiple ways to characterize ski manufacturer’s length recommendations, Asnes included.
Too short might be one.

Another could be “Conservative.”
Manufacturers want the end user to have fun and be happy with the ski purchase.
A novice user will likely be “happy” with a somewhat shorter ski, because it slides on snow and they can probably get around ok, without tripping on their skis.

On the other hand, a knowledgeable user will take the length recommendation with a grain of salt, knowing their own preferences and intended use, and choose accordingly.
Maybe they choose the recommended length for challenging terrain, or maybe a longer length for distance travel on flat terrain.

So, the length recommendation makes a “safe” recommendation for someone who doesn’t already have a good idea of what he/she wants.

That’s my spin on it.

[jyw5]

Stephen has very good points on choosing lengths. I have the Skog 185cm. I'm 5ft8in (173cm) and with pack/clothes about 68-70kg. They are perfect for flat and small hills. They are way too long for steeps and unusable for steep/consolidated snow. So the length depends on the intended use.

Skog 185cm feels much longer than my 185cm MT51. I can make better turns on my MT51 in many cases unless the snow is deep or very scarred up by refrozen footprints and snowmachine tracks.

Also, it depends on body type as well. I dont have long northern european arms and legs. I have a short inseam, short legs and short arms. I need short skis and short poles. I'm 10-15cm shorter than pole length recommendations. There is no physical way I can use 140cm-158cm poles!! I have poles adjusted from 115cm to 135cm depending.

[lowangle al]

I guess the gist of it is if you don't have enough experience to know why you would get a ski outside the manufacturers recommendation, don't do it.

[lowangle al]

Another reason to stay in spec. If you have a large quiver of skis you can afford to have a ski for a specific purpose but if you only have a couple pairs they need to be more versatile.

[Woodserson]

From many posts on this forum I got an impression that Asnes size charts suggest ski lenghts that are too short. Is that true?
I am considering buying Cecilie waxless for 165 cm, 57 kg person - table indicate 175 cm, but maybe 180 cm would be better? She is quite experienced skier, but rather cautious and moderately skilled.

Agree on Lowangle Al's points above.

The most important word is WAXLESS. The patterns are short on Asnes skis, so you don't want to go crazy long at a light weight unless she has waxing experience and doesn't mind adding grip wax. But this is also the women's version of the Nansen so the camber is quite forgiving. My Nansen WL actually work well if I stay on mountain roads and don't get into steeper stuff.

The Asnes table puts her in either a 175 or a 180. Either one would be acceptable. Reference for height and weight and skill level. (You say "experienced skier" but also "moderately skilled" so I'm not sure where that leaves her, to be honest.) Also take into consideration the terrain you will be skiing.


Flatter terrain + Strong skier = 180
Hillier terrain + Less skill = 175

Because this is the Women's Nansen may want to consider, but be very careful here:
Flat terrain + Very Strong skier with lots of skill = 185

[John Dee]

Trying not to muck up the other thread, what lengths should I consider with the Otto @ 72kg? Part of the issue is that I'm not really sure what it excels at.

[Woodserson]

Trying not to muck up the other thread, what lengths should I consider with the Otto @ 72kg? Part of the issue is that I'm not really sure what it excels at.

That's what we're all trying to figure out. We'll know in April. On the surface it's a jack-of-all, master-of-none ski.

The question is how much jack or how much master.

[CwmRaider]

Trying not to muck up the other thread, what lengths should I consider with the Otto @ 72kg? Part of the issue is that I'm not really sure what it excels at.

Hi John Dee,
IIRC you have received a T78, T66, and have an Ingstad on order? I would, in your place, wait before buying more.
Says me who bought 3 pairs of skis the past 12 months
Seriously though, those are great skis and probably cover the range of use the Sverdrup has as well.
But to answer your question.
Åsnes suggests:
185 for 65-75 kg
190 for 70 to 80 kg
195 for 75 to 85 kg
your touring weight will probably be above 75 kg.
For any given ski design, shorter lengths are
+ lighter and more nimble
+ have less camber and have shorter curvature radius so are easier to turn
- are less efficient on flats, partly due to poorer tracking from the reduced length, and partly from the lower camber (more drag)
- have less flotation in deeper snow

There is no perfect ski, it is a world of compromises, and the choices must be made in context of the intended use, as well as your skill level. Woods here prefers longer skis usually, probably because hes an experienced XCD skier and has no difficulty in making them turn. I take the longest skis because I am heavier than all the weight ranges advertised, and I do manage to turn these forgiving skis in not too difficult snow conditions, after a couple of years of practice.

In your place I'd then trust the wisdom of the manufacturer and take 190. I doubt that anyone on this forum has skied the Otto Sverdrup anyways (except perhaps Crister who works for Åsnes).

[John Dee]

I cancelled the Ingstads because I bought the T78s. The T78 seem to be more stable, and therefore more versatile as an XC ski.

[Musk Ox]

In your place I'd then trust the wisdom of the manufacturer and take 190. I doubt that anyone on this forum has skied the Otto Sverdrup anyways (except perhaps Crister who works for Åsnes).

Crister's left Åsnes.