Are the narrow nordic backcountry skis miserable on tracks?

[wabene]

@beeeweee your posts are very thorough and it's clear you not only are very thoughtful, but also very experienced. I enjoy reading them. I do wonder how you account for the fact that your M50 is short for you and your MR48 is if anything long for you when you form your opinion of these two skis. Your observations of how the M50 behaves in track does ring true and I do hop out of the tracks on fast, downhill turns. Skiing fast downhill turns on the corduroy is fun imo, but I'll bet the Åsnes would rock my world. Do I need another pair of skis?

[spopepro]

I think one person’s “miserable” is not the same as others.

I agree that 60mm is a hard limit. I have skied spider 62s in tracks and the drag and popping out on turns is real. Passed those skis on (and now my wife has also tired of them). I’ve done many km in my MR48 and I haven’t ever been frustrated. Yes, they they are better when it’s softer. Yesterday got a ski in between storms, only 3k of tracks set, about 8km groomed with no tracks. 10cm of powder on top of ice (storm started as rain and turned to snow) for the remaining 10k. A *perfect* day for the MR48.

If I knew I was going to have good tracks all the time, I’d not use the MR48 or any other narrow backcountry ski. But if there’s a chance of icy descent, no tracks, or scruffy snow on a portion having the security outweighs the bit of drag for me.

[GrimSurfer]

I’ve always attributed popping out of tracked turns to be a function of ski length and improperly radiused tracks. Lots of the latter on one or two paths at a club I frequent. I’m often on the corduroy anyway because the friction is less and steel edges track pretty well.

I notice BIG TIME edge drag on freshly groomed trails with steel edged skis over 60mm though.

Skiing on tracks after a snowfall alleviates a lot of this. The tracks fill up. And being V-cut, a bit of extra clearance is gained for my 65s.

Fewer people out on ungroomed trails too. (Hey, what can I say? I’m greedy!)

[JohnSKepler]

My Asnes Gamme 54 is great on the tracks in which I use them. I can see where the metal edges on the tips might catch on a really tight turn, but in the tracks I use I don't run into any turns that tight.

[fisheater]

I avoid tracks, in my area there is a lot of single track that has gotten a bit wider from mountain bikes. I have an area 100 miles north of me, that has skiable snow sometimes when I don’t. My Gamme was miserable in those tracks on a twisty trail. The real problem is the trail is too narrow to ski outside the tracks. Gamme’s stiff tip and full length edges just don’t agree with edges. I acquired an Asnes 51 MT last season. It’s 3/4 length edges, soft tips, and tails are much better suited to tracks. However my preference is single track, in the woods, not many people.
As far as tracks, I do have a favorite. Whitegrass in West Virginia. The tracks fit my 97 mm FT X tips. Cranking down a slight downhill, on a winding trail. That is a gas!

[Stephen]

Gamme’s stiff tip and full length edges just don’t agree with edges. I acquired an Asnes 51 MT last season. It’s 3/4 length edges, soft tips, and tails are much better suited to tracks.

This matches my limited experience on the 210 Gamme and 210 MR48 wax.

Not in tracks, but twisty trails.
Because of their stiffness and full metal edge, in a turn, the Gamme would happily ski up and out of the trail, into untracked snow (regardless of their Nordic Rocker).
But the MR48, with the 3/4 metal edge and supple tip and tail, would sort of snake around turns nicely.

I think this quality would carry over to track skiing, as well.
I skied them in tracks a little bit and they seemed fine.
But, I don’t ski tracks and don’t have track skis, so can’t make a direct comparison.

[beeeweee]

@beeeweee your posts are very thorough and it's clear you not only are very thoughtful, but also very experienced. I enjoy reading them. I do wonder how you account for the fact that your M50 is short for you and your MR48 is if anything long for you when you form your opinion of these two skis. Your observations of how the M50 behaves in track does ring true and I do hop out of the tracks on fast, downhill turns. Skiing fast downhill turns on the corduroy is fun imo, but I'll bet the Åsnes would rock my world. Do I need another pair of skis?

It’s possible that if I skied a longer pair of M50, I may tolerate them a bit more but I am doubtful I would love them. I’ve had much lighter skiers (45-50kg) on my M50 and they still handled poorly in off camber traverses due to their soft lateral and longitudinal stiffness. Maybe if they were mounted with NNN BC or Xplore binding it might help but that’s not possible in the Fjelltechs with integrated plate.

Only you can know whether you’d benefit from another ski. Depends on what you like to ski and your wallet’s appetite for abuse.

[Capercaillie]

It’s possible that if I skied a longer pair of M50, I may tolerate them a bit more but I am doubtful I would love them. I’ve had much lighter skiers (45-50kg) on my M50 and they still handled poorly in off camber traverses due to their soft lateral and longitudinal stiffness. Maybe if they were mounted with NNN BC or Xplore binding it might help but that’s not possible in the Fjelltechs with integrated plate.

It sounds like the Fjelltech M50 would also skate a lot worse than the MR48 Skin.

One thing I have noted from Madshus' specs is that the Fjelltech M50 weighs 1780g for the 187cm, the current season Panorama T50 is 1380g for the 192cm, and last season's Panorama M50 is 1780g, size unlisted (I am assuming around 190cm). Why does the current season Fjelltech M50 have the same spec weight as last season Panorama M50? How noodly is the Panorama T50 if the heavier Fjelltech M50 is as bad as you say?

It also leads to the question of whether there is more of a difference between the MR48 waxable and MR48 Skin than just the skin insert. Theme stated that the MR48 Skin does not have any nordic rocker. Individual ski variation, or intentional design change?

Previous reviews on this forum indicate that the waxable MR48 "skates great":

https://telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php? ... 912#p13912

[beeeweee]

One thing I have noted from Madshus' specs is that the Fjelltech M50 weighs 1780g for the 187cm, the current season Panorama T50 is 1380g for the 192cm, and last season's Panorama M50 is 1780g, size unlisted (I am assuming around 190cm). Why does the current season Fjelltech M50 have the same spec weight as last season Panorama M50? How noodly is the Panorama T50 if the heavier Fjelltech M50 is as bad as you say?

It also leads to the question of whether there is more of a difference between the MR48 waxable and MR48 Skin than just the skin insert. Theme stated that the MR48 Skin does not have any nordic rocker. Individual ski variation, or intentional design change?

It’s possible that the T50 has a new construction compared to the M50. Madshus does list the T50 as ‘new’ and historically, Madshus doesn’t really change the graphics on a ski unless something internal has changed. So if the T50 has more carbon fiber reinforcements, they may have allowed them to stiffen up the ski while reducing the weight. Madshus applies a lot of trickle down tech that are developed on their top-end Redline skis and brings those concepts to their lower end skis over time.

In terms of waxable vs skin ski, if I were Asnes, I would try to optimize the camber of the MR48 and MR48 Skin variants differently. I can’t speak for Asnes but Madshus does this on the Redline Skin skis where they make use of their warm ski kick pocket that is higher and optimized for klister, and uses this for their Skin ski that has a cold ski camber construction. The idea is that the klister optimized pocket also performs better for skin skis that require just a little more clearance to reduce skin drag but still allows for good kick.

As far as rocker goes, I don’t really know. I can check the rocker on my pair of MR48 and report back.

[lilcliffy]

Great to hear from you again Verskis!

Bear with here- trying to understand your original question and objective-

My understanding is that you want to make linked turns on groomed hills at the groomed Nordic track- correct?

A question- do you have to be able to make actual equally-weighted telemark turns- or would you be content to make a vartiety of turns where the downhill/lead ski is fully-weighted?

The width of the groomed surface will require tight-radius linked turns- yes?

I ask these questions because if you want to make true evenly-weighted telemark turns- you are going to need to be able to fully compress and pressure both skis- evenly weighted-
And- this- yes- will equate to a ski that has no effective double camber- from a Classic technique perspective.
Whether this will be "miserable" depends on how fast you want to travel otherwise.

For me- when I Classic stride on the tracks- I want to fly- so I want a stiff highly cambered ski fitted to my weight and technique/skill→ this ski will not- by definition- make a true telemark turn.

Next question- do you want the ski to fit in the tracks- or are you going to skate with them?

Best wishes and happy New Year mon ami Verskis!
Gareth