Switch from Annum/Guide/M78 to Asnes Kongsvold?

[jooleyen]

I'm 145lbs, been on 195cm Annums for around 6 yrs now, but there are minor things that have always bothered me about them. (Don't get me wrong, I love them when conditions are right for them, but I want to take that love to the next level)

1. They're heavy
2. I generally hate waxless skis, would much rather have an option for kicker skins in the challenging conditions

I mostly use them in the UP of MI where there is deep soft snow and lots of up/down over a short distance. Love that I can easily steer them thru the woods in tight quarters, float better than anything else I have in the deep snow.

Would the Asnes Kongsvold be a good equivalent while fixing the problems I have with the Annums? I figure why have metal edges to weigh them down when these skis are for soft snow anyways? If it's hard crust or crappy conditions I'll fly on the groomers with my skate skis, or use some Amundsens or something.

Sidecut profiles are as follows:
Annum: 109-78-95
Kongsvold: 96 66 85

[jooleyen]

Oh, wondering about length too. I like my 195cm annums, but wonder if I can't climb as well as i should be able to with them because I maybe sized them too long. Don't know, a logical size chart for this ski doesn't seem to exist. I never wished for them to be shorter for maneuverability's sake. I'd rather float better in most cases- fewer calories burned at the end of a tour.

According to the sizing chart on Asnes, I fall perfectly into the 180cm ski range for skiing without a pack or with a pack up to 25lbs

[mca80]

I live in southeast Gogebic County. I have a Kongsvold in 180cm. It is quite light. The camber and flex profile is way different from other Asnes skis and consequently geared more toward downhill and slow traverses up or across, but one isn't using this ski for speed I presume. I have not ridden Madshus so cannot compare. I do wish this ski had dimensions more like the m78, or 10mm wider throughout give or take. The lack of an edge doesn't bother me at all so long as there is enough snow. However, when there is enough snow one might wish for more float, ergo my complaint. However it's a really nice ski up for an area that is constantly up and down, in good deep powder. They had a couple for 200 something at Neptune last spring and I thought about buying a second and smothering it in storage wax and just holding onto it. I probably should have because Asnes prices are inceasing at an incredible rate. That said I don't use the ski all that often so it should last a long time.

For size, I say go 190 depending. If your concern is float vs maneuverability, unequivocably the longer length. With the narrower Kongsvold am worried it won't have the float you want, and also with the added width of m78 the latter should climb better.

I am 5'4" and weight has varied from 61 to 73kg in the buff the past couple years. I ride 180 Kongsvolds. If I got a second pair I would consider 170 provided I could keep my weight down and use that length solely for touring for turns where I needed to navigate tight trees. But most likely I would stay 180. I would even consider 190 if it was a ski I wanted for deeper powder and no need of tight turns. It is more like a dh ski than a xcbc ski for sure.

[jooleyen]

Good stuff, I'm usually right in your neighborhood - porkies, random spots in natl forest, etc.

I didn't even realize there are 3 new skis that didn't exist last time I was looking for skis - Nosi, Rabb and Falketind. The Nosi dimensions are almost identical to the Annums. I wonder if I'd be happier with one of those 3 skis instead and just take the steel-edge weight penalty. I don't want to float any less than I already do with the Annums, the deep powder of the UP often makes even those struggle in 195cm. If I went Kongsvold, I'd go 190cm MINIMUM based on your advice.

Am I right in assuming that this class of ski has a camber soft enough to where weight doesn't matter, hence Asnes's recommendation to choose these 3 ski models based on height rather than weight? So at that point the length would be a tradeoff between turnability and float rather than grip/glide? If I'm correct, seeing as I've had no issues with 195cm in the soft Annums, I'd probably choose the longest ski possible in this class of skis.

I'm mostly in it for least amount of energy expended given the same touring distance. Not necessarily a downhill guy, though I do love the tight turning radius of my Annums in the hilly hardwoods. Anything skinnier and I find myself basically snoe-shoeing in deep powder.

[mca80]

@lilcliffy writes excellent reviews with a good knowledge base and has both the FT and Rabb as well as one of Asnes' wider models, Storetind maybe? Anyway hopefully he sees this and can chime in. FT likely won't give you as much float as you desire. Kongsvold should be lighter than all 3, though you can check weights on Asnes website.

[lilcliffy]

I'm 145lbs, been on 195cm Annums for around 6 yrs now, but there are minor things that have always bothered me about them. (Don't get me wrong, I love them when conditions are right for them, but I want to take that love to the next level)

1. They're heavy

Ha! I hear you- but, it wasn't really that long ago that the Guide was considered Nordic magic- to get a ski that wide and that light!

2. I generally hate waxless skis, would much rather have an option for kicker skins in the challenging conditions

(Ignoring the risk of offending someone) Amen.

I mostly use them in the UP of MI where there is deep soft snow and lots of up/down over a short distance. Love that I can easily steer them thru the woods in tight quarters, float better than anything else I have in the deep snow.

I think that you will need a longish Kongsvold to give you the equivalent float in deep snow that you are appreciating with the 195 Annum...And an even longer Kongsvold- though it might be great downhill- is going to have a MUCH wider turn radius than the Annum...

Just checked the specs of the Kongsvold-
maximum length→ 200
There is no way a 200 Kong (66mm) is going to give you as much flotation as a 195 Annum (78mm)...
BUT- you are a bit of a featherweight...My 19 year-old daughter (weighs less than you) gets as much deep snow flotation on her beloved Eon (62) as I do on the Annum (78)...So, it is very hard for me to say whether a 200 Kongsvold would not be enough surface area for you at 145lbs...

I have never even seen a Kongsvold- let alone tried one-

From the Asnes site:

the Kongsvold’s generous sidecut and soft tip mean that you get a stable ski, easy to turn, with a reassuring float on deeper snow. The stiffer mid-section makes it possible to choose skis up to 10cm shorter than others, and – if you have the technique – enjoy parallel turns on the descent.

The description of the flex pattern reminds me of the low-profile- but, stiff and resistant- underfoot of the Combat NATO/Ingstad (as opposed to the round flex of the Nansen). No real idea- but a 200 Kongsvold might be a bear to pressure into a turn at 145lbs...Even in powder...

That being said- the Kongsvold might well have a more stable flex than the Annum- allowing you to go shorter...
No way for you to really know without trying and comparing to your Annum...Unfortunately you don't know until you know...

[lilcliffy]

Oh, wondering about length too. I like my 195cm annums, but wonder if I can't climb as well as i should be able to with them because I maybe sized them too long. Don't know, a logical size chart for this ski doesn't seem to exist. I never wished for them to be shorter for maneuverability's sake. I'd rather float better in most cases- fewer calories burned at the end of a tour.

According to the sizing chart on Asnes, I fall perfectly into the 180cm ski range for skiing without a pack or with a pack up to 25lbs

The Omnitrack scale design on the Annum is tuned for XC skiing and it is not enough for serious climbing- especially in cold, deep, soft snow.
It is also a single-cambered noodle- even my paperweight daughter can evenly pressure a 185 Annum...
We have the Guide/Annum in all of its lengths- there is no improvement in grip with a shorter length.
The shorter lengths have a siginifcantly shorter turn radius.

[lilcliffy]

I didn't even realize there are 3 new skis that didn't exist last time I was looking for skis - Nosi, Rabb and Falketind. The Nosi dimensions are almost identical to the Annums. I wonder if I'd be happier with one of those 3 skis instead and just take the steel-edge weight penalty. I don't want to float any less than I already do with the Annums, the deep powder of the UP often makes even those struggle in 195cm. If I went Kongsvold, I'd go 190cm MINIMUM based on your advice.

If you want the turn radius of your Annum- yes- you will need to be looking at the Falketind/Rabb/Nosi-
And, if soft deep snow is a must, then you will want the Rabb or Nosi vs the Falketind.
Note that the Rabb has the standard X-skin insert- the Nosi has the wider Access-Skin insert.

What boot are you using?

Am I right in assuming that this class of ski has a camber soft enough to where weight doesn't matter, hence Asnes's recommendation to choose these 3 ski models based on height rather than weight?

Yes- generally- correct- the Falketind/Rabb have downhill camber (almost none from a Nordic touring perspective)- the Nosi is a full-on modern mountaineering ski.
(I say "generally" because none of these skis are "noodles" and a longish ski might well be too much for a very light and/or novice skier (I am not suggesting that you are either of these)).

So at that point the length would be a tradeoff between turnability and float rather than grip/glide?

As the sidecut profile of the Falketind/Rabb/Nosi is not variable with respect to ski length- the turn radius of each length of ski is significantly different.

If I'm correct, seeing as I've had no issues with 195cm in the soft Annums, I'd probably choose the longest ski possible in this class of skis.

Hmmm...do consider that these Asnes skis are much stiffer than your Annum. So you might well get as much stability from a shorter length than your Annum (at 185lbs, I can confirm that I do).
With their rockered and tapered shovels and tails- all of the Asnes skis have a shorter turn radius than an equivalent-length Annum- and they all offer effective planing/early-tip-rise at donwhill speeds.
Note that the Annum does have a more effective deep snow XC trailbreaking tip-shovel...

I'm mostly in it for least amount of energy expended given the same touring distance. Not necessarily a downhill guy, though I do love the tight turning radius of my Annums in the hilly hardwoods. Anything skinnier and I find myself basically snoe-shoeing in deep powder.

Your lighter weight makes it hard for me to predict what your experience would be like...
Objectively- an Annum/Rabb/Nosi is going to offer more flotation than a Falketind- but, at your weight that might be irrelevant...
AND- I have no doubt that a 196 FTX has a shorter turn radius than a 195 Annum...
However- a 188 Rabb has an even shorter turn radius...
My gut suggests the Rabb for your context...
.........
I chose the 180 Rabb for downhill focus-
196 Falketind for xcD-
I am not convinced that a 196 FTX is a better xcD ski than a 188 Rabb...
I am 5'10" and 185lbs.

[lilcliffy]

@lilcliffy writes excellent reviews with a good knowledge base and has both the FT and Rabb as well as one of Asnes' wider models, Storetind maybe? Anyway hopefully he sees this and can chime in. FT likely won't give you as much float as you desire. Kongsvold should be lighter than all 3, though you can check weights on Asnes website.

I currently have and ski:
196 Falketind 62 Xplore
180 Rabb 68 (current generation)
188 Storetind Carbon

The Storetind- though near identical in sidecut geometery- is stiffer; more cambered; and has less rocker and taper than the current Rabb 68.

[jooleyen]

Thanks for the great info, Gareth!

I'm currently in NNN BC Alpina Alaskas.

I went out for an hour today in my Annums and was reminded that the soft tips can be annoying to break trail with in deep snow, rising too much at the tips while the midfoot slogs through. IIRC, you have mentioned this in the past stating how much more efficiently your Combat NATO's break trail in the deep. I've never tried the Combat NATOS, but I do have some 200cm USGI's that I'd like to compare to my Annums in these current conditions we have. Would you say that if I prefer the USGI's, I'd really love the NATOs? I'm not sure how similar the USGI is to the NATO. If such a ski took less effort to go on the flats with, I think I'd happily trade the turning radius.



I found some interesting Kongsvold review articles in Finnish for anyone interested. The translation to english is pretty funny, talking about ingrown hairs in reference to kicker skins.
https://www.suoherra.fi/asnes-kongsvold-jakt/
https://www.suoherra.fi/asnes-kongsvold ... unturissa/
https://www.retkivuokraamo.fi/asnes-kon ... hunter-bc/