The Åsnes Thread (News for 2020-2021!)

[Woodserson]

I am also curious about the two Tind skis.

I am too- what is the difference in performance between the 68/76/86? Obviously the 86 would offer more float than the 68- but if you want a powder ski, why wouldn't you go even wider? PLUS- I am sure all of these skis have different camber/rocker profiles- intended for different snow conditions.

The 68 is intended to be a hybrid between a BC-XC ski and an "AT" ski- what about the 76/86?

I think there is a place for a mid-60 ski, a mid-80 ski, and then a fat ski.

I would love to drive a FT62 around some of our rolling xcD terrain here, like Mount Cardigan, the Jackson Valley Trail, etc. Good free heel lower-angle yet still exciting skiing. It would probably be a perfect fit for this kind of terrain and pair wonderfully with the Alaskas for long days of touring up and down.

Then, when the snow gets deeper or I want to go faster on steeper terrain up it up to the mid-85 ski which is now owned by my Objectives. These are great skis for harder charging in variable snow, and new snow up to 6-8" in plastic boots. After that, we're off to the races with some sort of fat ski. I need a fat ski, I know this now. Something mid-to-high 90's in the waist.

The 76 waisted ski would be a weird one for me.

I for one, have had designs on their fatter plastic-boot friendly skis like the EGGI 98 or TIND 85 (basically what my Objectives are now).

[lilcliffy]

I think there is a place for a mid-60 ski, a mid-80 ski, and then a fat ski.

Yeah- with you here.

Though to be honest- I am so impressed with stability and supportiveness of my Storetind that I think it stretches into the domain of a mid-80 ski...

I think it depends on the climate- when I consider skiing in the Northeast- or the wet Norwegian climate as well- versus the dry climate of the interior, continental Western mountains...I kinda think that every class of ski needs to be a solid 2cm wider underfoot in deep dry snow...

The Objective clearly outclasses your S-Bound 98 as a downhill ski- like comparing apples to oranges...But- I wonder whether you wouldn't end up using a ski like the Storetind (or the Asnes 76) on exactly the same terrain as the Objective- on the moisture-rich snow of the Northeast?

For a few years I have been looking at the Vector- and then looking at the Objective since it came out- now that I have the ST, I realize I don't need the wider ski in my regional climate- what I did NEED/WANT is a better downhill ski than the S-Bounds/Madshus XCDs.

I would love to drive a FT62 around some of our rolling xcD terrain here, like Mount Cardigan, the Jackson Valley Trail, etc. Good free heel lower-angle yet still exciting skiing. It would probably be a perfect fit for this kind of terrain and pair wonderfully with the Alaskas for long days of touring up and down.

Yes! My thoughts exactly. I want one- with NNNBC mounted on it.

After that, we're off to the races with some sort of fat ski. I need a fat ski, I know this now. Something mid-to-high 90's in the waist.

This intended to be a powder board? If so, zero-cambered/fully-rockered ski? Does anyone make a ski in the 90s range now that has a powder camber/rocker profile?

YES- sorry- just checked- the V6 fits this perfectly!
https://www.voile.com/voile-v6-skis.html
The G3 Synapse+92 also has a powder profile.
https://ca-store.genuineguidegear.com/p ... synapse-93

So- perhaps there is more available than I thought- I do think most powder boards are greater than 105-110mm underfoot these days...

The 76 waisted ski would be a weird one for me.

I tend to agree with you here- but my intuition suggests that the 76 is more pure downhill than the 68 (ST/FT). So- FT68 if you are covering more distance? 76 if straight up and down? 85 if the snow is drier?

[Woodserson]

The Objective clearly outclasses your S-Bound 98 as a downhill ski- like comparing apples to oranges...But- I wonder whether you wouldn't end up using a ski like the Storetind (or the Asnes 76) on exactly the same terrain as the Objective- on the moisture-rich snow of the Northeast?

For a few years I have been looking at the Vector- and then looking at the Objective since it came out- now that I have the ST, I realize I don't need the wider ski in my regional climate- what I did NEED/WANT is a better downhill ski than the S-Bounds/Madshus XCDs.

Agreed- if we're talking plastic boots. The Sbounds are, for me, a soft boot ski meant for XCD for the most part. I will say I can state I'm just disappointed with the 98, it doesn't work. The old Boundless Wax is very nice but I can't get the 98's figured out and they will be going on the market. I think the 88's actually work better than the 98 in all conditions. My experience. I had very high hopes for the 98. Sorry to myself, I guess.

This intended to be a powder board? If so, zero-cambered/fully-rockered ski? Does anyone make a ski in the 90s range now that has a powder camber/rocker profile?

YES- sorry- just checked- the V6 fits this perfectly!
https://www.voile.com/voile-v6-skis.html
The G3 Synapse+92 also has a powder profile.
https://ca-store.genuineguidegear.com/p ... synapse-93

So- perhaps there is more available than I thought- I do think most powder boards are greater than 105-110mm underfoot these days...

V6 is the ticket. rock/cam/rock. You may remember I got a pair of Line Sick Days 94 and had high hopes but they ended up being too soft and I was folding them up under me. I am too heavy/strong for the length I got them in. Disappointed but they'll make someone happy when I sell this fall. Voile, without a doubt, nails the rocker combo. No other company (that I have tried) has come close to nailing the perfect rocker profile-- ESPECIALLY in the more "narrow" waisted skis, like 85 and 95 (Objective, Vector, V6). A lot of manufacturers are going for less rocker in these widths which I DO NOT UNDERSTAND because they will probably be driven by lighter boots (either tele OR tech/AT) and the rocker helps this measurably. I am a full on rocker convert (specifically the rock/cam/rock) and I would like to see all skis that are under the all-terrain/freeride category have it. The longer camber profile/less rocker thing on a 98mm waisted ski doesn't make sense, it's old school thinking. Asnes and Voile, I think, get it.

Running a T4 on everything I am still leary of anything more than a 100 underfoot for me. Maybe if I went really short? It would be a lot of $ to experiment. I'm not sold. I think I can do everything I want to do with a high-90 waist.

The 76 waisted ski would be a weird one for me.

I tend to agree with you here- but my intuition suggests that the 76 is more pure downhill than the 68 (ST/FT). So- FT68 if you are covering more distance? 76 if straight up and down? 85 if the snow is drier?

I think 85 for plastic boot terrain. 76 I just don't know. You've confused my perception of the 68 with your reports and reviews. I always figured I'd drive the 68 with a soft leather boot but your experience tends to push that ski into plastic boot territory.

[lilcliffy]

Running a T4 on everything I am still leary of anything more than a 100 underfoot for me. Maybe if I went really short? It would be a lot of $ to experiment. I'm not sold. I think I can do everything I want to do with a high-90 waist.

This makes sense to me too. Voile describe's the V6 as an "everyday" powder ski. The V8 is for the abyss of champagne powder- rare indeed in the moisture-rich Northeast.

I think 85 for plastic boot terrain. 76 I just don't know.

I guess I am just suggesting that on dense moisture-rich snow- I doubt that the 1cm difference would make any difference in flotation.

However- I am thinking that the Asnes 85 and 76 are actually quite different skis- meaning they perhaps have a different profile/flex?

You've confused my perception of the 68 with your reports and reviews. I always figured I'd drive the 68 with a soft leather boot but your experience tends to push that ski into plastic boot territory.

Well the ST/FT68 is not like any other "xcd" ski I have ever tested- it is a stiff, rigid powerful ski. It is certainly light enough to ski with XC boots- heck it is lighter than even the wider Annum and S-112! But- I just don't see myself unlocking the power of this ski with a soft-flexible XC boot. (As an aside, Gamme the Elder also recommends T4-class boot to fully appreciate the Storetind: https://www.utemagasinet.no/Test/TEST-6-multiski)

I think the primary difference between the Asnes 68 vs. 76 is camber/flex profile- the ST is intended to be a "hybrid" XCD thing- the Tind 76 makes no mention of this. I am thinking that the 76 and wider Asnes skis are intended for purely up and down touring (hence the "toppturski" classification?).

For me the question would be more what the hell is the difference between the 76 vs. the 85? There must be a difference in the camber/flex profile- for specific snow/terrain conditions that are not obvious to me...Really the only difference that I can discern is that the 76 is lighter, a tad shorter, 1 cm narrower.

I cannot discern anything about the camber profile of these skis on Asnes' website. I now know for a fact that the profile photo of the Storetind is with the camber compressed...

[Cannatonic]

fishscale option is a great development! There goes the last reason to have any remaining interest in Fischer. Waxless Ingstad would be aimed directly at my Sbound 78's, would be a fun comparison. It looks like the Asnes scale zone is much smaller, hopefully will be a faster glider than the plastic "Offtrack" waxless. that would make sense because Asnes people already have skins for steeper climbs.

[Johnny]

Not interested in the waxless models- got that covered!

For me, the fact that Asnes skis do not come with fishscales is the only thing preventing me from buying them all... Tinds, Eggis, Rabbs, Fjoros and Tindans with both X-Skin inserts and fishscales would probably beat Vectors, Chargers, Objectives and other V6s and V8s... With the same non-Chinese very high quality, but with a more diverse offering and more options, and at a significantly lower price, even with import fees... But who knows, no one here ever held a pair of Asnes mid-fatties in their hands...

Maybe the folks at Asnes will send us some bigger skis, and we can become the North AmericN review team. I like the idea anyway

Exactly. Anyone interested in a group order, please email me.

[Johnny]

Some news and clarifications from Norway...
Start saving now my dear friends and get ready for week 42:

We will produce this year some Waxless models for markets outside Norway. Example of this is Amundsen Fram, Breidablikk, Mountain Touring 51, Nansen and some pairs of Ingstad.

And it seems like maybe more WL models are actually in the works... Fantastisk. [Feeling excited slash Want 'em all]

[Johnny]

A mysterious package from some remote land has magically fallen here. Straight from the heavens above. It seems like the winter Gods of Norway dropped some magic here in North America. Something to do with the XCD Knights perhaps? God, I do not deserve to have this come under my roof. That is too much.

According to the packing slip, there are two pairs of prototypes for testing purposes inside that box. 4kg for two pairs, and the package itself is about 200cm long. So I guess it must be some narrow Fjellskis. I don't think the declared value can give us some hints, as I only paid 60$ of duty fees. No real way to guess what kind of gems are to be found in there.

Can you guys guess what's inside? What do you think?
And... Can you guess how long I can leave that box unopened?
The bets are open...!

[Woodserson]

This is what Chuck Flannel and Johnny Lightning think of this exciting development!

[lilcliffy]

??????!!!!!!!
OPEN IT!!!!!