Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

I just purchased my first Asnes ski yesterday; the waxable Cecilie 175. For reference I'm 5ft3 and weigh 113 lbs. I ski with a light daypack most outings. Per the Asnes chart recommendations for my weight I'd be a 170 but with a hard floor camber test with the Neptune 175 works. I tried the 180 Nansen (same ski, just longer and diff graphics) and the rep said I might not make full contact uphill and I might be happier on the 175, with the caveat that he is not an expert on Asnes skis nor nordic type skis in general. That person was not in at the time.

I'm wondering if I should do another camber test or just go ahead and get the bindings mounted on the 175s. I ski mostly hilly terrain with consolidated, rough snow (deeper fresh snow as well in better snowpack years), narrow tree-lined routes, so maybe longer is not better even if I can ski them.

I admit I'm a little obsessive over my gear choices but at some point i just need to do it and get out on the snow with them

Do you find the Asnes length recommendations spot on?

Caveat: Not An Expert.

I understand your dilemma... I agonised about length when I was buying my Gammes.

The Mountain Race skis only come in 10 cm increments. I'm on record on these famous pages as saying I don’t agree with the sizing charts, at least if you’re the on the cusp of two lengths. Then, I’d really recommend getting the longer ones, especially as they're so nimble, made to be really good fun going fast in 'good conditions' / useless for, say, steep climbs in deep snow anyway.

The MT51 charts seem to be OK. 5 cm increments (albeit the overwhelming consensus is that longer ones are more fun and have more advantages).

The Nansens come in 5 cm increments and have a lower camber and are a little softer, as far as I can make out (I own both). I think the charts seem to be OK, compared to the MR 48s? But I'd go for the longer ones, as there's so little to gain in pure manoeuvrability when tree-dodging with the shorter ones and they'd be fractionally faster and I suspect better with short skins. But I spend too much time listening to Lilcliffy.

Besides, everyone knows you can always adjust the size by sawing off a little from the tips and the tails if you need.

I'd say for hilly terrain go with the 175s. It's frustrating and an energy sapper to not get a good kick.

The Asnes Fjelski length recommendations are guidelines only-
None of them have the camber-flex profile of a Classic double-cambered track ski- that must be properly sized to the weight (and skill/performance of the skier).

Ski length in this style of ski and skiing is a very personal choice.

As far as worrying about not getting enough grip-
When you evenly stand on the 175cm- do you completely squash the camber underfoot? (I would be surprised if you didn't- unless the Nansen is stiffer underfoot that I am thinking it is...)
If the camber is compressed when your skis are evenly weighted- then you are not going to have any grip issues.

Did you stand on the 180cm skis in the shop? If so- was the camber compressed when evenly weighted?
If the camber was compressed when evenly weighted, then you will have no grip issues with the 180cm.
If the camber was not compressed when evenly weighted, you might get enough grip when XC skiing- but, you might have grip problems when climbing and might need a full-length skin for anything steep (i.e. the kicker skin might not help much on a steep slope.)

If the camber underfoot is completely compressed when evenly weighted then you will not have any grip issues with the longer length.

The longer length:
- will be more stable at speed and in very deep snow
- will be faster and offer better glide
- will release the kicker skin more effectively if you are using it for XC skiing
- will release your kick wax more effectively when gliding forwards

The shorter length:
- "might" be more maneuverable
- "might" be easier to pressure into a turn (this depends on the flex-stiffness of the ski as well as your skill/skiing style)
- will have a shorter turn radius- though how much shorter? On a ski with only 20mm of sidecut, no tip/tail rocker? Would one even notice this? On a ski with this traditional design- I would think that your ability to pressure the ski into a turn is a bigger issue than the turn radius of the 175cm vs 180cm.

For comparison- the closest skis I have to the Nansen-
- 210cm Combat Nato
- 205cm Madshus Eon
I am 178cm tall and weigh 81kg.
The Combat Nato is stiffer than the Eon and I have no problems with grip or pressuring it into a turn. The Combat Nato has a wide turn radius, but I really don't think I would gain anything in that regard with the shorter 200cm- but I would LOSE the glide, release, stability and float of the extra length.

I trend towards "long" skis across the board.
The only time I prefer a "shorter" ski is if I am bushwacking doing field work or want to ski very tight downhill lines through the trees in the very dense forests of the Northeast.
Again- personal preference!

SnickBreck wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:47 am

I just purchased my first Asnes ski yesterday; the waxable Cecilie 175. For reference I'm 5ft3 and weigh 113 lbs. I ski with a light daypack most outings. Per the Asnes chart recommendations for my weight I'd be a 170 but with a hard floor camber test with the Neptune 175 works. I tried the 180 Nansen (same ski, just longer and diff graphics) and the rep said I might not make full contact uphill and I might be happier on the 175, with the caveat that he is not an expert on Asnes skis nor nordic type skis in general. That person was not in at the time.

I'm wondering if I should do another camber test or just go ahead and get the bindings mounted on the 175s. I ski mostly hilly terrain with consolidated, rough snow (deeper fresh snow as well in better snowpack years), narrow tree-lined routes, so maybe longer is not better even if I can ski them.

I admit I'm a little obsessive over my gear choices but at some point i just need to do it and get out on the snow with them

Do you find the Asnes length recommendations spot on?

I would say: go for it. Drill those 175. If you tested them, they are going to be fine. I wouldn't go for the 180 since they are really out of your weight range. And yes, you are a little obsessive, but we all are... Noting new here LOL.

When I stood on the 175s they compressed all the way. When I stood on the 180s they did not. For climbing/hilly routes it sounds like the 175 is the better choice.

For flatter terrain I'd look at the Liv or Gamme (?) where I'd see if 180 would work for more glide and speed.

My ratio of skiing hilly to flat/moderate terrain is about 60/40 so I think purchasing the Cecilie is the right first choice.

My husband is asking why I need so many skis!

SnickBreck wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:20 pm

My husband is asking why I need so many skis!

You don't build a house with just one hammer. You need the tools to do the job right.

SnickBreck wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:20 pm

My husband is asking why I need so many skis!

Tell him that if you were snowmobiling, it would be much more expensive... Everything's relative.

SnickBreck wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:20 pm

When I stood on the 175s they compressed all the way. When I stood on the 180s they did not. For climbing/hilly routes it sounds like the 175 is the better choice.

This is the information you need.
If the camber underfoot of the 180cm is not compressed- when evenly weighted- you are going to have trouble- both uphill and downhill- on steep hills.

Sounds like you got the PERFECT ski!!!!!
Gareth

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.