Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

Hi All, I have a couple pairs of Asnes wax skis but still find an occasional need for waxless. My current Fischer traverse 78 waxless are just not as grippy as they used to be and I find myself having to use the kicker skins for even modest climbing. There's currently a pair of Asnes Cecile waxless in 170 (I'm 5ft3 108 lbs) I've been eyeing vs another fisher pair. I already have Asnes skins as well.

What are you thoughts on Asnes waxless vs another pair of Fischer waxless? If the anser is Asnes I need to grab them soon as they don't stay available for long in the US.

Thx!

Hey SnickBreck,

Might not be of much help with Your inquiry, however, as far as the Asnes choice, some or more believe Fischer scales are better than Asnes scales. BUT Asnes best rendition of scales though is on the Nansen which is also the Cecile Skog I believe. -Due in part to the way the ski is designed.

I think better telemark posters will help with that. And there's a lot of info if You keep investigating here.

But, the real reason I'm responding to Your post is to say the Peaks Trail from Breck to Frisco was quite nice yesterday. A BLUE WAX day.

Through Your posts a year ago along with the comments relating to it in addition to so many other cross references regarding wax, I have found a lot of good advice.

Further, it seems this is wax season and not waxless season.

-I'm in the neighborhood.

Snick, what sort of skiing will you be doing with them? Be glad to offer an opinion if you can help with that; the two skis are designed with different intent, though within the same category.
In a nutshell, I think the Fischers will excel for glide (an "A-B" ski as they say), whereas the Asnes favors broader touring attributes, and more reliable grip over more diverse conditions, tuned for lighter skiers.

As a XC ski- the Fischer 78 is both more cambered and has a better/more effective waxless scale design (i.e. grips better and releases when striding forward).

What are your other Asnes skis?

The Nansen/Cecile has a low-profile camber- significanty lower than the 78- it is "easier" (i.e. requires less force/pressure) to engage the kick zone- compared to the 78 (not to suggest that the 78 is as stiff underfoot as skis like the E99 or Gamme 54).

I have the Nansen WL and have been on it quite a bit in my unusual "spring" skiing in Dec-Jan 2021-2022-
It certainly does not offer the scaled climbing grip of the 78- but the Nansen WL glides as good or better- breaks trail better- is more stable- has adequate XC grip for a narrow scaled ski- and has a much better flex and geometry for downhill turns (IMO).

My advice-

if you touring in hilly/steep terrain- you should stick to shortish end of the weight-range for the Nansen/Cecile WL if you want to be able to climb on scales alone.

if you are only needing scale grip for the flats- and will be using skin for climbing- then you can get away on the longish end of the weight-range.

If you want to be able to ski tight lines downhill than you will want a Cecile/Nansen on the shortish end anyway.

@lilcliffy My other Asnes skis are the Liv and Cecile 175 wax versions. At my weight I'd go with 170 for the Cecile waxless which is recommended for anyone under 120lbs. With your comments "The Nansen/Cecile has a low-profile camber- significanty lower than the 78- it is "easier" (i.e. requires less force/pressure) to engage the kick zone- compared to the 78 sounds likes the Cecile 170 waxless is a solid choice. I usually need the grip for the flats and put the skins on for sustained steep climbs once I start slipping too much.

@GCW. Good to know! I'm skiing Peaks from Breck to Frisco this Fri or Sat to scout it for the Sunday group. Today due to high winds just went to Galena. It's wax season for sure! Just want to grab the waxless Asnes if better choice than new Fischers for my quiver as they are hard to get and sell out in my size quickly. If I wait until spring they will be gone for sure.

@Phoenix. I mostly ski where I live in Breckenridge Co. Ungroomed, alpine hiking trails, sometimes with steeper sustained climbs/descents and sometimes flats/rollers, narrow tree lined trails as well as open so a lot of diversity. Your comment "more reliable grip over more diverse conditions, tuned for lighter skiers" has me leaning toward the Asnes as my grip is not great on the Fischer 78s (it was better on the Sbound 99s but I dont need a ski that wide/heavy).

Cool.
Sorry- I didn't remember you already had the Cecile ski- sorry to blather on about stuff you already know!
Gareth

That reminds me to update the skis in my profile, thanks

phoenix wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 04, 2022 6:55 pm

Snick, what sort of skiing will you be doing with them? Be glad to offer an opinion if you can help with that; the two skis are designed with different intent, though within the same category.
In a nutshell, I think the Fischers will excel for glide (an "A-B" ski as they say), whereas the Asnes favors broader touring attributes, and more reliable grip over more diverse conditions, tuned for lighter skiers.

I have not yet seen a Fischer XC ski that glides as well as any of the Asnes skis I have tried.

Fischer has amazingly good fishscales, which will grip in many snow conditions and in many positions, but those scales do create a noticeable amount of drag, even on the E99 and Traverse 78, which are the fastest skis I have tried from the Fischer OTX lineup.

Asnes fishscales have less grip, especially in icy conditions, but you can get all-mohair skins for the Asnes skis which seem to glide about as well as the Fischer fishscales, and give you grip in some conditions where the fishscales aren't very effective.

Thanks @reil I have the Asnes mohair skins already so worth trying a pair of Asnes waxless I think. For whatever reason I just can't get good grip with my Fischer 78s. It's not technique as I don't have the same problem w/the Sbound 98s in the same length (169)

Does anyone know the performance difference between the Asnes Cecile and the Asnes Ingstad? of course. Asking as I saw the Ingstad available in a 165; the Cecile's are available in 170. I'd assume the "womens" Cecile is maybe softer or tuned for lighter skiers. Not sure if that is the case.

SnickBreck wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 05, 2022 4:04 pm

Thanks @reil I have the Asnes mohair skins already so worth trying a pair of Asnes waxless I think. For whatever reason I just can't get good grip with my Fischer 78s. It's not technique as I don't have the same problem w/the Sbound 98s in the same length (169)

Does anyone know the performance difference between the Asnes Cecile and the Asnes Ingstad? of course. Asking as I saw the Ingstad available in a 165; the Cecile's are available in 170. I'd assume the "womens" Cecile is maybe softer or tuned for lighter skiers. Not sure if that is the case.

The Nansen/Cecilie have a tip that starts flexing from just ahead of the X-skin attachment point. This ski turns by bending the tip up in a round, fairly predictable flex. It can actually carve. I have not had the chance to figure out exactly how to do that, but I've seen Woodserson do it.

The Ingstad/Tonje has a longer camber underfoot for the kick zone, with nordic rocker in the tip. That means the ski overall is a little stiffer, and it can be a little harder to engage the fishscales. The stiff flex and stiff tip rocker give the ski some extra stability in deep, soft snow.

You will likely get better grip from the fishscales with the Nansen/Cecilie ski, since the fishscales were designed with that ski in mind, and since the flex pattern of that ski makes it easier to push the fishscales down into the snow. The Nansen will be faster on consolidated snow, too.

On the flip side, you will likely get better glide with the skins on the Ingstad/Tonje ski, since the flex pattern of that ski will do a better job keeping the plastic tab at the front of the ski off of the snow. In deep, fresh snow, the Ingstad will be more stable and slightly faster.

Between the two, I would pick whichever covers your snow conditions >70% of the time. If you have more packed snow, go for the Nansen/Cecilie.