Asnes Mountain Race 48 SKIN

[GrimSurfer]

Like you, I transitioned from classic skiing. I didn’t notice snow quality as much on classic skis because I was exclusively on machined, groomed and tracked surfaces.

In OT conditions, a proper wax job can make a huge difference.

[Capercaillie]

Actually, pretty impressed. Got the 210, mounted with Xplore and currently skiing Alaska XP until the Pioneer Pro stocks.

Have you noticed any down-sides to having Xplore on a ski this skinny?

[wabene]

Actually, pretty impressed. Got the 210, mounted with Xplore and currently skiing Alaska XP until the Pioneer Pro stocks.

Have you noticed any down-sides to having Xplore on a ski this skinny?

I'll jump in here. @Theme says, "On some ascents I am experiencing a 5-10 cm slide backwards before I get a grip. I am about 70kg with just boots and clothes on. The shop got the placement of bindings wrong, they are about a centiemeter too far back. Mostly I intended these skis to be used with a pack of 10-20kg on. I feel that the lenght is great for me for this purpose, although I still need to try the skis with a heavier pack on."
This type of ski with a recessed integrated skin can have great k & g in all conditions as long as you can adjust the binding fore and aft with a binding like the Move. I have an older version that you have to take the ski off and use a key. I run the binding center or back some when it's cold. When it gets warm I move it forward. If I couldn't do that I wouldn't have good kick when it is warm. I wouldn't mount a ski with a recessed integrated skin with a binding that wasn't adjustable. I have light and comfortable leather BC boots, the Crispi Nordland, that I would love to use with my skis in this category, Madshus Fjeltech M50'S, but the NNN BC binding does not adjust, so no go. Neither do the Explore or 75mm 3 pins. To get the most out of a skin ski I think you need an adjustable binding.

[Theme]

Actually, pretty impressed. Got the 210, mounted with Xplore and currently skiing Alaska XP until the Pioneer Pro stocks.

Have you noticed any down-sides to having Xplore on a ski this skinny?

This far, no. I do have some concerns for drag in some very specific conditions with snow on a solid base, off track - the width of the binding is a bit much. But, so is the boot. It is more the shape - will sinking top layer of spring mush be tricky? Will the binding drag on hard edges of a corn broken track, where a skinny ski sinks in just a bit? Unfortunately I won't be skiing the coming spring. This effect can be experienced on specific windpack conditions too, but it is rather rare.

Another thing could be, if one would more use these skis for track skiing. Many people get away with much lighter boots and bindings for more efficient travel. For my use, mainly on snowmobile tracks an windpacked snow/spring base, with 10-20kg on my back, trying to balance and steer in bumpy surfaces with some speed OR trying to slow down, I can already see the benefits compared to NNNBC. Better control, more lateral control (though very reliant on the boot), lighter boots and step turns, no balling underfoot at least yet. Could have left the heel riser off to shave grams, I don't see use for that on skinnies. I intend these skis 80% long-distance nordic touring and the rest occasional daytrips on tracks/other types of adventures. For more off-track focused tours there will be other skis.

I am also not sure of some steeper traverses, how the binding will work, if it is going to push against the slope or something. Probably a non-issue as boots are pretty much the same width, but worth experimenting with, as the binding does sit a bit lower. I did suspect this a few years back with Magnums aswell on skinnier skis, the shop somehow got them mixed up with Manuals.. but nothing ever came out of that. No issues. Probably no issue with the Xplore either.

The boots are generally MUCH more comfy to hike in. Let me tell you, I am DONE walking on NNNBC soles. Done way too many hundreds of miles on them... a skinny ski is a distance ski. Sometimes that distance passes through areas not suitable for skis. Even for a short walk to the trailhead, the few steps are way more safe now.

So there are some questionmarks, and no doubt there will be some more to come. Buut for now testing continues.

@wabene
If I could have bindings that can be moved, I would. Currently I just cannot see NNN working for my needs, however much I would like to have an adjustable binding with lighter weight boots too. I will probably get the bindings moved ahead a bit, if I think I have plenty enough glide with a heavier pack on - have not tried this yet. Probably will have plenty more grip aswell.

I do agree that spring conditions are more tricky. But, as my use case allows, you can make less grip work choosing different ski paths up sometimes, different time of the day, walking up the steeps, etc. And these skis do have the kicker skin attachment which I am not afraid to use. After all, I have had adequate enough glide on 45mm uncut mohairs, many times I keep them on all day in tricky terrain/poor snow conditions. I do use them a lot - idea with the MR48S was to allow better glide on good days while providing kick on flats and mild to moderate inclines, not having to carry extra waxing equipment. Now, I know with wax I could do this and that, but right now I am lazy with that due to reasons

[wabene]

@Capercaillie said, "What is the front of the M50 like? This is where I think one of the most important distinctions in these narrow class of skis is going to be. As Johnny said, the MR48 have a "very nice Nordic Rocker." The Fischer TN59 should also be a ski comparable to the MR48, M50, and T50, but the advertising lists that it has "Nordic Rocker Camber," just like the advertising for the TN66. If the front of the TN59 is anything like the floppy front of my TN66, I would not want to ski the TN59. The rocker on the TN66 makes pressuring into turns easy, but is that something you really want to do on a narrow ski? And if you do, that means you are probably going to want to go from soft 500g NNN boots to 700g+ stiff NNNBC boots. 40% weight increase without considering the bindings. It just gets you farther and farther away from having a light ski you can step into turns, but the real problem is now you are going to have all the disadvantages of trail breaking with a narrow ski together with all the disadvantages of trail breaking with a rockered ski. On breakable crust, every stride on my TN66 feels like I'm postholing - because essentially that is what is happening."
Unfortunately I've never laid my hands on the MR48's, or even the TN59.
Here is the M50 uncompressed

Here the camber is compressed

And here is my Gamme with the camber compressed

My photography might be lacking, but to me the rocker seems similar. Fairly subtle rocker. The tip on the M50 is much more flexible than the stiff tipped Gamme which has a metal edge all around the tip and the M50 has a ¾ metal edge like the MR48. I would say the tips are soft, the part without metal anyway. Not as soft as a true track ski.

[GrimSurfer]

Have you noticed any down-sides to having Xplore on a ski this skinny?

Another thing could be, if one would more use these skis for track skiing. Many people get away with much lighter boots and bindings for more efficient travel.

I am also not sure of some steeper traverses, how the binding will work, if it is going to push against the slope or something. Probably a non-issue as boots are pretty much the same width, but worth experimenting with, as the binding does sit a bit lower. I did suspect this a few years back with Magnums aswell on skinnier skis, the shop somehow got them mixed up with Manuals.. but nothing ever came out of that. No issues. Probably no issue with the Xplore either.

So there are some questionmarks, and no doubt there will be some more to come. Buut for now testing continues.

@wabene
If I could have bindings that can be moved, I would. Currently I just cannot see NNN working for my needs, however much I would like to have an adjustable binding with lighter weight boots too. I will probably get the bindings moved ahead a bit, if I think I have plenty enough glide with a heavier pack on - have not tried this yet. Probably will have plenty more grip aswell.

I’m kind of surprised you could even mount XP bindings on a ski that is ~48mm at the binding point.

The outer edge of the binding screws are about 18mm from centreline if I’m reading the Rottefella template correctly. That leaves 6mm on each side of the ski, which isn’t much given that 1-2mm of that will be taken up by the steel edge.

[Theme]

I’m kind of surprised you could even mount XP bindings on a ski that is ~48mm at the binding point.

The outer edge of the binding screws are about 18mm from centreline if I’m reading the Rottefella template correctly. That leaves 6mm on each side of the ski, which isn’t much given that 1-2mm of that will be taken up by the steel edge.

The screw top is kind of wide compared to the rest of the screw. The outer edges of the screw holes are max. 15mm from centerline. The top is 45mm wide. 7,5mm on each side at least. Yes it is quite close, but should be enough. Although I am very suspicious of remounting the bindings near the existing holes because of this

[GrimSurfer]

I’m kind of surprised you could even mount XP bindings on a ski that is ~48mm at the binding point.

The outer edge of the binding screws are about 18mm from centreline if I’m reading the Rottefella template correctly. That leaves 6mm on each side of the ski, which isn’t much given that 1-2mm of that will be taken up by the steel edge.

The screw top is kind of wide compared to the rest of the screw. The outer edges of the screw holes are max. 15mm from centerline. The top is 45mm wide. 7,5mm on each side at least. Yes it is quite close, but should be enough. Although I am very suspicious of remounting the bindings near the existing holes because of this

Good to know. That extra 3mm per side is significant.

I don’t know why Rottefella doesn’t publish detailed measurements on binding screw layout. Zero on this on the web… for any of their bindings. It doesn’t have to be a state secret. No work required… they’d have all of this on CAD.

I can understand your concern about remounting. Depending on how far forward you go, the back two screws could be close. Wouldn’t matter as much if the old holes were epoxied and left 24-48 hours to fully cure. Not many shops wait… the just fill the holes and redrill/remount.

[CwmRaider]

I don’t know why Rottefella doesn’t publish detailed measurements on binding screw layout. Zero on this on the web… for any of their bindings. It doesn’t have to be a state secret. No work required… they’d have all of this on CAD.

I can understand your concern about remounting. Depending on how far forward you go, the back two screws could be close. Wouldn’t matter as much if the old holes were epoxied and left 24-48 hours to fully cure. Not many shops wait… the just fill the holes and redrill/remount.

You can download the PDF of the mounting paper jig from the Rottefella website. Then you can use the built in measuring tool in Adobe pdf reader to measure distances between screw hole centers. Ill try to find the time to do this later today and post results here.

[CwmRaider]

@GrimSurfer
Here are the digital measurements directly on the to-scale jig drawing from Rottefella.
I used the built in measurement tool for Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Yes that one measurement IS 3.01 cm and not 3.00 cm when snapping the measurement points to the hole centers - no idea why. But 3 cm is close enough in practice.

According to this drawing, the outermost parts of the holes are 32mm apart, =16mm from the centerline.