The Åsnes Thread (News for 2020-2021!)

[1EyedJack]

I agree with the S98s, before they screwed up (my opinion) with the built-in skins. Not that hard to add your own skis.
My BD skins are cut to full width and length.

[Johnny]

Circa 1991... Notice the US address...

[Cannatonic]

>>
FALKETIND 62 BC: 196cm (Wow!)
BREIDABLIKK BC: 210cm (Wow!)

good news - Breidablikk are extremely light skis......210's would be perfect for hunting, or making turns, in deep powder

[fisheater]

I think a 196 FT is an excellent idea. However it would be a much better idea to have a dog ski. My little Vizsla is quite confused by my speed on the Green Man skis. She tries to cut me off as I’m passing her. I guess she wins, I hit the brakes quick, but I do worry about skiing with her on those sharp Åsnes edges. I would be better off on my old S-112 brownies, but the dog would be bored to death waiting for me.

[Nitram Tocrut]

>>
FALKETIND 62 BC: 196cm (Wow!)
BREIDABLIKK BC: 210cm (Wow!)

good news - Breidablikk are extremely light skis......210's would be perfect for hunting, or making turns, in deep powder

I wonder if the Breidablikk is not simply an Ingstad without metal edges as they have the same dimensions?

I also wonder if the 196 Cm FT62 would significantly improve the K&G performance without impairing its turning easiness? They are so easy to turn that I don’t think it would make a big difference to a big guy like me 6,1 and over 200? I guess they are doing a longer version especially for better K&G. If so, anybody wants a pair of 188 Cm FT62?

[Nitram Tocrut]

>>
FALKETIND 62 BC: 196cm (Wow!)
BREIDABLIKK BC: 210cm (Wow!)

good news - Breidablikk are extremely light skis......210's would be perfect for hunting, or making turns, in deep powder

Would not the Kingsvold be better in powder with it’s wider tip and underfoot? Anybody on this forum ever skied those? It’s just for the fun of reading... no intention of buying here

[Cannatonic]

>>Would not the Kingsvold be better in powder with it’s wider tip and underfoot?

yes, there is a wider one and somewhat narrower one, and now the Finnmark without edges as well. I love these because the skis become featherweight and if it's powder you don't need the edges. I think Finnmark 210's is the next ski on my list.

[lilcliffy]

I wonder if the Breidablikk is not simply an Ingstad without metal edges as they have the same dimensions?

Pretty sure that the Breidablikk has the same geometry as the Combat Nato (i.e. previous gen Ingstad)- would be lighter than the Combat without the full-wrap metal edge and binding plate. Also- the Combat has a softer tip than the current Ingstad- the Breid's tip would be even softer without the full-wrap metal edge.

I also wonder if the 196 Cm FT62 would significantly improve the K&G performance without impairing its turning easiness? They are so easy to turn that I don’t think it would make a big difference to a big guy like me 6,1 and over 200? I guess they are doing a longer version especially for better K&G. If so, anybody wants a pair of 188 Cm FT62?

I have a 188cm FT62 and am 178cm tall. After a couple of seasons with the FT62, I am thinking that perhaps I would be better with a FT62 closer to my height. I am only interested in the FT62 as a "touring-for-turns" ski with ultralight boots/bindings (NNNBC). I too find the 188cm FT62 easy to turn (much easier to turn than the Ingstad BC for example), but it is not a wide floaty/smeary ski- it wants to carve- I think that Asnes' advice to use skier height as a base for the FT62 is good advice (please note that I am skiing trees with the FT62- I prefer long downhill skis when I have the room to get up to real speed and rip).

If one wants a longer FT62 for XC performance than I think that the more XC-focused Ingstad BC/Nansen BC are better choices. Although I have been reasonably "pleased" with the XC performance of the FT62 in ideal snow (i.e. soft, fresh and not very deep)- it is a pretty poor XC ski otherwise IMO.

I have also tested short Ingstad BC back-to-back against the FT62 and there is no contest- the FT62 is clearly the winner as a "touring-for-turns" ski. A short Ingstad BC does not make any sense to me when the FT62 is available.

IMO-
Want a XC-oriented xcd ski- go for long lengths and more trad XC geometry- rather than a longer downhill-oriented ski.

[lilcliffy]

>>
FALKETIND 62 BC: 196cm (Wow!)
BREIDABLIKK BC: 210cm (Wow!)

good news - Breidablikk are extremely light skis......210's would be perfect for hunting, or making turns, in deep powder

Would not the Kingsvold be better in powder with it’s wider tip and underfoot? Anybody on this forum ever skied those? It’s just for the fun of reading... no intention of buying here

I think that the advantage of the Kongsvold must be in steep terrain. As a comparison- my 199cm Fischer Excusion (68mm) is not a better deep-snow XC ski than my 210cm Combat Nato (62cm). IMO/IME, deep snow XC performance is not just a function of ski surface area. I bet the 210cm Breid is a more stable and better tracking deep-snow XC ski than the wider, curvier Kongsvold...
The Kongsvold with its 30cm of sidecut, stiff mid-section, and soft tip screams "pool-cover syndrome" as a deep snow XC ski...They are probably dreamy on steep slopes and "hunting at treeline and turns in deep snow"...

[lilcliffy]

>>Would not the Kingsvold be better in powder with it’s wider tip and underfoot?

yes, there is a wider one and somewhat narrower one, and now the Finnmark without edges as well. I love these because the skis become featherweight and if it's powder you don't need the edges. I think Finnmark 210's is the next ski on my list.

I too am interested in the Finnmark!
Are you thinking waxbase or scaled-base Finnmark Canna?