The Åsnes Thread (News for 2020-2021!)

[Cannatonic]

>>Bob, Bob, my dear friend!
Finnmark man.
If you want to keep up with that Vizsla (awesome pouch BTW) you need the Finnmark.
It sounds like the Finnmark was so good it made them redesign the Green Man!

Agree on this - the Breidablikk are nice but the camber is just like the Nato Combat - much lower than the Gamme which are close to have the double camber of a traditional XC ski. I assume the FInnmark is similar. For logging miles I would opt for Finnmark.

[Åsnes1922]

Åsnes 1922, thanks for your responses. You sold me on a longer FT 62, however that purchase is a few years down the road. I really enjoy the FT 62 I currently ski. I will I need to put much more wear on that set. I just can’t replace something that works so well.
You may need to request a commission check for a pair of Breidablikk. My little Vizsla loves to run with me. While cutting a paw would sadden me, I could see my Gamme slicing a tendon. I would be heartbroken to permanently mare my skiing buddy like that. However, she’s a rocket on paws. I still need a fast ski to keep her guessing!

Bob, Bob, my dear friend!
Finnmark man.
If you want to keep up with that Vizsla (awesome pouch BTW) you need the Finnmark.
It sounds like the Finnmark was so good it made them redesign the Green Man!

Yup! You need a pair of Finnmark 54 BC for maximum K&G and speed to keep up with the dog in a safe manner. Dog-friendly skis are underestimated - and of course, made to keep the dog's paws safe!

[Nitram Tocrut]

The 196cm FT62 definitely has a significantly better K&G performance. That's a very logical and very true statement. It might be a bit long for shorter and lighter skiers, but if you can handle a longer ski it is phenomenal. I'm sure I have mentioned that I objectively love the FT62, and that they're my go-to skis for both playful, aggressive skiing and shorter day trips. Ergo, the most used BC ski I have in my (very too big) quiver.
We decided to make this and the Breidablikk in longer lengths primarily for heavier skiers, but the extra length will also be beneficial in deeper snow, for K&G and for everyone wanting a longer ski - with all its benefits.

I'm sure you would find the 196 FT62 WAAY better in terms of K&G performance with your body specs, compared to the 188cm. I'm 178cm and around 80kg, and I love the 188cm. But when testing and reviewing the 196cm, I could definitely feel the difference on flats and when traversing longer multi-day distances in deeper snow. It just glides better - and it's still not too long.

To compare, I tend to choose the 205cm Ingstad over the 195cm one, even though both work fine for me. So for me, the FT62 196 just feels like a more playful, more relaxing downhill, agile and stable 205cm Ingstad. Probably more suited for your snow conditions than here in coastal Norway.

Oh well Crister you better be rigth because I sold my 188 FT for the promise of better K&G with the 196. I was really happy with the 188 but I expect the 196 to be even better for my body size and my terrain.


Correct me if i am wrong, but i think the FT62 « should » be picked a bit longer than your body height and the Rabb is better a bit shorter than your height. Well, it is my conclusion after skiing both skis in 188 length. The Rabb is definitively not a good tracker without the skin or fully waxed so I don’t see the benefit of a longer ski. I know Wooderson prefer the 180 Rabb and Johnny rave review was based on the 172 cm Rabb if I am not mistaken.

[Shenanagains]

I, for one, could wait no longer. Used a milling machine to cut the scales, they work very well.

[Stephen]

Shenanagains, This is really a trip. In another post that I was reading (right before I saw your post) there was a discussion about something similar:
Re: "Stupid" Waxing Question
Unread post by Tele kid » Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:50 am

I've had similar thoughts about when the fish scales get too worn down and weather there is a way to smooth it back out to a wax-able ski. Or better yet a way to re scale your ski once smooth.

And I was imaging / picturing EXACTLY what you did as the solution.
It always impresses me what clever people with cool machines are able to do to creatively solve problems!

Nice work.

[Nitram Tocrut]

I, for one, could wait no longer. Used a milling machine to cut the scales, they work very well.

27E8728E-B4B4-4569-965B-34EA7BC96C0C.jpeg

Hi Shenanagains,

Those are FT68 which are the predecessors of the Rabb if I am not mistaken. Have you skied them yet with the scales? if so, have you noticed a difference when K&G? Are they more directional?

Please keep us updated

Thank's!

[Shenanagains]

K, there's some explanation required for any of this to make sense.

I had an idea, akin to the one that most skis aren't that well suited to skiing deep powder. For that, skiers keep a separate pair better designed for that, 'pow skis'... For me the condition I kept wishing for better was spring skiing, I wanted 'corn skis'.

Seemed to me, modern shaped skis like Voile's are great for turns, OK for covering flat ground, and with fishscales better for skiing downhill on melting snow because the pattern base breaks up suction. I use Vector and Vector BC skis normally, and love them. They are, though, too wide for firm snow like corn, and all that width adds suction and requires heavier boots.

So, my ideal corn ski would look like a much narrower Vector BC. And the only skis like that I knew of were Asnes's Storetind, Falketind, and Rabb models- except that none of them can be bought with a waxless base.

A year ago, I found the FT 68's for sale at Neptune, thanks to a post on this forum. You'd think, if your store is the only place in the US to buy a particular brand of skis, you'd advertise what you have online? Nope, it took a phone call, but sure enough the had them. On sale no less!

Over the winter I skied them a few times, using plastic boots (sorry Johnny, I'm like that) and developed some opinions about them. Even in winter, kick wax is frustrating where I live because of a warmish, moist climate. And the kicker skins I bought with the skis are useful, but don't glide nearly well enough compared to fishscale skis. I also bought some leather boots and tried them, since finally I had skis narrow enough to control with them.

Then, there was a slow time at work, and I was able to modify them after my shift.

So I've skied them only 3 days since cutting the pattern. All 3 were on melting snow in the Cascade Mountains, 2 were backcountry on moderately steep terrain, and 1 was at Timberline Lodge on Mount Hood- so lift served, strictly downhill.

Comparing these to Vector BC's, they provide a little less traction- maybe 80% as much. They also glide noticeably better than the Vectors. I think I notice a little more noise skiing at speed downhill from the Asnes' than the vectors. The biggest difference I notice so far is suction effect on wet snow: the narrower skis really don't get nearly as sticky, just what I'd hoped for!

K+G performance- Other than the different type of traction offered by scales vs. wax, I haven't noticed much change. The skis wander a lot, due to sidecut, both before and after having the scales cut. I have no real XC experience so am not bothered by that, but guessing others might be.

What I really like about these skis:

•They work! Any time you modify something the results are not guaranteed. This experiment got me something I can really use. And they even seem to confirm, narrow skis can work better on wet snow.

•They really carve! Like LJ has ranted about these skis love to turn themselves, and that rockered tip makes initiation extremely easy.

•They allow me to explore lighter, softer boots. I usually ski T2's and have now downsized to Excursions. Love that lighter, more natural feeling. But also managed to source a pair of Ski March boots my size, and really like them for K+G skiing, as well as learning to make tele turns on leather. Next year is gonna be fun!

What I don't really like about these skis:

•Too carvy for use in ungroomed snow. Turning, and controlling speed by slipping, is much more difficult than I'm used to. Probably should have expected that, but they can be challenging in tight trees, on suncups, etc.

•Minor, but once the skis can't slide backward, the twin tips are not really useful.

I REALLY hope that a similar ski makes its way to the market. The Falketind 62 or Rabb 68 fill a niche that is otherwise unserved in the market, and adding fishscales would be just the ticket for at least some users.

I'll happily answer questions, ask away!

[Johnny]

Bottom line, if I could have bought the skis I wanted, modifying skis would not have been at all reasonable.

Bottom line, please Frank, Asbjørn and @Åsnes1922, can't you see how badly we all need wide WL skis?
Better do it soon before we all spend our stimulus checks on Voile or Fischer waxless skis...

[Shenanagains]

Well...

Voile makes great waxless skis, but even the Objective is awfully wide for springtime skiing.

And Fischer's skis are (I think) much heavier and have too little rocker. Though, I haven't seen them in person.

[Johnny]

Voile makes great waxless skis, but even the Objective is awfully wide for springtime skiing.
And Fischer's skis are (I think) much heavier and have too little rocker. Though, I haven't seen them in person.

Exactly. Narrower Voile skis would be *soooo awesome*... I tried to sell them the idea when the Objective came out... It seems like they are still stuck on big fat 2005-style planks on the west coast. But again, paradoxically, the ridiculous low-rise tips on all Voile skis makes them quite unsuited for powder / BC use... (I can't believe they are still doing this!!!)

Fischer skis, whether alpine, WC, XC or nordic are pretty much the finest skis you can find. And their waxless line are simply the very best you can find on the market, period.

BUT... Asnes skis are even better than this...
And so Asnes 70-90mm waisted WLs would be the ultimate dream...