Wildly speculative talk about Asnes 21-22 lineup: Otto/FT62

[Nitram Tocrut]

Besides, I have never skied an Ingstad, Gamme or Amundsen. I think you'll have more reliable and relevant info coming from Gareth or Woods before I can properly test
I dont doubt there will be some overlap in usage scenarios between the Nato and Sverdrup, but that is also OK for me.

@Roelant thanks and I feel for your lack of snow. Here it is slowly building up but not close to have enough snow to need BC skis…

I have been bugging/harassing @lilcliffy to try his Sverdrup so I know where to stand with this ski. I have inside information that he might take them out tomorrow

I told him that his first impressions will decide the fate of my unmounted Sverdrup… no pressure

[lilcliffy]

Still have not mounted mine as i want to make sure they are way faster than the Ingstad or my 220 Europa on flat/rolling terrain.

flat/rolling terrain→ Gamme 54 or even the Amundsen

I already see the Sverdrup as a steep terrain XC ski (i.e. hills- as opposed to rolling terrain)- as is the Ingstad- but, not as finely tuned towards deep soft snow as the Ingstad.

The Sverdrup has a lot of rocker, and a softer shovel than the Ingstad-
- it is not going to be as fast a XC as the Gamme 54 in any condition
- it is not going to be as stable a XC ski as the Ingstad in deep snow

[Stephen]

Interested in @lilcliffy’s comments on Sverdrup vs Ingstad.
Was out on the Ingstad 205 yesterday in heavier snow with breakable crust.
Nice to be out, but not fun snow — felt like a lot of work.
Have run into this situation before with the Ingstad and similar experience.
No help from the tips. Was thinking my Gamme would have been much better.
Now wondering about how the Sverdrup is going to perform in any sort of situation where a more supportive tip would be nice?
And also, just in general, what the “ideal” use case for the Sverdrup is?

[jyw5]

Was out on the Ingstad 205 yesterday in heavier snow with breakable crust.
Nice to be out, but not fun snow — felt like a lot of work.
Have run into this situation before with the Ingstad and similar experience.
No help from the tips. Was thinking my Gamme would have been much better.
Now wondering about how the Sverdrup is going to perform in any sort of situation where a more supportive tip would be nice?
And also, just in general, what the “ideal” use case for the Sverdrup is?

Sverdrup performance was not good in deep snow. The tips have trouble going through all that snow. Sverdrup excels on consolidated snow on gentle to moderately steep terrain.

I consider moderate around 1000ft vertical per mile one way.

I will further confirm this in January. I've flown south for the holidays.

[lilcliffy]

Was out on the Ingstad 205 yesterday in heavier snow with breakable crust.
Nice to be out, but not fun snow — felt like a lot of work.
Have run into this situation before with the Ingstad and similar experience.
No help from the tips. Was thinking my Gamme would have been much better.

The Ingstad is terrible in breakable crust-
too much rocker- the shovel rides on top of the crust and one ends up breaking crust with the midsection of the ski- YUCK.
The Gamme has as much rocker as one can get away with in breakable crust.
The Amundsen and the Nansen are even better.
The Combat Nato is also generally excellent in breakable crust- but there have been times with very thick breakable crust where the supple tip of the Combat has rode on top of the crust- YUCK- and the Gamme has actually been better...
To date- the Amundsen is the best Nordic touring ski I have ever tested in breakable crust- the Nansen second- the Gamme/Combat Nato come in third.

Now wondering about how the Sverdrup is going to perform in any sort of situation where a more supportive tip would be nice?

Joe's experiences with the Sverdrup suggest that it's shovel is not stable enough for deep soft snow (this could be a combination of factors including the flexible shovel + ample rocker + significant sidecut + big stiff camber underfoot)-

However- the shovel on the Sverdrup is still more stable than skis like the E99/E109 Xtralite, Eon.

And also, just in general, what the “ideal” use case for the Sverdrup is?

Was going to test it this morning, but we got more ice than anticipated + rain and freeze producing breakable crust.
I don't even need to test the Sverdrup to know that it will truly suck in breakable crust!

[lilcliffy]

http://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.p ... fc7cfc0d28

[fisheater]

Was out on the new FT Xplore 196 in about a foot of fresh. It is far more supportive than the previous editions. I would hazard to report completely supportive as the tips completely disappeared under the snow, yet the ski was completely supportive. Other than for marketing, a Gamme type tip would be an improvement, however the tip notch in a Gamme tip would just offer versatility.
I met a lot of really nice people that wanted to lead, kick and glide in the compacted track SEEMED superior to the previous version. K&G was definitely superior to several T-78 I followed today.
Downhill turning in fresh was superb in ST 75, Alaska 75 without cable assist. The cables were in my pack if needed.

[lilcliffy]

Was out on the new FT Xplore 196 in about a foot of fresh. It is far more supportive than the previous editions. I would hazard to report completely supportive as the tips completely disappeared under the snow, yet the ski was completely supportive.

Very cool Bob! Thank you for the report! I would not expect a ski that narrow underfoot to ever float high in the snow column (unless it is planing at downhill speeds). While I was certainly not unhappy with the flex of the 1st/2nd gen FT62 (i.e. I did not buy it to surf turns in deep snow)- tweaking the FT62 to make it more stable in deep snow will certainly make it more versatile in XC mode- and separate it more clearly from the Rabb 68.

Other than for marketing, a Gamme type tip would be an improvement, however the tip notch in a Gamme tip would just offer versatility.

My biggest issue with the low-profile racing skin tip notch is lack of durability skiing in the Northwoods. I apply a coat of epoxy, just for an extra wear layer.

K&G was definitely superior to several T-78 I followed today.

This is could be significant- the 78 is no Gamme- but it is certainly a decent XC ski.
Perhaps you are just so good that it made the 78 look bad? You need to trade off with a 78 skier to really know!

Downhill turning in fresh was superb in ST 75, Alaska 75 without cable assist.

This is obviously the entire point of this ski! Hopefully it will releive those who were concerned about the FT62 losing its micro modern downhill magic!
Thanks again man,
Gareth

[fisheater]

@lilcliffy

This is could be significant- the 78 is no Gamme- but it is certainly a decent XC ski.
Perhaps you are just so good that it made the 78 look bad? You need to trade off with a 78 skier to really know!

Gareth, I’m no pro when it comes to kick and glide, I have no formal training. It was just observation watching the people in front of me. I was able to take less steps to cover the same amount of ground. I was quite happy too, most of the people I skied with were at least 20 years younger, I was happy my skis were making it easier for me. However it is quite possible that they were skiing the T-78 short, for turning, and according to Fischer recommendations. My FT is 196 cm.
So as I finished my day today I had a long but slightly downhill flat that had been groomed. I was kicking down. There were tracks, but they were wide. The FT fit in the track, and I flew kicking in that compacted track. Had I been on the older version I certainly would have had significant wax pocket drag.
I love Whitegrass already, they have over 1000 feet of vertical with cleaned out glades out the wazoo, and the people just call it cross country skiing! If that isn’t enough they put in tracks that you can a 97 mm FT shovel in!

[Stephen]

I also posted this in another thread…

This conversation about the V1/V2 vs V3 version of the FT62 is interesting to me.
Some seem to say that the V3 loses some of what made it special because of the additional stiffness.
Others seem to appreciate the additional stiffness in that it seems to make the ski more versatile.
(If I have that wrong, feel free to clarify / correct.)

It’s almost like there are two different (but similar) skis that share the same name.
It’s almost like Asnes should have called it the “FT62 Black Edition” (or some such) like I have seen with some other skis.

EDIT: @fisheater pointed out that, as far as naming goes, they ARE two different skis — FT62 and FT62 Xplore. I had not considered that by adding “Xplore,” Asnes was designating it as a new ski (a discrete branch) vs being an new iteration of the old ski (a continuation of the old branch). A sort of academic distinction, I suppose.

I have to doubt that both the old (V2) and new (V3) versions will be offered in the future, but who knows…