Which first Asnes ski to buy ?

[Dxmetal]

I just came off a 9 plus mile ski on the Discovery 80. I like the ski. It is lively, has decent sidecut for turns, and the traction pattern has been working great so far. It lacks the built in slots for a mini skin like some of the Asnes and Fischer skis, but there are other strap on skin solutions that would work just fine.
GX020878_Moment.jpg

Tom,
I just watched your "Alpina Discovery 80 / Fischer Traverse 78 Off Trail XC Skis" video and my next homework is to read Johnny's review of the Alpina Disco 80 review here on the site !

Also, if you dont mind, I also see that you have another set of "ski category" in your quiver, the Voile Hyper V6 and Voile Objective BC. Do you mind explaining to a total newbie like me, the main use case for the one camp (Traverse 78, Disco 80 and S-Bound 98) vs (Voile hyper V6 and Objective BC) please ? For now, I just assumed that the later are for pure XC in flat to moderate terrain and the later are for heavier plastic boots for AT purposes ? I am sure I am missing more on these topics and I would really like to learn and expand my knowledge a bit more beyond the obvious.

p/s: I also been watching and subscribed to your youtube channel for a few weeks now !

[jyw5]

I just came off a 9 plus mile ski on the Discovery 80. I like the ski. It is lively, has decent sidecut for turns, and the traction pattern has been working great so far. It lacks the built in slots for a mini skin like some of the Asnes and Fischer skis, but there are other strap on skin solutions that would work just fine.
GX020878_Moment.jpg

Tom,
I just watched your "Alpina Discovery 80 / Fischer Traverse 78 Off Trail XC Skis" video and my next homework is to read Johnny's review of the Alpina Disco 80 review here on the site !

Also, if you dont mind, I also see that you have another set of "ski category" in your quiver, the Voile Hyper V6 and Voile Objective BC. Do you mind explaining to a total newbie like me, the main use case for the one camp (Traverse 78, Disco 80 and S-Bound 98) vs (Voile hyper V6 and Objective BC) please ? For now, I just assumed that the later are for pure XC in flat to moderate terrain and the later are for heavier plastic boots for AT purposes ? I am sure I am missing more on these topics and I would really like to learn and expand my knowledge a bit more beyond the obvious.

p/s: I also been watching and subscribed to your youtube channel for a few weeks now !

I think I can partially answer your question. Voile hyper V6 and Objective BC are skis that are more downhill oriented. Hyper V6 is a wide ski at 96-102mm underfoot depending on length. These skis are relatively light with a hybrid rocker, very easy to turn and does well in powder and deeper snow. Plastic boots, AT or tele would be preferred.

The Voile Objective BC however is a good midfat ski at 80-84mm underfoot with fishscales. Very light, fast on the ascent especially when the snow is hard and consolidated. Skimo racers prefer thinner and lighter versions of this type of ski (but without scales). Because of its midwidth and moderate characteristics, any binding system and your choice of leather or plastic boots can be used. I believe this ski would still do well in deeper snow and quite well for variable snow. I personally was looking at the Voile Objective BC white, NNN BC, Alfa Guard Advance. It would/could make an excellent replacement someday for my S112 (which I have written extensively about... conclusion was I can ski nearly everything on S112, just not that well).

Overall these Voile skis you mentioned would be annoyingly slow on flat trails and I **personally** wouldnt use them for anything but steep ascents/descents. I would prefer a narrower waxable ski with more camber for flat/hilly terrain that you are planning on doing...one that is more xc oriented.

There is ultimately some overlap between ski setups. Especially depending on your terrain, purpose, and ability. Some routes have long flattish approaches that end in steep slopes with variable terrain. It can be challenging to decide which ski is best. And often, it also depends on the snow/trail conditions as well as your ability. Having a quiver of skis helps alot. There are skis that do better in powder, some better on packed hard snow, and others on flat trails vs. steeper terrain. Some setups are better for multiday/long routes. Some setups I would only use/trust for the day or a few hours. No one ski nor ski setup does it all...and the skis perform better/worse depending on the conditions and terrain.

Because of all these variables, over the years, I have learned to ski steeper terrain with all of my skis. I try to shorten the time of my approach as much as possible to get to the goods quickly so to speak but also to not terribly compromise my ability or fun factor of coming down the mountain.

My unsolicited advice is, figure out the conditions/terrain you will be skiing the most, and get the best possible ski for that purpose. Then you can fill out your wardrobe with a bunch of other skis later. Truth be told, I have skis that only see the snow once/season some years (hope my wife isn't reading this).

[Dxmetal]

There is ultimately some overlap between ski setups. Especially depending on your terrain, purpose, and ability. Some routes have long flattish approaches that end in steep slopes with variable terrain. It can be challenging to decide which ski is best. And often, it also depends on the snow/trail conditions as well as your ability. Having a quiver of skis helps alot. There are skis that do better in powder, some better on packed hard snow, and others on flat trails vs. steeper terrain. Some setups are better for multiday/long routes. Some setups I would only use/trust for the day or a few hours. No one ski nor ski setup does it all...and the skis perform better/worse depending on the conditions and terrain.

Thank you for this !!! It made me think further regarding my decision. According to Alpina I would need the 197cm Disco 80 skis for my weight. For the FT 62 or RABB 68, Asnes suggested 172cm which is around my height. There is a substantial difference there in length especially for a total newbie like me.

Tom also made an excellent point that I have not thought about until his post. When breaking trail, speed and efficiency are not crucial or even possible. That kind of made me rethink about my initial attraction towards the RABB 68 which is wider (for my weight range and heavy backpack load) as well as having some capability to learn how to turn on gentle hills in the future.

However, after reading the forum it seems to me that the RABB 68 is not a popular product here. Could it be it is a middle of nowhere product where it does not excel in any department (downhill or cross country) ?

Thanks again for reading my analysis paralysis mind.

[Woodserson]

Boy, for just starting out, with no nordic experience, you'll want a softer wider ski for ease of use.

That means Ingstad, Nansen, T78, Discovery80, FT62, Rabb 68.

I would probably lean either Ingstad or FT62 if you want to go the waxing route and use skins to supplement, or go with the T78, and use scales, also with skin option.

The reason I'm including the FT62 in this selection is because this year it's much stiffer, and would be a decent ski to shuffle along while carrying a pack in softer snow. It would be the widest platform and easiest to use (if you are good with the waxing part of it) but also the least efficient. Trade-offs are in everything.

[Tom M]

jyw5 summed it up very well. My quiver can be divided up into 3 basic categories: Groomed trail skate and track skiing, off trail XC skiing in soft boots, and free heel steep skiing with plastic boots and downhill skis. I could probably get by with a quiver of 4 skis, but my current active quiver is six skis and six boots. Believe it or not, I ski them all. It is interesting that you mention the Voile Objective ski. On my last major backpack ski trip, I skied the Objectives with 75 mm leather boots. My ski partner was skiing Voile Hyper Vectors with an AT plastic boot setup. We skied about 10 miles in and set up a base camp for day trips, touring for turns as they say. My usual choice for ski backpacks are my Sbound 98's, but on this instance, I wanted to be more closely matched to my ski partner on downhill capability, so I picked the Objectives over the 98's. There is a huge difference between the 98's and the Objectives in design and intended use, but I was very happy with the way they worked out. Keep in mind that Voile will not warrant the ski mounted with a 3 pin binding, and I would not pick the Objective to ski low angle tours. It is not an XC ski. It lacks the center groove and camber for good XC skiing. Lots of people do mount them up, but that is a risk with that ski. I'm really conflicted in trying to suggest a ski for you, mainly because I have not skied the Asnes skis that are on your list and the skis I ski the most are not available, so there is no point in suggesting a ski that you cannot buy this season. In my opinion, skis of similar dimension and design from different manufacturers pretty much ski the same. I don't think you can go wrong with the Ingstad or the Discovery 80 and they are both available in your size today from REI.

[lilcliffy]

Hello and WELCOME Dxmetal!!!

Hello guys, after lurking for weeks I finally got an account and deciding to join the community. Im finally deciding to learn how to ski this season and needed some help on deciding on owning a good pair of new ski setup. Being not young anymore and not wanting to have any high risk endeavors, I have decided to start on learning in the backcountry's flat to rolling hill terrains (not groomers track) here where we have lots of fresh dry loose snow. I love going back packing and camp out during the weekend in the winter time and would love to start using skis instead of my MSR snowshoes.

You are describing backcountry-crosscountry Nordic ski touring here.

My fundamental recommendation here is to choose a ski(s) to fit this context- not try and find a ski that "might" work here, but would double as everything else including a potential future downhill-Telemark ski.

There is nothing wrong with going XC skiing.

I have spent time going to the local ski shops, REI and the local mountaineering guide and trying to explain to them what I wanted to do and most of the time I was either directed to AT setup or nordic groomed track setup. I have learned more from this site’s TELEWIKI page than my local sources.

Duh. I very recently witnessed somebody "backcountry skiing" on the local UNB woodlot in a full-on high-tech AT setup (this site is on a plateau and slopes range from 0 to 10% with about as much as 30m vertical over the entire ecodistrict...)

My good friend is donating me his old set of Voile 3 pin bindings with cable along with his old Kahru XCD Traverse leather boots that he has never worn.

Wicked.

I know that most people would suggest renting skis or buying a cheap used skis as a beginner but I am considering the new Asnes FT 62 or Rabb 68 from REI.

These are not XC skis. Nor are either of them suited to "fresh dry loose snow" in either XC or downhill skiing.

My use case for my first season is to start and train on flat to gentle hill terrain

XC ski.
XC ski tuned for "fresh dry loose snow".

[Dxmetal]

My use case for my first season is to start and train on flat to gentle hill terrain

XC ski.
XC ski tuned for "fresh dry loose snow".

Thank you so much for the warm welcome !! When you mention XC ski, I hope we are not talking about fullbody spandex and aero helmet right ? After contemplating all the input and jumping into a deep youtube rabbit hole and dont want to deal with waxing (yet), I think the Asnes Ingstad would be a good first ski for me ?

[lilcliffy]

The Ingstead BC might also help me get started without having to learn how to wax.

The "BC" version requires grip wax and/or a kicker skin.
The "WL" (i.e. "waxless") Ingstad has the "waxless" scales. In "fresh, dry loose snow" you are looking for a grip-waxed base and/or skins. You need a VERY wide ski underfoot to get grip from scales in "fresh, dry loose snow".

Voile V6 got the most recommendations from them the most).

I am sorry- but I have to come right out and say it- this from my perspective is a ridiculous recommendation for the skiing you describe. Backcountry-downhill skiing? YES- V6.

Are they any other more skis from Asnes besides the Ingstead that might be better for my purpose on ungroomed soft powder terrain that also works great with the Voile 3 pin cable and Kahru XCD Travese leather boots ?

Other options over the Ingstad (depending on your weight and the depth of this soft, dry snow):
- Asnes Ingstad WL* (scales and skin)
- Asnes Combat Nato (grip wax and skin)
- Fischer Traverse 78** (scales and skin)
- Fischer Excurison 88** (scales and skin)
- Asnes Gamme 54 (grip wax and skin)
- Asnes Nansen BC (grip wax and skin)
- Asnes Nansen WL* (scales and skin)
- Asnes Amundsen*** (grip wax and skin)
- Finnish "forest" touring ski (e.g. Peltonen Metsa)


* will need the skin and/or grip wax in dry loose snow
** may need the skin and/or grip wax in dry loose snow
*** I am recently almost stunnded by the stability and support of this ski...

My recommnedation- if you have "dry fresh loose snow" to ski on- embrace grip wax.

[lilcliffy]

The Combat NATO is also a good deep and soft snow ski. It will offer better consolidated snow performance because it does not have the rocker of the Ingstad, however lacking the rocker turn initiation will be more difficult.
If you give your weight, perhaps @Woodserson will comment as to the suitability of the Nansen
If you don’t need steel edges the Kongsvold may be a nice ski. It is a bit wider, but is claimed by Åsnes to offer good support in deep snow.

The Combat Nato is the rock-star conventional XC ski for breaking trail in truly deep fresh snow.
The Ingstad BC is also very good- despite its rocker- due to how stable its shovel is.
The Nansen- man the Nansen...though I have not tried it in deep snow yet- I am almost shocked by how stable the flex of the Nansen is (I was expecting a softer flex... for some reason...) I cannot see how the Nansen would not be as stable as the Ingstad in deep snow...
The Nansen is not going to plane like the Ingstad at downhill speed- but this is not important bases on the context of the OP...

[lilcliffy]

Initially I thought that the FT 62 or RABB 68 can be a ski that I can grow a bit from just flat XC to maybe a bit of downhill on the gentle slopes.

Unless the redesigned FT623 and Rabb 68 are MUCH stiffer than they have been in recent years- they will be terrible in deep dry snow- especially when XC skiing and climbing.