Which first Asnes ski to buy ?

[lilcliffy]

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.

Yes.

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).

Yes- but this is a down-up touring "objective"- not a XC objective as described in the OP.

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.

Yes.

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).

Surely this is a quote from Confucious or some other ancient wisdom...

[lilcliffy]

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.

Say it agian Brother Tom!

[lilcliffy]

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 ?

Yes- in as long a length as you can get em.
That or any other XC ski with similar geometry that is tuned for soft fresh snow.
And- NO, I am NOT speaking of performance track XC skiing (i.e. with all of the spandex and wax alchemy)

[Dxmetal]

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 ?
[/quote]
Yes- in as long a length as you can get em.
That or any other XC ski with similar geometry that is tuned for soft fresh snow.
And- NO, I am NOT speaking of performance track XC skiing (i.e. with all of the spandex and wax alchemy)
[/quote]

Awesome ! quick naive question here, how come in the Ski industry crucial design specs of the ski e.g. Flex/stiff number, camber angle....etc. are not on their spec sheet ? Like in the bicycle industry, every important specs are published on the bicycle catalog.

Also, just for learning purpose, what made the FT62 and Rabb 68 not suitable for XC dry powder use ? I think those are wider than the Ingstad and should float better ?

[lilcliffy]

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 ?

Yes- in as long a length as you can get em.
That or any other XC ski with similar geometry that is tuned for soft fresh snow.
And- NO, I am NOT speaking of performance track XC skiing (i.e. with all of the spandex and wax alchemy)

Awesome ! quick naive question here, how come in the Ski industry crucial design specs of the ski e.g. Flex/stiff number, camber angle....etc. are not on their spec sheet ? Like in the bicycle industry, every important specs are published on the bicycle catalog.

Also, just for learning purpose, what made the FT62 and Rabb 68 not suitable for XC dry powder use ? I think those are wider than the Ingstad and should float better ?

The FT62 is essentially the same width as the Ingstad- being 62mm underfoot. (Big tip here- don't get led astray by the width of a ski's tip)

The Rabb 68 has a flex pattern and geometry designed for turning- not striding.

Whether a ski with a 68mm waist offers better "float" or "stability" over a ski with a 62mm waist depends on flex pattern. Unless one is a featherweight- even 68mm is not going to "float" in deep, soft snow.
For example-
Though I have never even seen one- I have trusted reports that the previous FT68 and Rabb 68 had a soft round flex- making them unstable in deep soft snow.

As another example- I have both 1st and 2nd generation FT62s and they are not as stable in deep soft snow as narrower, more stable skis like the Ingstad, Nansen, Gamme, and Amundsen.

The FT62 and the Rabb 68 are downhill oriented touring skis, but they are not intended for truly deep soft snow.

Modern downhill "powder" skis start at ~100mm underfoot IMO/IME.

XC "powder" XC skis need a stable longitudinal flex, and they need to be long- HECK, the Finns and Siberians use up to 300cm skis!!

[lilcliffy]

how come in the Ski industry crucial design specs of the ski e.g. Flex/stiff number, camber angle....etc. are not on their spec sheet ?

Excellent question.

[riel]

Also, just for learning purpose, what made the FT62 and Rabb 68 not suitable for XC dry powder use ? I think those are wider than the Ingstad and should float better ?

How well a ski floats depends on the effective surface area, which is the length times the width of the part of the ski that supports your weight.

If a ski is too soft, the tip and tail will be pointing out of the snow, laughing at you (or maybe flipping you off?), instead of helping you float.

A ski that is stiffer underfoot, like the Ingstad, may have 70% of the length of the ski contributing to keeping you afloat, while a soft ski might only have 30% of the length of the ski really helping out here.

[Dxmetal]

Yes- in as long a length as you can get em.
That or any other XC ski with similar geometry that is tuned for soft fresh snow.
And- NO, I am NOT speaking of performance track XC skiing (i.e. with all of the spandex and wax alchemy)

Whether a ski with a 68mm waist offers better "float" or "stability" over a ski with a 62mm waist depends on flex pattern. Unless one is a featherweight- even 68mm is not going to "float" in deep, soft snow.
For example-
Though I have never even seen one- I have trusted reports that the previous FT68 and Rabb 68 had a soft round flex- making them unstable in deep soft snow.

XC "powder" XC skis need a stable longitudinal flex, and they need to be long- HECK, the Finns and Siberians use up to 300cm skis!!

I also heard that softer skis are good for beginner ? or does this only apply to Downhill alpine resort skiing and not backcountry cross country type of skiing ?

[Stephen]

@Dxmetal, I am 175#, 6’3”.
I have:
- Ingstad wax in 205
- Ingstad WL in 195
- Gamme in 210
- Voile Objective BC (WL) in 187
- and some other skis I have not skied.

There has been lots of discussion here basically expressing frustration with the Asnes traction (WL) pattern.
And a more favorable opinion of the Fischer traction pattern.
Maybe you have seen some of that?

That is, the Asnes pattern is more tuned to glide, at the expense of traction, with people having to resort to using wax or skins to get traction. And not having this problem with Fischer WL skis, for example.
The one Asnes WL ski that seems to get at least acceptable reviews is the Nansen WL.
You want a waxless ski — don’t let anyone talk you out of it.
You will either like it or not, but you will use it, maybe especially in the spring, when waxing for warm and viable temperature snow becomes more difficult.
I really like my wax Ingstad. Not sure bout the WL yet, but it seems too short and the grip pattern drags (is slow).

Based on what you have said you want, what others have said about the different Asnes WL skis, and my own experience, I am thinking the Nansen WL might be a good choice or you.
The plus for the Nansen is that you can get kicker skins that easily clip onto the base of the ski.
The Discovery 80 doesn’t have that.
Another good ski, with a kicker skin option is the Fischer Traverse 78, but that seems to be sold out at this time and maybe for the season.

One thing to consider is that each manufactured has a proprietary system for attaching the short kicker skin to the base of the ski. Once you buy an Asnes, or a Fischer, it would make sense to stick with that brand for any future skis, so you can use the skins you have on any of the skis you have without having to make additional skin purchases.

Another thing to consider is that if you buy the ski from REI, and are not happy with it, they have the one year return policy. I would just pull the trigger on:
#1 - 195 Nansen, or;
#2 - 195 Ingstad.
REI reports “Low Inventory, Order Soon”
Also get a set of 45mm Mohair X-Skins

Or, keep doing more research until you feel confident on which way to go!

Again, try and make a decision as quickly as you feel comfortable, as inventory is limited this year.

Best of luck.

[Dxmetal]

That is, the Asnes pattern is more tuned to glide, at the expense of traction, with people having to resort to using wax or skins to get traction. And not having this problem with Fischer WL skis, for example.
The one Asnes WL ski that seems to get at least acceptable reviews is the Nansen WL.
You want a waxless ski — don’t let anyone talk you out of it.
You will either like it or not, but you will use it, maybe especially in the spring, when waxing for warm and viable temperature snow becomes more difficult.
I really like my wax Ingstad. Not sure bout the WL yet, but it seems too short and the grip pattern drags (is slow).

@Stephen can you explain more on "Asnes pattern is more tuned to glide ?" Does this mean that for steeper angle we still need skin ? I dont think this is a deal breaker for a beginner like me as you say, in the spring and later months when we have more temperature swing, waxless skis would definitely be more help to a newbie like me.

Asnes also have Mohair skins and nylon skins, which would be more suitable for the Ingstad WL (REI only have the Ingstad WL) ? I am also on the weight border for the skis. I am 157 lbs clothed and with ski boots and the 185cm ingstad WL is 143-165lbs and the 195cm Ingstad is 165-200lbs. I am sure with backpack I am maybe 10-15lbs over the weight limit of the 185cm Ingstad WL. I am however nervous of getting a way too long of a ski (195cm) as i am only 5'8"

I also see that your Wax Ingstad is longer than your WL Ingstad ?? Is there any technical reason for that ?