Page 7 of 7

Re: The Åsnes Thread (News for 2018-2019!)

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:10 pm
by Bri7
Open it! Stop teasing us like that...

Re: The Åsnes Thread

Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:43 pm
by fisheater
Woodserson wrote:
lilcliffy wrote:
I am also curious about the two Tind skis.

I am too- what is the difference in performance between the 68/76/86? Obviously the 86 would offer more float than the 68- but if you want a powder ski, why wouldn't you go even wider? PLUS- I am sure all of these skis have different camber/rocker profiles- intended for different snow conditions.

The 68 is intended to be a hybrid between a BC-XC ski and an "AT" ski- what about the 76/86?

I think there is a place for a mid-60 ski, a mid-80 ski, and then a fat ski.

I would love to drive a FT62 around some of our rolling xcD terrain here, like Mount Cardigan, the Jackson Valley Trail, etc. Good free heel lower-angle yet still exciting skiing. It would probably be a perfect fit for this kind of terrain and pair wonderfully with the Alaskas for long days of touring up and down.

Then, when the snow gets deeper or I want to go faster on steeper terrain up it up to the mid-85 ski which is now owned by my Objectives. These are great skis for harder charging in variable snow, and new snow up to 6-8" in plastic boots. After that, we're off to the races with some sort of fat ski. I need a fat ski, I know this now. Something mid-to-high 90's in the waist.

The 76 waisted ski would be a weird one for me.

I for one, have had designs on their fatter plastic-boot friendly skis like the EGGI 98 or TIND 85 (basically what my Objectives are now).

Woods, the FT 62 is a fun ski. I have a very good feel for what the FT 68 must be, from both my experience on the 62 and Gareth's reviews. DON'T ORDER THE 62 short, there is no need unless you are in very tight trees. I agree that the 62 may be better paired with NNN bindings, do not doubt that this ski can be pressed harder with a stiff leather boots and a 3-pin binding.
I would interested in reviews of the 76, but I understand the thought "why go narrowe". From my perspective my old mid-fats had only about a 70 mm waist, and I skied very deep snow in Utah in those days. I know that width has more than enough float, if you point them downhill and just have a little room to turn. Eastern trees are a little too tight in those conditions, and additional width would be critical for climbing. I am hoping that Johnny has a 76 or an 86 in that box, but then I'm still waiting on his review of the Ingstad ;)

Re: The Åsnes Thread

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:55 pm
by Johnny
fisheater wrote:I am hoping that Johnny has a 76 or an 86 in that box,

Not possible. All the Tinds have been in production for a few years now.
The 2 pairs inside that box are prototypes, skis not yet available on the market... 8-)

Re: The Åsnes Thread (News for 2018-2019!)

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:51 am
by Woodserson

Re: The Åsnes Thread (News for 2018-2019!)

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:27 am
by Johnny
Pics coming soon...! (No, it's not T53's...)


Re: The Åsnes Thread (News for 2018-2019!)

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:35 am
by lilcliffy
Translation of Asnes' descriptors of ski flex-camber:

Johnny wrote:
Markedly Wax Pocket = True double camber
Moderate Wax Pocket = Camber and a half
Marked Chamber (FT62, RABB68) = Camber and a half with a lower profile than MWP
Classic Camber (TINDAN86) = Flat, single camber perhaps?

There is no info at all on the wider AT skis, so I suppose no info = single camber...?