Rossignol OT 65 Positrack
looks like they have 3/4 metal edges.
These are slightly wider than the Asnes MT51 but these are waxless and they are much cheaper. Any know how they would do going downhill on spring corn or end of season mash potatoes? How is the camber? compared to a traditional nordic ski? Anyone use these skis?
They can be found for less than $150.
I want a light, skinny pair of skis that are DH capable but don't want to spend $400+ on a pair of Asnes skis that are going to get knocked up by rocks and dyed red by mud and watermelon snow. I should post pics of my S112s and the EZ skins... these yellow skins are now a deep reddish orange and the bottom of the skis are orange/red too. and looks like I got a few chips and core shots.
The only detailed review I found was this one:
https://www.skiessentials.com/Chairlift ... e%20weight.
I'll bet it was written by a Rossi factory sales rep!
But for $150, which is really cheap, it would be worth consideration, esp. if you're doing mostly low angle tours. The the 3/4 metal edges would be good for control on icy trails, but imho, less than full-length edges usually don't help much when it comes to turning.
- XCD Guide
- Posts: 1623
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:25 am
- Location: New Hampshire
- Ski style: Bumps, trees, and steeps and long woodsy XC tours
- Favorite Skis: DH: Voile V6, Altai KOMs, XC: Asnes Gamme 54, Classy Woodies
- Favorite boots: T2Eco, T4, Alaska
- Occupation: Retro Rager-grouch. Flailmeister. E99 Nerd
The Rossi OT almost a compact geometry ski according to them, maxing out at 195cm... it's almost like a go-between ski between the Fischer S-Bounds and the E99s. Their BC59's are more classic in length and probably more like the MT51's.
So the OT 65 is shorter length but not too short, and while they don't say rocker, they do keep stating "softer tip and tails" for turnability. Kind of a weird one, actually.
Go for it. I grabbed some Fischer BC Crowns years ago for super cheap, no edges, basically MT51 with no edges, and I love them. (again not a downhill type o' ski) They got panned by some skiers, but for the cheap price ($120?) I got, and continue to get, more bang for my buck. Sometimes it's a ski like this that fits into that niche you want and next think you know you keep reaching for them. (My older generation Atomic Vantage 85's for instance!!! $195 and goddamm if I haven't put 100 days on them!)
That being said, if a pair of E99's come up though... I'd grab those. I can actually turn them and they tour great and they are light and skinny.
Rambling post, brainstorming while typing
I may get the E99 if a good deal comes along. Although, it looks like the OT65 is quite skiiable down moderate slopes.
June was a stellar month here in AK with snow still to be had at 4000ft. We still have a 2-3 ft base in some areas accessible by road. On colder days like yesterday, the suncups were hard and refrozen and quite difficult. I think the sweet spot is coming in a week or so when more snow melts and stays soft. My outings have mostly been an even amount of hiking and skiing. Its tolerable carrying my S112s for 5 or so miles...but it would be nice to take a lighter setup so I can spend more time on snow and less time on the buggy muddy trails.
- Nick BC
- XCD Pinhead
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 10:04 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Ski style: Free heel Resort/Backcountry
- Favorite Skis: Voile Vector BC, Salomon QST 99 and G3 Stinger XCD
- Favorite boots: Scarpa TX and T3
- Occupation: Retired Community Planner
I have a previous version of this exact ski - the white and orange (2018?) one in 185cm.
If I had to sum them up, I would say they're "OK". I bought them for use in marked forest tracks with the option to go exploring a bit in softer snow. They're quite forgiving as the tips are very flexible and the 3/4 steel edges give them reasonable edge grip when it's icy. They are pretty light and the short length mkaes them easy to manoeuvre.
The "Positrack" base pattern is sloooooow. Grip is ok in the right conditions, but very noisy/draggy and doesn't grip well on hard snow/ice. The short length makes it easy to herringbone uphill and the edges help here as well. I'm 185cm/75kg and bought the suggested length, but if I was going to buy this ski again I would get the longest length possible (which I think is only 10cm longer). There appears to be a skin version of this ski coming this winter which might resolve the problems with the waxless pattern.
I've since bought a pair of Asnes Gamme 54 which are vastly superior for mountain skiing, both due to the stiffness, full metal edges, the BC bindings I have on them and the wax bases with the attachable skins. They don't fit well in marked trails however. I still have the OT65 but don't use them anymore. They are mainly used as a loaner ski when I have inexperienced friends visiting for a ski trip. As a beginner ski they are quite nice and I don't worry about them being beaten up/mistreated due to lack of technique.
For your intended use and for £150 dollars you could do a lot worse. If you're after skis that will put a big smile on your face for years to come i think you'd be better off put the money into something nicer like the MR48/MT51 or something from Fischer.
Hope this is useful info!
I am thinking about the Fischer E99, S98 or the Asnes Ingstad or Gamme. these are all much more expensive than the OT65, but it sounds like you get what you pay for. I do want a WL ski with kick skin compatibility and I have both EZ skins and Asnes Xskins. The EZ Skins amazingly are taking alot of abuse even on dirty snow and rocks...it may not make it this summer.
- XCD Enthusiast
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2019 6:33 am
- Location: Trondheim, Norway
- Ski style: Backcountry in the wild, cross country on trails
- Favorite Skis: BC: Åsnes Nansen Waxless; Groomed trails: Atomic Redster C7 Skintec, Madshus Terrasonic Wax
- Favorite boots: Crispi Bre
- Occupation: Geologist
I have no experience with the S98, but I wonder from the specifications if it would be too similar to your S112.
As you mention you are looking for "skinny" skis, I think this is perhaps not ideal?
In the Åsnes range, the Gamme does not come in Waxless variety. The closest thing dimension wise is the Finnmark 54 which does not have steel edges, is mainly catering for people with dogs.
Generally the Åsnes Waxless have a 40% shorter grip zone than the Fischers, resulting in less grip but better glide.
The Åsnes waxless range otherwise includes Amundsen Fram (stiff version of the Amundsen), the Nansen, the MT51, and the Ingstad. There is also the Mountain Race 48 with built in skins.
The Amundsen is a well loved, strongly cambered ski but is known to be a tough ski to turn.
I have not tried the Ingstad, but people here rave about the Ingstad in general, which is a pretty good sign.
I use Åsnes Nansen waxless and I like them, unfortunately it seems that few people here have tried both. Generally the Nansen for some reason is not super popular in the USA it seems, but in Norway it is considered a "do it all" touring ski, a bit between the E99 and the E109 if you like.
Utemagasinet.no tested a few waxless skis recently, here are the test results (I hope I am not infringing on copyright):
Glossary: Feste = Grip; Sving i løs snø = turning in loose snow; Bæreevne = flotation; Glid = glide; Sving i hard snø = turning on hardpack; Helhet = overall rating. Tested by two 95kg skiers
https://www.utemagasinet.no/test/test-a ... rie-turski
Åsnes Nansen Waxless, 205cm length, 25mm camber, 44kg force to compress flat, 54m sidecut radius
Åsnes Ingstad Waxless, 205cm length, 22mm camber, 43kg force to compress flat, 42m sidecut radius
Fischer Excursion 88 Crown, 188cm length, 30mm camber, 38kg force to compress flat, 48m sidecut radius
Fischer Traverse 78 Crown, 198cm length, 33mm camber, 28kg to compress flat, 55m sidecut radius
Rossignol BC80 Positrack, 187mm length, 23mm camber, 42kg to compress flat, 42m sidecut radius
Again, although I have only tested the Nansens amongst these myself, the grip and gliding ratings are in any case matching my experience of Åsnes vs. Fischer.
The grip is sufficient in the right snow conditions, but in long moderately steep sections the short skins are definitely useful, whereas with Fischers (pre-easy skin) I never felt the need for getting a short-skin variety.
On the other hand the short skins definitely grip much more than the Fischer Crown pattern, and can often be used instead of full length skins.
I am somewhat surprised at the turning ratings for the Ingstad, the written portion of this review underlines this impression. The reviewers write that the turning initiation with the Ingstad is easy but that it wants to go straight afterwards. They assign this to a very stiff rear part of the skis which grabs the snow more than the front.
In any case the Rossignol BC80 Positrack here has pretty good review, but it is noted as very difficult to turn in loose snow. Perhaps this is a different construction altogether (apart from the obvious dimensions) than the OT65.
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1971
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:11 pm
- Location: Quebec / Vermont
- Ski style: Dancing with God
- Favorite Skis: Redsters, Radicals, Objectives and all Asnes skis.
- Favorite boots: ALFA Guard Advance, Scarpa TX Comp
- Occupation: Full-time ski bum
There are a few things and comments in the article that I quite disagree with... But it might be just the Google translation... Not sure about their radius calculations either, but of course the way to calculate could be argued for hours...
Yes, the Nansen is a wonderful ski. Without nordic rocker, it's a must for every quiver... A perfect complement to the Ingstad and the Gamme. Super fast and stable... Definitely the do-it-all XC ski, especially the WL one...
Can't wait for WL Gammes, 62s, 68s and 86s...!
- Never trust a guy who recommends T4s and pins
"And if you like to risk your neck, we'll boom down Sutton in old Quebec..."