Asnes quiver of two

[Danylewich]

I'll sheepishly admit I've got even more skis - Madshus Ultrasonics and a Dynafit Speedfit84 Alpine Touring setup. No dedicated Alpine downhill though!

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[bgregoire]

Well well well! Knowing that might have impacted the ski recommendations we gave you in the first place!

[Danylewich]

Ha! I think the recommendations still stand! I'm liking the Alpina Alaska NNN-BCs now as my do anything boot.

Don't love getting in the plastic AT boots and trying to learn Telemark to make that set up redundant. Plus trying to get out of the speedy lycra Nordic tracks and in to the BC more, making Madshus less relevant.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[fisheater]

Danylewich, I own have have skied an FT for the past couple seasons. The boot I match with this ski is an Alico Ski March. I use this ski for backcountry downhilling and for skiing lift served northern Michigan ski hills.
I also have started skiing with a NNN Alaska last season, although on different skis.
While I really like the Ski March matched with the FT, I also can see the Alaska NNN matched with the FT as well. The boots are quite different, but I believe both would good matches with the FT.

[Danylewich]

Awesome, thanks. Cooler weather has me thinking a lot about skiing now.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[Danylewich]

@fisheater Got a size recommendation? I'm 6'1" and 165lbs. I hear from Woodserson that 188cm would be the way to go?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[Cannatonic]

are we still taking votes? Second the motion for Gamme/E99 or MT51 for even better XC performance. Would go with Nato Combat for the 2nd pair.

[Danylewich]

More votes are good for other readers too! I appreciate the advice all around.

Personally I pulled the trigger on the FT-62 for one pair and will be figuring out pair two, but probably something like Gamme/Ousland/E99, probably not the MR51.

Someone please help me fund this by buying my Nansens for sale in the TeleTurnAround section!

https://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2578

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[fisheater]

I was going to say I have a quiver of three, Gamme, Falketind, Tind 86. With the Gamme being added last season after contemplation and the Tind because the first two skis left a place at the end of the quiver.
However, the quiver of three would not be true. It would leave out the USGI which was about the only ski I trail skied on last winter. I didn’t like to scrape it on rocks the way I did all last year. It took a season of sparse snow well. Yes there are plenty of nicks in both edges and bases, but they didn’t break, didn’t rip out an edge, and those tough bases have lots of “track grooves”, but they proved too tough to get through to the core on the round cobble strewn trails of Oakland County, Michigan. While I didn’t like beating that ski up, I sure enjoyed skiing it. At less than $100 for two pair, I have had a lot of fun on these skis over the past few seasons. I have one mounted 3 pin cable, another mounted NNN-BC
I have also mounted an old alpine ski for the ski hill for those times when a light BC ski and leather boots aren’t the best match.
So if you counted the ideal quiver of three is really six. For reasons all my own, and because it’s my quiver I’m still calling it the ideal quiver of three !

That doesn’t count the S-112 I am remounting 3-pin cable (it’s original binding is on the Tind). That doesn’t count because it is for guests. I have not skied it myself since the FT arrived a couple seasons past.

[lilcliffy]

Asnes quiver of two? My votes:

1) Distance-oriented BC ski that will "fit" in the groomed track- Gamme 54 BC.

2) Downhill-oriented ski- compatible with the same boots/bindings as on #1- Falketind 62/Rabb 68.

I agree with Ben's comments on the stability of the Gamme BC in variable/hilly/mountainous terrain and deep snow- versus a narrower ski.

However- I agree with Woods' comments on the performance of the Gamme BC in a groomed track. If #1 has to be a highly efficient track ski- then I think a narrower ski is better- but you will lose the BC stability of the Gamme.

I offer the FT62/Rabb 68 because I still lean towards a 75mm binding on the 68- allowing the use of a telemark boot if you want/need it. The Rabb 68- at 68mm- is certainly a wonderful xcD ski with a BC-XC boot like the Alaska- but mount a Telemark boot on it and it becomes a downhill ski! The FT62 to me is made for downhill skiing with BC-XC boots. Yes- you can put a Telemark binding and boot on the FT62, but - for me- if I I am going as far as putting a Telemark boot on the FT62- I would rather have the more downhll-capable 68.

I am interested to see if the updated 62 is more XC oriented than the 68...I know that Crister mentioned this on the site- but is that because the new FT62 has more camber/tension underfoot then the previous round-flexing model (which I have)- or is it that the updated 68 is even more purely a downhill ski?

If your #2 ski is a downhill ski- I would not concern myself with its XC performance.