My wife’s new skis, Åsnes MT51 waxless-first impressions

[Eärendil]

@lolo:
Thanks indeed for compiling this excellent post!

@Eärendil in another part of the thread from @Cannatonic that lolo mentions, he suggests the camber of the MT51 typically results in enough glide with the 30mm x-skin anyways.
So it IS worth considering, however if I were you I would still trade them in (as the waxless pattern is not useful to you).

Another relevant post by @FrenchFred :
[quote=FrenchFred post_id=28871 time=<a href="tel:1575721114">1575721114</a> user_id=2002]
I read you might buy an Ingstad bc waxless... Be carrefoul of the edge quality !
In fact, i don't know why, but the edges are not flat just at the limit of the scale and it create a rail when you are skiing downhill ! The Asnes waxless skis have all the same finition... You will not find this on the flat wax skis like the FT62 for exemple.

I was not sure what he meant until last week, but the edges are indeed protruding above the waxless pattern by maybe half a mm.
Here is a picture from my review post:


So the pattern is "negative" rather than positive.
This is NOT the case with my brother's Fischer E99 Crown nor with my wife's Madshus Glittertind MGV+, I just checked.
The edges are in contact with the snow before the waxless pattern, exacerbating efforts to get grip especially on narrower skis.
Even so, Åsnes WL skis without metal edges still dont have a lot of grip, reading the reviews of the Finnmark 54 waxless and Breidablikk Waxless...
[/quote]

That is interesting. I checked with my wife’s skis and they do not have that kind of protrusion, at least not 0,5mm. To me that would be a manufacturing defect.

On a side note, for all Åsnes waxless skis, would it be possible just to flat grind the base to create a wax base ski? Is the material thick enough?

//Rickard//

[Woodserson]

That's still a positive base, though the pattern is below the edges. My E99's do this (to a lesser degree) and my KOMs as well. Negative base is when the base material itself is ground out, like the older Fischer Outtabounds, Boundless, Rebounds.

Regardless, it's quite clear Asnes Waxless is not sufficient.

I am 6'2" and 160lbs on a good day.

I have:
195cm Ingstad WL. It was the first ski I bought from Asnes, which I got jointly with the WAX version. I can barely climb up a green circle run. I feel like I'm using my toenails to hang on and pounding the ski into position to grip. That being said, I had zero problems waxing my 195cm WAX Ingstads, they were perfect for my weight, even maybe a bit too slow for my tastes due to the big rocker up front (I like fast glidey skis and my terrain is more flat where I use them). I sold the 195cm WAX and got a 205 Ingstad WAX instead! So even though I'm light for the 205s, I can make them work and they are fast and awesome. I should 100% be able to make a 195cm WL Ingstad work as well and it should be pleasurable work. The Ingstad WL pattern is too short.

This winter I picked up a pair of WL Nansens in a 195 and 205 to compare. As Roelant has states, the wax pattern is the same size on both skis, so getting the longer pair gets you more glide zone and proportionally the grip zone shrinks. I have actually had OK success with this ski in a 205, surprisingly. (I returned and never skied the 195s, too short). I can climb modest forest roads and pull a pulk. My technique needs to be dead-on for it to work. I don't know why I seemingly get better use out of this ski than Roelant, who is heavier than me. Fischer's 205cm E99 scales are 90cm long. Nansen is 55cm? (+/-) I don't think we need 90cm on the Asnes, but maybe splitting the difference would be sufficient enough. I've though about using the dremel and carving in some additional negative scales. 70cm overall should work probably and make a lot more people happy. The pattern on the Nansen 205cm is too short, but workable, probably due to the single-ish camber and softer overall flex. I bet I'd be fine on a 195, but then I'm on some short ski.

--That being said, the 205cm WAX Nansen is one of my favorite skis now, in the 205. Again, I'm not plastering on tons of wax to make them work. A modest amount of wax and I'm off to the races! I love this ski.

I have just very recently acquired Cannatonic's MT51 WL 205cm, which he passed on and I took to experiment with. I love my 205cm MT51 WAX. It's a great ski. The WL version, like Cannatonic clearly stated, is totally insufficient. The WL pattern is the same length as the Nansen wax pattern, but with a double camber. The position of the pattern on the ski is more forward than the Nansen but it's basically useless. I rocket around on my MT51 WAXes no problem, without excessive waxing. It's perfect! But the WL is just a waste. It might as well not even be there. The pattern is far far too short, especially with the double camber underfoot.

Maybe those "women's specific" Asnes skis should have differences that are more than graphics-deep.

I could not agree more. This is true for most ski companies. I think Voile is an exception, designing skis that are specifically different. But otherwise it's smoke and mirrors and an insult to women everywhere.

[riel]

Great input, guys. The conclusion to me is that Åsnes should re-think the design of their waxless skis. Waxless skis should be as forgiving as possible for people willing to compromise glide for better grip. Logic would have it that the waxless pattern should be longer than the X-skin part.

I have had good luck with my 205cm long waxless Ingstad skis, but it does take more effort to carefully place the short fishscales on bumps in the trail (and not have them float over troughs). I have found them to have essentially the same amount of grip as my Fischer and Alpina skis, but I have to place and weight the ski carefully to get that grip. If I have my weight on my toes, like I do when using waxable skis, I don't get nearly as much grip as when I have the weight on the balls of my feet. Definitely not beginner friendly!

I suspect they could easily extend the fishscales to 10cm ahead of the X-skin attachment point, because the skis at that point are "bent up" and the snow should slide under the fishscales very easily when just gliding along, especially if they are shallow. Maybe have the deep fishscales all the way to the X-skin attachment point, and then shallow fishscales 10-15cm ahead of that point?

[Eärendil]

I have:
195cm Ingstad WL. It was the first ski I bought from Asnes, which I got jointly with the WAX version. I can barely climb up a green circle run. I feel like I'm using my toenails to hang on and pounding the ski into position to grip. That being said, I had zero problems waxing my 195cm WAX Ingstads, they were perfect for my weight, even maybe a bit too slow for my tastes due to the big rocker up front (I like fast glidey skis and my terrain is more flat where I use them). I sold the 195cm WAX and got a 205 Ingstad WAX instead! So even though I'm light for the 205s, I can make them work and they are fast and awesome. I should 100% be able to make a 195cm WL Ingstad work as well and it should be pleasurable work. The Ingstad WL pattern is too short.

This winter I picked up a pair of WL Nansens in a 195 and 205 to compare. As Roelant has states, the wax pattern is the same size on both skis, so getting the longer pair gets you more glide zone and proportionally the grip zone shrinks. I have actually had OK success with this ski in a 205, surprisingly. (I returned and never skied the 195s, too short). I can climb modest forest roads and pull a pulk. My technique needs to be dead-on for it to work. I don't know why I seemingly get better use out of this ski than Roelant, who is heavier than me.

The pattern on the Nansen 205cm is too short, but workable, probably due to the single-ish camber and softer overall flex. [/i]I bet I'd be fine on a 195, but then I'm on some short ski

--That being said, the 205cm WAX Nansen is one of my favorite skis now, in the 205. Again, I'm not plastering on tons of wax to make them work. A modest amount of wax and I'm off to the races! I love this ski.

I have just very recently acquired Cannatonic's MT51 WL 205cm, which he passed on and I took to experiment with. I love my 205cm MT51 WAX. It's a great ski. The WL version, like Cannatonic clearly stated, is totally insufficient. The WL pattern is the same length as the Nansen wax pattern, but with a double camber. The position of the pattern on the ski is more forward than the Nansen but it's basically useless. I rocket around on my MT51 WAXes no problem, without excessive waxing. It's perfect! But the WL is just a waste. It might as well not even be there. The pattern is far far too short, especially with the double camber underfoot.

Great conclusions, Woodserson. Fantastic that you have access to all these skis! Interesting difference between Ingstad WL and Nansen WL that seems to confirm the softer camber of Nansen. Your weight seems like a good match with the Nansen 205.

Side question: do you get better kick and glide from the Ingstad vs Nansen? In flat areas, which ski do you prefer?

On a ski with a softer camber , I could see why Åsnes potentially went with a shorter waxless pattern. Any longer could cause drag on the downhill. I would presume that a ski like Nansen is more important than MT51 if they had to choose one specific length of the waxless zone.

//Rickard//

[Eärendil]

[quote=Eärendil post_id=37621 time=<a href="tel:1612782827">1612782827</a> user_id=2618]
Great input, guys. The conclusion to me is that Åsnes should re-think the design of their waxless skis. Waxless skis should be as forgiving as possible for people willing to compromise glide for better grip. Logic would have it that the waxless pattern should be longer than the X-skin part.

I have had good luck with my 205cm long waxless Ingstad skis, but it does take more effort to carefully place the short fishscales on bumps in the trail (and not have them float over troughs). I have found them to have essentially the same amount of grip as my Fischer and Alpina skis, but I have to place and weight the ski carefully to get that grip. If I have my weight on my toes, like I do when using waxable skis, I don't get nearly as much grip as when I have the weight on the balls of my feet. Definitely not beginner friendly!

I suspect they could easily extend the fishscales to 10cm ahead of the X-skin attachment point, because the skis at that point are "bent up" and the snow should slide under the fishscales very easily when just gliding along, especially if they are shallow. Maybe have the deep fishscales all the way to the X-skin attachment point, and then shallow fishscales 10-15cm ahead of that point?
[/quote]

Hej Riel,
I agree totally. People who buy waxless skis are not seeking the perfect glide vs grip. Those people buy wax base. A waxless ski, to me, should guarantee great grip in the proposed weight range, at least in softer snow. Fishscales stretching just 5 cm ahead of the attachment point would solve this, I think.

For your experience with Ingstad 205, may I inquire about your weight?

//Rickard//

[Woodserson]

Side question: do you get better kick and glide from the Ingstad vs Nansen? In flat areas, which ski do you prefer?


//Rickard//

In new snow that's unbroken I get about the same from both skis but the Ingstad is better at trail breaking and going down hills.

In new soft snow that's been gently packed out, like snowmachine trails that have only 1 or 2 machines over it, or a path with a few skiers ahead, I get about the same from both skis. Almost equal performance until it starts to get packed down.

In consolidated snow the Nansen is more efficient than the Ingstad.

The Gamme is faster than both.

[Woodserson]

Adding this to the convo from the Breidablikk thread in Reviews.

Much has been written about the asnes waxless pattern. On this somewhat wider ski at my size, it is fine for climbing 10-15% road grades in packed powder. In untracked snow, it doesn't do much outside of really gentle climbs. Given, that the ski is most at home in dry, soft snow, waxable would probably make more sense (though not easily available in the US). The flip side is that the scales won't slow you down too much on the down.

[Eärendil]

Happy wife- Happy hubby!

With some Blå Extra above and a bit below the pattern, today my wife approved the acceptance test. For the cold conditions we have now we are good to go.

My plan is now to get the pink X-skins and see if those will fix eventual later challenges in wet/icy conditions. Hopefully the stiff double camber will avoid possible drag from the plastic attachment. We will see.

//Rickard//

[Ira]

I just want to say thank you everyone for these posts! I am having second thoughts about getting the Asnes Ingstad Waxless. I still want the Ingstad but I might wait until someone with a good return policy has them, or until they extend the waxless pattern.

I realize this thread is from a while ago -- has Asnes taken the good advice of anyone in this forum (to extend the waxless base)?

Is someone right in the middle of the weight chart (130lbs, 5'4", but 140 with clothes and gear), and the 175 length for Ingstad, likely to have that same problem with lacking grip?

[Stephen]

I still want the Ingstad but I might wait until someone with a good return policy has them, or until they extend the waxless pattern.

Neither is likely.