Åsnes Waxless Skis

[marco]

Thank you @Stephen ..now I get it!

[dave52]

You read my opinion I guess. Some people hare happy with their WL but I am not. So it is a subjective thing. I cannot complain about the Nansen otherwise
...
My frustration grew so much that I have since "de-waxlessed" my Nansens and turned them into waxable base (bastard file + wet sandpapers + elbow grease and frustration). I was not convinced of the resale value of them used as they had been drilled twice and had a couple of deep scratches. Some people will scratch their heads reading this and think I am nuts or stupid. But the skis work better for me now, and that is coming from me, who was a waxless fan no more than 3 years ago.

You caught me red handed, haha, definitely read your other review. Sorry the skis didn't work out too. Honestly huge props to you for modding them to make them work for you, I love the DIY spirit behind this!

Maybe Asnes has their ears to the ground and will make changes to upcoming models too.

[dave52]

One of the things that gets lost-- these are BC skis. They are not track skis. When I'm skiing the track I can be on point, technically perfect, working hard. When I'm in the forest skiing, putting down lots of miles, my skiing is going to be not perfect. Variations in snow, terrain, long days... being on-point with technique all day long sucks energy over a longer tour. Having the flexibility to make mistakes is easier on my body over the day. I would much prefer to have a more accommodating ski when I'm not on groomed terrain. This means a waxless pattern that I don't need to pay attention to every single second.

I am happy to accept that it may be a case of me not having the best kicking technique but I don't want to have to worry about that on tours anyways. Shuffling along should also be easy on touring skis.

THIS +1

Thanks for the feedback everyone! With this in mind shorter length might be the ticket. I'm already a XC newbie and honestly just want to get lost in the nature, and wouldn't probably even notice mild drag on a shorter ski. When the season was still in session I was struggling to get my 205cm Asnes USGI skis up some steep inclines, technique has room for improvement for sure... but you're both spot on with your assessment, boiled down skiing should be a fun escape, thinking about technique the entire time removes you from your environment.

[dave52]

Don't need to belabor the point TOO much more but I want to add my suggestion that all Asnes needs to do is extend the waxless pattern to cover the same area as the kicker skins. The pattern itself is fine.

The skis are already designed to work with a skin in the longer wax pocket so covering the same length with the waxless pattern would be perfect IMO.

Maybe they already did this? I recently grabbed a pair of 195 Ignstad WL and the pattern starts 2cm behind the x-skin attachment point and stops just behind my mondo 29 heel. That's the length that I'd cut for a kicker skin. I haven't mounted them up and taken them out yet though.

Oh wow, that would be killer! Are your skis 2020 model of the Ingstad?

[lolo]

Don't need to belabor the point TOO much more but I want to add my suggestion that all Asnes needs to do is extend the waxless pattern to cover the same area as the kicker skins. The pattern itself is fine.

The skis are already designed to work with a skin in the longer wax pocket so covering the same length with the waxless pattern would be perfect IMO.

Maybe they already did this? I recently grabbed a pair of 195 Ignstad WL and the pattern starts 2cm behind the x-skin attachment point and stops just behind my mondo 29 heel. That's the length that I'd cut for a kicker skin. I haven't mounted them up and taken them out yet though.

That's interesting. I bought mine in Jan 2020. The pattern starts approximately 4.5 cm behind the xskin attachment point. (Ends approximately where you describe yours ends. Or approx 2cm behind a Mondo 27 Heel)

What the heck. Quality control? Or unadvertised changes? (to otherwise identical skis that contribute to a general crazy feeling when things don't make sense and people's experiences don't match...) Or...? Whatever.

[Stephen]

Maybe where the grip pattern starts is affected by the ski length??

@lolo, but, if there was an X-Skin on your ski, like in the picture with the measuring tape, the contact point (behind the plastic attachment piece) of the skin would be about where the traction pattern starts on your ski.
Plus, I think the plastic attachment thingy would hold the skin up off the snow for the first little bit, anyway.
From looking at your picture, I would say the traction pattern starts about the same place where the skin would make contact with the snow?
EDIT
Well, I just looked closer and maybe the traction pattern is 3cm shorter. That’s not much, but maybe that would be enough to make a difference?

[Woodserson]

@marco
@Stephen

Whomever the loser is, come find me, I have a pair too, for the masochists. I won't give them away but you'll score a deal for sure.

[Woodserson]

Here's mine. 195cm Ingstad. Again, I'm 160lbs. The ski is short (I tend to like long skis) and the pattern length is still not great). I got a 205 Ingstad WAX and I'm much happier.

The total pattern is 580mm long.

It's OK but not great or anything to write home about. It's better than the 205cm MT51-WL (which is a joke, it's so bad, despite the MT51 being a great ski) but not as good as the 205cm Nansen-WL (pattern same length on both skis!). And again, this picture is a 195cm Ingstad.

[riel]

Here's mine. 195cm Ingstad. Again, I'm 160lbs. The ski is short (I tend to like long skis) and the pattern length is still not great). I got a 205 Ingstad WAX and I'm much happier.

The total pattern is 580mm long.

It's OK but not great or anything to write home about. It's better than the 205cm MT51-WL (which is a joke, it's so bad, despite the MT51 being a great ski) but not as good as the 205cm Nansen-WL (pattern same length on both skis!). And again, this picture is a 195cm Ingstad.

PXL_20210424_011405909.jpg

I think the Ingstad might work better for backcountry trails (and beginners) if the deep part of the fishscales was extended forward to the X-skin attachment point, with the A pattern near that point, and then maybe 6-10cm of shallow fishscales in front of that.

At the heel end, maybe the shallow fishscales could go a little further forward, with the deep fishscales starting 4-6cm further forward.

I don't know how much sense it makes to have fishscales behind the heel of the skier, but figuring out exactly where to stop them in the rear would involve some complex graph of average shoe size for skiers in the weight range for each ski, with adjustments for NNN-BC, 75mm, and Xplore on top of that. Possibly worth doing, depending on what the distribution looks like

That would add roughly a foot of length to the fishcale pattern, over what there is today, without impacting glide too much. I suspect waxless Finnmark/Gamme, Amundsen Fram, and the late MT51 could use a similar treatment.

Nansen should probably keep the fishscales roughly the way they are today, due to the camber and flex of the Nansen skis.

[Woodserson]

I think the Ingstad might work better for backcountry trails (and beginners) if the deep part of the fishscales was extended forward to the X-skin attachment point, with the A pattern near that point, and then maybe 6-10cm of shallow fishscales in front of that.

At the heel end, maybe the shallow fishscales could go a little further forward, with the deep fishscales starting 4-6cm further forward.

I don't know how much sense it makes to have fishscales behind the heel of the skier, but figuring out exactly where to stop them in the rear would involve some complex graph of average shoe size for skiers in the weight range for each ski, with adjustments for NNN-BC, 75mm, and Xplore on top of that. Possibly worth doing, depending on what the distribution looks like

That would add roughly a foot of length to the fishcale pattern, over what there is today, without impacting glide too much. I suspect waxless Finnmark/Gamme, Amundsen Fram, and the late MT51 could use a similar treatment.

Nansen should probably keep the fishscales roughly the way they are today, due to the camber and flex of the Nansen skis.

Yes, it wouldn't take much fiddling to get it to work in a wider range of conditions and skis and skier weights. The pattern itself is FINE, it's the lack of it that is the problem. A bit more of the aggressive pattern underfoot and maybe going forward, some more of the less aggressive pattern on the ends, and we are good. My equivalent Offtrack Crowns are 90cm long, they don't need to be the that long, 70cm should suffice.

I almost alway wax over any fishscales behind me boot heel with a hard cold wax, and there is little to no grip reduction. But I want good grip underfoot, under my pin line, and a bit forward.