Asnes MT65 (USGI) Combat Skis

[bgregoire]

Did another ski with these today in very different terrain and conditions.

I had some issues... did a lot of flailing today. Yeah I don't know who thinks stiffly cambered wax skis climb well, but it ain't this guy. They do better in soft snow, it allows the camber to work a little more I think. Real sensitive to sticks and logs and anything hiding under the snow... whooop... backwards you go! Scales kind of grip that stuff at times. I kept thinking if I had my S bounds I could have stomped right up some of the stuff I was flailing in today.

I fussed around with wax quite a bit today. It was cold again, around 3F when I started. Put a few layers of Swix Green over what I had yesterday. Glide was nice but I couldn't climb for beans. Fat bikes were out and about and it was even worse if I tried to get in their tracks. Zero grip on compacted snow.

I put a couple layers of blue on. Still was sliding backwards. I was running out of ideas here, I only had those two waxes with me. I decided to start fresh. Scraped off as much as I could and layered up 5 layers of Blue. I had grip now... still would slip if I couldn't engage the wax pocket fully flat. Lost a lot of glide for that though. Was sticking a bit in the fresh, deep snow. Then I tried adding a few inches of green at the front and rear edges of the wax pocket. I was hoping to get some glide back. It worked. It was the best I had it all day in terms of grip and glide. I'd still say it was kind of pitiful compared to my S 98s. When I got back to the car 3hrs late the temps were 9-10F.

I made some turns with them. They do turn. Off in fresh they work OK. Large radius turns. I had a bear of time really swinging them around trying to do stops and such. I dunno, any 200cm ski is kinda tough for that.

Fat bikes were all over today, and so I decided to ski some singletrack and stay in their rut. This is where these skis just fail miserably. Hard, compacted snow... bleh... they don't know what direction they want to go and the don't have any appreciable side cut to dig in and follow an arc when you edge them. They really need some kind of 3D snow to work IMO. I was again flailing in a situation where I feel I would have just been flowing with my S Bounds.

I also skied in someone elses tracks. They excelled at this, as they should. Tracked great, glide was the best, grip was the best. The fat bike tracks were rutted up and had postholes - even scaled skis slip a lot on this but skis with lot of camber stiffness really struggle because they can't conform as easy to the crud. A ski like the Epoch or S 98 will do a reasonable job of finding grip even though it's not in full contact with it's scale pattern. Probably a more forgiving wax ski would do the same.

So it's not great mystery where these skis do the best. Fresh pow. Ski tracks. Pretty much where an XC ski would excel. In the fresh pow they didn't have much float though. I saw other tracks of skinnier skis and I was sinking just as deep as they were.

Another thing I noticed is I don't feel as stable on these skis as say an Eon or S78. I mean they are pretty close in width but I feel more roll-ey, and not in a good way, like the ski doesn't want to stay as flat to the ground. I wonder if it's the thickness? Or perhaps the straightness?

I'm under the impression you are relating your initiation with a double cambered waxable BC ski here more than you are actually reviewing the Combat. Build a (way) longer wax pocket, use softer waxes, forego the 210. Try out the wax lines with wood tar: they grip better on new snow. Carry half-skins. Enjoy the glide!

[lilcliffy]

Well- I hate to completely contradict your experience with this ski today Mike- but I had an absolutely incredible high-speed XCD tour with my 210cm Combats this morning.

We are in the middle of another cold snap here- it was -32C (-22F) at dawn this morning, for the second day in a row!

I went out at 10am- and the temperature had already climbed to -22C!

I skied one of my routine loops- about 15 km- over moderate terrain on woods roads with a steep descent/climb in the Glen. We have about 2 feet of relatively dense, but soft snow, over a very dense and stable base. This route begins with a 1.5 kilometer climb with slope ranging from 10 to 30%; then flattens out into a long gradual downhill run through the woods; next takes a steep downhill run (~200m vertical) down into and out of the Glen; loops back and ends on the run it began with!

These skis are fast; stable; break-trail efficiently; perform very well on soft snow, for such a stiff flex; and have very good flotation for a mid-width, double-cambered ski.

Kick and glide xcountry. I can fly on these skis. What can I say? They are stable; offer smooth, snappy “kick”; exceptional flotation and traction; and an excellent glide. To be honest it has been many years since I have gotten this kind of XC performance on moderately deep, fresh snow.

Turning. Well-as I have said before- these are not “modern” single-cambered XCD skis with aggressive sidecut. But I must say I quite enjoy them on the downhill, especially when I have enough room to make wide, open turns- such as in a field, or in an open hardwood stand.

Climbing. These skis climb remarkably well for a stiff, cambered ski. Yes, they are significantly cambered- with a moderately stiff flex- but the flex is so uniform and smooth, that I find it easy to get effective traction to climb with this ski. I can effectively and very efficiently ski up 20% slopes-anything steeper and I need to slow down; lengthen my stride and be extremely precise with my ski placement.

These skis rock.

[MikeK]

Nah I've skied DC wax skis quite a lot before. Granted my waxing may need some polishing, I did manage to get the skis to grip with a significant loss in glide. Yesterday on green wax they didn't feel particularly blazing fast, but smooth. They were climbing just fine on very gentle slopes.

I think you guys are perhaps relating a skiing in singular type conditions as opposed to skiing on all sort of crap.

Unfortunately, when I'm near home, skiing at say a bike park like I did today, I got to experience a wide variety of shitty snow. It's also not a lot of snow. We had maybe 6-8" inches up by the lake. I purposely skied them on every type. I went bushwhacking off in some untracked snow smashing through whips and slipping and sliding on sticks and logs that were only lightly covered, and covered with a lot of ice from recent rain I guess we had received before we had this cold snap.

I'm in fact relating my experiences to my other skis and really appreciating all the aspects that have gone into them. I don't find sidecut a nuisance, it's a welcome thing that I use to my advantage, particularly in packed, rough snow. I find that other skis I own float and glide better in soft snow.

My skis are the 200s. I don't find them particularly fast. They are no faster than my other 200cm skis. I certainly don't find them to climb even close to what a S Bound can do. Even if I waxed the whole ski I have my doubts.

I'm also giving my experience as I go, so take the good with the bad. I could wait until I get a number of skis with these but likely I'll forget all the little nuances I find as I go.

To me, the skis are not stellar. I'd take a modern XCD waxless ski anyday. I can ski with rhythm and speed twisting through trees and following tight single tracks and grip and glide even in thin snow cover.

To me this ski feels very crude. No refinement. No frills. It's like my old Willys jeep/truck. No heat. No grip (despite 4WD). No real suspension. No power. But unbreakable. Built literally like a tank. I loved that truck despite it's flaws. These skis I suspect will be the same.

[connyro]

Mike: It took me a few tours to get the feel for kick wax and the camber on those skis, FWIW.

[lilcliffy]

So the snow was poor- so that means the skis suck?

[MikeK]

No - it means they aren't as easy to ski as other skis.

Don't get defensive guys. Reviews aren't always all positive.

[MikeK]

I guess I want to illustrate the point that I think of XCD skis as do anything skis. You may not, and that's fine, but to me there is no sense in testing an offroad vehicle on the Nürburgring.

I said they performed the best, to me, in soft, fresh snow and skis tracks, but I like to see how a ski handles in every condition I throw at it. I went down the steepest hills I could find, I skied them on beat up singletrack, I bushwhacked in thin cover, I skied in fields where the cover was better and I was bottoming on anything.

Maybe my philosophy is different, but where I live, any snow is good snow. The snow was actually quite nice. Slightly granular powder, just not necessarily thick. Compacted snow is something you might encounter now and again. And I hate to say it, but if you ski near a city, and you use any trail, chances are that people will walk on them and posthole them. People are idiots here. And now fat bikes have become a big thing. I can ski where the fat bikes can't, but not everyone does. I can bushwhack, but not everyone does. Again I, realistically, ski my skis in all these conditions near home. It's a real world test. I also give detail as to what I was skiing on so as to convey how a ski might handle that surface. There are infinite numbers of snow you experience skiing off groomed trails, so I try to give some idea of what I'm on, because some surfaces really kill skis. Some skis seem to eat up everything you can throw at them.

Anyway, I prefer to ski in the mountains for many of the reasons that skiing near home makes it less than desirable. People generally don't walk on trails and post hole them, they'd usually rather ski or snowshoe. The snowpack is generally better, not always, but usually - there are also more obstacles and harsher ones i.e. rocks.

I shouldn't have mentioned anything about the wax, but I wanted to be thorough. I believe actually part of the problem was I was skiing in different snow conditions that wanted different types of wax to work best. I think if I would have layered up more green with a longer pocket, the fresh snow would have been ideal. For the more compacted stuff, the Blue seemed to grip AND glide well. It was slightly sticky in the fresh snow.

Also, another caveat. In the bushwhacking, the ground did seem to have some ice layer under the snow. The snow was quite light and I could grip that, but if I got down to roots or sticks or whatever was frozen underneath, I was not going anywhere. I ski over icy logs and sticks quite a bit with waxless skis, they actually usually grip them quite well.

And in summary, I'm not at all surprised I don't think these skis perform as well as modern sticks. I think I also live and ski in a lot of conditions where waxless skis just work better - I hear you guys go on and on about how they are slow and don't work, but I rarely have a condition where that is the case. When it's really cold like this, sometimes they are slow. The Madshus scales do seem to lack grip on certain snow types, particularly cold, loose snow and icy, granular. It is what it is.

[bgregoire]

And in summary, I'm not at all surprised I don't think these skis perform as well as modern sticks. I think I also live and ski in a lot of conditions where waxless skis just work better - I hear you guys go on and on about how they are slow and don't work, but I rarely have a condition where that is the case. When it's really cold like this, sometimes they are slow. The Madshus scales do seem to lack grip on certain snow types, particularly cold, loose snow and icy, granular. It is what it is.

Mike, hey, if your not happy with your skis ship them up to me! I'd love to try a pair myself but they won't ship to Canada. I understand what your saying. I assumed you had better snow than that overall. Oh, and I see you don't want to talk much about wax, but I do!

Try to get your hands on some of this:

Check out the temp. rating! Its going to make this a lot easier. + Its made with wood tar, smells fine & vintage.

I've read some good things about this tape too:

http://www.rexskiwax.com/en

[MikeK]

Haha!

Don't mistake me being honest with not liking the skis. I'm actually a huge advocate of these skis. I think anyone that hasn't done any BC XC skiing should buy a pair because they are cheap. Something to get you out sliding.

I think I know what I'll use these skis for mainly.

Unfortunately topo maps, and google in particular don't capture our terrain very well. There is hardly any vert, like 30-40' ups and down, but it craggly and relatively steep little gorges and glacially carved ditches:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2440392 ... a=!5m1!1e4

You can see the shadows on the google maps which show you the the ridges and gullies. This is the type of terrain I was skiing yesterday. It's sometimes, IMO, some of the hardest stuff to ski. The hills are short but you have to maneuver a lot due to the terrain or scrub brush. A lot of the single tracks in here follow the contours of the land without any where to run off, so if you ski them, you need to turn with the trail. Skins would be horrible because you go up like 30-40' then you follow a ridge or head right back down into a little gully.

And hey, I'm not against wax! I'm actually moving in that direction, but I'm also going to learn where it works best and where my scaled skis work best. I know I won't learn overnight. The USGI skis are just the first step

[lilcliffy]

Defensive? That's a bit of an assumption...

I appreciate your perspective on these skis- in the context you are skiing on them Mike.

But- you are also making judgements on their "crudeness" or lack of sophistication- compared to a brand new ski with flashy topsheets and sidewall...

I appreciate that these skis did not perform well in the context of your test- that doesn't make them poor or obsolete.

Your description of what you are looking for in a ski I understand.

But- I fundamentally disagree with the current dominate trend of designing skis that "hopefully" perform well in all conditions.

There has been much discussion on this site about the effects of the current trend towards fat skis. Fat skis offer excellent performance advantages in the appropriate contexts (e.g. flotation, stability, climbing; and of course the ability to add very aggressive sidecut).

The design trend that I find puzzling and a bit frustrating is trying to suggest that every ski do everything...All of a sudden the E-99 needs to be easy-turnin; and powder skis need to carve on hardpack...

These Combat skis are mid-width, moderately stiff BC-XC skis. They do not offer "alpine" downhill/climbing performance- they are not supposed to. Can you "XCD-ski" on them? Sure can but they aren't going to respond like a ski with conventional downhill attributes. And at least in my experience (for what it's worth) I need a lot of boot-binding power to consistently steer any ski as wide as 80mm- whether it is has downhill attributes or not.

I understand the notion of a "quiver-killer" is desirable to many. This may or may not apply to you. But it definitely does not apply to me.

I want a range of skis with specific performance advantages ranging from high-performance track-oriented; to extreme terrain climb/turn-orientated; and everything in between.

For me- these Combat skis fit a specific context perfectly. By definition that means they will perform poorly when used too widely from that context. I see this as a good thing.

I am often dissatisfied with current skis- not because I am some sort of rigid Luddite- but because the ski has too many design contradictions and compromises.

The "jack of all trades; master of none" syndrome.