This first post in this thread is sort of a first impressions review. We have had several storms bringing in warm weather and rain alternating with fresh snow and strong winds, so the conditions have not been ideal so far.
Background - I started both serious cross country skiing and BC skiing about 5 years ago.
My XC quiver includes Fischer CRS skating skis, Atomic Skintec "classic" XC skis with skin insert, and Madshus waxable XC skis.
My BC equipment started with Atomic Sierra 59 waxless. I did one ~ 100km tour on them in the Sylan Massif near the Swedish border on the Norwegian side, and used them for many day trips. These skis are like track XC skis in terms of camber, and almost imaginary sidecut, but they do have 3/4 steel edges.
Due to poor flotation and turnability these were replaced within a year by Fischer E109 Crown.
The steel edges on my E109 Crowns broke behind the heel during last years multi day tour in Trollheimen (about 70 km). I managed to complete the tour but those skis were written off and have acquired the Åsnes Nansen as a replacement.
Why Åsnes Nansen? I wanted something turnable, offering some support in deep snow but without too much compromise regarding efficiency on distance oriented tours. A jack of all trades of some kind. I was tempted by the Åsnes Ingstad but have read here and on the Norwegian Fjellforum.no that, although offering more flotation, the XC efficiency on flatter sections of hard packed snow of the Ingstad is quite a bit less than the Nansen due to the pronounced nordic rocker on the Ingstad which makes it more of a powder oriented ski, although turnability may be similar. I ski many tours on harder snow, or harder snow with limited amount of powder on top. Not so many in deep powder.
The other Åsnes Waxless contender with steel edges was the Amundsen. However they are seen as the "vidda commuters" ideally suited for efficiently covering long distances on flat-ish terrain where turnability is not really of concern. Åsnes Amundsen users rave about their efficiency but almost universally acknowledge that they are not really fun on the downhills. On the other hand, the Åsnes Nansen skis are very popular here, probably the most popular after the Amundsen, and almost all users are happy with their "allround" qualities.
The Gamme 54 do not exist in Waxless base, otherwise these may have been an option.
From other brands, in terms of Waxless options with steel edges there are Rossignol (few suppliers in Norway, not much feedback from users either), the former Madshus range (now replaced with removable skin system), and Fischer E99, Traverse 78, Excursion 88 and S-Bounds.
The Fischer Traverse and Excursion are made to max. 199 cm, maybe long enough but the Traverse 78 is less cambered than the E109 so less efficient on flat terrain, and I was not sure if this would be a good option.
My partner runs Madhus Glittertind MGV waxless, and I have tried Fischer E99 Crown waxless skis a few times (I keep a pair for my brother when he visits).
Past Saturday was a window of relatively nice weather with promising snow conditions.
I woke up on Saturday to see the MS Fridtjof Nansen from my living room window as it was undergoing sea trials. Fitting, isn't it?
https://norgeskart.no/#!?project=norges ... tionsPanel
This is a pretty safe destination avalanche wise. I was skiing with a buddy equipped with Fischer Traverse 78 waxless skis. We both use Crispi Stetind NNN-BC boots.
In the lower part of the ski tour the snow was windblown powder of about 10cm deep on a harder base, with some crusty patches.
It became immediately obvious that the Åsnes Waxless pattern, being shorter, has less grip in loose windblown powder than the Fischer Crown, so I put on some 45mm Mohair X-Skins for the climb.
1) Grip of the waxless system - It seems that Åsnes designed this to be complementary to the X-Skins, rather than a standalone solution. So in flatter terrain and prepared tracks- use waxless, in steeper terrain - fit short skins, in the steepest terrain, fit long skins.
This is a different approach from the Fischer Offtrack Crown pattern which was designed prior to short skins being available, and is an effective standalone solution except for in the steepest climbs, where full length skins become necessary.
Of note that in the slope angle where the Åsnes Waxless lost grip, the difference in glide efficiency from using skins is irrelevant.
2) Glide of the Åsnes waxless system - tentatively a bit better than the Fischer Crown pattern, and just as noisy on ice. Not yet tested on hardpack (IE groomed trails).
3) Ski behaviour overall - I think similar turnability in the downhills to the E109s but I think that the skis are better at bearing my weight, for the same length. I think the Nansens are stiffer. The skis appear to be more happy to go straight when kicking and gliding than the E109s.
I am happy so far, but I will update this post when I have used them more.
Comparative impressions:
Compared to the Fischer E109 Crowns, the Nansen Waxless offer better flotation (because they are stiffer), better kick and glide efficiency at the cost of less grip (when using the waxless base), similar turnability (the last has to be tested further), and the X-Skin system which is better in uphills than the Fischer Crown pattern.
Compared to the E99 Crowns - the E99 Crowns are maybe more comparable to the Nansen Waxless in terms of efficiency due to their stiffness. However they are less easy to turn due to less sidecut. Although I have not tested Åsnes Gamme 54s, reading around gives the impression that the E99 may be equivalent to the Gamme.
The Traverse 78s have less camber than the Nansen or E109. Less efficient on the flats, pretty easy to turn, but I cannot compare them fairly because my buddy uses much shorter skis (179 cm vs 205cm in my case)
Regarding Madshus Glittertind waxless - I dont really like them, they are like E99s with a worse (IE, both less efficient AND less grippy) waxless pattern, and they are difficult to turn with.
