Asnes MT65 (USGI) Combat Skis

[lilcliffy]

Did you get a chance to weigh them and what length for a 155lbs guy? and how do they compare to glittertinds?

Sorry man, did not get a chance to weigh them…after skiing on them for 10 days or so now- they feel surprisingly light and snappy to me…the smooth even, snappy flex contributes to this…the NNN-BC binding does as well.

Although these are double-cambered skis, they have a smooth, full-length, even flex. I weigh 185lbs- I certainly wouldn’t want them any shorter than 210cm for XC-focused skiing. At 210cm they have an effective wax pocket- but I can still reasonably control the camber in downhill turns (at least on moderate terrain).

For XC-focused BC skiing- I think you could easily get away with a 210cm, even at a skier weight of 155lbs (I would buy them even longer if I could get em!). But at 155lbs, a 210cm should give quite a wild ride downhill!!

Compared to the Glittertind? My friend bought a pair of 210cm waxable Glitts last season- I have tested them a few times.

These skis are significantly wider than the Glitt- especially underfoot (67 vs. 55mm). These skis offer much greater flotation than the Glitt. The Glitt will be faster on dense snow- the Asnes will be faster on soft snow, due to the better flotation.

The Glitt and this ski have a completely different flex pattern.

The Asnes has an even, full-length, moderately stiff flex- with a shallow, but effective wax pocket. The smooth, even flex still allows decent climbing performance and reasonable (but certainly not high-performance) downhill performance (they are certainly not “easy-turnin”). I find these skis have very smooth, balanced K&G performance on fresh soft snow. They are very easy to ski on- you do not need a precise kick to engage the wax pocket (a big advantage on variable terrain).

(Interesting to note that Steve Barnett’s description of the Glittertind flex pattern in his classic “Cross Country-Downhill” is much more like the Asnes ,than it is the current generation Glitt)

The current Glitt has a very pronounced double-camber underfoot, with a significant wax pocket. However, the tips/tails on the Glitt are significantly softer than the Asnes. The camber and flex pattern of the current Glitt is clearly designed to maximize xcountry K&G performance.

I find the camber and flex of the current Glitt (in a trad XC length) frustratingly difficult to control in a downhill turn- that camber also makes them very difficult to climb any significant slope.

I personally think the flex pattern of the Asnes is more versatile- especially if you XC ski on variable terrain. It is also a better choice on relatively deep, fresh snow (not that they are a powder XC ski, by any means).

However, if I was XC-BC skiing on gentle terrain, on a dense base- the Glitt would be a better ski.

[lilcliffy]

Just did a 20+km tour on these babies today- a real mix of terrain, with moderate slopes throughout, 200m verticals- fresh, soft snow, over a dense/hard base.

So- I now have over 150kms on these skis: XC-focused skiing on variable terrain. The snow conditions have been predominantly soft, but not deep, over a dense, hard base.

I am thrilled with these skis for backcountry skiing- in the above context. And day-in, day-out, this is the typical context for my every day, BC-skiing from my doorstep.

In K&G these skis feel very smooth and balanced. They are incredibly easy to ski on- they do not require a precise “kick” (this is a huge advantage on variable terrain).

They feel smooth and snappy- however this is due to a complex of the ski’s flex pattern, the NNN-BC binding, and the sole-flex of the Alaska ( i.e. this ski might well feel heavy and somewhat “dead” with a different binding/boot).

The tips/tails are moderately stiff, supporting an effective Nordic “kick”.

I find them surprisingly reasonable to control when turning on moderate slopes. However, they are far from easy to turn. These skis are not easy to steer- AT ALL. However, I can stride through telemarks quite easily on moderate terrain. Due to the camber, I would find them very challenging to control on truly steep terrain, without a much more rigid boot-binding.

My biggest concern about these skis is the long-term durability in the backcountry…

They effectively have no protection in the sidewall. I am already beginning to notice wear and tear, especially at the tips, beyond the steel edges…I am concerned about the base and topsheet delaminating from the sold wood core…

I have decided to begin regularly applying a thin layer of epoxy in this zone- as preventative maintenance.

These skis are a backcountry-xcountry skier’s dream. Once they are sold-out, they will be very hard to replace- I want mine to last as many seasons as possible!

Here are some photos taken this evening (the top photo is as far as I can easily squeeze the bases together):

[MikeK]

That's some healthy camber. Mind doing a 50/50 paper test when you have some free time and marking the wax pocket on them? Would be interesting to see how long it is.

Glitts are actually fairly stiff in their second camber. The first camber is super soft, but once that closes up, they go solid. I never measured the length of the pocket but I get a healthy gap in the middle with half my weight on each ski in a 200cm. I have no doubt someone 15lbs lighter might have some issues fully seating them in a 210.

The flex pattern is goofy too. They are so soft tip and tail that you have to flex them a ton to get the center to even flatten out.

[bgregoire]

I m interested in splitting shipping with any Canadian (may need to be picked up at the border?, which I cannot do). I m interested in the 200cm. Anyone?

[jooleyen]

Nice, thanks for all the info. I'm going to try these out in 200cm.

[lilcliffy]

I m interested in splitting shipping with any Canadian (may need to be picked up at the border?, which I cannot do). I m interested in the 200cm. Anyone?

I got in on a group order a friend of mine coordinated- there were several pairs in the order (you save big-time on shipping per ski with multiple pairs) we went and picked them up in Houlton, ME.

Ben- there is talk in my extended circle of local skiers about doing another order- if so, I will see if you can get in on it.

Just to give more info on ordering:

You can order these from Coleman's as one pair for $20USD, or two pairs for $30USD. In order to get the deal on two pairs they must be the same length.

The order I got in on was large enough that I could get two different-sized pairs (200&210) for the $30US- other people in the group wanted different-sized skis as well.

[bgregoire]

I m interested in splitting shipping with any Canadian (may need to be picked up at the border?, which I cannot do). I m interested in the 200cm. Anyone?

Ben- there is talk in my extended circle of local skiers about doing another order- if so, I will see if you can get in on it.

Great! Keep me posted!

[connyro]

My 210s arrived today. These things are beasts! Lots of camber but at 190 LBS, I can compress them completely just standing on them in my house. They weigh slightly more than 7LBS in 210 length, similar to 180 Vector BCs. I would not consider them heavy but they are no lightweights either! Very good build quality at first glance and they are in good shape. They seem to have sintered bases that they were nice enough to put a coating of storage(?) wax on them. Big beefy metal edges. They are wide underfoot! I'm excited to get these mounted with Magnum BCs and get out for a tour.

[MikeK]

Yeah the other report said right around 7lbs for the 200cm. Man I'm tempted to buy a set but the shipping is killing me! I wouldn't mind it for two sets, but I want a 200 and 210!

Anyone in NY want to split a set?

So compressed all the way with full 190lbs or half weight? If you can compress fully at 95 lbs/ski I'll just get the 200s.

[connyro]

Sorry for confusion: half my weight on a ski compressed the camber fully, so 95LBS/ski.