Asnes quiver of two

[Danylewich]

I sometimes see the fun hypothetical discussion of the perfect ski for a quiver of one. Newish to backcountry/XCD in the last few years, I tried that with the Asnes Nansen. Good ski, but sadly I got it a bit too short being a newby to this (didn't account for extra weight of boots, clothes, backpack, etc.!) and wanted to go a tad short to make it more downhill turnable. I went too short.

Having skiied a couple of seasons it seems my skiing splits on two types:

1. Starting for a good period on groomed trails then a "BC" trail or an AT skinning trail. Would prefer a ski that fits in the tracks for this and the Nansen is a bit too wide. For those who know these areas, I ski in the Gatineaus, Tremblant, Orford, Charlevoix in the parks. Must fit in tracks.

2. Just yo-yo ing at the local hill in the ravine - I live in Toronto and a two minute walk from my house is a great little hill and forests for hacking around on weekends, Riverdale Park East and the ravines around there. Basically have a little 300 foot groomer hill right at more doorstep for telemarking. For this, I want something more turnable for trying to learn my telemark, plus capable of bushwacking around in the bottom of the ravine. Could use also for the occasional adventure when I fly somewhere, such as Colorado or Yosemite for more serious mountain skiing, carrying backpack, cabin to cabin kind of thing. Or Gaspesie, New Hampshire.

So I'm looking to sell my Nansens and want to try going with two skis - one skinny for first use case and one wider for second use case. I'm using NNN-BC Magnums with Alaskas. Seeking the best quiver of two! Here's what I'm thinking, but seeking feedback from the elders, particularly the Asnes crowd on the forum:

For use-case 1: thinking new Asnes Borge Ousland, maybe Asnes Gamme (fits in track?) or Asnes MR48 (maybe a hint too skinny and racy)

For use-case 2: thinking Asnes Ingstad, maybe Asnes FT62 (a bit too downhill? not enough distance oriented?)

Obviously no perfect answer, but looking for your sage input!

Thanks, David

[bgregoire]

For an all Asnes quiver of two, your case 1 examples are good options. Keep in mind some of those skis like the Gamme are perfect for hut to hut tours in the Gaspesie park.

I have a pair of Asnes Amundsen 200cm that I could trade for your Nansen's, what length are they?

For your case 2, I would disregard the Ingstad as it is mostly a quiver of 1 (or several) ski. IMHO, Choose the FT62, Rabb68 or Voile Objective/Vector instead for yoyo-ing and more downhill oriented skiing. Basically something with more alpine oriented specs.

[Woodserson]

Ok, this is a good question. I have thoughts....

For option number 1 I would seriously consider the Moutain Touring 51 https://www.en.asnes.com/produkt/mountain-touring-51/. I absolutely love this ski. It is light, cheap (relatively), well made, goes the distance. It has 3/4 steel edge and does not have any rocker. Fits in tracks like a dream. It does not turn. The Ousland would probably also fit the bill, it basically has the same waist as the MT51 but adds 5mm to the tip and tail. In theory it would turn maybe better...? But is it stiffer? It could negate this.

I would not do a Gamme 54 for option 1. I have Gamme 54, it is one of the most amazing skis in this class that I have ever experienced and it does, technically, fit in tracks. The key word here is technically. I have found the shovels at 68mm just scrape the edges of the track enough to make it annoying, and I definitely feel the drag over distance. The shovels, with their nordic rocker rise up with the scraping to the top of the track. So it fits, but I'd much rather be on my MT51 if I had any tracked distances to make. If it was non-track distances then there is no doubt it would on the Gamme 54.

On a side note, if 68mm scrapes the track, will 66? I think the Ousland will fit better but it won't fit as well as the MT51. Keep in mind I'm thinking American tracks, maybe Canadian tracks have more modern equipment and are wider?

BGregoire would know with his Amundsens, maybe. YO BEN!?

For option number 2 I agree with Ben, go with something downhill oriented. Rabb68, for instance. Go for the width if you're thinking of out west with deeper snow and still using the NNN-BC. The FT62 might be a tiny bit easier to control with the Alaskas. I have not skied either of these skis yet. Altai Hoks maybe, if going distances over flat terrain is not something you'd be doing in this ravine of yours.

How much do you weigh, how tall are you?

[Danylewich]

Thanks both.

@bgregoire, my Nansens are 190, should probably have gone 195 or even 200. Thanks for the offer re trade on Amundsens, they'd be right size, but I'm leaning to new Borge (light!) or maybe the MT51 suggested by Woodserson. I see you are in Rimouski! Vive la Quebec for skiing, wish I lived there! So many cool places . . . such great snow . . . such good microbreweries . . .

@Woodserson, my height is 6'1", dry weight is 165 lbs. On skinny track skis I have 205 Madhus Birkebeiner's. So I would say I'd be 200 in Borge or Gamme, 195 in Ingstad. I guess 180 in FT62 or maybe the 188?

Appreciate the responses.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[Danylewich]

@Woodserson re tracks in Canada, the Nansens definitely scrape somewhat at 76mm, though they did work, but the drag was not ideal long term. I think there is probably no track difference really in North America?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[bgregoire]

BGregoire would know with his Amundsens, maybe. YO BEN!?

Yo Woods! How ya doing? Looking forward to another great season I hear?

Totally right about your BC ski options for tracks. However, I assumed Dany here still prefer a ski that performs better in the BC and AT skinning trails (and on hut to hut tours), that is why I had the Gamme in mind.

"Starting for a good period on groomed trails then a "BC" trail or an AT skinning trail. "

I think the Gamme will be tons better on AT skinning trails than the thinner alternatives...

We have tracks and Tracks here. Lots of ski trails are groomed by snowmobile and have tracks that are more uneven and usually a tad wider. The Gamme/E99 ski do fit well in these but the metal edge to tear up the tracks a little. At pro resort were the grooming is accomplished using high tech machinery, then yes, the impact of the BC skis will be even greater.

DAVE, Nansens in 190 are a little too short, I agree. I'm 5'10'' and 165lbs and find my partners 190s lack length. I'd be happier in 195s or maybe 200s.

As cool as the other skis mentioned are, I still feel the Gamme/E99 is a better candidate for the narrower ski of a quiver of 2 kit, particularly if your second ski has more alpine specs ( or xcD). My thinking is that anything narrower will loose so stability on uneven snow surfaces and as narrow skis have more camber, they will be tougher to climb on AT trails or narrow trails. Then again, my experience with narrower skis is very limited: Fischer BC Country Crown and E89. Good luck!

[Woodserson]

Thanks both.

@Woodserson, my height is 6'1", dry weight is 165 lbs. On skinny track skis I have 205 Madhus Birkebeiner's. So I would say I'd be 200 in Borge or Gamme, 195 in Ingstad. I guess 180 in FT62 or maybe the 188?

Appreciate the responses.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Ok, so I'm 6'2" or thereabouts and and 155lbs dry. I ride 205-210 wood skis, 205 MT51's and 210 Gamme 54. I have the 200s too but for distance travel with backpack the 210 was the way to go with my skiing style. The Madshus Birkebeiner is absolutely legendary. This is your track ski! You already have it, it's the best. If you are thinking flat distance skiing with some tracks but mostly flat trails or trails that are multi-use trails, or anything, then Gamme 54. It is the best BC ski. If you're going to be 80/20% Track/Trail then maybe not, but you have the Birkies. I agree with Ben here, anything hut-to-hut, miles in the woods, things like that, Gamme54.

[Nitram Tocrut]

I sometimes see the fun hypothetical discussion of the perfect ski for a quiver of one. Newish to backcountry/XCD in the last few years, I tried that with the Asnes Nansen. Good ski, but sadly I got it a bit too short being a newby to this (didn't account for extra weight of boots, clothes, backpack, etc.!) and wanted to go a tad short to make it more downhill turnable. I went too short.

Having skiied a couple of seasons it seems my skiing splits on two types:

1. Starting for a good period on groomed trails then a "BC" trail or an AT skinning trail. Would prefer a ski that fits in the tracks for this and the Nansen is a bit too wide. For those who know these areas, I ski in the Gatineaus, Tremblant, Orford, Charlevoix in the parks. Must fit in tracks.

2. Just yo-yo ing at the local hill in the ravine - I live in Toronto and a two minute walk from my house is a great little hill and forests for hacking around on weekends, Riverdale Park East and the ravines around there. Basically have a little 300 foot groomer hill right at more doorstep for telemarking. For this, I want something more turnable for trying to learn my telemark, plus capable of bushwacking around in the bottom of the ravine. Could use also for the occasional adventure when I fly somewhere, such as Colorado or Yosemite for more serious mountain skiing, carrying backpack, cabin to cabin kind of thing. Or Gaspesie, New Hampshire.

So I'm looking to sell my Nansens and want to try going with two skis - one skinny for first use case and one wider for second use case. I'm using NNN-BC Magnums with Alaskas. Seeking the best quiver of two! Here's what I'm thinking, but seeking feedback from the elders, particularly the Asnes crowd on the forum:

For use-case 1: thinking new Asnes Borge Ousland, maybe Asnes Gamme (fits in track?) or Asnes MR48 (maybe a hint too skinny and racy)

For use-case 2: thinking Asnes Ingstad, maybe Asnes FT62 (a bit too downhill? not enough distance oriented?)

Obviously no perfect answer, but looking for your sage input!

Thanks, David

Quite a challenge to bring something new after writing after Ben and Woods

1. I don't have Asnes skis that fit in tracks but I have been using the E99 literally for decades for hut to hut trip and some of them would start in groomed track before switching to BC. They do drag a bit but that was not a concern for me I was already dragging from the weight of my backpack. I took them in Parc de la Gaspésie and they performed great, they are especially good climber. I am 6,1 and around 205-210 pounds and the E99 are 210 and I would not go any shorter. I must not forget to say that mine are pretty old so I don't know about more recent model... I know I did not say a word about Asnes skis so far... but just saying that aiming for a 68mm ski at the tip does not seem to be an issue for your intended use

2. I agree with Ben and Woods about the Ingstad. They truly are great skis and I can turn them with my Alaska's if the slope is not too steep. You mentioned that you want to learn the Telemark turn just like I wanted last winter and from my experience I think you will have more fun with the FT62 or the Raab 68 as mentioned. From what I read on this forum, the FT62 has better XC DNA so I would go for that considering your needs. I can't say much about their performance for your occasional more serious mountain skiing. I took my Ingstad last winter in Les Monts-Valins and they did fine although I would have prefer to have them in 205 instead of 195. I don't know about the eventual performance of FT and Rabb in such context but my friends were on Rossi 90-110-125 and some G3 telemark skis and they all did fine for the BC part but they all outperformed me anytime we had the chance to do some turns. I am even tempted to write (so tempted that I will actually write it ) that I think I would have been better with my 210 E99 as the 195 Ingstad really felt short on the steeper sections and for those that went in Les Monts-Valins there are many steep sections!

From my limited experience, I think it will be hard to limit yourself to just 2 pairs of skis for all your intended needs except if you are ready to compromise... For longer trips you could consider having a second pair of skis carried by a snowmobile if possible. Some of my friends went to Mont Logan in Gaspésie and used one pair of skis on the way up and another on the way back... maybe one day they will do telescopic skis just like poles

[Danylewich]

Thanks all, leaning to 1. Gamme/Borge Ousland and 2. FT62. Yes, hard to hold to two skis . . . it's a slippery slope to more skis

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[Woodserson]

Well technically, you are already at 3 because of your sweet sweet Birkies.

From what I can gather, the Gamme 54 will turn slightly better than the Ousland, the Ousland will fit slightly better in the track. If it's between these two, those are going to be your variables.