Summary of Asnes Ski Models and Their Intended/Best Use

[ᚠᚨᚱ ᚾᛟᚱᚦ ᛊᚲᛁᛖᚱ]

Hi all, I've gotten a lot of input from experienced skiers on this forum. Often this input is a suggestion on a model of Asnes ski that would best serve a particular purpose. Does anyone know if there is a thread that has a summary of the various Asnes models?

[bgregoire]

When it comes to that, I simply refer to their website:
https://www.en.asnes.com/products/back_country/

[Nitram Tocrut]

When it comes to that, I simply refer to their website:
https://www.en.asnes.com/products/back_country/

That is too complicated Benjamin... I suggest he simply buy them all and then do a detailed report on all the models

[ᚠᚨᚱ ᚾᛟᚱᚦ ᛊᚲᛁᛖᚱ]

I do not find their descriptions all that informative. YMMV.

[Stephen]

I do not find their descriptions all that informative. YMMV.

That’s quite interesting because I had exactly the same thought today (not about the ski descriptions, but about a ski database). That was after reading one of lilcliffy’s data dumps on various options. Once again my head was spinning and my final thought was: I should buy them all and try them!
(I want to be absolutely clear that my comment about lilcliffy’s post was in no way derogatory! His contributions are a TelemarkTalk treasure, from which I have learned much.)

It would be a bit of a project, and might be beyond the reasonable scope of the forum.
I visualize a table with various skis listed on the left vertical axis, and types of snow/terrain on the top horizontal axis:
<10” of light powder over consolidated base | bottomless powder | <3” deep heavy snow over consolidated base | deep heavy snow | consolidated snow | transformed snow | soft corn | frozen corn | icy | etc.
I think there is a handful of people on the forum with enough experience with enough skis that this *could* be done.
Whether someone wants to undertake something like that is another matter.

As for the descriptions on the Asnes website, I have read through them enough times, and then cross referenced them to info on this forum, so I kind of maybe sort of have a kind of good idea.
I think those descriptions are carefully written so as not to be too limiting and put someone off who might be considering a particular ski, and also, may not have easy access to all the skis, in a range, that Asnes offers.
I have gone through my own struggles trying to zero in on which ski it is that I think I want.
For anyone without many years (probably decades) of experience on/in all types of snow and conditions, on many different skis, it is very challenging to wade through all the options, and make choices that match one’s needs and wants.
Almost any ski will work, but those with experience know that the right ski for the conditions makes a big difference.

[RabbitEars]

I found this page on their site that is more descriptive of the different categories.
https://www.en.asnes.com/how-to-choose-mountain-ski/

[ᚠᚨᚱ ᚾᛟᚱᚦ ᛊᚲᛁᛖᚱ]

I do not find their descriptions all that informative. YMMV.

That’s quite interesting because I had exactly the same thought today (not about the ski descriptions, but about a ski database). That was after reading one of lilcliffy’s data dumps on various options. Once again my head was spinning and my final thought was: I should buy them all and try them!
(I want to be absolutely clear that my comment about lilcliffy’s post was in no way derogatory! His contributions are a TelemarkTalk treasure, from which I have learned much.)

It would be a bit of a project, and might be beyond the reasonable scope of the forum.
I visualize a table with various skis listed on the left vertical axis, and types of snow/terrain on the top horizontal axis:
<10” of light powder over consolidated base | bottomless powder | <3” deep heavy snow over consolidated base | deep heavy snow | consolidated snow | transformed snow | soft corn | frozen corn | icy | etc.
I think there is a handful of people on the forum with enough experience with enough skis that this *could* be done.
Whether someone wants to undertake something like that is another matter.

As for the descriptions on the Asnes website, I have read through them enough times, and then cross referenced them to info on this forum, so I kind of maybe sort of have a kind of good idea.
I think those descriptions are carefully written so as not to be too limiting and put someone off who might be considering a particular ski, and also, may not have easy access to all the skis, in a range, that Asnes offers.
I have gone through my own struggles trying to zero in on which ski it is that I think I want.
For anyone without many years (probably decades) of experience on/in all types of snow and conditions, on many different skis, it is very challenging to wade through all the options, and make choices that match one’s needs and wants.
Almost any ski will work, but those with experience know that the right ski for the conditions makes a big difference.

I have the same experience. After reading a lot of threads here and comparing to what the manufacturer states, I can start to fill in some of the blanks. Lilcliffy had a thread covering some of the Fischer skis that was extremely helpful.

[bgregoire]

@Stephen ,

One upon a time in pretty nordic BC skiing la-la land, some great man name Pinnah did the deed. What is left of his great work can be found here:

http://web.archive.org/web/201510021509 ... -skis.html

Granted, this is not upto date data, but that basics, the backbone, the stuff that really matters, is there.

There was talk some time ago on Ttalk to get something similar, updated, online, right here. That never happened of course as we preferred to spend our free time skiing and debating about the benefits of NNNBC vs pins.

Never say never, perhaps you are the chosen one to get this thing going once again? A-men.

That said guys, please try and keep it simple, have fun! There really is no need to cross-check 23 snow conditions and 52 skis to have a good day out. There are a much smaller number of "classic" nordic BC / XCD ski shapes out there and really that is what is important to work out (Old School Tele = E99/Gamme, etc), the main "categories". Usually, if you are committed, you'll get a few pair to cover the spectrum, and it could be worth it. I'd say 1-3 pair is healthy. After that, you better carefully watch your mind, you might be loosing it (been there done that). And if you are committed to Asnes/Fisher (the good stuff), well, you might end up broke to boot.

Is that a fair assesment @Nitram Tocrut?

[ᚠᚨᚱ ᚾᛟᚱᚦ ᛊᚲᛁᛖᚱ]

@Stephen ,

One upon a time in pretty nordic BC skiing la-la land, some great man name Pinnah did the deed. What is left of his great work can be found here:

http://web.archive.org/web/201510021509 ... -skis.html

Granted, this is not upto date data, but that basics, the backbone, the stuff that really matters, is there.

There was talk some time ago on Ttalk to get something similar, updated, online, right here. That never happened of course as we preferred to spend our free time skiing and debating about the benefits of NNNBC vs pins.

Never say never, perhaps you are the chosen one to get this thing going once again? A-men.

That said guys, please try and keep it simple, have fun! There really is no need to cross-check 23 snow conditions and 52 skis to have a good day out. There are a much smaller number of "classic" nordic BC / XCD ski shapes out there and really that is what is important to work out (Old School Tele = E99/Gamme, etc), the main "categories". Usually, if you are committed, you'll get a few pair to cover the spectrum, and it could be worth it. I'd say 1-3 pair is healthy. After that, you better carefully watch your mind, you might be loosing it (been there done that). And if you are committed to Asnes/Fisher (the good stuff), well, you might end up broke to boot.

Is that a fair assesment @Nitram Tocrut?

This is a pretty awesome group. I suppose it gets a bit exhausting at times with all the baby birds like me wanting spoon fed information. Good reminder though. Better to spend time on skis than nerding out about ski specs (though that can be fun too).