Asnes Fjellskis- Turn Radius

[lilcliffy]

Here is an email response I received directly from Asnes this morning- inquiring about the turn radius of a number of Asnes fjellskis that are designed for hilly/steep terrain:

Here is a table with comparitive information on these skis:

[Stephen]

i wonder how Asnes calculates turn radius?
If i plug the numbers into the FIS turn radius calculator (i’m not making this up), i get similar numbers (except with a decimal point in front of the meters?).
http://member.fis-ski.com/skicalc.htm

But, i dunno, i might just go with @lowangle al on this one…
<———

I don't think dbl camber skis stay compressed long enough for turn radius to matter.

On single camber you can quietly ride your edges through not only the turn, but the transitions too. Both skis evenly weighted and edged, from edge change to edge change, gliding silently, barely disturbing a thing.

[lowangle al]

Looking at those numbers I can see why all of those skis with TR around the 40s will be happiest close to the fall line. You'll want to stay lowangle because those turns don't scrub speed. This is with smooth turns, like the ones I described in my above quote. To slow down you need another kind of turn to get your skis across the slope.

So I guess turn radius dictates how fast a ski will carve across the hill, probably nothing new there. What is new is that now I know how it affects my skiing.

[lilcliffy]

The above numbers are just the inherent turn-radii of each of the skis as a function of the geometry of their respective effective/working edge.

How "easy", "smooth" a ski is to turn is a complex of many things- including camber, flex pattern, skier weight and ski length, snow conditions, terrain, and skier skill.

However, all things being equal-

For example-
The Nansen is in application "easier" to turn than the Combat NATO because it has a smoother, rounder flex, and does not have the extra resistance-camber underfoot of the Combat NATO.
I can pressure the Nansen into a tighter carved turn much easier than the Combat NATO- despite the Combat NATO's inherent shorter turn radius.

Another example-
Despite how close the inherent turn radius is of the Ingstad vs Sverdrup- I can pressure the softer-flexing Sverdrup into a significantly tighter turn radius than the Ingstad.

[lowangle al]

Sure there are other variables that affect how easy a ski turns. For this context of turn radius I'm thinking of riding the edges how they want to turn, without flexing the ski. If I want to control speed I'll apply more pressure and flex them.

[lilcliffy]

Another example-
Despite how close the inherent turn radius is of the Ingstad vs Sverdrup- I can pressure the softer-flexing Sverdrup into a significantly tighter turn radius than the Ingstad.

To add to this- the Sverdrup is easier to pressure into a tighter carved turn than the Ingstad- DESPITE it being more cambered and stiffer underfoot than the Ingstad.

[lowangle al]

Just let the skis run, trying not to pressure them into flexing. Once the ski bends the turning radius changes. Bending the skis takes more energy, it used to be the only way I could turn a ski with control. You can only let them "run" until you get to the point where you need to control speed. These are mostly turns for the low angle for that reason.