Short, waxable ski recommendation

[socaltim]

I like classic kick and glide track skiing, except there aren't any tracks in Southern California, so I end up making my own in the local mountains, on a pair of waxable Atomic 52, 205 cm, 52-47-49. As I am getting older, I'm starting to find maneuverability a challenge. But, I don't want to give up the effortless kick and glide of a properly waxed ski, which I pretty much have mastered for these local conditions.

So, I am trying to find some shorter, wider, more maneuverable skis, that will still be fun on the flats. I don't need to be carving turns at speed, but something a little easier to herringbone, do a 180 turn, and use like snowshoes at times to get to places I can stride out.

The Fischer TransNordic Easy 59 or 66 looked perfect, until I saw they recommend 205 cm for my size (188 cm, 93 kg). Is there something like that in a stiffer camber? Or, will I need to go wider to get down to 190-95? Say I make my own trail, so don't have to worry about fitting in, I wonder would it be faster to have the right camber on a wider ski. Not that I am racing anyone, but I just want that effortless gliding through the woods.

[rongon]

It sounds like you know what you want in a ski, and my experience has been in the Northeast US, with very different snow conditions than in California, but... It sounds to me like you might want to look at the various Asnes skis. Most of their skis are waxable and are designed for breaking trail, etc.

https://www.en.asnes.com/

Some folks here have different Asnes models, and I think everybody loves them. Maybe someone can pitch in with more detailed advice.

[socaltim]

Thanks, the Admunsen, Finmark and Ousland all look good. They all recommend 200cm+ for my weight, but I am thinking I will just go shorter. I am guessing there is bigger glide penalty from going wider than going short. The snow here is always pretty firm by the time I get to it. Also, these will all fit in a groomed track, in case I get attached to the better control.

Last winter here was weird. I was skiing in April just outside LA! Unfortunately, my recently discovered spot got burned over with wildfire last month, and all NF land will be closed for a year to recover. I am hoping the entire highway will be left unplowed, and I could ski on that.

[Capercaillie]

There are a lot of people on this forum who can weigh in with a lot of experience on the various models currently available. Still a bit early in the season for people to log in regularly.

For me, sizing down to 195cm from 205cm gives a big improvement in herringbone, kick turns, and bushwhacking, no matter the ski. I think this depends a lot on your inseam. You didn't say whether you were open to switching boots/bindings or spending a bit more, but IMO Xplore gives a huge improvement in those aspects too.

As far as very stiff cambered short skis, I would say beware. I had 194cm Atomic Savor skin skis, which had a very high and stiff 2nd camber for the built-in skins. The high camber meant an even shorter than usual running length, so the glide was poor. The turning performance was awful. The $5 way-too-soft for me 195cm Alpina waxable skis (judging by the vintage, probably meant for someone 60kg; I am 75) were a huge improvement in every way. You will probably have to accept the compromise. Fortunately, today most ski models have stiffer cambers for the same length than in the past. I don't know if that necessarily applies to wider XCD skis though. At least for Åsnes, their wider models generally have softer camber than narrower models.

One way to get more glide out of a softer ski is to mount back 1 or 2cm from the balance point (this is what the new movable NNN bindings let you do). That also shortens the tail and makes herringbone and kick turns easier.

As far as Fischer skis, the TN66 has weird swing weight, and I did not like them for herringbone, sidestepping, or bushwhacking. It is also hard to get them to finish turns in difficult snow. They are really expedition skis that excel in very cold, icy snow. I bought an NOS pair of Fischer E89 Xtralite (supposedly the same specs as the TN59) to replace the TN66 for the upcoming season, and hand-testing, they seem to have a much better swing than the TN66.

Of the Åsnes skis, I don't know your snow conditions, but I have done a spring ascent (non-ski) of San Jacinto. Ran into a big group ski-camping on XC skis, probably the Sierra Club. I think the Åsnes Otto Sverdrup with full skins would have been a great ski to take all the way to the top and back down to the tram. At 195cm, they have a stiffer second camber than some other Åsnes models (stiffer than either 195cm Ingstad or 205cm Nansen), and consequently somewhat better glide than those models, and track really well (much better than Ingstad IMO). The glide is only "ok" compared to track skis and TN66. Which I think is an acceptable trade-off for everything else about the Sverdrup skis. They feel like they weigh almost nothing and have an excellent balanced swing weight. If you are breaking trail and don't care about tracks, they are just a great ski. The thing that sets them apart from anything else similar (that I have tried, anyway) is how well they turn once you give them input. I honestly don't use them that much because of how overkill they are for anything close by, it feels like cheating. They should not track as well as they do for how well they turn. The downside is that with the shorter length and significant nordic tip rocker, they are not good on breakable crust, powder, or postholed trails; which don't sound like conditions you encounter.

[socaltim]

Thanks for your thoughts. I got some feedback on reddit that I shouldn't worry so much about the weight recommendation if I'm waxing, and that fits with my experience when I first started skiing in the mid-70's. Skis were way softer, and we still got fine glide with the right wax. To my understanding, once the ski is moving, the friction creates a thin film of water, which is enough to remove any drag from the fine texture of the wax. Very different from the coarse texture of a waxless ski, which must depend on the camber to get off the snow.

I got interested in the TransNordics because they were the only waxable skis I could find in the US, outside of track skis. I was just going to skip the skins. Thanks for your feedback on those. I am now thinking I will get the Asnes Admunsen's in 187 cm, if I don't run across something else. I am 6'2'', but my inseams are only 32". I think I am really going to like the control, and might want to run them even when I do get to a groomed track. My turns are not what they used to be.

My boots are for SNS bindings, so I decided I will need new boots as well. I just ordered some Alpina Alaskas. I was getting keen on the Alfa Guard GTX, after reading a long thread on here, until I got to the end of it, and realized I could have a real problem getting them broken in, even if I did get lucky and order the right size. I can try the Alaskas on at local REI, and also ordered some Salomon Escape Outbacks, which are a little cheaper. I will leave the store with one of them at most. Hadn't planned on spending this much, but life is too short for blisters. People seem to have good luck with these Alaskas and Escapes out of the box.

I've not been up to San Jacinto with skis yet, though have thought about it. There is a Mt Pinos at about 8000 feet, just off I-5 heading north. That's an hour drive on the freeway, and then about 20 minutes on a nice paved road into National Forest. Only problem is the snow gate doesn't get opened until a 2-3 days after a storm, sometimes much longer. But, I have seen 5 feet up there, that will last a while. We had 10 feet in the San Bernardino mountains a couple winters ago, but there are a couple of alpine resorts, so that becomes a traffic jam.

[socaltim]

And thanks for the pointer to the E89! I had just assumed they were wider. Do they do this just to confuse us? That might be a contender.

[socaltim]

Okay, now I see the E89 were predecessor to TN59 and no easier to find. I do see some TN59's for about half the price of the Admunsens (67-55-62). I wonder, if I'm not worried about staying on top of powder, is there any advantage the Admunsens? Or, is the width just going to slow me down with no gain in control, outside of deep powder?

[pacificnomad]

Okay, now I see the E89 were predecessor to TN59 and no easier to find. I do see some TN59's for about half the price of the Admunsens (67-55-62). I wonder, if I'm not worried about staying on top of powder, is there any advantage the Admunsens? Or, is the width just going to slow me down with no gain in control, outside of deep powder?

I'd go with the Asnes Admunsen over the Fischer TN59's. I've never used the TN59's but I have used the TN66's (a waxable ski). The TN66 is a real go straight kinda ski, with minimal side cut (compared to the Admunsen's), and a pretty tall camber. I imagine that the TN59's are even more forward oriented than the TN66's. From what I've read, the Admunsen's are not a soft flexing turning ski, and will offer control in harder more consolidated snow., while still giving some float in soft snow. I think the camber feel of the Asnes skis feels more refined when compared to any of Fischer's offerings. Asnes also makes more skis in more sizes compared to Fischer, and I think this really helps one optimize ski sizing. If I was in your boat, I would check out the Asnes Gamme; it's similar to the Admundsen's go forward performance and dimensions, but is a more adept ski at turning and stopping. Being a former Inland Empire resident and skier, I'd go with a more versatile ski like the Gamme, as this ski would be able to tackle low angle BC skiing, like the stuff you'd find around Big Bear, and handle service roads perfectly fine too.

[socaltim]

I have pretty much settled on the Admundsen's after reading a great review on here, that seemed to describe just what I'm looking for.
http://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4513
The Gammes also look good, but I cannot find any of the right size. Neptune Mountaineering looks to have waxable Admunsens in every length. I briefly considered going waxless, which I expect would work pretty well on the SoCal snow, but only if properly sized for my weight. That's not going to happen, because I need to go short. I am thinking 187 in the Admundsen's which is at least 20cm too short for my weight. I think I used to ski 215's 40 years ago.

Another thread had convinced me to go with the TN 59, as I am really not much concerned about deep powder.
http://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4611
Getting to Big Bear is a traffic jam after a fresh snowfall, and my other favorite, Mt Pinos, has a snow gate that doesn't open for a few days. So, the snow is pretty stiff by the time I am on it, at most a few inches of powder on top. I will try to get to Sierras a few times, but then will probably just enjoy the groomed tracks. Unlike everyone else on here, I am trying to avoid the slopes! So, not too concerned about downhill performance, just that I can navigate some difficult terrain when necessary without breaking a leg.

What finally put me off the Fischer TN's was the "Nordic rocker". Sounds great for making turns in deep snow, but I think it will make the already too short skis effectively shorter. Not what I need on packed or shallow snow.

Funny, I started off thinking I would spend a couple hundred bucks get to some shorter skis, now looking at $500 for the Asnes. And my boots are SNS, so now I've got some $300 Alpina Alaskas and Salomon Escape Outback's waiting for me at local REI. Going to take home whichever feels better in the store. Telling myself it is money well spent not to break my neck up there. As long as I don't get over-confident.

[Shintangle]

For what it's worth I got a pair of Madshus Panorama T55 Intelligrip Transition Skis last year in 192cm. They have a wax base with the option of a kicker skin. I was very happy with them on steep narrow trails in the Laurentians north of Montreal. A bit cheaper than Asnes but still good quality.