Åsnes NOSI 76 Ski Review

[lilcliffy]

here comes the measures:
-172 cm Nosi eff edge 139 cm, bc mark 63 cm from tail (center of eff edge 69,5)
-180 cm Nosi eff edge 147 cm, bc mark 66 cm from tail (center of eff edge 73,5)

So the center of effective edge is forward of the boot center mark on both skis- even with that rocker? Interesting.
I'm just a bit confused as to how the effective can extend so far with that deep rocker in the shovel...

Compared to the center of eff edge both bc mark and bp is further back on the 180 cm Nosi:
-The pinline on 172 Nosi with the bindings mounted about bp +1 cm is 5,5 cm in front of the center of the eff edge
-The pinline on 180 Nosi with the bindings mounted about bp +1,5 cm is 4,5 cm in front of the center of the eff edge

I'm a bit confused...Do you mean that the pin-line forward of BP is at least 4.5cm behind the center of the effective edge?

The narrowest point of the ski is at bc mark on both lengths, also the highest camber is at bc mark on both lengths.

Ok- that was one of earlier questions- so the boot center mark is at the narrowest point of sidecut- which is way forward of BP. I can see now why they didn't feel "right" at BP.

I think it is also important to remember that as I know, the bc mark is ment for AT boots, because this older Nosi was sold as a light AT/ski mountaineering ski. I believe the new version does not have a bc mark at all. I am using the bc mark only for comparing the measures bethween the skis not as starting point for measuring the mounting point.

Yes- and I know that there are many differing opinions, preferences, application and ski designs that influence this- but, I tend to prefer a boot-center mount on a modern downhill ski- whether it is AT or Telemark- or, at least I would typically start there.

Yes Nosi is a DH orienteed ski for me. Anyway because I am doing also longish (about 10-15 km/day) traverses to get me to the best downhill spots, I wanted a compromise bethween descending and flat/upphill skiing performance. Therefore a xcd style mounting point that is based on the bp, not the bc mark - but for dh performance moved slightly froward.

Got it- understand- and I would be in the same skiing context. This mindset is consistent with traditional steep terrain/downhill mounting on Nordic touring skis (similar to the old-school chord-center mount on a balanced, non-rockered Nordic touring ski with a raised tip.)
Rocker and taper introduce much more complexity...
I would like to assume that Asnes rigorously tested this ski before they stamped that BC mark on it...
Does the ski have a prounouced narrowest-point of sidecut- or is there an extended waist at that narrowest width?

Having the bingings mounted too much forward from the bp makes the skis back weighted which is difficult when you need to lift the skis at tight spots and when making uphill kick turns.

Agree- but, wouldn't this be true for AT as well as a Nordic/Telemark mount?

Moving the bindings forward will also make the ski glide less well with the X-skins.

Yes- especially in XC mode!

I was also afraid of tip dive in deeper snow downhill skiing (with the shorter Nosi) if I would go too much forward with the mounting point.

Yes- this also makes sense. I tend to prefer at least my height on a downhill ski mounted to Nordic/Telemark binding- when I lift my heel to pressure that inside ski- I want to feel stability in the shovel.

That was basically the thinking process when I mounted the bindings to 172 Nosi. They ski like a dream with bp +1 cm and therefore I wouldn’t change nothing with them. The shovel of the 180 cm Nosi is proportionally 2 cm longer (compared to the bc mark and bp) and therefore I decided to mount the bindings to a slightly more forward position but like said I did not want to go too much forward from bp. Maby I could have gone even more forward, time will tell. At this point it’s all speculation

I really appreciate you sharing this!

Anyway because there is less tail rocker on the 180 cm Nosi the tails will be less pivoty or ”smeary” than 172 Nosi’s tails undepending of the binding position.

This is interesting and relevant as well-

For my narrowly-focused application- forest glade skiing in deep, soft, cold snow- I definitely want to be able to slarve and smear...

I still lean towards the 180- especially with that significant rocker up front...
But, perhaps I should be seriously considering the 172...

[lilcliffy]

Here is a tip rocker photo, both lengths are about similar. There is a photo of both lengths’ tail rocker on the previous page.

It's interesting that the Nosi has more rocker than the current Rabb 68 and Falketind 62...

That rocker is very similar to the rocker that was on the 1st/2nd-gen FT62 and FT/Rabb 68...

I wonder if the new Nosi 76 Xplore really is exactly the same as the Nosi 76 that you have....

@stenu Have you seen the "new" Nosi 76 Xplore?

@CwmRaider Can you post a photo of the shovel rocker on your new Nosi 76X?

[lilcliffy]

The current FTX and Rabb 68 have significantly less shovel rocker than the earlier designs (they also have a more stable flex).
In my opinion this has greatly improved their touring performance, stability and versatility.
I have a 180 Rabb 68- I chose the length for dowhill-focused touring-
they are a pure dream downhill-
I have been pushing them hard this season and perhaps what I am most surprised about is how stable and efficient they are over distance- much more efficient XC ski (on soft snow) than I had expected.

I remain nerdily curious as to whether the "Xplore" version of the Nosi 76 has had similar tweaks to the FTX and R68, or whether it is identical in geometry and flex to the outgoing Nosi 76...

[fisheater]

Hey @lilcliffy
Hi Gareth, I went back to trying to ski regularly at the ski hill last year. For me regularly is 2-4 hours a week. However, regularly is working, and if skiing on God’s snow is available, it’s likely God’s snow wins if time is limited.
When I went back I purchased a “mostly” piste oriented set up. The ski Summit Cone Pariah, a piste ski. The binding Voile Transit, not piste, but modernly active and the tech toe offers a very precise boot binding interface. It releases at my 190 + lbs, if I was younger and charging like I once did, too easily. It’s not resort, because you don’t want to step into a tech toe on a 30 degree plus Black icy slope. At least I didn’t make it look easy.
I started early last season on that rig, but by mid season, I wanted to try my too light for skiing hard pistes Åsnes Tindan 86 and T-4. When I got on the Tindan it just seemed slow edge to edge, and that wasn’t the reason I went to a piste ski. I went to a piste ski to upgrade from a poplar/carbon core to a beech/birch core with glass reinforcement and rubber foil dampening.
The Tindan was mounted at balance point, after getting both balance point and boot center on boot center recommendations from Asnes. I decided to move the Tindan mount to boot center on boot center, that was a move of 35 mm on a heavily rockered ski which is 53.5 cm behind the ski tip on a 187 cm ski. The rocker was one of the reasons for mounting back at BP.
I tried it out at the ski hill last Sunday. Conditions were dust on frozen glacier, but enough dust to turn on. I couldn’t believe the difference. Man, that ski was quick edge to edge. I ripped, and while the Tindan isn’t a ski designed for glacier, I still ripped, while definitely missing my piste oriented ski.
The question on how it will kick/glide and tour, while touring for turns remains to be seen. It’s been cold since November here, but it has been poor for snow. No trail skiing until January, and definitely not the snow for skiing downhill thru the woods.
However, when I’m dodging trees, I think fast edge to edge is good.
I’m actually looking at my Falketind X, it’s mounted at basically BP/Chord Center. I think it can move forward as well. I’m serious, it will move forward, but it will not happen before next season. In proper Telemark form, it should be quicker edge to edge than it currently is.

[stenu]

@lilcliffy what do you mean with ”effective edge”? I understand it as the measure bethween the widest points of the ski i.e. the length of the edge when the ski leaned to a curve. Basically the rocker does not affect (atleast much) with skis that has more sidecut than rocker.

Center of the effective edge is 4,5-5 cm behind the pinlines. CEF is more back on both skis than pinlines if CEF is measured like I understand it.

If you mean with ”efective edge” the length of that part of base which is in contact with snow when the ski has weigh in it and is flat against the snow, then I need to measure it. Anyway in my opinion that is not as relevant measure because the skis are basically never turned without leaning them too.

About nordic bindings vs AT in touring mode, yes AT and all other free pivoting bingings are even more difficult with back weighted skis than 3-pins.

About nordic bindings vs AT in descend mode: when making tele turns the pressure point and the pivoting center of the back/inside ski is more forward (ball of foot/pimline) compare to AT and parallel turns (the whole sole of the food).

With 172 cm Nosi I would not recommend mounting to the boot center. The shovel will be too short. It skis really beautifully even on groomed slopes with Rotte Cable and Alaska 75 mm with pinline 1 cm front of BP.

With 180 cm Nosi it may be possible that moving the bindings still about 2 cm more forward (boot center to the boot center mark) would be better for dh if you need to make the easier to turn. Anyway it is impossible to say before skiing with them because there are the differencies with the tail rocker length and the balance of front/rear weight and surface of the skis.

[stenu]

@lilcliffy visually gen 1 FT’s tip rocker looks about same as Nosi’s but FT is a lot more softer and has less camber:

I compared the rocker-camber- profile also to my wife’s 180 cm Falketinds (original white/red) and it seems to be quite similar with the shorter Nosi but Falketinds have still a couple of mm less camber than shorter Nosi’s.

Unfortunatelly no one sells Nosi in Finland so I have not seen Nosi Xplore in real life. The uncompressed side pic looks very much the same as older 180 cm Nosi does look. 172 cm Nosi’s side profile is more flat.

I am curious where do you have bindings on your Rabbs? At balance point or boot center or somewhere bethween? Where is Rabb’s balance point (cm from the tail)? The geometry of both skis looks quite similar. Rabb has slightly less sidecut than Nosi in the same length and maby the deepest point of camber seems to be more forward on Rabb.

[Salto]

Hey. I posted info on my Rabb mount a few years ago. My Rabb's are 188, karhus are 185, rossi 90's are 189.

Here is what I wrote:

Here are some pics comparing my other xcd skis. Again I mounted pins 2 cm forward of balance point due to my large boots. All my mounts in last 10 years are on touring tele skis boot center to ski center mark, so pins on bp is a throwback.

The Rossi bc90’s are pins to ski center mark. I can’t remember how I mounted the guides 15 years ago, but appear somewhere between boot center and pins on center. No idea about the e99s.

[lilcliffy]

@lilcliffy what do you mean with ”effective edge”? I understand it as the measure bethween the widest points of the ski i.e. the length of the edge when the ski leaned to a curve. Basically the rocker does not affect (atleast much) with skis that has more sidecut than rocker.

What I mean by effective edge is the "running length" or the section of the ski that has positive camber- that directly engages with the snow when the ski is pressured and the camber is compressed.

To illustrate (I wish Asnes would post this- UTE magazine does though)- look at the profile diagrams of the Voile Utravector vs the V6:

Utravector profile.

V6 profile.

The Ultravector has a significantly longer "running length" (ie effective edge) than the V6-
the V6 has more rocker and taper at both ends- giving it a shorter effective edge, and shorter turn radius- despite having less sidecut than the Ultravector.

I don't know (as I don't own either ski) how the boot center mark compares on Utravector vs V6- but, if I was starting form scratch, I would be most concerned about where my pressured foot would be on the "running length".

If you mean with ”efective edge” the length of that part of base which is in contact with snow when the ski has weigh in it and is flat against the snow, then I need to measure it.

Yes, this is what I mean.

Anyway in my opinion that is not as relevant measure because the skis are basically never turned without leaning them too.

I think I disagree here...The rockered section of the shovel is not part of the effective edge- it is encouraging early-tip-rise and planing- it also produces a shorter effective edge and shorter turn radius- but, making the ski less stable at speed.

With 172 cm Nosi I would not recommend mounting to the boot center. The shovel will be too short. It skis really beautifully even on groomed slopes with Rotte Cable and Alaska 75 mm with pinline 1 cm front of BP.

I believe and trust your experience and judgment! With that deep shovel-rocker- I certainly see how boot-center would be too far forward for a free-heel mount- I remain puzzled how it would work with an Alpine mount...

[lilcliffy]

I am curious where do you have bindings on your Rabbs? At balance point or boot center or somewhere bethween? Where is Rabb’s balance point (cm from the tail)? The geometry of both skis looks quite similar. Rabb has slightly less sidecut than Nosi in the same length and maby the deepest point of camber seems to be more forward on Rabb.

My 180 Rabb 68 and my 196 Falketind 62X are both mounted at balance point.
There was a boot center mark on the Rabb- I did take some measurements at the time of mounting, but I can't remember the differences...

The sidecut geometry of all three of these skis are very similar:
FT62X→ 97-62-86 (XX-35+24)→ 18.7m radius at 180cm
R68→ 104-68-94 (XX-36+26)→ 17.2m radius at 180cm
N76X→ 111-76-98 (XX-35+22)→ 20.0m radius at 180cm
But, the way each ski interacts with the snow is as much or more a function of the rocker-camber-taper profile over their lengh. The Rabb as the most sidecut (by a smidge), but if the Nosi has deeper rocker- and a shorter effective edge- it could easily have a shorter turn radius. But, the data from the Norwegian site indicates that the Nosi 76 has the longest turn radius (which would seem to point towards the Nosi 76 Xplore having less rocker than the outgoing Nosi 76...)
The rocker-camber-taper profile of my R68 and FT62X is very close- though (strangely), the Rabb has a touch more camber height, and it has a stiffer flex- though I think that this is simply a function of the Rabb being wider and having more core mass.
Both the 1st and 2nd-generation FT62s we have a much deeper shovel rocker- more tail rocker- and are softer than the current FT62X.

I am thrilled with the touring performance of both the FT62X and the R68- mounted at balance point. They are stable, and track surprisingly well (in soft snow), and they plane, surf and turn beautifully- in soft snow.
........
Another note-
I took my 188 Storetind Carbon out early this week in ideal conditions. It too is mounted at balance point with Voile 75mm 3pin hardwire bindings. They were all over the place. The turn initiaiton was effortless, but they simply would NOT track efficiently in tour mode...I am assuming that their lack of directional stability would be even worse with a more forward mount...The shovel rocker of the Storetind is close to the Rabb 68, but it has almost zero tail rocker, and no taper. I was expecting the Storetind to track at least as well as the Rabb, with its straight, flat tail...The Rabb does have a track groove...The Storetind does have the 20mm riser (which I actually have never really liked or gotten used to a a Nordic touring ski)- would probably be a more fair comparison with the binding mounted directly to the ski. Anyway! I MUCH prefer my Rabb 68+XP as a Nordic touring ski than the Storetind+hardwire (the Storetind+hardwire is also a LOT heavier). I keep considering mounting XP on the Storetind, but I still think it makes more sense to stick with 75mm, so that I can use a plastic Tele boot on that stiffer, heavier ski...

[lilcliffy]

@Salto
Thank you for the images and the data on your mounts!
What do you think about the Rabb- especially compared to the Guide and the BC90?