Ski Review- 2021 Åsnes Otto Sverdrup BC

[Nitram Tocrut]

@Stephen i might have some answers fore you. Me and my very good friend @lilcliffy have exchanged a lot on the Sverdrup and I think I can add to his thorough review.

First, I weight around 210 pounds naked and I am 6,1
I have the 205
Have skied them exclusively for the last 3 weeks… this is so much I love them.
As opposed to @lilcliffy i did not have any crust yet so this is not an issue yet.
Our snow cover is only about 30cm of fresh snow on a thin base.

So… the Sverdrup ski straight on hardened snow as opposed to Lil lift experience and I think it has to do with my additional weight. They are not that fast on hard snow (like a skate track) but that might be due in part to the cold weather almost around -20C. The speed was better on soft snow in my own tracks. I remember trying them on a warmer day and I could maintain a 8km/h on my own tracks which is not too bad for a fjellski.

They climb extremely well… after I waxed the whole length with polar wax and green in the kick zone. They are as good if not even better then the Ingstad for climbing.

I was very happy with how they break trail in about 20-25cm of fresh snow. One night I tried the Ingstad but rapidly went back to the Sverdrup as I find them faster. We really barely get any dump over 25cm so I dont see when I will use the Ingstad.

They do turn really well and I can add that they are perfectly suited for steep and narrow trail with lots of 90 degree turns where I kind of use what I call “do or die” turns. They are a joy to fo telemark turn with them on soft snow despite my not so good technique and a recovering knee.

I took them for a couple of hut to hut trip and they felt really supportive in all conditions I encountered.

After reading @lilcliffy review and from my own experience, it seems important to choose the length according to your weight. Although that is only from 2 users.

Conclusion : So happy I bought those ski. I was stricken by them when I saw and flexed them in the store… sometimes the first impressions is the right one. It seems to almost perfectly match our snow conditions and precipitations.

[jstewse]

Can anybody else comment on how to size these puppies? I'm eyeing the 200's in the Turnaround but worried about the reportedly massive camber and my 6'2 75kg beanpole stature.

[Nitram Tocrut]

Can anybody else comment on how to size these puppies? I'm eyeing the 200's in the Turnaround but worried about the reportedly massive camber and my 6'2 75kg beanpole stature.

Kroppslengde Vekt (kg) Skilengde
155-165 55-65 175
160-175 60-70 180
170-175 65-75 185
175-180 70-80 190
180-185 75-85 195
185-190 80-90 200
190+ 90+ 205

That is from the norvegian version of Åsnes website. According to that you would be either 190 or 195. At around 210 pounds I think I could use a 210. From my experience you need to really press the camber to fully use the potential of this ski.

[jstewse]

Yeah I was wondering if anyone else had any real world experience with these sizing-wise. I know some have preference for longer or shorter than the chart would suggest. Doesn't seem like too many folks have gotten to ski an Otto yet, or at least only a couple ride reports.

[Nitram Tocrut]

Yeah I was wondering if anyone else had any real world experience with these sizing-wise. I know some have preference for longer or shorter than the chart would suggest. Doesn't seem like too many folks have gotten to ski an Otto yet, or at least only a couple ride reports.

I think that on this forum it seems that only @lilcliffy, @Roelant , @jyw5 and me have skied it yet. LilCliffy is one of those with preference for longer skis but in that case he could have choose shorter. For example, from its own experience he mentions that this is the most “squirrelling” ski which is the opposite of what I have experienced with the same length Sverdrup…. but I am 30 pounds heavier. I did the paper test and there is no room for the paper and it would be interesting to have results from @lilcliffy . So it’s not surprising that for me the Sverdrup is slow on hard snow but track really straight. It also makes sense that they are faster on soft snow as there is less resistance.

I think you already have a lot of information on this ski used in different context and what it suggest is to select the length according to your weight. As I mentioned in a previous post, I am sure I could handle a longer Sverdrup as long as I don’t lose too much weight

The thing is that we need lab-rats that will try those skis in different context and report back. Don’t you want to be one of those lab-rats? Yes? Than buy one according to your weight and report back

[Stephen]

@Stephen i might have some answers fore you. Me and my very good friend @lilcliffy have exchanged a lot on the Sverdrup and I think I can add to his thorough review.

First, I weight around 210 pounds naked and I am 6,1
I have the 205
Have skied them exclusively for the last 3 weeks… this is so much I love them.
.
.
After reading @lilcliffy review and from my own experience, it seems important to choose the length according to your weight. Although that is only from 2 users.

Conclusion : So happy I bought those ski. I was stricken by them when I saw and flexed them in the store… sometimes the first impressions is the right one. It seems to almost perfectly match our snow conditions and precipitations.

@Nitram Tocrut, thanks so much for posting!

But still, this is where I'm getting hung up:
On the one hand, you're 35 pounds heavier than I am, and are really happy with these skis at 205, so the 200s should be just fine for me.
On the other hand, I am flat out at the top end of Asnes's weight recommendations for the ski at 200 and on bottom end for 205, which makes me question: 200 or 205? Can I get these in 202.5cm, please?

And finally, based on earlier comments correlating ski length with human anatomy, I wouldn't want anyone to think I have a short dick if I go with the 200 instead of the manly 205s!

[jyw5]

I finally got some time on the Sverdrup today!

All this business about going short or long. I think it depends on what you plan to do with them. I bought mine 5cm short at 175cm to specifically ski down steep terrain on NNNBC with leather boots. They have so far done well on consolidated snow and trails (and skintracks) scarred by postholing dog walkers.

It was cold and sunny today. 8F. used nylon Xskins on the flattish trail going up. Switched to 50mm straight full mixed skins for the steep section. It was deep off piste but I had no problems going uphill. Looks like we had 1-2ft of snow last wk. I really pushed the limits of the skis today with a short steep and deep run...fell a few times as the skis sank into the snow but nothing serious. I managed to make a few turns down the steep section but also had to make some kick turns. These skis are fast when pointed down the fall line! and with enough speed they will rise above the deep snow... which also meant I needed to make quick turns to slow down. I kept the 50mm skins on going up and down. Also, no heel risers on my skis...nor needed... 4.5miles, 1500ft vertical today. (2.5 miles is almost completely flat)

Short skis have 3 advantages... easier to turn, easier to kick turn, and easier to break trail on steep slopes. the 2 major disadvantages...they are slower on the flats and you sink easier in deep snow. there are compromises for the length you chose...it just depends on your application.

I have short legs...it is **really** hard to kick turn and break trail on a steep slope with long skis...I have to lift my leg up like I'm bruce lee and thats just not going to happen. Also, the Asnes waxable skis are very fast on steep slopes...so fast that often times, I keep the skins on to slow down and for better control...so I don't want longer skis to make them even faster. The pros for short skis here definitely outweigh the cons. One thing I will point out is that I have the 185cm MT51...I dont use those in this context...so if I were to ever buy another pair, I would get 190cm. They do so well on flatter terrain that I wish they were longer. So use case matters. Like Amundsen skis, I will pick the recommended length of 187cm as I wont be bombing down a double black on them!

[Woodserson]

Don't move, just for our sake and your picture taking

What are those black lines that are not ski tracks in the last picture?

[Stephen]

@jyw5 remind me on your all up ski weight again?

I get the idea you like the skis -- can you make comparisons or broaden commentary?

Great pics.
The way this works is that, if you're going to move, you're required to find a suitable replacement before moving.
Need content.

[lilcliffy]

Thanks for a very nice review Gareth.

You are most welcome mon ami!

The Waxless of the Nansen never worked to my satisfaction, no matter how much I enjoyed the other aspects of that ski. @lilcliffy I'm curious to know your experience.

I have yet to use the Nansen WL in the conditions I primarily bought it for- my extended Spring skiing. I am going to wait until then before I weigh-in on them...

For a two ski quiver, the Sverdrup + Combat Nato combo covers a broader spectrum of optimal use than the Nansen + Combat Nato, as the latter are more similar with their absence of rocker.

Yes- agree here- the Nansen and the Combat NATO are both ultimately more versatile than the Sverdrup.

For my current skiing either the Combat Nato, the Sverdrup or the Nansen (waxable) could be good one quiver skis. I have not yet encountered breakable crust in the Sverdrup yet though.

The Nansen or the Combat NATO could also be one-quiver Nordic touring skis for me as well- not the Sverdrup though- we get too much snow and too much variable conditions for the Sverdrup to be my everyday touring ski (not that I am complaining!) The Sverdrup is a dream when the conditions are ideal- it is terrible when the conditions are not ideal.