XC oriented ski for max float on dry snow

[wavygravy]

but, the longer, straighter Combat Nato is definitely a more efficient XC ski than the Kom- in all snow conditions- including very deep soft snow.

What do you mean when you say more efficient? It takes less energy to break trail in the NATO than the Kom? Or the NATO moves faster when breaking trail? Or both?

The NATO is considerably lighter than the Kom, and I imagine that would translate to less energy breaking trail if you weren't sinking in too far with the NATO. I guess that's another part of my question - where is the balance point in the tradeoff of weight vs float in terms of breaking trail.

I haven't noticed a big difference between the Voss and Amundsen when breaking trail, but I haven't done a good side-by-side comparison either. I think the Amundsen is harder to ski up hills on packed trails because of the stiffer camber, and I feel it might be the same in fresh snow, but I'm not positive. I'm also still trying to figure out how to grip wax them for different slope angles and conditions...I come from a XC race background and I'm used to waxing a kick zone for maximum speed, so I've had to learn to wax a much longer patch of ski on the BC nordics, especially on the front half of the ski.

I think the extra width and length of the NATO would offer a noticeable change in float over the Amundsen. By my calculations I'd get almost twice as much increase in surface area from the Amundsen 201mm to the NATO 210mm as I get from the Voss 210mm to the Amundsen 201mm. And like you said, the softer camber of the NATO would improve traction, possibly more important than the additional area alone.

The main place I could see the Kom outperforming the NATO is climbing straight up the fall line on a slope, mostly because the shorter length and softer flex of the Kom would seem to intuitively (in my mind) reduce the point of slipping on fresh snow better than the longer, stiffer NATO. But that's why I'm probing you so hard on these points - you've actually USED both of these skis and I'm just doing thought experiments!

Also, when you talk about grip waxing the Kom, do you mean just on the tip and tail outside of the scales, or do you mean over the scales as well?

Thanks very much for all the info!

[lilcliffy]

but, the longer, straighter Combat Nato is definitely a more efficient XC ski than the Kom- in all snow conditions- including very deep soft snow.

What do you mean when you say more efficient? It takes less energy to break trail in the NATO than the Kom? Or the NATO moves faster when breaking trail? Or both?

Yes- it does take less NRG with the Combat.
Better glide with the Combat.
The Combat also tracks better.
Any ski that I have personally tested that floats higher in the snow column than the Combat has been a downhill ski, and- as such- is designed to turn, and therefore is all over the place if you push it when XC skiing. For example, the Kom definitely floats higher than the Combat, but when I push it to really glide when XC skiing, it moves all over the place- constantly smearing and "wanting" to turn. This is perhaps not an issue or even noticeable when slowly shuffling along- but for a XC skier- that is used to a XC ski that glides and tracks properly- it is VERY slow and rather annoying. The Combat is totally stable in deep soft snow, the tip breaks trail magnificently and this ski glides and tracks beautifully. I can cover ground faster- when XC skiing- and with less NRG with the Combat than the Kom, and when I really want to fly and fully open up my stride, the Combat glides and tracks in response- whereas the Kom's response is to want to smear and turn. Hopefully this explains it better...

NOW- I will say that even my deepest mid-winter cold snow- can be as deep as 50cm of "pow"- still perhaps has more moisture and stability than the very cold dry snow that you are encountering in an interior boreal/arctic climate. Even the 210cm Combat Nato may not be enough length for your particular context.

The NATO is considerably lighter than the Kom, and I imagine that would translate to less energy breaking trail if you weren't sinking in too far with the NATO. I guess that's another part of my question - where is the balance point in the tradeoff of weight vs float in terms of breaking trail.

Weight is a big deal IME/IMO when XC skiing and climbing in deep snow- a really big deal. The Kom is heavy, and I have a heavy binding on it as well. I love the Kom for downhill skiing and shuffling along in dense woods- but not for XC skiing.

Another ski to consider- that kind of sits in between the Kom and the Combat Nato- is the Madshus Annum/Karhu Guide- it is much lighter than the Kom. The Annum has a wonderful soft snow flex and tracks very well for a ski with 30mm of sidecut. It too floats higher than the Combat- but I don't find it a more efficient XC. The Annum has a single camber and has a soft, round flex. The one problem I could see you having with the Annum is that soft round flex might not offer enough stability for XC skiing in that deep, soft dry snow. My Combat Nato and my Ingstad BC are more stable than the Annum when XC skiing in very deep soft snow (heck even my Gamme 54 BC is more stable)- so perhaps the Annum wouldn't work for you.

I'm also still trying to figure out how to grip wax them for different slope angles and conditions...I come from a XC race background and I'm used to waxing a kick zone for maximum speed, so I've had to learn to wax a much longer patch of ski on the BC nordics, especially on the front half of the ski.

Warmer than -25C I am grip-waxing the entire base.
Colder than -25C I am moving towards glide-waxing from heel back- grip waxing from the heel forwards.

I think the extra width and length of the NATO would offer a noticeable change in float over the Amundsen. By my calculations I'd get almost twice as much increase in surface area from the Amundsen 201mm to the NATO 210mm as I get from the Voss 210mm to the Amundsen 201mm. And like you said, the softer camber of the NATO would improve traction, possibly more important than the additional area alone.

There are snow conditions where I can really feel the benefit of the extra width (62mm) of the Combat Nato/Ingstad BC- over the narrower Gamme 54 BC (54mm)- but, I must admit that at least in my snow contexts, the difference in float and stability between the Combat/Ingstad/Gamme 54 is negligible. In your context the difference could be greater.

The main place I could see the Kom outperforming the NATO is climbing straight up the fall line on a slope, mostly because the shorter length and softer flex of the Kom would seem to intuitively (in my mind) reduce the point of slipping on fresh snow better than the longer, stiffer NATO. But that's why I'm probing you so hard on these points - you've actually USED both of these skis and I'm just doing thought experiments!

I grip wax the entire base of my Combat Nato/Ingstad BC and therefore they climb EXTREMELY well.
I started grip waxing my Kom this winter- which actually saved it from the yard sale. The Kom- with enough traction- probably does climb better due to more grip and more float.

Also, when you talk about grip waxing the Kom, do you mean just on the tip and tail outside of the scales, or do you mean over the scales as well?

I am grip-waxing the entire base of my Kom- scales and all.
If I was using the Kom in temps below -25C, I would move to grip waxing only the scales.

[phoenix]

i haven't read all of the extensive response here, but from the original post, and some of what I have read: I would not be looking at a waxless ski - at all.

[wavygravy]

lilcliffy - Thanks again for your play by play response! I think all of the points you've made have finally gelled in my head. Double camber (or at least camber and a half) with no rocker is probably what I need for most of my tours in unconsolidated dry snow, and the Combat NATO offers that in the biggest width currently available (putting aside those Finnish skis that are hard to get your hands on in North America). I also see how skinnier skis can be more stable even in soft, unconsolidated snow, due to their improved tracking and ability to hold an edge. The one time I tried a fatter ski (Rossignol BC 125s), I hated how they drifted around on the snow and felt completely out of control on the flats. They were also dreadfully heavy to me. The only time I've been willing to lug around weight like that is on my splitboard, which is no fun until you get to go back downhill!

So I guess I've concluded I'd rather risk sinking more with light, skinny skis than float more on fat, heavy skis. Folks that do the Wilderness Ski Classic race in the Brooks Range typically use a Voss or Glittertind (or equivalent), so I guess that speaks a lot to the utility of skinnier skis for covering distance even in soft, dry snow. I'll probably pick up a Combat NATO 210, and maybe try a shorter Ingstad when I'll be making some turns.

A different question is whether I'd be better off with a Hok 125 or 145 for going up and down steep forested slopes. I feel like shorter is going to be better for traction going straight uphill, since the skin is the same length on both models (i.e. proportionately larger on the 125). I'd go with the 145 if I knew traction wasn't going to be a problem though. Have you tried both of those?

[12gaugesage]

.

A different question is whether I'd be better off with a Hok 125 or 145 for going up and down steep forested slopes. I feel like shorter is going to be better for traction going straight uphill, since the skin is the same length on both models (i.e. proportionately larger on the 125). I'd go with the 145 if I knew traction wasn't going to be a problem though. Have you tried both of those?

I'd go 145. I've skied both quite extensively, can't say there's much difference in traction, but the 145 is much more stable (fore/aft) when descending, without giving up much maneuverability.

[havuja]

Hello!
I've been following this forum for a while, and this is my first post. I did not carefully read the whole chain, but this seems like my area of expertise so I'm giving a quick response.
Here in finnish Lapland our snow is mainly dry and deep (except this winter: even deeper but with layers), and the only ski that you can rely on to get you whereever you want to get every time and every year is traditional forest skis, preferably 280-300cm. I know even one 55kg woman who spends a lot of time in the wilderness and she uses 300cm Järvinen. Often there are situations when some other ski is "better" (more manouverable, lighter, whatever) but long forest skis just will get you out there and back.
I noticed someone mentioned Peltonen Metsä, although most "forest skis" are fairly similar in flex and so on I don't have experience in those, I use these: https://www.karkkainen.com/verkkokauppa ... gI3lfD_BwE
Järvinen has a very long but fairly soft camber, and I guess you could still call it a double camber. Most of the skis lenghth is quite supportive, but the idea of this kind of ski is that the long tip is flexible enough to float easily on the surface even if the "waist" is 40cm below the surface and the ski level. And believe me, it works. There is no ski faster if snow is deep and soft. Even in spring and in open areas when the snow might carry very well, but if you are 50km from the nearest road these might be the skis you want to have. Just think of serious +C, rain and sun hitting one meter of powder under that crusty layer and you end up with your 200cm skis tip being 70cm below extremely heavy snow so turning into snow anchors, where 300cm ski might sink only 50cm with the tip floating. They will get you home.
Forest skis are surprisingly good in many other snow conditions too, when you don't necessarily need to have a ski that long, and I have even come down from most of the biggest and steepest "mountains" of Lapland with those and even enjoyed it. If the main reason of the trip was downhill fun, I would choose something else.
Nowadays I mainly ski with sleddogs, and that's why Järvinen's are not out much. Before, there were not many days a winter I would choose something else.

[lowangle al]

Thanks for your input havuja, I know there are at least a few guys here that are interested in those long forest skis.

Getting back to what I said earlier in this thread about surface area.

forest ski 290cm X 7.0 cm = 2,030 sq. cm

powder boards 185cm x 11.5cm = 2127.5 sq. cm

I know there isn't a direct correlation because of the drastically different designs, but surface area is very important. If you want a ski that really floats there is no substitute for surface area.

[Rodbelan]

A different question is whether I'd be better off with a Hok 125 or 145 for going up and down steep forested slopes. I feel like shorter is going to be better for traction going straight uphill, since the skin is the same length on both models (i.e. proportionately larger on the 125). I'd go with the 145 if I knew traction wasn't going to be a problem though. Have you tried both of those?

You are right: different question and different beast. I tried them once and I feel these are made for people without any technical knowledge. Actually, if you have a little technique, you could find that the design is a hindrance... specially those permanent skins. Well, I didn't like em at all. My suggestion is that you try before you buy. It is easy since many nordic center (at least in Quebec) have them for rent... They offer a much different experience...

[lilcliffy]

Hello!
I've been following this forum for a while, and this is my first post. I did not carefully read the whole chain, but this seems like my area of expertise so I'm giving a quick response.

Hello and welcome Havuja! Thank you for taking the time to share your experience and knowledge.

Here in finnish Lapland our snow is mainly dry and deep (except this winter: even deeper but with layers), and the only ski that you can rely on to get you whereever you want to get every time and every year is traditional forest skis, preferably 280-300cm. I know even one 55kg woman who spends a lot of time in the wilderness and she uses 300cm Järvinen. Often there are situations when some other ski is "better" (more manouverable, lighter, whatever) but long forest skis just will get you out there and back.

This makes sense to me and there are thousands of years of experience to support this knowledge!

I noticed someone mentioned Peltonen Metsä, although most "forest skis" are fairly similar in flex and so on I don't have experience in those, I use these: https://www.karkkainen.com/verkkokauppa ... gI3lfD_BwE[/qupte]
Thank you for the link to that website. What currency are those prices in?

Järvinen has a very long but fairly soft camber, and I guess you could still call it a double camber. Most of the skis lenghth is quite supportive, but the idea of this kind of ski is that the long tip is flexible enough to float easily on the surface even if the "waist" is 40cm below the surface and the ski level. And believe me, it works. There is no ski faster if snow is deep and soft. Even in spring and in open areas when the snow might carry very well, but if you are 50km from the nearest road these might be the skis you want to have. Just think of serious +C, rain and sun hitting one meter of powder under that crusty layer and you end up with your 200cm skis tip being 70cm below extremely heavy snow so turning into snow anchors, where 300cm ski might sink only 50cm with the tip floating. They will get you home.

Interesting. This is another reason why the long length improves performance. The conditions you describe about rapidly melting (i.e. "rotting snow") deep snow I encounter regularly in the spring. Here in the New Brunswick hils we currently still have over a metre of snow pack. The nights are still very cold and the snow refreezes solid and then in the warm afternoon exposed snow on southern aspects just rots away becoming completely unstable. My200- 210cm Fjellskis with soft wide shovels (e.g. E-99/E-109/Eon/FT62) are completely unstable in this deep melting snow and the soft shovel floats as the rest of the ski sinks into the abyss. If the ski is long and stable enough that floating tip would not be an issue.

Forest skis are surprisingly good in many other snow conditions too, when you don't necessarily need to have a ski that long, and I have even come down from most of the biggest and steepest "mountains" of Lapland with those and even enjoyed it. If the main reason of the trip was downhill fun, I would choose something else.
Nowadays I mainly ski with sleddogs, and that's why Järvinen's are not out much. Before, there were not many days a winter I would choose something else.

Very, very cool. It seems I am overdue getting a pair of 300cm forest skis!

Havuja- what do you use for base prep and traction on your long Järvinen'- wax?
Thanks again for joining us here!
Gareth

[lilcliffy]

The one time I tried a fatter ski (Rossignol BC 125s), I hated how they drifted around on the snow and felt completely out of control on the flats. They were also dreadfully heavy to me.

I have had this experience so many times and my tolerance for it- even when I am touring for turns- is decreasing over time- both the lack of tracking and the weight. I am reaching for my ultralight FT62 or Ingstad BC more and more for downhill-focused tours- despite the greater downhill performance of my downhill touring setups. (But this has a lot to do with my local BC terrain- if I had true big mtn touring in my backyard it would be different!)

So I guess I've concluded I'd rather risk sinking more with light, skinny skis than float more on fat, heavy skis. Folks that do the Wilderness Ski Classic race in the Brooks Range typically use a Voss or Glittertind (or equivalent), so I guess that speaks a lot to the utility of skinnier skis for covering distance even in soft, dry snow. I'll probably pick up a Combat NATO 210, and maybe try a shorter Ingstad when I'll be making some turns.

The Ingstad BC skis a lot" shorter" (i.e. has a much shorter effective edge) due its ample tip rocker. You may find you want the long Ingstad BC- especially in deep soft snow. I am not a big dude- 5'10", 175lbs- I have back-to-back tested the Ingstad BC in 185cm/195cm/205cm and much prefer the 205cm in deep soft snow- even in steep wooded terrain.

A different question is whether I'd be better off with a Hok 125 or 145 forgoing up and down steep forested slopes. I feel like shorter is going to be better for traction going straight uphill, since the skin is the same length on both models (i.e. proportionately larger on the 125). I'd go with the 145 if I knew traction wasn't going to be a problem though. Have you tried both of those?

I have tried both the 125cm and the 145cm- I much prefer the 145cm- it glides better, floats better, and is much more stable. I love the Hok- I use it as a utilitarian field and bush ski- I use it in my forestry work and here on the farm. It is also wonderful to just get out and bushwack with my autistic son- and I also use it to tow my two youngest up the sliding hill! It is an excellent ski. As it is with all ski designs- it is what it is- and is best when it used in conditions it was designed for. It is most definitely a ski though- not a snowshoe.