Next pair of skis to complement E99 Crown?

[Stephen]

I moved my comment to a new post.

[lilcliffy]

@Stephen
I do think it would be better for you to post this question regarding the limitations of the Ingstad BC- in the conditions you describe- in a separate thread.
(I would like to discuss this with you but do not want to hijack Rickard's thread.)

[Eärendil]

No worries, gents.

All input is appreciated. In building my two-ski quiver I am now leaning towards Nato/Ingstad!

After some more thinking, I am realizing that my E99 cover most of what I want to get out of a ski except the loss of glide in fresh cold snow and the chance to have more fun on the slope. I could cover this lack by getting a Gamme 54, but I still feel like I would like to explore the possibilities of a wider turning-friendly ski. When the opportunity comes to ski in deep fresh snow, it would be great to have a pair of skis that just beckons to be used. I realise this will not be the majority of my skidays, so a specialized use for sure.

A typical example for me would be a hut tour in the Kebnekaise area. The touring itself is usually shallow gradient following valleys between quite steep mountain faces. Pack weight is usually 12-15 kgs (mostly reindeer meat and red wine ). Distances per day are usually 15-24 km. There is usually ample time to do some ski climbing and Telemark turns around the huts. Depending on snow conditions I can, with some effort, manage to do some turns on my E99s. With a two-ski quiver I would decide before the trip if I thought it was going to be more fresh snow to go with Nato/Ingstad. I would sacrifice part of the glide XC for the opportunity to frolic on the slope.If, on the other hand, we are talking consolidated, refrozen snow, then E99 it is.

I guess I have narrowed it down to Nato vs Ingstad. Friends, what do you think here?

//Rickard//

[CwmRaider]

@lilcliffy from the reading of your comments about the Combat Nato and Woods comparison it does sound like the Nato is a bit like a wider Nansen.
They have not changed them recently right? My best stocked local ski shop says they are the same ski as Ingstads with reinforced binding area and extra skin pinhole. From my understanding that is just wrong at least compared to the modern Ingstad (but I did not want to start an argument). And it is worrying about the knowledgability of the experts.

Does the ground out short skin hole area help with glide in real life? I usually think the skin itself gives most resistance.

@ Rickard yes, that sounds about right. Combat Nato vs Ingstad....

[bgregoire]

@lilcliffy from the reading of your comments about the Combat Nato and Woods comparison it does sound like the Nato is a bit like a wider Nansen.
They have not changed them recently right? My best stocked local ski shop says they are the same ski as Ingstads with reinforced binding area and extra skin pinhole. From my understanding that is just wrong at least compared to the modern Ingstad (but I did not want to start an argument). And it is worrying about the knowledgability of the experts.

Does the ground out short skin hole area help with glide in real life? I usually think the skin itself gives most resistance.

@ Rickard yes, that sounds about right. Combat Nato vs Ingstad....

YOU are right Roelant, the Ingstad BC is a new beast since they added the BC and changed the graphics to the current form, say 3-5 years ago. Its now heavily rockered and lighter overall compared to its predecessors. The comparison between the Ingstad and the NATO that you were given at the shop does apply to the older Ingstads though.

I beleive the ground out hole is not as much about glide as it is a gizmo to prevent the half-skin from peeling. Don't want to loose your skin at War ya kno'.

[bgregoire]

No worries, gents.

All input is appreciated. In building my two-ski quiver I am now leaning towards Nato/Ingstad!

After some more thinking, I am realizing that my E99 cover most of what I want to get out of a ski except the loss of glide in fresh cold snow and the chance to have more fun on the slope. I could cover this lack by getting a Gamme 54, but I still feel like I would like to explore the possibilities of a wider turning-friendly ski. When the opportunity comes to ski in deep fresh snow, it would be great to have a pair of skis that just beckons to be used. I realise this will not be the majority of my skidays, so a specialized use for sure.

A typical example for me would be a hut tour in the Kebnekaise area. The touring itself is usually shallow gradient following valleys between quite steep mountain faces. Pack weight is usually 12-15 kgs (mostly reindeer meat and red wine ). Distances per day are usually 15-24 km. There is usually ample time to do some ski climbing and Telemark turns around the huts. Depending on snow conditions I can, with some effort, manage to do some turns on my E99s. With a two-ski quiver I would decide before the trip if I thought it was going to be more fresh snow to go with Nato/Ingstad. I would sacrifice part of the glide XC for the opportunity to frolic on the slope.If, on the other hand, we are talking consolidated, refrozen snow, then E99 it is.

I guess I have narrowed it down to Nato vs Ingstad. Friends, what do you think here?

//Rickard//

Hej Rick! Its funny, just a few years back I was perusing Scandinavian forums to learn more about Asnes skis and skiing in general. Now we are seeing more guest from Scandinavia here. Guess its the Asnes fever that his us hard and attracts you here!

So Nato vs Insgtad?

My question to you, do you prefer optimizing for the distance (crushing kms) or the turns (tele)? If you choose for the first, go with the Nato.

[Eärendil]

Hey, I am surprised as well! Who would figure that some of the best connoisseurs of Nordic Backcountry skiing would assemble on a North American forum?

As you say, there are Nordic outdoor forums that address skiing in general, but I must say that they pale in comparison to the depth of which is discussed in here. Bravo everyone!

Coming from a race XC background, crushing kms is enbedded. I would suck snow shoeing. More points to Nato for sure. Then I can’t help think that Åsnes got the wrong Ingstad. I much prefer this Ingstad looking at me while skiing. Earl Lagertha Ingstad!

[CwmRaider]

I just squeezed a pair of Combat Nato 210cm together in the shop and was surprised by how stiff the camber was. And regarding my earlier point - yes that particular salesperson was wrong, the Combat definitely still has no tip rocker worth mentioning in 2021 Which is a good thing since it provides the customer with more skis to choose from.

[lilcliffy]

What do you think Roelant- different flex than the Nansen?
Combat Nato stiffer underfoot than the Nansen?

[Cannatonic]

as usual it will take more than one pair of skis to fix this dilemma! If you only have E99 crown then there is a huge need for a waxing ski in that profile - Gamme 54. However for deep pow turns NATO is needed. NATO has a big camber drop-off from Gamme but it's still decent at kick-n-glide. You'll probably end up with both.

I like the NATO also because it's got an attachment point at the rear of the kicker skin as well as the front. Asnes sells a special NATO combat skin with a pin for the attachment point. It's nice because if you're sliding backward a lot or navigating rough terrain the tail of the skin can come loose & get twisted & frozen in place.

Breidblikk is a cool ski too, it's slightly wider than NATO and Ingstad and is lighter due to no edges. For powder tours you don't need the edges and the Breidablikk is a feather-weight ski considering the width.